Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
Present:
Mary Beth Benvenutti, James Blake, Timothy Brice, Elmer Bugg, May Chen, Sharon Clegg, Jon Drinnon, Matthew
Goldstein, Rick Greenspan, Jennifer Lenahan, Jenny Lowood, Thuy Nguyen, Adan Olmedo, Mike Orkin, Tae-Soon
Park, Trulie Thompson
Chair/Co-Chair: Susan Rinne and Karolyn van Putten
Guest:
Evelyn Lord, John Hendrickson, Chancellor José Ortiz, Eric Gravenberg, Sadiq Ikharo, Calvin Madlock, Norma
Ambriz-Galaviz, Debbie Budd, Natasha Spivey
Facilitator/Recorder: Linda Sanford and Joseph Bielanski
Absent:
Elnora Webb
Agenda Item
Discussion
Meeting Called to Order
I. Agenda Review
March 28, 2014
9:04 AM
Agenda: APPROVED
Facilitator
II. Review of Minutes:
February 28, 2014
Facilitator
Follow-up
Action
Minutes: APPROVED as amended
Page 2: Remove the “a” in “Motion to approve the request that if the
a District service center…”
Page 2: Clarification – Under Section IV second bullet, the
committee will be meeting in May not March.
Page 8: Remove “that” and replace with a comma in “Concern was
expressed in terms of the BAM not having clear language that if a
college overspends that then the college will not receive full
allocation of growth.”
Page 9: Replace “flushed” with “fleshed” in “Motion to table the
Page 1 of 12
Decisions
(Shared
Agreement/Resolved
or Unresolved?)
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
item until discussion has been flushed out.”



Informational item
Subject to change
Motion to extend the April meeting by an hour to 1:45pm.
APPROVED
IV. Budget Development
Directions for 201415 (base
discretionary funds)

Interim VC Rinne

Included in the packet was a memo from VC Rinne to the
College Presidents and other service areas.
One change: Prior year restoration of 15% reduction over the
last couple of years will be rolled back into Fund 01. It was
placed in Fund 12 this year (2013/14).
The 2% increase for utilities was placed in discretionary
budgets and included in the allocation spreadsheets.
III. Revised PBC
Timeline
Facilitator

V. Parcel Tax
Allocations
Deputy Chancellor
Hendrickson



The Deputy Chancellor provided the following report
regarding the Measure B Parcel Tax and included his
proposal for the Peralta Accountability and Student Success
program as a method for using the parcel tax funds.
In 2012, the Measure B parcel tax for PCCD was approved
by the voters with a 72% majority.
The ballot language was provided in the meeting packet.
A large part of the parcel tax funding was used to fund our
part-time faculty salaries in order to keep as many course
offerings for students as possible, given the downturn in State
funding. Things have changed in the last two years; the
economy and tax proceeds have picked up. Now instead of
workload reductions, we are seeing the Governor’s budget
proposal for 2014/15 recommending funding for restoration
and enrollment growth. According to the Deputy Chancellor,
there is less need to fund part-time faculty from Measure B
Page 2 of 12





Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
because we can now fund them from base apportionment.
Deputy Hendrickson checked with Bond Counsel; it is clear
that just like a facilities bond, it is correct to believe that there
needs to be a plan to spend the parcel tax money and a
structure for reporting to the public. The proposed plan is
titled, Peralta Accountability for Student Success (PASS).
PBC will be in charge of the plan and periodically will
review this plan and provide input to the Chancellor. The
funding will be treated like one-time money. We want to be
able to tell the public, this is what we did, this is the reporting
structure, and this is how we can measure whether it worked
or not.
We want to look for “programs” that would fulfill or expand
our efforts for student success that are unable to be funded
through our usual State base allocation, resource allocation
model. What can’t we do and wish we could in terms of
instruction and support areas if we just had the funding?
Where could we at the college level say, if we could only
create a new course and a pipeline for enrollment and
success, but the allocation model does not give us the
resources we need, what would that be? Then one criterion
for allocating funds could be the following: Will this effort
be self-sustaining once the parcel tax is gone?
If PCCD is a great steward and provides that information to
the public, we can go out for continuation of funding on the
ballot in the future.
If we assigned a project number to the program, then the
District may permit carryover of funds.
Reporting: The PBC will be receiving reports for the PASS
programs and provide input to the Chancellor. The
Chancellor will be accountable to the Board of Trustees and
Page 3 of 12





Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
the Oversight Committee for periodic reports.
Chancellor Ortiz provided background information on the
Request for Qualification (RFQ) for a planning facilitator.
There were 3-4 proposals that came in close to $1 million to
facilitate strategic planning. It was deemed inappropriate to
go that route. We can use parcel tax monies in a scaled down
version to fulfill our accreditation requirements I this area.
Concerns were expressed by PBC members. One member
was concerned that if one of the innovative projects fails, it
might end up in the newspapers. It might be better to spend
the money in the “normal” way. Another member urged the
PBC to be mindful and not to complicate the process as we
start to diversify. There are plenty of under enrolled sections
that ought to be funded with parcel tax money. Another
member urged the PBC to take the language of Measure B
very seriously and read it strictly. We should be paying for
core classes that for which we said we would be paying.
Getting clever with the language is a terrible idea. This is an
opportunity to build a foundation with full-time faculty and
staff.
Deputy Chancellor Hendrickson believes that the PBC would
not allow funding for any program that would be deemed
inappropriate. He recommends that the PBC give this
document an approval/endorsement so we can use it to plan
2014/15 and get the money out to the colleges for their use.
A few PBC members thanked Deputy Chancellor
Hendrickson for his thoughtfulness.
Motion to accept this document for making plans for
utilization of Measure B funds for 2014/15 and keep this
document on the agenda for ongoing review and
additional refinement/modification. APPROVED
Page 4 of 12
This item will
be on the
agenda next
month.
VI. FTES Targets Status
Report & FON
Update

VC Orkin




Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
Accept: 10
Oppose: 5
VC Chancellor Orkin provided the following update and
information to the PBC:
The FTES-FTEF targets worksheet reviewed at this meeting
also was used at the Chancellor’s Cabinet.
The annual resident FTES target is 18,830 (includes a 300
FTES cushion).
The productivity target (FTES/FTEF) is 17.5.
The numbers (on the handout) were broken down by resident
and non-resident students for each term. It looks like we are
under our target, but there are numbers not included, such as
late start classes. We need to estimate FTEF for non-resident
students. Non-resident FTES are kept separate due to it being
a separate funding stream. Resident FTES are funded through
State apportionment while non-resident FTES are funded
through non-resident enrollment fees.
Clarification: Per VC Rinne, although there are separate
funding streams for resident and non-resident FTES, it is one
“pot of money”. When PCCD builds the budget, it is based
on the estimated FTEFs that are projected in Cabinet.
Adjustments are made throughout the year. At the end of the
year, 9 out of 10 times, there is enough money between 1351
(part-time faculty) and vacant positions such that we can
transfer funding within colleges district-wide to offset
overages and shortages through salary savings. There are
instances where the District might have to use the salary
savings to cover a college. Over the past two years, the
district budgeted funding to hire 40 new faculty members;
many of those positions were not filled until the spring of this
year. We had three semesters of full-time faculty salary
Page 5 of 12






Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
savings that were filled by part-time faculty. Salary savings
were moved to offset overages and shortages.
BCC appears to have more enrollment and hired more faculty
than their allocation. VC Orkin explained that BCC also has a
higher rate of non-resident students.
Chancellor Ortiz commented that there is no control over
when we go over the budget or target. That might be a BAM
model improvement that needs to be addressed.
BAM rewards those colleges that stay within their budget via
growth dollars. For colleges which have not met their FTES
target, they could add sections which would cause them to go
over budget and not qualify for growth dollars.
VC Orkin is confident that we can meet our FTES target of
18,530 with late start classes and at least one intersession.
VC Rinne was asked to review actual allocation for FTEF
based on the annual FTEF target. Is it an average or actual
cost? Concern was expressed that colleges with significant
senior full-time faculty or senior adjunct faculty would not
receive sufficient allocation of dollars when using an average
allocation due to the different salary and placement of those
contract and part-time faculty.
Clarification: Per VC Rinne, when the targeted FTES and
FTEF information is received from Ed Services, all positions
are backed out. The positions from the spreadsheet have
nothing to do with allocation of dollars. From there an
average is used for part-time faculty and the remaining
vacant positions. In prior years, it has been an average of
$44,000 per faculty. In terms of the actual allocation of
dollars, it is based on where the faculty are positioned for the
given year for which we are budgeting.
Page 6 of 12
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
Faculty Obligation Number (FON)
 There are two ways to compute the FON:
1. Percentage of total full-time faculty.
2. Compliance Option A vs. B:
A. Total number of full-time faculty as of last fall
(deficit of 9.27).
B. Maintain the percentage of full-time faculty we
had last year.

VII. Allocation for SLO
Assessment

Interim VC Rinne


VIII. College-based Unit
Plan Resource
Requests:
Dr. Gravenberg
The District will use option B because the district fulfilled
the obligation last fall. FTEF can be taken out of the FON
calculation if paid for by the parcel tax. We get
apportionment from sections funded by the parcel tax.
SLO assessment funding has been allocated to each college.
College Business Managers were notified. We are using line
16 to track the funding.
SLO assessment work/activities shall be paid as stipends not
workload.
A request was made for the Office of Finance to send out a
formal memo explaining the process and provide clarity that
it is not part of workload and is a separate stipend.
College of Alameda
 The document provided presented a summary of where the
college is right now. It was not prioritized. The College
Academic Senate will develop a process to prioritize the
requests. The Classified Senate also is putting together
similar criteria. The College worked closely with the district
committees.
 Concerns: How to develop a set budget for technology?
Facilities are also an issue because it seems there is never
Page 7 of 12
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
enough space and COA is moving into new facilities in a
year and a half.
Dr. Ambriz-Galaviz
Merritt College
 In the spirit of reinforcing an integrated planning model, all
units at the college were asked to complete their unit plans.
From those plans, administrators extracted the data under the
columns on the handout and itemized by department.
 Merritt is trying to find a way to reconcile each of the
committee requests and allow this list to serve as the master
list coming to the PBC for the academic year.
Berkeley City College
Dr. Chen
IX. Accreditation
Facilitators

BCC had two documents. One was a comprehensive
“Annual Program Update Needs Matrix,” which reflected all
departments and their hard work. The other was a request for
Classified and Faculty hiring. BCC followed the shared
governance structure at the college and district levels.
Requests were submitted to the DTC and DFC and will
come forward from those committees. BCC will come up
with a prioritized list in the future. The current list provided
was in alphabetical order.
Motion to forward the requests to the Chancellor. APPROVED
BP 1200 Mission – Review of the District Mission Statement
 BP 1200, the district mission statement, may not need to be
revised, but will require review I keeping with accreditation
standards.
 Ms. Sanford has been hired to work on some accreditation
projects. She has been tasked to update PCCD’s mission
statement. Please forward any suggestions you may have to
Page 8 of 12



Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
her. Suggestions and comments will be compiled in April
and come back in May to the PBC.
This request will be going out to all constituencies.
The process needs to be documented for accreditation
purposes.
If the colleges are going through a similar process and
reviewing their college mission statement, it can go straight
to the Chancellor for Board approval or endorsement. It does
not need to be routed to the PBC.
PBIM Review and Update Process
 Ms. Sanford was also asked to facilitate and update the
overall shared governance Planning Budgeting Integration
Model (PBIM). We haven’t done a comprehensive review
since the PBIM’s conception and implementation.
 Three primary areas recommended for
enhancement/improvement:
1. Revise the committee structure to include
constituencies that may not have representation.
2. Delineate more clearly our roles and responsibilities.
3. Complete the cycle of planning within the committee
structure.
 Note: Under the District Technology Committee, college
technology committee representatives do not necessarily
need to be a faculty member, it can be classified staff or an
administrator.
 A request was made to have SLO coordinators be included in
the District Education Committee.
 Per Ms. Nguyen, at the last Board meeting, one of the
students requested to rethink student representation on
district committees. Per Ms. Sanford, it is up to the students
Page 9 of 12


