Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> We'll call the meeting to order at, oh my gosh,
look at that for timing, at 2:38.
And we'll start with introductions.
So we'll go around the room.
We'll start with Keith.
>> Keith: Keith Oberlander, math faculty.
>> Kent: Kent Yamauchi, special services representing
management association.
>> Dave: Dave Krause representing the
classified unions.
>> Anthony: Anthony Brown, fiscal services, budget.
>> Danny: Danny Hamman from CBC representing academic senate.
>> A.C.: A.C. Panella, academic senate, faculty.
>> John: And John Wood from the learning assistance center.
>> Bob: Bob Miller business and account services.
>> Cindy: Cindy Sherisee [phonetic],
assistant to Bob Miller, business and account services.
>> Okay, we had the minutes of the February 21st meeting.
>> Dave: Move to approve.
>> Move approval by Dave.
>> Kent: Second.
>> Second by Kent.
Discussion?
Hearing no discussion all those in favor signify by saying aye.
>> Voices: Aye.
>> Opposed?
>> I abstain.
>> Abstentions?
So Panella abstains.
Okay, we're good.
Public comments?
Is there any member of the public who wishes
to address our committee?
Okay, seeing none, move on to Item Number 3
under the general -- Item 4 under the general topic
of budget development.
As we all know we have our accreditation coming
up in roughly 15, 16, 17 months or so.
What is it?
>> Sixteen.
>> Sixteen months.
And a significant part
of our accreditation requirement is the notion
of linking planning and budgeting together.
And it's a very important part
of what the visioning team we'll be looking
at as we go forward here.
And one of our responsibilities, we were one of the committees
in the college that have a responsibility
to work on that goal.
That said we can decline the mandatory free upgrade there.
[Laughter] So along those lines several people have been working
on accreditation, the self-study,
the work that needs to be done.
And the two people in particular who have been working hardest
on that are Stephanie Fleming [phonetic]
who is the self-study faculty coordinator for us,
and Matthew Jordan [phonetic], our associate dean
for general education and program review.
Matt is also our accreditation liaison officer
for the college now.
So as we move forward on the 13- 14 budget development update,
we thought it would be appropriate to talk to BRAC
about what it means in relation to accreditation.
So with that little brief introduction I'll hand it
to those two.
Thank you.
[ Pause ]
>> Hi.
>> Hi.
>> This is a mandatory free presentation.
[Laughter] I like that phrase.
>> So to begin our conversation we're going to talk a little bit
about some of the characters [inaudible]
of colleges on sanction.
I know some of you have seen this data before, so we're going
to talk about it in relation specifically to BRAC
and the role of this committee in our planning process.
>> Yeah, definitely.
So currently there are 28 colleges on sanction,
28 of the 112 community colleges.
Twenty five of those 28 have their deficiencies are
in areas related to program review and planning.
And the standards around program review and planning
and resource allocation have been in place since 2002.
>> And 19 of the 28 schools that are currently
on sanction have three or more areas of deficiencies.
So what we're seeing is common deficiencies that are tracked
from standard to standard to standard.
So they're looking at not only each one of these standards
by themselves but also how they interconnect.
>> And 15 of the 28 colleges on sanction were instructed
to address some of the same issues
in their last comprehensive report.
>> Do you know how many colleges were actually
up for accreditation?
>> Oh, gosh, I don't off the top of my head.
>> It's something like 45 percent I think.
>> That sounds right.
>> Yeah, 45, 45, 45.
>> What is that in relation --
you said 28 colleges are on sanction.
How many were not on sanction?
>> Well, this wasn't just in 2012.
These are as of 2012 how many colleges currently
have sanctions.
So these could have been from past cycles
that haven't been removed from that.
>> And these are out of the 112 California community colleges,
right?
>> Yes.
>> So 28 out of 112.
>> I thought these were just the ones in 2012 that were
up for accreditation that went on --
or 2011 that went on sanctions.
>> It could have been from past cycles
and they just haven't had the sanction removed it.
>> Okay, so it could be up through five years.
>> So I find that this point is particularly important.
And part of the reason --
particularly salient to the reason we're here today
because when looking at some of our previous recommendations
from site visits planning, things related
to integrated planning, we have consistently received
recommendations in that area all of the last three visits.
So 1996, 2003 and 2009.
Each time we've received a recommendation related
to planning.
>> Does that add up so that they look at it more seriously
like why are we going at this again, you haven't fixed it?
>> They always look at your previous recommendations
and what progress has been made against them.
And they can go back and look as far as they want, so yes.
[ Background Conversation ]
So, great question.
Is it the same recommendation?
No. It's in the general area of the planning process.
It's been worded slightly differently.
