Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
Present:
Mary Beth Benvenutti, James Blake, Timothy Brice, Sharon Clegg, Pieter de Haan, Jon Drinnon, Matthew Goldstein,
Rick Greenspan, Bob Grill, Jennifer Lenahan, Jenny Lowood, Mike Orkin, Tae-Soon Park, and Elnora Webb
Chair/Co-Chair: Ronald Gerhard and Karolyn van Putten
Guests:
Jim Grivich, Susan Rinne, Tina Vasconcellos, Anita Black, Debbie Budd, Stacy Thompson
Facilitator/Recorder: Linda Sanford and Joseph Bielanski
Absent:
Linda Berry, Eric Gravenberg, and Thuy Nguyen
Agenda Item
Meeting Called to Order
I. Agenda Review
Discussion
9:01 AM
Follow-up Action
II. Review of Minutes:
October 26, 2012
III. Policies and
Administrative
Procedures
Minutes: APPROVED as amended
Agenda: APPROVED
Mr. Grivich explained all required draft policies needed in response ACCJC
recommendation 4 will be distributed and reviewed at the December 14, 2012
PBC meeting. The deadline for completing this response is March 15, 2013 –
which will mark two years that the recommendation has been in effect.
Jim Grivich
In an effort to clean up the current Board Policy Manual, a list of obsolete Board
policies listed below was provided to the PBC for review and action. The PBC
endorsed requesting the Chancellor and the Board to remove these obsolete
policies.
Policy 3.20 Outside Employment (1977)
Policy 3.23 Tutoring (and remuneration) (no date)
Policy 3.24 Exchange Teachers (no date)
Policy 3.61 Management Salaries (adopted 1997)
Policy 4.01 Definition and Purpose (1965)
Policy 4.16 Attendance (no date)
Policy 4.18 Attendance Accounting (1983)
Procedure 4.18 Attendance Accounting Procedures (1983)
Policy 4.37 Testing Services (no date)
Policy 4.38 Placement Services (no date)
Page 1 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
Policy 4.39 Counselor Interns (no date)
Policy 4.46 Job Referrals (1977)
Policy 5.36 Student Instructors (no date)
Policy 5.40 Off-Campus Classes (no date)
Policy 5.60 Joint Apprenticeship Committees (no date)
Policy 5.61 Educational Advisory Committees (no date)
Policy 5.62 Apprenticeship Programs – Instructional Positions (no date)
Policy 5.63 Apprenticeship Programs (1983)
Procedure P 5.63 General Guidelines for Use of Revenue Generated from
Apprenticeship Programs (1983)
There may additional such policies which need to be removed and will be
presented at the December 14, 2012 PBC meeting.
The following draft board policies and district administrative procedures were
reviewed by the PBC:
AP 2410 Policy Development Process (revision)
BP 2710 Conflict of Interest
AP 2710 Conflict of Interest
AP 2712 Conflict of Interest Code
BP 3510 Workplace Violence
AP 3510 Workplace Violence
AP 3900 Speech: Time Place, and Manner
AP 5012 International Students
BP 5150 Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
BP 5150 Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
AP 5420 Associated Students Finance
BP 5700 Athletics
AP 5700 Athletics
Motion to approve all the Board Policies and District Administrative
Procedures with the exception of AP 2410,
AP 3900, and AP 5420, and to delete all the obsolete policies and procedures.
(APPROVED).
Page 2 of 10
Memo was
forwarded to the
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
Chancellor.
Further consultation on AP 2410 and AP 3900 was requested.
It was recommended that it be confirmed that there has been student review of AP
5420. Student Trustee Sharon Clegg agreed to seek input on this procedure and
she requested that comment be provided by student leaders by December 7,
20012.
PBC member James Blake passed out a revised AP 1.18. Per Mr. Blake, there was
a discussion with the Chancellor in making changes to the administrator hiring
policy/procedure. The Peralta Classified Senate had a discussion with VC Trudy
Largent regarding concerns about certain segments of Classified staff not having
adequate representation on administrator hiring committees. The Classified Senate
tried to address some of the concerns by requesting a revision of AP 1.18, to allow
for adequate Classified representation. Correspondence also was sent to VC
Gerhard from David Reed.
Mr. Grivich noted that this request would be addressed when policies/procedures
in Chapter 7: Human Resources come to the December 14, 2012 PBC meeting.
IV. Update Budget
Assumptions (3
year)
Ron Gerhard
The passage of Prop 30 at the November elections has significant impact for the
2012/13 budget. Our core budget assumptions were put together in
November/December 2011 and included the assumption that the Measure B Parcel
Tax and the Proposition 30 initiative on the November 2012 ballot would not pass.
Given that both did pass, we have adjusted the budget assumptions and our
budget.
