AGENDA ITEM BACKGROUND
TO: GOVERNING BOARD
DATE
FROM: PRESIDENT
March 5, 2012
SUBJECT:
2012-13 Budget Reduction Plans
REASON FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
ENCLOSURE(S)
ITEM NUMBER
Page 1 of 4
INFORMATION
BACKGROUND:
The structural deficit for Cabrillo for 2012-13 is currently projected at $5.6 million. One of the major
components of the structural deficit is the built in increases in expenses that the college must budget
each year. The college is planning to utilize $2.3 in operating funds to bridge the 2012-13 deficit
leaving a deficit balance of $3.2 for 2012-13. The college has set a budget reduction target of $2.5
million for the 2012-13 Preliminary Budget. The first phase of budget planning, including 2.5 million
in reductions will be complete by May. All permanent reductions identified in the first phase will be
included in the 2012-13 Preliminary Budget approved by the Governing Board in June 2012.
Phase I reduction plans were presented and discussed with individuals impacted, department meetings,
Cabinet, Administrative Council, Managers and College Planning Council meetings. The Services
Program Review and Advisory Committee (SPRAC) has received all plans included in the
attachments. SPRAC feedback will be presented to the College Planning Council as soon as possible.
The budget reduction plans attached will come to the Governing Board for approval on April 6.
Phase I
Unrestricted General Fund Reductions $938,864
Restricted Fund Reductions
$128,731
Children’s Center Fund
$98,340
Administrator Initiating Item:
Victoria Lewis
Academic and Professional Matter
If yes, Faculty Senate Agreement
Senate President Signature
 Yes  No
 Yes  No
Final Disposition
Governing Board
March 5, 2012
Phase I
Budget Criteria
III.B
II.E
III.C
III.C
II.E
III.C
III.C
III.C
III.C
III.C
III.C
2012-13 Budget Reductions
Description
Impact
PCN #
If Lottery funds reduce from the
Move DE-Blackboard fees off GF state, then the DE-CMS costs
to Instructional Lottery funds.
would revert to the general fund.
None: Moves the GF portion of
these two employees off the GF and
onto the CEED contract/cont ed
Program Spec - CEED
budget
None: Moves the GF portion of
these two employees off the GF and
onto the CEED contract/cont ed
Program Spec - CEED
budget
None: Moves the GF portion of
these two employees off the GF and
onto the CEED contract/cont ed
Office Specialist CEED
budget
Requires faculty director; reassign
Public Safety Director 1 FT CJ faculty to 50% faculty PS
management: $140,885 (incl
director: adjunct backfill $25,500
bene)
@ $1700/TU
Children Center Director Reassign 1 ECE FT faculty to
management: $93,019; state
faculty director @ 100% backfill;
funded, moves fulltime faculty off $51,000 adjunct backfill. Savings
general fund into state funds.
depends upon which FT faculty
serves as faculty director.
Computer lab LIA from 10 mo
None: computer lab is closed in
100% to 9 mo 100%
summer
Division Offices will reduce from 2
IDAs to 1 IDA with 1 centralized
IDA; reducing from 10 to 6. 3
IDA - Division Offices
positions are vacant.
