BRAC 2012-02-24

Uploaded by pcclancer on 27.02.2012

>> -- on and you'll see that we're video recording it
so it will be posted to the web and it will be closed captioned
so that when it does go on the web,
so let's go ahead and get started.
And what I want to do maybe first is to do the introduction
so if we can start-- how about with Dustin Hanvey?
>> Good afternoon everybody.
My name is Dustin Hanvey.
I am an English professor here at PCC and the Vice President
of the Academic Senate.
>> I'm Danny Hamman and I'm the Faculty Association rep
or faculty rep here.
>> And good afternoon, I'm Bob Bell, I'm the Vice President
of Student Learning Services
and the Interim Vice President of Instruction.
>> I am Anthony Brown, Fiscal Services, budget desk.
>> Maria Descalzo, Resource Representative, Fiscal Services.
>> Without a microphone, he's Dwayne Cable, Vice President
of Information Technology and Gail Cooper, General Counsel.
>> Thank you.
>> Keith Oberlander, Faculty, Math.
>> Rick van Pelt, Vice President of Admin.
>> Cynthia Smith, Committee Coordinator.
>> Alexander Soto, Student Trustee.
>> Daniela Rueda, Vice President for Business Affairs
with Associated Students.
>> Bob Miller, Vice President of Educational Services.
>> Kent Yamauchi, Officer, Special Services
and Representative of Management Association.
>> John Woods, Kinesiology, Health and Athletics,
replacing Gary Woods in the Management Rep.
>> Dave Krause, Classified.
>> Gary Potts, Information Technology,
Classified Senate President.
>> Okay, and for the speakers, the agenda has been posted
and there are speaker cards if somebody would
like to speak to the committee.
There are speaker cards I think on the lectern.
>> No, there at the table--
>> Oh, in the back.
>> East side of the room.
>> Okay, so let me first start,
I'm going to take a little liberty in terms
of the order 'cause I think it will make a little more sense.
And let me just start with the budget update is having the
basis of this conversation and part of the issue of course is
that in developing the budget for 2011--
I'm sorry, 2012 and '13, the first issue that we really have
to deal with is the current year budget.
So let me just, I'll start passing the handouts out.
One of the questions that's come up
and it's a very valid question is, suddenly what has happened
that so changed the game in the current year budget
that we established and was adopted by the board
of trustees in September.
So this first one is an email from the System Office,
Dan Troy, you see he's the Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Policy,
and this is an email that he sent to the CBOs,
the chief business officials, for all the districts
within the community college system.
And you can go through there.
Certainly, I'm not going to read it all but I do want
to highlight the third paragraph.
While the fee revenue can shift one way or another
over the course of the year it's large enough,
the district should prepare
to adjust their budgets accordingly depending
on the availability of local resources.
Of course, we'll work through the budget process
to seek whatever relief we can get
but with the lingering state deficit,
our hope should not be high.
The most prudent course is to expect the worst.
Okay, so and you also noticed that the date
of that was January the 24th.
Now then, let me just skip forward a little bit.
[ Pause ]
This is from the Community College League.
Now, understand that last year for those
on the committee will remember this, is that we budgeted
for 2 million dollar shortfall because we were expecting
that there would be a midyear trigger cut
that would be pulled in December.
That trigger cut would be pulled by the Department of Finance,
State Controller when they determine that the tax revenues
and the state income was at certain threshold points
under the anticipated and projected amount.
And of course, we were warned upfront by the month
that revenues were tracking under projections.
Therefore, in December the trigger was pulled
and in round numbers,
we're expecting a 2-million dollar cut.
As it turns out, the apportionment was actually cut
by 2.1 million dollars and we just learned that 2 days ago.
But the fact is that we were anticipating
that cut and budgeted for it.
So 2 million dollars was set aside in a reserve account
and was set aside specifically to cover the eventuality
and the probability of the budget cut.
So when that budget cut took place, we were ready
for that one and the money has been set aside.
Okay, then this is February the 21st, so that's this week.
Community colleges hit by a February surprise
of unexpected additional, 149-million dollar budget cut.
Now, if you notice in the previous email,
the vice chancellor in January the 24th was talking
about 100-million dollar cut.
Right after that, there was a question,
what would happen with property taxes.
And the answer was, property taxes were also a problem
but they hadn't yet been quantified.
Okay, so February the 21st,
now the property taxes have been quantified
and there's an expectation
of a 149-million dollar shortfall for the system.
Rule of thumb for PCC is that 2 percent of whatever occurs
at the state level is PCC's.
That would mean that you can do the quick math, that's slightly
under 3 million dollars.
Okay, then same day, this is again an email
from the Vice Chancellor of Fiscal Policy,
the Chancellor's Office, Dan Troy.
[ Noise ]
That details the issue a little bit more.
[ Noise ]
107 million dollars due to a fee revenue shortage
and 41 million dollars in property taxes,
a million dollars in miscellaneous adjustments
and then of course the 30 million dollars
from the tier 1 trigger.
Okay, now--
[ Noise ]
This next handout, if you can-- it's actually 2 pages,
and I'd like to just staple them together.
This is February the 22nd
from the Community College League of California.
And if there are leftover, and I think there probably are,
anybody in the audience here, are you getting it?
Okay, so what this says is this is PCC's anticipated share
of the problem for the current year and you'll see
about a third of the way down the page, the total cut
for the current year is now 11 million dollars.
Now, when you add it all up,
we were expecting the 2 million dollars plus now the 3 million
dollars which is roughly 5 million dollars.
You can see the January trigger cut
and the February budget cut tallies up to
about 4.8 million dollars.
So it's in the exact net [inaudible] that we thought.
And of course, the 6.2 million dollars was what we based the
original budget on.
And you can go through this and see what the expectation is
in terms of the impacts specifically
to Pasadena Area Community College District.
Okay, the next handout is a budget simulation
for next year based on what we're being told now.
[ Noise ]
So now you'll see halfway down the page
for Pasadena Area Community College District,
the net apportionment cut expected for next year is
about 5.14 million dollars.
That's on top of the 11 million dollars
that we're just talking about.
That then poses a budgetary problem in excess
of 16 million dollars.
The thing we also have to remember is
that we did a couple budgetary gimmicks last year,
for the current year,
which included 1.3 million dollar transfer
from the dental fund.
Okay, that's not one of those sustainable things now,
and let me just discuss the--
one of the methodologies that the district has always used
in terms of how we budget is there are sustainable sources
of revenue and then there are unsustainable sources
of revenue.
Sustainable ones that are recurring, they regenerate
from one year to the next.
Then you have one time expenses
that once they're spent, they're gone.
Okay, so one of the underlying budgetary principles
of the district is that we will expend ongoing revenue
to cover ongoing expenses and we'll use one time money
in order to expend it on one time things, okay.
So now the 1.3 million dollars that we transferred
from the dental fund into the general fund
through a little bit of slide of hand, that's not repeatable,
therefore, we really have to add
in comparing the current year budget to next year's budget,
we have to take the 5.14 million dollars,
that's the current projection,
that number by the way will certainly change
but we don't know which direction,
and we have to add the 1.3 million dollars on top of that,
so when you work that out it turns
into about 5.5 million dollars for next year on top
of the 11 million dollars for this year, okay.
[ Pause ]
So now this next, this is a 3-page handout,
the first page we've seen last year
in developing the 2011-12 budget, this was one
of the documents that we used in preparation for that
but I do want to point out a couple things.
You'll see that this is a draft version July the 6th 2011,
so what occurred after the close of the fiscal year, but a couple
of months before we adopted the budget.
These were some of the principles that we were going
to use in developing that budget and what I'd
like to show you is the degree
to which this is what's actually taken place,
so the retirement incentive,
we are anticipating 3.14 million dollars and you'll see
that we ended up with 88 people who took that plan.
You also see at the bottom it says, savings are one time only.
What that means is that again once
that money is gone then it's gone.
The non-filling of positions is closely tied into that
and that's 2.5 million dollars.
See that it was for administrators, manager,
supervisors, and classified workers.
You'll also recall that we did hire 22 faculty members in--
as part of the budget plan.
We also set aside a million dollars
to hire additional people,
and largely those moneys have not been spent yet.
Optimized sections,
we're expecting 1.5 million dollars as an estimate.
See that the first point is to add critical sections.
We have almost 1700 full-time equivalent student workload
reduction, and let me just explain the workload reduction
principle is that the way that the revenue comes
to the district has nothing to do with sections.
Sections is the expenditure side
of the equation not the revenue side.
On the other hand, the full-time equivalent student
and the workload is the revenue side,
it is not the expenditure side, those two things are linked
but they are completely separate.
So when the state gives us a projected number
that they will fund up to,
do you remember the exact number, Bob?
>> Right now?
Currently, we're about 19,634.
>> Okay, so what they do then is they multiply
that times 4,564 dollars and that is the amount
of the portion of money that they send.
When they wish to send less money they reduce your workload
and they will pay for fewer students.
That's the way that the mechanism works.
Okay, so this, in the current year,
we dropped our full-time equivalent student cap
by1,691 dollars.
We talked about developing fee-based programs
because we're trying to serve the community.
However, the question of course is whether the community stands
in front of students or whether they stand behind
and they don't take the actual seats from the students,
so it's possible for instance for a member of the public
to wish to have an oil painting class, but they don't have
to take it for credit.
So we could develop fee-based classes,
then that would take the pressure off of the students
and it would bring us additional revenue.
Eliminate low enrolled sections, that's something that we've done
for a very long time, but it was something
that we last year decided needed to be moved up,
and Resource Schedule 25 is computer software program
that enables us to better match our facilities, resources,
and the classroom with instruction,
so what that would mean is that if classroom holds 50,
that we try to put 50 enrolled classes and sections
in that row, and that we try to have small classes
in small classrooms and large classes in large classrooms
and just try to balance that out,
in other words, gain efficiency.
Revenue enhancement, we didn't expect much money
because it was going to take us a little time
to gear for up for that.
Fee-based classes, contract ed, continuing ed,
adding international students through the F1 visas,
distance education, increased grants
and PCC foundation support, those were items that we talked
about last year for the current year budget in order
to enhance revenue, and then efficiencies,
enhanced technology.
Part of deal is that we have an ancient technological system
which significantly hurt students, it hurts instruction,
it makes it very difficult for us to do what we need to do,
and it's expensive, it's expensive to maintain,
it's expensive to keep running, and there are quicker,
cheaper ways of doing things through technology
than what we're currently doing, so there's a budget savings
that we have there too.
Energy reduction, we're right now finalizing the installation
of 34,000 LED lights to replace the fluorescents
which Dave Krause has largely been responsible for,
and that should save us somewhere in the order of half
or two thirds of a million dollars per year.
If we're not spending on the Pasadena water
and power it means that we have it available
to expend elsewhere.
Duplicating cost overtimes, stipends, reassigned times,
virtual labs to our students can have a laboratory experience
on the campus without being on the campus,
reduce fund transfers, program viability
of reviewing the viability of certain programs,
and the reduction of hourly workers.
Okay, so that was the menu
from which we established the current year budget.
So just moving over to the next page, the first challenge
that we're going to have now is dealing with,
in the upper left corner, 2.85 million dollar new problem,
that's in addition to what we just did.
Okay, the retirement incentive, that has already taken place,
so there's no additional funds to be have there.
Non-filling of positions, we still have the million dollars
in the kitty because we've been very slow
in filling those current positions.
Now to be perfectly fair, we've dropped 50 percent
of our custodial staff on a full-time basis,
that is not sustainable, okay.
They've been filled largely with hourly employees,
but that is not a sustainable practice
at a certain point, you know.
If anyone at the departments here took a 50 percent cut you
would not be able to provide the same service
that you now do, okay.
The expectation from the custodians, however,
is that nothing change in terms of service level,
but that's unsustainable, but in any event
that million dollars is still there.
The optimization of sections and we'll have Dr. Bell speak
in a minute about the Spring Forward.
You'll see in the previous one we said add critical sections
and the critical sections is
through the current process what Dr. Bell has named Spring
Forward to where we can add sections to students
who need them in order
to overcome the cutting of sections.
Meet legislator workload reduction,
there's a new workload reduction of 185 students.
Develop fee-based and the rest of this is fairly similar,
but the first issue that we're going to have to wrestle
with here is coming up with 2.85 million dollars
in the current year.
The problem with midyear cuts,
and this is not exactly midyear cut because it's 8 months in,
is that the impact of the midyear cut is more
than the impact of an initial year cut, and the reason is
because two thirds of the year has gone by and therefore,
we only have one third of the year to make the changes,
which has the effect of tripling the effect--
the impact had it occurred at the beginning of the year.
It means that it becomes more draconian to do it now
than it would have been earlier.
So, if there are any other issues and things
that we should have included on the menu then we need
to discuss those because the first job
that we now have is to-- the first challenge that we have is
to come up with 2.85 million dollars in the current year.
Okay, now, just so that we can see and I can finish
with this presentation here is next year, as I just pointed
out a few minutes ago,
we can expect 6.5 million dollars of cut.
The retirement incentive, we--
last year we dropped about 100 employees,
if we were to imagine doing that again this year,
that'd be 200 employees of course, and that's largely
through the SRP [phonetic] program although there have been
other people who have resigned or left the organization
for one reason or another, in addition to that.
But if we were to have another 100 employees this year
that would mean that we would be down one quarter
of our workforce, about 400 faculty members,
about 400 staff members, it's about 800.
So, if we were to drop 200 employees,
that's a 25 percent reduction.
Okay, that's not sustainable.
Non-filling the positions,
the reason why the retirement incentive is X'd out is
because we actually do have to fill position.
Optimization of sections, revenue enhancement
and efficiencies are still, you know, the things that we need
to focus on in order to come up with that amount of money.
Okay, so the initial discussion that we need to have is going
to deal with the guiding principles for the district.
This is the same list as last year with the exception
that all the marks had been taking off
and everything is now on the table.
This is not an exhaustive list and we can add to it or delete
from it, but we need to agree on the guiding principles,
Dr. Rocha and the board have put every single option on the table
for how to deal with the changes to the budget.
And I suppose that what we could do is if we wanted
to do this we could have, we could do this in 2 steps.
One is for the current year and one would be for next year,
or we could combine the two
and just say these are the guiding principles
and directions from this moment forth.
So, if you want to go through this and refresh your memories
in terms of what we agreed would be the guiding principles
and directions for the budget
and resource allocation committee.
[ Pause ]
Okay, has everybody had a chance to go through that?
Okay, so what-- lets do this, let's open this
up for discussion among the group both in terms
of where we are and the material I presented in terms
of the predicament that we now find ourselves in,
as well as the guiding principles and directions so,
among the committee, Dave?
>> Rick, when I was looking at it, well,
I don't see if there's consultant fees.
I mean isn't there a way
that possibly we can reduce done by consultants.
>> Yes, okay, so let's add to the list.
Good point, Dave.
Reduce consultant fees.
>> Wait a second.
Dave, do you mean all consultants,
district wide or just--
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> I'm not saying getting rid of them, I'm saying,
you know, reducing them.
>> Tom.
>> You know, I've been thinking.
I teach in the nursing program, so the health sciences division
and I've been thinking about our registered nursing program
and how we could be part of the solution.
