Regular Meeting
September 23, 2009 – 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, Building 200
IPBC Membership
2009-10
JoAnn Galliano, Co-Chair
Yvonne Wu Craig, Co-Chair
Faculty
Carolyn Arnold
Mike Absher
JoAnn Galliano
Chad Mark Glen
Joe Kuwabara
Linda Rhodes
Mark Schaeffer
Ken Williams
Stephanie Zappa
Classified
Catherine Powell
Rajinder Samra
Yvonne Wu Craig
Administrators
Celia Barberena
Gary Carter
Matthew Kritscher
Melinda Matsuda
George Railey
Gerald Shimada
ASCC Rep
Theresa Pedrosa
Minutes
Present: Abdullah Yahya (Chabot Technology), Rajinder Samra
(Institutional Research/ Classified Senate/ IPBC), Yvonne Wu Craig (Cochair, IPBC), JoAnn Galliano (Co-chair, IPBC), Mark Schaffer (School of
the Arts/ IPBC),Catherine Powell (Classified Senate/ IPBC), Theresa
Pedrosa (student rep, IPBC), Matt Kritscher (Counseling/ IPBC), Gerald
Shimada (Special Programs/ Budget/ IPBC), Ken Williams (Social
Sciences/ IPBC), Stephanie Zappa (Language Arts/ IPBC), Carolyn Arnold
(Office of Institutional Research/ IPBC), Melinda Matsuda (VP Student
Services/ IPBC), Yulian Ligioso (VP, Administrative Services/ IPBC), Gary
Carter (School of the Arts/ IPBC).
Minutes of the September 9 meeting were discussed and approved with
corrections.
It was agreed that minute-taking would rotate through each member of the
committee, and decided that we would follow reverse alphabetical order. It
was also agreed that IPBC meetings from now on will commence at 3:15
PM instead of 3 PM in order to accommodate IPBC member faculty
teaching schedules.
Reports:
Budget Report:
Gerald asked about the money that remains in discussion in the Budget
Committee. Yulian responded that they have been funding equipment at
about $1 million per year, but they have recently recognized a surplus of
about $9.5 million, and have decided to reserve $3 to $4 million of that. It
should be available for disbursement at approximately $1.3 million per year,
but some will be set aside as emergency funding or in the event of loss of
funding for subsequent years. For instance, recently, the State will no longer
provide Telecommunication and Technology Infrastructure Program (TTIP)
funding which had supported Chabot’s library databases.
Yulian made a correction to the Sept. 9 minutes. The statement about 4000
and 5000 category requests was corrected. Yulian clarified by stating that
4000 category requests will be covered by restricted lottery funds and not
unused bond funding. He further clarified that bond funds and institutional equipment funds
could only be used to fund 5000 category requests that are capitalized transactions.
Yvonne asked that Yulian confirm that unexpended emergency funding will roll over with no
deadline for use. Catherine asked whether the restricted lottery would fund all requests. Yulian
reminded us that areas were all asked to categorize their requests to identify urgency. He said
there is $125,000 available in the lottery, and to submit 4000 requests for this. Catherine asked
whether these requests/funds could be used to cover maintenance, for example, repairs on
equipment. Ken asked whether capitalized items would depreciate; Yulian answered yes, they
will. Ken also asked why the trajectory estimated is $4 million, as it seems like a large
discrepancy; Yulian stated that he has asked for clarification and confirmation on exact amount
of funds available. Ken also asked where the rest of us can find this information. Yvonne
informed us that the Budget Committee puts its minutes online, and/or we can ask Tim Dave.
Yvonne said that there is also a district-wide breakdown of budget and expenditures available on
the District website under Business Services. The 2009-10 Adoption Budget is posted there.
Technology Plan and IT report from Abdullah Yahya:
Abdullah Yahya , co-chair along with Lisa Ulibarri, of Instructional Technology Services (ITS)
was a guest at the meeting to discuss the Technology Plan, which the committee had reviewed
online. He highlighted a few points, including an increased number of requests from staff and
faculty for lap-tops; as existing computers become outdated, more people are voicing a
preference for laptops. ITS is working on the tools they would need for addressing these
requests, including launching required software. ITS has been asked by the Academic Senate for
some revisions to their plan, after which they will approve it. JoAnn asked about the goals for
the next five years and how they would be funded. The report had many goals that need to be
linked to budget and planning. Abdullah said they would continue working on funding for these
goals. Many other factors are involved in developing a lap-top policy, which is an ongoing
process. Computer Service requested additional staff, raising concern for the need to fill Mike
Seaton’s position.
Yulian said that as he looked at the report, the format needs modifying, because the percentage
of some requests is vague, and he would prefer dollar amounts as well as projected need for one
year, two years, and five years. He also asked whether, as hardware and computers are
upgraded, there may be less need of staff support. He added that an institutional and districtwide timeline would be helpful. Abdullah said that he would bring the requested information
back to the committee. Carolyn moved that the technology plan be approved as it stands with the
understanding that it is a living document and that the requested revisions would be made. Gary
seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously.
Item: Process of Prioritizing and Communicating in 2010-11
JoAnn raised the question as to the role of the committee, and said that as a faculty member she
had heard much concern over the process of the current round of budget cuts; she elicited
feedback from her division.
