BRAC 2012-07-19


Uploaded by pcclancer on 24.07.2012

Transcript:
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Yes.
>> Okay, the-- John is here, Kent is here.
John, I know you're leaving at 3
but we might be done by then, we'll see.
Doctor Bell is taking a well deserved vacation day.
>> Fantastic.
>> Maria is here, Marie is here, Anthony is here.
>> And Dwayne is right over there.
>> And Julio is here too, excuse me.
>> [Inaudible] Gary's place.
>> Oh, Julio is here for Gary.
>> Correct.
>> Got you.
Thank you, Julio.
>> Dwayne is coming in.
>> And Dwayne is coming in.
>> Right.
>> He is on his way I think.
>> Okay. And right, okay.
So there's Dave.
Okay, all right.
Okay, so let me call the meeting to order.
Welcome Keith back, our faculty co-chair.
Keith was away on some vacation and he's back and I'm going
to be meeting with him sometime, probably next week
and we'll get Professor Oberlander caught up to
where we are right now.
So I have the approval of the Thursday, July 12 minutes.
Do I hear a motion?
Dave moves, second?
Anybody who's here-- nobody is here-- oh, second.
Kevin is here, okay.
All right, I feel a lot of abstentions coming on
but we'll find out here.
Okay, any discussion?
I call the question, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
>> Aye.
>> No's, all those opposed, signify with no.
Abstentions?
>> Abstain.
>> I see three abstentions, okay.
Okay, public comments, is there any person
of our three member audience who would
like to make a public comment?
And no. Okay, budget update.
All right, as everybody recalls, last week, we--
our primary discussion point was the 10.5 million dollar budget
reduction for 2012-13.
Doctor Rocha was with us, he presented the reduction.
BRAC took action by voting individually
on each of the six items.
We supported recommendation number two
which was the workload reduction.
We supported recommendation number 3
which was basically borrowing 1 million dollars
from our other post-employment benefit fund
as a 1-year deferral payment.
We voted in favor of the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note.
In other words, to recommend that the Board of Trustees apply
for that note and we requested that instead
of repaying the dental fund loan that we deferred,
I shouldn't call it a loan.
Instead of not funding the dental fund in 2011 and 12,
we decided to use that money to help balance the 2011-12 budget.
This year, because that budget is now down to about 1.4
or I should say that fund is now down to
about 1.4 million dollars, the assumption was
that we would repay or we would fund that dental fund again
in 12-13 at a cost
of approximately 1.3 million dollars.
This group discussed that and basically asked if the repayment
of last year's dental fund loan can be further delayed all
or in part, and the all or in part would be 1.3 million
or some number less than that.
So that information went forward to Doctor Rocha.
And then the group indicated
that it did not support reduction force
for unclassified hourly staff nor furloughs for non-faculty
which was item one and four on the budget recommendation sheet.
At last night's Board meeting,
the Board of Trustees had a similar briefing by Doctor Rocha
that he gave to BRAC last week.
Even prior to the briefing by Doctor Rocha
because the other items that were on the agenda,
the 10.5 million dollar topic was discussed at great length
in one aspect or another.
And the Board, although the Board--
the item was not on the agenda for action last night,
the item was on the agenda for discussion last night.
So the direction that the administration left
with was the notion that we need to begin to take action
on the items that we need to take action on.
For example, the district will be notifying the unions
that are impacted by this, the non-faculty unions of a request
to sit down and negotiate the furloughs
and there'll be some notice of that in the near future.
The executive committee members and Doctor Rocha will be meeting
on Monday regarding the reduction in force of hourly
and temporary unclassified workers and how we would begin
to implement that perhaps as soon as July 30th,
a week from this coming Monday.
The sense that the administration received
from the Board is that although the Board did not want
to take any of these actions,
the Board understood the necessity of reducing the budget
and therefore, it is presumed
that they will take action implementing all,
some portions thereof of the items that are on this list.
So since the next Board meeting, it's not until August 15th,
we feel it's prudent to begin to take action.
Now, there was some discussion regarding the TRAN, the Tax
and Revenue Anticipation Note.
And I'm going to share with you
in a few minutes the presentation
that I gave last night along with Renee Graves,
our accounting assistance from VLS.
But in the-- during that presentation,
which preceded a lot of the discussion about the reduction,
we had to basically report
that the TRAN is not really a budget balancing tool.
In effect, we are recommending
with this budget development scenario a budget
that is two million dollars out of balance.
It's a deficit funded budget if you will.
Because the TRAN is not cash in hands,
you have to have expenditures equal to your revenue.
If you-- whatever your revenue is,
your expenditures have got to cut.
Our expenditures are two million dollars
above the stated revenue.
>> Our actual expenditures?
>> No, this is a budget, this is a budget.
>> All right.
>> Okay? So this is the accrual budget
that we're presenting, okay?
Which is how-- this is what budgets are,
budgets are projections.
So the Board had a difficult time accepting the deficit
budget in the years that people could remember.
They never passed a budget that was out of balance
if that was a deficit budget.
However, at least reading the tea leaves last night,
it seems like they could go there if they had to because
of the notion of the deferred income that has owed us
and the amount of that deferred income and what
that deferred income would be in 13-14 as well
as the amount owed to us in 11-12.
I'm sorry, 11-- what's owed us 11-12 and as well
as what it would be in 12-13.
Danny.
>> No. And I-- if you want to keep going, I just wanted
to ask a question as far as that deferred.
How much-- so are we paid through 10-11?
Are we paid up from the state?
>> No, as a matter of fact, why don't I do this,
why don't I table-- [Inaudible Remark]
>> Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you.
You can keep going with your presentation about this.
>> No, because I think actually you're right.
Let's quickly go through what I've got here
and that will help this discussion.
>> He did say 10-11.
>> Yeah, I said 10-11, so are we paid up?
>> Not 11-12, right?
>> Yes, we are.
>> We are now paid in full for 10-11.
>> Now is that-- that payment on Monday,
and does that include then the payment that's supposed
to came next Monday of 9 and a half million?
>> No, that's 11-12.
Let me go through this real quick and you'll see it.
[ Pause ]
Okay, so the first thing that we did last night is we presented
the 2011-12 fund balance as of June 30, 2012.
Tentative at-- [inaudible] 12, 16 because we're still,
you know, obviously, we're still closing the books for June.
So, you'll recognize on the left hand side as we put that before,
the different fund categories we have.
You will recall that the 01 General Fund Unrestricted is our
primary operating budget and you'll see
for example the GASB 64, the self insurance are OPEB fund
and you'll see Fund 41, the Capital Outlay.
And I want to-- I'll come back
to the Capital Outlay in a second.
And you can see that what our beginning fund balances were,
what the revenue expenditures were,
what the ending fund balance is as of that period,
the encumbrance is against that and the all important cash
in the county or cash in the bank column.
On the capital outlay fund, we did something a little different
because we wanted to convey to the Board the understanding
that the capital outlay fund, unless the Board chooses
to change this direction, is more or less spoken
for by virtue of the banner and other technology conversion
and upgrade projects, network project, call center project,
SMART 18 project, you know, the lab upgrades,
all that kind of stuff.
The facilities renovations and replace equipment
of the furniture, there is a line out of it in there
for that sort of an ongoing thing.
We're not moving forward with the fuel-cell project
at the present time so Dwayne and others
in the facilities area can speak to the upgrade--
at the power upgrade which is something that's necessary
at this point as well as the heating ventilation
and the air conditioning upgrades.
Sorry, yes Dave?
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Oh, Kevin.
>> I was [inaudible], what happened with the fuel cell?
>> Basically, it's a project that is a little too involved
at this present time for us to be engaged in.
And also frankly, there could be some issues relative
to what we're dealing with with the Doctor van Pelt situation.
>> Thank you.
>> I don't know of that for a fact but it--
but all different factors are put aside for now.
Dave.
>> I just want to make something clear.
The HVAC and power upgrade was not part of the fuel cell.
That was the R Building, that's the power structure
for the NCC Boards and then all the air handler units are,
you know, when the building was built and they're falling apart.
>> Got it.
>> So that's what that was for,
it had nothing to do with fuel cell.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> I just want to make sure that, you know, you don't take
that out thinking that that's part of the fuel cell.
>> Got it, thanks for the clarification.
>> The reason why it wasn't done yet is
because of the asbestos problem.
>> Got it, thank you for clearing that up.
And then with the 967,000
which is basically a million dollars that's budgeted on more
or less an annual basis to deal with a variety of things,
of just trying to maintain the facility as best we can.
If you walk around the campus, as beautiful as our campus is,
there's a great deal of deferred maintenance, so it's kind
of an ongoing challenge.
Okay, and then you'll see that the fund balances,
and I don't need to belabor this, but let's go
down to the bottom where we talk
about the fiscal year 11-12 in where we are.
And then I'm going to turn the page
and show you something else here.
At the time that this was prepared, we had a receivable--
a 24,493,602 from the state.
We have an ending fund balance of 19,859.
And so there's some 5 or 6 million dollars that has
yet to be determined as to when that's coming in
and from what sources it's coming in.
Right, Marie?
>> 24 million, we already got 9 million 5 on July 12.
>> Right, but--
>> We're going to get another 9.5 on July 19.
>> But what's it-- what explains the difference
between the funding balance of 19,859, and includes receivable
of 24,293, is it the encumbrances against it?
Is that the difference?
>> There are some liabilities that we haven't paid yet.
>> Exactly.
So that's what I wanted to clarify.
It's the encumbrances tied to that, okay?
So that the balance is 19.8 even though they're always 24
and again, this is accrual, this is ODAs [phonetic],
but we have encumbrances against the 01 General Fund.
Then to answer your question, Danny, the--
what was deferred for 10-11, i.e. almost 19 million dollars,
included a receivable from the state totalling 19,253
and that has now been paid in full to us.
Do you remember when the last payment came
in on that, on the 10-11?
>> Kevin, if I'm not mistaken, it's sometimes in June 10, 2011.
>> Okay, so the reason why we have
that there is we really want to put the point
out that the deferral in 10-11 was 19 million.
It went up to 24.5 million, is projected to go
up some significantly larger amount in 12-13 as result
of the def-- defer the deferrals on the calendars
that we keep talking about, deferring about 40 percent
of what we normally get in the first five months
of the year is not going to be given to us
in the last quarter near June, so that 24 deferral is going
to go up significantly higher next year.
>> So, the 9.5 million that we received on Monday.
>> Turn the page.
>> All right, you're getting there, all right.
>> Okay, so this is a daily cash balance of--
the red indicates without interfund borrowing,
the black indicates with the interfund borrowing.
Let's just go to the bottom of the page
and we'll answer Danny's question.
On 7-12-12 we received 9.5 million dollars.