I am on the agenda for the curriculum meetings the next
to within are division to talk about possible change
to the RN program that would enormously reduce the amount
of overload as well as the amount
of adjunct faculty that are utilized.
So, if it's something that the faculty is willing to adapt,
I think it would be a huge money saver.
Of course, it's a major curriculum revision
so it would have to be approved by the Board
of Registered Nursing, our consultant, and have to go
through the C&I committee here.
If it could be-- if the college, if this all comes to happen,
if they could expedite the C&I process, we could, you know,
start it sooner, and the C&I process closes
down very quickly for next.
>> No, actually we just started this spring cycle.
So, we've got the-- we're
into the spring cycle now, so we've got through.
>> But when would that be effective, 12-13?
>> It would be effective for--
well, if you could quickly make the change,
which I don't think you can because the stage's got
to approve it and your accrediting body has
to change it-- has to approve it.
We actually could have an effective summer of 12
because of the catalog restrictions and what have you,
but it's likely a summer
of 13 change before it would actually go in to affect.
>> Can I just-- oh sorry.
>> No, go ahead.
>> Can I just briefly tell you what I'm thinking?
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> You know, the associate degree
in nursing was originally envisioned
that students would take 18 units a semester.
They would take their first semester of nursing
and they would also take their anatomy
and chemistry concurrently with that,
and then the next semester they take their nursing
and take their physiology and microbiology.
So, they would do it in 4 semesters,
and then the second year they would take,
you know, nutrition, et cetera.
None of our students do that.
They-- we have anatomy, physiology, microbiology
and English as pre requisites.
So, they-- there's no way they can do it in 2 years.
Additionally, they take, you know, their psychology
and their other nutrition, other courses concurrently with some
of the harder science classes.
So, when the students come in, they have the majority
of the prerequisites and general education
requirements completed.
They then get to us and we send them through in 4 semesters
on a part time status.
They take 11 units the first semester
and they take 9 units the second, third, fourth semesters.
What I'm proposing to the faculty is that we go
to 12 units a semester and they complete
in 3 semesters instead of 4.
We're slightly over.
We're only required to have 36 units of nursing,
we currently have about 38.
So, they would achieve full time status,
they for their financial aid, they could be covered
on their parent's insurance,
they would graduate 6 months sooner.
Taking the number of full time faculty
that we currently have spread
over 4 semesters we would now spread those over 3 semesters
which would enormously reduce the number of adjunct faculty
that were used in the program, because the same number
of teachers would be teaching 3 levels instead of 4.
>> Under the direction of the academic senate,
in particularly Matthew Jordan, our C&I chair right now,
we're taking immediate steps to streamline the C&I the process.
So, anything that comes to C&I, we can pretty much move
through very, very quickly, but I think conceptually here
and philosophically what Tom is pointing out is
that if we had all of our programs,
our CTEs [inaudible] programs, our academic programs
and majors, what have you, all the faculty
in the division begin to take a look at how they could
"more efficiently" and I don't mean that just from the point
of view of savings but even for students, help students to get
through these programs more quickly if you will.
That would not only eventually accrue to the benefit
from a budget point of view but it would also accrue
to the benefit of our students as we moved them along.
As far as immediate impact, probably not this year,
but certainly going forward next year and following that,
so that's I think the whole notion of program review
to more efficiently offer our programs would be a good way
to go.
>> And part of the issue is
that this budget problem won't go away.
The state economy is not recovering
and won't recover very quickly.
There's almost no chance
that the November ballot measure will pass
which will increase taxes on everyone, and by the way
if it did pass then the budget cut next year would basically
evaporate, but it's predicated
on having the voters increase taxes on themselves.
With a functional unemployment in California
of over 20 percent, that seems extraordinary unlikely and then
of course the national economy is not picking up
and with a deficit in Washington this year being proposed at 1
and a half trillion dollars, that won't allow
for economic growth and of course,
the world economy is going to suffer and will continue
to suffer due to the near collapse or imminent collapse
of several economies around the world, you know, Greece, Italy,
Spain, Portugal and Ireland are on the precipice of taking
down the Euro and if that happens then that's going
to have an impact around the world too.
so, the reality is is that we need to be planning our budgets
on the basis of what we have we'll be lucky to keep
and you know, whereas in the past we've tried to kick the can
down the road a while to see if the economy would pick up
and we'd end up in some kind of nirvana,
but that is not likely to occur.
So, to the extent that it even can't be done this year,
setting it up for next year is very helpful.
So, the question, Tom, is what does actually take to accomplish
and what's your view on the timeline?
>> Yeah, the-- you know, present to the faculty
and tell them what my idea is and get a majority
of the faculty to say they want to do it then we have to write
to our consultant from the Board of Registered Nursing
and tell them what we have in mind and then we have
to rewrite, you know, write this new curriculum.
Now, I've been here long enough that sometimes it takes 3 years
to write a new curriculum and I've seen times
when it's taken 1 semester.
Personally, I don't think we're making that much of a change.
It's more we're resequencing some things.
I think we could sit down in 2 weeks and have it done,
but the majority of the people would not--
probably not feel that way that we could do that,
so the nice big answer, I don't know.
>> And procedurally can I go
to C&I before it goes to the accrediting?
>> No.
>> No?
>> Probably not.
>> Okay. So, there's no chance
that it will be done for this year.
What is the drop dead date for the C&I [inaudible]?
>> A drop dead date would be probably be for something
of this magnitude by the end of March frankly.
And yeah, I think it would be tough.
>> Okay, so if you could can continue to develop
that obviously but-- for the following year,
that would still be very helpful and you know despite opinions
to the contrary, everyone is committed to student success,
to making sure that we could do whatever we can do,
minimizing impact on student access.
If you notice this item number 1
on the overarching guiding principles for the development
of budget and so, just getting back to that one,
I would be shocked if anyone had any problems with the--
all the way down probably 3 quarters of the way.
I think that the first question might be.
The district will contribute 1.4 million
to the other post employment benefit fund
if it is not fully funded.
I assume and correct me if I'm wrong,
but that's probably the first one that people are going
to have mixed opinions or disagree with, is that true?
Up to that point are we clear that we still agree
with all the guiding principles up above that line?
>> Yeah, I just have one question.
The EMP, the first separation that occurs there is that meant
to have another header in it or--
>> Yeah, you know what, I quickly did that and I wiped
out all the colors that were there and apparently,
I accidentally wiped that one out.
>> Okay, that's fine, so you just add that,
whatever that header is we'll add that later.
Because I think the E-- person, I think the EMP ones are fine
because they're exactly as they continue to be, okay.
>> So, everybody is clear with EMPs and the overarching?
>> Yeah, I have a question on the EMP where if you go four
up from the item that you identified the 1.4 million
where it said the budget will--
18.7 million, is that the budget we'll likely maintain?
>> The state's apportionment deferral?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, so that's the ending balance that we're expecting.
By the way we are predicting 22 million dollar budget deferral
for this year, apportionment deferral, and for the first year
and let me just mention this too briefly.
This is the first year that they are projecting
that they are going to hold the making
up of the apportionment deferral to as long as October.
The auditors have a significant problem with that
because at a certain moment, you can no longer attribute
that to the current year.
So, you know, if it's July which is what they've largely done
in the past, that makes some sense
because it's essentially receivable.
The trouble is that when it starts to slide
into October, it isn't.
And at one point or another we're going to end
up restating our financial situation and drop
down the ending balance to reflect whatever it is
that we cannot attribute to the current year.
So, that is going to have an impact if we have to do that.
I know that and I spoke with our auditor is that they are trying
to work out a methodology system wide with how to deal
with because there are 111 other colleges that are
in the same boat that we are of how to account
for that apportionment deferral that that's long.
We were also notified that we will have another intra year
apportionment deferral which slides at I think from February
to April, is that not right, Maria?
[Inaudible Remark] So, it means that apportionment
because the state now has a new cash flow problem,
they don't have the money to give us, therefore,
what they're saying is, is that if they can instead of paying it
out on February pay it to us in April when they hope, you know,
with the April 15th tax deadline
that they will end up with more money.
>> And just to be clear here, the EMP is from transfers
to 4-year institutions, the facilities
and resources will be optimized.
>> Yes.
>> Below that is another set of criteria.
>> There's a double line that I should put the black back
in there, the black background because it's white letters
on black and I took the black out.
So, I'll figure out what that one was but--
so up to the first break which is facilities
and other resources will be optimized,
that's under educational master plan.
So, in terms of the committee right now
of the guiding principles we're clear up to that point,
is that true, does anybody have any objections?
>> Yeah, I just have a question as far as clarifying
when you were mentioning that they were going
to delay the apportionment from February
to April, that's this year?
>> That's current year, that's an intra year.
There are 2 apportionment deferral methodologies,
intra year and inter year.
Okay, the intra year they don't pay us the money
that they owe us in the order that we need it.
If they did we would get
about 10 million dollars a month, that never happens.
So, the first few months they overpay us and then they start
to very significantly underpay us.
So, from about January through June we are very significantly
under apportionment and that number this year,
by the end of June, we will have 22 million dollars slip
into the following year that they've promised they'll make up
and that's enacted into law, but then they're saying
that for the first year, they're going to defer that further
into the year, possibly as late as October.
What that means is that in order for us to make pay roll
and pay our bills we have to have cash on hand.
Now there is a-- and Maria has gone through
and done a pretty careful analysis of where we are going
to end up June the 30th, and the current projection is
that we'll have only 4 million dollars in cash.
No, sorry.
[Inaudible Remark] In an ending balance.
That is not strictly cash
because we also have receivables that's tallied into that number.
So, when you're looking at an ending balance
that does not mean cash in the bank.
So, now the board has also authorized us
to do interfund borrowing.
There are 2 possible avenues for us to do that
and there are restrictions that the board's placed on us
to do it but, the first is the other post employment benefit
fund and because we have not structured to be irrevocable,
we can actually tap into that money.
Many districts have made it irrevocable
to where you can't go back and tap into it which actually helps
in terms of the financial statements of the organization.
The trouble is is if you do that then you don't have access
to that money anymore, and I think it's
about 16 million dollars that we have.
The other post employment benefit fund is established
in order to cover the promises that we've made
to current employees and retired employees for their healthcare.
We cover 100 percent of healthcare costs for employees
who retire and are less than the age 65,
then we pay 1440 dollars per year per employee
who is retired over the age of 65.
There was a recent ruling or a decision that was made that said
that you have to actually account
for that money somewhere.
So, it now shows up as an obligation that we have to pay.
If you do that and it's a liability therefore,
it's an unfunded liability
if you don't have money to cover it.
So, what we've done is rather that setting it aside
in a completely separate untouchable fund, we've put it
into a fund that we can tap into if we have to and we will,
but what it does is at the end we've created an asset
that immediately offsets the liability.
So the bottom line to the organization is no change
to the financial position.
If we didn't fund it then we'd have a 60-million dollar
liability with no money to cover it, which would then show,
you know, obviously, a 60-million dollar problem
and growing per year for our liabilities.
Is that clear?
Yeah, Danny?
>> Yeah. During the discussion last year,
I believe that fund you stated was over funded by between 6
and 700 thousand dollars, is that correct?
>> Right.
>> And we just did the study on that again,
and I think that we're very close now.
Is that not true?
>> No, we're very close.
>> So, what it mean-- yeah, that is still true and I think
that an assumption that we can make for the current years
that we do not have to put money in to
that to cover increased liability.
One of the challenges that we face is that we have to work
out what potential impact the SRP had on our liabilities.
So, we did an actuarial study to determine that
and as it turns out, what's more important than the number
of people who retired, because that does lock
in that the number is as you add employees and you have
to start covering them because they do--
we are creating an expectation of future benefits
that we have to cover.
>> So, can we say district will not contribute?
>> Yeah, and so up to that
and that's why I drew a line at that one.
Is I think that it's probably fair to say that something
like the district does not need to contribute additional funds
to the other post employment benefits, is that reasonable?
Is that agreeable to everybody?
>> So, was that 1.4 million in this year's budget?
>> No, no.
In order to balance the budget we decided to--
that was another one of the things that we pulled,
and so if you go back and see we did not put
that in the current year budget.
>> So we're not making?
>> We're not doing it now for the current year and we won't--
what we said was if it is not fully funded.
So, that was another way that we cut the current year budget.
>> Yeah, if I remember correctly.
We did have a retirement in December
and another one coming up in June.
>> Yes.
>> And I know you're saying that the funds
for that is going to go for employees.
Can we show that, how much savings there is that's going
to go towards the hiring of new employees?
>> I'm not quite sure how to quantify that yet, I think that
and of course this is going to be the guiding principles.
What we're saying up top is the impact of state budget
on full time piece employees will be minimized
and I'm not sure if that's not covered in it.
It is something that we're going to wrestle
with of how many new employees must we hire
and how many can we afford.
I don't know how, I truly don't know what the answer is
to that either.
>> Okay, because I did want to say well, you know,
you have million dollars inside but yet,
you may have a half million dollars savings of people
that retired that can actually go towards that million dollars.
>> Well, and I think that as and if you can just hold
that thought, because we're going to discuss that here
in a minute, is that okay?
>> Okay.
>> Alright, Tom.
>> I had another curriculum thought.
I'm not sure where to interject it here in the [inaudible].
Is this okay?
You know, I'm wondering about the cost of requiring all
of the students to take physical education.
It's my understanding that's a district requirement not a state
requirement, does that sound accurate?
>> Dr. Bell?
>> Actually, that's a good question.
I'm not 100 percent sure.
I believe it is a local district requirement,
I don't believe the state requires that.
>> That is correct and I think Ed, you can verify that for us.
>> So, what I have wondered with this is
by us requiring something that the state does not require, one,
the students have to take another class
which takes it longer to grad-- takes some longer to graduate.
We have to offer a certain number of sections, you know,
so they can take these courses and I just wonder
about what would be the fiscal impact of us dropping
that district requirement.
And let me have John Woods address it
because he is the person over there.
>> Well, I think when you look at one of the guiding principles
that you have is health and wellness,
well being, and education.
I think if you look at the current status of this country
in terms of its level of fitness, they've just,
if the information is correct, they've added actually semesters
of physical education back into the high schools as a result
of what we're seeing as a dynamic
and a deteriorating health status on this country and so,
I think when we start looking
at the general education requirements
of PCC I think we need to consider some of those things.
Also, the kinesiology transfer students are required
to take 4 semesters of activity course work so,
I think there's more to be discussed
than just automatically throwing any particular subject
on the board.
I'm certainly willing to discuss it but I think there's more--
if we're going to look at physical education then we need
to look at other programs and what those requirements are, so.
>> Well, it's sort of like for example, I mean nursing--
the whole thing is about health and well being
and promoting health and this and our students still have
to take physical education.
I just-- where I'm go--
you know, I understand the merits of it.
The question I have is given the current fiscal crisis,
why do we require more than what the state says we have
to require and what is the fiscal impact
of us having requirement succeeding what the
state requires.
>> I would actually just
from the [inaudible] perspective agree with Tom's comment
in as much as-- I think it's a conversation that we need
to have in terms of, does a transfer student--
do certain transfer students that want to get an AA as well,
for example, if they are majoring in philosophy need
to take that PE course.