And since you asked I have prepared the handout.
I wasn't necessarily going to give it out,
but this actually gives you the text
of the specific recommendations related to planning
in each of those cycles.
So you can review this later for the specifics.
>> And what you're handing out is specific to us?
>> These are to PCC from our evaluation.
I pulled out the recommendations related to planning.
>> Right.
>> So back to this idea of obviously we want
to negotiate the accreditation cycle effectively.
And so some research has been done on those colleges
that do an effective job of negotiating at [inaudible]
of those colleges who received sanctions
or have some difficulties.
And so this will kind of distinguish between those
as the Y colleges and the X colleges.
But what we want to pull out of this is
that there are some common themes for those colleges
that do negotiate this successfully
and how this relates to this committee
versus those colleges that don't.
And just to give you a couple of specific highlights from this,
we won't go through every single one of these like items.
But just to give you a little bit
of an idea they basically boil down to three specific areas
like division of labor, motivation and integration.
And what we want to take away from this to take away
from our college is this idea that we want accreditation
to become very internal for us.
We want our motivation for change to be internally driven.
So we need to self-identify those places
that we need to improve upon.
And in this handout that we're giving you obviously we're
identifying planning as one of those areas that we want
to make sure we're paying attention to.
So what we can do here is become internally motivated and showing
that we're not just using accreditation as this ramp up
but this ongoing cycle of improvement.
>> So as all of the different areas of the college is
where we're examining our processes.
It's best not to do it out of a compliance mind set,
but how can we look at our processes,
bring them in alignment with accreditation standards,
but into that alignment because those alignments are founded
on best practices for collaboration and success.
>> What does the team of division of labor refer to?
>> That we have really clearly identified roles on campus,
and that we act within those roles,
and that we also know how those roles work together
so that we work as an effective system.
>> So is that like faculty, like administration,
like classified staff?
>> Yeah.
>> Within that it's things like the clear --
we'll take like classifieds in it, right, like the difference
between what classified senate does
and what [inaudible] does are a clear and distinct difference.
And that those people sometimes are clearly
and distinctly different.
So people would be able to understand that process
that Matt was referencing a little more clearly.
>> And one of the highlights that came out of this research
that kind of came up with this is that every knows
and understands and respects the process.
So if you need a curriculum change you know what
that process is.
And so that's that whole idea.
And the takeaway for this is that we would know what
that process of planning is where we can clearly, you know.
>> So this
shows the trends of accreditation sanctions
and how they've changed from 2009 to 2012.
You can see of the 24 colleges that received sanctions,
that were on sanction in 2009,
71 percent of them have sanctions around program review.
Flash forward to 2012 and that has decreased to 21 percent.
This is interesting because actually we were on sanction
in relation to program review.
So we were part of this number.
In the area of planning 92 percent in 2009,
at 2012 it's still up there,
it's at 71 percent, so a slight decrease.
So still an area of intense scrutiny by the new ACCJC.
>> Go ahead.
>> So how many of you guys are familiar with the two year rule?
The two year rule for those of you
who aren't familiar it's a federally imposed mandate,
and what it says is is that as a college if you are found
to have a deficiency, and what a deficiency is is
that if your college is put on sanction, if you get warning
or probation or show cause,
if one of the areas they say this is why you're
on warning that's called a deficiency, right?
If you are found to have a deficiency,
the federal government mandates
that accrediting agencies give the college two years
to correct the deficiency.
If it not corrected within two years the accreditors are
mandated by law to close the institution, alright?
There is increased pressure in this environment
for accrediting agencies to enforce the two year rule.
>> Has that been enforced on any school?
>> I'll just share with you I was previously
at an ACCJC meeting this January
where they publically acknowledged
that in the past they have honestly not enforced the two
year rule.
They have wanted to work with colleges,
they have extended it and extended it.
But they articulated now that they are under more
and more pressure to not do that.
>> That's not what happened to Compton then?
>> Well, what happened
with Compton was I think there were a lot
of different reasons why they had to go the route they went.
I think they were given certain options
and being absorbed into El Camino.
The district was a much better option for them.
>> I think we bring light to this just to kind
of shed some light on the environment,
the current environment around accreditation.
>> So now that brings us a little bit more
to specifically the role of this particular committee.
Because when we're talking about deficiencies ACCJC has found
that there are three main areas where these deficiencies exist
which was what we were showing you from that data.
That's program review,
institutional planning and governance.
So we're going to talk more about this idea of planning.
When the visiting body comes, the visiting team comes
to see us and they read our self-study,
as well as when we write our self- study,
we'll be using this rubric, this guiding rubric.
And on any rubric you have the different levels.
And we're expected to rank at the highest level on the rubric.
