BRAC 2012-07-12

Uploaded by pcclancer on 16.07.2012

>> And get the meeting started.
We'll just start by calling the roll if you will.
So, Gary is here?
Gary Potts?
>> Here.
>> Dave Krause?
>> Here.
>> Tom Berg?
Not here. Danny Hamman?
>> Here.
>> A.C. Panella, A.C. I know he's coming in shortly.
John Woods?
>> Here.
>> Kent Yamauchi?
And Alex Soto is here for Andrew Bott or for Hon-- Hanna?
>> To fill in for Andrew Bott.
>> Andrew Bott today, and Kevin Clinton is here for Hanna?
And Dr. Bell as a Resource Rep.
has just arrived and Vice-president Cable is here,
Anthony and Maria here from Fiscal Services.
So the chair will entertain a motion regarding the June 28,
2012 Minutes.
>> I move.
>> Moved by Dave.
>> Second.
>> Second by John.
>> Discussion?
>> Yeah. I requested the VP's expenses reports
and how much they were and so forth,
I don't see it on the minutes.
>> The minutes are generally written in such a way now
as to be broad in the representation
that the information is on the video.
We could certainly put this in the minutes if you wanted too
but there're a lot of things that are not
in the written minutes because now, we are videotaping
so that just happens to be one item.
But I suppose if you want that information in the minutes,
we can certainly put them in the minutes.
>> I'll leave it to the rest of the members.
What they want.
>> Out of curiosity, are you asking
for the actual salaries written to put in there or your request
for them to be put in the minutes?
>> The expense account.
Yeah, they are--
>> So you want the actual expenses in?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I guess just on the record, just-- I--
considering the way minutes are done generally, I don't know
if I feel completely caught
if that's the appropriate place for them.
I think as part of the future agenda pocket that seems much--
that seems to accommodate those type of such things a lot better
than the minutes so just for the record.
>> Okay. All right, you know, for the sake of the group here,
I would certainly be willing to put into the minutes
that it was requested that the vice president's expense amounts
be provided to the group.
I'd be happy to put in data if that's what you want.
>> I think that anything that people ask for that should be
on the agenda should be part of the minutes.
>> Okay.
>> Any other discussion probably doesn't need to be.
>> All right.
Is everybody acceptable to that change in the minutes?
Very good, so the minutes will reflect that.
Are there any other comments?
>> No.
>> Okay, I guess I call the question, all those in favor
of the-- of accepting the June--
excuse me the minutes of the June 28 meeting
as amended, please say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed?
>> I'll abstain since I wasn't here.
>> Okay, Alex abstains.
Thank you.
All right, that brings us
to item number three, Public Comment.
Is there any person in the audience who would
like to make a public comment?
Our practice here is that as the discussion goes forward
within reason, we certainly allow people to participate.
Okay, I see no public comment at this point,
let's provide a budget update.
I want to say that-- I don't want to say--
I will say that at 2:20, Dr. Rocha will be coming in
and he will be presenting the proposed way
in which we will be reducing the budget
by 10.5 million dollars to the group.
There will be written document that has been prepared
and Dr. Rocha will introduce it and then we will discuss it.
In the inner room, I'm going to pass
around some general information, some update information.
The first thing I'm going to pass around is a budget update
that has been prepared by Dan Troy who is the Vice Chancellor
for Fiscal Services for the Chancellors Office.
The yellow highlighting is mine and it used
to drive all my teachers crazy, you know,
all the way through my doctoral classes about
"Do you really do a lot of highlighting?"
[Laugh] but I do.
But the bottom line was--
is that what I've highlighted is what I consider to be sort
of the key information.
The key information starting with the notion of--
for the second year in a row, the budget relies
on midyear trigger cuts and that the November valid initiative is
going to be very critical for 1213.
And the next paragraph we talk about in order
to avoid the nearly 6 billion dollars
in painful midyear reductions, ballot initiative is possible,
I mean, it spells out.
Next, what areas of the-- if ballot initiative does not pass,
how that's going to impact the various segments
of higher education?
The 5.4 billion from proposition 98 that's basically K through 14
and that's why the public schools, the K12 districts,
as well as, the community colleges get the biggest hit
should the initiative not pass.
As you can see below that this is what happens
to the other areas of higher education
and local police departments and what have you.
Then you can see under education highlights what happens
if it does pass and the impact
of 2.9 billion additional dollars on Prop 98.
And the-- then the Department of Finance talks
about what successful passage of the ballot initiative would lead
to which will result in total growth of 17.2 billion
over the next 4 years, all that is very good news.
And at the bottom of the page, it gets in to the impact
of the 1213 budget on Community Colleges.
So, if the ballot initiative passes, there--
there will not be any new reductions
and there will also be 50 million dollars
in growth funding which would result
in approximately a million dollars of growth
to us assuming we were able to click the FDS
and it obviously would be able to do that.
It would allow the system to buy
down almost 160 million dollars into deferrals.
The categorical programs would basically remain
as they are untouched.
And they where were not be any re-appeal of SB 361 which is
like I said, legislature all subjected
to the governor's proposal
through advice are general apportionment system
which is what SB 361 related to.
Approval of new mandated block grants
which is something will need to talk about at a later date
and then the whole harmless as it relates
to the redevelopment agencies and the funding that came
from the redeveloping agencies to the districts.
However, the importance stuff is what happens
if in fact the initiative fails?
Immediate trigger cut out nearly 5.4 billion dollars
that would result in about 210 million dollar hit
to the community colleges.
The new funding that was proposed, it would result
in a based cuts made to the community college in terms
of work load reductions and there will be trigger cuts
that would basically be devastating to our colleges.
So the admonition is that the districts need
to budget carefully to account
for this potential midyear reduction.
Then on the conclusion, a year at risk it really goes
on to talk about, what I like to keep saying, cash is king.
That because of the deferrals that are planned for 1213,
almost whether the initiative passes or not
that about 40 plus percent of the funding
that we normally would get in the 1st 5 months
of the 1213 fiscal will going to be differed
to the last class quarter,
and the last quarter is really defined
as late May or June of 1213.
So what the means is that whether the initiative passes
or fails, even it passes in the 6.7 million dollars
of roughly cuts to come to us-- come back to us,
we really wouldn't get that money
until the last quarter of 1213.
So we really can't plan on it being available to help us
with our issue for next year.
And so what they are basically saying is this makes managing
casual a difficult juggling act even
under the best of circumstances.
Of course district should be prepared
from midyear trigger cuts but they will also need
to have sufficient reserves available to ride
out the slow flow of state general fund allocations
and handle other risk and emergencies that may arise
at either the state or local level.
So this is a very clear information piece as to what--
as to what's going to happen next year initiative
or no initiative.
Now because I gave you a bummer,
I'm going to give you a little good new right now.
>> You have, Danny.
>> Yes, yes Danny I'm sorry.
>> State again where this came from?
>> Dan Troy is the vice chancellor for fiscal services
for the California community collage chancellor's office
though he is the highest ranking fiscal officer in our city.
Any other question on it?
>> Oh yeah, wait a second.
>> Yeah go on.
>> So, so if I was to understand this.
And essentially 5.2 billion is going to hit K12?
>> K12 through 14.
>> No, no just K12 since we're getting--
we would be hit by what?
>> Oh I see your point,
5.4 billion totally, yes, that's correct.
>> Do we see particularly since we support a certain area of--
in our district here, do you see any ramifications
with respect to, to the K12 organizations
and how it might impact us as we--
I just kind of wonder about that--
>> Yeah. There will be.
>> We kind of cross over that and I've been thinking,
"Wow 5.2 billion to K12."
>> Yes
>> Yeah, the K12 districts will undergo yet another round
of severe reductions, layoffs,
reducing the school year I think is the plan, furloughs,
reductions, just massive continued layoff
and what have you.
>> I wonder if any of that and somehow indirectly hits us as a,
as another I don't know in terms
of our partnerships with any of, of them.
I just wonder about that particular piece.
I just actually did the, did that math on that just
to understand the K12 implications there,
'cause they been already I know a lot of school teacher or a lot
of the administrative offices,
districts they've all had really heavy hit.
>> Yeah, the Pasadena Unified School District for example
over the last 3 or so years has chopped about 27 million dollars
out of its budget and I believe they're laying off
if this thing doesn't happen oh another 100
to 200 staff members, librarians, councilors,
the hole 9 nine yards, yeah, now it's devastating.
Okay, so a little bit of positive news.
I just passed out this controller releases the June
cash update and the long and the short of that is
that the June total revenues were 247 million dollars
above projections and that over all the state end
of the fiscal year with the cash deficit of 9.6 billion
which is better than they had hoped.
But the operative word there--
language there is that the deficit is being covered
with internal borrowing temporary loans
and special funds.
So the state too is balancing its budget thought inner fund
borrowing if you will as far as a basically trying to deal
with our cash deficit.
But the fact that they are using that money
to balance their budgets means that there is less for them
to give to local districts such as ourselves
so that we can get our money on time to balance our situation.
So basically they're pushing the problem
down to the local level in many respects.
But the good news is that, is that things are--
June was a better month than, than they anticipated
and that's, that's really positive information.
Now the next thing since we were talking about--
oh I'm sorry Dave, yes sir?
>> Yeah, those 2 initiatives on the ballot, one is for K12
and community collages
but if the other one passes K12 benefits,
community collages does it.
>> That's correct.
>> They got into consideration of what is going
to impact community collages if the other one passes?
>> Well, if the other one passes,
if the Munger bill passes, the Munger initiative passes,
the community collages don't get anything
because basically the Munger initiative is tied specifically
to K12.
There was a major victory that the governor's office had
by allowing his initiative to be placed in front of the Munger
and all other initiatives are going on the ballot.
Another piece of information that I heard recently is
that the governor is pushing hard for pension reform
to occur prior to November 6th.
His whole point of that and he is basically working
with his legislature to try and enact that is
by getting pension reform signed before November 6.
It sends a strong message to the electorate that they can afford
to vote for the tax initiative because he has helped
to put some breaks on pensions that are out there.
Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective,
the state legislature particular the democrats only want to--
as I heard on the radio for example nibble
around the edges of pension reform.
The governor sent them back to the drawing board saying,
"No we need major pension reform because again I need the voters
of a mind to vote for this initiative or our K
through 14 schools or higher education--
in higher education are going to get slaughtered."
So there's big push on pension reform to try
and motivate voters to feel good about the tax initiative.
We try it now as far as I understand
that it's pretty much still a 50-50 thing at desk.
>> But if the amount of one does pass,
are we still going to get cut?
Community colleges going to get cut?
>> As far as I know the answer is yes unless something else
happens but as far as I know the answer is yes.
Someone-- - its 2:20, hard time.
That's what he's pointing out there.
All right, so what we're going
to do is we're going to take a break here.
I announced to the group at 2:20 Dr. Rocha was going to be here
to present to us a proposed reduction
for next year, Dr. Rocha.
>> Great. Thank you, Bob.
>> Here he comes.
>> Oh, Dr. Rocha.
Let me, before--
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> So we have-- we have that one.
>> I'm not rushing the stage I just--
>> It's okay.
You can. I'm sorry, we're use to that.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> All right.
And thank you, sir.
>> Lets say I'll take-- we can take that.
I take one of those.
>> Yes sir.
And then you want me pass this out yet?
>> don't hand them out yet..
>> Got you.
>> Okay. But handout that first [inaudible], please, okay.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Here you go.
>> That's my advice to all of you.
Thank you for having me.
But I'm here on serious business.
The serious business is this by September 5th, the board meeting
of September 5th, okay.
I have to submit a budget for Fiscal Year 2012-2013
to the Board of Trustees.
That budget has to be adapted that night,
that budget has a reduction in it of 10.5 million dollars.
And so, between now and September 5th we have
to develop a recommendation for how we are going
to dig 10.5 million dollars out of our budget.
So I'm here to talk about that and to layout some proposals.
And I want to be frank about them to get to that number.
And then to answer any questions that you may have.
First of all, let me do some math.
I'll just get right to it, you know, forgive me to, you know,
for dispensing with the pleasantries,
except to thank you and to thank, Bob and thank
of all the members of BRAC for the work
that you've done all year.
You've got some still harder work in front of you.
I've given a sheet that is from the salary disclosure
which is the summary page of the salary disclosure
for the total cost of employees at PCC
in the calendar year of 2011.
You can take it whether it's a calendar year
or fiscal year it's, you know, it's about the same number.
And I want you to doodle on this along with me.
You can see that last year the total salaries paid
out to all employees by category,
total 88 million dollars, okay?
These were facts.
These are not guesses, these are not, you know, estimates,
these are facts, okay?
And you can see what the amounts are.
The largest amount by far goes to instruction
for faculty both full-time and part-time.
When you add classified staff, you have 75 percent
of our budget, there's relatively little
in administration.
Okay, if you look at the total cost of employee, I think this
in blue, it comes to 110 million.
What is the total cost of employee?
The total cost of employee means we all get paid
and we all have health benefits.
And unlike most districts we have 100 percent--
100 percent paid district paid benefits for an employee,
spouse, and family, PPO and we don't want to take that away
but we should not take that benefit for granted.
So that comes to 110 million dollars.
Now how much on top of that do you think we spend so called
in paper clips, supplies, you know,
what we called discretionary spending,
discretionary spending, you know?
Okay, no guesses.
I'll give you the number.
It's 10 million dollars, okay.
So over in above salaries, over in above salaries we have
about 10 million dollars that goes to, you know,
make sure that supplies and the
so called discretionary accounts,
non-salary accounts are filled.
Now I want you to take a 110 million
and add 10 million to it, all right?
And so you come out obviously
with a 120 million, these are facts.
Our budget for 2012-13 as you should know from the, you know,
the budget with that with sign is 105 million dollars
that means we're spending at a rate of a 120 million dollars
and the state in the budget that is signed 2 weeks ago is going
to send us a 105 million dollars.
So do the math, we are short, we are well short.
Okay, and so we are going to have to find, add a minimum
about 10/2 million dollars and I want to go through a document
that the boarder of trustee subcommittee
for budget facilities
and technology develop last Monday night at the meeting
with me and Bob, and Dwayne attended to try
and get a handle on, you know, what we're going to do in terms
of moving forward with, with the budget.
So if, if Bob if you would hand up that document
and if there is-- I brought 25 copies so if there's colleagues,
you know, if there's extra copies you're more
than welcome to.
I do want to go over this because this was developed
by the administration and the boarder trustees.
The boarder trustees has already seen this
and has approved this document for discussion
but not final action but for discussion
at next week's board meeting.
And I start this way.
I'm going to layout everything on this document that exists
in the budget world and our task together is
to come up with 10.5 million.