We've received notice of 9.5 million dollars
and we actually got it in the county on July 16th.
We are feeling very confident that today, I don't--
Marie, did we get the notice that the money arrived today?
Not yet.
>> Monday.
>> Monday, so there you go.
So the point is that we're told the money is coming in today
but it would be realized on Monday.
So we don't get a notice from the state
that they actually sent it to the county, Marie?
We don't know that?
Okay.
>> Just a notification to all the district?
>> Excuse me?
>> Just a general notification to all the district.
>> Got it.
>> The date, but we actually look
at when the money really is in accounting.
>> Okay so--
>> But that-- okay.
But those two 9.5 million, are they for this year, fiscal year?
>> They are for--
>> I'm sorry, not for 11-12.
>> They are for 11-12.
>> Okay.
>> So of the 24 million ODAs, 25 million ODAs,
we are getting paid 19 million dollars roughly.
There is still 5 million to 6 million outstanding.
The chancellor's office has yet to tell us
when that money is exactly going to come to us,
October might be a time, September--
they don't, you know, they're still trying to figure out.
Of course they are dependent upon when the state tells them
that the money is coming to them.
As reported last night, by Renee Graves,
this almost changes on a daily basis.
Danny, yes?
>> So again, that 5 to 6 million,
then that would be the final payment for 11-12?
>> That is correct.
>> So they only owe us about 5 or 6million more and it's going
to get paid sometime now.
Okay.
>> Assuming this 9 comes in.
Now, the other thing that I want to point out on this chart,
back on June 28th, you can see
that we borrowed 5 million dollars taking us
up to a little over 6 million.
You can see that we are able to operate on our own cash flow
and then we got our big payment on July 16th and when we made
that payment, we were able to repay the interfund loan
which came out of the GASB 64 fund.
Meaning that on July 17th, a couple of days ago, we had give
or take 9 million dollars in cash.
Now, we have a payroll that hits the 25th,
we have another payroll that hits August 1st, we have many,
many, many bills to pay and I know
that from the writer's cramp
that I'm getting approving different things.
And even with that, we anticipate that we can get
through without interfund borrowing
until maybe September at the moment.
Right, Marie?
Okay. If you recall from the last, the last meeting,
the meeting before, we did a cash flow projection that ran
through roughly next-- last-- next February give or take.
And at that point, we indicated that between interfund borrowing
and the apportionment income as we expected it to come
in from the state at that time, that we would not need revenue
from the TRAN, that temporary--
the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note
until perhaps next January or February.
However, we're not 100 percent sure
because we don't have all the facts in the chancellor's office
and it's not because they will give it to us,
they don't have all the facts in the state.
So, at last night's board meeting,
one of the agenda items was the authorization to enter into
or apply for a Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note
through the LA County Office of Education.
There were members of the board
that had a difficult time with that.
They had a very difficult time with that.
The thought of borrowing any money was very difficult
for them.
Even with a-- the very, very low interest rate that is tied
to that, by the time that it does settles
on a 10 million dollar Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note,
depending on where we land, you know,
and our [inaudible] what have you could be as low
as 140-150,000 dollars.
However, there were still some concern
because they weren't sure that in fact,
we would need that money.
So they didn't want to enter into a commitment for 150,000
if they didn't know it for a fact.
So what they finally ended up doing is approving us--
applying for it but not pulling the trigger on it
until we went back to them and asked
for authorization, right here?
>> If I can just add to that, some of the confusion was
that BRAC had spoken about a 2 million dollar TRAN
and in the paperwork, in the Board packet,
the amount said not to exceed 10 million.
And so that's where some of the worries came from last night.
>> Right, Dan?
[Inaudible Remark] Yeah.
[Inaudible Remark] All right, well the 10--
because first of all, you can't-- as far as I know,
10 million is about the smallest amount you can do a TRAN
for to make it worthwhile to the underwriters
and everybody is involved.
Again, the amount of money involved as far as the arbitrage
and who make-- the people who make money
on these transactions is relatively small.
So 10 million is usually the minimum amount and if you think
about it, most districts are in more trouble than we are.
When I say most, those districts who are borrowing money are
in much more significant trouble so they have a large--
they have a larger need.
But at the same time though,
we don't really know what our need could be.
I mean if the bottom continues to fall out from under us
and the deferrals get worse and worse, if we're going to go
in this trouble, we might as well have enough money.
We use the metaphor arrow as in our-- in our quiver, right?
And what we meant by that was there are three ways we're going
to try to balance our cash.
One is the interfund borrowing, two would be the TRAN,
and three could be a revolving line of credit
with a local lending agency.
So last night, not only did we present the interfund borrowing
report as we promised we would, we presented the concept
of the TRAN and we further presented the concept
of a revolving line of credit.
We saw it and got permission to begin just to--
just to let an RFQ, a request for quotations on a line
of credit in the amount of 10 to 20 million--
10 million to 20 million dollars.
The idea is to have as many tools at our disposal
to manage ourselves through this difficult time imparting
as little impact on students, faculty and staff
as possible, that's the idea.
Now, one of the things that we'll find out when we apply
for the-- when we go out for the RFQ on the--
on the line of credit, that probably will not be that cheap,
those things are not necessarily inexpensive.
And I'm not sure that once we actually see the cause
that we want to do that further, I'm not sure if statutorily
and I've got-- I've asked Gail to work with RBC capital
and Renee Graves from VLS to find this out.
I'm not sure if statutorily we can, and Marie and I talked
about this this morning, we can actually have a TRAN,
have a line of credit, have a Measure P construction bond
and have a certificate of participation
on the parking structure out there.
You know, that may be more bonded indebtedness
or whatever you would call it, credit, than in an agency
of our type is allowed to have under the law.
So, we may not even get the first base on that
but the point was we wanted to get--
find out what the Board would allow us to do, get them to say,
"Yes, you may do that."
Look, you know, you may apply for that
and then we'll figure it out as we go on.
So the point is is that we're trying to do everything we can
and I go back to the TRAN.
Remember, the TRAN, the reason--
another reason for the 10 million,
the TRAN is to balance cash flow.
What we're doing in the 10.5 million cut that we're doing,
we are saying that of the 10 million, we were going to use 2
of it to try to deal with our 10.5 million dollar problem.
That doesn't mean that as January, February, March,
April comes along, we're not going to need all
that 10 million just to make payroll.
Did the other guys understand that,
that concept, does that make sense?
It's the cash we need to pay the monthly obligations.
This 10.5 is to balance our accrual budget that we--
that, you know, our projected budget I should say.
But along the way in the year, we need cash just
to pay the things we need to pay.
That's the-- that's kind of the--
one of the differences on that.
Okay, and then the next page-- any questions?
Yes, Dave.
>> Yeah, I guess I'm confused as probably a lot
of other people were at that Board meeting.
This here, the 10.5 million that Doctor Rocha said that he wanted
to try to enforce included the 2 million dollar TRAN flow.
>> Right.
>> And they went ahead and said we want to take
out another 10 million dollar TRAN flow,
that's 12 million, okay?
But you can only give one a year.
>> No, they--
>> And that's why everybody got confused.
Was the 2 million part of the 10 million dollar one?
Because the guy said you can go as low as 5 million
if the rules change when it's over 5 million dollars.
>> Yeah, well first of all, there's one TRAN
and only one TRAN and if we do this,
the amount that we are asking the board's approval on is
in the amount of 10 million, period.
So, of that 10 million, if this scenario that we have
in place now, this 10.5 scenario that we have in front
of us holds, the suggestion is that we would use 2 million
of the TRAN to help with this 10.5 million dollar issue, okay?
Any accountant in the room will tell you, any accountant
out there will tell you that you can't do that.
And John Martin and everybody else knew that.
We went and made the presentation last night,
we said that.
So in effect, we are really throwing 8.5 million
at a 10.5 million dollar problem,
8.5 million of hard cost cuts at a 10.5 million problem
and taking 2 million from the beginning balance.
We're going to lower the beginning balance by 2 million.
Now Danny is shaking his head because he is--
it's 'cause we're talking budget as opposed to actual numbers.
You want to say something, Dan, before I explain?
>> Not right now, at some point I will
but I do have some questions on this, so.
>> Okay, then go ahead and ask your questions.
>> Well, okay, under the capital--
and I'm going back to page 1,
and I know you got 1 more page so I don't know.
Do you want to finish that one page then we'll go back
and ask some questions?
>> Well, okay.
I'll-- actually, there's-- I think there're two pages.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> So do you want?
>> Yeah, just go ahead.
>> Okay, so the next one is a--
as of 7-18-2012 projected budgets for the General Fund 01,
and this is accrual as opposed to cash.
And what we do is we do a side by side comparison of what 11-12
and 12-13 would look like.
So we had the beginning fund balance, again accrual.
We started last year with the 18.8 at the moment
and when I say at the moment, as of July 18th,
we are anticipating starting the year with 19.8 million.
Marie, Anthony and the accounting team are on track
for a July 31st close at the moment.
And so these numbers will become actuals.
Well, we'll have the--
we'll have an actual operating statement,
a closing operating statement for 11-12 at that point.
But any event, we'll know what the 12-13 beginning balance is
when we actually close and have a final on the 11-12.
Okay, then you've got the federal funding sources,
the state funding.
The state funding is primarily assessment income
or FTES income from the state.
So, in 11-12, we anticipate collecting in the neighborhood
of 75.5 million dollars.
However, because of the 6.7 percent--
I'm sorry, because of the 7.3 percent work load reduction,
we know that our FTES apportionment dollars is--
will be cut to 66.3 million dollars
and this projected budget assumes
that the governor's budget is not going to pass.
The 10.5 million dollar reduction is built
into this broad projection, so.
>> Say that one more time, it assumes what?
>> It assumes that the governor's tax initiative will
not pass.
>> That's okay, yeah.
>> And that the 6.7 million that we are losing
because of what we're told, and the reason of course is
because that initiative doesn't--
we don't know it until the November 6 election
and then we'll go from there.
And that again, that tracks back
to the 10.5 million dollar document too in terms
of the furlough cuts and some other things.
Okay, local funding, basically,
local funding is tuition-- out-of-state tuition.
It's enrollment fees
and out-of-state tuitions primarily, and property tax.
Excuse me, property tax,
out-of-state tuition and enrollment fees.
Enrollment fees are a little bit of a hard number
to get your arms around
and there's a thing called a triple flip and so on
and so forth but what it really boils down to is that because
of the board of governor waiver for students
who are deemed qualified, that local revenue
that we would normally collect which helps us
with our cash flow, we don't get because it's waived.
Doctor Bell mentioned in a meeting yesterday
that 67 percent of the students who come to PCC are eligible
and receive the BOG waivers.