And so these are the four descriptors
that occur on the rubric.
>> Sure, so I'll just go through these really quickly.
Question?
>> I was just going to say does everybody here know
and has used rubrics.
Because that may be something --
>> Yeah, a rubric is a clear articulation
of different criteria by which you're going
to judge something, right?
And so when we're talking
about planning they set forth these four criteria.
And what the first criterion is is that --
and as we're going through these you should ask yourself
where is PCC in this, how does PCC rank
in regards to this criterion?
The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation
and planning to define its key processes
and improve student learning.
There is dialogue
about institutional effectiveness that's ongoing,
robust and pervasive.
Data and analysis are widely distributed
and used throughout the institution.
Ongoing review and adaptation of evaluation
and planning processes.
And a continuous and consistent commitment
to improving student learning
and educational effectiveness is a priority in all
of our planning structures and processes.
>> And one of the key things
about that is not only do they want to see
that we have discussed how this works but any data to see
that we're actually doing each of those elements.
And that's something we're going to also talk about.
So for colleges that have a deficiency
in institutional planning we're seeing
that the college lacks substantive planning process
or that the planning doesn't identify strengths
and weaknesses and provide mechanisms for improvement.
And that could complicate it and we're trying to work that out.
>> Should I talk for a second about --
should I define planning?
>> So we can get to that really quickly.
Hold on, we'll get there in just a second.
So some of the things that we are required to have in terms
of planning is we need to have clearly documented time lines.
Everyone needs to know how those time lines week.
That we have strategies in communications,
that communication is effective and that we have a way
to set priorities so that we know how it is
that we're allocating resources.
And in addition to when I was just talking
about how we are going to have to have data
to help show our process, this is just an example
of these new fiscal requirements that we have.
So before there was a lot of focus on process,
ACCJC was happy to see that we had a process.
We knew what our process was, and that's not enough anymore.
Now they want to see how that process leads to improvement.
And so they're requiring very specific data sets.
So, for example, the last question was there evidence
of planning to integrate fiscal and other resources.
And they're requiring that we have consistent internal
documentation to show that throughout
out integrative planning cycle.
[ Pause ]
>> So when we're talking about planning there's this concept
of integrated planning.
And I'm actually not going to read through this.
I'm just going to explain
to you how I define integrated planning.
Which integrated planning is this.
Integrated planning involves using data, that data can come
out of program review, program evaluation, SLO assessment.
It's using data, right, to decide what you need to do.
What you need to do goes into a plan.
You do your review, how have we been doing
up to now, look in the past.
From that you decide what needs to happen which is your plan,
what needs to happen in the future.
And in the planning process, right,
resource allocation needs are generated, right?
So that's planning.
It's what needs to happen in the future.
It's based on data, and sometimes it costs money.
That is integrated planning, right?
Our accreditation standards requires
that we are basing our resource allocation decisions
on the data that's generated in program review
and an SLO assessment that all
of our resource allocation decisions tie back
to our mission, to our educational master plan.
>> So this committee should be -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> I understand your definition and it makes sense.
But I could see Crystal [phonetic] getting the data,
taking it to the executive committee making a plan
and coming up with things to do
and no one else knowing anything.
>> That's an excellent point that you just raised
because I think as a college, as we examine our process and ask
if it's effective, we need a collaboratively developed
process that will address these concepts of integrated planning.
And what you would describe would never pass the
accreditation bar.
>> Yeah, well, that's what I was wondering.
So we all need to be included.
>> Yes.
>> Or all [inaudible].
>> Collaboratively developed, totally transparent.
>> Because I think we have a lot of good things going
on at the campus right now, but a lot of people don't know
who came up with them and who's running them
and that kind of thing.
So it just seems to me right off the bat that we need
to get everyone to know what's going on here.
>> Yes.
>> We agree.
>> That's why we're here.
>> And ACCJC has -- they encourage the definition
of integrated planning to highlight the idea
that it's collaborative, that it's interactive,
that it's highly transparent, that it's holistic.
So let's say if this body were making a decision
about resource allocation that you would have the data
from other bodies as well.
And so that we all know where those data sets live,
and we can utilize it so that it's all
for your [inaudible].
>> So, this is one model from another college.
And I'm certainly not putting this forward kind
of as an end all be all,
but just to make this a little bit more concrete
into how these concepts get operationalized.
And I know this is like, woo, an overwhelming charge
so I'm just going to walk us through it.
So, at the bottom we have program reviews, right?
Faculty and staff are collaboratively creating their
program reviews.
Those come up to deans who are overseeing multiple faculty,
right?
In division meetings, right,
there would be a transparent process
where the items identified in program review that get built
into plans some of those would have resource
allocation requests.