I'd like to think not specifically at this moment
and I think it is a discussion worth having moving forward
for the reasons that Tom just stated.
>> Well, again, I think there we can certainly put any issue
on the table.
I think that we look at the number of courses
that are actually required for transfer,
specifically there's 13 or 17, yeah,
we offer a significantly larger number of courses
in our curriculum that meet that same requirement and so,
you know, when we start looking at not only our requirements
but requirements that a student needs to transfer
in a particular subject, we need to have that discussion also,
and it will engage more departments
than just the kinesiology,
health and physical education, so.
>> Ed.
>> Yeah, just as a background, this issue was discussed 2
or 3 years ago as it came up through the C&I, the Curriculum
and Instruction Committee process when we looked
at the requirements for the associate's degree.
So, there were discussions about the value of the PE requirement
for the associate's degree, and I suspect
that that will come up again.
But just to let you know that students do not necessary have
to have PE as part of their overall general education.
There are many students who identify themselves
as being transfer students, their plan is to transfer,
they follow IGETC or the CSU GE breadth requirement
which does not require physical education.
So in another words, it's a requirement only
for the associate's degree,
it's not necessarily a GE requirement for many students.
>> So, those students earn an associate degree
in transfer studies without taking the phys ed?
>> It is possible because for students who are transferring
and they are getting one of our current AA degrees,
they have the option of actually following our local associate
degree requirements, that does include PE or following IGETC
or the CSU GE requirements
and those 2 patterns do not necessarily include general
education, or excuse me, physical education.
>> Kent.
>> That my understanding also
that there may be other locally defined courses,
it's not just physical activity
but there could be other local ones to get an AA degree,
and those should be perhaps discussed as well.
>> There is a category under the local associate degree
requirements, the health education category.
Although it does align well with the GE requirements
for the Cal State System, although not for IGETC.
So there is some room for maneuver, you might say,
but it's sort of a tricky area.
It's a gray area in between what the UCs want
and what we require here locally.
>> Bob?
>> You know some of these is going
to perhaps be self correcting as we get more engaged
in what we call Strategic Enrollment Management.
And as we look at developing schedules that support the--
trend the completion agenda, transfer degrees,
CTE certificates, and then as we look more
at the course taking behavior
and then offer more of those sections.
So what I mean by all these is that the division deans
and the faculty are going to be looking at the breadth perhaps
that they have been offering in the past
and being a little bit more selective
about the courses they offer that lead more to--
lead to greater completion on the basis of the courses need,
on the basis the courses that students need in order to move
through our system much more quickly.
So again, some of these will be self correcting as time goes
on based upon the limited FTES that we have
to work with these days.
>> You know and on that note, Bob, you know all
of the nursing students have to take Psychology 24.
It's not a prerequisite but it's content required for licensure
so they have to have it.
And most of the students have it before they come
in to the program.
One of my students who completed the first semester
of the nursing program wanted to take that over the winter
and she said that there were no offerings
of Psychology 24 over the winter.
Now, I didn't go on to computer to look and see
if it was offered or not but you know,
we award over a hundred associate degrees every year
in nursing.
Those students all have to have it.
I also think that the dental hygiene
and the LVN students have to have that as well.
So there is from a health sciences perspective,
there are some courses that are really in high demand
that it appears are not being scheduled
to accommodate those students.
>> And 2 general responses to that just looking quickly
at the top 25 courses by enrollment
and then the top 50 courses by enrollment, neither of the--
Psych 24 is not one of those.
So what this suggests is that from an interdisciplinary point
of view or from an interdivision point
of view better communication needs to take place
between health sciences and social sciences to make sure
that we offer those sections and then
from an enrollment priority point of view we need
to make certain that as Dr. Bell and I are looking
into that we get those students that are in those programs
into those sections in order to support those pathways.
Because what's happening now as you open up a Psych 24 section
in because it probably works for general IGETC and CSU transfer
as well which we know it does,
students who don't necessarily need it for their majors get
in to those programs anyway.
So that's just again a better structure
and with Vice President Cable here and the technology
that the new administrative information system will provide
we'll be able to better deal with those issues going forward.
It's all about enrollment management,
which we don't do a whole lot of yet
but we're working our way towards there, towards that.
>> Okay. Moving on, let me go down.
The district will set aside a million dollars
to the enterprise resource plan
which is now called the administrative
information system.
>> Yes.
>> Administrative information system, okay.
Now, traditionally, what we have done is
that we see how we end the year and to the extent
that we end the year under budget,
we fund one-time expenses.
The administrative information system is a one-time expense.
Theoretically, it is possible to budget that and to budget it
through the operational unrestricted general fund.
The trouble in doing that of course is, is that you're going
to end up cutting a million dollars
from somewhere else in order to do it.
I don't think there are too many people in the world who think
that it's a bad idea to upgrade our computer system
to actually enter into the 21st century 'cause right now I think
we're firmly planted at the end of the 20th century.
The challenge is and this is a guiding principle
that we don't have to adapt by the way.
We do need to find funding
for the administrative information system.
It does not need to occur
through 1 million dollar set aside.
>> Well, you know, if we--
I don't know how long it would take to implement it
but I think maybe the students might benefit more
from more classes rather than a new integrated system.
>> Let me have, Dwayne, can you just address that point
about the need for upgrading the system and the interrelationship
between the success of students through technology
versus additional classes?
>> Well, I think part of the, you know, this is a really,
an interesting balancing issue.
You know, we have-- my concern right now is
that we have the ability, very limited ability
with our existing Santa Rosa Administrative Information
System to effectively process students through our system
to admit, register financial aid.
And in the 6 months I've been here, we have continued
to put additional bandage and duct tape
on the existing system.
My concern is this, it's too full.
One is I think we keep making additional modifications
to our existing environment.
It's creating kind of waterfall effects, if you will,
of additional problems and plus I just expect
that one day our systems are just going to go down
and I can't bring them back up and I actually am planning
for that to figure out what we're going to do in case
that type of scenario presents itself.
So I-- and as we've gone through this, as we get ourselves
to a point where we can actually put a new system in place
because I, you know, if we did a traditional implementation,
that's 2 years.
We can't do that.
We-- I have-- I am very uncomfortable with that type
of an implementation plan.
We had to do something very aggressively,
else we risk losing data,
not effectively helping students to-- with the ed plans.
In fact we're actually rewriting ed plan right now and I have--
well, I have concern-- I approved it.
But we are expending a certain amount of effort just
to get something back in place
that really will be a direct benefit to all of the students
when I know that our new administrative information
system will actually address that.
And plus there are just a host of other requests
that helps us operationally from an efficiency standpoint
across the institution that if we could get this new system
in place there will be a lot of--
I think it will help us on the cross side of the house
where we are actually revisiting issues of staffing.
You know, we're staffing right now.
We are thinking about our staffing plans based on the kind
of environment we are currently working in.
And if we had a new system in place, the few people
that we have now will be able to do,
will be much more productive.
This will keep our ongoing recurring cost down.
So it really has-- it has lots of difference of--
different effects throughout the institution
to take a 30-year-old system and you know, we--
there's really no question we need to replace it.
My only concern is, is how quickly can we do it.
I know that's an expenditure of funds
but maintenance wise I think,
I do think that as we select a new system we're going
to probably have somewhere in the neighborhood
of a half a million dollars annually in maintenance cost.
Maintenance cost associated with software, hardware
or maybe the service provider that we are having.
So I have a tendency to want to--
we need to budget that sort of thing
from an operational standpoint 'cause we would never not pay a
maintenance agreement and to have support for that system.
It's too critical to our overall institutional operations.
So, you know, whether we do a million dollars
or not is a different issue but I do think that we really have
to look at a recurring line item to address that.
Our AIS is-- I really feel is fundamental to everything
that we provide our students and the ability for them
to access a lot of services 24/7/52.
>> We can web enable a lot of these things right now
that we're going to-- the students are having to go
to offices to address, I think will be a huge service
to students.
I had students this morning
in my office saying I've just been all over campus trying
to get this and get that and now I'm down here for my 1098
for tax purposes and it's like one thing after another
that we're running students all over the place.
Our new AIS will help address those things.
>> And if I may with respect to financial aid, Alex,
what our current system obligates us to do is
to generate hard copy checks and mail those to students.
So we're delayed about 3 and a half to 4 and a half weeks later
than our sister campuses on getting awards to students.
And it's also the cost of physically printing the check,
mailing the check to post and everything inherent
with that and lost checks.
A new AIS system integrated
with the direct deposit would allow us to be able
to directly deposit those receipts
into students' accounts immediately.
So there is that time and cost as well.
This really speaks to efficiencies as well as cost.
>> So in terms of the effect to students, if a student get
to class and gets financial aid, there could be a possibility
that they may have to go back
and tell whoever is collecting the bills, hey,
I got to wait a couple of weeks more than my colleagues
at other community colleges
because my school doesn't do a direct deposit
because of its AIS system.
>> That's correct.
The student of Pasadena City College who is fully enrolled
in 12 units are more at the beginning, for example,
of the spring semester, your analogy
of paying the bills not get that physical check
until about the middle to the end
of the 4th week of the semester.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure that was all clear
and on the record right now.
>> Gary?
>> I just wanted to make a comment about it.
I've worked in computing services for years.
I was the operator for years and all these systems
that we're talking about is not integrated at all.
Like they said you have to get
into one system once a student register to go
into a financial system, et cetera.
I agree with Dr. Bell that the problem is that, for example,
I was talking to a student yesterday.
She says she needed to buy a book
but her financial aid check doesn't come until next week.
Well, we all know the semester has started.
She's going to be a whole week behind.
Integrated system will prevent that because it will now,
like Dr. Bell has said, for those checks to go
into a direct deposit.
So there is no inner link between the various systems.
It's all manual, I'm sure fiscal and financial aid
and everyone else could attest to that.
>> Daniela?
>> I just have a question.
I'm not disputing the fact
that a new AIS system will be extremely beneficial as far
as improving efficiency in all those sorts.
However, from my point of view as a student, I mean,
I've been on campus for several things so I'm used
to the system already.
And my struggle would be like how would students
at large would account for maybe the fact
that we're investing a million dollars
into a new information system whereas--
essentially my question is does it have
to be specifically a million dollars or is there a way
to do this in like a gradual thing
or I don't know what the different alternatives
for that are.
>> That's part of our process right now.
We're in the selection process for this.
We will be having, in fact we selected yesterday,
we will be having 3 vendors on campus and part
of what they are going to do is to demonstrate, you know,
their functionality and all of that and there's another aspect
of it is to look at different financial models in terms
of how we are going to pay for this
or how is the service going to work.
So we still have a lot of that
to analyze once we get to that point.
>> Let me just add something here is
to make what Dwayne said a little bit earlier more clear.
What he said was that we're on the verge of computer collapse.
So if we imagine that if the system collapses,
what impact does that then have on the students and is
that an overstatement, Dwayne?
>> No.
>> Okay. Now, we have already set aside
about 8 million dollars for this project.
So we've continued to save our money
in the capital outlay fund for that eventuality.
And what is your sense of what we need to spend for the system
and how the funds might roll out over the implementation?
>> I think that-- I mean there will be as part of this plan
and we discussed it yesterday in a meeting that there will be a,
essentially, a 10-year cost plan presented as part
of this process and it will, you know, we've already discussed
and looked at possible models.
I think the ranges are when you start doing 1
and 200 percent ranges it becomes a little bit
of an exercise and futility, I think,
to really look at that right now.
But I think that part of what we come back in this process
and in fact it's something that this committee ought
to certainly look at once we present those various models
to say you know, here are choices and let us show you,
you know, how the numbers fall.
So I do think that there are some one-time costs associated
with this and then we have to buy software or we have
to buy a service that delivers the software.
It doesn't necessarily have to purchase software.
We can say we don't what to own any of these.
We don't want to own the systems.
We want the vendor to actually host this for us,
that's called a cloud-based solution
and we could go down that path.
That has a different cross model and other applications that need
to be tied to that, we would need to look at those cost
that might not be delivered in the new AIS.
But another aspect of this though, I think,
it kind of addresses a little bit of your point, Alex,
that I wanted to make sure we talked about.
You know, you take class scheduling as an example.
One of the things we've ran in to today,
we have maximized our capabilities
with our existing Santa Rosa system
to add additional parameters
for even more effectively scheduling the classrooms
we have.
We are tapped out of additional data elements
that will add more variables
to how can we better get all 300 classrooms properly scheduled
so we still have a little bit of anomalies and to add
that extra functionality
in Santa Rosa is just very expensive and again,
another finger in the dike of the whole Santa Rosa system
and I'm afraid more of those we keep doing becomes problematic.
>> I have a few more questions, two related to this
and one unrelated to this that I make just because I have
to leave for class pretty soon.
My first question being I know we have heard from students
in terms when enrolling online
that sometimes the system will crash
with a certain amount of students.
I would like clarification
on how many students it takes right now for our system
to crash in terms of enrollment as well
as will a new ASI correct them?
And then my other question related
to this is just what I'm hearing is that because
of our current AIS system none of--
nothing on campus is integrated.
So does that mean that for example
if a student has an educational master plan on--
education plan on file, then we cannot identify them while they
are enrolling?
And would a new AIS be able to help us identify those students
and kind of help them match while they are
currently enrolling?
>> Let me deal with the first
or the last question, I guess, first.
First of all, we do have some degree of integration, okay?
And there's a lot of data.
That data will obviously go through some cleansing process
but we will be able to capture a lot of that.
The institution has just gone through a process, a little bit
of a process for process improvement.
It is well attended by various departments throughout the
institution to actually map our existing processes and/or some
critical ones and improve those.
Those new improved processes will be part
of the new AIS structure.
So not all is lost, okay?
I-- there is certainly a lot of things that we will have
that will be able to transition from the old to the new.
There will be a number of things though that won't transition.
But things like getting plans and stuff like that are--
is really data that can be moved
into a new environment once we know what
that new environment is going to look like
and then we can see what it's going to take
to lose those sorts of things.
Other types of capabilities that will be added I feel
that will really benefit the students
and the departments are things like electronic portfolios
to where a lot-- every student can have their own portfolio.
Every faculty and staff member can have their own portfolios.
So things can actually be filed away
and it's part of their record.
So we still have a lot of integration.
Remind me what your first question was again?
>> The first one is how many students it takes
for the system to crash.
>> Yeah, to crash.
I have no clue.
You know, we have a lot of reasons for why--
I won't say a lot of reasons.
We have a variety of reasons for why systems crash.
System performance itself, again,
I've already mentioned we have a 16-year-old hardware,
we've maxed its memory and those types of things.
That's one aspect that causes systems to be slow.
Another one is our network capacity,
how many people hit our network whether it's relating
to our systems or not.
We are looking at those issues as well to make sure
that we have expanded that capacity for the new system
and then how the software itself functions.
Right now, we have a lot--
some of our processes are actual physical process
that some staff member within my department
or another department actually turns on or turns off
and when they fail to do that, folks can't log in
or can't do the things they need.
>> There is another point and I just realized this and then I--
>> Oh, you're out of questions.
>> Let me just ask this.
Let me just ask.
But what occurred the other day was also an attack
on the system, is that not true?
>> That is correct.