Page 3 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
It is estimated that Peralta’s annual share of Prop 30 funding is $5.5 million. Last
year we were funded from the State at 17,928 FTES. With the passage of Prop 30,
we will adjust this year’s FTES target to 18,500.
There are “strings” attached to Prop 30. Right now, there is no clear definition as
to what those restrictions are. Prop 30 monies cannot be used for the salaries and
benefits for administrators and cannot be used for administrative costs. It is not
clear as to how to interpret “administrative costs”. These funds are subject to a
special review and approval by the BOT. We are required annually to put on our
website a statement regarding how we use these funds. Additionally, these funds
are subject to a separate audit procedure to be done with our annual audit. As
further information is provided by the State, it will be discussed at the PBC.
The revenue of Prop 30 will be going into a special designated fund, Educational
Protection Account (EPA). That fund, includes the ½ cent tax increase and income
tax on high income earners. It has a limited duration, which extends to fiscal year
2017/18. After that, these tax increases will sunset (go away) unless legislative
action is taken. Districts are required to track these funds separately. There is a
Fiscal Standards Committee that will be meeting next week. Their main charge is
to determine how Prop 30 is to be implemented and interpreted. Hopefully by the
next meeting (December 14, 2012), we will have definitive guidance from the
State.
Impacts and changes to the budget assumptions:
The methodology used to track Prop 30 is by using program code 8. Once the
budget is loaded, for accounting purposes, transfers of funding from program 8 to
any other programs is not allowed.
Susan Rinne
General Assumptions:
#4 Any new state taxes passed in November are not included:
 Will be removed
Revenue Assumptions:
Page 4 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
#6 Anticipating the deferral of approximately $18 million in general fund
apportionment payments:
 Awaiting more information from the State
 Prop 30 money will reduce our need to borrow (TRANS) for cash flow
purposes
#8 Enrollment Growth Funds for PCCD of 1% for 2012-13:
 Will not be loaded until more information is received
#10 Funded base credit FTES of 17,928:
 With the passage of Prop 30, our funded base FTES from the State is
17,928 (same as last fiscal year). Previous FTES targets, including the
usage of the parcel tax, were 17,800.
 On top of that, the State has put $50 million system-wide for the
restoration of access to students. Peralta’s proportionate share is
approximately $700,000 or 175 FTES.
VC Ron Gerhard
Our opportunity for funding is 18,103 FTES. This would be our new funded base
for next fiscal year. In the past two years, we’ve added a “cushion” of 300 FTES
above the funded base. Our new district-wide FTES target is 18,403. The
Chancellor has decided to make it 18,500 for 2012/13. This will require adding
class sections to the spring 2013 schedule.
We are trying to generate 700 additional FTES more than what we originally built
into our 2012/13 budget and in our schedule of classes (Spring 2013). Ultimately,
the 700 FTES is to be divided into: 91 FTES each for COA, BCC, and Merritt;
and 427 FTES for Laney.
Given the increase in class sections and the increase in students who will enroll,
concern was expressed regarding the need to expand classified support staffing. In
the past, sudden growth in student enrollment was not matched by additional
growth in classified services and staff.
Page 5 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
The Office of Finance is putting together spreadsheets that fully explain this
change in revenue assumptions and will provide it at the next PBC meeting. We
need to make sure we allocate additional resources related to the passage of Prop
30 to serve these extra 700 FTES and the number of sections it relates to at each
college. The first priority is the 1351 budget that would support the extra sections.
The College Presidents are confident that the addition of extra sections to generate
700 FTES, given our schedule of classes had already gone out and students
already are enrolling, can be done. One focus will be to look at classes which
already have wait lists.
Options provided by Dr. Karolyn van Putten regarding the delta between the 1351
and classified budget of $800,000:
1. Restore the 15% in discretionary funds that were removed from our budget
last year by giving back to the colleges the money that was taken out.
2. Set aside a certain percentage of that $800,000 specifically to deal with
student services needs and the imbalance, which may or may not be
included in #1.
3. Fund some district-wide needs, which will be determined and/or prioritized
by the PBC.
Per VC Gerhard, we are not restoring where the cuts were made, but will be
working with the colleges to identify where they would like those discretionary
dollars to be uploaded into the system.
Motion to support the FTES target of 18,500 and that the Chancellor send
out an announcement district-wide by December 5 communicating to all
constituents what the increase to 18,500 FTES means. (APPROVED) (A
memo was forwarded to the Chancellor.)
Motion to express to the Chancellor the urgent need to identify funding to
ensure sufficient services to students given the increase in FTES to 18,500,
which include librarians, counselors tutors, and classified support staffing as
appropriate. (APPROVED) (A memo was forwarded to the Chancellor.)
Page 6 of 10
V. Update on Measure
A
VC Ron Gerhard
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
A request was made to provide an update on the Measure A budget. A handout
provided the status on Measure A budget through September 30, 2012.