So the deans and the faculty would work together
to prioritize their resource requests.
Those would then move up to the vice presidential level
in different areas who would examine all
of the resource requests and prioritize them.
Those then at this college move into a planning committee,
right, that reviews all the plans and resource requests,
and then it moves
onto a institutional shared governance budget committee
like BRAC that examines all
of these resource allocation requests,
reviews how they've been prioritized,
decides if changes need to be made
and then makes recommendations to a superintendent president
to go to a board of trustees.
So this is one college model
of how they've operationalized this idea
of integrated planning.
>> And let me just add this real quick.
The absolute expectation of the ACCJC is that we have a plan.
Whether it's that plan or some other plan we have
to have a plan that --
>> And there's a common knowledge about the plan.
>> And that's the primary point here.
>> So Panella and I were at an academic senate institute,
and somebody was there,
their faculty self-study coordinator was there,
and they were just coming off a show cause.
And they were talking about one of the steps that they had
to do was to have this planning model.
And I mean he had a mug that has a planning model on it,
he had a hat, he had a shirt, they had raffles
where they would give you maps and people would fill
out their planning model.
I mean everyone knew this planning model.
Now, of course, that's on a service level.
I mean obviously it needs to go a little bit deeper
so you actually understand how the thing works.
But, yeah, we are very much expected to have some type
of model and show that it's actually in play.
>> Can you tell us which school?
>> Oh, God --
>> Okay, you don't want to --
>> No, no, no, it's not that we don't.
I just don't really --
>> Was it [inaudible].
>> It was either -- I want
to say this might have been [inaudible].
I'll look it up.
I can tell you.
>> This model is what happened at three different schools?
>> No, this is from -- there were four different schools,
and they each had their own model in that [inaudible].
>> Citrus uses this model also.
>> This is cribbed from an integrated planning presentation
from a statewide academic center conference,
so we can send you the original presentation.
>> Yeah, I can look for it and tell you [inaudible].
And every college has a different one.
>> In this presentation they showed at least four models.
The problem was that some of the graphics of the models have
like arrows going in every direction and 20 boxes.
So this is the one that I felt I could explain.
[Laughter]
>> Which brings us, yeah, to our next step.
>> So which brings us to our next step which is that we would
like to invite this committee to meet with some other committees
on campus that are involved
in the integrative planning process at the college.
Those committees would be the IEC, that's the committee
that reviews program effectiveness, program reviews.
And then also the planning and priorities committee
which is the committee that works with accreditation.
So we thought a good way to address examining our process
and perhaps improving it would be
to bring together these three committees for kind
of a three hour retreat to educate people
about the concepts of integrated planning.
And then ask all of the committee members
to work together to examine and maybe develop a new process.
>> So we have a planning process now?
>> We do have a planning process now.
>> Could we see it?
>> Well, yeah, that's one of the things that we'll do that day.
We'll look at what that is.
Ask ourselves if it meets standards.
If there's anything that --
obviously there are going to be things from that
that are going well, but we want to make sure we highlight things
that we could identify for improvement,
because that's always about the cycle.
We need to show that we're evaluating our current process.
>> So when there's some discussion about this,
the discussion when we meet individually with each committee
and do the whole thing.
And then in further discussion I think it was Panella's
suggestion that wouldn't it make more sense not only
from an efficiency point of view, but to get all
of the people who are engaged
in this planning process including the people
who approved the budget together and talk about it as a group.
And that will help facilitate the process,
move it along more quickly and get something in place
that much more effectively.
Because our job as a budget resource allocation committee is
to do resource allocation based upon program review
recommendations, based on planning,
institutional planning type of the educational master plan,
facilities plan, what have you.
So we have to all have agreement on what the process is going
to be and what the tools are that are going to be used
to implement the process.
>> And we see there's a great opportunity, too,
to increase those channels of communication
from the major bodies on campus.
>> So have a collaboratively developed process.
>> Can we get a copy of our current plan before we meet
so that we can see it ahead of time and review it?
>> Well, as you ask that I'm running
through my head the documents that I could provide.
We have a planning portion of the website.
I'm not sure how current that is.
>> Yeah, well, there's an image on there that shows.
I think the last one when I talked to Crystal it has
to be somewhat updated [inaudible] model.
So we need a little bit of time to make sure that any changes
that the folks that do the planning [inaudible].
>> Can I say this, can I send you all of the links
for what's existing up on the web?
And if you want to know what's current you can come and sit
down with me and Chris [phonetic] will take you
through the whole thing.
>> Yeah, I mean if you're doing a three hour retreat
and you're seeing the stuff for the first time it's a lot,
it's too much to process.
