Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 28, 2013
Board Room, Building 200
Senators: Kathy Kelly, Jason Ames, Jim Matthews, Mike Sherburne, Shirley Pejman,
Jane Vallely, Daniel Calcagno, Shoshanna Tenn (For Stephanie Zappa), Rachel
LePell, Ming-Lun Ho, Laurie Dockter, Lisa Ulibarri, Andrew Pierson
OFFICERS
Senate President
Kathy Kelley
Vice President
Jason Ames
Secretary
Jim Matthews
Ex Officio: Dave Fouquet, CLPFA; Luis Flores, Student Government
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call To Order—2:50pm
1.0
General Functions:
SENATORS
MSC (Calcagno /Matthews) to Add Facilities as a discussion item
Applied Technology
& Business
Mike Sherburne
Counseling
Shirley Pejman
Health, Physical
Education & Athletics
Jane Vallely
Daniel Calcagno
1.1
Review and Approval of Minutes: Tabled
1.2
Public Comments: None
2.0
REPORTS I
2.1
ASCC: No Report
2.2
CLPFA: Dave: The FA has an interest in the creation of a new district
allocation model and how the allocations affect the colleges, both in money
and in faculty (FON).
3.0
ACTION ITEMS
3.1
Approve REVISED Administrative Procedures for Credit-byExam: Tabled
3.2
Education Master Plan: Tabled
3.3
Senate President- Election Committee: MSC (Ho/Matthews) to
appoint Ho, Matthews and Pierson as the Election committee.
3.4
Faculty Prioritization [?]: Tabled
3.5
Faculty training for legal changes from SSTF: TMC's,
Repeatability: Tabled
3.6
Changes to Senate Charter – Membership: Tabled
4.0
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1
Planning for Education Master Plan: Tabled
4.2
Transfer Model Curriculum requirements: Tabled
4.3
Staff Development - role/functioning- Cont'd: Tabled
Language Arts
Stephanie Zappa
Jason AMes
Library
Jim Matthews
School of the Arts
Rachel LaPell
Science &
Mathematics
Ming-Lun Ho
Laurie Dockter
Social Science
Andrew Pierson
Adjunct Faculty
Lisa Ulibarri
EX OFFICIO
Associated Students
of Chabot College
Luis Flores
Chabot-Las Positas
Faculty Association
Shari Jacobsen
4.4. Facilities: Kathy attended the Facilities committee today. Building
2100 is in dire need of replacement. There are safety issues and programmatic
issues. Kathy reported that the Facilities committee seems to move from issue
to issue and there needs to be a better plan of action plan. Kathy reported that
there is $18.8m in Chabot funds, LPC has $17m and the district has around
$100m left after all current projects are completed. Kathy would like the senate
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 28, 2013
to consider a resolution on getting the priority building planning process
started (Building 100, 2100, and 2300). She would ask for a re-allocation of
district tagged funds to the colleges. We need to make sure that the decisions
are transparent.
Laurie: Building 2100 needs work now. She did not know the cost to either
renovate or build a new building.
5.0
REPORTS II
5.1
Senate President's Report: Kathy stated that on the allocation model
creation, the senate should consider a resolution on the need for an allocation
model that adequately addresses the needs of the college. Kathy asked Dave to
present the issues being discussed at the DBSG:
Dave: One issue is the allocation, by cost instead of by revenue, for the
District Office and M/O. The costs of the District Office and M/O (M/0
utilities costs are already allocated separately based on fluctuating nature of
that cost) have been mostly stable over the course of the past few year (20072013) even though they have lost staff so there is a question of why that
happened and what is happening with the saved salary costs? We know that
some District costs were expensed to Measure B, particularly for IT. So the
question becomes, what is an appropriate beginning allocation to the district
based on what costs? The needs of the district and what they do with the funds
allocated to it needs to be better understood before any model is adopted.
Another issue is the set foundational revenue from SB 361 to districts with
colleges of a certain size that will not get COLA adjustments. The foundational
money and how it is allocated is a critical issue. It should only be allocated to
areas where there is a stable expense and not where the costs go up or down.
Since the college’s costs do move more than the district both up and down due
to fluctuations in FTES allocations from the State, less foundational funding
should be allocated there in the new model. Right now the district has
proposed 2 versions of a new model at the DBSG. The 2 options for the
revenue model used to send money to the colleges is based on the FTES
revenue and the foundation funding. If foundational funding is allocated in the
way currently being proposed in the DBSG district version 1, it will hurt the
colleges due to the non-cola/FTEs aspects of foundation money. Mike Hill, the
consultant, has proposed this model. Version 1 moves all of the foundation
money to the colleges which will hurt the colleges over time. The colleges
need to get the full use of the FTES funding that does grow and may received
COLA and is needed to directly fund the services and classes to the new
students we serve. Also, Chabot’s foundation funding level is based on FTES
as established by the State in the allocation to the District. However, Chabot is
near to the FTES amount and if Chabot would lose some FTES, it would drop
into a lower foundation funding level and lose hundreds of thousands of dollars
of funding. In the proposed model, Chabot would bear the entire amount of the
loss. The District’s Version 2 does move some of the foundational funding in
ways that lessen the impact of the loss of COLA to the colleges but does not
eliminate it.
Dave stated that he and the CLPFA will propose a Version 3 based on FTES
including M/O then after that the foundation money are allocated based on
ratios. This version would also fund the Nursing/Dental Hygiene programs
2
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 28, 2013
separately. Also the FON is moved so that LPC gets 9 more FON positions
from Chabot. The reasoning behind funding Nursing/Dental hygiene separately
is due to the costs of the two programs, particularly in faculty costs. If the costs
of these two programs remains solely a Chabot concern, the costs would hurt
all of the other programs at Chabot disproportionately.
Rachel: The corporate model is already in higher education. The district
controls the funding as it is sent down from the State and they decide how
much to give to the colleges. How do we resolve our needs given the
corporate model that exists is a issue.
Andrew: Has the DBSG looked at alternative models and are any being
pursued?
Jim: No. The Chancellor stated at the January 2013 meeting that the DBSG
agreed to a revenue model at its meeting in October. However, while I have
since asked to see those minutes, those minutes have not been posted as of
today. Also, as I understand it, the DBSG did not vote one way or the other on
the topic.
Shoshanna: In looking at the version 3, why would LPC be allocated so much
more than Chabot? ($300,000 to Chabot’s $22,000).
Dave: That is due to the FTES allocation and LPC has not gotten that funding
now.
Ming: I think it is premature to have any official resolution from the senate
while the discussions are going on. We should wait to see how the discussion
develops.
Jim: The ACCJC recommendation that started this process to create a new
model was the subject of the two college’s midterm reports. We stated in the
reports that while we have not completed the work, we are very active in
working on it. The ACCJC acted on our midterm report and accepted that we
are working on it. It is surprising that that did not demand that we have it
finished although we are directed to report on what we have done in our new
Self Evaluation Report that is due in October 2015. Also, while the District
also received a request for a Special Report on the District Budget, that report
is not about the recommendation but rather about the deficit spending by the
district of the past few years and asking for how we will stop such spending
and rebuild our reserves.
5.2
Division Representatives: No Reports
Next Meeting: March 14, 2013
3