College Budget Committee
Tuesday, January 26, 2015
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., Event Center 722A
MINUTES
Meeting called to order at 2:02pm
Attendance: 10 members, 3 guests (see sign in sheet)
1. Welcome/Introductions (2:00)
2. Approval of Minutes (2:03)
Motion to approve the 12/08/2015 minutes – Ken Grace
Seconded – Jeff Drouin
All in favor with no abstentions
3. Co-Chair Reports (2:05)
VP Walter discussed having a conversation with Tim Dave regarding his position as faculty Co-Chair,
considering he is currently an Interim Dean. It was stated that Faculty Senate has the choice of who
they appoint as Co-Chair. Jeff Drouin will consult with Faculty Senate and the Faculty Association, to
see if this committee can receive feedback.
4. Action/Discussion Items
a. Meeting Dates/Times (2:15)
Future meeting dates are now listed on meeting agendas.
b. Program Review Update/Perkins Advisory (2:20)
Program Review Update
Jeff Drouin stated that when program review requests come in, we should have a process that it’s fully
vetted before it gets to the committee for review.
VP Walter confirmed that the program review process for the committee will be different this year. We
will work on the program review spreadsheet to divide it by area: Student Services, Academic Services,
and Administrative Services. First it will go to the administrator over that area. For example, the
Student Services VP will get everything from their area, to make sure it’s accurate and error-free,
which will also create dialog within their departments. Once it’s clean, they will submit it back to the
VP Administrative Services office with changes listed in specific ways, so we can identify any and all
changes that have been made. Once we have the list back, the Student Services VP and/or their
constituents will come to the committee to present their requests. We can discuss their requests, and
then follow up with all communication in regards to approval or another pot of funds that may be
available, etc. In short, instead of reviewing line by line it will presented to the committee, by area.
Page 1 of 5
College Budget Committee
Tuesday, January 26, 2015
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., Event Center 722A
MINUTES
Ken Grace asked how this would be inclusive to other committees, like technology and the cool
committee (online learning). They will continue to be looped in for requests under their purview.
Bob Buell comments that faculty submit their request to every pot of money and hope for the best. It
would be great to know what type of funds are available, and what the criteria is for approval. In
short, better clarification for faculty to apply for the appropriate funding sources. VP Walter replied
that when we send to each area, the administrators should know where to place the request for
appropriate funding. Dean Lima mentioned that some items may appear to be technology, when they
aren’t. In the past there have been items moved to the technology list, which were not technology.
This creates confusion and possible rejections that may not be warranted. Allowing administrators to
sort the spreadsheet within their own area will be extremely helpful. This will create a single point of
entry, for administrators.
Bob Buell reminds the committee that in the Program Review forms (not the spreadsheet) it asks
where the request can be funded. This is extremely confusing, as faculty do not know the answer. The
information is not provided in such a way that the answer is easy enough to even keep up with. VP
Walter reminded the group that at some point, we will be reviewing the whole program review
process as well, and in that work it will be addressed. For this year, we’ll allow the conversation to
happen in the area the requests come from. Next year, we’ll push further.
VP Kritscher restated the purpose of this new program review process, for area administrators to
review, validate, categorize, and prioritize requests from their area.
We need a process for prioritization of resources available, campus wide. Some funds run out at the
end of the year, how do we maximize and prioritize our spending, to go along with what we have
available? We need to work towards outcome based funding.
VP Kritscher mentioned the current needs in facilities. He referred to the governor’s proposal, with the
allocation towards maintenance and equipment and knowing that instructional equipment will come
from the state for the third year in a row, all while the campus has emerging needs in small projects
coming from the facilities committee. We could take advantage of the instructional equipment funds
coming three years in a row, and look at how we may want to prioritize those funds for the current or
coming years, towards small projects.
VP Walter reminded the group that clarifying process and disseminating information with
transparency is exactly what we want to accomplish, an iterative process, a mechanism so no one is
left on a wild goose chase to find money. We will get there!
Page 2 of 5
College Budget Committee
Tuesday, January 26, 2015
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., Event Center 722A
MINUTES
We will start program review this year with a clean list of requests coming back to us, and we’ll
schedule the administrators to come present their needs to the committee.
Perkins Advisory
VP Walter announced that she is aware that there is an advisory board for the Perkins funds. In the
past, this committee has been a de facto for those funds, and that should not have happened. Dean
Lima will report back to the budget committee, in regards to use and allocation of Perkins funds
moving forward. Applications for 2016-17 funds are being reviewed now.