And what contribution can you make because you're just trying
to understand it in the first place.
>> When we responded to the warning, Danny,
there is in that document --
when we got off of warning I should say
and we did the recommendations,
there is a planning process that's in the report.
>> There is in the mid term report.
>> So I'll pull that.
>> That would be the most [inaudible] I think.
>> We'll do our best to make sure that it works effectively.
>> But what it is, to be very honest with you,
it's not adequate and it needs to be worked on.
>> But some of the work from.
>> Exactly.
>> And I think that in this committee we've had
conversations that have talked
about having a clearer relationship to other planning
and like IEC on campus before.
So I think it's a great time for us to finally kind of follow
through with some of the stuff we've been talking
about for the last few months.
>> And this meeting you're proposing for?
>> April 26th.
Is that a bad time?
>> No.
>> April is filling up.
>> But, again, that self-study is due in 16 months,
and we just need to get our house in order so to speak.
>> So April 26th from 9 to 12.
>> And for those of you who groaned
at the three hours you'll love this one.
So what we want you to do is there's actually an
accreditation basics course that ACCJC has created.
And it takes about -- they'll tell you it takes
like two hours, it doesn't take two hours.
It's less than that.
I'd say 90 minutes.
>> About 90 minutes.
>> At the most.
And you can save and come back so you can do it
like 10 minutes here, 10 minutes there.
But it walks you through just the basic stuff
about accreditation.
I know many of you already know a lot of those basics.
But it's also to kind of bring you up to date on the changes
from the last time we went through the cycle.
It's really important.
And you get a certificate at the end.
>> Suitable for framing.
>> Suitable for framing, yes, suitable for framing.
But it's actually very, very helpful.
I have to tell you that after San Francisco went
on show cause actually they were requiring everyone to go
through this because they found it so helpful.
So we're just trying to stay ahead of the curve.
And also to increase the knowledge base
so we can have a more meaningful conversation on that day.
>> When you send out the invitation
to the meeting will you include that information?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, great.
>> Is the meeting going to be here on campus?
>> Yes, Creveling.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, Circadian, Circadian.
Yeah, Circadian.
Any other questions?
Sounds good.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Great, thank you.
[ Pause and Background Conversation ]
>> Okay, everybody just take a two minute break.
I need to change the [inaudible].
>> Okay, so I apologize for that.
>> That was less than two minutes.
>> It was, thank you.
>> Good job.
>> Okay, so that presentation was about the fact that we
as a budget resource allocation committee need
to develop a process by which we are going to allocate budget
of people going forward.
And that budget would be tied to planning.
In the past, although we have a allocation process,
it is one that is based upon basically looking
at existing budgets and using those as the starting point
and just year after year after year using that as the base
from which budgets are developed from.
That may or may not be the best way to do budgeting.
According to the commission it's not the best way
to do budgeting, and that they want budgeting that is more tied
to planning, and planning that is tied
to your education master plan that is based upon data,
program review, activity, etc. So we have
to create that process.
We have to have agreement as best we can get it campus wide
that we're going to use that process.
Then we've got to train managers, faculty, staff,
everyone who is going to be involved in that process
to create our roughly $100 million plus per year general
fund operating budget.
So that's what we're engaged in, and that was the purpose of what
that brief presentation is about.
So does anybody have any thoughts or want to comment
about what we've seen
and concerns good, bad or indifferent?
>> My first though is we have a long way to go
to get something put into place.
The fact that we don't really even have something or much
to start with is a concern.
And I'd like it, I think we'd all like, I mean that chart
that was up there is something you can look at
and know then what happens.
And we could come up with something like that.
>> We could, and there's lots of models out there that exist.
They talked about four of them.
I know Ophalea [phonetic] sent me one.
I didn't look at it yet today, but Santa Barbara's model
where she just came from.
So there are models out there that we can look at.
The other good piece of news I think
or I think good news is we now have the technology
that will support that.
Once we get the banner system LancerPoint up and going,
once we get LancerPoint up and going we'll have technology
that will be able to generate the kind of reports
that we'll need to be able to efficiently be able to respond
to some of these things.
Okay?
>> The other thing I think is we need to start generating --
or collecting that data so that whatever plan we come
up with we can plug that data in.
Because that's the bottom of --
that's the program review portion of all of it.
>> Right, right, exactly.
>> So the nice thing is that at least
on the instruction side we're already starting that process.
>> Yeah.
>> People are participating in that program.
So for us -- and they're collecting that data.
So we as faculty are the ones doing SLO assessment,
tracking our graduation rates, those kinds of things.
What we probably need to have a more meaningful discussion
about is how do we start to implement
that on other programs sides of things.
>> We're doing that at student services,
but we're just getting going at it.