So first of all, let me tell you why we have to come
with 10.5 million, okay?
At the top you'll see the budget reduction math from 11-12,
you recall the February surprise and as your budget triggers.
That was 2/2 million dollar cut in that year.
But that cut was made as a permanent cut to our base
and our so-called workload reduction.
Workload reduction means the number of FTES
that the state will fund us for, apportionment.
So we have to take that 2/2 million dollar cut.
Now we have the 6.7 million dollar cut
from the budget that was just signed.
I'll talk in a moment about the tax initiative but the budget
that was just signed on June 30th cuts the budget
of the college 6.7 million dollars and then you may recall,
you may not, that last year we balanced the budget by borrowing
from the dental fund, you know, we all have dental benefits,
1.3 million dollars that was an [inaudible] and we piped it
over to, you know, balance the budget,
that money needs to be paid back.
So we need to come up with 10.5
at this point these are the actions
that we are able to take.
When I say actions that we're able top take,
in a moment we're going to talk about actions
that we cannot take now because we need to be negotiated
with out union partners.
So the actions that the board and I see
that we can take are that, number one, reduction enforce
as a layoff whether it's a reduction in hours
or an actual layoff of heads, people of 50 percent are
if you look on this sheet, all of the money is
on this sheet right here, okay.
So, there's 7 million dollars
in temporary unclassified entitled employees.
It is likely that our union partners would say that before
that we go to layoff or reduction enforce
for our entitled employees that we would have to see
to our temporary workforce.
So, that would gain us about 3 million dollars, not the whole 7
because it's, you know, there are some unemployment that needs
to be paid and so on so we estimate about 3 million.
Then there is the actual state cut,
the state mandated workload reduction, our apportionment,
enrollment revenue will be reduced, will be reduced.
Not might be reduced based from the tax initiative is reduced
as of July 1st by 1,487 FTS,
equivalent to our reduction of 578 sections.
Right now, which is an action that we can take is
that we are planning to schedule 4,777 sections next year
that will save about 3 million dollars at current rates.
We are proposing another loan.
We have GASB.
GASB is accounting term but OPEB is the other benefits
for retiree health benefits.
We have retirees and we continue
to pay them their health benefits.
We have to put money into that fund every year as a law,
as a GASB regulation, as a federal regulation.
That fund has, if you will
and overage did some technical aspects to it but we feel
that we can drag a million dollar,
that's over from the GASB.
And then, would be a 10 day furlough for all non-faculty.
Is there everyone from the president?
Down the classified.
This would be scheduled for after January 1st 2013.
It would be no furlough
if the November valid initiative passes.
So we scheduled the furlough for out there in the hope
that tax initiative will pass.
The furlough withstands which still be need to be negotiated
with our Labor Union partners.
There will be no classes scheduled
in winter session next year.
There'll maybe a few that are scheduled.
I understand they're about 50, some science courses and so on
and so forth but other than courses that are required
as a part of state board exams and so on,
there will be virtually no classes offered in winter
and therefore no students here and no services to provide.
So what we will do is we will take a week off at the beginning
of the January and then a week off in the spring.
Because that will impact all of us, we would take the reductions
in six installments rather than, you know, take it all at once
and that will develop about a million dollars.
And then we proposed eliminating all nine contractual faculty
release times.
Some release time is contractual but much of it is not.
In faculty we do not have contractual release time,
would be returned to the teaching schedule,
unless they compete and they are hired
for opened administrative or staff positions.
Now, that only comes to 8.5million dollars
and we're 2 million dollar short.
So as we saw it unless you wanted to increase the impact
on one of those items 1 through 5 that we would be willing
to borrow money against our deferrals.
Now, I've been talking about these for two years
and everybody keeps walking around thunking
that we have a balance.
We do not have a balance, all right?
We have a number on a piece of paper,
that's an IOU from the state.
On June 27th I was called and I was told that our balance
in our Los Angeles County General Fund Account was
negative 850,000 dollars.
That's not a good thing.
So, what we did is that we sought authorization
from the board and we got it
to borrow money form the capital outlay fund
and we transfer almost 7 million dollars
from the capital outlay fund so that all
of us could be paid on July 1st, okay?
That borrowing will have to continue
in this next year unless we want to cut still deeper now.
So now, on the next board meeting, I am asking the board
for authorization to borrow money from Los Angeles County
for what's known as temporary revenue anticipation notes
from Los Angeles County.
These are collateralized by the receivable
of this money the state owes us.
So when we get the money, when and if we get the money
from the state, we will pay the money back.
Now, that is actually a cash flow kind
of consideration there hoping to defer--
hoping to defer some of the difficult actions
if the ballot initiative passes.
That's how we come up with 10.5, and so while this is not--
this is going to be discussed next Wednesday at board
between now and September somehow,
the board has to come up with 10.5.
So if you have any other ideas for where we're going to get
that money looking at the salary sheets or anything else,
then this would be the time to discuss it.
And I will, you know, answer questions and then I'll depart
so that you can discuss it candidly outside my presence.
Again, these are facts that the board vouchers for
and this is a document that the board
and I developed last Monday.
Now, let me turn the page and let me be clear
about the tax initiative, all right?
And just says it in plain English.
If the November tax initiative passes, the 2012-2013 budget cut
of 6.7 million dollars will be restored.
Happy days are here again.
But the cash, the money will be written as an IOU
to the district and will not be paid until June of 2013.
Now, assuming that there are no legal challenges
to the initiative and assuming the state doesn't have some
other black hole that opens up like pension reform,
we can count on that money coming back.
We would be able to do a way with the furlough and some
of the other reduction measures.
But all of that money since that cut,
since that cut was the so-called workload reduction.
Workload reduction is we are reducing the number
of students we are paying you for is the board's position
that all of that cut, if it's restored needs to go back
in to classes for students, okay?
So that money isn't going on the table for us to spend.
That money is going-- well, basically,
it'll go to faculty salaries for more classes for students.
That's it my friends.
That's it.
That's all we got.
Now, there are other actions that we must negotiate
with the PCC faculty association.
We could freeze stepping column, pay raises for faculty
who are scheduled to be paid on August 1st.
That would have to be negotiated.
We will talk to the PCC next time about that.
I won't proper guess as to whether we'll make any progress
with that but that is a possibility.
We can still eliminate the winter session.
We will not have classes in winter.
We have a proposal to the FA
that is the FA accepts the district proposal,
that the savings of about 1 million dollars would be used
to add 200 sections in the summer of 2013.
And, you know, that would convert
to the trimester calendar and it convert to the Carnegie hour.
Why is the Carnegie hour important?
The Carnegie hour is important
because it simply schedules classes on the hour at 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 1, 2 the way most colleges
and universities do in the country.
It is also important for financial aid.
The federal government has said that we need
to prove why we're not on the Carnegie hour
because it is the most common unit used
for financial aid calculations.
Now, it's fairly obvious anyone of our students who have tried
to get a schedule knows how difficult it is
to get a schedule because one class starts at eight
and another class starts before that class was ended.
And it's just common sense.
We've been asking for it for months
and I don't see any reason why we can't come to agreement
on this and that would save some money even
if we didn't go to the calendar.
But we will talk to our union friends about this.
And then obviously our proposal is
to eliminate the faculty overload entitlement that caused
about four million dollars a year.
And we estimate if we eliminate the entitlement,
that would produce a two-million dollar savings.
For example, the retirees who have no entitlement whatsoever
to additional classes said that they would be willing to teach
at the adjunct rate and said to the Board in open session
that they would be willing to do that.
But we can't do that unless we come to agreement with DFA.
Okay, those were our friends in the Union.
Now we have friends in the Senate.
Actions we must-- and saying all these, I'm just laying
out the world of possibilities.
I'm not making proposals, I'm not impugning
or implying blame for anyone.
I'm just trying to say where were at 'cause if you look
at my writings when I first came here, I said.
"We're in a heap of trouble."
Last January I wrote it off, we're in a heap of trouble.
Like that.
February, we're in a heap of trouble, budget cut, okay?
Well, here we are, okay.
We're in a heap of trouble.
When you look at your bank account,
you're negative 800,000 bucks.
All right, so, now we have to work with the Senate.
If we wanted to increase average class size over the NCNs
which are set as an academic
and professional matter by the Senate.
For example, if wanted to give an able faculty to add
to room size, wherever that was possible, okay,
without extra payment.
That would be a significant savings 'cause you can imagine
with 4,000 sections or even less than that
but with 4,700 sections and if you could add six students
in every class, I'm not saying you can't but if you could,
you can do the math and you see that is thousands and thousands
of additional enrollments with no extra cost.
Okidok, now, in items two, three, and four,
I want to be clear here.
These are now mandates and I have no expectation,
no expectation of the Senate who is doing yeoman's work
which I admire greatly.
The work that we described here is not work that can be done
in one semester or one year.
It's ongoing work that the Senate has taken up.
I'm just putting it here that when that work is completed
in its time that it will result in savings.
So one of the things that we will ask the Senate to look
at is the norming of our course unit values with that
of our transfer targets in the CSU.
An English 101 in the CSU runs out at three units,
ours runs out at three plus one.
But that reduces the number of faculty that are available
to teach courses and reduces their workload.
And this is common in English, in Math
and in other disciplines, no problem.
It's not a-- you know, a blame on the faculty
but that system was invented when we were paid
for every student who walked in the door.
Remember those days, five years ago?
Remember those days when were out there trying
to recruit students because every student meant another
4,550 dollars in apportionment.
Those days were gone.
Okay, so we will ask the Senate to continue its work on looking
at course value, that's a long-term project.
We can't expect any savings from that this year.
The Senate is one of the leaders in the state
for SP1440 associate degree programs.
Why does that save money?
Why is that so important, okay?
Because in SP1440 program says that a student will get
through from A to Z, soup to nuts, you know,
entry to transfer in 20 courses.
If you can offer, right?
And that will reduce the number of courses that we'll have
to offer for students to repeat
and we'll continue our FYE developments
so that basic skills courses are competency-based rather
than credit based.
And I want to make a point and some of you who are not,
you know, teachers may not realize this.
Basic skills, English, Math, so much of our budget goes
to basic skills courses.
Not one credit of those courses advances a student
to transfer a degree, not one.
So we have many students who use
up their financial aid eligibility on courses
that do not advance them to the degree.
Now, because of the brilliant work of many faculty and many
of those in the Senate, you are working
on competency-based programs that will take down the gates
and not take the money away from students but do more
of a competency-based program so that those dollars can be put
into sections at the freshmen and sophomore level.
But that's kind of out there.
None of these is going to help us by September 5th
or January 5th or even June 5th of the next year, okay.
So that's our kind of project with the Senate.
One of the things we don't talk would that we have
to continue our actions for institutional effectiveness
and accreditation compliance.
Outcomes-based program of all instructional programs,
transfer CTE-- CEC and non-credit extended education.
Outcomes-based program review of all book services
such as the bookstore.
I mean that's just stuff we need to do for accreditation.
And so we need to look at that.
Without-- if we identify programs that are low-enrolled
or have no full-time faculty in it, we need to look
at those seriously and see if-- not if cut them and hurt
and people and hurt students but it start
to teach them out over time.
So that a year or two down the road you can use those funds
for the high demand classes.
And then finally I did want to make a couple
of notes on other hiring cost.
Despite the fact that we are in a budget crisis we will have
to do some hiring this year.
We will continue to comply with FON obligation whatever
that maybe when we compute it and I will prove
that many new faculty positions.
Just to be clear there are no such thing as serve savings.
The serve cost a district nearly an additional 2 million dollars
per year to fund the annuities for retirees.
All of the dollars of vacated positions have already flowed
to the bottom line but for which we would have had
to take these actions last year or two, right?
These dollars have been applied
to the previous state budget reductions in each
of the last two physical years.
This has less and then delayed the worst of the impact
of the state budget cuts
and cash deferrals now clearly upon us.
And then finally, the district does tend to hire
and replace approximately 40 of central administrators and staff
in the central areas such as business and physical services,
facilities, instruction and student services.
Sources of funds will be additional cost reductions
in discretionary spending so, you know, go light on the copier
and contributions from grants.
In the last 2 years, we preside and I say
in the press conference that we received grant awards
of 17 million dollars, okay.
We can't use all of that money but some it comes back
to help defray the cost,
the administrative cost, hiring cost.
And obviously over the last 2 years we've had
over 120 retirements so replacing 40 of them is,
you know, a reasonable plan or at least it seems reasonable
to the board of trustees.
Okay, so and then, you know what?
Sometimes when you're in a budget crisis you actually need
to invest and spend money.
I don't know if we can but we never talk
about a revenue possibilities or at least I'm sure you do,
I apologize for that but we don't seem to put much emphasis
on how we can increase the size of the pie rather than keep
on reducing expenses 'cause you realize you know
as I've said very clearly there's I'm sure am very clearly
there's no way to reduce expenses further
without true pain.
We could add international students,
an additional 1,000 international students adds 5
million dollars in revenue at the top line
and it increases the numbers of seats available
for district resident students.
That's a fact.
Okay, so we would like to get started on that this year.
We see no realistic hope of adding 5 million dollars
or a thousand students next year, none, okay?
But I'd like us to talk about getting that started
so that 2 years from now we have some revenue coming in.
Foundation, fund raising and contributions from assets,
again, there's some little help there
but the foundation is not going to raise 2
or 3 million dollars towards this year, okay?
And as grants program is going great grants,
but those grants go to dedicated outcomes.
And then we do have some opportunities
in contract education.
But this is kind of I won't say longer term but things
that we would just start and I know some of this has started
but we can't budget this.
You know, there's no way that in making an adopted budget
for the board that I could budget this.
The only thing that I can see that I can budget
so far is what's on the first page.
So, with that I appreciate the time Bob, I'm sorry for taking
so long, I'll be glad to ask questions
and then leave you to discuss.
>> I see Dave's hand and then Danny's hand.
>> Any questions Dave?
>> Yeah, I understand the first page of the 10.5 million.
Now, on the second page you have an estimated--
if everything goes right about 4 million dollars,
is that additional to the 10.4 million?
>> No,
>> So--
>> Any savings that we're able to realize but again I want
to be realistic, okay?
I don't see a realistic point at least on this day
that the savings that might come from union negotiations
or that might come from, you know, senate, you know,
those things take time, we're not even
in the academic year yet, so.
But what you're saying though is if they were realized,
it would come-- it would lessen the 10.5.
>> Then, I'm sorry but the second question is why are you
want to reducing the hourly and temporary 50 percent
and so asking for foremost from us [inaudible]?
>> That's a good question, okay, that should, you know,
you can guys can kick it around.
You want to lay off more of them?
Then, you know, bring
that recommendation forward talking about.