We had well over a thousand hits per second on our network
and a thousand plus hits a second.
That's a lot of volume and basically,
it ends up freezing a lot of other individuals
out of our network because something is trying to attack.
>> Okay, and in terms of-- I know some--
I know as a student going in and enrolling online, you get kicked
out after 15 minutes and then would a new AAS alleviate that?
>> Well, that's a rule that is set that if there's inactivity
for a certain period of time then you get kicked off.
The question comes as, you know, what you're doing
on the system to-- I mean, it shouldn't just while you're
in the middle of something knock you off after 15 minutes.
I'm not exactly sure what that particular rule is
if you're experiencing that.
>> I can't say that it has occurred where you're just kind
of looking through across schedule finding a class really
quickly and it will just kick you out at times
and say you're inactive even though you're scrolling
and trying to find.
>> Yeah, well that shouldn't-- that really shouldn't be.
>> And then--
>> Maybe it's just you, Al.
>> From what I've heard it's not.
>> I'm just kidding.
>> And then just the last thing before I leave.
I noticed, maybe I overlooked it but I noticed that on the paper
that we're given in terms of priorities, I don't see anything
about trying to see what we can do in terms
of because there were students that mentioned it
at the last board of trustees meeting, increasing class size
in certain classes and one, why isn't on here perhaps
for a few classes to do that and two, what problems the district
or the county may face in trying
to move forward in that direction.
And then with that I will be leaving
because I have class and I'm already late.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Yeah, I'm sure that we're not the only college that is looking
to upgrade their systems
and I believe other colleges already have upgraded
their systems.
Have we looked into what they have and see if it worked for us
and not have to have consultants come
in 'cause the system has already been designed?
>> Well, first of all,
every institution runs their business in a different way.
There's different sets of rules.
We know what new systems have been going
in across the state, across the country.
We're focused a lot more on what's happening in California
and what systems are being used there.
You know, as we look
at implementing the system we're certainly going to have
to have consulting resources to help us with that
because we couldn't sit and do this ourselves.
We don't have enough knowledge of the system
and its functionality and then partnering we've even--
are exploring the idea of what are some
of our sister institutions, whether it's, you know,
whether it's, you know, a private university
or another community college looking at possible partnerships
and how we might be able to work that angle.
Again, the concerns is
that institutions have different rules and in terms
of the way they do business and we have to just be real careful
with that, but we're exploring those avenues too,
but we do know what's happening at other colleges.
>> Danny.
>> I guess a question.
You mentioned, you know,
and I know you don't have a developed plan
but there's one possibility that you go to a cloud system
where we don't know on anything and another system
where we would own everything
and I think I've also heard you mentioned that you'd
like to implement this system within each month to 24 months
or something like that, is that correct?
>> Yes or less.
>> Okay. So, so, how much, I mean just ball--
I know you don't have the plan
but I mean just ballpark figures,
I mean because the two would be very different, I would think.
The cloud system you're not paying for everything upfront
as opposed to the other
but could you just give us a ballpark figure what each
of these might cost in over the next 18
to 24 months or whatever.
>> I think I will be in a much better position once I have
at least the first rounds
from the three different vendors 'cause part of what we're going
to be asking them to do is to present
to us what would a traditional and of course to them,
traditional is more like 36 to 48 months
but we're saying traditional is 24 months,
an aggressive schedule is 18 months
and a very aggressive schedule which is 12 months.
Yes, those will all cost different
because it take more resources to do something
in a shorter period of time.
Cloud doesn't necessarily mean free.
It certainly doesn't 'cause I think you pay one way or another
and I think we're all smart enough to realize that.
The question is, is it worth it to us if I don't have to have
for instance, if we didn't run our own systems then I could--
I don't have to hire a database administrator,
which is a good six-figure type of individual
with certain capabilities.
I wouldn't certainly have to have a systems person.
There's personnel on an ongoing basis that I would avoid
by not having to-- that I can buy a portion of that
from a vendor and so we want to explore those types of option,
else I have to get down this other column that says we have
to staff accordingly to address those types of need and frankly,
I would whole lot rather spend more focus on staffing in areas
where we can actually work inside the business office
or inside the admissions office or the registration
or human resources focused on applications
and process issues rather than, and the functionality
of the software, rather
than actually having technical people sitting back
in a cubicle somewhere needing to be concerned about how to do,
you know, modify systems or do reports
or those types of things.
>> So you said after you get-- Oh, I'm sorry.
>> So until I get to that if you could give at least a little bit
of time to get some feedback
from these vendors I could be a lot more accurate.
I think I'm on record at a board meeting saying
that the initial cost would be somewhere between 3
and 8 million dollars or 3 and 6 million dollars
in the first year and then another I think half
of that each year in addition in the coming years following
that so three year-- 3 million to 6 million in the first year,
a million and a half to 3 million in the second year.
Again, it depends a lot on the solution that's put in place
and how it's put in place.
Sure, okay.
>> And when are you, I mean, these first bids or proposals
or whatever, when is that going to happen and then
when do you think you could come back to this?
>> We are still on target
for having a decision made by the end of June.
>> A decision made but I mean--
>> Well, we will know what our costs are going to be
in 10-year mapped out plan by that time
because we won't be going to the board with anything other
than a 10-year picture.
So we'll know what those costs are going to be.
>> So you won't have any even estimate before June for us
and this committee to consider and talk about.
>> We could have estimates.
You're-- we're-- I'm actually talking about real,
what we know what the real numbers are going to be
because while we know what the AIS may have as part
of its solution, there may be areas where they don't--
there are gaps in its functionality and we need
to acquire that from some other source, that may take
as a little longer to get to those numbers, you know.
Maybe I sit here and I think about fundraising software
or human resources software with respect to, you know,
web-based professional development planning
and performance evaluation stuff that most AIS's won't have.
>> Well, like for instance, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but if so-- if you said it was 3 to 6 million in the first year
and one and a half to three million in the second year,
so the first year would begin this coming June
so that would be for 2011-12?
>> First of July.
>> Yeah, okay, so that would be 11-12?
I'm sorry, 12-13?
>> 12-13 budget.
>> So even at those maximum amounts you're talking
9 million.
We already have 8 million and that would be
in the next 2 fiscal years.
So to say that we-- I mean,
that's why just having a rough idea helps me say, well,
do we really need to put aside a million dollars,
we're in a crisis right now.
>> Well, understand too that it--
that budget that Dr. van Pelt has mentioned not only includes
what we need to deal with with our AIS
but it's also all the other things that surround it.
We have network upgrade issues, we've got security audit issues
that we need to address, there's a number of things
that we're currently doing that are coming out of
that same pot and, you know, even hiring consultants to deal
with the existing Santa Rosa system,
helping us with programming efforts and that's really all
of that come out of that pool.
>> Let me suggest though and I do want to take a comment
from the student and well, let me do that one first
and I can't read the last name
but Andrew I do know, is that Boldt?
Bot? Okay, sorry.
>> Yeah, just a quick comment on the discussion
for the computer upgrade.
You know, obviously, if the systems on imminent--
you know, imminently crashing or could happen, that's something
that needs to be focused on but at the same time, I think,
it can be very easy when, you know, a budget gets threatened
for things to become very doom and gloom.
You know, it seems like there are two very different issues
with the computer upgrade,
one being some great integration we can do
to make the things easier for students, you know, for example,
the financial aid obviously would be really helpful.
I mean, I'm getting financial aid right now
and getting it 4 weeks sooner would be great
but if the choice is taking a class
or getting my financial aid couple of weeks later,
I would take a class instead.
So I just think it's important
to separate the possible system crashing items that need
to be taken care off immediately and the possible upgrades
that would help, you know,
students in the school just in general.
So in other words, separating those things from the things
that must happen that really need to happen for the school
to continue moving forward into the century and for the systems
to not be crashing, let's not worry about that,
but saving the things that maybe can be waited
on for a little bit later like integrating the financial aid
or some of the other areas where it will be helpful for students.
>> No, and I think, I mean, your point is well taken and part
of what we're even discussing is a multi-phased implementation.
>> Right.
>> Whereas instead of having 100 percent
of the system implemented in a very quick period of time
which would be much more expensive
than maybe having two thirds of the system but in all areas.
In other words, up to a minimum level
that can get us working and operating.
These are issues that we're really going to consider
and while maybe some applications adding on to the,
bolting on to the new AIS might be nice, we--
they're not absolutely essential and then
if we have these budget constraints,
and I've been these-- through these at many other institutions
that we really do have to make those choices at some point
in time and that's why we have a process that we do like this
and others too to make those kind of decisions.
It could be that I talked to Ben and we say, well, Ben,
we over in HR, and we say we don't implement this maybe
for another year and a half, two years until the funding settles.
So I get your point and it's a very valid one and we do that.
>> Good, and so, is the million dollars the bare minimum
to stop the system from crashing or is that the hopeful amount
to implement all these different things?
>> Well, as I viewed these million dollars
and I'm really not sure about the total objective
of the million in that, I feel that we're going
to have ongoing maintenance cost that we really have no choice
in dealing with and that's going to easily be
in the 500,000-dollar range, that it's going
to be standard every year.
So frankly, we need to budget for that, that needs to be
in operating, it doesn't need to be sitting
over in a capital fund that--
in other words, there's no real choice here.
And then those types of things, I think we need to be budgeting
that inside some type of, you know,
some type of a maintenance account.
>> What I would propose that the language be instead
of the million dollars, something along the lines
of the district will continue to fund the implementation
of the administration information system as possible
or something along those lines,
so that it's not specifically tied to the million dollars.
Is that acceptable to everybody?
>> Just a final comment.
Thanks for hearing me out.
I appreciate it.
>> Oh sure.
>> This is as a final comment.
It seems like, I'm not sure who puts together the possible cuts
or the possible ways we can save money but it seems like a lot
of people on this room have a lot more ideas that are on here
that maybe it would be a good idea to put together a time
where there's brainstorming or something to that effect.
But, I mean, it seems like even, I mean,
it's difficult leading it down this list
because so many more ideas are popping up already
and so it just seems like sometimes, these are set aside
for everyone to let those ideas happen
so even more idea is going to happen and we're not limited
to just was on this list.
>> Well, and the idea is
that this group represents the entire constituency
of the college and there will be brainstorming and as, you know,
Tom Berg mentioned earlier he's got an idea.
So I asked people to come forward with ideas.
Yes, they are going to be incorporated.
That is the role of the committee.
>> Well, thanks a lot.
>> Okay, and there's another student
and I'm not sure certainly of the pronunciation
but I think it might be, Konshik [phonetic], Konchik [phonetic].
If you could say how you really pronounce--
>> My name is Konshik [inaudible]
and I'm an international student in this college and I've been
in this college for one and a half years
and counting the spring semester, it would be two years.
My question regarding the new AIS is most
of the students they find it difficult to go
to the open classes and find their section numbers
and go back to the registration system
and by the time they do this, their 15 minutes is up.
So they're automatically kicked out.
My question is that in the new AIS,
will these open classes be integrated into the system
so that you can save a lot of time and at the same time,
the efficient-- the volume
in your servers would greatly be reduced.
So is there anything that you're considering doing?
I mean integrating into the new AIS?
>> First of all, I will get to the bottom
of the 15-minute issue.
I'm intrigued by that.
I know that in the old days, you have a tendency
to clock folk's access to systems because there weren't
that many open stations that were out there amongst,
around the campus that folks, well,
we didn't want folks planting themselves there for very long.
I'm not sure why the rule is what it is and I'm going to dig
into that so that by next meeting we certainly have some
understanding about it.
In fact, I may find a way to communicate
that on a campus-wide basis but the new system though
and to me those issues like that are-- are rules based.
We-- I could set 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 2 days, if I need it,
if I wanted to, so I really want to find out why we have
that particular issue but when systems do sit
like when you're banking online, if you sit there for a longer
than 5 to 10 minutes, it will log you out,
even when I've actually gone over and looking
to transfer funds from one area to another and then I come back,
well, it's-- my time has expired and it's
like well, that's interesting.
I hope we're not having that same kind of situation
but the new AIS will be much more efficient for you to use.
You shouldn't have those types of time constraints
and you'll be able to find
out a lot more information a lot faster, 24/7/52.
>> And one more thing is that I mean,
I just like to add the classes which have been canceled,
the 96 sections, I mean is there any way that students, I mean,
is there a way to communicate it to the students like well
in advance or with more efficiency like text messaging
or like campus police?
>> You want to deal with it?
>> Yeah, I'll take that one.
We hope there are more ways to do it efficiently and I'm going
to stick with the conversation about the AIS.
One of the things that we're troubled with
and we struggle with, the challenge is
in the 21st century the way we communicate in characters,
120 characters, which is the ideal, the most optimal way
to communicate, we can't do in our current system
and so we're somewhat hamstrung we have to send email blasts
and those kinds of things which are
in my opinion marginally effective communicating
with students particularly in real time.
So it is a challenge, we are looking at how best
to facilitate the communication with students and again
in real time environment but we are limited in our capabilities
of doing that in the current system.
>> Well, one of the things, too, that I think we want to explore
and we're going to be working with student services
in actually, I think, it came up during the last board meeting
with respect to email.
You know, most students have their own email
like I'm also discovering some employees have their own emails
that we really actually have a email address
for every single student so that there is an official
communication strategy for how we can at least talk.
Let's at least make the 20th century email system work the
way it needs to and then maybe we'll come up with some new ones
in the 21st century, okay.
But we want to at least take that step and get all students
on email and we are looking at a--
trying to look at a fall rollout of that strategy
but we really need to coordinate that across the institution.
We're also going to set some ground rules
for the employees of the institution.
When I can see some employees with Yahoo and Hotmail
and Earthlink accounts and communicating with me
and I'm looking to have to respond back to these, well,
coming to who is this person, well,
wait a minute, I recognize.
That's an employee, that's a faculty member
or that's a staff member
and they're not using the
We need to get everybody on the same page at least
with some email, then you can forward
that to whatever private email you want
but at least we have an official communication strategy
for communicating with staff and faculty and faculty
with students so hopefully, that will help.
But we also are looking or exploring
at social media type software too in the new environment,
so that we have other mechanisms where we can use your phone
and other ways of maybe doing blast like that
to get certain messages out.
>> Thank you so much.
>> You bet.
>> Okay, let me address a possible guiding principle
that Alex mentioned before he left and the language I came
up with is class sizes will be optimized
to match resources and expectations.
>> I think that there is potentially a problem with that
because and Ed, do you want to speak to this?
I see you rising so I'll let you speak to it.
>> Just I think that it's important to be aware
that class size, maximum class size or what's referred to also
as the NCN, the normal closing number, is set--
is something that is set through the curriculum process.
>> Right, understood.
>> So it's set really with pedagogy
as the primary consideration, what is the maximum number
of students that could be in a class
to optimize success for those students.
>> And if I can tag on to that, that brings us back
to the notion of strategic enrollment management
because if an NCN, for example, is set at 40 and because
of the curriculum
and instruction and/or pedagogical needs established
by C&I that number drops to 35, that just means
that we need more sections of that particular class
which means that we cannot offer sections of other classes
so it's just a question of how we allocate our resources
and again, it takes us back
to the student course taking behavior
and the completion agenda.