IDA - Division Offices
same as above
IDA - Division Offices
same as above
same as above; unknown which
PCN will be eliminated depending
IDA - Division Offices
upon seniority
unknown
Total
FTE
% of Contract
Total GF Savings
$18,840
713503
0.5
50%
$36,175
713502
0.5
50%
$27,844
713504
0.0565
6%
$9,404
426005
1
100%
$117,518
441519
402506
$40,000
0.08
450505
420505
460507
O:\Board Items VP Admin folder\2012 Board Items\3_March 2012\2012-13 Budget Reductions\2012-13BudgetReductionsPhaseI_Instructionp2.xlsx
$5,776
$79,982
$64,943
$58,449
$67,283
$507,374
Governing Board
March 5, 2012
2012-13 Budget Reductions
Phase I
Budget Criteria
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
Description
Impact
IT Computer Systems Maint. Tech
Eliminate 2 IT coordinators/ Add a SQL Database Admin@ range 53 (net)
UPS
Reduce Postage Budget
M & O Operating Reductions
IT Operating budget reduction
Renegotiated Audit Contract
PCN #
401205
321002/321024
FTE
0.5
1
Total
CMP Goal E
$212,727
Renegotiate Cell Tower Leases- generate new revenue
$30,000
Reduction of 2012-13 Deficit
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
Student Services
Eliminate Outreach Coordinator
Eliminate 2 Admissions and Records Assistant II
Eliminate 1 Financial Aid Program Specialists
(FA Program Specialist will become a Financial Aid Advisor position)
% of Contract Total Savings
50%
$40,577
100%
$112,650
$7,500
$30,000
$10,000
$5,000
$7,000
$242,727
801503
821008/821020/821022
813116
0.46
2
1
50%
$41,642
100%
$140,178
100%
$6,943
(net @ unfilled rate)
Total
$188,763
Total Unrestricted General Fund Reductions
$938,864
O:\Board Items VP Admin folder\2012 Board Items\3_March 2012\2012-13 Budget Reductions\2012-13BudgetReductionsPhase IAdminSvcsp3-4.xlsx
Governing Board
March 5, 2012
2012-13 Budget Reductions
Phase I
Restricted General Fund- Categorical
Student Services- Matriculation/Stroke Center
III. B
Eliminate Director of Student Health Center
III. B
Reduce Stroke Center Counselor
861002
448003
1
0.25
100%
25%
Total
Children's Center Fund
Instruction- Children's Center
III. C
Eliminate Children's Center management position
$101,567
$27,164
$128,731
441519
1
Total
O:\Board Items VP Admin folder\2012 Board Items\3_March 2012\2012-13 Budget Reductions\2012-13BudgetReductionsPhase IAdminSvcsp3-4.xlsx
100%
$98,340
$98,340
AGENDA ITEM BACKGROUND
TO: GOVERNING BOARD
DATE
FROM: PRESIDENT
February 14, 2011
SUBJECT:
2011-12 through 2013-14 Budget Reduction Process
Commitments, Criteria and Strategies
REASON FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
ACTION
ITEM NUMBER
ENCLOSURE(S)
Page 1 of 4
B.1
BACKGROUND:
The College is moving forward with budget planning for the 2011-12 fiscal year. In October of 2010, the
College Planning Council reviewed and revised the Budget Reduction Process Commitments, Criteria and
Strategies that will be used for budget planning for 2011-12 through 2013-14.
The attached document was reviewed by the Governing Board in November, 2010 as a part of the 2010-11
and 2011-12 Budget Planning Parameter Update.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Governing Board approve the budget reduction process, commitments, criteria
and strategies for fiscal years 2011-12 through 2013-14
Administrator Initiating Item:
Victoria Lewis
Academic and Professional Matter
If yes, Faculty Senate Agreement
Senate President Signature
 Yes  No
 Yes  No
Final Disposition
Approved
CPC October 6, 2010
2011-12 through 2013-14
Budget Reduction Process Commitments, Criteria and Strategies
The economic crisis affecting the state budget is conservatively projected to last at least three years. At the
current time, our best efforts at projecting the fiscal impact on Cabrillo indicate that our state funding may
continue to decline.
The intent of the following process commitments, criteria and strategies is to enable Cabrillo to move from
being a college that is organized and staffed to operate on a $60 million budget to an organization and staffing
level that can deliver sustainable services to the community with a smaller budget.
I.
Process Commitments
A.
Link Budget planning, including program and service reductions and redesign efficiencies, to
long range planning, including the evaluation of the impact on student success.
B.
Utilize the appropriate forums to dialogue about the restructuring, consolidation, reductions,
and/or elimination of programs and services resulting from a reduction in resources.
C.
In the event that program and workforce reductions are necessary, the college will work to
preserve faculty, staff and management positions when possible and, if not possible, will assist
with employment-related transitional issues.
D.
The process will be characterized by openness, respect, sensitivity, and inclusiveness.
The College Master Plan provided the general framework for the following criteria:
II.
Criteria
A.
Compliance Requirements
1.
Maintain accreditation standards of the college and academic programs
2.
Maintain state and federal compliance requirements (CMP Goal B) e.g.:
 50% law
 Full-Time faculty obligation number (FON)
 Accessibility
B.
Preserve transfer, basic skills, and Career Technical Education so students are able to complete
their academic goals (CMP Goal B)
 Core courses toward an AA/AS
 General education breadth
 Labor market
C.
Minimize negative impact on student success (CMP Goals B & C) e.g.
 ARCC
D.
Optimize enrollment to achieve maximum state revenues.
III.
E.