I mean that's your-- that's you're workforce, if that's--
you know, if you know, if that is a considered view
of now the Board and I felt that-- then look, you know what?
All of us are going to end up sharing.
The faculty are not held harmless from this,
they're going to lose their release time and the cost
of their contract are going to come down.
We've lost 25 percent of our income over the last four years.
So the costs of the new contract are going to have to be reduced.
All right, so any who's sitting here thinking
that the status quo is going to be kept in terms of cost,
is just not being realistic.
So, having said that though the college needs to operate
and we have barely 45 days before classes begin again
and we felt two things.
That 50 percent taking out your hourly workers,
taking out the workers that are
in your offices right now would be as much we could do
to keep operations patched through.
And then frankly, I'm going to church and praying
for the tax initiative that would defer the furloughs, okay?
But if you guys want to take out 75 percent of the hourly
and actually see that's where your job is,
is that what is the actual impact of that, okay?
I don't really know for me that's kind of a macro number.
So, good questions.
Other questions?
>> Yeah, I'm looking at the first sheet that you gave us
with the totals there.
It says that it was created January 31st,
2012 so its covers the employee cost
for the calendar year of 2011.
So we had the SERP, the first SERP,
where we had 87 employees retire so this only accounts,
my point is that that the bottom line of the total cost
of employees has gone down barely significantly
from this amount for 2012 because for 6 months of 2011,
we had 87 more employees than we have now making a lot more money
that have now retired.
And in addition to that for this year we've had a SERP 2
and a SERP 3 and I know not nearly
as many people have retired
but so this number isn't really an accurate number for 2012.
So, to talk about that number and being that's the number
that our bottom line is to pay employees right now,
just doesn't seem to be accurate.
So that's my first point.
>> No, Dan I'm glad you raised that
and I think I could speak to it.
If you look at the salary chart from 11, okay,
you'll see that the total width benefit cost comes
to 1/10, right?
But you notice that I said that you had to add on to
that 10 million dollars for what I call supplies, you know,
discretion is [inaudible].
So the total knot was 120.
Our budget is 105, okay, for next year.
That's a fact.
And so 120 and 105 is not 10.5, that's 15.
So to answer your question, yes,
the employee base has been reduced in 12.
And that has realized a savings of 4 million dollars each
that gets thrown right to the bottom line.
That money is not held in accounts then if it, believe me,
it was held in accounts, we wouldn't have been less
than zero in the bank a few weeks ago.
>> I didn't say it was being held in accounts.
I'm just saying that the bottom line--
>> No, I'm saying is
that there's no account called SERP savings anywhere
in the budget.
>> I understand that.
I've never suggested that.
So what I am saying though that it is that 110 million dollars
from employees isn't an accurate number for 2012
because they are close to a hundred.
I don't know the exact numbers on how many took SERP 2 and 3.
But anyway, that's point number 1 which--
>> I'm saying you're right.
It's not a 110, it's about 105
because of the reduced number of positions.
>> Well, the number we saw at one point,
it was 8 million dollars less.
But anyway, we can look into that?
>> So, well, you can look into it but between now
and September 5th, the board has to make a decision on 10.5.
>> Right, I know, well, that's one of the things we can look
into between now and September 5th.
>> Hey, believe me Dan, if you can come
up with it, more power to you.
>> The second thing is on that same point
where it says no SERP savings, I realize we didn't take
that money and put into account.
We used it for the cuts that took place.
But to suggest that the district,
it's causing the district two million more per year,
I'm sure you didn't mean to come across this way
but the way I read it, it makes it sound
like it's actually causing 2 million dollars per year
for the SERP savings.
Now you can't-- you couldn't have offered a SERP--
you can't offer any kind of retirement incentive
that actually caused the district money
that would be a gift of public funds, it's illegal, so--
>> Now, that's not correct Dan.
It's costing us about 2 million dollars a year.
>> There is-- right, but the total cost to the college
from the savings of the salaries,
it doesn't cost us 2 million more because of the SERP
and that's the way this comes across to me anyway.
So I'm just trying-- I'm just clarifying this.
>> And just to give you some--
>> What you're saying is--
>> Yeah.
>> Is there's a 2 million dollar a year cost that has to go
into the operating budget.
>> Right.
>> That they did not have before 'cause those annuities have
to be paid, okay, that was the whole deal done out in the open.
So that's the 2 million dollar additional cost
that we would not have had.
You are correct in saying though that, you know,
that 2 million dollars is not necessarily a net cost
that there were savings from vacated positions that flow
to the bottom line and then you add 2 million
to fund the annuities.
>> Right. So that's all I was trying to make clear.
So I just wanted because I think some people are going
to read this and think, "Oh, we did the SERP savings
and we're now spending 2 million more dollars."
We're not spending-- we are spending 2 million for that.
>> The one thing is I will say this realistically, Dan.
I know your view on this but we are well pass the point
that the board is going to like spend a lot more time
on the accounting.
We have a whole team of forensic accountants
on the ground right now.
And believe me, if there was, there is no way that I'm coming
to you suggesting furloughs
and borrowing money unless we were broke.
So we can continue to discuss that but the board position
and my position is that by September 5, we need to come
up with 10.5, and that's borrowing to.
That's by pasting it together by borrowing 2 million.
And some of the board members don't want to do that.
So, you know, if you have--
I get talking about the methodology
and the way the accounting works and so on.
But 2 plus 2 have to equal 10.5 in reductions
from last year's base.
But, you know, all right, I'm with you.
>> I'm just trying to clarify what this is saying here.
>> I'm with you, I just--
I'm being emphatic simply because I've been emphatic
on this point for two years that we're coming to this day.
And now I'm sitting before the--
for [inaudible] 45 days before an adopted budget
and I am having to recommend borrowing money
and laying people off.
And laying the most defenseless people off.
So if you think that I haven't run around this college
and tried to find every available dollar before we hit
this day, I know you don't think that.
And just like you, I would, you know, try and look
for any other way that we could figure out some way
out of the 10.5 but there isn't.
And I'm being emphatic because, you know, I don't want you
to come out of your deliberations, okay,
because I don't think that the board would think that's a
helpful recommendation and say, "Well,
we're going to-- what else, you know."
I'm trying to get at what are the things
that we can actually structurally change
in terms of our cost, so.
>> I'm not accusing you of anything and I'm just trying
to talk about the facts, okay?
So I thought we were here to talk about the facts.
That's what I want to do.
So, I get another question on this repay the dental fund.
The last time I checked, there was about 1.9 millions dollars
in that dental fund and it cost us about--
I believe we spend about 1.3 million dollars
in that dental fund.
And I know that there was 2.9 million in it 2 years ago
and we didn't fund it last year for the 1.3.
So my question here is why is it in this year under this crisis
when there is enough money in that dental fund to make
through another year that we would have to repay it
or at least repay all of it.
Because that 1.3 would be part of the TRAN fund if we borrow
that money, we're going to be paying interest on it.
Why don't we just take it out of
that dental fund 'cause there's enough money in that fund
as far as I understand.
Now, maybe I don't understand.
>> I'm going to give you current balances.
There's right now 1.4 million in that account.
>> Okay.
>> I'm going to give you some current balances in that.
And I-- we can talk more about it.
>> Yeah--
>> They spend about 1 point--
>> If there is-- which is, you know, fair enough Dan,
If there is some place else we can go, okay, but it's already,
I want to tell you it's already pushing the board well past
where I think together we can get them, when I already had
to borrow 7 million dollars from capital outlay
to make this month's payroll, and now I'm going
to ask the board to borrow another 2 million dollars.
And so you can check the dental fund and if
that will help a few hundred thousand,
I'm completely open to that, okay?
>> Yeah.
>> But--
>> Yeah, it's just a question of--
I'm not even sure if legally what level what the minimum is
we would have to maintain in that account.
So we got to check into that.
And also that just gets this [inaudible] close
to what we're going to need anyway.
That means that we spring it down to zero essentially
with potential increases and the like.
>> Right, but my point is that why borrow it
at whatever percentage we're going to have to pay
on other TRAN and not borrow it out of that dental fund
when there's enough money in there to [simultaneous talking].
>> Yeah.
>> I am certainly open to that.
You know, I think as Bob will explain the TRAN is virtually,
you know, no interest, you know,
interest rates are almost nothing.
>> Okay. Well, that's good, okay.
>> So that's why I booked it
in because the actual interest expenses is negligible.
But certainly is something that we could look at,
but anyway, you guys get it.
I appreciate all your questions, tough and easy
and I know you have a hard job to do but we got a--
you know, just keep moving.
>> I got one more-- just one more question.
I thought the GASB fund was going to be 1.4 million
that was going to be transferred [inaudible] shows 1
million here.
>> I can explain that Dr. Rocha, his eyes rolled in the back
of his head when I explained it to him the other day
so I don't think he wants to sit through the explanation again.
>> You know, and again, look, you know, I'm with you.
There is-- if there is anything that we could do to delay,
you know, even the furloughs themselves,
those are book but delayed, okay?
So, you know, we can all pray for the tax, increase the pass
and then those-- you know, would go away.
And then we would have half a year and can pull back some
of the hourly layoffs.
But, you know, I think that, you know, anything that we can do
to patch through but the larger issue is.
This is going to have to be the year that we begin
to restructure our cause.
You know, 'cause you can.
You know, if you're in a position
where you're 800 thousand in the hole, they can't make payroll
and you're talking about borrowing
from the dental fund this year and borrowing from GASB
and the retiree benefits the next year.
This is not the way to run the college physically,
our cause have state here while our income has gone to here.
And were going to have to join almost every other district
in the state to restructure our cost down
and to become more efficient, more cost effective.
I don't know if any other way that we are going to be able
to make it through and having said that.
I however, if we can do that, I think we can make it through.
And actually increase the number
of enrollment seats available to students.
And, you know, preserve a good environment
for all faculty and staffs, so.
Anyway, I'm sorry to bring the answer to the picnic
but I wanted you to know the minute I knew.
I did have a consultation with Julio Huerta
who is the president of issue and set down and went over this
with him because-- is he-- oh, there it is, oh, that okay.
I just want to make sure that you knew that I met with him
in advance in giving this information.
So I really appreciate you're kind of [inaudible] on this
and let me know which you come up with and,
you know, I'll stand by.
>> Could we get an electronic copy of this?
Can you email it out to the people at least on this--
>> I have to ask the board.
You know, let me ask the board because its not--
there's a document that we're preparing
for the agenda tonight.
So if the board-- if a version of this will probably go
into the board packet and then it will be a, you know,
public record document that you'd have an email copy of.
All I'm saying is I can't do it
until the agenda is approved tonight.
>> Okay.
>> But as soon as the agenda is approved,
I will do that, happy to do that.
Okay, thanks Bob.
Thanks for the time.
>> Yes, thank you Dr. Rocha.
Okay, so let's open the floor to a discussion of this document.
So let's just start.
Who would like to start first?
>> Well, I though over the past year.
We've been talking about adding international students
and I don't have the numbers in front of me
but I thought we had already increased the number
of students pretty significantly
since last year and the year before.
It's been going up-- you know.
>> I'm going to let Dr. Bill respond to that
but I think we're saving about 1200 now Dr. Bill.
>> That's correct, international students [inaudible] is
about 1200 students.
Now, it has gone up over the last year, year and a half.
It hasn't gone up significantly
and that the numbers haven't jump large percentages.
We've gone from about 800 to roughly a thousand previous year
and then another 200, 250 this year.
So were averaging an increase about 200,
250 international students.
Over the past students has seen an academic [inaudible].
We're planning to make a much more intensive effort
to do that, one of the delays however is making sure we have
the infrastructure and plays a support of that level
of increase of international students
and that takes time to build that in.
>> So, but if we're already 250 more than last year.
That means we're 1 in a quarter million of more income
than we had the previous year based on this numbers.
'Cause 5 million-- a thousand is 5 million so quarter
that would be 1 in a quarter million.
>> Roughly, I mean I've just [inaudible]--
>> Yeah, it's rough, its rough numbers,
and its part of our revenue.
Mary, I'm try to think, what is our current international income
in general as we go forward here tuition and, you know,
none resident tuition.
>> I have to check on that, I think it's about 2 million
but I have to verify the record particularly the tuition
fees [inaudible].
>> That's the tuition coming in from out of state
or foreign students [inaudible].
>> That's correct
>> Right, we just want the tuition.
I'll verify that.
>> Okay. All right, other questions, comments.
Let's start if you don't mind.
Lets go ahead and let Kevin and Alex and then Dave.
>> So I just want to make two particular comments.
One was, the main on was I'm obviously not really keen
on the idea of contract education as an option.
I think is not coming up this year.
The other one was the GASB fund.
I think, wow, the million dollars is there.
We, as the commission definitely search for somewhere else
because going into peoples retirements,
it's a very tense situation basically and just--
>> And let me explain briefly that--
>> I know its-- yeah.
>> That first of all,
by borrowing this money from the GASB fund.
It does not impact the post--
the other post employment benefits
of the employees at all.
>> Oh, I-- okay.
>> Everybody would still be getting--
they get a 1440 dollar of benefit.
What the way this thing works is
that when our employee's turns 65 and they go to Medicare.
The life time benefit that the district offers retired
employees is 1440 dollars a year
to help fund a supplemental insurance policy should they
choose to do that.
That is not at all going to be--
going to be put in jeopardy here.
>> I didn't believe it was.
>> Okay, but--
>> My issue is I just think it will cause undue stress among
people who don't realize that.
>> Well, we can certainly make--
we can certainly make that clear.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, and-- and Dave just while we're on the GASB thing.
There actually two things we have to contribute
to the [inaudible] GASB.
One is we have to-- by GASB regulations maintain actuarially
a balance, a fund of a little
over 15.5 million dollars at the moment.
That requires an annual contribution.
That contribution is about 1.4 million dollars.
We've skipped that, that payment last year.
In addition to that, we have to pay a little
over a million dollars a year to actually fund the benefits
that are paid to people in that annual year.
So we've got two payments.
The idea here is that, this million dollars IE the money
that would pay to the beneficiaries.
We would borrow it from our funds 64
which is our self-insurance fund, the GASB.
So we would self fund it through our actual fund.
And by the way, just for the matter of the record and I--
you know, Dr. Rocha knows its pretty--
keeps getting it-- confuses his mind.
The money that we borrowed for interfund borrowing came
out of the GASB, 64 account.
It didn't come out of capital outlay.
>> No.
>> Capital outlay and the GASB account are the two accounts
that we have moneys in.
That we can borrow up to a maximum of 75 percent per fund.
So, we opted to take it out of the GASB account
because it's really kind of a non operating account.
That capital outlay got money coming from it
for operational purposes, for technology and other things.