We have concluded the bidding for IT computer equipment and peripherals. The
colleges are going through a planning process right now for their computer
refresh, phase II. Each college was assigned two project numbers.
Initially, when the Board approved the Measure A budget in June 2009, there
wasn’t an allocation by college. If there was, it was embedded in other project
numbers.
There was a Board approved budget and a description speaking directly to the
Library under the listing of district-wide projects library technology, project
#2378, for the implementation of a new library system district-wide. A question
that has come up a number of times concerns the permissible usage of Measure A.
One permissible use was for library book expansion. Unless that money is built
within another project number within the colleges’ Measure A budget, there isn’t a
project number district-wide distinctly named or approved for that purpose. The
project numbers listed are the Board approved projects and the budget related to it.
If there is a project that should be on the list, but is not listed (as per the handout
that was reviewed), then there hasn’t been a budget allocated for that purpose and
therefore no Board approval.
Per Dr. van Putten, the original question was the ability to move some funds from
one area to another. Chancellor Allen had approved moving $300,000 from the
Measure A library shelving allocation fund to library materials. The library had
hoped it would be $100,000 a year for three years.
There is a disconnect in the Measure A expenditure forms as they move from the
respective colleges to the Department of General Services. The process originates
at the college in terms of identifying a new need. The form is then forwarded to
General Services for review with the official ballot language. It then comes to
Office of Finance with the budget transfer. Once approved, it is then presented to
the Board for final approval.
Page 7 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
In the above cited case, the college went through the process of filling out the
Measure A expenditure paperwork; Chancellor Allen approved it; but the internal
control did not happen. In terms of the process, the missing piece is the need to
determine from which other project number this $300,000 coming from to fund
this three year request. That budget transfer needs to be approved by the
Chancellor and the Board. VC Gerhard forwarded an email to General Services,
asking them to follow up with the Measure A budget transfer request. The
Measure A budget transfer may be presented to the Board at their December 11,
2012 meeting or at a January 2013 Board meeting.
VI. Draft BAM
Language
VC Ron Gerhard
Multi-year IT expenditure planning language
A memo which originated at the PBC was sent to the DTC in spring 2012
regarding multi-year technology funding language for the Budget Allocation
Model. The DTC reviewed and revised the proposed language and then sent it
back to the PBC for action. The DTC memo is posted on the PBC web page.
The DTC made a few changes made in paragraphs 2 and 3. Paragraph 2 made
clear where the funding from the college will be coming from.
In paragraph 3, the committee agreed not to decide for the colleges about their
requests, but simply to make a prioritization of technology needs which are
District-wide technology needs. With that understanding, the DTC approved the
language.
Motion to support the DTC recommendation regarding BAM language.
(APPROVED)
Measure B parcel tax language
VC Gerhard provided language for review. It was questioned as to whether the
proposed BAM language references all the ballot language and backup document
language.
The parcel tax language is to be brought back at the next PBC meeting.
Page 8 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
Online Orientation Template
VII. Online
Orientation
Template
Dr. Tina Vasconcellos
The District Education Committee forwarded the following request to the
Planning and Budgeting Council: “The DEC recommends the adoption of an
online orientation template for all colleges that allows the colleges to retain their
own identities. This should be a district priority, funded by the district.”
A link to Laney’s online orientation was sent out to the PBC for review. Laney
developed this program as part of the mandatory orientation process for all of its
students and to meet the accreditation standards of providing the same level of
service to distance education students. It has a lot more content than the actual in
person orientation. Laney started using this online orientation in July 2012.
The Peralta Student Success Task Force reviewed the Laney online orientation and
determined that all four colleges should have online orientation for students. This
matriculation requirement, in keeping with the Laney template, can be customized
for each college. This was a five-year project at Laney; the vendor selected was
the only vendor that does such comprehensive work. The process that Laney went
through was having an administrator work with the college’s matriculation
committee. Dr. Vasconcellos stated that she would be happy to work with the
other colleges’ to assist in putting together an online orientation for each of
college.
You can go through the online orientation as a “guest”. At the end of each section,
you are required to take a test. If you didn’t answer each question correctly, it will
take you through each section again. The student’s ID number is logged and they
get credit for doing it. Orientation should not be a one-time thing. There is so
much information to go through. Students need to be able to access the online
orientation information as needed.
The cost was for Laney was $60,000 for the actual online orientation and an
additional $30,000 for it to be translated into three different languages. They are
still in the process of doing the translation. Laney owns the program for life and,
Page 9 of 10
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2012
unless there are substantial changes, the vendor will update it for Laney. Laney
cannot go into the program to make edits. There is an added cost of $600 per year
to host the online orientation.
Motion to endorse the recommendation from the DEC. (APPROVED) (A
memo was forwarded to the Chancellor.)
VII.
Recommendations from
PBIM Committees
Adjournment:
Next meeting:
12:07 PM
December 14, 2012 from 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 10 of 10