Summary April 2-3 BAC
Monday, May 25, 2015
10:56 AM
Continuity of Operations:
UW and several system Public Safety staff reported.

Scenarios were given with one being a Systems Outage: Power Outage with recent examples from
Skagit, Everett:

Some critical concerns with the power outages were:
o Refrigeration
o Systems
o Need a plan for how to continue to do business:
Essential functions:

 Need to define what continuity of operations plan is.
 Need to have same list of priorities for college management.
Ask who needs to know and how soon

Determine what are the short and long term goals.

 Short-term goals are different from long-term and include
Safety

Hygeine

Elevators

Location of all people on campus

Call 911

 Define plans for different time horizon.
o Note how power outage affects business with a Connectivity Loss:
 Temporary location for Cashiering, AP, Deposits
 Business office notices if electronic records are broken for student financials
 Example for college when data back-up to Olympia didn't occur with a job that
was turned off too early.
200 payments were not in system.

There were resulting serious core system issues

Couldn't register or take payments.


Continuity of operations is a marketplace advantage:

Virginia Tech was the first to achieve accreditation for Emergency Management
programs after their severe shooter on campus incident.

Advised to work on a response plan called all hazards approach
 Plan for any hazard whether natural or human-caused.
Plan for the impact--ask what is disrupted, and what the actual effects on institution,
same for most emergencies.
 Perform risk assessments.
 You will miss something - scenario driven plans don't capture everything, like
specific threat-driven planning.

 Instead look at resources and consider a new normal may emerge
Resource-oriented planning.

ID resources and plan Zombie Apocalypse like the Centers for



Disease Control approach.
Principle-driven preparedness. Same effect for any disruption regardless

of scenario.
Look at essential functions like Payroll. Stay off rabbit-trails.

What do you need to protect?

People

Facilities

Information

Equipment

Pick a unit and have conversations.

Priorities in Crisis:
 Safety
 Incident Stabilization
 Property protection
 Environmental protection
 Operational resilience-Confirm people are safe.
 Then, how do we get back to work.
Traps to Avoid:
 Having a plan and failing to use it.
Plans are nothing, planning is everything.

Plan is incidental to planning process which is a learning effort that

produces knowledge.
 Most plans are based on threat not impact.
 Some place reliance on insurance
Insurance is only part of recovery--priceless collections e.g.

Some insurance is important.

 Important to avoid the Ostrich approach. Never happen here
 Also important to avoid Fatalism.
If it happens, all will be lost, the Possum Principle

 Also avoid the excuse you have too little support.
Legally you will be asked if you should have planned.

Remember, you can create a plan instead of a program.


Define who is accountable
 Establish delegations of authority
 Establish process for developing COOP--who leads, who is accountable
 Use template or plan development online tool.

One way to logistically plan is to have an EOO work with departments to fill out
plans.

Plan for situational events using preparation checklists:
 There is a difference between COOP and Emergency plan
The event is not over when the incident ends

Core of the plan is resource planning.


People will do what they do and improvise--whoever is there
constructs plan and responds.
 2 levels of response
 There is a difference between command post and emergency
management
 Navy has cycled between threat-based and resource-based planning.

As part of planning ask what represent to our community:
 We are a business available to communities if something dire happens
 We should share plans with community.
 Make sure we are prepared in advance and have thought through single-points of
failure
Plan for off-site power or data resources.

Study from other events and ask how it may affect us.

Perform mitigation planning

Start broad all-hazards approach and narrow this.

This eventually gets to a tactical level


There is an evolution in thinking about events when you go through the planning
exercise.
 An example was when Meals Ready to Eat were stocked for an emergency. When
staging a mock event, those with food allergies couldn't eat the MRE's.
 Begin asking critical questions like do you refund some tuition if classes can't be
held for a while?

Operations Committee Meeting discussion

CTC Link Progress:
o ITC met jointly with BAC to discuss CTC Link:
o There was also a WAC discussion on CTC Link.
o Concluded that CTCLink is moving forward.
Implementation moved out one year.

Suggested another year was needed to really do this right

Barbara Martin Report:
Noted regarding concerns on missing GL and potential problems with data format:

o April 9th was scheduled for discussion with BAR and BAC members with a follow-up
planned on chart of accounts with BAR and BAC with a wider group follow-up.
o Financial Statements in CTC-Link will be rolled-up by tree, going through some of the
Account fields.
o Some known issues: We haven't made FMS GASB 65 deferred revenues and outflows GL's.
GASB 54 unspendable, vs. restricted, GL's etc.
o There was a need to do more thinking about account fields in CTC Link and requirements
for GAAP and IPEDs reporting; some question whether the current approach to coding fund
and appropriation would work.
o 1-2 weeks after the April 9th review it as planned to have a larger group look at proposed
solutions.
o Time is of essence. Need to make time for this.
o CTC Link Has been trying to gather a list of all the issues that have arisen.
o Send topic list out to BAC

SAO has worked on data upload with CTC Link staff.
o Part of their budget is for systems review.
One project is called ethical hacking to test security of system.

