SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, November 2, 1999
Senate Chambers, 3 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by John Roberts, Chair.
Members present: Ed Buckley, Marty Carpenter (Ex Officio), Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Christopher Crystal, Danielle Edwards, Doug Garrison, Micca Gray, M. Lee, Ron Schuelke, Deborah Sweitzer, Sandi Tassano.
Members absent: Rosemary Darden, Paul Finn, Curt Groninga, Ben Partee, LuAnn Poulsen, Ed Sikes, Ricardo Navarrette.
Staff to the Committee: K. Bradbury, E. Cichocki, R. Kyle, Lamont Royer.
It was M/S/C to approve the minutes of the August 24, 1999 meeting.
The order of the discussion agenda was changed.
Dr. Roberts reported that there is an aggressive proposal by the Board of Governors calling for a net addition of $5 million to the state community college budget. At this point there is not much consensus among the constituent groups about budget priorities. The proposal also includes a 1.75% COLA and a request for $30 million to be used and distributed on a per FTES basis as unrestricted funding to meet human resource needs (could be faculty or staff). The state is assuming 4% in growth, $15 million for equalization, and $155 million P4E. These are the highlights of the augmentation requested by the Board of Governors. There are still a lot of questions about where the community colleges will place in the Governor’s priority list. P4E is a contentious issue in that once it is received, the controversy begins as to how it should be spent and whether the $155 million takes away from other competing requests because of its size. There are discussions about dedicating some amount to full time faculty, especially from those districts falling below the 75-25 ratio. Dr. Roberts doesn’t know if the part-timer’s are laying claim to any P4E funding. Deborah Sweitzer understands that they are not at this time. Dr. Roberts reported that the faculty lobby interest groups are suggesting that it might be a good idea to have the Academic Senate President sign off on expenditures of P4E funding. That is an issue dividing CEO’s, faculty groups, and the Board of Governors. Equalization is going to be included in budget requests until it is resolved, and Dr. Roberts doesn’t feel that $15 million will resolve the issue. The question of parity and reimbursement for CR and NC also remains. Growth revenue is the largest potential revenue source in the system, and there is no indication it won’t continue to be a high priority in funding those districts that grow. It is virtually the single most important element of funding, and SRJC appears to be on a path of some modest growth between 1% - 1.5% which hopefully will hold for the year. Ron Schuelke, citing a recent article in the Press Democrat, asked whether it is accurate that high school student graduates are growing in numbers. Ed Buckley responded that although the Press Democrat’s article seems to reflect statewide trends, he hasn’t yet seen that growth reflected in SRJC enrollment. Doug Garrison added that SRJC will probably see some growth but not in the rate that the state is predicting. We have experienced peaks of growth, points of decline and some stability over the past few years. Deborah Sweitzer wondered if the rosy economic condition is affecting our growth. According to conventional wisdom that is true, but Dr. Roberts stated the problem is being able to connect drops in the unemployment rate to drops in enrollment. One final thing Dr. Roberts asked the committee members to keep in mind is the state’s emphasis on transfers to the UC and CSU systems. Dr. Roberts is of the opinion that the P4E program is at risk, that there will be much statewide discussion, and P4E could be a tough sell.
Copies of the Chancellor’s Office "Local Targets Regarding Partnership for Excellence" were distributed and discussed. Dr. Roberts explained that Curt Groninga and Baba Adam are working on the final report, Survey of District/College Target Goals, which is due November 19th. Ed Buckley explained that the goals listed in the handout need to be connected to P4E expenditures, and the District is now tracking P4E expenditures according to those goals. Ed led a lengthy (but riveting) review of Goals One through Five. It was noted that Goal Three, Successful Course Completion, was as close as the system could get to a retention measure. The other goals are predicated on growth assumptions. Goal One addresses Transfer; Goal Two measures Degrees and Certificates; Goal Four, Workforce Development-Successful Course Completion of Vocational Education Courses; and Goal Five addresses Basic Skills Improvement, tracking those students who enrolled in a basic skills course and then enrolled in a higher level course in the same area of study. Copies of the District’s P4E Report - July 1999 were also distributed. Section C (FY 98/99) and Section D (FY 99/00) P4E reports funding allocations and links them to the Chancellor’s Office goals. Dr. Roberts urged anyone with questions about the handouts to contact his office.
Ron Schuelke commented that if education keeps going down this track of "bean counting" the system will become a sham, and it is unfortunate.
Meeting adjourned 4:10 p.m.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, December 7, 1999 - 3 p.m. - Senate Chambers
Posted by mlinford at November 2, 1999 12:00 PM