Noell Adams asked if this committee will just receive a report of what was funded through things like
Perkins, Equity, etc. VP Walter replied that we want our fund relationships to be more functional, not
redundant and coordinated in some way. The Budget Committee should make recommendations as
well as receive updates and reports.
Dean Lima will share what will be funded in Perkins and where they are at in the process, at our April
26th, 2016 meeting. Funded departments will need to have an advisory committee of their own that
also includes industry. The Applied Technology and Business division will request an augmentation to
their general fund allocation, to close the gap on general funds that have been supplanted by Perkins
in recent history.
c. Institutional Effectiveness (2:35)
Committee members were familiar with this topic. Noell Adams asked what part this committee plays
in the Institutional Effectiveness work. VP Walter replied that they will ask what we’ve done, and how
we got to where we are now. VP Walter will provide more information in future meetings.
d. Committee Assessment (2:40)
In reviewing the PBC draft evaluation document, VP Walter asked everyone’s thoughts on evaluating
our committee process and how we allocate funds college wide. One response was that if the majority
of people don’t come in with ideas, it may be a waste of time. You need the knowledge base, in order
to have feedback for the process. VP Walter asked if we feel like we are providing a service to the
college. Noell Adams suggested that we conduct an assessment in May, when we have finalized the
first run of the new program review process. Jeff Drouin asked if we should have a change in the
committee charge and membership before we assess. We seem to have an issue with effectiveness,
especially with the lack of deans on committee. VP Thompson agrees with having deans on the
committee as there are questions that she doesn’t think she should need to answer, in that detail.
Page 3 of 5
College Budget Committee
Tuesday, January 26, 2015
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., Event Center 722A
MINUTES
Ken Grace asked that by May 10th, our last meeting of the spring semester, we have an approved list
of requests posted. This way items can be ordered and on campus before first week of the fall
semester. VP Walter stated yes, we will.
We are still waiting to hear back from Faculty Senate, regarding the shared governance
recommendations. The recommendation will be presented to President Sperling this Thursday. It was
mentioned that every time we discussed membership and charge in previous meetings, we were told
that we didn’t want to make changes because we were waiting on that Senate feedback. Are we now
wanting to make changes, regardless of their feedback, or would we wait to receive it before moving
forward? Their feedback is not set in stone, in which this committee could still make a
recommendation for what they feel is necessary.
e. Future Agenda Items (2:55)
Feb 9th, Program Review Presentation Schedule; Committee Evaluation Tool; Grants Committee
Report – VP Walter, Director Wu-Craig
March 8th, Area Program Review Presentations; Facilities and remaining bond funds discussion – VP
Kritscher, Mark Stephens, Nate Moore
March 22, Area Program Review Presentations
April 26th, Perkins update– Dean Lima
May 10th, Assessment/Efficiency of Budget Committee – VP Walter
5. For the Good of the Order (3:00)
Noell, on behalf of Classified Senate referred to the Classified Prioritization Process. When faculty are
conducting their prioritization process, they have a clear idea of how many they are able to hire. We
would like to come to a point where a number or dollar amount can be identified for classified hiring,
so we can effectively prioritize positions college wide. It would be great to develop a matrix in regards
to classified professionals and enrollment growth. VP Walter commented that we do need a matrix in
this arena. We need to look for documentation on who may be working or has developed something
like this. Chasity Whiteside mentioned that in identifying budget, we may want to look at classified
positions that fall on the instructional side of the budget vs the non-instructional. VP Kritscher says
looking at the standards are important, what our goals are vs another school that may be developing
a matrix like this. Noell added, to be effective we need to identify what type of support we’re looking
at. VP Walter asked how technology changes this support as well.
6. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 3:28pm
Page 4 of 5
College Budget Committee
Tuesday, January 26, 2015
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., Event Center 722A
MINUTES
Handouts and/or Links Provided:
PBC Evaluation Draft – Catalyst for conversation
Upcoming Meeting Dates:
February 9, February 23, March 8, March 22, April 12, April 26, May 10
Chabot College Mission:
Chabot College is a public comprehensive community college that prepares students to succeed in their
education, progress in the workplace, and engage in the civic and cultural life of the community. Our
students contribute to the intellectual, cultural, physical, and economic vitality of the region.
The college responds to the educational and workforce development needs of our regional population
and economy. As a leader in higher education, we promote excellence and equity in our academic and
student support services. We are dedicated to student learning inside and outside the classroom to
support students’ achievement of their educational goals.
Page 5 of 5