So, the cash that we would normally--
that would normally come in the door that we would get to keep,
that will help operate the college for 67 percent
of our students doesn't come in.
Now we theoretically get--
reimburse that through the assessment revenue
from the state but again, that becomes part
of the whole deferral scenario,
that's why that becomes an important date.
>> The-- what I don't see in here are--
correct me if I missed not seeing it.
It's the 6 million dollars that they owe us
for deferral, correct?
So if you get that any time next year,
that would be not only 105.8 but it would be 111 million?
>> That's part of our beginning balance.
>> Although you said you got the 6 million dollars
in the 19 million?
>> Yeah. Right.
Go ahead, Marie.
[ Pause ]
>> Revenue for 11-12.
>> Right, that's in the 116, that's part of that.
>> 11-12.
>> We just haven't gotten it yet
but that's what they're going to get.
>> Okay, so that was budgeted at that time?
>> Yes, in 11-12.
>> And then depending on--
and then it becomes part
of the 12-13 beginning balance if we don't get it.
We don't realize it in the-- in 11-12.
And again, and it's hard.
I understand that's hard.
These are just numbers on the page.
They are budget, this projected budget is accrual
and it's not cash and that's a big difference,
and we'll talk more about that, Kevin.
>> Last meeting, we were talking about being proactive.
So after this agenda item is over, I was hoping we can move
to more proactive ideas for generating money
or handling the 10.5 million.
>> Okay. Okay, so then you'll go through and we see--
so we see that the total revenue 11-12 is 116.
The total revenue for 12-13 is 105,
and there is the magic 10 and a half roughly.
Laps the-- it's a 9 million something
but it's roughly there.
That's the gap we're trying to close.
Now, if you go down and you look at the expenditures,
several of those numbers-- well, let's start at the top.
Academic salaries, the classified nonacademic salaries,
the reductions are due primarily to reductions in staff
at this point and-- but even when--
and then the employed benefits which is also down and again,
it's tied to the reduction
in staff situation among other things.
However, all three of those lines are still in development.
There were new positions to prove last night.
We have not yet finalized negotiations
with our healthcare providers.
We don't have the final, final numbers yet, we will very soon.
Now there's still-- there's still some crunch in there.
Now, the supplies and materials, that's a roll over number,
that number could change.
The other operating expenses and services, that's a roll
over too, you know that's--
you know that's things like utilities and legal fees
and personal services agreements and everything else that's
in the budget that is not supplies
and materials, more or less, right?
But that's 2 as a rollover that we're still working on.
Now, the equipment purchase is an interesting line and Marie,
why don't you go ahead and explain that one.
>> For just last year, you approved a 2 million inclusive
in that account number to absorb the midyear cut.
>> Absorb what?
>> Midyear cut, we had a 2 million midyear cut.
>> Oh, yeah, yeah.
>> Okay, so you approved that.
So what I did here is for discussion purposes
for a projection and I know you will question where did it go.
I tried to split it between the two salary
which is the academic and the classified.
So instead of taking in the proposed budget cut
in its totality, I reduced it so we would have--
it's like a factor that's being absorbed in the reduction.
So technically, if you look at the 12-13 of academic salary
if the-- I did not do that,
the fee where there should only be 52 million.
>> Oh.
>> I spread it out so that it would not get a bigger hit.
>> So the trigger was 2.5 million,
the decision was made I guess to absorb the 500,000
but actually booked, put 2 million aside
if in fact there was an actual need for that cash
to operate the college.
And what we'll see in the operating statement is whether
that cash was used or not as we go forward and try
to remember what it said for May--
in the May operating statement on that line item.
The cash was still there, right Marie?
>> Not the cash but we budgeted for it.
>> I should say the budget, right.
The 2 million was in that line
or that money was not allocated is my point.
>> It wasn't allocated last year and so for next year,
you allocated that 2 million between academic salaries
and class advancement.
>> We put it where we thought it really needed to be.
>> To be fair enough.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, so that's what that-- that's what that difference is
and other [inaudible] we just want to set now.
And you'll see the total expenditures.
Again, the revenue is 105 million, the expenditure is 107,
so in effect, it's 2 million above.
So on the under part, we balance the budget with the TRAN
and in effect, that's not proper accounting
and you really can't do that.
But we're still-- and it's--
we're indicating it's a balance budget
when in fact it's a deficit budget, deficit finance budget.
And that 2 million will likely--
the auditors will not let us call it the TRAN,
we're going to have to take it from the beginning balance.
That at the end of the day, that's what will happen
if in fact we need that money next year.
Okay, last but not least,
also in the Board packet last night was a request
for positions.
And as I recall, it was a 35 budgeted positions,
7 new positions in the areas of administrative services,
a new internal auditor compliance officer that would--
that will report to the president's office.
There were positions in information technology,
the instructions [inaudible] services, educational services,
and executive assistants confidential
for several offices on campus.
For the time being, and I emphasize for the time being,
the information technology positions were pulled off the
table because we are trying to identify more clearly
where the expense is going to come to fund these positions.
But I expect that we will resolve that shortly, but that--
those were pulled off.
So the board after much discussion approved going
forward with these positions.
Now, part of the discussion had to do
with this college staffing request chart
where we provided a SERP supplemental early retirement
program position recap.
You will recall that in the 10-11 school year,
as of last June 30th, 92 of our colleagues retired.
They took advantage of the SERP.
SERP II which went into effect basically January 1
of 2012 resulted in 7 people leaving, retiring.
And SERP III which just concluded resulted
in 14 people going, so there was a total of 113 positions tied
to the retirement program.
Now, in reconciling this document to the new positions,
as Anthony went through this year's 11-12 budget,
beyond the 21 SERP II and SERP III positions that were funded
in this budget, in the 11-12 budget,
Anthony found 9 other positions at least
at the time we put this chart together.
I think Anthony might still be looking or is 9 the number?
9 is the number, so there are 9 budget--
9 positions in the budget that are funded
and there were 21 positions in the budget that are funded.
>> Wait, wait, wait, there's 9 positions
that aren't filled or what are saying?
>> Well, yeah exactly.
There are 9 positions that other than SERP became vacant in 2000.
>> Okay.
>> 11-12.
>> Okay.
>> I'm sorry [inaudible].
>> I have a clarification.
Last night, the positions weren't approved.
They were just approved for posting.
>> Yeah.
>> Just to clarify that to this committee and the deadline
for people to apply to these positions is August 1st.
So foreseeably, they won't all be filled
and they weren't all approved, just so everyone is clear.
>> Yeah, the-- I guess I would take a little bit of exception
with that because the normal process is--
in fact, this is the first time
that we've actually taken positions to the Board
for approval to be posted.
Normally, that is a responsibility
of the administration and given to the administration
to make that decision.
However, because of Doctor Rocha's desire to be transparent
and open and clear during--
particularly these current times, he took this
to the Board, the Board approved for posting.
Hanna is actually correct, just as she is correct
on any position that comes to the Board even now,
even when the district had a lot of money
that every hiring decision is a decision
of the Board of Trustees.
In other words, I go through an interview and everything else
and until the board says you're hired, no one is hired.
So, what the Board requested last night is what they have all
the time anyway.
But what the Board was trying to say is that in particular, now,
they are sensitive to the needs of the district.
Without getting into the long presentation from last night,
Doctor Rocha's point when he presented this is
that these positions in the opinion
of the administration were actually necessary
to support the institution from the accreditation point of view
and from a good business practice point of view.
And every one of these positions tie directly to that.
But as Hanna is saying, there were Board members,
I think the vote was 4 yes and 3 abstentions, as I recall,
and there was one board member trustee fellow
who was not there last night.
And the abstentions were about the fact that, you know,
until all the numbers come in, no one is actually--
that they were not absolutely comfortable with saying yes.
They weren't uncomfortable enough to say no,
don't affect the official record right there is 4 yes,
that's the official, that's unanimous.
So it passes unanimously in the-- where is our--
where is Simon, the Robert [inaudible] guy?
But that's-- that's that.
That's that.
So that's that.
So I want to make that clear.
Yes Dave?
>> Do you know if the new positions are
for classified anyway went through the unions?
Because, you know, we do have a right to look
at the job descriptions and the money
that is being involved in there.
>> Well, there are 5 custodian positions on that list.
>> Yeah, but those are all--
those are for [inaudible] backfill custodians that was.
>> Right, so what--
>> Any new positions that were created?
>> Any new CSCA positions?
>> Well, any brilliant group realistically whether it's an
issue or whatever.
>> Oh, yeah, no.
You're absolutely right.
If there are any on this list, and I don't recall if there are,
you're actually right.
Each-- as any new classification has got to be vetted
by issue or CSCA or whomever.
And in fact, we just did that, Julio.
Didn't we with one of the new distance ed online positions
which was not on this list
but it was a previous one not too long ago.
>> That was the only one.
>> Yeah. So the answer is yes.
>> But it is a process that I'm new too
and so I've got some things that I need to do with some
of the positions even though most all
of mine were essentially pulled.
But still, as I now need to work that type of discussions
into the process of any positions
that I'd be creating in the ITS area.
There's nothing new in the facility side
with the custodians or the painters but there are some
in the ITS side but I--
it's a process I'm learning so I will certainly do that.
>> I believe that the business analyst is new position, right?
The business analyst is a new classification.
>> Yeah, business analyst, there are others
like web administrator and video engineer, they're not on the--
they weren't on the original list but they are a part
of the initial submittals that I've done and it's new.
I know that the 2 director positions that are, you know,
we have on the list are positions that are part
of the management group.
So I do need to have a discussion concerning those 2,
so again, I'll catch up with that process.
>> Yeah, okay.
So going through this chart again so 139--
so there's a subtotal
of 122 available positions at the moment.
During the 10-11, we hired approximately 22 faculty
in 11-12.
We are-- we hired 10 faculty so that brought us
to 90 vacant positions and the proposed hires
at the time we did this were approximately 34
and so we're basically stating
that there's an overall reduction of 56 positions.
Now, when you do the math on that, I didn't bring it all
with me in terms of how it all came together
but those 56 positions total to about 2.3 to .4 million dollars
in expense and that 2.3-2.4 million dollars went
to balancing-- helping to balance the 12-13 budget.
So we came out of the-- this process with 2.3 million--
well, with upwards of--
the total value of the SERP positions is just a little
about 12 million dollars give or take.
And all the money that would--
that came out of that went to balance the budget.
In this particular group, we're going to add another 2.3 million
to help balance 12-13 going forward,
and that's where we are right now.
So that's what we went over last night,
more questions if you'd like.
We can talk about the 10.5,
we can talk about what Kevin wants to talk about.
>> No, no, no, no.
[Simultaneous Talking]
>> [Inaudible] about what Danny wants to talk about.
