EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes
Date: May 20, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT
Jackson, Tom – Academic Affairs
Lopez, Jessica – ASO
Ott, Jonathan – Campus Police
Quinones-Perez, Margaret – ECCFT
Reid, Dawn – Student & Community Adv.
Shenefield, Cheryl – Administrative Svcs.
Spor, Arvid – Chair (non-voting)
Turner, Gary – ECCE
Tyler, Harold – Management/Supervisors
Widman, Lance – Academic Senate
OTHERS ATTENDING: Janice Ely, Jo Ann Higdon, Emily Rader, David Vakil, John Wagstaff
Handouts:
ECC GASB Overview
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.
Approval of April 29, 2010 Minutes
1. Change second March 18, 2010 Minutes heading to April, 1, 2010 Minutes.
Approval of May 6, 2010 Minutes
1. Page 3, #23: change “$1.34M or $1.36M” to $1.38M and “$18M” (liability) to $18.8M. These
are recommended amounts from actuarial report.
2. Comment was made that on page 3, #31 and #32, some of the discussion that took place was
weeded out and doesn’t show the group’s hesitation to recommend the tentative budget.
Frustrated because the decision had to be made quickly. Another opinion was voiced that the
vote to recommend the tentative budget “with reservations” does show the hesitation. The budget
will go before the Board again so there will be more time to discuss the budget, GASB, and
categorical programs.
GASB Funding
1. ECC’s retiree health premium is in a fund, not in an irrevocable trust. ECC has a legal liability to
its retirees. GASB information is on page 67 in the 2009-10 Final Budget Book. In 2008-09, the
fund earned $231,000 in interest between two accounts (Retiree health premium fund deposited
with outside agency and Fund 17). GASB account grand total is $9,052,789. Current year
contribution is listed on page 5 of the budget book (3900 – Retiree Benefits).
2. A suggestion was made to hold a meeting to go over the actuarial report. Concern with
understanding disparity in the numbers. ‘Pay-as-you-go’ amount is $300,000, but recommended
amount is $1.38M. Is it prudent to fund at the recommended level at this time? What is the
rational and legal explanation that is realistic for this College? Can we invite actuary to a
meeting to go over the report? Will try to set up a meeting or phone conference with the actuary,
either on the first or third Thursday meeting in June. Will notify members in advance.
3. There is no law at this time requiring the College to set aside money; the College has a legal
liability to do so for its employees. It was suggested that the probability of the future should
taken into consideration in the study. Bond rating is also a factor. However, there are many other
factors used to determine bond rating. The purpose of GASB is to show that the financial
1
4.
5.
6.
7.
statements accurately reflect liabilities. Last actuarial study was done October 15, 2009 by Total
Compensation Systems, Inc. Actuarial studies are recommended to be done every two years. The
report is posted on the ECC webpage under Administrative Services.
Concern voiced about placing GASB in an irrevocable fund. Some districts contribute to GASB
in both revocable and irrevocable funds. There is a statement in the actuarial report that says
“Accrual basis costs under GASB 43/45 will be lower and more stable to the extent liabilities are
funded under an irrevocable trust that qualifies under GASB 43/45 as a “plan.” There is a dollar
value associated with this decision, a question to ask the actuary.
At the end of 2009-10, GASB balance will be $10M. Suggestion was made to address whether or
not to support funding into 2010-11. Another suggestion was made to keep current payment
($900,000) as an option. Suggestion was made to conduct a GASB assessment of neighboring
and comparable colleges.
GASB overview shows total liability increased from $15M to $18.8M because a more realistic
interest rate was used (decrease from 5.0% to 4.5%) – future interest rates are unknown. Another
concern: Compton will be submitting candidacy of accreditation eligibility; money used to fund
GASB for past several years has come from Compton partnership and funds could go away.
Next step for PBC is to meet with actuary before making further decisions. $900,000 from Fund
15 is budgeted for GASB in the 2010-11 tentative budget.
Categorical Backfill Discussion
1. Are there other sources of funding for CalWORKs aside from the State? CalWORKs is a statefunded program. Years ago, ECC received a grant from the County, adding to what the State
provides. Is there a typical practice for state-funded programs to receive College funding?
2. CalWORKs consists of two parts: TANF (portion funded from Federal government and match
from State) and welfare-to-work (educational portion). Request was made to the District to cover
about $100,000 as long as there were no more additional cuts. Request was made before the
Governor’s proposal to cut all funding to CalWORKs. It would be up to each district to continue
CalWORKs program if State no longer funded (would need about $550,000: $478K from the
State and $80K from the County). Unsure if $167K for TANF will be affected. CalWORKs
revenue from the State in 2009-10 was $478,779 and $391,589 in the proposed 2010-11 tentative
budget.
3. Categorical program managers from EOP&S, CARE, and SRC proposed sharing their portion of
categorical backfill with CalWORKs, but request was denied by Cabinet. VPs’ decision was
based on actual program data. Explanation given to VPs that CalWORKs also services students
not meeting CalWORKs criteria but are still low income students. On the other hand, there may
be a number of students who qualify for CalWORKs but are not documented in the system as
CalWORKs students. 600 single parents are verified in the welfare-to-work program.
4. Initial request for funds was to backfill County grant should that end. Whether or not the County
funds disappeared, the program would still need support from the District. VPs should have
received report that showed how much money CalWORKs students bring in to the campus from
funding they receive from GAIN (purchase of books, supplies, etc.).
5. Where is this discussion going? About other funding sources or just about CalWORKs? The
original question was, “Could other funds be used to backfill Fund 12 other than Fund15?”
Original question was not just about CalWORKs. Fund 15 is $3M of general fund money that
comes to the college as the foundational allocation. The moneys are placed into Fund 15 for
tracking purposes. Not advocating for CalWORKs funding, but advocating the information that
CalWORKs is not receiving backfill from the District is noted on the budget. The other original
question was, “Can PBC make another recommendation on how to spend the $900,000 for
GASB?
2
6. What is the role of PBC in reviewing decisions? Review and recommend. There have been
situations where PBC revised proposals from the vice presidents and then made
recommendations. Differences of opinion are noted in the meeting minutes. Discussion
continued about the role of PBC with the conclusion that the role is spelled out in the updated
PBC responsibilities that were approved in March.
7. In order for PBC to understand the budget, a suggestion was made to ask Dr. Nishime to explain
the process of arriving at the decision regarding CalWORKs.
8. Members requested D. Reid to share with the committee the report on the amount of revenue
CalWORKs brings to the District.
Announcements
1. Jessica Lopez was elected 2010-11 ASO President.
2. Information about VPs’ Prioritized Area Planning Process is postponed until the June 3rd
meeting.
Items for Future Discussion
1. Continue CalWORKs discussion with additional information from D. Reid and J. Nishime.
2. Prioritized Area Planning.
3. Discussion with actuary by phone or in person.
4. Changes to the tentative budget recommendations.
The next meeting is scheduled on June 3, 2010.
The meeting ended at 2:35 p.m.
3