With the first colleges to migrate they will look at system testing.

o Auditors will mostly opine on test balances for statement auditing with financial statement
audits.

CTC Link Planning is also looking at what we can do and can't do. Some things have significantly
bigger implications.
First Wave college implementation is scheduled August 16.
o Did an analysis with Ciber for what it would take to make first step:
Moved implementation out a year for first wave.

After Pilots Launch, there will be 90-day stabalization period

 Don't know how many resources will be used.
 Didn't want to commit too early.
Plan is to keep the work moving for First Wave, but CTC Link staff recognized there

would be a period of time when there wouldn't be able to help First Waves after pilots
launch.
No decision yet on timing for steps for implementation between First Wave and

Second Wave i but may be:
August launch for -2016

May launch for 2017?

Then may be February of 2018 for 9 months between or

August of 2018 for 12 months for last WAVE

o Updated project plan should be out soon


Joint Policy Development Effort:
o Could collaborate to write common missing policies
o Cascadia asked their President's Staff to mark which policies needed work. Theirs was
Title IX.
This was one way to ID which policies were significant and missing.

o Another approach would be to ask colleges to name the top 5 missing policies
Determine if there is commonality

o Another process would be for each college to come-up with local recommendations.
o Decided, each college will send the top 5--critical missing policies by end of May to
Jennifer Howard.

State Board asked for input on defining acceptable debt ratio.
o Legislature has asked State Board. State Board has raw data.
o Legislature is risk avert, so need to reassure them.
o Committee polled on advisable maximum debt ratio, and BAC is still studying this.
o Legislature is moving toward a 7% cap on debt service to budget-type limit.

New deadline on Procurement training is moved by DES to October. Currently planned in BAC
academy agenda.

Megamations: In previous testing data didn't match. Depreciation schedule would need to be
redone.
o One reason Megamations was looked at for depreciation calculation was that we were
told that FAE was dying with no support.
o OFC wanted to do this for other reasons like missing data fields for their reporting.
o Rather than devoting time for Megamations, It was determined that staffing for our
legacy system should be prioritized.
Rob Langrell WAC representative with BAC:
o Encouraged to retain Optimism despite possible loss of funding with new Allocation
and Accountability model of distributing allocation to colleges.
o Though it is obvious we are not going to be doing more with less, we need to continue
to articulate story on this.
Reduction scenarios performed just months ago, though our 15% reduction

worst-case planning is not evident in the current budget proposals.
Hang onto those scenarios though

You may need them.

Look to 2020, Look at our students or learners, how does our current cost/value

strategy align with how learning will take place in five or ten years?
Our missions must address sustainability as well as fulfillment.

Other colleges are doing this strategic planning.

There needs to be a total reset of approach.

Not in dollars and cents but on principals.

There will likely not be much new state funding for higher education.

How do we share services between colleges?

o There are alot of agenda items now between colleges.
Rob doesn't remember a time when there has been as much inter-college

rivalry.
Conditions in environment have us pitted against each other.

There is a strength in commitment to system.

o Make sure you are developing teams and focused on teaching and learning.
Make sure you are thinking about what the new models of education are

and how we will fund ourselves if there is no new state money.
Like what the future will endorse as modes of instruction.

o Asked, what BAC expects from WAC?
Proposed that BAC meets with WAC before President's retreat to align work

plans.
Relationships with Presidents on all the hot topics.

Things are moving fast so need to push this forward now.

Get other commissions into this format too.

Joint commission meetings may make sense.

One example is that In Michigan, all council and commission meet

periodically.
This will be on WAC agenda. There will be an opportunity to be heard. We

have good leadership.
Denise Graham:
o Quietly asking for contingency plans for not having budget completed by June.
o Biggest problem is funding for capital projects.
o New WAC group looking at evidence based practices.
o Like identifying student achievement and completion.
o Currently there is instruction, Student Services and , institutional research involvement.
o Question does BAC wants representation? Timeline to finish next March.
o Enrollment workgroup is forming.
o Related to the new allocation model using enrollment data.
o Made up of BAC, instruction , and student services. Will start soon.
o Recommendations will be presented to WAC next March.
o BAC invited to WAC academy for the new allocation model discussion at Lower Columbia.
o High stakes conversation:
 New allocation model will result in money moving around.
 Questions about what is included in 3-year actuals and how we will receive state
money.
o Re-examining 2007 decision to have colleges either classify international students as
contract or state TES's.
o When International students are counted as contract, there is currently no payment
of Innovation fee or building fee.=$1,700
 For colleges with excess enrollment, counting international as state would move
them to excess without building fee payment
 There is about an $1,100 benefit to excessing without building fee.
o International contract is an invention of our system.
o Except for Running Start students, if you are in state-support classes, you get state
funding.
o International students are sitting in state classes but don't pay into building or
innovation fund. (New headcount formula does have international students paying
into innovation account)
o Shakiness of international contract category that is making SBCTC nervous. Options
proposed include:
 Count as state
 Count as contract
 Minority report. Count only up to 100% of target.
Otherwise count as contract.

Colleges would be counting in both buckets.

