Budget Advisory Committee

Oak Room

10:00 a.m.

1. Approval of Minutes: February 26, 2002
2. Discussion on FY 2002/03 Funding Position Paper (B. Croteau)

BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Friday, March 8, 2002

Oak Room, 10:00 a.m.

The meeting was called to order by Ron Root (Co-Chair).

Members present: Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Andrew Dolcini, Bob Flores, Ed Sikes, Deborah Sweitzer.

Also present: Bea Griffiths, Michael Ludder, Jennifer Mann, Maryanne Michaels, Ricardo Navarrette, Chuck Robbins, Bill Turner, Kari Vigeland.

Members/staff absent: Rich Abrahams, Kathleen Bradbury, Micca Gray, Xuan Ho, Ezbon Jen, Omar Medina, Joe Morello, Tatjana Omrcen, Jamey Ransford, Bonnie Pearson, Sandi Tassano.

Staff to the Committee: R. Kyle, Lamont Royer.

Prior to the beginning of the discussion agenda items, Ron Root distributed the annual Chancellor's invitation for the District's Review and Recommendations Regarding the System's 2003-04 Budget Request. The difference from previous requests is that a template is included for simple yes or no responses with an opportunity to provide narrative comments as desired. A recommendation will be brought to the committee at the March 26 meeting.

1. Approval of Minutes: February 26, 2002

The February 26, 2002 minutes were approved as presented.

2. Discussion on FY 2002-03 Funding Position Paper

The position paper draft authored by co-chair Barbara Croteau and distributed with the agenda was the focus for discussion at this meeting.

Maryanne Michaels explained that EOPS, developed in 1969, is the oldest categorical program in the state. It was noted that EOPS funding is in addition to, not at the expense of, District funding. Elements pointing to the long-standing success of the program include (1) clear legislative intent for needs broader than provided at the local level; (2) Chancellor's Office overview (Title 5 of the Ed Code); (3) local flexibility and (4); accurate data reporting and end of year fiscal reporting. Continued success for this and other categorical programs are dependent upon (1) guaranteed 95% of prior year funding; (2) COLA and growth funding; and (3) local overview.

Alternatively another reason offered for the development of categorical programs was due to a scarcity of resources that resulted in local needs going unmet. It was felt by some that if funding were adequate, those needs could be met locally.

The two key policy issues the committee discussed were (1) block grant funding, and (2) tuition.

Block grant funding was opposed by many on the committee who feel it pits programs against each other. Block grants have the effect of diffusing criticism from the legislature and passes on the problem to the local level. It was agreed that now is not the time to talk about block grants.

Those who feel it goes against the idea of an open door policy at community colleges did not support the tuition proposal. There was some support for the idea of an increase in student fees coupled with an increase in financial aid.

Common ground was found in support for the need of the legislature to meet its statutory obligation under Proposition 98. The position paper needs to assimilate the impact of the proposed budget reductions on people with the greatest needs. In addition, it was agreed that the next position paper draft incorporates a recommendation that COLA and growth funding is included for the categorical programs.

Ron Root and Barbara Croteau will integrate today's discussion into a second draft position paper for further review at the March 26 meeting.

Meeting adjourned 11:50 a.m.