Minimize impact of non-base budget programs on General Fund (CMP Goal E)
 Ancillary/Auxiliary operations
 Categorical and grant-funded programs
F.
Maximize efficiency of programs and services (CMP Goal A and Technology Plan)
 Are college programs and services efficient?
 WSCH/FTEF
 Non-redundant
G.
Minimize the negative impact on the operational needs of new and existing facilities (CMP Goal
D and Facilities Master Plan)
H.
Optimize effective utilization of college facilities (CMP Goal E)
I.
Maximize flexibility and opportunities for employees (Process Commitment C)
Strategies
A.
Design and implement Strategic Enrollment Management Plan and determine the FTES targets
for 2011-12 through 2013-14.
B.
Review all auxiliary and categorical program budgets with the appropriate budget administrator
to identify reductions.
C.
Evaluate college-wide services and systems; explore alternative models across components;
reduce costs, reduce duplication of function, and increase efficiencies throughout the college.
D.
Management of personnel budget.
Process Overview
Utilize salary savings for vacant positions to reduce the overall budget reduction target.
 Salary savings may be used to fund replacements for vacant positions based on demonstrated
need and the approval of the Vice President/President.
 Salary savings may not be used to cover other operating expenses or equipment purchases.
 Cabinet may approve the recruitment of vacant positions based on demonstrated need.
 Human Resources will provide a list of vacant positions and the status of recruitments on a
weekly basis.
 Administrative Services will provide a report of cumulative salary savings on a monthly
basis.
E.
Evaluate facility use for efficiency and effectiveness.
 Watsonville
 Scotts Valley
 Energy Use Reduction
F.
Discuss compensation and benefit programs with all employee groups.
IV.
Historical Data Available
A.
Internal Data
 Cost Center
Actual 06-07 Expenditures, number of full-time equivalent faculty, staff and administrators
(FTE) and FTES
Actual 07-08 Expenditures, FTE and FTES
Budget 08-09 Expenditures, FTE
 Staffing levels by department and bargaining unit from accreditation self-study
 FACT Books http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/index.html
 Space Planning project database
 Suggestion box for anonymous input
 Budget reduction website
 Accreditation Self-Study http://www.cabrillo.edu/services/pro/accred/index.html
 Program Planning Pages http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/programPlanningTables.html
B.
External Data
 Fiscal Data Abstract 06-07
 Current Cost of Education 06-07
 WASC Accreditation Standards
http://www.cabrillo.edu/services/pro/accred/pdf/ACCJC%20NEW%20STANDARDS.pdf
AGENDA ITEM BACKGROUND
TO: GOVERNING BOARD
DATE
FROM: PRESIDENT
March 5, 2012
SUBJECT:
2012-13 Budget Reduction Plans
REASON FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
ENCLOSURE(S)
ITEM NUMBER
Page 1 of 4
INFORMATION
BACKGROUND:
The structural deficit for Cabrillo for 2012-13 is currently projected at $5.6 million. One of the major
components of the structural deficit is the built in increases in expenses that the college must budget
each year. The college is planning to utilize $2.3 in operating funds to bridge the 2012-13 deficit
leaving a deficit balance of $3.2 for 2012-13. The college has set a budget reduction target of $2.5
million for the 2012-13 Preliminary Budget. The first phase of budget planning, including 2.5 million
in reductions will be complete by May. All permanent reductions identified in the first phase will be
included in the 2012-13 Preliminary Budget approved by the Governing Board in June 2012.
Phase I reduction plans were presented and discussed with individuals impacted, department meetings,
Cabinet, Administrative Council, Managers and College Planning Council meetings. The Services
Program Review and Advisory Committee (SPRAC) has received all plans included in the
attachments. SPRAC feedback will be presented to the College Planning Council as soon as possible.
The budget reduction plans attached will come to the Governing Board for approval on April 6.
Phase I
Unrestricted General Fund Reductions $938,864
Restricted Fund Reductions
$128,731
Children’s Center Fund
$98,340
Administrator Initiating Item:
Victoria Lewis
Academic and Professional Matter
If yes, Faculty Senate Agreement
Senate President Signature
 Yes  No
 Yes  No
Final Disposition
Governing Board
March 5, 2012
Phase I
Budget Criteria
III.B
II.E
III.C
III.C
II.E
III.C
III.C
III.C
III.C
III.C
III.C
2012-13 Budget Reductions
Description
Impact
PCN #
If Lottery funds reduce from the
Move DE-Blackboard fees off GF state, then the DE-CMS costs
to Instructional Lottery funds.
would revert to the general fund.