>> Now, the 7 million that he recently moved was
from the GASB [inaudible]--
>> Its actually 5 million.
It's actually 5 million.
And one-- and at daily,
that's cash flow balance chart that I passed around.
I will-- it's actually reflected on that chart
and the board will do it.
Just been a lot numbers flying around and we--
you know, we don't criticize Dr. Rocha
for getting the numbers all a little out of whack
but that's basically what we did.
Alex, I think you are next.
>> Yeah.
>> You go it.
>> Dave, I think you are next.
>> Let's see.
Oh, what I can do is get a list of all the hour list
that we have on campus right now who is actually critical
and what was the recommending to reduce.
>> Yeah, if--
>> And it the one that are critical.
Why weren't hiring and instead keeping [inaudible]?
>> Okay, let me respond to that in several ways.
First of all, this district has had a tradition of using a very,
very large unclassified hourly workforce.
It's been doing that for many, many years.
That is an issue for issue in CSCA and others to deal
with I suppose what if they want to.
The reason why that the number was pegged at 50 percent
like Dr. Rocha and I and a couple of others thought
that the 50 percent was right is
because the college depends mightily on that--
on that unclassified hourly work force
to transact the business that we do.
I'm looking a day in the library depends mightily on this folks.
To cut this folks by 50 percent, in and off it self is going
to represent a significant burden on the institution.
Dan's got LAC, he's learning assistance enter
over at the CEC for example.
This 10.5 is designed to impact the academy, the teaching
and learning of this institution, our faculty,
our students in as minimum away as possible in order to continue
that which the college in a daily basis.
Yes, we are cutting a 5-year and 78 sections and we do
that because we're not going to get paid for those.
Yes, we are eliminating-- and by the way, we're not really going
to eliminate all none contractual faculty release
time, that's a goal.
We are going to eventually get to that goal by virtue
of other structural things but there are key functions
that are done by faculty by virtue of release time by way
of program director responsibilities in a number
of our CTE areas or Health Science areas,
learning assistance center areas, what have you.
Some of those are going to-- some of those have to stay
but we will find at least 500,000 dollars worth
of release time.
And that will also have impact on the program but not directly
in the classroom per se and not directly on students who are
in the 4,777 sections as much as we can avoid that.
So to answer your question specifically,
if this group says, "Yes, it's going to be 50 percent
or 3 million dollars," or if the group says,
"It's going to be 60 percent or 75 percent
or what have you" we would immediately--
and the board agrees, obviously, we would immediately go
to all the managers in the area and say, "Look,
we hate to tell you this but you're going to have to reduce
that in the aggregate, we had to reduce by 50 percent.
7 million dollars has got to be cut by 3 million dollars,"
or whatever the number is.
You need to tell us what you can cut.
And Dr. Bell will work with his managers and I'll work with mine
and Dr.-- or Vice President Cable will work
with our managers and we'll see what the impact is going to be
and then we'll play "let's make a deal" among us
to basically put whatever is left,
whatever resources are left, where they have to be.
I know the technology area, you depend quite a bit
on classified hourly to support labs and what have you.
But we'll probably send out a memo to our manager and say,
"Okay, this is a reality, now, you tell us what you can get
and what you can absolutely get away with
and be really serious about it."
And then if it comes back, we can figure it out great,
if not then, we will invoke our vice presidentialism
and just say, "It shall be,"
because that's the only choice it will have.
>> But now, does this take in to account like block 5A,
all the average we have there?
>> It's all unclassified hourly so it's college assistance,
it's student assistance, it's the hourly custodians
that we have, for example, it's everybody
who is unclassified hourly.
>> At one time, the overtime came
out of the hourly account, is that--
>> Overtime is a separate account.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> It's separate account.
And at the last look at that,
we had spent roughly 685,000 dollars.
And that was at the end of May 31st
as I recall, something like that.
I got that information from Maggie Ory,
our payroll supervisor.
A large amount of that by the way is cadets and overtime
for police officer, some 200 and--
almost 60,000 thousand dollars.
>> The cadets are paid out of the parking lots, aren't they?
>> Some of them are, some of them aren't but you're right,
yes, there is a blending and I mean, the point,
the total amount of overtime is that amount of money.
Yes, John?
>> You know, I hope in looking at this class '05 reduction,
many areas have lost contract classified in police
that have been replaced with classified hourly.
>> Hourly people, that's right, that's correct.
>> And if removed, you started with a contract and now,
you don't have one, you're struggling anyway with--
>> Right.
>> An uncontracted individual and so I hope
and I'm sure it will be.
But I just need to say that there are folks limping along
with those employees today and anymore impact,
they will not just be limping, they will be crawling.
>> And this is why IR--
>> Be considered, I just needed to say that.
>> Yeah, I appreciate that and that's why IR,
you need to keep it at 50 percent at this point.
>> I'm glad you did.
>> Because I know how-- I know what a burden it's going to be
in order to maintain level of services even
if that amount is going to be tough.
>> Because it doesn't direct certainly
in the classroom possibly and it doesn't have an impact there
but it has an impact getting them into the classroom
and providing services once students are there.
So, many of those support hourly folks are critical
to the efficiency and operation of the college
so I'm glad it's at 50.
>> Yeah, thank you sir.
Yes, Marie?
>> I just found the answer for Danny--
>> Okay.
>> You know, on the last document that we sent out,
that is for the May, 7 point--
international students out of state revenue is 7.9 million--
>> Right, which--
>> It's as of May 31.
>> Yeah, it's almost 8 million dollars
which is almost 500,000 more than what was budgeted.
So-- and that's for-- okay, that's this-- yeah.
>> Yeah, and I think that, you know, basically, the district
by law, we have to have--
we have to have a budget to the state by September 15th.
We actually have to have a budget ready by the week
of August 20th that would then go to the Board
of Trustees budget Facilities and Technology Committee.
They then need to kick that around a little bit.
And by, I believe it was August 31st give or take,
we have to have that thing printed and ready
for the board member packets for approval on September 5th.
So the clock is ticking.
Now, I won't go through the list of other suggestions
that I spent a lot of my weekend hours coming up with at that,
you know, that help get us to where we are here
but there a lot more cuts on this document
that are a lot more damaging
to the structural operations of this institution.
This is first of all, it requires on the TRAN
and by the way, it's a tax pair revenue anticipation note
and you had to be careful with TRANs.
TRANs are for short-term borrowing that are secured
by guaranteed receivables although the word
"guaranteed" is a little tricky because of the state.
And you really can't use it to balance your budget.
You can use it to help with your cash flow.
So one of our board members already picked up on that,
and frankly, it's a device to balance the budget
but it isn't really money.
It is not really money that is balancing budget, right, Marie?
It's a device frankly.
And it's a little bit of the Sacramento Hocus Pocus
to be honest with you.
>> Oh, it provide cash flow.
>> It provides cash flow.
Now, if we want to take a second and we don't have to,
to look at the daily cash balance chart,
you can see pretty much-- yeah, Dwayne?
Oh, Dan, do you have a question, sorry.
>> Yeah, there is.
>> Sure.
>> Given the news that we're getting today, Dwayne, I'm sorry
but I got to ask, are we still moving ahead with Smart 18?
>> We are looking at the budget and how
that can be spread instead of it being "all of the aspects
of that done in 18 months as to spread it out further" much
like the same way I reported
at the academic senate discussions concerning we're
going to have to take a serious look at the budget implications
to what our ultimate goals are.
>> Okay. Okay, thank you.
>> Sure.
>> The other thing we're looking at is a potential lease finance
of the elements of the AIS, elements of Smart 18,
elements of network infrastructure,
elements of other technology that would allow us
to spread cost over 24, 36, 48, 60-month period.
>> Yeah, it's things that impact cash.
>> Right.
>> And how we could spread cash with the life
of the technology involved.
So it was a good point that was made by the senate and that was,
you know, so we're really looking at how do we still try
to accomplish most of those objectives within the timeframe
but then take the other aspects of that and spread them
in to other phases hoping that at some point,
that the budget improves.
So old Smart maybe could be brought
up to new Smart later, things like that.
>> And there are other benefits
to lease finance including the built-in refreshing.
Because when you lease some of this hardware, for example,
at the end of its useful life, they take it away and get
in to another lease finance
and you can refresh all your equipment.
So there's other colleges and universities and hospitals,
they do this all the time as a means
of the managing their capital outlay expenses tied
to technology.
So anyway, without palavering the point
but just showing you the daily cash balance chart as of in '01
which is our unrestricted general fund,
you can see in a daily basis, red being daily cash balance
without the interfund borrowing
and the black being the daily cash balance
with the interfund borrowing.
And you can see wherever we were in June and that large negative
of 800,000 thousand dollars
that Dr. Rocha referred to on the 27th.
And we did have to kick in the interfund borrowing,
we had a permission from the board to do that.
And that is what is getting us through and then you see
that we again pick up a problem again in July,
we might need more interfund borrowing.
But then at the bottom
of the page you'll see we got very good news yesterday
from the state that is indicating
that there maybe two payments that are speeded
up on July 12th and July 19th.
Today is July 12th, did it book?
>> Did we get that thing?
>> Did it book?
>> I haven't seen this posted.
>> Yes.
>> [Inaudible] it tomorrow or Monday?
>> Yeah, so it's in the mail.
So we'll see it tomorrow or Monday.
But anyway the point is that will help and I just want
to remind everybody of that roughly 10 million dollar a
month, 9 1/2 to 10 million dollar a month average cost
to operate the institution.
So, that's what our balance is right now.
Okay, let's go back to the chart.
Yes sir?
>> Before we get back to the chart,
I may have missed a discussion
but I think Danny started a discussion when we were
in the library about other large capital outlay blind items
that were sitting in accounts like land acquisition,
if that's the appropriate term.
Was there a discussion about use of any of those funds to offset?
>> Yeah. What I'm going to maybe facilitate
that discussion is I'm handing out now-- this is a--
as of June 30th tentative fund balance, updated as late
as this morning by Marie and I'll give it a chance to get
around and a little bit of a typo there which we can fix
under the general fund unrestricting.
All right, basically you might recall that we had the May 31st
and we had the same chart that was provided
and you can see the 01 which is where we do--
which is where we operate the college.
You can see the GASB 45 and 64.
You can see the capital outlay fund in 41 and all
of these things, the beginning fund balance is, what the year
to date revenue expenditures are,
what the ending fund balance is and then what's encumbered
against those expenses right now
and you can see the-- the various balances.
Now, it's important to note that also
within the general fund 01 unrestricted dollars is
where our reserves are.
The district has to report to the State a minimum
of five percent and most years, we target 8 to 12 percent,
if I remember it correctly.
But those moneys are also parked in the general funds
so we can't even theoretically use all of our general fund.
We have to maintain at least five percent in there in order
to not end up on the watch list in the chancellor's office.
>> Yeah, but that's only five million.
I mean out of hundred five of six million, whatever you want
to say, five and a half--
>> Yeah.
>> -- but we've got almost 19 million.
>> Well, we have right now cash
in county 'cause remember we used that--
that's where used to pay our bills,
that's where the 10 million a month comes out of.
So my point is is at the end of the year, when do our final--
when we send our-- what do you--
the budget to the board-- [Inaudible Remark]
>> Make the 311 report, thank you.
When we send the 311 for 1213, the budget 311,
we have to show them a reserve of at least five percent.
Our Board is very conservative and it always looks for 8 to 10
to 12 but we can do it.
I'm sure, we have to budget that again this year.
So anyway, that's where that money is but it's the cash
in county line that's very important.
You might recall that the GASB, last time we looked
at this was 15 million in 295 and that's
where the five million came from for the interfund borrowing.
And the interfund borrowing again can only come
out of capital outlay and the like.
Now, to answer John's question is
where is the money for the building?
>> It's one of the line items in capital outlay.
>> Right, I was just going to say it's in fund 41 as--
it's where that money is parked right now.
>> There's 18 million dollars in capital outlay
and that includes 4.4 million for the one--
there's two million for asbestos abatement, all those things.
Those all come under capital outlay.
But those are just designated for those things.
They don't have to be spent for that but--
and that's where you get the permission
to borrow from those--
>> That's exact right, and you see that, you know,
we've traditionally for many years now,
I don't know how may years, we basically swept everything
under the capital outlay fund at the end of the year.
In reality, we should probably rename that as a, you know,
as the true reserve fund or something like that
and just say it doesn't necessarily all have
to go to capital outlay.
It's just a funded money to go to a variety
of things including capital outlay.
And that's a probably a bit more transparent.
So anyway, that's the fund balance is and, you know,
and obviously just to remind everybody the building fund,
the measure P moneys that's restricted to our building,
our measure P building can't touch any of that.
>> Well--
>> Yeah, yes sir.
>> Just as a point of clarification with some
of the major P funds, we're also looked at those two, Dan,
with respect to where we can leverage smart 18.
>> Right.
>> So we're able to do that and those were cases
with major P dollars, so it helps us further.
Again, the issue is more about cash flows than it is necessary
about revenues, it's really that cash flow.
>> And regarding cash flow, the TRAN, when we apply for the TRAN
which again six, eight weeks ago,
we were not even considering 12 weeks ago.
That money helps us with the cash flow
and that's something we're looking at.
When you look at the agenda for next week's board meeting,
[inaudible] the wrong agenda.
Anyway, there is going to be an item on the agenda,
there is an item on the agenda that we'll look
into the possibility of securing a revolving credit line
from a local bank.
I'm sending out an RFQ to request for quote to all
of our local banks to see if it makes sense
to establish a credit line in the amount of, say,
10 million dollars that instead of drawing
down on interfund borrowing, instead of relying on a TRAN,
we could use to help balance things again
from a casual point of view.
A lot of other districts do that.
A lot of public agencies do that.
Now, we don't know if that makes any sense
because the short term borrowing cost but again we're looking
at ways to be-- our problem is now every month
and Marie does it everyday.
Everyday she's got to look and see if there enough money
in the bank to pay the bills.
Right, Marie?
And that's kind of where we are right now.
We've got so much deferred income, it makes it very,
very difficult to manage.
So that's another thing we're just going to look at.
May now get us anywhere but we're going to look at it.
If the Board allows us looking the Board may say it's a
terrible idea, no thank you.
Okay, what else on this document?
You know, I think I want to emphasize
that roughly August 20th is our date.
We are working on the budget right now.
There's a lot of work to be done beyond just finding where the 10
and 1/2 million dollars is going to come to balance the budget.
And so we need to, BRAC needs
to make some decisions relatively quickly.
I don't think another week is going to matter but I think
that certainly a week from today when we get together,
we really got to make some decisions.
If anybody wants to make some recommendations today
about any changes in these,
we certainly can continue the discussion.
