Institutional Planning and Budget
Council
Meeting Notes
Meeting of: January 28, 2004
ATTENDANCE: Kathleen Schaefer, Carolyn Arnold, Laurie O'Connor, Bob Curry,
Chet Rhoan, Gerald Shimada, Melinda Matsuda, Debbie Budd, Chad Mark Glen, Denise
Noldon, Robert Carlson, Ron Taylor, Catherine Powell, Vanessa Cormier, Norma
Ambriz, Joe Kuwabara
1. Status of Strategic Planning: Beginning Spring Semester, the IPBC will be bringing
its focus to a new level, as the group must be adequately educated and well-informed to
appropriately make decisions related to key issues and directions; programs and services
initiation, improvement, and elimination; resources allocation in terms of staffing,
funding, and space; and planning courses of action integrated with the college budget.
The committees and groups doing the extensive work that will be provided to IPBC
include, but are not limited to College Budget Committee, Facilities Committee,
Technology Committee, College Enrollment Management Committee, Ad Hoc
Committee for New Full-Time Faculty Prioritization, Program Review Advisory Group,
Research & Grants.
Any existing groups or work groups formed that review proposals for the allocation of
college resources would need to do the more extensive work which involves both the data
gathering and the data analysis, with the summary brought to IPBC. In some instances,
the summary would include recommendations for improving effectiveness. With all this
information feeding into one council, this body will ensure that efforts are organized and
coordinated under one umbrella.
The next discussion was about Connections between College Plans and Budgets with a
review of diagrams and definitions of the following: Educational Master Plan, Strategic
Plan, Annual Priority Objectives, Developmental vs. Operational Objectives, Unit Plans,
and Budget Plans. Most of what IPBC has focused in our Strategic Plan and the annual
priority objectives, including the ones which have been recently funded by PFE monies
have been developmental objectives or new initiatives which comprise approximately
10% of the overall college budget. What we have NOT focused on are the ongoing
operational objectives, found primarily in Unit Plans, as the annual process of submitting
Unit Plans along with Unit Budget Proposals had been temporarily discontinued a few
years back. As developmental objectives usually begin with terms such as develop,
increase, create and increase, and speak to development or change, operational objectives
represent the basic maintenance-of-effort functions of the college and often begin with
terms such as offer, provide, enable, ensure, and direct. Carolyn Arnold and Melinda
Matsuda will be visiting to meet with the Dean of Research and Planning at San
Francisco City College, where they have a model that might fit our needs.
A Draft of Timelines for Yearly Planning Cycles was distributed and reviewed. It is an
18-month calendar, from January 2004 through June 2006, with the budget more fully
integrated with planning in the cycle which begins in January 2005, with proposals for
the 2005-2006 academic year. Between now and then, there is much work to be done, as
the Program Review cycle, Discipline Plans and Course Scheduling, Block Grant
Proposals, and Staffing Priorities need to be calendared to be coordinated with the rest of
the cycle.
To get onto schedule, the 2003-2004 Action Plans for the Strategic Planning priority
objectives would need to be completed in early February. Additionally, during the month
of February, we will be identifying priority objectives for 2004-2005.
2. Revisiting Vision, Values, Mission, Goals, & Student Profiles: Carolyn Arnold,
who will now be co-chairing IPBC, will be leading this charge. Work groups will bring
drafts back to the large group (IPBC). Additionally, Carolyn will be working with Cindy
Hicks and a group from the Curriculum Committee who are currently working on the
college mission in relation to general education and degree requirements. This will also
all tie in with the work around Student Learning Outcomes and the learning-centered
college.
3. College Budget Committee Role and Membership: After a discussion of the
current role and membership of the College Budget Committee, it was decided that as a
sub-committee of IPBC, 1) the College Budget Committee needed to be encouraged to
come to IPBC meetings; and 2) there needed to be more IPBC members on the College
Budget Committee. As a result, Debbie Budd and Joe Kuwabara were appointed to sit on
the College Budget Committee. According to the calendar, unit administrators will be
presenting the 2004-2005 budget proposals to the College Budget Committee for review
in March. In March of 2005, unit administrators will present both budget proposals AND
unit plans to the CBC for review. President Carlson emphasized that it would be
expected of the Budget Committee that they would be doing some pretty intense
questioning of the unit managers in relation to budget proposals.
IPBC Membership was reviewed, and this will be re-emphasized to the college at large.
Membership to IPBC is open to the college-at-large. Any member of the college
community can contribute and participate in IPBC's decision-making by consensus.
However, there also must be a core group of appointed members to IPBC. This group
must be representative and is comprised of the three Vice Presidents, four additional
administrators, eight faculty members, four classified staff, and two students. Active and
consistent participation, both in and outside of the actual meeting times is required for the
decision-makers to remain current and educated around key issues and directions as they
are reviewed in IPBC so that informed recommendations can be made to the College
President. Recommendations must be centered around the institutional vision, values,
mission, goals, and student profiles. Individuals and groups with expertise in specific
areas of the institution will be requested to come to IPBC meetings to contribute to the
topics on the table.
4. Budget Update: Vice President Curry reviewed the December 2003 Financial Status
Report for 2003-2004. The projection for the unrestricted ending balance is $1,142,906,
noting that the following assumptions were used in projecting the ending balance; (1)
Revenues and allocations as currently budgeted and estimated will materialize. This also
assumes that the college will reach its growth target. (2) All committed funds will be
spent by June 30, 2004. To the extent they are not expended, the ending balance will
increase. (3) There will be a balance of $177,000 in Partnership for Excellence funds.
This balance is an estimate of special projects which will not be completed by the end of
the fiscal year. (4) The expenditure pattern of adjunct faculty will be similar to previous
years. This does not take into account any changes due to attempts to meet enrollment
plans. (5) General expenditure patterns will be similar to previous years.
Regarding the 2004-2005 budget, a chart illustrating 2004-2005 Sources and Uses of
Incremental Revenue (based upon the Governors January 9 Budget Proposal ) was
reviewed, indicating there was a District-wide $1,676,964 gap between incremental
revenue ($2,418,933) and incremental expenditures ($4,095,897). Chabot's estimated
share of the gap is $838,482. It was noted that the increase in projected expenditures was
due to the increased cost of doing business while providing the same level of service.
For Budget Development, a list of Revenue & Allocation Assumptions and Expenditure
Projections was distributed for IPBC Review. The discussion that followed
acknowledged that IPBC did not have sufficient information nor was it prepared to make
any additions to the assumptions. It was decided to let the assumptions as presented
stand.
Melinda Matsuda, IPBC Chair