>> Right. And so I think it's just getting those things
in alignment.
>> Okay.
>> There are two goals to this.
One is to have am improved budget
and resource allocation process.
And the second goal is to get ourselves in a position
that on the self-study we can clearly report
out what we're doing and have some evidence that, in fact,
some of that is happening by the time the visitation team shows
up in roughly October or November --
I should say February/March of 2015.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Okay? Alright, so that's that topic
under the general item budget development discussion.
Under Item A, I just wanted to briefly report that on the 12-
13 point of view we are on track to collect all the revenue
that is coming our way this year from the State of California.
In other words from an FTES point of view we are adding
as I think everybody knows over 400 sections,
483 I think to be exact at last count
in the extended spring section.
We will be mounting a summer of at least 450
to 500 plus sections in the summer.
We are watching our FTES targets very, very closely.
And we'll hit the number that we've got to hit
which I think it's 19,454 or something like that FTES.
So that's going well.
Our expenses are tracking very much in line with budget,
so we're in good shape there.
And we're anticipating a smooth fiscal end to 12- 13.
On the 13- 14 budget front the state
through the chancellors' office is still working its way
through Prop 30, and exactly what that means
to colleges going forward for next year.
There is something known as stabilization funding
that will basically make colleges whole or guarantee 13-
14 will be a stable fiscal year for everyone which is going
to help all colleges out that we're trying to recover
from the last six or seven years.
So that's going to help us as well as needed.
>> What does that mean, I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt.
>> There is a concept called stabilization.
And what it means is that many colleges
because of the not knowing whether Prop 30 was going
to happen or not happen made plans
to offer a certain number of sections.
As a result of those plans they were in a position
of potentially not making their 12- 13 targets.
So the chancellor's office is basically saying we're going
to provide something known as stabilization
which will stabilize you so that
in that uncertain Prop 30 time you're not going
to get penalized for being good fiscal stewards.
In other words, not overbudgeting
if you didn't know money was coming your way.
So there's a bunch of districts,
I don't remember the exact number, but there's a bunch
of districts that were in that vote,
and the state is basically say it's okay, we'll do that.
Now, it's incumbent however,
that stabilization is like a loan, okay?
If you don't make that money up in 13-
14 then you'll lose it going forward.
So that's why there will be many sections going forward
that are offered from this college and every other college
out there to make sure that they hit their marks
and that everything's good.
>> But you just said we were going to meet ours
so we wouldn't need any of that.
>> No, what I --
>> Oh, I thought you said --
>> I said both things.
We will need stabilization dollars just
because of the way things worked out.
We will be in good company with lots
of other big districts and small districts.
But the ability of not having to pay
that back is incumbent upon how well we manage 13- 14 as well.
So it gets kind of complex.
And, frankly, one of the reasons why --
I was at a meeting with a bunch of CBOs last Friday,
Souther California areas chief business officers,
and the grousing around the table was loud because,
you know, there's not much clarity coming
out of Sacramento right now.
So it makes it very difficult for everybody
to plan their fiscal futures if you will.
I didn't grouse as much only
because it's a difficult time for everybody.
But these are hard core seasoned CBO types that have been
around the block a thousand times.
And they were just complaining.
Valid but I think it's all going to come out okay.
And the governor continues to work with the legislature,
work with the department of finance on the May revise
which usually comes out around the middle of May, give or take,
between May 8th and May 15th, somewhere in that range.
And that will really tell the tale for next year.
>> So we're not probably going to make the FTES this year, but
between this year and next year and the stabilization --
>> Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to make the FTES this year with the possibility
of borrowing about $200 to $250 FTES out of 13- 14.
That's the plan right now.
I'm sorry about $186 to $200 FTES about of 13- 14,
which is very, very normal.
Districts do that all the time.
You have the opportunity to borrow some FTES.
But, no, we are very much on target.
One of the things that we are doing as a lot
of other colleges are, we're investing in a marketing
and outreach campaign.
We just have met with the enroll management people
and [inaudible] have completed a marketing plan,
and we should all be seeing in the very near future maybe buses
with PCC bus wraps on them and newspaper ads and things
like that to reach out.
>> For?
>> For students.
>> Extended spring or summer or both?
>> For both?
The truth of the matter is,
and I think you've heard me say this,
there are 18 other community colleges within 30 miles of PCC.
And there are a number of CSUs and at least one UC
and several private, and they're all
after the same people these days.
So the advantage that PCC has is that we've got a reputation
of being one of the very, very best which is probably one
of the reasons why such a high percentage of our students come
from outside the district, 63 percent last number that I saw.
But still we've got to get out and do a little bit of marketing
and outreach so we're doing that just
to make sure we get as many in as we can.