So the NCN is not as important as the--
as to how we allocate resources to get people
out of here more quickly.
>> And I realized that the purview here is the resources
for-- budgetarily.
The issue of course is that what Alex mentioned is
that I think there are ways of gaining efficiency.
>> Right.
>> And let me just address a point that I do think is kind
of critical and I think it gets lost a lot
and that's a relationship between FTES and the CAP
and the number of sections that are offered and the number
of seats that are actually available for people
to learn in, the enrollments.
>> So the FTES dictates our funding and our revenue stream.
The sections is what determines our expenditures.
But ultimately, the number
that is the most important is the enrollment.
So if the enrollment and I understand
that it might have dropped by 5 percent last year,
the total number of seats available to students.
If that number were to remain constant then the impact
to students can be negated.
>> Right.
>> But it has nothing to do with the FTES CAP.
That just sets the amount of money
that we get from the state.
To use the section count as the barometer or the metric
that we use is kind of a false metric.
>> Right, and so from an FTES--
and the point of view of using our FTES as effectively
as possible then we look to the possibility of different types
of teaching modalities whether it's online,
whether it's large group construction.
There are other ways in which
to exact greater financial efficiencies
by using different methods and instruction,
hybrid instructions and what have you.
>> Without reducing the impact or improving--
>> Exactly, exactly right.
And so much of these is tied
up in the academic professional matter's issue and you're right,
it's a delicate balance between resource allocation
from a financial point of view
and academic quality and integrity.
>> But I think that it's important for us
to not use the section count as the sole metric.
>> That's correct and I think going forward to Dr. Bell
and we've talked at length about budgeting on the basis of FTES
versus full-time faculty, full-time equivalent faculty
that we have and approaching our whole method
of building schedules in a different manner
which I think going forward we're going to start doing
with our deans as we work this through.
>> Because on a theoretical basis we could greatly increase
and exceed our FTES CAP without increasing cost.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay, now, that's an interesting dynamic
that could take place.
>> That's right.
>> And I think it's one that ultimately needs to be explored
by this group is if you're trying to match finite resources
with a greater demand then it's important
to come up with some balance.
>> And that's why there's been great discussion of late
about blending, enrollment managing, planning
and priorities and BRAC together because together all
of these things have got to be looked at, you know.
>> Right.
>> In a larger way.
>> Okay, let's move on in the guiding principles.
Compensation, there will not be a cost of living adjustment.
I think that's a fair statement.
The district will cover step column and longevity cost.
I'm not sure that that can be adapted anymore.
Now we could include it as a guiding principle
that is not adapted but at this point, I think that's one
of the items that needs to be on the table is that one
of the options that we could do is just suspend these step
column longevity increases, that's an option.
And I'm not saying it's a good option,
I'm just saying it's an option.
District will cover health
and welfare benefit cost as in the past.
I think that's another one that needs to be looked at.
>> Can I make a comment on that?
>> Yes.
>> Just to correct a fallacy that I keep hearing which is
that with respect to impact
on students regarding their full-time loads.
So you're aware in September 2010,
the Obama Care initial portions passed
which made mandatory insurance coverage for any child
up to age 26 regardless of their full-time student status,
so just to clarify.
When I keep hearing about the impact on student
and they'll lose their family health insurance, they won't.
>> What's the effective data that I kept hearing something
that that does not fully kick in to 2014 or something maybe--
>> That there are portions of the Obama Care health plan
that have not kicked in but that's not one of them.
That went into effect in September of 2010.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, so we're okay on what I mentioned there.
Total compensation model be used to guide compensation cost,
I think that has to be true.
Benefit plan upgrades will be discussed.
We're also working on containing the benefit cost
and we're working with, at the moment, [inaudible] to see
if there are options that are available
to where we can wring some of the money out of the system
so we're working on that as well.
So benefit plan upgrades will be discussed,
I think that's reasonable too.
And yeah, Dave?
>> Yeah, we had a health committee,
health and benefit committee.
Is that still going to go on?
I mean, this is where we tweak the benefit plans before.
>> Okay, Ben.
>> We're in a-- I'm in a process in working with Grace in trying
to resurrect this committee again.
We just not have gotten around to it yet.
But this is something that relates to what Rick indicated
and I wanted to go back to that benefit, benefit plan upgrades.
Maybe upgrade is not the word that needs to be there anymore.
Maybe just benefit plan review based on--
>> Benefit plan will be reviewed?
>> Yeah. And then going back, yes,
there is a benefits committee that wasn't exist in the past
and got dormant I guess for awhile and I'm
in a process of resurrecting that.
>> Yeah, because there was other things that were on that table
of how, you know, like going to a different carrier or whatever.
Instead of Keenan maybe PERS or something.
>> Yeah.
>> Things like that, a trust fund to cut cost and that was,
you know, pretty profitable last time we were looking at it
but it never went anywhere.
>> Alright.
I think down the road that's what you know,
this committee will get resurrected.
I just don't know when yet.
I just-- it's because of me not because of you know--
>> Right. It will be in time for the-- for this budget?
>> I don't know, Dave.
I don't have the answer for that right now.
>> I can tell you, Dave, that we're working with Keenan now
to have them do some brokering
to see what available health plans,
employee benefit plans are out there in relative terms of cost.
Right now, we're on a super composite rate which means
that we pay the same price for each employee
in a particular plan regardless how many dependents they have.
The cheer plans are much more expensive
but there are other carriers with different plans.
Right now, it's looking like the plans we have are the most cross
effective as long as we stand a super composite rate
and when we've been talks about review of the plans,
the plan we have with it's current adaptable, it's current
out of pocket, it's current prescription rates.
Those are all part of a cost package
to have you looked in total.
>> True but we are paying Keenan a fee for doing that.
Is that not correct?
>> Well, Keenan is our third party administrator
for not just our employee benefit plan
but for administration and [inaudible] in all
of our insurance coverage.
>> Are you asking if there's an extra cost
for them doing that now?
I'd, you know, I think what you're--
to go back to your question I think I would be
in a better position and maybe Gail and Rick would be
in a better position when we do resurrect these committee
to have this information rather than--
'cause I think what you only discuss way
in the past before I know I got anybody else,
it may not be well it be not relevant, not relevant
but it may not be the same data or it may have changed.
So I think the resurrect committee
without some information
to provide I think would not be productive.
And so I think we collecting the information then resurrect the
committee, maybe more productive then.
Does it make sense?
>> Yeah.
>> So do these discussions have to--
are these discussions part
of the collective bargaining discussions?
Otherwise, can this group make decisions without going back
and negotiating the impact those decisions
within the existing agreements?
>> No, to the extent that the health benefits,
there are issues concerning benefits provide to retirees
under the existing contract and of course change
in the health benefits structure this is something that has
to be discussed as part of the package.
>> Part of the pack in the negotiations?
>> Correct.
>> So you have to go back to the table, talk about the changes
to the health and welfare packages before you could put
them into effect?
>> I believe so.
>> Yeah.
>> As part of the cementation package.
>> So that-- that's just the timing issue that is important.
>> Well I think to-- I think what you're asking
and to clarify is-- I think what you're asking is do we--
>> We just can't snap our fingers and do it,
it's got to be-- the impact of it has got to be negotiated.
>> No, the-- because benefits come
under the scope of representation.
>> Right, exactly.
>> Right, there's some things that do not follow
in this corporal representers I think
but don't just talking about.
>> Exactly, in any event, what this committee will do is
to come up with recommendations for the board of trustees.
>> Got it, exactly.
>> Okay, continuing on in the human resources section.
I think that that's still in the exhausted list
but if anybody has any to add too that.
>> That first one,
early retirement will be considered during a budget
developing process.
>> Uh-hmm.
>> I don't know what that means based
on what the president had indicated in his message
about SRP will not be considered.
Is that-- is that statement still a problem?
>> Yeah, well certainly the--
what he said was that the savings
from SRP will not be used in order to balance the budget.
>> So--
>> I believe currently the statement is there will be no
tier 4 of the SRP.
>> Right, so would that--
is that statement still appropriate?
>> Well, we might have to tweet that one.
In what we could say is that savings
from SRP 3 will not be used to balance the budget
and the reason is because we're getting to the point
where we have to replace people and that's the reason why.
You want to say something Danny?
>> Well, yeah, I mean it seems to me
that the president said that'd what he wanted and I understand
that but there was never any discussion about it.
There's no committee that discuss that so I'm not ready
to accept that as that's the parameters
that we have to live under.
I think we should discuss that.
>> Okay?
>> I mean it was in basically an aid giving out by him,
I don't know who else he discussed it with,
maybe with the executive group.
Was it discussed by any body?
>> Obviously, he didn't dream enough in the middle
of the night so the answer is--
what you're going to find though is that in terms
of a guiding principle where you will adapt the
guiding principle.
The point is and I think that it's somewhat beyond dispute
that we're getting to the point where certain parts
of the organization will not be of operate.
So we have to replace people, we cannot continue
to do amputations here and you know,
if we're to leave the previous SRP.
alone, and not replace anybody from that,
okay we're down a hundred positions.
How much lower do we go before we impact the entire operation
in the organization?
And I think that's certainly a fair statement
that we have to replace people.
We did replace 22 faculty members
but that's just about it.
>> I'm not suggesting we don't replace people
but what I am saying is that for instance,
last year when we talked about SRP this whole idea
that it is a one time savings and I repeatedly ask you
to provide me with some information what the basis was
for being a one time-- I don't understand,
I guess my brain just doesn't work this way,
but how you can replace for instance a faculty member
or whoever and it's making a lot more money
with somebody who's making a lot less over the next 30 years,
how would he-- it's just a one time savings.
And that is--
>> What if--
>> I still haven't been able to--
>> And I think that we provided the actual real study on that,
that showed all of that, is that true?
>> No I don't believe so.
>> I think we did.
>> The answer is there are also cost associated with SRP.
Okay, so, yes, you can take money out of the system.
Now it is true that if you don't replace anybody,
then the reality is that the savings would continue forever.
If you do replace it, in our case,
what it did is it lowered our base, okay,
out base of the expenditures.
Now, what it did is we had
to pay pars I think 1.2, 1.3 million?
>> They fee is 4.75 percent of the annual.
>> But I think it turned into something at 1.3 million give
or take that we owe for the next 5 years in order
to cover the cost of the SRP.
>> Right, that's the payment to the-- right okay?
>> If we don't replace those people ever, then the base cost
of operating is lowered by that amount.
The trouble is of course,
the base revenues also dropped permanently and what we managed
to accomplish and how we've kicked the can
down the road is we used the total savings from last year
in order to cover this year's budget short fall.
Okay, therefore, that one is a neutral in terms
of revenue and expenditure.
Now if we move forward with another one, the trouble is
that we won't be able to replace anybody.
We did not expect to have to use all of SRP last year
to cover the budget cut but we did.
That's how we managed to balance the budget.
So this year, what the president has said is, well we have
to replace people, you cannot kick the can down the road,
we have to make structural changes.
Now what that mean is that there are difficult decisions here foe
us to make because this year as I pointed
out is an 11 million dollar problem
and then next is a six and a half.
Okay, so you add those two together, and that's 17
and a half million dollars off of the days last year of 120.
Okay, so that's basically a 15 percent reduction
in the course of the 2 year period.
>> Well, I don't follow everything that you said.
I guess I'm just a little slow.
But if you replace 22 friends
and you said we replaced 20 faculty, 6 last year.
Though most of the faculty, we're making well
over 90 thousand, 100 thousand right in that area and those
that you replace them with are probably making somewhere
in the area 60, 70 thousand.
That is an ongoing savings every year.
>> Every year they get a raise however.
>> Right, I know but--
>> Okay, so those numbers start to coincide.
>> Well, yeah over 30 years but not this year,
not next year I mean they do a little bit each year I mean--
>> So they actual real study shows how that can work.
If-- as soon as you start to replace people, then you start
to chew up the amount of money that's left.
Okay, so what we've done is we used all the savings from SRP
with the exception of that 1 million dollars and we put it
into how we reduce the ongoing expenditures of the district.
We went passed even what the actuarial studies suggest.
>> Well I know that's what you keep saying
but I still haven't seen it in numbers
and that's what I asked for last year.
>> I think we actually-- did we put that on the web or not?
>> No, I don't think so.
>> Okay, 'cause I can probably put that--
>> Just send me in the direction of it and I'll look at it,
if it doesn't answer my questions I'll bring it
up again.
>> Okay, thanks.
Alright, umm-
>> May I tell you something?
>> Yeah.
>> In health scientist-- here I go again,
our lab technician quit,
our skills lab technician quit and moved away.
And so what we have done, we have a few recent graduates
who haven't found jobs yet and they're actually working
on transferring to the university and so forth.
And so we have hired them as college assistants
or I'm not sure what they're status is
but they don't make a whole lot of money.
But we've been basically staffing our skills lab
with our recent graduates.
And they're doing a bang up job in saving us--
I guess they're saving us a lot of money in the process, okay?
>> What was-- you started with a change
of the language at the top where--
>> Yes.
>> What were you going to say?
>> Well, and what suggest is savings
from SRP 3 will not be used to balance the budget.
And Ed you want to say something?
>> Is that the one for the early retirement?
>> SRP 3 is the third phase of early retirement.
>> SRP 3 is on June 30th month [phonetic].
>> A question about that last category under resources,
how do we cross the table?
>> And I don't mean to come up here and sound like I'm
against having faculty.
That's not what I'm doing.
But how critical is it that we replace
or that we hire the faculty
that we have advocated doing so at this point?
In other words, how does this relate to our legal obligation
to have a certain number of full-time faculty?
>> To have a frost as opposed to a freeze?
>> Yes, also.
I think he's talking about the-- [Simultaneous Talking]
>> The full-time faculty obligation number?
>> Right.
>> And you know I don't know what
that calculation shows, do you?
>> I do and per the calculation
which is quite a calculation required
by the chancellor's office we have a financial--
we have a fiduciary responsibility
to have 378 full-time faculty at PCC based upon our current FTES.
That number would go down the following year
if we get a reduction.
In order to achieve 378 we have to hire 10 new faculty.
However, the district has an option which is to incur a fine
of I believe the last time I heard was roughly 65,000 dollars
per faculty member if we do not hire those folks.
Now for years and I say years, at least the last three or four,
every district has expected the Board of Governors to waive
that requirement but they have not done so.
And I think that's based upon academic senate--
statewide academic senate and other concerns
that we want to maintain.
The state wants to maintain a solid pool of full-time faculty
at all their campuses.
>> So we are indeed under a legal obligation
to hire those 10--
>> We are on a statutory obligation.
I turn to counsel and see if that's legal or not.
But we are under some requirement
by the chancellor's office
to maintain a full-time faculty obligation number of 378
of which we are now currently 10 below that.
So they're hiring-- the hiring fair, whatever they call it.
>> Yeah, that's what he's talking about.
That's why we're having a job fair--
>> Job fair.
>> Tomorrow.
>> Tomorrow.
>> Yeah, yeah, actually tomorrow.
>> Right. So perhaps this one should be changed
to reflect something about having
to meet our legal obligations with regards to--
>> Well, I think that the idea to say frost is
that it does not mean to freeze,
that we have the ability to hire people.
But it's going to be on a highly restricted basis.