None: Moves the GF portion of
these two employees off the GF and
onto the CEED contract/cont ed
Program Spec - CEED
budget
None: Moves the GF portion of
these two employees off the GF and
onto the CEED contract/cont ed
Program Spec - CEED
budget
None: Moves the GF portion of
these two employees off the GF and
onto the CEED contract/cont ed
Office Specialist CEED
budget
Requires faculty director; reassign
Public Safety Director 1 FT CJ faculty to 50% faculty PS
management: $140,885 (incl
director: adjunct backfill $25,500
bene)
@ $1700/TU
Children Center Director Reassign 1 ECE FT faculty to
management: $93,019; state
faculty director @ 100% backfill;
funded, moves fulltime faculty off $51,000 adjunct backfill. Savings
general fund into state funds.
depends upon which FT faculty
serves as faculty director.
Computer lab LIA from 10 mo
None: computer lab is closed in
100% to 9 mo 100%
summer
Division Offices will reduce from 2
IDAs to 1 IDA with 1 centralized
IDA; reducing from 10 to 6. 3
IDA - Division Offices
positions are vacant.
IDA - Division Offices
same as above
IDA - Division Offices
same as above
same as above; unknown which
PCN will be eliminated depending
IDA - Division Offices
upon seniority
unknown
Total
FTE
% of Contract
Total GF Savings
$18,840
713503
0.5
50%
$36,175
713502
0.5
50%
$27,844
713504
0.0565
6%
$9,404
426005
1
100%
$117,518
441519
402506
$40,000
0.08
450505
420505
460507
O:\Board Items VP Admin folder\2012 Board Items\3_March 2012\2012-13 Budget Reductions\2012-13BudgetReductionsPhaseI_Instructionp2.xlsx
$5,776
$79,982
$64,943
$58,449
$67,283
$507,374
Governing Board
March 5, 2012
2012-13 Budget Reductions
Phase I
Budget Criteria
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
Description
Impact
IT Computer Systems Maint. Tech
Eliminate 2 IT coordinators/ Add a SQL Database Admin@ range 53 (net)
UPS
Reduce Postage Budget
M & O Operating Reductions
IT Operating budget reduction
Renegotiated Audit Contract
PCN #
401205
321002/321024
FTE
0.5
1
Total
CMP Goal E
$212,727
Renegotiate Cell Tower Leases- generate new revenue
$30,000
Reduction of 2012-13 Deficit
III. C
III. C
III. C
III. C
Student Services
Eliminate Outreach Coordinator
Eliminate 2 Admissions and Records Assistant II
Eliminate 1 Financial Aid Program Specialists
(FA Program Specialist will become a Financial Aid Advisor position)
% of Contract Total Savings
50%
$40,577
100%
$112,650
$7,500
$30,000
$10,000
$5,000
$7,000
$242,727
801503
821008/821020/821022
813116
0.46
2
1
50%
$41,642
100%
$140,178
100%
$6,943
(net @ unfilled rate)
Total
$188,763
Total Unrestricted General Fund Reductions
$938,864
O:\Board Items VP Admin folder\2012 Board Items\3_March 2012\2012-13 Budget Reductions\2012-13BudgetReductionsPhase IAdminSvcsp3-4.xlsx
Governing Board
March 5, 2012
2012-13 Budget Reductions
Phase I
Restricted General Fund- Categorical
Student Services- Matriculation/Stroke Center
III. B
Eliminate Director of Student Health Center
III. B
Reduce Stroke Center Counselor
861002
448003
1
0.25
100%
25%
Total
Children's Center Fund
Instruction- Children's Center
III. C
Eliminate Children's Center management position
$101,567
$27,164
$128,731
441519
1
Total
O:\Board Items VP Admin folder\2012 Board Items\3_March 2012\2012-13 Budget Reductions\2012-13BudgetReductionsPhase IAdminSvcsp3-4.xlsx
100%
$98,340
$98,340
State of California
LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 28, 2012
Daniel W. Hancock
Chairman
Eugene "Mitch" Mitchell
Vice Chairman
Katcho Achadjian
Assemblymember
For Additional Information Contact:
Stuart Drown
Executive Director
(916) 445-2125
Commission Calls for Focus on Student Outcomes at Community Colleges
Marilyn C. Brewer
Virginia Ellis
Alyson Huber
Assemblymember
Loren Kaye
Tom Quinn
Michael J. Rubio
Senator
David A. Schwarz
Jonathan Shapiro
Mark Vargas
Mark Wyland
Senator
Stuart Drown
Executive Director
The Little Hoover Commission on Tuesday urged the Governor and the Legislature
to refocus the mission of the community colleges to align policies and resources around
fostering student achievement in three core areas: basic skills education, career technical
education and preparation for transfer to four-year universities. The Commission also
called for the state to consolidate responsibility and funding for California’s adult education
programs within the community college system to maintain educational options for all
levels of adult learners.