>> Sorry.
>> Go ahead, Danny.
>> No, no I'm sorry.
>> What-- I think something that's important,
I'm speaking again to this point of the unclassified positions.
I think it'd be helpful and maybe this--
I don't know if it's premature or not,
but for the vice presidents to get at that task
and see what it looks like.
Is the 50 percent really doable without--
or is that a number
that everyone is certain would not affect the operations
of this college?
Because I'm very concerned about that.
And we went through registration and went through watching lines
and people being recruited from other areas to do-- I just--
I'm very leery about reducing workforce and trying
to maintain efficiency in getting students
into the classroom and serving them once they're there.
>> I don't think that-- I think cutting one
of those people is going to impact services to our students.
I think we go into this knowing that were going
to be impacting services to the students in the college.
I don't know, I mean, and yes we can get at it and we should get
at it, but I'm not sure that-- Dwayne.
>> I think we definitely have to take a balanced approach to this
because I think where we have a certain number of hourlies
and we're also looking at having to balance these--
where do we need make new hires where we've been living off
of essentially hourlies which have a lot of limitations
to them with respect to hours in a year, certain skill sets
that if we made the right investments.
And again we-- it is a balancing act and I--
and I certainly get your point.
And we are in fact already beginning to start looking
at those issues in anticipation of how do we try to address.
And I'm just as much interested in well,
could we go further than 50 percent?
You know, we may be in one area or two of the--
of our different operations, we probably--
we might be able to do that.
But other areas might not be able to go that far
because just of-- just the way things are set up.
So I think we have to look at all
that we certainly are doing that.
But that's a good-- certainly, a good point.
>> Danny?
>> Well, for me, it would be very hard
to start making decisions.
And I know, we're running up against the clock and we got
to start making the decisions.
But-- I mean, we're looking at data from last year as far
as the total cost of employees
and we know it's significantly less than that.
We-- I've seen a number, 8 million less.
He said 5 million, that's a difference of 3 million dollars.
>> Well--
>> It's 30 percent of the--
>> I can actually give you the number right now.
>> Okay.
>> Okay? But before I do that, that's a tease--
before I do that, I think we have to remember--
[Inaudible Remark] I need to back up on one thing I said
about maybe waiting another week.
The Board of Trustees meeting is the 18th.
They feel an urgent need to make some decisions
and to move forward.
It maybe important today for us to at least say we can go
with this, we don't want to go with that before we leave today.
I just want to do that.
Now, to answer your question--
[ Pause ]
SERP 1, when the dust settled 92 people
about a 9.2 million dollars saving in salary,
health welfare, and benefits.
>> 9.2?
>> 9.2. It's roughly 100,000 dollars per employee.
SERP 2, 7 people, 707,000 dollars, salary,
health welfare, and benefits.
SERP 3, 14 people, 1.44 million, salary,
health welfare, and benefits.
Total annual savings, 11.35 million dollars.
Now, remember, that 9.2 went right to the bottom line
to balance the budget in 11-12 because that--
those cuts, those 90 people came off the payroll in--
on June 30th of 2011.
We also added back 10 faculty positions
and a few other higher so we added back.
So, in essence, what we're talking about there is
about another 2.3 million, 2.4 million of new savings
of which we got to pay to their SERP--
we got to budget the balance of SERP 2
and SERP 3 annuity expense in the account budget.
Then we're going to have to hire at least 5 full time faculty,
I'm guessing-- educated guess,
relative there are full time faculty obligation number this
coming year.
And then as you heard Dr. Rocha indicate,
we're going to be building back positions, staff and managers
and others in these other areas
because of the critical needs the institution has
because over the last-- what is that that said it's a114
and that says about a 121 SERP positions plus another 40, 50,
whatever the number was, about the people who retired
or left for other reasons.
So the point is that we've been through a cycle of just cutting,
cutting, cutting, cutting,
which is probably why the temporaries are up to as high
as they are, Dave, right?
And now, we've got to add back in some critical positions.
So, the bottom line is that the SERP becomes more
or less a wash.
You know, the money is already been saved and the money--
the money is already been used to balance the budget.
And then we're using the last 2 million if you will
to just basically deal with the--
build back the faculty that we had to build back
because of the FFON, the additional faculty we're going
to have to build back this year,
and the additional positions that we have to add.
>> Now, I understand how you--
you know, they didn't put the money into account,
that's what saved us from making other cuts, okay?
That I understand but my point, is when you say the total cost
of employees is 110 million, but then you outlined 11.35 million
in cuts just from the SERP, that doesn't include other people
that left or retired or whatever outside of the SERP.
So, that's 11.35 less than here, so now you're
down to 99.8 million dollars in total cost of employees.
Because you got to look at what you're base is as to what--
so it reduces the whole base.
So, the savings from there, I realized they got spent,
they're not sitting in a bank account.
We can't use them for cash flow or anything, I understand that.
But my point is that the number that you're talking
about when he says our budget is 105 million and our cost
of employees is 110 and then you got another 10 million,
that's 120.
But this number is now down to about 99 million.
Now, there was 2 million, I realized, for the SERP,
so you got to add back in 2 million, so now we're up to 101
and then another million for 10 more faculty at 100,000 which--
okay, so but we didn't use that number for everything else.
So I might as well use it for this, so you're at 102.
But you're not at 110, that's 8 million dollars difference.
>> Okay.
>> That's a big difference so,
to talk about what these cuts here and saying that,
then you're not including--
we've already talked about the fact
that we have more international students than we had last year.
Roughly, 250, so that's 1.25 million.
So there's another 1.25 million, that's 10 percent
of the total cuts we're talking about here.
>> Okay, the--
>> So I'm just saying--
>> I hear you.
>> It's so hard to say, yeah, we're going to cut this
and then we find out we got this money over here.
>> The-- you know, the reality is if you go back to 2007-2008,
we were getting roughly 130 million dollars
in apportionment money.
Next year, we'll be down to 105 million.
So 25 million is-- was--
has been stripped out of our structural operating account
over the last 4 or 5 years.
So that's reality number 1.
Reality number 2, everything has gone up in expense,
health welfare, all of that stuff goes up.
I think this year on average, we're going [inaudible]
and be lucky and our medical is going to up about 5.5 percent
across the board and even have-- I got--
and that's going to another 760,000 dollars.
And I've got a worksheet I can give you guys on that.
That all the other cost keep rising, utility cost go up,
everything else-- everything else keeps going--
>> Now, the utility cost, we were told the replacement
of the lights was going to save 750,000 dollars a year.
>>Well, it is but it hasn't saved it yet and [inaudible].
>> Well, it's saving it now.
I mean, for this, that was base compared to last year.
I'm just saying--
>> Okay. But my point is, is that as these things
over here adjust, other expenses go up.
Okay? The other thing is that--
the other thing we got to just bear in mind,
the other big issue is the deferred revenue is the
cash flow.
We have to be able to have as much money in the bank
as possible just to pay the bills.
Now, it's very true that we have more international students
and we got other things that are happening that are--
that's a good new story.
But you know, we could debate the numbers from now until,
you know, doomsday but we're still roughly
in the same neighborhood.
>> No, we're not roughly in the same neighborhood if it's true
that we have roughly 250 more international students
than last year.
That's 1.25 million based on the numbers we've been using.
If the dental fund doesn't need to be refunded
or only partially refunded, that's another possible,
let's say, 1 million, that 1.3, or even half a million, okay?
But I mean, what we're talking half million, million here
and then the total savings from this--
I mean, we're basing this on a total employee cost
of 110 million which we're not at 110 million.
That's not what our total employee cost.
>> Here is what we're basing it on.
We're basing it on the budget reduction math at the top.
The trigger cut of 2.5 million, the base cut is 6.7 million,
we're going to get cut, and the repay, the demo fund loan.
Now, if we don't want to repay the demo--
if we want to make a recommendation,
then out of the 1.4 million dollars, we use that
and basically take that down to nothing.
Then we can make that recommendation
and then we can go from there.
I don't know if the board is going to buy that or not
but we can certainly make that recommendation.
>> Oh, I'm not even saying breakdown soon.
What if we did 50 percent of that?
>> That's fine too.
I mean--
>> That's more than a half million dollars though.
>> That's--
>> So, to go through this list of ways
that we're saying we're willing to cut and we find out,
you know, with this-- with the out of state students,
you got it one and a quarter million, with the dental funds,
lets say you took half of that, you're up to 2 million dollars.
And then the total cost--
I mean, my problem is we're all basing this on a number here
that just isn't accurate.
I mean, it's not 110 million dollars to play our employees
for everything this year.
It isn't.
>> Okay, and--
>> And everybody admits that.
>> Okay. And I just went through a scenario as to-- as to where--
you know, where their numbers are.
And remember, we're going to--
we have to build back these 40 position give or take.
>> Yeah, I understand that but I mean you back
to 2007, 8 [inaudible]--
>> But the plan is when you build that--
when you build back the positions,
when you're rolling the increase cost of health welfare
and benefits, I mean, we could negotiate with the unions or try
to negotiate with the unions,
employee contributions to benefits.
I mean, you know, I'm looking at unions, union is everywhere.
I'm sorry I'm not looking at you Dave, I'm just saying, you know,
with issue at everybody, you know, there are other ways
that we can find this money but we're not going
to find the money between now and August 28th
because the negotiations are going
to take sometime even what's in here is got to be negotiated,
the furloughs got to be negotiated.
>> Well, he-- I thought they had the ones,
he said like you do right now without any negotiating.
>> Which one?
>> I don't know it's says actions we are able to take now.
So I took that--
>> Well--
>> Except if you look
at 4 thought he says furlough must be negotiate
with non-faculty unions parenthetically all right
and we know that and so what if we're not--
what if we're not successful in that negotiation?
I mean I don't know if we would or we wouldn't but, you know,
but the point is, you know, and they--
and the board may not even buy that the TRAN scenario
because it's-- you know, it's not really--
>> But the cost is negligible he said.
If the cost is negligible, why would they say no
to something like that?
>> Well, what I'm suggesting is is that because it's not--
it's not really solving-- it's basically--
it's not balancing the short fall it's using borrowed money
to balance the [inaudible].
>> I know, but you can only get the TRAN
if you have guaranteed money coming [inaudible].
>> No. I'm with you, I get it
and I think the board will approve but there would be some
who will question is my point, simply that.
All right, so I think I heard Dave, yes.
>> The other question I have is, you know,
it says the 50 percent work force here it says
about 7 million dollars,
yet your only saving 3 million towards 50 percent reduction.
>> Right.
>> [Inaudible] you about 3.5 mil?
>> Yeah except Dr. Rocha did--
you know, he briefly commented there's an employment ensure--
unemployment cost we're going to have to pay.
Everybody who goes away even
on the furloughs people can actually go
and clean unemployment and they will.
>> Right.
>> So-- and we as an employer we're going
to have to pay that bill.
So that will cost us money.
>> Can I ask another question just on your daily cash balance
at the bottom here you said you just found
out we could get this 9.5 million payment today
and another one next week was when did we find out about that?
>> Yesterday morning.
>> Okay, so all-- all this was built before we knew that,
is that correct?
>> All of what?
>> Well, all these suggested--
>> Well, the only thing that-- again, this is just--
if you look at the bottom of this sheet where it talks
about O1 general fund unrestricted.
Funding in balance,
we are projecting a 23 million 3-52-5-76 includes
a receivable--
>> Sorry, which one?
Which one are you looking at?
>> I'm sorry this is the fund one, the June 31st--
>> Oh yeah, okay, I'm sorry.
>> Okay, pardon me.
If you go down to the bottom,
it basically says we are predicting an ending balance,
a 23 million 3-52-5-76 with a receivable 22 million on 91,
that 18 million is part of that, is part of that receivable.
>> Okay, what 18 million?
The reserve?
>> The 2-- 9 million dollar--
>> Okay.
>> It's actually 95 so that 18--
that 19 million is part of that receivable.
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> But again at 10 million dollars a month,
it's 2 months of paying.
>> Well, I realized but I mean however you calculated this,
if you had no idea you were going
to get an extra 19 million dollars cash flow
and that extra money but money, you know,
we actually thought we were going to get 24 million.
We heard-- we heard yesterday morning we're only going
to get 22 million which we are talking the chancellor's
office about.
The number is changed on an hourly basis it seems.
>> Okay, I'm sorry.
I thought I heard you say--
>> Its trying to sort it all out.
>> Yeah.
>> You were surprised to find out and these were really--
>> What I was surprised about, we the last time we were told
by chancellor is we weren't going to get this money
until the end of July and in the August.
So they sent us notification yesterday morning basically
saying, "Hey, great news and I think the great news was tied
to John Cheng a little thing about the state revenues
for June were better, then anybody anticipate it,
they were advised by the state treasurers office that, "Hey,
we got more money so we can accelerate the payment
that the community college system."
So then the chances office sent us a notification that says,
"Hey, great news, we can give you--
we can send you your money a month earlier.
And I will tell you there are many, many districts who are
in desperate, desperate straights,
they don't have the interfund borrowing ability.
And for them that's life saving.
I mean I understand for example Glendale is in horrific shape.
I mean really, really difficult shape.
>> But either way, however, this was figured
if they didn't know they were going
to have the 19 million this week and next week if it happens,
it seems to me that your casual systems--
whatever you calculated on cash flow would be very different.
>> Our beginning cash flow calculation for July 1,
for ending balance obviously there's a cash budget
and there's an accrual budget.
The accrual is receivables and what's owed you.
>> Right.
>> Cash is what you have in the bank but our last projection
of cash in the bank for July 1 one was 1.5 million dollars
which this is about right.
And again and it's what's known as cash in the bank,
if you look at obvious we talked about this, but if you look
at that the June 27th, we got to call from LA county, all right?
And in the morning they said to us "Well,
your minus 840,000 dollars."
But its okay because you got 3 million dollars
in your unrestricted O3 account and therefore, well,
we'll let that ride 'cause we know you got cash
and we won't worry about it.
3 hours, 4 hours later they called back and they said,
"Well, you know what, we have to do a report to the state
that talked-- that shows where our-- all of our districts are."
Do you really want the state to know and your creditors to know
and everybody else to know that on the state that we had report
that you're-- that you are minus 800,000 dollars,
the answer is no.
>> All right.
>> So I immediately used the authority vested in us
as the administration to go at the interfund borrowing,
notify Dr. Rocha that we were going to do it and we did it.
And we get it from the GASB account.
So, the big difference is cash in a accrual and everybody knows
that there's a little bit of an accounting background.
But, you know what, you don't really know it until it's--
you face it then you really know it right [laughs]
and we're facing it right now.