So one of the handouts I gave you is the controller Chang's
[phonetic] -- in fact I think he's going
to be our keynote speaker,
I mean our commencement speaker this year.
Is that right?
John Chang I think.
I think he is, right?
He's going to be our commencement speaker.
But anyway this is the February cash update.
And total revenues for the month
of February nearly matched the estimates found
in the governor's proposed budget so that's good news.
So January was way up as I recall.
February is on target.
And all indications are is things are going to continue
to look good for the state which means they're going
to continue to look good for us.
Without getting into the details
of it right now there's very likely going
to be some additional state monies that have got
to be returned to the districts as the extra revenues come
in tied to Prop 98 and other areas.
So in general the fiscal situation is improving.
So next month there will be more specific news about 13-
14 I hope as we go forward here.
Alright. There is a couple of other things, articles
and things that I pointed out.
One is a really good kind of overview,
budget cuts create unprecedented stress on community colleges.
You'll find that pretty interesting in terms
of the collective fiscal challenges
that all community colleges have had and how
that has impacted the state.
That's obviously going to be some strong news, too.
Those people who are thinking about adult education,
Danny obviously this is something that's near
and dear to your heart.
So far the governor's adult ed proposal seems
to be being rejected at various levels.
There's a variety of --
the assembly budget committee voted against it.
I think it's either the DOA -- the DOF, department of finance,
or the legislative analyst's office, the LAO
or both also rejected it.
So don't know where that's going to be,
but at the moment it's not looking too positive.
And, of course, Chancellor Harris is opposed to it as well.
>> Just to move those adult ed programs out of high schools
and into community college?
>> Right, that's that shifting of $300 million from --
>> And we don't want that.
>> Who's pushing for this?
>> The governor.
>> I mean but why is he pushing it?
>> Well, [inaudible] from somebody in the governor's world
that the community colleges would do a better job of it
because of the career readiness aspect of it
and so on and so forth.
One of the problems with it is
at one time it was a $900 million allocation
that over the years has cut to $300 million.
So you've got all those K-12s struggling
to provide let's say $900 million worth
of services for $300 million.
So now it would be shifted over to community colleges
to try to figure that out.
So Chancellor Harris is saying it might be a great idea
but not unless you funded it.
>> [Inaudible] the money.
>> So anyway that's what that is.
>> I thought the K-12s is getting $750 million,
and they want to shift it to community colleges
and only give them $300 million.
>> I had not heard that but you could be right, Dave.
You could be right.
I think what the governor was proposing I thought was just
taking that allocation from the K-12 systems to us
because the impression is community colleges can do
it better.
>> Yeah, because I thought they said they could do it cheaper,
that's why.
>> I don't know.
>> I think that's why everybody was opposed to it
because there's no way you could do it for $300 million.
>> I think the other thing is that at one point
of the 72 districts there were 14 districts that were going
to be adult ed business.
And I think that number is even less now.
So it's not even like of all the 112 community colleges have
adult education operations.
So it would be a further challenge for these schools
to ramp up to do something in their areas.
And presumably they would literally just go
to their local district and just take it on.
But it's like -- I don't know.
It's one of those unfunded mandates.
And the last thing that I just wanted to share with you,
this came in from Scott Way [phonetic], and it talks
about on a per student basis that between 2006-07 year
and the 2011-12 year total funds per student fell
by about $1,600 declining from almost $6,700 per student
to $5,100 in 2011 dollars.
So the amount of money that we get per student
to educate continues to drop dramatically.
And this budget crisis thing really talks
about how we are being asked to do so much more
with so much less, and how the tipping point has been reached
that we can't do it anymore.
And that how we are so dependent on state dollars.
Even though the CSU and UC has gotten hit as hard
as it's gotten hit, as a percentage
of their overall budget it's a lot lower.
It's 18 to 20 percent or less
of the CSU's operating budget is actually state dollars.
The rest of it comes from tuition
and a variety of other sources.
Whereas community colleges it's 90 something percent
of our existence is state dependent.
So that's kind of where e are right now.
Joe was going to do a presentation
on budget development, but as a result
of the accreditation activity that we're doing here,
we thought that was going to be premature.
So we decided not to do that today,
and allow this accreditation discussion to take place
because we don't want to get in front of the plate.
We don't want to get in front of the design, we don't want
to get in front of whatever.
Our job in business college services is
to implement whatever budgeting scenario process
that the college adapts, particularly now
with Behner [phonetic],
LancerPoint [phonetic] we will be able
to more readily respond to that need.
But until there's a new process in place that we can respond to
and create the process from, it would be premature
to say anything more at this point.
So that's basically what I've got for today.