Yulian said there will be an overview of funding mechanisms and income available for 2009-10
and 2010-11, and said there is a need for multi-year planning. The class fill-rate at Chabot is at
102%, and he applauds faculty for taking extra students in their classes. The challenges faced by
community colleges from the state is the rapidly increasing cuts in dollar amounts. As part of the
mid-year cuts, we’re asked to cut an additional $2 million; to cover these are mostly funded
vacancies, but this will only last one year. With a continuing $2 million-dollar cut with
structural imbalance, categorical funds for 2010-11 are impacted. We will only receive $37
million from the federal government, and can also expect more mid-year cuts next year. There
are some opportunities: the numbers for SERP look promising at the moment, but a different
problem will be created if too many people leave. Yulian said we won’t be seeing COLA (Cost
of Living Adjustment) or growth raises, and the district faces increases in the pay-in amounts to
PERS (Public Employees’ Retirement System) and STRS (State Teachers’ Retirement System).
He said the question then becomes, how can and will we respond as a college?
JoAnn said we need to figure out a process, and suggested we first focus on whether our priority
goals are being met, and if so, how. Catherine said it’s important that we not become stuck in a
reactionary mode. She pointed out that it’s a complex and layered situation, and we have to find
out just what is in our control, so we aren’t wasting time trying to affect what is not in our
control. We need to know what is mandated by the district, and in what areas we are
autonomous. Yvonne stated that part of our process should be to find that out. Carolyn said that
all coordinators had been cut, and used Service Learning as an example; this was a Chabot
decision, but she asked whether it was across the board. Since Service Learning is part of the
Chabot Strategic Plan, she questioned that process.
Melinda said that all the deans collaborated together to be equitable in their cuts. She said that
for the first time, their goal was equity across the campus. Gerald agreed that everyone (deans)
worked together. He added that some searches for faculty were suppressed, or interrupted. He
also said that the transparency in the process could be improved. He as an administrator does not
fully know how much money is to be saved by this. He asked, if all those who plan to, do follow
through with the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP), how will we fill those
vacancies, and how will we make those decisions? Melinda said there are no clear numbers,
nothing guaranteed as far as the SERP goes just yet.
Gerald referred to the 80 sections which have been cut from the spring schedule, made with little
time to think; he asks for a campus-wide view of what was cut and as well as the method for the
decisions.
Stephanie said that there is dissatisfaction in the Language Arts division for the same reasons
that had already been mentioned. She and most of her colleagues have taken extra students
(more than usual). The consensus in the division is that the cuts seemed to be made top-down
(despite deans’ involvement), and used the Learning Connection as an example, where the tutor
budget was cut along with center hours, but there was no discussion or consultation with
coordinators. Language Arts would agree on the need for transparency and process.
Ken said that 10 sections had been cut in Social Science, roughly 10%. He also said that at the
previous meeting he had been given the charge to conduct a “systematic assessment” of our
practices and planning on the campus. He said that as a practicing economist, he recognizes the
need for Chabot to change the framework of its budgeting process. One way we might refine our
approach is to assume not that we are going to be cut by $2 million, but instead, $5 million. He
presented the committee with a 3-page documents which is based on Goal D in our Strategic
Plan. The committee agreed to read it and discuss it at the next meeting. Ken also referred to his
experiences as an investor and stated that real estate prices and availability are indicators for
optimism.
Yulian will give us a complete overview, the entire budget process so that in the future we may
be able to come up with some creative strategies. He said it will get worse: California lags
behind by about a year and it takes longer for us to feel the full effects of recession.
Gary spoke eloquently about our charge as a college; we must be very careful about the way we
proceed, as the population whom we are designed to serve is dependent on us. We are deeply
involved in issues of social justice, and we are dealing with people’s lives.
General concern was expressed over the sections we have lost, and how we might get those
students who will be forced to go elsewhere to come back to Chabot. Matt spoke about the
pipeline already in place, and is confident about our feeder schools. His main concern is whether
we have lost (or are losing) the ability to maintain our Strategic Plan. We have had 30% fewer
transfers in recent years, yet the transfer center has been cut such that it is barely running, at ½
position. He urged us to consider institution-wide data, and not to focus on a particular
program(s).
Yvonne agreed that our next step in the process ought to be looking at institution-wide data.
Yulian addressed the reason for 80 sections being cut; the state system office is reducing
workload, affecting 16,000 students statewide. He said that we originally had more sections in
the schedule than we could actually offer, so the current cut seems deeper. Two years ago, the
district told us to grow FTEF, and we did. In 2008-09 we achieved 18.7, but now are funded for
only 16.9.
Item: Classified Prioritization Process:
Yvonne said the Classified Prioritization Process was approved by the Classified Senate, so if
IPBC approved it, it could go to the president’s office tomorrow. Some discussion ensued as to
positions being filled right away and at whose behest (would deans/units decide?). Concerns
were raised about whether a position would be kept open (and funded) if it was not filled right
away. Yvonne stated that these questions are addressed in the process as it is written. The
process also includes a report by the Business Office as to the amount of funds available for
staffing and hiring positions. Yvonne said she was going to meet with the President the next day
and would bring back the results of that meeting at the next IPBC meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Next meeting: October 14, 2009, 3:15 – 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room
Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Zappa