X. Policies and
Administrative
Procedures
Facilitators
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
to put forward their request. These committees have specific
meeting times. Once appointed, the student must commit to
attend all meetings.
Ms. Sanford will be at each of the district committees and
take recommendations at that point. She will be meeting with
all constituencies to get input.
For the PBC, it was recommended to have a separate
appointment for the DAS President and PFT President, and
an additional two faculty representatives from each college.
AP 5030: Student Fees
 Changes were highlighted in yellow.
 Two additional exemptions for the AC Transit Pass:
1. Students with documented medical disability. These
students can get their AC Transit EasyPass bus pass
cheaper than from Peralta.
2. Students with a Disability Pass that precludes the
student from using the bus.
 AVC Esquivel-Swinson is developing a form to allow the
students the exemption.
Motion to approve AP 5030. APPROVED
AP 5050: Student Success and Support Program
 The AP has been completely rewritten to meet the new
procedure under the Student Success Act of 2012. It even lists
the exemptions under Title 5.
 Under paragraph A, we are replacing “will do” with “shall
do”.
 Concern as to how we can enforce such a procedure was
expressed.
 Per Ms. Thompson, each campus is developing their
Page 10 of 12
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
orientation process. Penalties are tied to enrollment priority
and the loss of enrollment priority. It is listed in the class
schedule.
Motion to approve AP 5050. APPROVED
Oppose: 1; all other voting members approved this revised AP.
AP 6385: Refreshments, Meals, Served at Meetings
 Accounts Payable has been running into challenges because
the reimbursements are coming through without the College
Presidents’ signature. Reimbursements are not processed in a
timely manner because the required signature is missing. We
are advocating to include a designee to sign the forms. The
College President can designate someone to sign off on the
appropriate use of funding for meals, such as the Business
Officer or someone in a management role.
 Designee is inclusive of the Chancellor, a Vice Chancellor,
and College President.
 Section A.4. should read “…the Chancellor, a Vice
Chancellor, College President, or designee…..”
Motion to approve AP 6385. APPROVED
AP 7127: Salary Placement Procedures for Regular, Interim and
Acting Academic and Classified Managers
 Concern was expressed that internal employees may not be
treated in an equal manner as a new employee (external
hire). If someone is promoted internally, they can only be
placed on step one even if they have prior experience.
Whereas external hires can be placed on step three or higher.
Motion to refer AP 7127 back to HR with questions.
APPROVED
Page 11 of 12
XI. BAM Discussion







XII.
Adjournment
Next Meeting
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2014
The Chancellor will discuss BAM updates it with his
Cabinet. More information will be coming on this topic.
Direction: Consolidation of resident and non-resident FTES.
What does full implementation of the BAM mean? Without
a definition, we cannot have discussion on full
implementation. Part of the discussion on full
implementation will include the disproportionate amount of
fixed costs at the colleges.
We could have a special workshop on the BAM in the fall
semester.
Recommendation was made to review the BAM and identify
areas that are unclear for future discussion.
The BAM was first implemented in fiscal year 2011/12. The
average is recalculated every year. Ideally if a college is
meeting its percentage, then the average should be
incrementally growing.
Request was made to ask the Chancellor and Deputy
Chancellor to come to the next PBC meeting and provide a
progress report on the Deputy Chancellor position.
11:52 pm
April 25, 2014 10:45am-1:45pm
Minutes taken: Sui Song
Attachments: All handouts for this meeting can be found at
http://eperalta.org/wp/pbi/planning-and-budgeting-council/pbc-documents/
Page 12 of 12