May have 30 in state and lots in contract. Would looks like gaming the

system.
What can be defended to legislature?

o Concern:
 What if the legislature knew that some colleges have 20% international when
avg. is 7% and 5% for 4-year. Highest for 4-year is 10%.
o Some citizens are starting to make the case to question why we have this category.
o Presidents want to hear from BAC members on the topic.
o SBCTC Modeled scenarios to demonstrate impact:
 Showed which colleges gain and lose relative to current allocation models. This
is change from last summer's allocation model.
o There was also a question about capital scoring including international students.


Minor, RMI and Major works include all FTE's for scoring purposes but
a disconnect with minor money is derived solely from Bldg. fee with no
payment from international students.
Revenue model looked at discrete revenue changes, if 23% of tuition is kept local (though
Innovation assessment is now headcount which lowers this) with International contract
count method.
o BAC input:
 Bound to have this decision come to the forefront.
 Image in public sector--need to be careful. UW had a public backlash on their
international enrollment growth.
 We need to standardize the choice to report international students as
either international contract or state not hybrid.
 One opinion that international enrollment shouldn't be counted for state; that
the public understanding of this is important.
 Phase-In period should have a date. One or two biennium.
Operating Budget Committee: Nick Lutes:

Building allocation scenarios for next year.
o Factoring in new Enrollment rules:
o Scrap current recovery language.
o Method to determine current target for 2016 is the same as last year. Model allocation
won't take place until 2017.
o During 2016, allocation will come both as old and new in parallel.
 Target in the new model--average of target if under-enrolled, this is average g
target for 3 years
 if over-enrolled target is average of actuals.
 May propose recalculated value for students of color and disabilities.
Discussions on whether to have this?

Discussion around various budget proposals:
o State & Tuition fund budgeted salary increases for House and Governor's budget
proposal will be distributed based on last year's salary totals.
o Senate budget proposal would have salary increases of $1,000 each year. Senate
provides 85% of funding to cover this increase.
o O&M allocations. There was a question whether we should change the way we ask for



"inflation" for this instead of a request for inflation for leases. The current approach
is disjointed and not aligned with our capital allocation approach.
Supplemental retiree payments. SBCTC redistributes. Will increase by 14.8%. DRS
should have funds by 2017 to pay for this.
Senate proposes Tuition should be constrained to 6% of average population's
wages which would result in a 2% decrease in tuition decrease for CTC's in 2017.
Senate proposes to backfill this with an allocation.
Current budget proposals allow Non-Resident tuition to be adjusted. This is
delegated authority. Upper-division tuition is level on Senate budget but we may be
tied to not exceed 4-year rates where tuition would be adjusted down 15%.
ITC report:
WAC Memo sent to CTC Link to express concern:

o Advice was to not set a date that cannot be met.
o August 23rd First Link
o August 2016 for First Wave
o Discussed meeting for Account and Chartfield issues:
o April 9th meeting for BAR and BAC members
o 1-2 weeks later, pull together a broader BAC/BAR group to discuss.
o Hired 3rd party reviewer on project timeline.
o Reviewer felt August 23rd date is reasonable.
o CTC Link Staffing has been increased.
o Hired a first Wave coordinator, Dennis Colgren.
o Some reasons for delay, Payroll complexity issue
Adjunct faculty and AFRS interface are both issues.

o Someone made decision to take out appropriation which was thought to be duplicated.
o Looking at optional fields.
Safety & Security Report:



Will be providing guidance around incident response team training and organization.
Legislative bills around reporting concerning safety and security.
o Question whether state board will alert when there are bills that may affect our reporting
requirements.
Discussions around campus security officer training
o What level of training should they have?
o Level of competency required. Discussions around this.
Operations Committee report:

Fiscal health measure for debt service.
o Every college has a debt policy.
o Not sufficient for legislature to concur with Board.
o Come up with a metric.
o Debt Service as a percentage of revenue in operating budget has been used.
Concerns about being too restrictive.

But also concerns about being irresponsible

Came up with 10.5% of total operating revenue.

But nationally the rate is 5.7%

This is one of fiscal health measures for state

8 3/4% presently at state level but there is an initiative to bring this down to

7%.
Accreditation visits have shown that solid plans call for sinking funds to reserves

to protect operating budget.
What % of operating revenue should be dedicated though?

o Rating agencies use 4 criteria:
Debt/per capita

Debt Service % of income

Debt % of Gross State product


Debt Service as % of expenditures
 NACUBO reports: Debt service to operating expenditure is 5.7%.
 Recommendation: Need to look at data and see what other institutions have in
place
 Do a survey.
Capital Report:

Wayne Doty. Discussion about catching up on fully spending minor works.
 New Normal is that there will be no re-appropriations of minor budgets into next
biennium.

There will be two workshops to train on submitting capital budget proposals.
o Post to website.
o All of this is on the budget development website.
o There is a best practices section.
WAC adopted a best practice for estimating construction costs.

o 10 colleges eligible to submit for major projects
o May change this process
Could change who is in the pipeline for instance

Suggest that we assess how we communicate the system needs.