In its report, Serving Students, Serving California: Updating the California Community
Colleges to Meet Evolving Demands, the Commission found that the community colleges
have opened doors to people who want to improve the quality of their lives by earning more
income, building skills to run a business, excelling in careers, being better parents, or
taking another chance to realize their dreams and fulfill their potential.
Yet, the
Commission found that in trying to be all things to everyone, community colleges are
coming up short for many.
In this study, the Commission found that the state lacks a clear, uniform set of
goals for its community college system and campuses. Too many students leave without
accomplishing what they set out to achieve, whether learning new job skills or completing a
certificate or degree program. Too many are unprepared for college-level work and do not
receive adequate guidance to help them make up their educational deficits. At the same
time, many students are hobbled in their progress by system policies that encourage
campuses to increase enrollment at the expense of the services and supports that can help
students move through the system and on with their lives. The result is that community
colleges are rationing access, but not in a rational way, putting students on waiting lists
who are prepared to succeed at college-level work. In making its recommendations, the
Commission envisions a system that asks more of students, but asks more of colleges as
well in supporting students and helping them move up and out of the system.
“California’s community colleges hold so much promise, but are limited by the way
the system is funded, by the design of the leadership structure, by outdated practices for
setting policy and goals,” Little Hoover Commission Chairman Daniel Hancock said. “The
colleges are in an ideal position to help those who want to improve their lives, and through
their success, better meet the state’s workforce needs – now and in the future.”
“Making strategic changes to the leadership and funding of California’s community
colleges, as well as to the measures used to guide students, can position the colleges to
help close this gap and help ensure the system continues to provide an open door for those
who want to better their lives,” Chairman Hancock said.
Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy http://www.lhc.ca.gov/
925 L Street, Suite 805 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-2125 fax 916-322-7709 e-mail littlehoover@lhc.ca.gov
In the report, the Commission’s recommendations align with those made recently by the Student Success
Task Force, but go further in certain areas:
The state should make student success in three areas its primary goal for community colleges.
These areas are: basic skills education, career technical education and preparation for transfer to
four-year institutions.
The system should build policies around supporting these goals by requiring students to participate in
activities that have be shown to bolster student success, such as required orientation and skills
assessment. Students should be given enrollment priority based on whether they have completed an
education plan, whether that plan is built around learning a single focused skill need to advance in their
career, or to earn a certificate or degree. Priority also should be given to returning students who
demonstrate progress toward their goals and those returning to school to renew job skills. Colleges should
encourage students to stay committed to their goals by capping the number of credits that can be taken at
state-subsidized tuition rates, by linking eligibility for fee waivers to maintaining a minimum grade point
average, and by charging the full cost of a course to students who enroll solely for personal enrichment.
The state should update the community college system governance structure by giving more
authority and independence to the Office of the Chancellor to develop strategies and incentives
that can drive student and college performance.
The chancellor’s office should be moved out of the executive branch of state government and established as
a separate entity that can establish policy directives, create accountability measures, direct funding,
oversee community college districts, and, when necessary, intervene in district affairs. Districts should be
given more flexibility in how they deploy resources, while being held accountable for results, and given
more freedom to coordinate regionally.
The state should allocate funding in predictable and appropriate ways to encourage student
success, and focus spending in ways that facilitate students’ success, such as creating incentives
for improved student outcomes. The state must amend the funding formula so that it rewards student
progress and achievement. The formula must reward colleges whose students attain milestones known to
lead to success, or whose students achieve certain basic skills goals or earn certificates or degrees.
Further, colleges should be given more flexibility in spending, so they may allocate more money to the
kinds of counseling services that help students develop educational plans and make progress.