>> So Bob, really, what I'm trying to hear is--
and I appreciate the discussion, Danny,
I think that though we're recognizing that there are going
to be some kind of cuts and what I'm hearing and I just want
to make sure that's where we're at is we're going
to make recommendation
about what we feel comfortable cutting right now.
>> Right, I would-- yes, I would say
that based upon this proposal--
>> Right.
>> That Dr. Rocha has presented what aspects
of it can we recommend, what adjustments
to it would we like to recommend.
So that we can advice the president in the board prior
to the July 18th meeting that they're going
to have next Wednesday.
>> Right.
>> What this group thinks, if this group is ready
to venture an opinion.
>> Right, so we could do anything, right?
We could also say no, we're not recommending anything, right?
>> That's correct.
>> [Inaudible] choice, we could choose to pick and choose.
We could modify or we could also say, "Listen, we get that--
we want to cut 10.5 but we're only going to recommend 5.5
and that's what we feel comfortable recommending
that something we could do, right?
>> Yes, the body can do anything that it feels appropriate to do.
>> Okay.
>> So, the only reason I'm asking is
because as we're asking somebody is clarifying questions I think
that if we're trying to get out of cutting,
I feel like that's kind of where this discussion has gone
and I don't think that that's an option anymore, right?
We're getting less money in apportionment.
We're probably going to see the tax initiative not passed,
So we're also trying to fend off damage for the spring, right?
>> That's exactly right.
>> So, that being said then what do we--
are we going to start taking emotions right now
or we're going to start saying like let's discuss this
and support it, or do we want to make that do get some time
as homework and then next week start saying this is what our
working proposal is?
>> I think that any of those options are possible.
Again, I would suggest to the group that it would good
to make some decisions today if it all possible.
If not then, again, the board meets next Wednesday.
I don't know if we want to try
to get together before next Wednesday.
>> So, for example it sounds like even Danny, right,
like agreeing like we make our recommendation
that we take the TRAN, all right, we could--
that something we can probably simply boat on now and say
if it has negligible cost, right, right now.
>> Its-- by the way that's-- if our credit--
the very best credit is .25
to .28 percent interest at 1 percent.
Its very, very inexpensive, it's money assuming our credit is
like good at ranges, it can range higher
than that depending on our credit rating.
But right now it could be as low as .25 to .28 percent.
>> Right. So I'm wondering if there are somethings
where perhaps it sounds like we all want a little bit more
information on the production of hourly in classified
because that's sounds like that's going
to take some more strategic suggestions,
so if we put off voting on that until the next week,
but maybe accepting some of like encouraging
or saying we're going to, you know, laterally we oppose
that altogether or we support that right now
and some of these options.
>> First of all I think that we can take any action
that if someday wants to move something we can move forward.
I'll just say that on the reduction of the force
of the hourly and temporary and classified.
We can and will ask managers to give us some answers.
That you know, tomorrow, they're gone, tomorrow, you know,
Monday, Tuesday, they're going to spend--
they're going to spend the first 48 hours in the morning, saying,
"Are you kidding, are you crazy?
What are you guys talking about?"
And then they'll begin to get to it sometime late next week.
The truth of the matter is, we know it's going to hurt.
So does it-- we're going to hurt 3 million dollars worth,
4 million dollars worth, 2 million dollars worth,
it doesn't really matter.
I mean it matters but I mean whatever information we get
from the chairs and the managers,
50 percent is devastating, right?
It's just I mean-- this district has been able
to dodge the bazooka for several years
and now is our day of reckoning.
>> Right.
>> So do you want to start with any kind of something?
>> Yes.
>> I'm sorry, Gary, yes sir.
>> Before we start talking about accepting deductions,
my question and you mention--
you alluded to it earlier the briefing for dental funds.
You mentioned that, maybe you can go back and find
out it's necessary to do that, because if we don't have
to do that, then that means we're only looking
at a 9.2 million dollar cut.
>> Right.
>> And then hopefully, then we can make a value decision
on which ones we should cut.
>> I think that at this body today,
we wanted to take an action to pay all or a percentage
of the 1.3 million dollar dental fee
out of our dental fee reserve.
I can then go back and check to make sure that that's possible
and if it is great, if it isn't, then I will let, you know,
I will let you know that.
So I think that, if that's something you want
to consider then, I think we can take that action today.
>> And just for the record,
I do agree that maybe going beyond 50 percent
at this moment could be a detrimental 'cause I know
that a lot of us rely on hourly whether it's facilities
or even in our departments.
So I do want to know, make sure it's
on a record that I support that.
>> I think I saw another hand, John.
>> Would there be a possibility of taking moneys for example
if we have 1.3 saving or from a proposal and subtract
that possibly from item 1 or item 2 and say,
we would accept a 1.5 or 1.3 million reduction in hourly
if we add the 1.3 reducing that potential impact.
A couple of them obviously number 2,
we had no control over.
That's-- to me that's a given.
And number 4 is going to be hard to project.
>> Uh-hmm.
>> So, the only one I'm really concerned
about today is number 1, and again I'm just--
I don't know what the impact is going to be.
I'm just concerned about it with that--
in the absence of any information.
>> All right.
>> But I would-- I think that for me--
I would feel much more comfortable.
>> And in case she's ready for a motion.
>> Yeah, so I'd like to move to vote on this plan in seven parts
which means that each will have a separate discussion question
and item.
As we do this, the reminder is, we are always welcome
to for those of you who are
down on your parliamentary procedure right now.
Just give me the heads up that we're also always welcome
to postpone a discussion point until next week and as--
I'm going to make that recommendation as I go
through specifically on that one.
Let me divide the question into seven parts which are--
I'm just going to be based on this
so it'll keep clear for you.
>> Okay.
>> So one is repaying the dental fund, two would be the reduction
in the temporary hourly and temporary
and classified workers of 50 percent.
Three would be the state mandated workload, we still need
to vote on it whether or not it's state mandated or not.
Four, would be the GASB.
Five is the 10-day furlough.
Six, is to eliminate all non-contractual faculty release
time and then seven is the TRAN.
So that's the motion that we vote on this in seven parts.
>> There is a-- I just realized,
seven should really be six on that day.
>> I was going to say, did I something?
>> Something didn't work right there for a second.
>> Oh we're having six.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Yes sir.
>> My support on this for a member?
>> Okay. So Vice President Cable is a Resource Associate.
So normally, they do not get votes,
but I think if this body wanted
to give him a vote, we could do that.
>> No.
>> We can't do that?
You don't want to vote?
>> It's fine.
>> You don't want to vote.
>> As a-- no if it's a resource
and it hasn't been officially gone through and approved then--
>> Okay. All right, that's fine.
And as [inaudible] the chair, I don't get a vote either
from a-- is that correct?
>> Right.
>> From that ground unless I'd break to vote.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay so, the power of the people.
And we're not the people, Dwayne [phonetic].
>> One of the things that I would like to have happen given
that we just clarify that Vice President Cable don't have
to vote is-- I would like to know what his opinions are
on this specific ones.
>> Absolutely, yeah.
>> So I don't want him to feel like that he can't make a--
>> Well in the discussion, he can talk.
>> Absolutely.
>> I don't want him to feel like he can't make--
>> Everybody in here.
>> The nice thing
about parliamentary procedure is anybody can talk.
>> In places I can talk.
>> No I just want to make sure he-- [Laughter]
>> Yeah, yeah.
Anybody is allowed to talk and anybody is allowed
to ask questions at anytime.
And that's one of the big things to remember
with Robert's rules is we cover one thing at a time.
>> Got it.
>> Everybody gets to ask questions
until they feel thoroughly satisfied.
But once a vote is called, we must take a vote.
And so those are kind of the basics.
>> I just want to make sure that part is--
>> Sorry, that's in [inaudible] act that on--
>> It does also apply to you Bob.
>> All right.
So before we start this process, Dave's got a question.
>> I just made the motion, we got to--
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, second it.
>> I'm fortified.
I don't think this is for his committee here
because that's a union issue.
>> We can talk about that as a discussion but we need
to get a second out of the motion.
So let them say on, thank you.
>> Okay. [Simultaneous Talking]
>> So what is the first motion I'm sorry?
>> So the first one here is I move to vote
on this plan in seven parts.
>> Okay, so and there's a second, so that was moved
by A.C. seconded by Alex.
Is there discussion on that motion?
All those in favor of that motion signified
by saying "aye."
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> All those opposed.
Any abstentions?
No abstentions.
Oh yeah, one abstention?
>> Yes. Just 'cause we-- no.
>> Okay, we have one abstention.
All right.
So, now, the chair will-- is ready for the next motion.
>> So I vote that we--
>> And we'll to your-- the question that--
>> Right, your question that about leadership,
we've got to cover it in the order that it's presented.
And so the first one is, should we vote--
I move that we vote on accepting the proposal
to repay the dental fund loan.
>> That we do repay it?
>> Uh-hmm.
>> That we do repay it.
>> That we do repay it.
That's 'cause I'm going-- so that way, it's easier to vote
in the affirmative than it is to vote in a negative.
So we do, we vote to--
>> To keep the 1.3 million.
>> For the interest of discussion,
I will second that motion.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, discussion.
>> Just so I'm clear.
>> Yeah.
>> Your motion is that you think we should repay the 1.3 million
this year?
>> No, I believe that we should vote on repaying it.
That's what I'm motioning for.
>> And discusses.
>> So I for example--
>> I'm glad you ask that question.
>> -- because you don't want to vote in a negative
like this is how things that you don't want to get pass--
get passed on it most California ballot initiative is it's
that double negative.
>> Okay.
>> So, a yes means no, no means yes.
This means, a yes means a yes, and a no means a no.
>> Yes.
>> Yes, and this is means we want to vote
on whether we want to repay?
>> No, no.
That means that means that you're voting--
>> To pay.
>> To pay the 1.3 million.
>> Yes, yes.
>> It's-- we're now voting
on making a recommendation right now.
>> Any? Okay.
>> All right.
So is that--
>> We can have any discussion about that.
That could include you making an amendment
or modifying your position.
You've been in all these meetings, Danny,
I'm sure you know all this procedure and stuff.
>> I want to second.
Did anybody second her motion?
>> Alex yes.
[Simultaneous Talking]
>> Yes, A.C.
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> Can I have a question?
So dental fund, we had a long conversation
but my notes kind are kind of clear,
we either have 1.3 million or is it 1.4 million.
>> Oh currently it's 1.4 million.
>> We annually, the premium is 1.3 million.
>> Okay, so--
>> And last year, we sell funded out of that fund 1.3 million.
So essentially, we had 2.8 million give or take
in the balance last year.
We use 1.3 of that money to pay the 2011--
excuse me, '12 premium.
>> Okay. So the premium is how much the dental cost
for everybody who's on it?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. So with 1.4,
it can cost another 1.3 million this year
which is why they are repaying it.
>> It actually will cost another 1.3 and there--
there might be a few percentage point increase on that.
>> Okay, that's all I want to know.
>> All right.
Further discussion.
Everybody to call a question?
Okay, so all those in favor of keeping the dental fund loan,
1.3 million as part
of the budget reduction math toiling 10.5 million signified
by saying "aye."
All those oppose, signify by saying "no."
>> Aye.
>> No.
>> Nay.
>> No.
>> Nay. Any abstentions?
>> I abstain first?
>> Yeah.
>> Two abstentions.
>> Can I ask a question?
>> Dave, do you have a question?
>> On that, I just want to make another recommendation
on that item.
>> Okay, so I think we're--
the chair will entertain another motion.
So, go ahead Dave if you like to make a motion.
>> I like to say that we pay a portion of it
and if the initiative goes through, we could revisit it
to pay the rest of it.
>> Very good.
Would you like to put a number on the portion?
>> Need to.
>> Yeah, you need to.
>> What are you saying?
>> It's a rather, what number would you
like to put on that portion?
>> Yeah, what number would you like to put on?
>> That's right.
It's not the if, [inaudible]--
>> I'm trying to be [inaudible]
>> Very right.
>> Actually, very Brown act democratic about this, right.
>> I guess.
>> That's right.
>> And it is what?
It's like a?
>> Do you want to divide it in half?
>> Let's say 40 percent.
>> The 40 percent of 1.3 million is going
to be 1.3 times 4, right?
>> Right.
>> So it's going to be 5-- it's like 600 thou--
>> Yeah.
>> It's going to be like 600, 000 dollars?
>> Something like that.
>> No, I think it's--
>> Yeah.
>> -- right?
5.2 million?
>> It's like almost half--
>> Oh, it's not.
It's 1.4 million so it's 520,000?
Is that what it is?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> 3 times 12, yeah, you're right.
You're right, it's 5.2--
>> [Inaudible], sorry.
>> So, it's 520,000 dollars.
>> Great! Half a million.
>> So the motion is to pay 520--
well, the motion is to reduce the 10.5
by the difference, right?
1.3 minus 5.2-- 1million and 300,000 minus 520,000.
We should have a calculator?
>> Can we just say 600,000 or something like that
to keep this numbers simple?
>> It's 40 percent.
>> Yeah, that's just I think
for the 600,000 [inaudible] set of percentage
>> Or I think 40 percent.
>> 40 percent.
>> Half a million.
>> It's 500.
>> The half a million.
>> Yeah, say half a million.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, so we're going--
so we agreed on half a million dollars.
>> That's great.
>> Okay, so we're going to repay the dental fund loan
for 500,000 dollars.
>> I second that motion.
I second that.
>> Second.
Further discussion.
All right, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> All those opposed, signify by saying nay.
>> No.
>> Okay, we got through hands then.
And all those oppose-- all those in favor,
raise your hand, 1, 2,-- 2.
All those-- 3, all those opposed, raise your hand, 1, 2.
All those abstaining, raise your hand, 2.
So, the ayes have it, correct?
So that-- that number is now going
to be 500,000 dollars reducing the amount
of the problem by that amount, okay?
The chair will entertain the next motion.
>> So again, I'm going to move that we vote
to accept the current plan which is the reduction in hourly,
in temporary unclassified workers of 50 percent.
>> I'll have a second.
>> I'll second.
>> Alex second.
All right, I'll call the question--
>> Oh--
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
Do you want, do you want.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> I was going to say, just in--
because some people had questions on the specific item,
I'd action motion to lay this on the table until next week?
>> We've like the table-- I'll second the tabling of this item
until next week when we the time to gather more information.
>> Discussion?
I guess I'll say that I would prefer not to do that.
I would prefer to have something stated because I think that--
because it's such a significant amount of what our solution is
and because we know that the issue is going
to be dramatic no matter what happens.
I think we just-- I don't know we're going to get a whole lot
of information between now and next Wednesday, we might.
But the information is going to be--
the sky is falling and we can't do it, tight Dan?
That's just-- that's what it's going to be.