>> And I would agree.
I just want to comment that it's not just faculty we absolutely,
necessarily need.
I mean as Rick said the custodians you know,
my area needs researchers,
Dwayne's area needs some web staff.
I mean, there are some people that we--
whether we serve 25,000 students or 30,000 students we need staff
to do it in certain key areas.
>> Right. Dave?
>> Yeah, but the custodians and webcasters,
that's not a requirement by the state, is that correct?
>> No, it's not but--
>> I believe the teachers is 75-25?
>> Yes. As far as I know there's no requirements thing
on the teaching.
But we have an obligation again
from an academic integrity quality,
health [inaudible] everything else that we do around here.
We've got to do anything.
>> You're not arguing to not hire custodians or anything?
>> Well, not arguing.
I just didn't want anybody to have the misconception
that state requires that we have
so many people on custodial staff.
Because I know there is the teachers that's--
>> Or even electricians?
>> Or electricians, whatever.
>> Well, there-- you know my experience has been
that some institutions be given the union contracts
that square footage increases and adjustments has an impact
on the number of custodial staff and number of campus police
and other types of services like that.
I don't know if ours are covered like that
but that would be the only obligation
that I would understand that we'd have.
We certainly don't have that on the web--
the web side of the house.
We don't have to hire the staff, we just could--
we would have to go out and hire a consulting organization
to do it for us but-- okay, let's continue.
And we're going to be--
we're going to come back to this every single meeting by the way
that we'll continue to adapt this.
So next time I'll have another one
and another iteration and so forth.
On the instructional side, does anybody have--
some of these numbers obviously are going to change
and fairly much by the day.
They changed now for instance with the FTES.
Lottery revenue will be budgeted the rate recommended,
district will provide grant matches,
fee-based extension courses.
I assume that on the instruction end everybody is okay with that.
And as you take these away and think
of something else then bring it to the next meeting.
Okay, on the miscellaneous increase cost effect
in this restructuring, that's an ongoing process.
College-wide class scheduling room assignments, 25 live,
when does 25 live going to go live?
>> You would ask.
>> Yeah, exactly.
I'm told fall of 12th.
That will be this coming fall.
>> Use them.
We're going to test it this--
>> Yeah, they're testing it right now.
They're working out right now
between the technology and other things.
But at fall 12 is when they--
is when it's going to go live, live.
>> Okay.
>> It's actually being used a little bit right now
and what have you but it's--
>> Can we go back to instruction for a minute please?
>> Yes.
>> You know, low-enrolled classes,
sections will be canceled by the start
of the semester, et cetera.
Now, and I know there are people looking at this
but it would seem to me that a group of people
from multiple discipline should get together in a room
and have a big chart that says, this is every course
that the students are required to complete to transfer
to the four-year institution,
associate degrees awarded will be increased,
the STEM certificates.
And then look at okay, what are the commonalities?
What-- what class?
What history or government class will meet the requirement
for the most people or what have you?
And offer the section--
if that's our goal for them to get certificates and to transfer
and to get associate degrees then let's offer the courses
that meet that and let's cancel the courses that don't.
I mean it seems kind of--
>> Simple.
>> Simple and smart and sensible.
>> Ed just needs to stand at the lectern, I think.
You're just dying to say something.
>> Yeah.
>> It just--
>> Please.
>> Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
>> Yeah.
>> But it is something that we are trying to address
through the enrollment management committee.
And to change our current policy and procedures actually
to provide more guidance to the deans and other administrators
about how to prioritize the retention of class sections.
Or how to reduce those that perhaps can be cut.
Okay, so--
>> And we have--
>> So it-- that's a good thought but we need to find a way
to implement it systematically and fairly.
>> And we have a meeting this coming Monday at 12:30
to continue our discussions along these lines,
the enrollment management committee
and everybody's invited to attend.
>> Thank you and you know as an example
and I'll go in nursing again.
You know, for the anatomy and physiology,
there's a chemistry prerequisite.
And I spoke to Dave Douglas the other day just to verify this
that one-- chemistry 2A is the one that will transfer
to Cal State L.A., Cal State Northridge
and it meets half the requirement at Long Beach.
The other ones that are options do not meet that requirement.
So my question is why offer that?
Why give that an option?
That just confuses the students.
They take the wrong chemistry.
They go to the university that they have to repeat it.
It seems if 2A meets the prerequisite
for the science courses
that almost all the health science division students take
and is transferable to the university, that's the chemistry
that should be offered.
I think.
>> So you're working with that, Bob?
>> Yes, we are.
The enrollment management committee and Tom, I invite you
to come to the committee and say--
>> That's in here.
>> I beg your pardon?
You're going to have better technology to manage this stuff
and you know, as we look at options going forward in terms
of how we build our schedules, what--
you know, like for example
in a seminar session could we do everything
where we schedule Monday through Thursday
and literally shut the campus
down Friday, Saturday and Sunday?
We could begin to do things like that if we're going
to have a dramatically reduced summer section which--
session which it looks like we will this summer.
And let's say we only have 100 to 150 sections, can we put all
of those in one building or two buildings and literally shut
down the other buildings
from a utilities point of view or whatever.
Yeah, the answer is yes
and we can wring some efficiencies out of that.
And there's no reason why this summer we can't do
that if we're going to all leave now and to schedule 100
to 150 sections, whether to put them all in the C building,
the R building or wherever you want to put them.
>> Okay. Under miscellaneous, LA county election expenses
for 2011 will be budgeted.
Okay, now, one of the things that we have done forever is
that we budget each year for biannual election.
So what happens is that we budget a constant amount
which I think is about a quarter million dollars per year.
This past year in the current budget year,
but in November we had an election.
And I don't-- have we seen the bill
for that yet, from the county?
I don't think we've seen that one yet.
But it's likely to be in the four,
five hundred thousand dollar neighborhood.
And basically, we just get an invoice
and then that's what we get to pay.
So Dr. Kossler always used to budget this every single year
and then set the money aside in the alternate years.
So you budget basically a quarter million dollars per year
as opposed to zero, 500,000, zero, 500,000 'cause of course
when you're budgeting the way that we do that has kind
of an impact on what you do from one year to the next.
So it is one of the issues that we will have to deal
with for the 2013 election for the board of trustees.
This of course does not cover the actual campaigning
and stuff.
This is just the bill that we get
from the county to run the election.
>> Sounds like a maintenance cost to me
that just needs to be budgeted.
>> It kind of is.
>> Yeah.
>> But it's one of the principles.
We change the number from 2011 to 2013 but that's another one
and we don't have to decide that today.
Okay. So, in general, what we'll do is we'll have another crack
at this and then we'll distribute new version next
time, is that all right?
Okay. Let me just-- if we can quickly deal
with the institutional effectiveness committee
and how you're going through the program review and whatnot,
'cause that does have an impact on the budget as well.
>> I'll speak briefly to this and perhaps Ed might want
to make a comment or Dustin to comment as well.
Under the auspices
of the academic senate we have an institutional effect
in this committee.
Cynthia Olivo, Dean Olivo is here.
She is one of the co-chairs along
with Shelagh Rose is a faculty co-chair of that committee.
And they have been engaged in very, very heavy lifting
and very, very hard work now for over a year.
And their purpose is to review the program reviews
as are submitted to them by the faculty
through the divisions and up to the IEC.
And then from an accreditation point of view
or from a continuous cycle improvement point
of view the idea is, is that they look
at those program reviews, they assess those program reviews,
they provide information and comments back to the faculty
and others that are bringing those forth.
And those faculty then begin
to make improvements based upon the recommendations
that are provided.
The district has something called a program
discontinuance policy.
And at some point the IEC would likely bring thoughts forward
through the academic senate that maybe certain programs do
or should be considered for discontinuance.
And at that point would be the one
that program discontinuance policy to kick in.
Ed or Dustin have I-- or Cynthia have I given this
enough justice?
>> Well, let me just say
that over the past year we have done a lot
to encourage this sense of you know,
sacred peer review providing--
everyone providing feedback to faculty and to programs
for the sake of becoming more effective for students.
We have not talked about program discontinuance.
We do know that the academic senate is wanting
to review the program discontinuance policy
and that the IEC might play a role on that.
>> Right. Okay, 'cause that is one of the issues
that at a certain point we're going to have to wrestle
with the idea that we can't be everything to everybody.
>> Right.
>> And then you end up having to prioritize what we really do.
And you know, there aren't going to be too many simple decisions
as a result of what we're about to go
through in the next few weeks with this committee.
Now one of the things that we are going to have to--
did you want to say something, Tom?
>> Well, just I know that there are programs that have run
with three students and a full-time teacher.
When I was on the academic senate,
Ellen Ligons did a report about numbers of certificates
that were awarded in various programs,
some awarded no certificates.
And to the best of my knowledge those things continue.
It seems that we have heard that this is a problem for years
but nobody seems to have the will to make the tough decision
and say we don't have any money, we have to cut this.
So I guess I'm skeptical that it will actually happen
because I think it's painful and unpleasant
and nobody is willing to do it.
I think that we're going to find that all
of our decisions are going to be painful and unpleasant.
But that's just a given of what we're about to go through.
The key point right now is, is that it is not business as usual
and the way that we've done it in the past will not be the way
that we do it in the future, that's just a given.
You can't cut the amount of money that we're about to cut
without having any impact.
>> Yeah. I mean within my own division we ran a program
with four students and paid a full time teacher the whole
year, it's a 12-month program, full time,
summer and everything for four students.
>> Right.
>> It doesn't seem-- you know, it's great for those students
but it doesn't seem like it's fiscally sound.
>> I agree with you completely.
>> Yeah. Well, we're going to have it on here about like
for the summer for our 410 and then close the cost
down to not only classes for Saturday and Sunday
but civil service or civil events.
>> Civic center?
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I think that's one of the options
in that needs to be on the table.
You know, everything is on the table.
>> Right, but will it be on here,
on the table for discussion?
>> For an option, yes, absolutely.
So what we now need to talk
about is we have a 2.85 million dollar gap that we need
to bridge for the current year.
And we need to start talking now about what we're going to do
in order to bridge that gap.
So, you know, there are several ways of doing this.
The most unfair way is to do across the board budget cut
because you know, portions of the organizations
that are running very efficiently would be punished
disproportionately to the ones that are running inefficiently.
So I don't think it's fair to say, okay,
let's do across the board cut.
But 2.85 million dollars at this point is not easy to come by.
So we did set aside a million dollars for hiring new people
and it's entirely possible that we could take three quarters
of a million dollars off that.
And then because by the time
that we hire people it's likely to be May.
And we might only need two months.
And that's only going to be for critical positions.
But you know, so one of the options is to nip
out three quarters of a million dollars.
Okay. Now, if we were to do-- and what we'll end up doing is
that we'll keep a tally on how much money we can come up with.
And then we'll, you know, have some kind of a charter
or something of where we are in order
to get up to the full 2.85.
But people need to start, you know, thinking of a way
of finding that money.
>> I just have a question, a verification.
Are the 10 faculty members still going to be hired
that were ranked by a committee earlier this semester
or are they-- is that frozen?
>> Well, that would be for the coming year in any event.
So that's a 12-13 issue and the answer is that if the FON,
the Full-time Obligation Number is that we need to hire 10
or pay the fine then you hire the 10
and you don't pay the fine.
>> Thank you.
>> Or it's suspended.
So I think that that's one of the things that we need
to develop for the 12-13 budget for the 10-11--
for the 11-12 budget we need the 2.85
and that's not a part of the deal.
>> Yeah. Is there any way we can get a copy
of what consultants are on staff right now
and contracts and so forth?
And how much did they're committed to them?
>> Yeah, that's easy to come by, that'd be on the--
right now if somebody's got a computer you can look it
up on the budget 'cause you--
what's the object code for consultants, Mary?
>> Five thousand object codes.
>> What is it, all five thousand?
>> All the five thousand.
>> All the five thousand
>> Majority of the five thousand-- 51 is on the fifth--
the 5000 object, the first half, not the 5820 but some are also
on the 5820 when it's only one time.
>> So the majority of the 5,000 bank, so if you see all
and there's a line in the budget that says total for 5,000,
that's going to be the number.
>> Yeah. But is that--
all of them are they're broken down into--
>> It'll show which departments have them 'cause
that will breakdown them into constant.
>> Not necessarily the consultants themselves, correct?
>> That's correct.
>> And then you've got
to differentiate fund 1 from fund 3.
>> Okay, yeah.
>> 'Cause some of these are fund 3's, right?
>> Fund 3 consultants are not an issues here 'cause, you know,
fund 3 we're not going to touch.
'Cause in fund 3 is soft, only that's the grant money
that comes in so it's not district money.
>> Right.
>> That would not look-- because we're not going
to obviously get rid of the grant.
>> Right.
>> And--
>> So.
>> Yeah, exactly.
>> So I mean the-- I think the entire executive committee is
here, right?
[Inaudible Remark] Who?
Except for mark [phonetic]-- except for mark.
So the entire operation of the institution in terms
of executives is here and it's going to come
down to what money can we find in our budgets
in order to cover 2.85.
>> One of the things that I think we might ought to do,
I like to our recommendations from our colleague
from the nursing area with respect
to maybe some brain storming, you know,
it would be nice somehow if we could find the way
to an elicit ideas from across the institution maybe set
up something where we leverage the web
to at least start getting ideas across the campus
and at least let those filter in and become part of the strategy.
I do think everything needs to be on the table
and we'll certainly look very critically but I really
like being able to hear the ideas and that idea
and that idea spawn a different idea.
And so I think there's synergy that comes from that
and plus I think on an institutional level,
if the college as a whole really had an opportunity to have
that input, at least they have now had an opportunity
to say what they want and we take those ideas.
And as a group, we can actually take a very serious look
at that 'cause we do have two pieces of this equation.
We got to deal with some stuff now.
Some of those recommendations might actually quite easily
replying now but also into the future.
So and some maybe only now, so those are the kind
of things we ought to maybe consider as we go forward.
>> Rick, that 2.8 you're talking about--
what was the job they mention about,
this maybe a stupid question but what is the drop date date--
drop dead date we need to come up with the--
>> June 30th.
>> June 30th.
>> But the deal is what will happen is we're just not going
to get that money.
>> Right.
>> Okay, so in effect,
what occurs is the state short is even more
in our apportionment.
>> So for our decision though, that's what I'm talking about.
>> No, well, we have until June the 30th.
>> June 30th.
>> But the reality is, if you have June the 30th,
you have no time to do it.
>> We're trying to identify 2.8 million dollars to save
out of the budget between today and June 30th.
>> Right, but the [inaudible]--
>> And actually save that money.
>> We actually have to save it in this budget year.
>> Definitely.
>> So the drop dead date is June the 30th but the reality is
that we have to come up with whatever we need to come
with as quickly as possible.
>> That's what I was trying to ask.
I didn't ask it well, well--
but, so what is the preferred date
that should come up with and--
>> Tomorrow.
>> Yeah. 3 o'clock or 3'clock to 7.
[Simultaneous Talking]
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> Can we go back to Dwayne's point 'cause it was a good one,
I think what Dwayne was saying is we--
if we can figure out a way to put out a call maybe
over the polls or maybe through the [inaudible] what page
or something that basically says, you know,
it's the employee drop box for ideas for saving money.