Now, let's do Dave and then Danny and then we'll get
to Kevin after we're done with this, okay?
>> My understanding, you said that only 9 were budgeted,
these 56 were not budgeted, is that correct?
>> No.
>> If they're not in the budget, how are you going to balance it?
>> Okay, let's try it again real quick here.
We had an overall SERP vacant position, 1, 2,
and 3 of 113 positions.
We had 9 more that were budgeted in 11-12
and are currently vacant.
That gave us 122.
Out of the 122, we hired back over 2 years 32 faculty.
We have 90 vacant positions.
Of the 90 vacant positions,
we're proposing 34 positions and--
>> [Inaudible] Can we start right there?
The 90 positions that were vacant,
were they in the budget as to be filled?
>> You're from 10-11, 11-12, the answer is yes.
>> Yeah, that's what I was looking for.
>> The answer is yes, they were into that.
>> Because I got confused when it says only 9 were budgeted but
yet we had 90 vacancies.
>> Answer is yes.
Yeah.
>> I remember when Doctor Cosby [phonetic] used
to do the budget.
He would not put those, the ones that were frozen,
he would not add them into the budget.
>> Yeah, well, we-- yeah, they're in the budget now.
At least these are right now.
>> Who wants to comment on that?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
[ Noise ]
>> What we've just-- what we started doing was sweeping the
budget, so--
>> Right.
>> The position-- some of the positions,
may have still been sitting there
but there was no dollar value attached to them.
These 9 that he's speaking of are positions
that had dollar values attached to them.
So there's actually a budget there that was never expensed,
which was kind of a saving so to speak, but they were stolen,
they were zero dollars.
>> And so the SERP II and III, people who left in the middle
of 11-12, and people who left at the end of 11-12,
there's money there for them.
They were budgeted as well, II and III, because we--
but we budgeted them for 11-12.
So that number plus the 9, that's real money.
We offset what we offset in 2.3 money--
2.3 million left of that real money goes back
into the other budget categories in the college
or for 12-13 in round numbers.
Okay, Julio and then Danny.
>> Quick question comment, I guess,
I'm back to the IT position 'cause I know [inaudible].
They were supposed to be funded through the fund number 41,
the Capital Outlay, and I was under the impression
that that was just a one year funding.
>> Yeah.
>> So, how do you guys expect to fund it, you know, too?
>> You may have just stumbled on why they were pooled, Julio.
It's a mystery actually, to Vice President Cable and I how
that happened, to be honest with you, yeah.
Well, we're circling around to do what we need to do.
The IT needs these positions and somehow, we got to figure
out a way to deal with this in one form or another.
>> The issue on the whole really has to do
with how we're setting budget priorities and we need
to make some really hard decisions
about some of these stuff.
And as part of-- and it's all tied together,
it's all tied together with faculty association.
It's all tied together with any other types of decisions
that we need to make with respect to cost issues
and so we got to work through it all.
And yeah, you know, you can't fund something
like that with one time fund.
So, we got to make some decisions.
>> I have a question.
So, we pulled the IT positions, is that correct?--
>> That's correct.
>> Then how come on the California registry, number one
and two are still being flown?
>> Actually because-- and we have talked about that
in the HR meeting this morning, and the first thought was
to pull them off the website.
And then, Vice President Cable and a couple of others talked
about that and said, "Well, if we are actually going
to seriously figure out a way to try to fund these,
let's at least leave the advertising out there,
get a pool of the candidates to look at.
If we take it offline, then we don't have a pool, we can't--
we have to start all over again."
Any position that's advertised at any time can be pulled
at any time for any reason, so that's why it's still up there.
Okay, I think Danny has been very patient.
>> Okay.
>> No, I don't think Danny has been very patient.
[Laughter]
>> Well, I know.
I don't have a lot of patience so what can I say?
>> No, you do.
I though you're on a vacation today, [laughter] I was kind
of looking forward to that.
>> I know you do.
[Laughter]
>> Okay, so, we'll just go in reverse
from your last page and forward.
>> Yes sir.
>> So, first question is on the SERP positions, can you break
down of the 92, the 7, and the 14, how many were faculty,
how many are classified, how many are executive management?
Do you have that-- those numbers or no?
>> Oh I'm sure we have them.
I don't have them with me.
>> Have them now, okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So, one thing to keep in mind is, I believe the number
for faculty in the first group was 42 or something like that.
>> That number sticks to my mind, too.
>> And then there are other faculty on here.
So, when they're looking at these positions, well, okay,
let me skip down to the faculty hires, it says 32.
Now, you say there were 22 hired in 10-11.
So, that means they were hired in August of 2010,
way before the service started, way before all this.
I mean, if they were-- if they were for 10-11,
they would have been hired in August of 2010, correct?
Those 22. Because if they worked in the years 2010 to 11,
which has started July 1st, 2010 and ended June 30th, 2011,
they had to be onboard about August of 2010.
>> Here's what I'm thinking.
I know for a fact we hired the 32 faculty.
In order to be compliant
with the full-time faculty obligation number
for the current year, we had to commit to the--
to the state that we would hire an additional 10 faculty.
>> For 11-12?
>> Or well, we had-- in 11-12, we had to hire,
which we are right now, for the 12-13 year.
>> No.
>> I've got 10 faculties starting--
all right, the district has 10 faculty starting this summer
and a new faculty orientation in about a week, right Dan?
>> Yeah.
>> And those faculty will begin their tenure
with the district in 12-13.
They were hired in 11-12 in order
to start their tenure in 12-13.
The 22 faculty were hired in 10-11 in order
to start their tenure at 11-12.
In other words, we had 22 new faculty start work last August
something for this year.
>> Okay.
>> So those 32 faculty were hired.
And I'll take it one step further,
the full-time faculty obligation number based upon our lower--
our workload reduction number, taking our FTES
down to something on the order of 18,008 from a high
of 23,000 something some years ago might require us
to hire five additional faculty give or take this coming year.
If we don't hire those faculty-- we have two choices with that.
If we don't seek permission from the state to put
that in some temporary holding pattern,
then the state can fine us up to 65,000, give or take,
for each one of those vacant positions.
However, there are many districts throughout the state
who couldn't hire faculty if their fiscal lives depended
on it and so there's many district center "out
of compliance" with that regulation right now.
And the chancellor's office and the board
of governors are trying to figure out how to deal
with that whole situation.
So, long story short, I think we're going to need
to hire maybe as many as 5 faculty
to maintain our full-time faculty obligation number,
which under our current funded FTES based of 19,500
or whatever the number is right now, I don't have it off the top
of my head, is about 378 full-time faculty.
>> Okay, all right.
So that's that page, I believe.
I thought I had one other question, but it's okay.
Did you want?
>> No, give Danny.
>> Oh.
>> I want to ask on instruction and student learning services--
>> Yes?
>> Number five, Dean of Student-- that's--
we currently have Assistant Dean of Student Affairs,
why is there being a current--
>> In a--
>> -- as well as-- one second, let me--
as well as, I believe number 6 is on accreditation
but I just want to double check.
>> Okay.
>> Are we switching to the specific parts?
>> I'm going back to the administrative hiring list.
>> He's looking at the hiring list.
>> I wanted to see if she's going through this,
but you know, that's okay.
>> No, no, no.
I-- we thought you were done.
[Simultaneous Talking]
>> Okay. I'll defer your question.
I apologize Dan, we'll come back to you.
[Laughter]
>> He's never done.
>> I'm sorry, I'm not trying to hog you.
>> He's never done.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Listen, if anybody hogs this thing it's me, right?
So go ahead.
>> All right, so going back to--
let's go back to the first page 'cause I had a couple
of questions on that.
So on the General Unrestricted Fund,
it looks like between the--
so on 01, the beginning fund is 18.8 or 9, right in there,
and we're ending with 19.9.
So, basically, we've added
about a million dollars, is that right?
To deposit them.
>> Go ahead, Marie, and answer that question.
The answer is yes.
>> Yes, tentatively.
>> But he's got the-- but the follow up question is why.
>> We under spent.
>> That's right.
>> Okay?
>> That's right.
>> That's why if you go back to your projected budget,
we're reflecting the 9 million as the beginning balance wherein
if the Board approves, we can get some of the short fall
in the budget from the beginning balance.
>> Right. Now that's exactly my point because I want to talk
about actual numbers not budget numbers, but we always talk
about the budget numbers, so-- but anyway, that-- okay, so.
So, it's because we under spent so we have an extra million.
We lived within our means, in fact, a million below
at least at this point.
>> Right.
>> Tentative.
I'm just saying [inaudible].
>> Tentatively, tentatively.
Okay, and so, this number right next to it
where it says expenditures year to date, 110,860.
Is that the actual expenditures for 11-12 so far?
>> Yeah, that's the actual so far.
>> So, in the final month of this year,
we spent over 15 million dollars
because on the 11-12 operating statement as of May 31st,
we had spent 95.6 million.
But we're now 15 million more than that?
>> Yes, and the reason for that is because of the payroll.
The June-- in the June-- on the month of June,
instead of only having one payroll,
there's another one payroll that's being added
because the way the accounting works,
they don't issue the payroll not until July one to ten.
>> Okay, but that second payroll is for July.
>> No, that second payroll is still
for the period ending June 30.
>> Well, like my paycheck for the summer,
does it include the summer checks?
>> Yes, that is part of our accrual.
>> Okay, but-- so you're paying that in the 11-12 year
and counting it as an expense for 11-12,
but my paycheck paid me at least a week into July.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, so we charge the expenses
for the next year in this year?
>> Well the-- well, some of them, but no,
because the summer school starts-- Marie, go ahead.
>> Danny, for instance, C1.
The C1, the certificated monthly employee,
the check that they receive in July 1 was actually the payment
for the services they rendered from June 1 to June 30.
>> Right, everything is in arrears.
>> As far as the people receiving, they look at that
as June but that is really their earning pertaining to June.
>> Right.
>> Well, I'm going to check on July 1.
We don't get checks on July 1.
>> No, certificated monthly.
>> Oh, certificated.
You're talking monthly?
Oh, okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Well no.
>> I'm giving you an example, that's how it works.
>> You mean 12 monthly?
'Cause-- oh, I see.
You got some people, I realize.
I see what you're saying.
Some people, they're paid 12 months.
I'm paid on ten months, that's why I'm a little confused.
>> About a third of the faculty fall into that, right.
It's about a third of the faculty opt for the 12.
Dan is up there, can we take a question
from Dan real quick or do you want--
>> Yes, yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, I have a question about the staffing request.
Looking on this, I don't have the exact numbers
but this-- the numbers for SERP.
As I recall, most of those SERP retirees were faculty
or classified staff and I know you're filling as many
as you can for the faculty but the new hires at least
of what I heard at last night's Board of Trustees meeting seemed
to be mostly administrators and it seems
like we're shifting positions from faculty
and classified up to administration.