So, you know, we could talk about another number
but that's-- but that money had come from somewhere.
>> Yeah, I kind of feel the same way that the detail
that it's going to involve to actually identify numbers
of positions and the impact
of those positions can take more in a week.
>> Yeah.
>> Because as you say the real impacts is going to come
from the managers and just to get that information,
I think we need to move quicker than that.
And so, I don't think we should table this.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Further discussion?
>> I too have concerns about tabling it,
and that we have too many--
we have a number of key strategic hires that we need
to make and we need to kind of hire in the right spot
as it kind of addresses some of the--
I mean the only way we're going to have to pay
for these things somehow and there's got to--
if we knew where we're going sure in our list
that we can hire, we can hire in the right full time way,
it will help us and we have
to really view those decisions together and,
so I would have really concerns of tabling that sort of issue
as well and it's just way too significant of amount
of money that-- that's my input.
>> Okay, are we ready to call the question?
>> Which question are we calling?
>> Yeah.
>> The question would be, should we table the reduction enforce
of hourly and temporary unclassified workers
of 50 percent until next week?
That's the question, correct?
That's the motion.
>> But, was the original motion called?
>> No.
>> No.
>> That was [inaudible] with their motion.
>> We vote on things one at a time, right,
so that we only vote-- ever vote on a small thing like this.
We don't vote on whole things, right?
So-- [Simultaneous talking]
>> That was the motion.
>> To vote-- to table it.
That's what we've done.
>> Okay, I thought you the motion to accept the 50 percent.
>> We-- that would happen only if we chose to table it.
If not, now we're going to vote on it today
if we don't table this item.
>> So the motion is to table it, right?
>> That's correct.
>> Uh-hmm.
>> So all those in favor of tabling the motion--
oh, tabling the motion, no, tabling the item,
raise your hand please, 1, 2.
All those opposed to tabling the motion,
raise your hands, 1, 2-- 2.
All those abstaining, raise your hand, I get to vote.
>> We did that just for you.
>> Thank you.
I appreciate that.
The chair votes not to table the item.
Okay, so the chair will accept the next motion.
>> Oh, we already have a motion on the table just to accept.
>> Yes, accept--
>> The motion-- there was a motion to accept.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, so there's a motion to table to accept
and who made that motion?
>> I did.
>> [Inaudible] and Isaac.
And also, Panella and Alex, very good.
All right, so discussion on the motion
to accept the reduction enforce of hourly
and temporary unclassified workers of 50 percent
in a total cost of 3 million dollars.
That is the motion on the table, discussion.
>> I'm not sure how this fits but I would like to--
as part of that, recommend that the offset
on the dental be moved to reduce the percentage on number one.
>> Okay, that would be an amendment
to the original motion.
I'm getting good at this, aren't I?
Yeah? That would be amendment to the original motion.
There're the first and the second accept of that amendment.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, okay.
>> Okay, so there's a friendly amendment
and it has been accepted.
All right, so now the motion is to reduce the 3 million by,
what is, 800,000 dollars I think, did that math right?
So that would reduce 3 million down to 2.2 million.
>> Point 2.
>> Okay, further discussion on the motion.
Gary, did I see your hand?
>> Oh no.
>> You're good?
>> I'm fine.
>> We're ready to vote?
All those in favor in the motion, please raise your hand.
>> Can I ask a question?
>> Oh, of course you can.
>> Right now, we're voting on the amendment only, correct?
>> No, I think it was friendly amendment.
It was accepted by the first and second so that--
the motion now is to reduction enforce of hourly
and temporary unclassified workers up to a maximum
of 2.2 million dollars.
>> Uh-hmm.
>> Whatever that percentage turns out to be.
That's the motion on the table.
>> But, let me ask just a clarification.
So that's on the contingency
that everything else would identify as--
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> And that's something to maybe talk
about after we vote on the motion.
>> Okay.
>> We're ready to vote?
>> What-- state the motion one more time, I'm sorry.
>> The motion is that we take the savings
from the dental fund loan of 800,000 dollars,
we reduce the hourly
and temporary unclassified worker dollar cut
to 2.2 million dollars.
>> Thanks.
>> You bet.
All those in favor of the motions,
raise your hand, 1, okay.
All those opposed to the motion,
raise your hand, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
No abstentions over here at this time, I guess.
[Laughter] [Inaudible Remark] Okay, abstentions?
[Laughter] Anybody abstaining?
No. Okay, so that motion failed
so the chair will entertain another motion.
>> I move that we accept the state mandated
workload reduction.
>> Okay, so we're just going-- so we're going to--
>> That's number two--
>> I know, blow pass number one.
We took no action on number one
or we take an action in number one?
>> No we didn't.
>> We didn't take an action, we don't support that plan.
>> No, but we didn't vote
on just what it stated here, 50 percent--
>> Yeah, yeah that got amended.
>> Yeah, that--
>> So we don't have to vote on that anymore 'cause that's gone.
>> Well, does anybody want to vote on it?
>> If you like to make that motion to go back.
>> Before we go back.
>> We didn't vote on that, didn't we?
>> No.
>> We did.
>> Well we did, we did but the point is, is that--
>> Okay.
>> The point is that the committee chose--
okay, so this is what the committee chose to do which is
to take no action on this recommendation.
>> Exactly, that's exactly what we did.
>> Precisely.
Do you want to make--
>> So, okay.
So the committee chose no action.
>> Yup.
>> Okay, moving on.
>> So what that means is we have chosen to not--
>> You're not weighing in.
>> We don't support that.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Oh no, it doesn't--
it doesn't say you're not supporting it.
>> Right.
>> It just says you've chosen not to take any action at all.
>> Okay.
>> So it basically--
>> So that' what I want to make sure.
>> No, I thought we voted no on it.
>> No, you didn't vote no on it.
>> We didn't vote, exactly, we didn't no.
>> No, you voted on the 2.2 but again, the original--
>> We had a chance to vote on it as--
>> And so if you like to make a motion, you can make a motion.
>> Okay, so I'd like to make a motion to vote on number one,
the reduction enforce of hourly
and temporary unclassified workers at 50 percent--
>> Okay, that's--
>> I don't know, put it in the affirmative, how are you--
>> No, you just did.
>> You just did.
>> By reading that.
>> I just-- I'd like to vote on that.
>> Okay very good, so Danny is making the motion
to approve the reduction enforce of hourly
and temporary unclassified workers 50 percent totalling 3
million dollars.
Does anybody want to second that?
Dave Krause wants to second that.
>> Which was the original motion.
>> Exactly--
>> That's what
>> We're all [inaudible]
>> But that's okay.
>> But that's' where we've back to.
>> That's why we're coming back to.
>> That discussion.
>> Okay. So there's a motion on the table
to approve the recommendation as stated.
It's been seconded, discussion on that motion.
Hearing no discussion, I will call the question.
All those in favor, raise you hand, 1.
All those opposed, raise you hand, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Abstention, okay, so what that saying, this group is saying
that they do not want to help solve the problem
with this reduction, with this 3 million is not going to be--
>> Yes, we do not support that.
>> Do you not support that?
>> Specific action item.
>> Okay.
>> Can I make a statement obviously
with my friendly amendment, I'm only concerned, I'm not saying
in my vote that we don't consider this as a possibility
but I'm not comfortable with 50 percent, so.
>> Would you like to make another motion?
>> I don't know what it would be 'cause I lost the last one,
it certainly wouldn't be a number but--
>> Well it has to be--
>> It has to be a number, yeah.
>> Does anybody want to make a motion as to--
because I'll tell you what's going to happen is
if we don't-- if we just say no--
>> Yes.
>> Then, the board will do what the board wants to do.
>> Exactly.
>> The boards going to do what the board wants to do anyway
and I'm not going to give them my blessing
until I know the numbers better.
>> Okay, and so if that's the decision that this body wants
to take today then that's fine.
But I just want you to know that, you know, that we--
you have taken a position of not agreeing
with this recommendation
and you're not countering it with anything.
>> Let me also be clear that we can vote on this whole thing
and if we want to next week bring it
up as another discussion item and revote on it.
so, we are making a motion based on the recommendations
of the people who've been at the table saying, "Hey,
we need to take action," and we've chosen to not take action
but next week, we could all like I said before
which is we can all go do some research before the board
meeting and make our--
>> The board meeting--
>> Or after the--
>> The board meeting is on the 18th,
this group meets on the 19th.
>> The 19th, right.
So we could move to meet earlier next week
and revote on this, yeah.
>> Okay, but again, I'm not sure what's going to change
between now and the meeting earlier next week,
Monday and Tuesday.
>> That's what we're saying.
So, the choice is either we are make an action
or are inaction says, "No,
we don't support this specific cut," right?
So as your-- Danny say, "I'm not supporting this specific cut
as part of this one" and that's what we just essentially said.
>> Right.
>> Exactly.
>> So, the purpose of my friendly amendment was
to reduce the impact, that's my only concern,
that 50 percent is significant.
>> All right, so that point is you could move 2 million,
you could move a million 5, you could move any-- any number.
>> The problem is, is once we start reducing the numbers
in one section, it adds to the numbers--
>> That is exactly correct.
>> That was the purpose of the--
>> That was my point.
>> 800,000 because you can identify,
at least that made be feel a little better
but it didn't make others feel better.
So, that's fine too watch.
>> Yeah, I mean, like we said we're--
it's all-- it's getting cut.
We are just now saying what do we feel comfortable giving our
blessing to, what do we feel comfortable saying,
this is what we recommend to the board.
>> Precisely.
>> Right? And so, like you said it's a good idea to say,
here's-- if we're going to have to cut,
how do we make ourselves feel better during the process
but we're going to have to make some recommendations
about how we do that and that's at least we can use this
as a starting point of discussion, right.
>> Now, exactly.
So we can leave it as is for now, we can continue
down our list and if we want to come back
and revisit it before we're done today,
we can do that, I assume, right?
>> Exactly.
>> So, Panella is guiding us through this.
So I why don't you take us to the next step?
>> So I'm just going to-- so the next, I'm going to just move us
to the next-- we're still
on the state mandated workload, am I right guys?
>> Uh-hmm.
>> So I move that we vote
to take the state mandated workload reduction.
>> Do I have a second?
>> I second.
>> Second Gary, so Panella, the first
and Gary second, discussion.
>> Out of curiosity, since you wear many hats now
at this point, in terms of room at management,
haven't we already basically began this in terms
of fall semester and is it not already been looked
at to strengths so it's kind of-- it's
>> Yes, we did.
>> Whether--
>> Yeah.
>> For example, like it or not, it's-- for a fall semester,
it's already been done.
>> For the summer.
>> And for-- and on the summer--
>> In the fall, it's already been done.
Now again, if the initiative it passes, we can load back
in a lot of this in the spring and even load some of it back
in the summer of 13 but, yeah,
and that obviously is our plan to do so.
>> Did I? Did we second yet?
>> It got second.
>> Yeah. It got second.
>> So, Panella and seconded by Gary, further discussion?
>> I mean this is kind of mandated,
so no matter what we say right now, it's going to--
it's going to take place, correct?
>> Well it hasn't actually, it hasn't actually pass, has it?
>> In the state budget?
>> Yeah.
>> Absolutely.
>> Yeah.
>> State budget was passed,
that's how the legislatures make sure they got paid.
That's why they had that added pressure of getting it done,
that's why we actually had a budget approved.
Okay, so let me call the question.
All those in favor of accepting state mandated workload
reduction as written-- raise your hand, please.
1, 2, 3-- 1, 2, 3, 4 or aye.
All those opposed, raise you hand, 1, 2.
>> Abstaining.
>> One abstention.
>> And just for the record, my nay just understanding
that ultimately it is a given fact that it's happening anyway.
It is just more vague kind of don't
like it kind of thing but--
>> Philosophically speaking.
>> Philosophically--
>> Absolutely.
>> But understanding that it is still--
it is still going to happen.
>> I know, yeah, if we totally get that.
All right, chair will accept the next motion.
>> The next motion is that we vote
to accept the GASB OEB one year deferral of payment.
>> I will second.
>> Okay, so we have-- the motion is to accept the GASB,
OPEB one year deferral of payment.
Motion then seconded.
>> My original statement earlier was I was [inaudible] might be
low back later on but I'm not--
it seems like it's going to be fine as long as, I mean,
I have more hope on the Brown initiative
than I think other people in this room do.
But I still think whenever you're going
to retirement stuff, it does weird out the populace.
>> Absolutely.
>> It does even if you're like, well, know they're fine,
we could be able to take things, just that.
>> Yeah.
>> That was--
>> And those of us with more gray hair
than others really get weirded out, so.
>> I was thinking I was like "Uh-oh.
>> Okay, so thank you Kevin.
All right, so ready to call the question on this one?
Okay, all those in favor, signify by-- raise your hand,
please, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
All those opposed, raise your hand.
All those abstaining, raise your hand,
one abstention, okay, next.
>> I make a motion that we accept the 10 day furlough
for all non-faculty.
>> Do you have a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Discussion.
>> Yeah I'll make my-- yeah this is a union issue.
>> And it is and I would just draw the people's attention
or the member's attention to the language that exists
which is scheduled for after January 1, 2013, no furlough,
if November valid initiate passes.
Furlough must be negotiated with non-faculty unions, okay?
No classes in the winter session 2013.
The administrator staff take one week furlough at the start
of winter, and one week furlough at spring break.
Pay reduction
in six installments January through June.
So the point is, this recognizes the furlough
as a negotiable item.
So this body can take action and it really doesn't mean anything,
the board of trustees can take action
and it really doesn't mean anything until it's negotiated.
>> Right but it's also stating that you want
to get rid off the one abstention.
That's what we're recommended.
>> Well, and here's the reality of that at the moment,
as Dr. Rocha mentioned, as part of our 4,777 section plan,
we have only 50 sections scheduled this winter anyway,
roughly 50, and those are only for programs that require
for certification and accreditation and those types
of things they have to be--
they have to continue in one way or another.
Okay, any further discussion?
All right, so let's call the question.
The motion on the floor is
to accept the 10 day furlough for all non-faculty?
All those in favor raise your hand, 1.
All those opposed raise your hand, 1, 2, 3.
1, 2, 3. So one in favor, three no's, three abstentions.
>> Next option?
>> Right I'm just making a motion, sorry.
Okay, next option.
So what they-- what they?
>> I vote-- all right,
motion that we eliminate all non-contractual release--
faculty release time.
>> I second.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So Panella and Kevin-- [Inaudible Remark]
>> Discussion?
All right, let's call the question.
All those in favor
of eliminating all non-contractual faculty
release time?
Raise your hands.
I'm seeing none, zero.
All those opposed to eliminating all non-contractual faculty
release time raise your hand, 1-- is that 1?