>> Well, our students.
>> Or students, you know, basically and then getting--
and then collecting all that and then taking a look
at it 'cause I think you're right,
there might be some good ideas and-- you know.
>> What just takes that up Dwayne?
>> I don't know.
I was going to go back and sit down with the few people
and discuss how quickly that could be set up.
>> Budget savings suggestion box [inaudible]--
>> It's not going to crash the system right,
'cause you might want to jump on it.
>> Well, what would be helpful is
because what you mentioned is brain storming one idea even a
bad one can lead to a really good one.
>> Exactly.
>> So if everybody can see that, if there's some way
for everybody to be able to contribute to--
to an ongoing discussion.
>> Yes, I think if we-- I like the idea of categories
in that 'cause some folks may have some certain good ideas
and areas.
For instance I'm not-- there maybe some things I might work
in an instruction but not a lot.
I think the real beneficial ideas will come from faculty
and those that work in those respective areas but--
but then it have the entire list as a very running public list.
You may even get input from the community.
>> Right.
>> And, so will-- let us look a quick way that we could do that?
>> And then should that be anonymous or should
that be required that they, you know, will comes from.
>> Well--
>> I think it should be anonymous.
>> I think--
>> People might be really willing to put it out there.
>> Yeah.
>> Even though their colleagues might disagree
if they don't have to be identified.
>> I agree and there are certain ways
that would need to be handled.
But the other aspect of that too is
that they can certainly make it optional.
In that, there maybe questions that come
out of a particular idea that we don't really understand the way
it was said or way it was explained
so that someone could actually follow up and say, "Okay,
if could understand more clearly what you're saying
and why you're saying it, that might be helpful
for the committee to look at those ideas."
But at least you make it optional
if they choose to say that.
>> I think it might also be helpful
to let them identify their category of employment
or their area in a broad general term, you know.
>> Student faculty.
>> Student and faculty, student would have you so we'll know
where the idea is coming from.
>> Okay, everybody okay with that?
>> I think we also might want to add on 'cause we keep saying--
asking for suggestions for the cut.
We also might want to ask
for ways we can generate some revenue 'cause we can only make
so many cuts.
And if we limit it to just cuts is all we're going
to get seems like.
>> Uh-hmm.
Two sides of the equation.
>> Our next meeting is Friday.
>> Well, and we need to talk
about that 'cause I think we're going to have to do it
in two weeks from now because of the previous commitment
that I have.
But if it's possible, well,
let's just talk about the schedule.
Last year we met from 1 to 3
and I think we met twice a month or every other week.
>> Approximately.
>> Okay, so the question that we have right now is
for everybody's-- and I know that Tom has issues
with scheduling and did before.
In terms of what the preference is for Friday's and we are going
to meet every Friday until we resolve the issue
with the exception like I said of next Friday.
But then thereafter every Friday
and I think we have one other week
which is spring break Friday and we are going
to be closed apparently during the entire spring break anyway.
We have another one?
>> The Cesar Chavez on March 30.
>> Oh yeah, March the 30th we go dark as well.
>> Yes.
>> And commencement.
>> And commencement, Friday.
>> June 15th.
>> And other and hopefully--
and we need to talk about when we're going to come
up with this plan too.
Does anybody have any preference in terms of time?
Is 12 o'clock better, is 1 o'clock better or--
>> 12 is always good as long as lunch is here.
>> Thank you.
[Laughter] [Simultaneous Talking]
>> That's right.
I think that's why last year we did 1 o'clock.
>> No, but the earlier, 12-- I prefer 12.
I got to go back to traffic, so start earlier [inaudible].
>> I will [inaudible] 12 as well.
>> I think anybody if we welcome to bring their lunch
with them if they need to eat.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> If you don't mind the microphone being covered
in food.
>> They'll bring enough for 2.
>> [Inaudible] we're here at 6.
>> You and me.
>> That's true, I get here at 6.
We get a breakfast meetings.
>> People would prefer 12 o'clock.
Is there anybody who would prefer not 12 o'clock other
than me?
>> I prefer 1 but maybe we could compromise on 12:30.
>> So there's some time for lunch.
Is that-- if we did and hopefully we can restrict it
to 2 hours so, if it's-- instead of 3,
'cause I think what we said was 12 to 3.
>> Right.
>> I just wanted to point
out that the institutional effectiveness committee
which has faculty, it's a shared governance group,
we meet Friday's from 12:30 to 3:30
and faculty members teaching assignments for,
you know, designed around that.
So I don't know that we could change
and if somebody here could keep us posted on the dialogue
at the resource allocation committee
so that we are still able to find out what's happening here.
>> How often is that committee meet?
>> We meet every Friday.
12:30 'til 2:30.
>> So you guys met today?
>> We start next Friday.
>> Oh, next Friday.
>> After the first week of classes.
>> And where do you meet?
>> Here.
>> We use to meet here.
>> Yeah, but-- [Inaudible Discussion]
>> We don't mind meeting in the President's conference room.
We wanted to meet there but you all met there, so.
>> Okay. So, is 12:30 to 2:30 acceptable as a compromise?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Any objection?
Okay, so 12:30 to 2:30 and then let's talk about our schedule
because we do need to come up with a schedule
that will bring in two things.
One is the current year 2.85 million dollars
and the second is I think that what we need to do is come
up with at least the basic structure
of the budget by July the 1st.
We have no control over when the state actually enacts
the budget.
We typically-- if they enacted on time before July the 1st,
we find out what the impacts are to PCC about the second
or third week of August is when it's all been digested,
the Chancellors Office has done their thing,
then they have a meeting where they hand
out budget books to everybody.
Okay, so necessarily, it continues on into August.
Statutorily, by September the 15th, the budget must be adapted
by the Board of Trustees.
What that means is that we have a roll over budget,
an interim budget that is establish and passed
by the board by July the 1st.
Otherwise, we have no legal authority to spend any money.
So we will come up with a, you know, basically perform a budget
where we just change the numbers from '11, '12, to 12, 13,
take the current year budget, put it before the Board
of Trustees and have them adapted as a temporary budget.
So what we're going to do is we need to work backward
and this is going to be rather extensive process
from July the 1st to get the basic structure in place.
It means that every week, we're going to have
to address some issue of some significance and make some kind
of decision moving forward.
And if people have ideas to what they'd like to address first,
we also of course have to dovetail
in with the other committees,
the enrollment management committee,
institutional effectiveness
for program review and all that stuff.
So exactly what the mechanism is to feed into this
and how quickly the other committees are going to come
to resolution or recommendation.
I'm not sure how to do that.
Do you have any idea Bob with institutional effectiveness
for program review and how that can be fit into this?
The part of the accreditation requirement is
that the planning process be tied and linked closely
with the budget group.
>> You know the--
>> So we've got to get the feedback in here.
>> The issue of course is planning discontinuance policy
Ed and you know we've talked about this because its--
Rick, you want to try to address
that a little bit or maybe you don't.
But the point is is that you don't jump out of your church
and quickly but the point is is that this institution
like many colleges has never fast tracked the discontinuance
of any program.
Now, we are in a financial crisis and therefore
as you've stated before, Rick,
we may have to make some quick decisions as Thomas pointed
out an example for example,
but we don't really have the shared governance mechanism
to do that at the moment.
>> Right. I don't see how--
I'm not sure how any of this frankly that we done quickly.
But in the normal course of business, my understanding is
that your recommendations would go then
to the appropriate other body.
Say for example the curriculum instruction committee
or enrollment management or one of the other bodies
and then it would go work its way
through the normal shared governance process.
>> Because what we're really discussing here is the
possibility of suspending certain district policy
on the basis of a financial crisis.
>> Okay.
>> And making decisions as a result
of that financial exigency crisis whatever word you want
to use.
That's our challenge and, you know, we're caught between--
we're caught between the budget reality
in the shared governance realities in the district policy
and how we move forward as a result to that.
>> Right.
>> But I would say, frankly it seems to me that it all depends
on what the particular recommendations might be.
>> Right.
>> I mean again whether there are something that--
that really does need the input of say again the CNI committee
or again, whatever the particular recommendations
might entail.
>> Right. And of course we have faculty who are impacted
by these decisions and--
>> Sure.
>> Load issues and all kinds of issues
that we have to bear in mind--
>> Right.
>> As we make this decisions.
>> Right.
>> So one of the things Anthony I might ask is can we identify
how much money is not being spend on way
to salaries and benefits?
So people who resigned over the course of the year
where there was budget in place and we haven't replace them.
Ultimately I think that the bulk of the numbers going to come
of wages and salaries.
And I suppose the benefit portion to the extent that,
you know, 'cause that will run somewhere around 25
or so percent of the salary cost.
But if we can identify open positions,
if we are to take all the-- the one in 2--
in 3,000s and add them together, is there a way
of seeing any amount of money that might be left over?
>> Yeah, we should build a measure of vacancy.
>> 'Cause typically, you know, when you talk
about sweeping the budget at the end of the year,
that's typically an area
and unfortunately our budget system is anything
but what you need to run a budget on a dynamic basis.
We don't have the ability to see where we are in the middle
of the year and where we're going to end up.
And we don't have benchmarks along the way
to be able to track.
If we are able to budget by the month for example,
we could keep monthly score card to see if we're
above or below budget.
What happens is the time between adaption of the budget
and the close of the fiscal year is just a big black box.
And if we could come up with any estimate at all
of where we might be, that's an area
that seems the most promising.
>> Yeah, we should come up with a--
the new AIS has online budget.
>> Yes.
>> It's just recurring [inaudible].
>> But every time we come back--
>> Just keeps coming up.
>> At the same problem because people wonder how we get
to the end of the year and can be surprised.
And as Marie can attest,
the number starts swinging rather wildly
in the middle of July.
And from one day the next, you can move by 2 million dollars
because of the close outs that have to occur
in the post teams that have to be done.
So as they go through the individual components
of the budget and the financial statements
and start closing things down, it's like, wow,
that one was over, that one was under.
And we don't even know before the year ends
and how we're going to end up.
And in fact and this is every year that I've been here,
come about the third week of July, you'd really don't want
to ask Monday to the next 'cause the numbers are swinging
around so badly.
Is that not true?
>> Yeah, it's true.
>> But it's also true that we traditionally over project
or under project what our revenues are going to be
and over project what our expenditures are going to be.
>> The over projection of expenditures that usually occurs
with positions to where people retire, resign, transfer,
whatever they do during the course of the year.
90 percent of the budget is that and therefore those are swings
that aren't anticipated during the course of the year.
That the unfortunately part
of the revenue projections is we don't make
up any of those numbers.
They're given to us.
And this year, you have no idea how it's going to be.
Proper taxes this year, we've already been told are going
to be 49 million dollars lower, okay?
Well, that means that that's one million dollars to us
and that's a chunk of our budget.
Okay, those numbers are projections that were given
by other department of financier,
the Chancellor's Office and those are the numbers
that we use and they don't have any control over them either.
>> But I mean, over the last 8 to 10 years here,
if you take the over projection of expenditures
and under projections of revenues which ends
up being the sweep at the end of the year.
>> Correct.
>> For instance, since 2007, our reserves are gone from 14
and 1/2 million to almost 19 million,
that's 4 and 1/2 million.
The President's letter said we've used up all our savings.
>> Right.
>> We've added 4 and 1/2 million into our reserves, okay.
>> But I think that to be clear, what we're talking about is
that there's a distinction to be made
between the reserves and ending balance.
We're using our-- the amount of money that we have in order
to actually make our payroll and so forth.
So what he's talking about is we expect the ending balance,
if we were to close the books June the 30th on a cash basis,
we will be-- we would have 4 million dollars worth of assets
for the ending balance.
That means receivables and cash.
A bunch of that is receivable and not cash.
But what is the-- is it normally about a third is receivable?
>> About, last year it was like 19 million.
>> Yeah. And that the receivables were about 6 or so.
>> Oh, 19-- because of the state deferral
on [simultaneous talking].
>> Well, that's true.
We ended the year with 19 million dollars
in receivables 'cause we didn't have that money
until the state made us whole
and then the receivable came in the form of cash.
It is a very-- you have to remember
that our budget is set based
on a fiscal year, that's the one side.
That's the operational budget.
The other side of it that we never pay much attention
to is the cash basis.
And we have to have, actually have cash
in order to pay our bills.
Okay now, the answer is, thankfully in, you know,
over the course of the years, we've been able
to put additional money in during ending balance
because otherwise this probably would be even worse.
Three years ago, we did a tax and revenue anticipation now
which is borrowing, we borrowed 10 million dollars
because we weren't expecting to be able to make the payroll.
As it turns out, and that cost us I think almost
200,000 dollars.
I think it was 180,000.
Okay, last year we've decided not to do
that because we're borrowing from ourselves and we're going
to see if we can continue to do that to
where we'll just borrow money from ourselves
and from the other funds.
>> But I asked last year in this committee whether we had ever
borrowed intra funds within our own college last year
and the answer was no.
>> That's correct.
>> So we didn't borrow from any other funds.
The President's letter said we've borrowed from other funds
that we'd borrowed from externally
and the 10 million we borrowed 3 years ago or 2 years ago,
we didn't actually need.
We didn't end up needing.
I'm not questioning the decision to do it
but we didn't actually need to borrow that money
because we didn't need it, we didn't use it, is that correct?
>> That's true.
>> Okay, so you know, statements are made
and the impression is left that we're borrowing money left
and right from interfunds and we can't keep doing that.
The President's letter said we haven't lived
within our expenses since 2007.
But it's-- I've looked at the 311 Q's
which are the official numbers, and we have 4-1/2 million more
in reserves than we did in 2007.
>> Okay, yeah.
>> On June 30th.
>> And what you have to be careful is when you're looking
at 311 Q's, there are four of those in a year, okay,
and what you'll see is that during the course of the year,
those numbers are pretty dramatically different.
So when you get toward the third quarter
and fourth quarter you'll see that the amount of money that is
in reserve diminishes pretty dramatically.
Then the fourth quarter, the 311 Q for the fourth quarter comes
out after the year has been closed out.
Okay, what's missing from there is the texture
that occurs between.
If you're going to start tracking the cash
on a per day basis, you will see that alarm bell start going off.
Okay, so yes, for the last few years we have asked for
and received board authorization to borrow the money
because we do have an expectation to that.
Now, as it happens, the situation is very fluid.
So last year the state paid us quicker in July
than they promised that they would.
They had more money in July, we got more money.
Okay, July is the real problem because July starts off
with the state having borrowed its maximum money from us
and the budget not having been yet enacted
and our budget not being in place, we don't get money
from the state as quickly.
So therefore the July payroll is
where the problem typically comes.
So yes, we do expect to set up and every year we expect
to receive board authorization to do interfund transfers.
>> Right, you get the authorization
but we've never actually borrowed.
>> No, thankfully and that's part of the reason is
because the projections at the end of the year,
we actually have money left over.
And I've told you this before is
that we have never actually planned on doing a sweep
at the end of the year.
The way that the numbers pencil out is pretty tight,
then at the end of the year for the reasons I mentioned is
that we thankfully have money left over that helps us
out for the following year.
So last year we had, we went from about 19 million
to this year's expectation is 22 million
of interest free borrowing by the state.
