Budget Advisory Committee

SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 6, 1998
Senate Chambers, 3:00 P.M.

The meeting was called to order by John Roberts, Chair. Members present: Maria Angel, Ed Buckley, Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Rosemary Darden, Bob Duxbury (Ex-Officio), Paul Finn, Ken Fiori, Doug Garrison, Micca Gray, Ben Partee, Rich Rose, Ron Schuelke.

Members absent: Rob Cullen, Sally Heath, Ricardo Navarrette, Steve Olson, Deborah Sweitzer, Sandi Tassano, Caroline Tice.

Also present: Robert Agrella.

Staff to the Committee: K. Bradbury, R. Kyle (Recorder), L. Royer.

1. Approval of September 22, 1998 Minutes

It was M/s/c to approve the minutes of the September 22, 1998 meeting.

2. Community College System Budget Change Proposals, 1999-2000

At a very high level of generality BAC will begin 1999-2000 budget item discussions. It is not too early to contemplate items important for consideration in the 1999-00 budget, and in that spirit Dr. Roberts presented a list of budget change proposals prepared by the Chancellor's Office which will be made a part of the legislative package for the 1999-00 budget. Listed are traditional items for Growth and COLA. Equalization is included because non credit parity was vetoed this budget year at the last minute by the Governor. Dr. Roberts asked members to keep in mind that these are augmentations (increases) to the base budget proposal. The second $100,000,000 of the Partnership For Excellence program is also included. An Ongoing Instructional Equipment increase is proposed from $44 million to $60 million. Last semester when the Chancellor's Office asked for input SRJC sent a suggestion endorsing separate funding for classified staffing to support technology training. A provision is included that allows up to ten percent of the total allocation for classroom instruction technology support, i.e., instructional aides, computer lab assistants. Also listed is a proposed $21 million increase to Scheduled Maintenance and a $40 million increase in Full-time Faculty 75/25 Obligation. The request for new faculty hires is the first of an intended five-year series of requests for an equal amount each year and for the first time is going forward as a system request, rather than a special bill carried by FACCC or CFT. The District Participation/Consultation appropriation is for travel funding for districts to participate in the consultation process who have not participated in the past. There is a continuation of two Matriculation allocations, Credit and Non Credit. Disabled Student augmentation was vetoed this year and is included again. A number of the remaining items are for the most part categorical in nature. In summary, Dr. Roberts stated it appears the Chancellor's Office is not envisioning a significant amount of one-time dollars being available at the level of the past few years. These change proposals are brought to the committee preliminary to the January budget planning assumptions and presumes the existing base budget will roll forward. From that the annual increases that occur in steps and columns, uncontrollable costs, employee salaries are considered. If there are dollars available that are not categorical, other needs can be addressed, i.e. non instructional equipment, classified staffing, new faculty, funding the full time faculty obligation beyond what the state provides, program innovations, etc. The list is presented with the caveat from Dr. Roberts that this is the least that the state has put together and to the extent that the economy deteriorates there could be less. Dr. Roberts asked members to give some thoughtful consideration to the whole question of identifying available resources and district needs.

Comments and questions followed. Copies of Deborah Sweitzer's e-mail comments to the committee via the BAC Chairs regarding the P4E and Full-time Faculty 75/25 Obligation were distributed in her absence at her request. Micca Gray questioned how BAC's charge in terms of identifying recommendations fits into the IPC process. Dr. Roberts responded that while this all is a work in progress, BAC needs to do its job as best it can and communicate with IPC. The intent is to get these groups talking and through the process reach agreement on the year's priorities. Ed Buckley believes IPC should listen to plans and develop a set of ideas, and BAC should review those plans and ideas, then allocate resources according to IPC's plan. There is a review of the ideas and a review of the way to allocate funds to meet institutional goals. Dr. Roberts sees IPC's role participating in the broader priorities of the institution and communicating those to BAC. BAC reviews available resources for allocation and begins funding priorities and programs that IPC has communicated to them. Ron Schuelke questioned whether BAC may refuse a plan for lack of available resources or simply because it doesn't agree with the priorities that IPC established. Dr. Roberts answered with a qualified "yes" in both instances. BAC must as a committee agree if there is a need to refer a matter back to IPC for further discussion. Doug Garrison added that IPC's focus is on institutional planning goals, and budgetary issues still lie with BAC. Rosemary Darden wondered why there is a different process for P4E dollars when a budget process already exists. Again, Dr. Roberts noted that there isn't yet a process; there cannot be a decentralized system that gives authority to each of the components and a defined central process that says this far and no further. Dr. Agrella explained the process that IPC is using is a new process which is still under discussion. It is not a separate process. The IPC is a major player in the planning function and is a Standing Committee of the District. The BAC is a President's Advisory Committee.

Ken Fiori notified members the IPC-BAC joint P4E powerpoint presentation is available for review at the SRJC home page campus organization web site. Plans are underway to add BAC agendas and minutes to the web site as well.

3. Partnership for Excellence (P4E)

Partnership for Excellence was included in part of the previous 1999-00 budget discussion. People are still writing and submitting P4E proposals. At some point there will be an evaluation process and Dr. Roberts is confident that the combination of all the recommendations coming forward will exceed the $1.9 million available. Dr. Agrella announced that IPC will be meeting again on Ocober 12^th and begin discussions of a formalized approach to review these proposals. With respect to IPC Deborah Sweitzer is going to be working on a written communication to get information out to the campus community every two weeks or so in order to create a constant communication on IPC as the process develops. Ron Schuelke recalled that last year BAC budgeted to hire more classified staff and those funds were not fully allocated. He asked if it is conceivable that only a quarter of the P4E funding will actually be allocated this year while process is under discussion and development. Dr. Roberts referred back to the question at the last meeting about maintaining the identity of the P4E funding source. Ron Schuelke made a motion that BAC direct Dr. Roberts to recommend to the President that IPC immediately release funding for one-time expenditures which have been identified and will need lead time for acquisition, i.e. faculty computers. Motion seconded/carried. At the next meeting Dr. Roberts will bring data comparing SRJC expenditures with those at other institutions.

Meeting adjourned: 4:05 p.m.