Does anybody have anything else they want to talk about?
That's our agenda.
Future agenda items?
>> I just have a question then.
>> Sure.
>> If we're meeting on the 26th I'm guessing we're going
to cancel this meeting on the 25th?
>> I would think that's a reasonable assumption
at this point.
Because I think our work now is going
to be to help that process.
Because coming out of that will be the tool
by which we do our work.
>> So April 25th will be cancelled?
>> Yeah, and for your minutes, since you have the room, Cindy,
and thank you for tracking Lee [phonetic] down for us,
we are going to have a joint --
>> PNP and IEC.
>> Yeah, there was a name for it.
>> Oh, integrated planning study session.
>> Yeah, an integrated planning
and budgeting study session we call it here.
So joint integrated planning and budget development study session
is going to be on April 26th from 9 to 12 in the Circadian.
>> And before then we need
to all do our accreditation online training in order
to be prepared for that.
>> And the minutes will reflect that the members were asked
to complete an accreditation basic course
which is located at that ACCJC.org.
So we'll reflect that in the minutes.
And that won't take more than a week
to complete so it will be easy.
Don't worry about it.
That's a joke.
>> Yeah, right.
>> It's about 90 minutes.
>> It's about 90 minute so it's not [inaudible].
>> And what the said is it will save
so you can take it whenever.
You can take it over the course of the day
of the day if you want.
>> Okay. Okay, go around the table real quick.
Anything from you, John?
>> Well, I just wondered when we say we're okay there's some
things up in the air.
And the negotiations with faculty and all that is
at least a lot up in the air because of things
like the retirement incentive.
It actually brings money into the college I assume.
And things like that are hard to plan around.
So that settlement of that is very important,
wouldn't you say, one way or another.
And if it doesn't get settled --
I thought it was going to have to get settled today.
>> Yeah. Well, [inaudible] fact finding after today.
>> Oh, so nothing was settled by today.
>> Well, I don't now because today's not over yet.
Danny would know better than I.
>> I don't think anything is going to get settled.
>> Okay. Well, I remember that the president said
that that retirement incentive is going to be difficult
to uphold if we don't settle by the [inaudible].
>> Well, there is a timing issue with that, but I don't want
to get into the details of it.
But I think Danny would know better than anybody else.
The process would be after this, and Danny check me on this,
we were certified to fact finding by the mediator.
The faculty association and the district talked about that.
The district put it's last, best and final on the table.
The district put a deadline of today,
March 28th, on that proposal.
Certain elements of it -- anyway they put a deadline.
If the faculty association/ the faculty decide not
to accept the offer then it does go to fact finding.
Both sides will get involved in the fact finding,
and that will take whatever period of time that takes.
>> Okay, there's no strict time line.
You don't fact find for six weeks or something?
>> Danny, have you heard.
>> Ah, no, but I would guess we're not even going
to start the process until sometime --
I mean it's going to be months.
We're not talking weeks.
It's months.
>> It's a very lengthy process.
>> It is.
>> And then there's a PURV [phonetic] hearing
that I'm sure both sides are going to be interested
in waiting on relative to the calendar issue.
And I understand that may not be heard until August?
>> That's in July.
>> So July or something like that.
So this will likely be a very long process.
Which means the 13- 14 budget will come along long before
that's decided.
So, you know, in the most appropriate
of meaning we just kind of have to put
that on the side burner back on the shelf,
and that will be what that is.
And just plan on the basis of what we have now.
>> Okay.
>> And then work with it when it comes back.
>> And then we'll have to work with it when it comes back
and make whatever adjustments that results from it.
>> But the nice thing is is hopefully we'll have a better
integrated planning process by then
so we'll know what to do with that.
It sounds like we'll have year to do that.
>> The biggest challenge that Joe and Marie and I have
and others have is figuring exactly what 13-
14 resources are going to be.
>> That's what I meant.
>> That's the biggest thing, and that's kind
of where we're working diligently
with the chancellor's office to sort that out.
And then the other big thing is
to make sure we collect every nickel we can collect for 12- 13
which is what [inaudible] management and all the deans
and faculty and everybody else are working on right now.
Okay, Panella, anything from you?
>> I'm trying to think if you guys have plans --
May 3rd is going to be the academic senate retiree
breakfast for faculty.
We're also going to be recognizing people
who have won major teacher awards,
clearly our classified awards and tenured faculty.
So the first time ever
in PCC history the senate will actually acknowledge people
who are getting tenured.
>> Very good.
>> So we're very excited about that.
>> That's very cool, actually.
>> Danny? Anthony?
Dave? Alright, good.
Well, we appreciate everybody's time as always.
So we'll adjourn the meeting at 3:35.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you everybody.