The state should shift all adult basic education programs and related funding to community
colleges. Responsibility for Adult School programs currently operated by K-12 school districts should be
shifted to the community college system to stem the erosion of the state’s capacity to serve the adults who
need these programs. Money previously allocated for these programs through categorical funding should
be transferred as well to community college districts to support these programs. Community colleges have
a direct stake in the success of these adult learners and, as the examples of the community collegedirected adult programs in San Francisco and San Diego have shown, many of these students can go on to
success in college-level coursework.
The Little Hoover Commission is a bipartisan and independent state agency charged with recommending
ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of state programs. The Commission’s recommendations
are submitted to the Governor and the Legislature for their consideration and action. For a copy of the
report, visit the Commission’s Web site: www.lhc.ca.gov.
2012-2013 Services and Program Reduction Advisory
Information Technology
Department:
Admin Services
Component:
Dan Borges
Manager:
Computer Systems Maintenance Technician
Position Being Reviewed:
Summary of Plan: Eliminate .5 Technician position. Move 1 Technician to Watsonville Center.
In regard to the Plan submitted:
Was the decision-making process inclusive?
Comment:
Yes
No
Is this Plan workable from an employee perspective?
If not, what specifically has been overlooked?
Yes
No
Subsequent issues that may need to be addressed:
Moving 1 Technician to Watsonville to support growth in technology-reliant programs
at the Watsonville Center will create a hole in instructional support in student computer
classrooms and labs for the Aptos campus.
Activity
Date(s)
Plan received by SPRAC
SPRAC meets with affected unit as necessary
SPRAC sends input to manager
Manager responds to SPRAC concerns as necessary
SPRAC Chair sends final summary to manager, Cabinet, and CPC (Dominique)
2/16/12
2/24/12
2/27/12
2/27/12
2/27/12
2012-2013 Services and Program Reduction Advisory
Information Technology
Department:
Admin Services
Component:
Dan Borges
Manager:
Information Systems Coordinator
Position Being Reviewed:
Summary of Plan: Eliminate 2 Coordinators. Disseminate work to Information Systems
Analysts/Programmers, IT Help Desk, and end user departments. Add a SQL DBA for growing
needs in that area.
In regard to the Plan submitted:
Was the decision-making process inclusive?
Comment:
Yes
No
Is this Plan workable from an employee perspective?
If not, what specifically has been overlooked?
Yes
No
Subsequent issues that may need to be addressed:
Impact on end user departments.
Loss of a level of service.
Loss in timeliness of service.
Activity
Date(s)
Plan received by SPRAC
SPRAC meets with affected unit as necessary
SPRAC sends input to manager
Manager responds to SPRAC concerns as necessary
SPRAC Chair sends final summary to manager, Cabinet, and CPC (Dominique)
2/16/12
2/24/12
2/27/12
2/27/12
2/27/12
2012-2013 Services and Program Reduction Advisory
Division Offices
Department:
Instruction
Component:
Renée Kilmer, VP of Instruction
Manager:
Instructional Division Assistant
Position Being Reviewed:
Summary of Plan: Eliminate 4 IDA positions (2 vacant, 1 retirement, 1 occupied). Currently
there are 10 IDA positions, 2 for each division. In this plan, each division will have 1 IDA and
the sixth IDA will become a central IDA who will do projects for all 5 divisions.
In regard to the Plan submitted:
Was the decision-making process inclusive?
Comment:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Is this Plan workable from an employee perspective?
If not, what specifically has been overlooked?
Although some staff did say they didn’t feel this Plan was workable, upon further
discussion their doubts were centered on the implementation aspect of the Plan that has
yet to be worked out. SPRAC did not hear of any aspect of the Plan that was
overlooked by management.
Subsequent issues that may need to be addressed:
Centralized IDA may not be able to handle all of the projects in the Plan for all five
divisions.
Level of service to faculty and students will be affected.
Vacations and 11-month contracts will affect functioning of division offices.
Further issues of workload, service, and logistics may arise during the development of
the implementation plan and implementation itself.
Activity
Date(s)
Plan received by SPRAC
SPRAC meets with affected unit as necessary
SPRAC sends input to manager
Manager responds to SPRAC concerns as necessary
SPRAC Chair sends final summary to manager, Cabinet, and CPC (Dominique)
2/23/12
2/24/12
2/27/12
2/27/12
2/28/12