I know you do need some administrators
but I wonder how many of those you actually really need.
>> I'll tell you what, if I can--
that relates to Kevin's question.
Let's let Danny finish this and then we'll come back
to the positions, if that's okay?
>> Okay, that's all right.
>> Thank you.
>> All right.
>> Actually, it kind of relates to Danny's question
or request earlier about how it's broken down 'cause
that would be kind of interesting to--
while we make the statement that most positions were
such certain classification,
I think that's probably a very important analysis
that could be done with all three of those SERPs.
Were they management?
Were they faculty?
Were they classified?
All that stuff just so that we're clear.
>> Yeah, we actually have that information.
>> I'm sure you do, but--
>> And is it easily sortable?
Can we bring it next time?
Yeah, Maggie can provide that.
Okay, yeah, we can easily provide that.
>> All right, Dan.
>> That's okay.
>> No, I'm sorry?
So-- but it clearly include some of July because I got a paycheck
that included-- it pay--
it didn't pay me for the first week of summer school.
It paid me for at least the first two weeks of summer school
which would have taken me through the first week of July.
I just want to make sure I'm clear on that.
I'm not criticizing it.
I just want to understand it.
>> Okay, we do it, Danny, since they have put the adjunct, okay,
full monthly payments like 4 equal monthly
or 3 monthly within a semester.
The practice we have been doing is any payroll
that are being paid between July to July 10, this C1 and E4,
when I say C1 those are the certificated monthly,
the E4 are the classified monthly, all those services are
for the month of June.
So we just have to consider every thing
and since summer classes also starts somewhere in June,
we don't compute day by day that they're here.
>> Right, okay.
But-- so the expenses for 11-12 do include, for some people
at least the first week of summer school and some people,
I think they got half their pay, but anyway,
it includes some of July's pay.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, yeah.
>> And of course that's consistent year after year
after year so, you know, the impact kind
of evens itself out I would suspect.
>> All right, then my next question on that sheet is
under the AIS, the 14 million dollars
which I think the AIS is important
so I'm not criticizing that.
But the-- what I read, I didn't actually go
to the Board meeting last night, but the cost analysis was
over a five-year period.
So, you're putting in here-- you're designating--
and I understand but I just think everybody needs
to understand, we're not going
to spend 14 million dollars next year.
>> Yeah.
>> And so, these numbers are if you don't put another penny
into the capital outlay, we can pay for the biggest expenditure
at this school, the biggest problem at this school or one
of the biggest, at least technology wise clearly,
all right now with the money we have in those accounts.
Because according to the five-year cost ownership,
the first year, we're only going to spend
about 5.9 million dollars.
>> Right.
>> Okay.
>> That's correct.
And--
>> So I just want to make sure everybody realizes that.
>> And I think as I-- I know as I mentioned last night,
I think as I mentioned when I went through this,
even though it just say AIS Banner Technology Conversion,
it includes much more technology than just CIS, right Dwayne?
>> That's correct.
Even though the point of the 14 million total cost
of ownership is to look at that decision as a budget decision,
that needs to be planned however that gets spread out, you know?
But you're right.
From a cash flow, if we looked at it that way,
we only need 6 million dollars of that in the first year
to handle the AIS piece.
There are other pieces like Unified Call Center
that will cost another million that are not part
of just the AIS, but its other components that we will need
to address, network infrastructures, support.
>> But that's all in here.
That's budgeted in here.
>> It's not in that.
That is just the AIS.
This is just the hardware and the software or the services
and the software for that.
Sorry, it's an expensive proposition outside.
>> And then the other piece of that, we have to remember
that Fund 41 and 64 are interfund borrowing fund,
and the more that we expend that out of the--
out of capital outlay, the more--
the less we have for the interfund borrowing,
the more that we need the TRAN,
the more that we need something else to get us through.
>> Right, well, that was part of my point
because if you thought you were going to spend all that money,
you'd say, "Well, we couldn't borrow against that."
But we're only going to spend about 6 million
out of there for that anyway.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, I think so at the moment.
>> All right.
Then on the self-insurance fund, well,
I guess it's corrected over here.
At the end of the-- on line 64 all the way over to the right,
it says 10,000,295 and I thought you put
that 5 million dollars back in there, so--
>> But we didn't put it back in until after this was done.
>> After this was done?
So there is 15 million there.
>> This is dated the 16th and the 17th is
when we made the transfer.
Okay, now we're back where we want to be there.
>> All right, all right.
>> Okay. Then on the 2012-13 budget projections-- okay.
As you said, this is accrual, this is a budget.
Okay, so I just want everybody to understand
that these numbers are all budgeted numbers so when,
particularly, when you go to the expenditures, okay,
for academic salaries, classified salaries,
all that stuff, there's about 101 million dollars budgeted.
And last week, we were told it's 110 million,
so that's a 9 million dollar difference.
And secondly, this isn't what we actually have expended.
Now, I know you're getting updates and that number is going
to be larger but I have three handouts that I do want
to hand out at some point.
I don't need to do it right now but I do want to hand them out
and just explain them briefly.
It will not be anything like yesterday.
[Laughter]
>> Okay.
>> I promise.
>> That's all right.
>> 10 minutes maybe.
>> Okay.
>> But I just want people to understand some of the numbers
and I know they're not all updated
and I know updates are coming
and so it's not always completely updated.
>> That's fine.
>> But these--
>> 10 minutes is a budget?
>> Yeah. [Laughter]
>> No, no, no, I'm-- promise, I promise, okay?
So-- but anyway, I mean, because if you're looking
at this thing you're going, oh, my goodness we spent every penny
that we received last year.
>> Right.
>> But we're not there, so--
>> And let me add this very quickly, at the request of our,
of our faculty association colleagues, we will be providing
to the association by noon Tuesday and probably earlier
than that an updated operating statement
that shows actual cash expended not closing not year end
yet but getting closer.
So, that would give you, that--
that will give you guys a much better sense
of actual cash expended for 11-12.
And that same document we'll bring to BRAC next week
and we'll share that document to this group
and that will be an indication of the cash expended this year.
But now we have a couple of choices,
we can let Danny do his budget overview or we can go to Kevin's
and Dan's question and break it up a little bit.
What's the pleasure of the group?
>> Go to the questions while Danny is handing
out his [inaudible], if that's okay.
>> All right.
Okay, Danny is that okay with you?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, so let's, let's start with Kevin's question again
and then we'll go to Dan.
Your question had to do
with item five [simultaneous talking] and six, right?
>> Yes, five and six [Inaudible Remark]
>> Okay. In general-- [laughter] no, thank you.
In general, as Doctor Bell is currently the Vice President
of Instruction and Student Learning Services,
so we have blended two positions together.
It is the intent of the administration
and every indication is that the intent of the Board of Trustees
to continue those two positions collapsed into one seemingly
from what Doctor Rocha understands.
>> Are we talking about five or six?
>> I'm just talking about the instruction
and student services--
>> [Inaudible] got you, got it.
>> -- in general.
So as a result of that, the current five
which is an assistant dean
of student affairs is being considered to be increased
to a full dean of student affairs
because as Doctor Bell takes on all these duties,
he needs to reallocate and redelegate certain
of his responsibilities to, in this case,
the student affairs person.
So, it was felt that it would be appropriate
to move these positions up to a certain degree,
and the management salary schedule is
such that whomever the successful candidate is,
internal or external, there's a number of factors
that actually drive what the actual salary will be
and it's very dependent upon the individual candidate.
So, you don't know where the actual salary will end up.
Presumably it will be a little bit more,
I think for very round budgeting purposes
that Marie has added the roughly five percent in addition
to the value of the budgeted positions that we have.
The same is-- it is true that we have an associate dean
of counseling and student success right now.
And if I recall that new position description,
it encompasses counseling and student success.
So, many of these positions are promotional opportunities
for faculty and colleagues here at PCC.
So, again, every search will be what we
like to say proper and thorough.
And so the point being is
that these positions are elevated a little bit,
but we anticipate that a number of these opportunities will go
to incumbent faculty and/or managers.
>> So, I was looking actually at this dean of student affairs
and the responsibilities seem vastly the same?
Is there any good-- is there a way to find
out which responsibilities are new
since they're getting us promotion?
>> I believe and I haven't looked at that closely lately
but I think one of the new responsibilities
in that position will be the athletics for the college.
>> Athletics?
>> As the kinesiology and health goes to natural sciences
as agreed to through the, our shared governance process,
athletics needs to go somewhere and it was my sense
that the student affairs dean was going to be responsible
for the college athletics.
Is that on the-- is that on description?
>> No. [Inaudible Remark]
>> No it's not there, that's--
>> Might be other duties as assigned, how's that?
>> I'm just, I'm just wondering, they seem the exact same.
And, so I'm wondering, you know,
this is such a sketchy time for our budget.
If they're not getting a lot or a vast difference
in responsibilities, it's kind of something that's worrying us.
>> I think that I'll have to defer that one to Doctor Bell.
>> Okay.
>> And maybe Hanna, I know you meet regularly
with Doctor Bell now so that would be good opportunity
to talk to him about that at that point.
Okay, now Dan, to answer your question a little bit, try to.
Your question is why so many management positions
in the time of, well, I think there--
there's two answers to that
that Doctor Rocha tried to impart last night.
One is, we are vastly, vastly exposed in our business areas
of the college and certainly the recent situation that we're
in bears evidence of that.
The controller/executive director
of fiscal is an upgraded director
of fiscal services position that Odessa Walker had.
The executive director
of business services is an upgraded position
that Sherry Hassan had.
The executive director
of facilities is a vacant position that's been vacant
for way, way, way too long but it was one of the positions
that Doctor van Pelt held while he was also the vice president,
first the interim vice president and then the vice president
of administrative services.
And then the human resources executive director is one less
infamous vice president and that will now be heading up HR.
So, that's what those four positions are.
You might recall that even though it indicates supervisor
of human resources is a new position, it's new only
and that it hasn't been funded for a couple of three years
but in fact it was the Melinda Polo position
that Melinda had for many years.
And our HR department right now is really in need of some help.
Dan?
>> Okay, when you say executive director salary wise,
how does that relate to vice president level position?
>> The executive director positions are contemplated to be
in the 135 to155 range.
>> All right.
>> You know, I mean, everything is, you know,
at the end of the day it's commens-- it's a--
was commensurate with the experience in education
or it depended upon that.
Doctor Rocha was asked the question, I believe,
by Trustee Brown last night about why executive director
versus director, versus vice president.
Doctor Rocha said that he wants all
of these executive director level positions to be part
of the president's cabinet.
He also wants them all to be on contracts, he doesn't want them
to be part of the bargaining unit.