It's 1. All those abstaining from this?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Did I get that right?
[Laughter] So 1 yes, 1 no, 6 abstentions.
>> I'd like to add a note that which is I'm happy to discuss--
to discuss faculty--
non-contractual faculty release time pending more information
and discussion of what we're doing.
I felt uncomfortable voting on it as a whole without more time
and I'm recognizing that we needed to take action today.
But I would like us to revisit
that at some point in the future.
>> Okay. And I know that there is an academic senate discussion
happening on that.
It's ongoing but there is going to be a real dot the I,
cross the T discussion of that early next week
and they will be reporting that to Dr. Bell on that topic.
I also want to just point out that the 500,000 dollars
in no way represents the total release time
and no way represent that.
It's a percentage and I-- it's probably well below 50 percent.
Yes, Dustin?
>> Good afternoon everybody.
Just to confirm that we are taking a look at that matter
and we hope you have a recommendation
within the next one to two weeks.
>> Okay, thank you.
The chair will entertain the next motion.
>> And it's the last one.
>> Yehey.
>> Aren't you excited?
>> Right on.
>> All right, so now the last motion is that I vote
that we accept the TRAN.
>> Second.
>> Okay. So that was Panella and Alex was the second.
The motion is that we accept the Tax Revenue Anticipation Note
otherwise known as the TRAN recommendation.
>> It's a one percent interest rate?
>> It's anywhere from 0.25 to 0.28
if in fact we are the gold standard of credit rating
and it's something higher than that depending on where we end
up on a credit rating.
But the bottom line is that we have very good credit
so I suspect that we will get very, very favorable terms.
>> That's my only moment is I know that this can turn
into like a high price payday loan.
So I think that as long as it's--
I'm going to say this in good faith upon the board.
As long as we are in good standing, I'm happy to vote
for this, but if our credit rating is--
if the percentage rate is going to be unmanageable I would
like us to keep that in mind.
>> Very good.
And there will be a full presentation to this
at the board meeting next Wednesday night.
We have RBC Capital which is the firm
that basically puts this TRANS together with the--
the pools of TRANS together with LA County Office
of Education and-- excuse me the Community College League
of California, they will be here making the full presentation
to our board next week.
>> Considering what Panella just said, it would--
and I ask you Panella.
Would you want to amend the motion
so that there is a threshold on the percentage?
>> You don't think don't you-- I haven't done the research on it,
I sort of know it verbatim
so I feel uncomfortable putting any percentage in other words,
[inaudible] credit score on it for us.
>> Okay. [Simultaneous Taking]
>> I thought about that and I'm not.
>> I was asking if you were sure 'cause I don't feel very
comfortable, I just wanted to see yours and--
>> The other thing--
>> I would be thinking things up at that point though.
>> I'm sorry the other thing to bear in mind is
that it's a short term loan.
It has been, and this hasn't been stated.
It has to be paid back within 12 months.
>> Right and it does say it must be repaid within one year.
>> Yeah exactly, it's going to be paid back.
So the interest no matter what it's going to be reasonable.
>> So I'm okay with that.
>> Okay. All right, so can we call the question on that?
All those in favor of the TRAN please raise your hand?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
All those opposed?
All those abstaining?
Okay, so to recap.
The body agreed to reduce the dental fund loan obligation
payback to 5000,000 dollars.
The body took no action on the item number 1,
reduction of work enforce of hourly
and temporarily unclassified.
>> No, we said no to that.
>> Did we say no?
>> We then made another--
I made another motion then we voted no that.
>> The ultimate vote was--
>> Okay, I'm sorry.
So the ultimate vote was no.
And they took and-- so you just said no and that's right,
and then you decided not to put anything else on the table.
>> No, yeah.
>> Okay, so the answer is no, nothing and no alternative.
The body agreed to the state mandated workload reduction,
the body agreed to the GASB move, the body did not agree
to the 10 day furlough, the body basically abstained.
There were zero yes, one no, and six abstentions
so I guess the no carries the day?
>> Yeah.
>> Uh-hmm.
>> So the body said no to that.
And then the TRAN they said yes to.
Now, does anybody want
to reconsider item number 1 at this point?
Or did anybody want to make further motion
on that number 1 at this point?
>> In an effort because I heard what Dwayne Cable was saying
regarding some critical positions that are pivotal
on whether or not some of this money is available.
And-- so I'm going to move that we reduce the hourly,
unclassified by 1.5 million.
>> Okay, there's a motion on the floor to remove--
to reduce the hourly unclassified 1.5 million.
Do I have a second?
>> I'll second it.
>> Okay. The second by Panella.
I guess I will just add that I think that if we have no voice
at all on this then they will assume that we have no voice
at all on this and take whatever action
that they might want to take.
>> But we already do have a voice saying we're opposed
to it.
>> That's what I'm saying.
But-- yes, we're opposed-- okay, so that's your voice,
you're opposed to it, all right.
All right, so we have a motion in a second.
Kevin, there's something else, you want to say?
>> The reason is duties are-- are part of this hour--
[ Pause ]
The student in general.
The students are part of this 50 percent.
>> That is absolutely correct sir.
Yup, that's right.
Okay, so let us take a vote on the motion.
The motion is to reduce up to a maximum of 1.5 million dollars.
All those in favor, raise your hand.
1. All those opposed?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
>> Abstain.
>> 1 abstention.
Okay, I think we've beaten this horse as much
as she's going to beat today.
>> No. No.
>> No, no.
We can do a little bit more?
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Oh I think we can fully do this again.
>> Okay. All right, is there anything more
to come before this body?
We will be meeting again.
I'm sorry, Dave.
Let me just get this out.
We will be meeting again next Wednesday, same place 2 P.M.
>>Next Thursday.
>> I'm sorry, next Thursday, thank you.
Same place, 2 o'clock.
Dave and then Alex.
>> Yeah, I'm a little disappointed
that this can't do us, you know, today and we have to vote on it.
I mean--
>> Well, I voted no.
>> Evidently, this thing was not taught up.
I mean, it was not made up today.
They could have e-mailed it to us
and then we could have had our questions
and that we could have some answers for it when we got here.
>> Okay, duly noted, thank you.
Ah, Alex?
>> Ultimately, the budget situation.
I think we all realize is fairly fluid as it's going forward.
And whatever the board discusses and moves on Wednesday night,
I'm guessing it will not be the final,
final say because there's still a bit more time
to put things together, correct?
>> I can't-- I can't promise that.
There's a huge amount of behind the scenes work that has to go
in to building this budget, huge amount.
And, you know, what I can fairly say
that as our budget situation--
should our budget situation approve once the budget is
in place, then coming back to BRAC would be a discussion
about where to build back.
You know, for example, I know we took no action
on item number one, but if the Board decides, unfortunately,
we're going to had to go at the 3 million.
And then the budget situation improves,
this body can recommend that was one
of the immediate build backs we put money back into that,
or this body could recommend that we invest more money
in the classes, or this body could recommend anything
as things improve.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to make clear the fact that considering
that we got this today and I think for most of my votes,
I think that's what it was weighted with,
not a lot of decisions at least because it was made today
and there wasn't enough that we've help
for information at this moment.
I think that's why especially with the reduction enforce
of hourly and temporary unclassified workers,
to at least I can say speaking for myself, hearing what--
audio visuals like would say.
Even if they said like the sky is falling, but you know what,
we'll deal if we have to or we can make this work.
What are affected, at least my vote in different way?
So, I just want to make
that clear going forward 'cause I could see the Board already
saying why do they vote no?
What are we going to do?
Did they put anything else out and then just go with it anyway.
>> I think that is very, very fair to say
that when this body meets again, a week from today.
If it wants to reconsider any of the things that it talked
about today regarding, you know, regardless of what the Board
of Trustees did or didn't do, it certainly can do that.
And then it could-- it can move additional
recommendations forward.
>> Right. So on that note-- for future agenda items,
I think I would like us to revisit conversations
around hourly workers so that we could come
up with our recommendation for future cuts or not cuts.
I would like us to at least have a conversation around that.
The release time, I would like us to revisit probably based
on the discussions we just had, having another discussion
around capital outlay.
It sounds like that something Danny has really would
like to have a little bit more clarity on right of, right,
from the earlier part in the discussion,
I feel like those should be heard or at least articulated
so we can make some maybe more forward thinking as opposed
to being reactive like we were today.
>> What I can do is I can ask Marie to basically do an update
on the fund 41, how it spread.
You know, we had a report of that some months back.
We can go ahead and update that now.
>> All right, you know, I would also like I thought I ask
for it before and maybe she's gave it to me,
but there'd be more complete now anyway by the end of the year.
But the actual numbers on the international students
that we've had over the last, you know, 9-10, 10-11, 11-12.
>> I think that's important too, and most of all, just to--
with this additional source of revenue, I feel--
oh again, and maybe this was something for the next time
around which is the future source
of funding I felt has though the President requested that we look
at additional sources, things outside
of our international students and I am--
I would like us to have a more meaningful discussion about what
that might mean on our behalf, like what are we recommending.
My concern is what we're essentially doing is asking
individual instructors and while it's wonderful
that we got a couple of big grants in specific departments
in the last year that we're essentially asking faculty
members to now be grant writers, faculty members,
shared governments and how many other positions.
So, I have a concern that we maybe need
to make some recommendations, but what we can do
as a committee, that might help secure
that funding maybe we becoming grant writers or--
>> Yeah. And I guess I will just share that a big part
of the grant writing activity is that of the grant's office
and we often use consultants to help us write grants as well.
So, some faculty get engaged in actually the hard writing,
but for the most part, it's done by other folks.
>> Right, but I think it's the budget committee
that if we're asked to look at not just half one these
as we should be looking at all the things
that we're requested of this.
And so that's one thing that we haven't--
>> So, let me-- okay, and let me say
that on the international student thing,
the request is 9-10, 10-11, 11-12--
>> Not just international, out is, you know--
>> Out of state.
>> We will breakdown to both.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> You know, how many are international,
how many are out of state, but--
>> It's basically the non-resident tuition.
>> Yes, yes, yes.
>> So, we'll look at that, but I have to be very honest with you,
because of the-- everything that's going
on in fiscal right now, to build the 13-14 budget and get
that umpteen page book done, it might be after,
it might not be immediate.
I think we can do the capital outlay thing relatively quickly.
'Cause that-- so that's-- but we'll
>> Right. Again, for me, this is just the moment of being, again,
more proactive than reactive 'cause I feel
like when we have things presented to us,
we operate from our place of deficit and panic.
And things get heated around silly moments where it's
like hey, we probably-- we've already have this discussion
and you're just panicking, don't panic.
So, I would rather try
to at least be a little preventive in some way.
>> Okay, very good.
>> None on those lines, I mean this is the second year
in a row, it is-- it isn't the actual budget, but last year,
it was Friday and he had to have the budget done that night
when we we're presented with it and then, you know,
I don't even remember.
I don't even think we've loaded,
but it was like here's the discussion, boom!
It's done.
It's going on with the board.
And here today, again, here it's first time we're seeing
and then we're voting on it.
>> Let me--
>> And in the academic senate,
we don't do that in most of the committees.
>> Yeah. Let me comment in this regard.
I was a member of BRAC and then because of circumstances,
I'm now chairing BRAC.
But, for weeks and months, we had document after document,
piece of paper after piece of paper come to us,
no one was of a mood to actually make the tough decisions.
So, we put it off, we put it off, we put it off,
and so a couple of Sundays ago when I spent, you know,
a whole day putting what came to 16.6 million dollars
of cuts together not including any of the negotiated items.
I came in, show it to the President and he said,
"We better look at some other options."
Okay, now, had we been doing our job?
Months ago, we would have been actually getting
into not looking at page after page, after document,
after document but actually talking about the kinds
of things that Panella was talking about.
Alex, you we're saying something?
>> Yeah. I was going to say I think it's more than fair
to come here and like I said earlier say, you know,
we got this today that definitely influenced a lot
of this vote and a lot of the way we feel about it.
But just speaking having sat on this committee along
with you Danny which is just last year,
none of us took it upon ourselves
to actually put together any suggestion--
you did in terms of funds and transfers in capital outlay,
okay, and I'll give you credit for that.
But more than that, we didn't really put anything together
in terms of actual hard numbers.
And as members of the committee, each one of us could have motion
to make-- to take those stances.
You could have done that last year,
I could have done it last year with you.
So, many things I think Panella's point is well taken
that moving forward.
As members of this committee, we need to more proactive
in how we set this budget.
That way perhaps,
the administration won't feel the need to try
to push us in that direction.
>> But it is very hard
when we're not the ones with the information.
>> Well-- [Inaudible Remark]
>> Well, and to be honest with you Danny,
you don't trust the information that we give you.
I mean you personally, but we spend a lot of time,
information that we give is questioned.
>> I can verify, yeah.
Why would anybody, would you take any--
well, anyway I don't distrust you, but I don't--
>> None of this is personal.
We understand that, I get it.
>> The past administration, I always just
like to verify, that's it.
>> I understand.
>> Well, one of the things I had suggested months ago--
>> Right here.
>> Was to actually ask to go through a process
where we ask the college community
for ideas for cost savings.
And in fact, we had developed
within IT a web-based survey pretty much waiting on Rick to,
you know, take a look at that and then go
through a marketing process.
And one of the things I would encourage this group is
to thinking proactively is to I don't think our cuts are over,
I think we're going to have to start doing
that again for next year.
And that maybe we start looking at ideas and entertaining input
from the college community about what some
of this cost saving measures should be.
Like for instance, why don't we--
why don't we go to one payday a year, or a month, excuse me.
It's year that would be interesting.
[Laughter] In fact, why don't we start using accounts receivable?
>> A kind of-- I have a little bit
of a heart attack right there.
>> Made a relation to accounts receivables to all
of the employees that we'll pay you next month, never mind.
>> Right. But no, I know those kinds
of things are contractual kinds of issues, but, you know,
we have to look at how can we streamline our process
in such a way that we don't have to spend so much time
for instance just in-- just in producing payroll, you know,
and we have one payday a month and then we all do that.
Those are the kinds of ideas that we really need
to start looking at and figuring out how can we save some money--
>> Do-- I know we're getting at the late hour
and everybody has places to go.
I have yet another meeting to go to.
>> Congratulation.
>> I know.
I've all ready been here since 8:30, it's cool.
>> Yeah, me too.
>> So, one of the things I might ask is if that's ready to go,
can we get maybe a final view of it, look at the agenda next--
put it on the agenda next week and send it
out so we can inform not maybe this budget clearly,
but at least next year's budget.
>> I think it's a great idea.
>> And I was actually going to say for the problem not
for this year's budget development, but--