They just withhold our money, okay.
Well that means 3 million dollars more.
We have a reputation that we pay our bills on time both
to the employees and to our vendors and contractors
and it's important to actually manage our cash properly.
>> Right. But I realize the cash flow thing is one thing
but the amount of money and living
within our expenditures is another thing.
And so my point, if the money is deferred,
you're eventually going to get it and if you need to borrow
in order to pay something, you can.
I'm not suggesting that we do that, I'm not.
Listen, it's not in my best interest or any
of the faculty's best interest for this institution
to be in financial trouble.
I mean this, you know, so it's not
like I have a vested interest in us to do well here.
So, but my point is that the idea that we've used
up our savings when we've actually added 4-1/2 million
dollars to our savings over the last 4 or 5 years is one thing.
And I understand there're fluctuations throughout
the year.
I'm not arguing with that.
But-- and again, I have to look back historically
but even this year our expenditures
as of December 31st, so halfway into the year,
worth 41-1/2 percent of expenditures that 6 point--
9.6 million dollars under what we expected to expend by them.
>> The trick though, Danny, is you need to remember
that for financial purposes,
there are 13 months in the year, okay?
Because you really do have July is a part of June, okay.
So when you're doing accrual based accounting,
you end up having to attribute the expenses that occur
and the way that the budget, the books are closed out,
there are a lot of swings that occur in the month of July.
So it is not accurate to say
that December 31st is halfway through the year.
>> Okay. My point is that again, over the last 5 years,
the average between money put into reserves and money swept
into other accounts because we either received more revenues
than projected or expended less than expected has been between 5
and 6 million dollars.
Every year on average over the last 5 years throughout this
whole entire crisis, is that not true?
>> It could be.
>> Okay, so my point is that I think we need to look at that
and we need to maybe look at the budget and let's,
like for instance, last year when we needed to move
out of the U Building, we found 6.2 million dollars in about--
>> Thankfully.
>> 3 days, that was money sitting in some account
in the budget for things that wasn't necessary.
So I think one of the things we should do is have the budget
out here and let's go through
and explain how come there's 2 million dollars in this account.
Why is there 5 million in this account?
Why is there a 100,000 in this account?
Just so we understand.
I'm not suggesting, I mean we went through them,
we found 6.2 million last time.
So maybe we can find a couple more million to get us
through this year for now.
>> Okay, and those are one time moneys.
>> Well, whether they're one time
or not, this is a-- this is--
>> This is-- no, this is an ongoing.
This is a structural cut.
This will continue into next year.
We will not have more money next year.
The issue is, is that it is true
that we have almost 8 million dollars
in our AIS fund, that's true.
Thankfully, we had enough money to move people
out of the U Building and yes, that's occurred
through reprioritization.
There's no secret fund.
That was in the capital allied fund.
>> Yeah, I do the state was a secret fund.
They had 3.1 million dollars for a building that--
I mean, it was 3.1 million dollars sitting
in there for some warehouse--
>> Warehouse.
>> that we were going to build someday.
>> That's true.
>> I mean those are the kinds of things--
>> And we reprioritized.
>> Okays, so, but those are the kinds of things.
Maybe we should look through the budget and see if we need
to reprioritize some other things.
>> Okay. And when you reprioritize,
you can't take one time money for an ongoing expense.
It has to be within the context to fund one.
So what I just said is that for instance with the--
are there open positions that are funded
to where we can take that money.
That would be one of the sources of money to sweep
at the end of the year.
So if we can do that now,
that's how you avoid a more draconian cut.
That's precisely what we're talking about doing.
Now for next year, it will be far more difficult.
Now, let me also point out one other thing is that in terms
of not living within our means,
you're talking about a cap, okay?
So what we always do is we end up shooting over cap.
That's not living within our means.
Okay, so when Dr. Rocha is talking about living
within our means, I think that our high was something like 1700
over cap, is that not true, Bob, during Dr. Perfumo's time?
>> 1800.
>> The answer is it was higher than that.
>> Was it?
>> Yeah. And-- yes it was.
>> Okay, so I think that now one year,
when Dr. [inaudible] was here, I think we were off by something
like two students or something like that.
>> Well, normally in the good old days,
it was considered healthy to operate 2
to 4 percent over your FTES.
But at one point, well for example this year,
we're going to end at just under a thousand
over our allocated FTES which is 19,000.
So we're 8 or 9 percent so we are absolutely over.
But 17-1800 I think we almost approached 2000
at one point frankly.
We lost control that in a big way in, you know, when,
yeah, in recent years.
>> So the deal is is that you actually have to live
within your revenue stream and I think
that was what the point that was being made.
Okay, and I know that we're almost running out of-- Dave?
>> Yeah, did I hear you say about taking--
if I take money from salaries and sweeping it, correct?
But that position still stays on the book.
>> Yes.
>> I mean that's correct.
>> Well, typically that's true.
What we did these last years,
we unfunded a whole series of positions.
I think there are 127 unfunded positions
that are on the book still.
They appear in call center 3001.
>> Get a clarification what you just asked Dave.
When you say on the books, are you saying it has
to remain on the book?
>> Correct.
Because that's a union issue if I'm not mistaken in order
for you to delete a position from the chapters
or from an organization.
>> That's it for discussion.
>> In any-- but it-- well, but in any event,
if that becomes somewhat an academic discussion
because the position can be there as unfunded.
>> True, but it could be funded in the future years.
>> It could be funded in the future
and that's why they're all listed in one call center now.
But what we can do is we can move vacant positions
that currently exist in the same call center
and then reprioritize in the higher
as is absolutely required.
But ultimately it is-- it does come down to people.
Now there's one other source too that we might want to check
and there's 19 million dollars
for all together I believe for adjunct faculty.
>> Somewhere in that ballpark, yeah.
>> And the question is how is that money tracking that.
What happens is is that the money is set aside in lump sum
and then it's distributed
by fiscal each month to cover costs.
So the question is, is there a way of tracking that money
to see how we're doing on the 19 million.
>> Sure we can just do our [inaudible]--
>> 'Cause if we're tracking under that amount of money
and if we can project that to June the 30th,
that might be another source of tightening up.
>> And that's all adjunct credit and noncredit, correct?
>> Yes, yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Is it-- is that fund one?
>> Is that an annual amount, 19 million dollars?
>> Well the change is from one year to the next but yes.
>> Okay, okay.
>> I think a 1 point is 21 but that's--
>> And where is that from?
What is that?
>> It's-- what do you mean where is it from?
>> It's in the office of instruction I believe.
>> Yes, it's got [simultaneous talking] it got
to be call center 1000.
>> Okay, and then let me,
one other question there was a half a million set aside for--
>> Revenue enhancement.
>> Revenue enhancement and how are we doing on that,
where we're doing, you know if we developed anything
that is increasing the revenues at this point or could
by July 1st of next year.
>> Well, we've done a pretty good job,
thanks to our student services folks Ted Young,
several language faculty, a variety of people.
Anyway, we've increased our F1 visa
by a relatively significant amount of money,
several 100,000 dollars,
actually we brought additional revenue in.
We've had at least one contract education deal we put together
with the revenue of about 260,000 dollars this year.
We are pursuing other things on those lines.
>> How much was that previous one?
>> 260,000 for a contract education deal.
Now these-- that has expenses against it.
>> Yeah.
>> But that's the income.
And we are, even in the area of online, we've been able
to realize some additional efficiencies which are hard
to quantify right now but we, we would base progress on that one.
And now in grants,
we've actually had a pretty good year with grants.
For example, we brought in an HSI,
Hispanic Serving Institution STEM grant roughly 6 million
dollars over 5 years of which we get about 5 million in that
or 5 years, the other million goes out to Cal Poly.
>> Setting that offset '01 fund?
>> And that-- and much of that offsets are one fund.
As everyone knows, we get a lot of additional staffing
through grant funded positions.
>> So, would it be true to say that because of the '03 fund,
'01 funds are freed up?
>> It would be appropriate in some respects to say.
>> Yeah.
>> They're freed up for other things.
It's absolutely correct.
>> Okay.
>> And is it freed up for the potential
of a midyear budget cut?
>> You mean for this year?
>> Uh-hmm.
>> It would be hard to say because in order to do that,
you'd have to lay somebody off, I think.
Or shift somebody into-- under the-- into the grant funding.
>> Okay, so--
>> Or instead of hiring somebody that we could--
>> Outsource?
>> Hear somebody--
>> Right, if extra--
>> Grant funded to fill certain roles.
>> And we were just talking
about that this morning actually, yeah.
So yeah, definitely there are ways to do that, yeah.
>> So can we explore if there's a way
of leveraging the grant money to help the '01?
>> We can.
We have to wring it out of the cold hard hands of the people
who wrote the grant but that we can do that.
>> It's got to be wrung
out of their cold hard hands anyway, isn't it?
>> Exactly right, yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Now you can do that I-- yeah.
>> What else can we look at in the next two weeks to come back
and have a meaningful discussion
about where we actually come up with 2.8?
>> Well, I think if we can get that website thing going--
>> I was just going to say.
>> Yeah.
>> I will come back whatever our next meeting is,
we will have a working prototype and we will--
>> But you can just start it up.
>> And--
>> Yeah, just start it.
>> I don't think you need to wait for us.
Just do it.
>> I think that--
>> Okay.
>> We all think it's a good idea.
>> And then if nothing else--
>> Where is that big red button?
>> Okay, and nothing else, we can--
>> Not a problem.
>> We can have a couple of white boards in here
and just do a brainstorming session.
>> Well, I brought a flip chart but we didn't use it.
>> Yeah.
>> But I can do that too.
>> Yeah, if I'm not mistaken,
I believe Flex day is off the schedule.
At least I'm concerning that from a calendar committee
from what I'm hearing.
What about classified days, could that--
that could free up some money too, can it?
>> Well, none of it would free up money but it would free up--
>> Staff.
>> Staff in order to do work.
One of the-- and that's a good idea.
Who would we, well Gary is sitting right beside you.
>> I can look into that.
>> Okay.
>> I have to talk to Dan and--
>> Was it classified days that are being funded by [inaudible]?
>> Correct.
It was to be funded by staff development
and I think it's like--
>> Okay, with staff development so one, right?
>> Right. But there is a separate line
out for classified day, it's just [inaudible].
>> It's not.
>> Okay. But nonetheless, the money would be spent.
>> But something else.
>> So, good between now and whenever our next time
that we could, I like the idea of the 410 looking
at closing on Friday's.
Could be some numbers we put together with respect
to what those savings might be and then
if we close spring what those savings-- I mean I think--
[Simultaneous Talking]
>> [Inaudible] I said is about 25,000 dollars.
>> If yeah, I think the--
but the only thing that we could do right now would be the spring
break week but other than the Friday's schedules are already
set, classes are already started, so--
>> No, you're talking about during the summer?
>> Well, I've-- but that's 12, 13, that's not the 2--
>> That's true.
>> [Inaudible] but definitely
in the summer we could look at some things.
>> Yeah, and it wasn't just that this particular time,
it's to go forward and if--
>> Right.
>> And particularly if we, the concept of okay,
so what about the calculations with respect to spring
in winter sessions, if we're looking at those issues.
>> Well, let me ask 'cause I don't have a clue
and I have been asked.
If we had 3 starts instead of 4, does that save money?
>> I don't think--
>> If we have 3 semesters instead of 4 semesters,
are there funds to be saved in terms
of for instance student services?
Do you know, Bob?
>> Student services, it would be smooth, yeah,
potentially because you only have 3 stars up as opposed to 4
in respect to gearing up in the processing
and everything you happen to do notifications too,
and so there are probably some savings there.
It's just [inaudible].
Yeah, so there are probably some savings there.
I wouldn't know how much and it probably--
>> Is there a way of quantifying that?
>> We definitely look into it, yeah.
>> Anybody else have any other thoughts?
>> I just-- you mentioned that we could say maybe 3 quarters
of a million dollars from the LED lights.
We still have a third of this year left so that's
about 250,000 dollars there.
>> Yeah. And part of what we intended to do is
to hire custodians using that money so that we didn't dip
into the 1 million dollar, so it will be,
it will end being one or the other.
Although we weren't going to use
and offer custodians either but--
>> You're going to transfer that money out of your, isn't that--
it's not coming out of a special fund though?
>> No, it's-- the savings would come into the '01 utility fund.
>> Okay.
>> And then what you do is just move over a certain portion
of that for our custodians.
And the hope is we would be able to afford to hire 10 custodians
and then that would, you know, still leave hundreds
of thousands of dollars left over.
But, you know, Danny is correct.
We're trying to track Pasadena water and power bills
and they always lag a little behind
to see what the actual impact is.
And if you've noticed, you know, and Dave
and I were just talking, I think this morning.
The V Building outside used to have 3 tube lights,
there were each combined
to 100 watts maybe, were they 32's each?
Okay, and now we're going down to 15 watts,
so that's an 85 percent savings in lights.
So we've done the same thing down the C Building corridor.
There's 85 percent savings plus we're turning the lights off
at night.
So that's about a 90 percent savings.
So wherever we can and we're optimizing anywhere that we can
and reducing lighting levels where it's not critical,
it's not in a classroom, it's down the corridor and otherwise,
you know, it's just money down the rat hole.
So we're trying to even gain efficiency past what
we promised.
>> So rat hole.
Oh, so that's where the secret fund is, is in the rat hole.
>> Yeah, that's a rat hole.
>> I get it, yeah.
>> About 1/20th I think.
>> So maybe at the next meeting,
Anthony would you have the number tied to the vacancies?
>> Yeah, I'll get that up.
>> And vacancies plus the portion
of the million dollars fund.
>> Yeah, yeah, plus that 19 million you said
that was for the--
>> Plus-- plus the-- yeah, the 19--
>> Yeah, so the 19 million, the vacancies and then the money,
the million that wasn't filled yet.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> So the three things.
>> Right.
>> Is the tuition still going up to 46 dollars a unit?
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Are they figuring that in as even with that
as [inaudible] going to be that--
>> Yes.
>> That much?
>> So that's-- you know the key part is and for all the energy
that we saw the other day at the board meeting, the fact is all
that energy [inaudible] scope Sacramento.
Because you know, at some moment we need to get off
of the roller coaster from Sacramento because, you know,
you can't just keep going through the budgets,
the times of planning in the [inaudible].
>> We're talking with the people up there
in Sacramento they say that's fine and dandy,
we can give you more money, who we're going to take it from?
>> Well I know that.
>> So.
>> And it comes down to priorities.
I know that too.
But the fact is that we know that there is a fat [phonetic]
in our system still and we need to go after that
but the truth is there's fat in a lot
of governmental agencies too.
And then it comes down to what's more important.
Is it more important to spend money on prison guards
or is it more important to spend money on faculty?
I mean you do have to make tough choices.
>> I've had faculty there like prison guards though.
>> Yeah. [Laughter]
>> Okay, is there anything else?
It's now 3 o'clock and I hate meeting--
end the meetings overtime.
Anything else?
>> Motion.
>> We have a motion to adjourn.
>> Moved.
>> Okay, second.
>> Second.
>> Okay, any objection?
Alright, we're adjourned.
It's 3 o'clock.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
[ Silence ]