Well, the management is a meet
and confer-- meet and confer you.
And he doesn't want them part of the management association
because that infers a certain rights and privileges
over a period of time that if someone wasn't working out,
it's much more difficult to resolve a situation.
But as an executive director, as a vice president,
as a president, we're all on basically year to year contracts
and it's since much more easily to--
much more easier to deal with something
that is not working out.
That's the truth.
>> Alright.
But except for people who have retreat rights,
isn't that the same for like the academic deans
who are hired from the outside?
They're on year to year contracts too aren't they?
>> Yeah, but based upon their classification, there's--
I guess everybody can get a March 15th notice
>> Yeah.
>> But the classif-- but there's just other issues associated
with it, I mean, if [inaudible] over here,
she could explain a little bit better.
It's just easier when you've got a contract.
>> Okay. [Inaudible Remark] And the salary levels are not going
to be-- for example, our division deans are in that,
that 135 to 155 range.
So, you know, it-- I don't think we're going to be dramatically
out of whack in these positions, okay?
And then the other big reason for the management position is
that as many of you have seen and heard through, you know,
the Accrediting Commission of Community
and Junior Colleges has-- it's coming down harder, and harder,
and harder on community colleges.
Many of you have already heard
about San Francisco City College being sent all the way
to show cause, you know, forget the warning,
forget the probation,
we're going to throw you all the way to show cause.
What's happening is the commission is going
around this-- college after college and determining
that the management ranks have been so decimated that the--
not only the physical management becomes a problem
but it becomes not possible to deal with the--
the course, the program,
the general education outcomes requirements, the assessment,
the program review, the institutional effectiveness,
all those things that are required for accreditation.
And if we don't have people in place to do these things
and work with our faculty, you get them done and what have you,
we are incredibly exposed.
The other thing is that we have a--
we have our next accreditation visit in 2015.
It is essential that we get our administration pretty much
locked down by this fall to show some level of stability
and some, if they ever provide evidence
that in fact we are moving to--
moving forward with our educational master plan
and that we're making progress.
If we don't have that level of-- of stability, they will come
after us in a big way.
So that's another reason why the president really wants
to get this nail down.
Yes Kim?
>> I would like to make a motion.
I would like to-- if it's okay.
I would like to move Danny's presentation to the beginning
of next week as the budget update for--
we're going to be doing hard numbers anyway.
I would like his presentation then
and I think it would be better.
How do you feel?
Well, I need a second.
>> You're on vacation, right?
>> Yeah.
>> I'm just going to say I'm not going to be here
for the next two weeks.
I know you're excited about that.
[Laughter]
>> That's-- so, otherwise I'd be more than happy
to wait until next week.
>> Yeah, just let it die, it's fine with me.
>> David.
>> Yeah. I had a question on that.
In the IT section, I mean, you have the vice president
and then you have Dale Pittman,
why do you need two more directors?
That I'm not understanding.
>> A total of four managers.
>> Beg your pardon.
>> A total of four managers in this department.
>> Vice President Cable have-- has-- has left.
>> I'm just curious that, you know,
why are we adding two more?
Because we're getting a new system, why do we need,
still need two more managers?
And then all these business analysts, I mean,
what are they going to do year from year?
>> I though the AIS is--
>> I'm sorry, you know.
>> -- is going to cut down on our need for them in extent.
But anyway, I don't know.
>> But whatever, I'm just curious on that one.
I'd like one more thing, right, it's possible,
now I also won't be here next week.
But on the cert, on the college staffing request,
can I get how many positions are actually frozen?
I mean-- I mean this is just a cert, correct?
We have other positions that we did not fill
that are still there out in the open.
>> Dave, that's a good question, I'm trying to remember.
Didn't we-- we had a number at one point, Anthony,
didn't we of how many overall [inaudible] positions
or unfunded positions there were over since like 2007, 2008?
>> That's the entire cost in our 3,000.
[ Pause ]
>> So-- but let's-- let's see if we can get a handle on that.
For some reason, sticking in my mind is 240, 250 positions
over the-- you know since this whole budget scenario,
the 2007-8 since we-- the fiscal crisis hit.
So that-- I want us 248, 240,
for some reason it's sticking in my head.
>> Just stated the frozen though it's really [inaudible].
>> That's correct.
>> [Inaudible] cost you know 3,001.
If and when one someone needed-- person.
>> Yeah, we-- we've always had kind
of a soft freeze if you will.
And the approach has been
that if deemed absolutely essential for the college.
So-- so the intent going forward from last night on is
to take these positions to the board for further review.
But for example, yesterday with Doctor Rocha's approval,
we approved a posting of a painter position, Alex retired.
As you know there's-- in every amount of things
to paint on this campus.
And I guess Sam is the only remaining painter right now?
So, in that one point we had how many painters?
>> Four.
>> We had four, we went to two.
Alex retired and Doctor Rocha had made the decision to fill
at least the second position.
So that's a good example of the position that was--
that's in that 3,001 or would be in that 3,001.
And it was deemed to that, but there are many
in that 3,001 cost center
that have been sitting vacant for several years.
>> And then sends about two million dollars worth of it.
>> Yeah. But then we get to this--
to the [inaudible] language.
But yeah, you know, the value that.
And I'll tell you that,
that 100,000 per position number is a very good number
as it turns out.
On average every position at this college between salary,
health welfare, HWB, Health Welfare and Benefits is roughly
about 100,000 dollars.
And that-- that number really was drilled home to me
when I looked at the SERP numbers
because it actually worked out that way.
Okay, so I think we're going to let Danny do his presentation?
>> Yeah, and I just thought of one more question.
And I don't know if it can be answered right now but--
if the expenditures on your chart were about a hundred
and ten million nine and our budget was 116,
that's about 5.2 million difference
and we only added 1 million to the ending balance.
Where is the other 4 million or so?
>> You know, Marie is not here but let me--
let me respond this way.
We'll have a better fix on that next week.
>> Yeah, that's right.
>> And then the other thing is when I sat down with Marie,
Danny, yesterday after the FA negotiations
and I asked her about, you know, I told her what we needed.
She said anytime, any day, anybody from the FA,
you or whomever wants to come in and sit down and go
through every number, she's ready, willing, and able, so.
>> I know she's busy right now, I don't want
to go and stop her from--
>> No, my point is is that it's an open book.
So, to the extent that you want to, you want to go in
and just verify or whatever, we're open to that.
>> Well, I appreciate that, so.
I'm not suggesting I don't trust anything, just.
>> No, no, but you just need to know.
>> Yeah, thank you.
>> Yeah, I know.
We get it.
>> Okay. So, what I'd like to do.
And again I'll try to make this very brief hopefully 10 minutes.
It's-- the first one,
the colored one you have is something
that was handed out to us.
Did you get all these?
>> Yeah, I got them.
I'm all set, thanks Danny.
>> Okay, okay.
>> This is the operating statement
for 2011-12, and it ends May 31st.
So it doesn't have the final month in,
so some of the numbers we were just given today are updates
to this.
But I'll try to make those adjustments as I talk.
So, this is the basis for the two other charts
that I have here for the most part, I mean, some of these is
from some other places.
But in essence it's from, from this chart, okay?
So what I did is, because we were given a presentation last
week, told that our employee cost are 110 million
and it is not 10 million, that's 120 million.
Next year we're going to get 105 million,
we got a 50 million dollar problem.
And then there was a 10.5 million dollar reduction plan
that was presented to the board last night.
It was presented to us, we voted on all that, okay?
So we're all aware of that.
And that just didn't seem to add up to me, so I went
and got this and-- and added these numbers together to figure
out what was going on.
So I wanted to get actual numbers
because those are all budget numbers.
So, if you look under actual expenditures,
the first column there is the actual expenditures
in the three key areas for all employees,
this is total employee cost, the first gray line there,
up through May 31st, it was 86.2 million dollars, okay?
Are you with me?
I'm on the-- sorry, I'm on the page, not the cash flow page,
the page that says "Summary of 2011-12 budget as of 5-31-12."
The smaller print 'cause I couldn't get it bigger
on one page, okay?
So on that first column, if you go down it says
under the first gray line, that is a total of the employee cost
through May 31st of this last fiscal year, okay?
So, 11 months out of 12 months,
we spent total employee cost 86.2 million.
The line-- the column next to it where it says 112th at the top,
112th June, what I did is I extrapolated.
If we spent exactly what we spend every month that's how--
we would spend another 7.8 million,
and the gray line there, the 94 million is what we would spend
on total employee cost.
And if you're not with me, let me know.
And then the column next to that is we have used around number
of 10 million a month in cost.
So, using that formula and 90 percent
of those costs are employees, so that means 9 million
of the 10 million have been--
would have been expenditures on employees.
So, our total cost in the last fiscal year
that just ended June 30th would be approximately 9 point--
95 point-- well, 95 and a quarter million, okay?
Now again, I am extrapolating that last month and apparently,
the cost are a little higher for that month.
So this month, this is going to be a little low, but you can see
that that's a 15 million dollar difference
from what we were told our employee cost are last week.
We said it was 110 and that may be what you budget
but we're actually expending approximately 95
and a quarter million.
It would probably be a little more, maybe to be 96, 97,
you know, another million or 2.
But if it's not a 50 million dollar difference,
it's a 13 million dollar difference
or a 12 million dollar difference,
but it's a big difference, okay.
So then, then there was supplies about 10 million
and you can see what we actually expended 9.3 million,
extrapolated out, in the next column it would be about 10.2.
And if we go with the 10 million per month, it's about 10.4.
So, that number was pretty accurate, okay?
So, we're pretty close to that.
So, total expenditures as of May 31st in--
back in the first column again, 95.6 million rounded up, okay,
95.6, that's not 120 million, that's about 14
and a half million less than 120 million
which is what we were told is our operating budget, okay?
And that may be our budget,
but it isn't our actual expenditures,
and there's a big difference between your budget
and your actual expenditures.
Again extrapolated out, we would end up spending 104.
If with the 10 month, it would be 105,
but we've now been told today it's 110.
So, I was off by 4 and a half million.
My numbers can still show that we can--
so, if we don't do anything different next year,
absolutely nothing different next year,
we're going to get 105.5 million dollars.
So, we spent apparently now 110, but I'm going to show you--
so, that's where we are.
So, then let me go down to the next section.
Saving is not included in the 11-12 budget.
In other words, things that are different for this fiscal year
than they were for last fiscal year.
So, we spend 105.6 million dollars or in about--
sorry, now we're at 110.
But starting in 12-13, we cut 578 sections
which is approximately a 3 million dollar savings.
So, that's 3 million we won't spend.
So, if the number is 110, we're down to 107.
If it was 105, it was down to 102 but you get the idea, okay?
