PURCHASING TASK FORCE MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2016
3:00 P.M.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Luther Aaberge
Marie Hampton
Gina Dowen (Meeting Minutes)
Rosemary Vazquez for Sadiq Ikharo
Jennifer Lenahan
Anna O’Neal
The meeting was opened with a brief discussion of a flow chart that was passed out for
Finance mirroring procedures comparison, which may be used for possible future
function changes.
Discussion items:
Federal Asset Tags
1. It was discussed that $500 was too low for checking and tracking and that $5,000
was too high for tracking purchases using Federal Funds. It was mentioned that
a spot check would be good.
2. Currently the federal assets tags are being manually tracked on an Excel
Spreadsheet.
3. Neopost is being considered for an electronic tracking system. Discussion
regarding an electronic scanner was also brought up.
4. American Appraisal performs an asset audit every other year and just completed
an audit in 2015.
5. PCCD internal auditors will be auditing federal asset tags this year.
6. There was a discussion as to whether the storekeepers at each campus should
be the lead on ensuring that the tags are placed on the items as some of the
purchases are sent directly to the campuses. This could be considered part of
their job description. (A job description reviewed.) The storekeepers could
receive some asset tags for this purpose. This will be discussed at the Business
Managers’ Meeting.
7. Spot checking was discussed as an internal control. Also, it was mentioned that
buyers could also have the capability of entering this information in PROMT.
There are incompatibility problems at this point and all these ideas needs to be
checked in to as viable possibilities.
ICC
1. The Independent Contractor’s/Consultant Agreement. It was discussed and
stated that this instrument is not being used correctly. It is being used for
everything as a catch all for many services. Also, the instrument is out of date
with reference to the Terms and Conditions on the back of the form. Also, the
form costly to order. Marie will check the cost.
2. The ICC description of services need to be adhered to as stated on the form
specifically for Grant Programs.
3. Clarification for the use of the ICC needs to be communicated.
4. It was decided that the ICC would eventually be eliminated.
5. It was stated that John Hiebert is the contract specialist and central repository for
all compliance review of legal documentation. Chan Eng performs some contract
agreement documentation, but they ultimately are reviewed by John.
6. The ICC does not related to RFP or formal bidding process.
7. IRS wants information on employees who are contractors.
8. At the next meeting Marie will bring sample of contracts to take the place of the
ICC. Marie spoke to the attorneys and they agree to have the ICC discontinued.
9. Will there be any push back from PBC? It was mentioned that the PBC does not
have to approve this, but that they can endorse and support. It is ultimately the
Chancellor and his cabinet that make the decision.
10. A list needs to be compiled for reasons to eliminate the form. Both benefits and
risks need to be listed.
11. District will have a short form contract template. Need a good description for the
scope work on the instrument taking the place of the ICC.

The committee has until May 27th to decide on recommendations.

Web Sites for community colleges will be checked to see their policies and
procedures for comparison and make suggestions for efficiency and
effectiveness.

Recommendation format. Equipment, tags, ICC, remove ICC.

A discussion of how many recommendations to be made by the committee,
keeping in mind the committee’s goals and mission. It is possible to choose all
recommendations and prioritize them with a three year plan.

It was mentioned that a comparison of information on a spreadsheet would be
performed.