So, we're down to 107.
Then from the SERP for 11-12, what wouldn't have been included
as far as savings go from the--
now, I'm not talking about actual cash that they put
in account that they saved,
but what would reduce your ongoing employee cost,
that was the whole point of SERP, okay,
is half of the people that retired in SERP II
because they retired halfway into the year.
Though, we will only--
we did not realize half of their savings as far
as the bottom line goes in 11-12 that we will in 12-13.
So, I only counted-- I didn't count any of the first SERP.
None of that savings is part of the bottom line savings
because those people retired before 11-12 started,
so we realized all those savings on the bottom line for 11-12.
But for the second SERP, we only realized half of it
because they retired in December.
And for the third SERP,
which again they're much smaller numbers,
but we didn't realize any of it
because they just retired on June 30th.
So, all their savings to the bottom line
of employee cost will transfer into this year,
but they were not present last year.
So, then you have the cost of annuities and again,
I knew the real number for the first SERP, the other two,
I extrapolated out if it's the same percentage roughly.
It's about one-- I think it was about--
it turned out to be-- where is it?
I don't know why I have an average there.
There should be a number of 150,000 dollars, because--
150, 1.5 million dollars, excuse me,
is the cost of the annuities or-- well, I apologize.
Something is missing right here
but I know the calculation is right.
And then there was a cost.
They did say they were going to hire back five people.
And again, there is some discrepancy
in what was said today.
And again, I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'd have to redo my numbers if that's correct.
But assuming-- the hire back number is 500,
that will be added to our cost here.
That total number--
oh I'm sorry, I included all that in there.
So, from the SERP savings, the half of the SERP II and all
of SERP III, then you have to subtract the cost of annuities,
then you subtract the hire backs which we were told was five
for this round which add an average cost of 100,000 is 500.
So, total with the SERP-- half of SERP II and half of SERP III,
the gray line there is our total,
about 1.3 million savings to the bottom line.
Again, there may be some adjustments
to this 'cause there may be some more hires
than I thought, but roughly.
So, 3 million savings from last year to this year
on the reduced sections, 1.3 million dollar savings
on resulting from SERP even including the additional cost
and hire backs or some of the hire backs.
And then, we were told--
and again, there's no guarantee I suppose
that it will be realized but I think we spend
about a million dollars on replacing the lights
and we're told that it was going to save about 750,000 dollars.
So, that wasn't realized last year,
but it should be realized this year.
So, that's a total of about 5 million dollars
that we should have less than expenditures this year.
If we do everything else exactly the same as we did last year,
then we should have 5 million dollars less than expenditures.
So, with the new number of 110 million, we're down to 105.
Well, let me go with my numbers 'cause they're here
and you can see them and then I'll--
so, no changes
to the expenditures under these numbers.
We would expend about 100,500,000, 100.5 million.
But we're going to get a 105.5 million.
So, we're going to have a surplus
of about 5 million dollars.
So now, the number is about 5 million more.
So, I guess we won't have that 5 million dollar surplus
but we can live within the means
that we have already been living in.
And all my point is that we were told there's a crisis
and we're 15 million dollars short
or we're 10 million dollar short and we have
to make drastic changes to how we do things around here,
and I just don't see it in the real numbers.
Now, if you use the budget numbers,
it's true 'cause those-- the budget numbers turned out just
to look like we're about 10 million dollars short.
But the real numbers, the actual numbers don't show that.
The second chart just briefly, I will acknowledge and I,
you know, there is going to be some cash flow problems,
but cash flow is very different from a budget, okay?
You have a budget and I know there have been deferments
and those deferments are what's causing the cash flow problem.
So, money in the bank, as we saw from one of the charts
that Mr. Miller did, we actually--
we're in the red for roughly a two-week period
and we had the interfund borrow in order
to make sure we were not in the red
because we have money that's owed us by the state
and we don't have it in the bank and we got
to make-- pay our bills.
So, I acknowledge that there are cash flow problems.
So, the question is how do you deal with that?
Because, what it seems to me is we have cash flow problems
and we are using both the cash flow problems
and budgetary numbers which aren't real numbers
because they're not actual numbers to create a crisis
to say, we suddenly need to do all kinds of drafting.
We need to change the calendar.
We need to get rid of winter session.
We need to cut the-- you know, all these--
I mean, you saw the drastic cuts that came in here last week
and we talked about and reports voted.
So, three things, what are the available funds to transfer?
The general fund, which currently--
and again, some of this is twisted around
but when I did this a couple of days ago, it's within--
there was 9 million in the bank
and there was 6.5 million in encumbrances.
I don't know what it is right now.
I don't want to take too much time to recalculate it but,
you know, roughly 2 and a half million was in the general fund
that could be used-- you could use a hundred percent
of that to pay out.
In capital outlay, there was 18.3
and I don't think that's changed.
And we-- they have gotten permission from the board
to do interfund transfers up to 75 percent of that amount.
And then in the self-insurance fund, there's about 15.3.
Again, they've got permission to get 75 percent transferred
out of that if they need to.
And again, I hope we don't have to do this.
I'm just saying in an extreme situation,
this is what we have available currently, currently right now
as we sit without another penny from the state,
27 million total-- 27 and 3 quarters actually.
And then there is an anticipation
of 9.5 million dollars that's going to come--
well, it sounds like Monday or Tuesday next week.
So, it's a total of 37.3 million dollars which sounds like a lot.
I know it's-- it is a lot but--
so, that's the current total available cash flow.
So, if we're expending, if our budget next year is 105.6
which it was this year, I mean that's what--
I'm sorry, that's not what our budget was,
that's what we actually spent.
So, if we continue at that rate,
it costs us about 8.8 million dollars a month.
So, this 37.3 million dollars without another penny
from the state would cover us for about 4 and a quarter months
which is roughly they were saying January, February
or whatever is when they believe they would have a cash flow
problem, okay?
So that comports with what they're saying there.
Then in addition to that, well,
okay then I said did not include any surplus with 2011-12.
Right now, the numbers this morning,
it looks like approximately another million which, you know,
that's going to help you for, you know, what a quarter
of a month-- and not even a quarter of a month,
the 10th of a month, whatever.
And then, there's the cost of TRAN money, 10 million.
If they actually do that, it cost about 150, 000,
which is a lot of money.
But if you need 10 million dollars, it's pretty small
in comparison to the whole budget and well worth it.
And on top of that, if you get the 10 million,
you put it in the bank and you actually get interest on it.
And sometimes, there have been cases
where they actually made money because they get more interest
from the bank where they put it because you're getting it
at a very good rate here,
because it's guaranteed money from the state.
So, they're pretty much guaranteed their money,
so they're willing to do it at a very low interest rate.
So, you could actually possibly make money,
but the cost is almost nothing.
But even if it were 150,000, it's not a big cost.
So, that would carry us another-- a month and a 10th.
So, you're looking at 5 and a half months right now
if we receive no more money from the state, okay?
So, as far as the cash flow goes,
there's no emergency right now.
I mean, nobody likes to be borrowing interfund,
nobody likes to do TRANs, but there is a clear logical path
to being able to cover any cash flow problems.
But more importantly, going back to the budget,
which is a very different issue,
if we don't do anything different this year and
yet they're asking from the FA and from other unions
and even just structurally in the college,
they're saying we need to make these drastic changes.
And when I say they, I'm not-- I'm not trying to--
you know, it's the administration.
They have a plan that they want to do.
What I don't like is I feel that they're using the budget
to get what they want to get but that's not really--
they want to do what they want to do, it seems to me.
They have their priorities and what they want to do.
But, it has nothing to do with the budget
because we could do exactly what we did this year
and next year and be within budget.
So, that's-- I want to keep it short, that was plenty long.
>> I have--
>> Kevin?
>> Yes, I move that we-- and I just want this for discussion.
I move that we-- except total employment cost,
I just want to have discussion.
Do I have a second?
>> Except what?
I'm sorry.
>> Danny's numbers for total employment cost of 86 million.
Do I have a second?
Danny, really no second.
This is your numbers.
>> Well, no, no.
No, I mean there's no need to make a motion about that
and I'm not saying that's the total employee cost.
I'm not saying that.
That was as of May 31st.
>> Yes, I know.
I just want to say that we'd settled it.
>> We can discuss it.
We don't have to motion that.
>> I want to have a motion on it
because we have not been taking action
and we spent the entire meeting on updates.
So, I would actually-- if you don't want, well,
it's fine [inaudible].
>> Does anybody want to have a second?
Okay, dies for lack of a second, okay.
And now, would you like to discuss it?
>> No, no.
I don't want to.
I would definitely like to move on to what we want,
the proactive things now if possible.
At least one.
>> Dave?
>> Yeah. I kind of agree with Danny about the emergencies
that if there really is a true emergency, why are we hiring?
>> Yes.
>> I mean, really.
And executive directors,
even though I understand he said he wants him on the contract,
but what we're doing is not hiring two vice presidents
but we're going to hire four executive directors
which are basically vice presidents.
>> Okay.
>> Not title wise but basically--
>> No, I understand.
>> -- the money spent are going to be
as a vice president if you know--
>> Yeah, they're compensated lower
than vice presidents but I get your point.
I do want to comment.
Danny put a huge amount of work into that project
and I think we owe him at least acknowledgment of--
I mean, how many hours did you put into doing that, Danny?
>> I don't know.
It doesn't matter.
>> A long time.
So, anyway we appreciate that and certainly,
these numbers are helpful and they are.
They do inform our discussion in our negotiations with DFA.
We're looking at these numbers, we're looking at other numbers
and what this keep at it.
So, thank you for that.
Now, Kevin.
>> We can just-- I have to do my proxy.
I was asked to make a motion on behalf of Andrew Bott,
which was he wanted a move of 2 million dollars
from the property acquisition capital outlay fund to cover--
to help with the 10.5 million specifically for the layoff
of the 50 percent hourly workers.
>> Okay, so you're moving to move 2 million dollars
from the Fund 41 Capital Outlay.
>> Yes, property early acquisition specifically.
>> The acquisition fund specifically
to the General Fund, 01 General Fund for the purposes of helping
to balance the budget for next year.
So just in general, we all recognize
that we're taking money that's put aside for a one-time purpose
of capital outlay and/or in this case, property acquisition
and using it to balance the budget.
All right, do I have a second on that?
>> I'll second it.
>> Second by Panella.
Discussion?
>> It was brought to my attention by Andrew
that he strongly want this 'cause he felt first
that we're being asked a lot and it would help for saving a lot
of hourly workers as well as our peer-to-peer tutors
and other student workers.
Secondly, depending on the next--
the vote for Brown initiative, if that passed,
this one time use could either be not used anymore
or if it fails, then we could take more appropriate action,
but this was basically a time saving measure.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Can you clarify?
Could you write that-- could you clarify that as an amendment?
So, what I'm asking for is
like a specific number and timeline of that.
>> Oh, you would like an amendment?
Okay.
>> Right. Like so are you going to say like I want
to hear there's a clear resolution I think is what I'm
asking for.
>> Okay, let me think of a resolution.
So--
>> I understand also--
>> Yes.
>> -- that needs to happen next week if it was [inaudible].
>> No, I think I can, I can do it off the top of my head.
So, in the instance that the Brown initiative fails,
if-- oh [inaudible] out.
In the instance the Brown initiative fails,
it is understood that this is one-time money
and how would I word that?
That would not be used again.
>> That's right.
>> Yeah, that it would not be used again.
>> It's gone.
>> Yes, it is accepted that-- that the sacrifice will,
I guess, have to be made.
So, how would I amend that?
I guess [inaudible] on that.
>> Well, I think what I hear you saying is
that we would move the 2 million from Capital Outlay Fund 41
into the 12-13 operating budget and use that 2 million
to help balance next year's budget.
>> Next year's budget.
>> If the Brown initiative passed,
I thought I heard we're--
I think I thought that you were going that you would--
that at that point, we would be getting our 6.7 million dollars
back, and that perhaps what you were saying is
if the Brown initiative pass that we would take 2 million
of the 6.7 and return it to the capital outlay fund.
Is that what you're saying?
>> Yes, that's basically.
I was trying to hit that.
>> Okay.
>> Are you-- does that work for you Panella?
>> Yes, much more I [inaudible].
>> Yes.
>> I wanted just to skip.
>> Okay, Dave.
>> I'm not understanding the motion really.
What were you saying is instead of borrowing
to TRANs you want to--
>> No, I didn't say anything.
>> No, in addition.
>> Just in addition.
>> Addition to it?
>> Addition.
So, this would offset if--
>> For what-- I mean for what purpose, I mean I'm sorry.
>> Yeah, what is it going to offset?
>> Hourlies, it will still-- helps the--
>> Hourlies, he said hourlies.
>> It's 3-- there's 3 million--
>> He wants to offset, right.
>> -- for hourlies if they're laid off.
>> So, the 2 million would be put specifically
for the hourlies.
>> The [inaudible] was taken on the hourlies?
There's a total of an annual budget for hourlies right now
in about 7 million dollars.
>> I would just like to make clear that last week when--
>> This was based on Rocha's plan.
>> Rocha's plan was to layoff--
>> With 3 million.
>> 50 percent--
>> That Doctor Rocha's fund is 3 million, so--
>> I understand you.
>> Yeah.
>> So--
>> And part of what I'm trying to get at is the 100 percent
of all the hourlies can't be protected
in the way you're trying to protect them.
>> We're not trying to protect 100 percent.
>> We're not protecting them.
>> Well, I'm just saying regardless
of you transferring money in and out,
all the hourlies are essentially at will employees
at the college, difference being all the issue, CICA,
the FA and management association are covered
by union.
So, before any issue person were to be laid off for example,
and that the hourlies have to be eliminated are
to one of our people going.
>> I can--
>> Do you understand that?
>> Right, but in the 10.5 million dollar cut plan
that Rocha presented, the first one is 50 percent reduction
of hourlies.
So, instead of reducing hourlies by 3 million,
it would say reduce hourlies by 1 million after this motion.
>> Right.
>> Then we're clear.
>> Yeah, and I think what Julio was--
you're absolutely right, Hanna.
That's exactly what--
>> We're trying to bargain at these [inaudible].
>> Right. And the contract-- and I had to look at it,
but I understand the concept.
The contract basically says
that before any full-time people are laid off, I don't know
about furloughs but at least similar about--
>> About furlough.
>> About furloughs too?
Before anybody is either furloughed or laid off,
all of the temporary unclassified hourly employees
would have to go first.
>> So then that would be--
>> One of the other things also brought to my attention.
I mean, I'm here as a senate, but I am the issued president.
One of the other things that was brought
to my attention throughout the campus is there's a widespread
use of hourlies-- contract people
across the board, excuse me.
There seems to be a big abuse on how it's managed.
Some departments with upwards of about 50 hourlies.
Other departments that really need them have maybe 10,
you know.
There doesn't seem to be some kind of regulation
on how it's being done across campus and--
brought to my attention, you know.
>> So just to be clear, BRAC could take this action
if it shows 'til today.
We would then relate the action to Doctor Rocha.
But BRAC should not be under the impression that even
if Doctor Rocha agreed to it, or the Board of Trustees agreed
to it, it's still a negotiable--
it's still an item that would be subject in negotiations
between the classified labor units and the district.
And it would-- that would only occur
if the union disagreed to it.
I guess, I mean I'm not well enough versed on all of the ins
and outs of that but I--
that's conceptually what we're talking about, right Danny?
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> My understanding.
>> Yeah. But that doesn't mean we can't take action,
it doesn't mean that we can't vote on the motion
and let it-- and see how it goes.
So how about if I restate the motion, try to.
And then we can call the question if everybody agrees.
So the motion on the table is that 2 million dollars be moved
from the Capital Outlay 41 property acquisition side
of that account and be used to offset 2 million
of the 3 million that exist in the 10.5 that impacts reduction
of the non-classified hourly employees.
With the caveat that should Governor Brown's tax initiative
pass, the 6.7 million that we would receive as a result
of our workload reduction being returned to us,
that of that 6.72 million dollars would be taken
from that 6.7 and returned
to the Capital Outlay Fund 41 account, right?
Okay, so having heard--
>> [Inaudible] negotiations.
>> Right, and that-- exactly.
And then the whole thing is pending negotiations with the--
between the district and the union.
>> We got all that?
>> We got all that.
[Laughter] Now one of the reasons I talked so slow is
because I'm really tired.
So, I gave myself a break while I was saying that.
Anyway, so-- okay, that's the motion.
All those in favor signify by raising your hand, 1, 2, 3.
All those oppose signify by raising your hand, 1, 2, 3.
In abstention, abstention.
So I guess I guess-- I guess I get to break even on this
on an abstention, right?
I get the way in.
So I think I am opposed as well.
Okay, look at Kevin type.
>> No, I'm just like making sure--
>> I know.
>> I have to--
>> Okay.
>> Let me just say the reason I abstain is
because I don't know I'm--
>> No.
>> -- hodgepodging this.
>> It's no big deal.
I would just--
>> I'd rather some kind of comprehensive deal, so you know,
at some point if it was part
of the more comprehensive solution to some of this.
Which-- when-- you know, I don't know
that there's a solution needed because as I just said,
if we do exactly what we did last year we're living
within our budget.
So I don't know why we're looking
for 10.5 million dollars right now to be honest.
There is no budget crisis on my opinion,
based on the numbers that we have.
Even at 110 million in expenditures, so.
>> Yeah, maybe candid, possible.
>> Danny, do you want a surplus?
>> Okay, we are now almost a half hour over our time.
Dave, yes sir?
>> Whatever happened to the executive credit cards and stuff
that I asked for information on?
>> The executive credit cards?
>> Yeah, or the expense accounts?
>> Expense accounts.
>> Oh okay.
The-- first of all, we don't have credit cards.
That I can say.
[Laughter] That I can tell you.
I don't have that information at this point in time.
Danny?
>> Real quick.
Danny can't make the next two meetings,
he asked me to step-- fill in for him.
Is that okay with everybody?
>> Well, it's easy, it's-- yeah.
>> It's fine with me, absolutely.
>> Okay, sure.
>> All right, so it looks like we're running long.
I'd like to make a couple of the motions, motions--
>> Absolutely.
>> -- and let's go with the first one, which are--
I move that we move items 5 and 6 to next week.
So, educational master plan guiding principles.
>> Okay.
>> And budget development.
>> Okay.
>> Make a motion, can somebody second?
>> Second.
>> Okay. The second motion that I would like to ask.
>> We have to--
>> Oh, we have to vote on it so we all.
>> All those in favor signify by saying aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed.
Okay.
>> Okay, great.
Thank you.
The second thing that I would like to do is motion
for two agenda items for next-- the next week.
There would be some related to this, but I'm hoping
that it could be helpful.
One is to discuss the survey that we had mentioned
at the last meeting, to look
at institutional goals around budget issues.
And what I would like us to talk about next week is we also--
because as now that we're kind of roughing up this year,
we need to start to look at next year and have a conversation
about what happens if the Brown initiative doesn't pass.
What happens if-- what are we going to do
to be a little bit more proactive in terms
of financing and things like that.
Specifically, what I would like us to look at and clarify
so it's public for everyone is what I'm considering
like the first in first out policy, so it's not so vague
and we're always making new decisions.
What I mean is clarifying guidelines
around what we think are essential and what--
like what can we cut first
and what should be instituted back first.
I think a lot of us wind up feeling like we're
in crisis like Danny is saying.
Because everything feels like it is a long term,
like when we cut we're cutting forever.
And that's not what I think we're trying to argue for.
And so, what I would like us to do is to be able to follow
through with that and have something that is clarified
that we can use to facilitate this conversation
across the campus so that people have some control
over their long-term budget issues.
So that's one of the things I would like for us to be able
to take back and talk based--
talk about based on the survey for the next rounds.
The other thing I would like us to be able to talk
about is future income.
>> Okay. And I'm sorry, could you, for Mary--
for the purposes of the agenda, can you just kind of have
like a one sentence state.
>> Sorry, I totally-- so the next item would be the survey.
The next item after that would be a criterion for cuts.
>> For reductions, a criterion for reductions.
Okay, thank you.
>> And policy for what will be instituted back assuming
that it--
>> And how we build that.
>> Got it.
>> Okay. A criteria for reductions and followed
by how we build back when times get better I think.
>> Yeah, that's that next motion.
>> Does that have to be a motion if we can just organize?
>> No, those are just a request so something will happen now.
>> That's right.
So that we will actually have those as agenda, as I have--
if we're going to have the educational master plan,
I'll try to have Chris will come in here
and do a quick update on that.
>> Great.
>> And then we'll have a-- the budget development.
I'll have Marie do a kind of a quick overview of where we are
with the 12-13 budget development calendar.
>> Right.
>> And of course, the 10.5 is all part
of that budget development.
That-- the whole budget update is kind of part
of the budget development discussion as well.
>> That makes sense.
>> Okay.
>> So then I motion that we adjourn.
>> Okay. Do I have a second?
Seconds. Okay, thank you all very much.
Have a great weekend everybody.
>> Thanks, you too.
>> Danny, have a great vacation.
>> Thanks.
>> Are you going anywhere?
>> Huh?
>> Are you going anywhere?
>> Yeah, we're going to go work
with the national leaders for a week in the--