EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes
September 1, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT
David Vakil, Chair
Miriam Alario
Thomas Jackson
Cheryl Shenefield
Lance Widman
OTHERS ATTENDING
VP John Baker – Staff Support
Terry Newman – Alternate, ECCE
Ken Key – Alternate, ECCFT
Pam Fees – Staff Support
VP Jeff Marsee – Staff Support
VP Francisco Arce – Staff Support
Susan Dever – Pres. Academic Senate
Arvid Spor – Staff Support
Handouts
1. Final Budget 2005-06
2. Planning and Budgeting Committee Self Survey
3. AB1417 Performance Reporting Project - Proposed Metrics for California Community
Colleges
The meeting was called to order at 1:13 p.m. by D. Vakil.
D. Vakil introduced Ken Key as the alternate for ECCFT.
Approval of Minutes
The Minutes of August 18, 2005 were reviewed and the following corrections were noted:
 Page 2, 3rd paragraph, item #4 - “…El Camino College may experience a $383,000 negative
correction for the current year”.
 Page 3, 3rd paragraph – “Further discussion continued regarding expenditures in 2004-05:”
 Page 4, 2nd paragraph, item #5 – “There is concern about evidence and accountability
regarding Assembly Bill 361 (new equalization funding model)…”
 Page 4, 2nd paragraph, item #6 – “There is also concern about evidence and accountability
regarding Assembly Bill 1417.”
 Page 4, 2nd paragraph, item#7 – “Arvid Spor will provide a copy of the report Assembly Bill
1417 for PBC”. This should be inserted in item #6 and removed from item #7.
A. Spor passed out information on AB1417. AB1417 is asking for district specific
performance indicators, evidence and accountability. Tiers 1 and 3 are indicators collected
for the Chancellor’s office, Department of Finance (DOF). Tier 2 is not required by the
DOF. There are no ranking or comparisons between districts. D. Vakil clarified item #5,
page 4 - AB361 is the change in the equalization funding model so that no district is “left
behind,” districts are “held harmless”.
With the corrections, C. Shenefield moved to approve the August 18, 2005 minutes and M.
Alario seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as amended.
Budget Discussion Continued
P. Fees discussed the contents of the 2005-06 Final Budget Book which includes all general
funds, operating funds, and an appendix of supplementary historical and current information. To
differentiate between printed versions, a prepared date is printed on the inside back cover.
Modifications to the budget planning calendar will be made and the dates will be sent to the
PBC.
 For the second year in a row, the college is working with a deficit budget with the
expectation of receiving less revenue (a total income of $92,454,933) than planned
expenditures/appropriations.
 In answer to L. Widman’s question about the discrepancy with the 2004-05 ending balance
and the 2005-06 beginning balance (approximately $1.7 million), J. Marsee noted there were
some adjustments to the ending balance which may be subject to further change during
auditing.
 P. Fees noted that they are still waiting for estimates from some of the special programs in
the general restricted funds that run on the federal fiscal year, October through September.
 The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) is still subject to change. Local
income not received through ERAF will come from state apportionment. Financial Aid
funding has increased, partly tied to the increase in the enrollment fee making more students
eligible.
 Workers’ Compensation, property and liability premiums are not expected to increase.
 The Child Development Center has been running in a deficit the past few years – a $75,000
transfer from the general fund has been set. The CDC has received national accreditation
from the National Assoc. for the Education of Young Children. A reduction in expenditures
and an increase in fees will help increase the ending balance this year compared to last year
in the Child Development fund.
 The Board action to refund $36 million bond issuance funds is like refinancing a mortgage,
which would result in El Camino College receiving an additional $6.5 million as discussed in
the previous meeting.
 The Special Reserve Fund-Retiree Health Premiums implemented for the first time last year
addresses the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirement that all
districts account for the cost of retirement health premiums. When an employee retires at age
55 and has worked at El Camino College for 10 years, the district incurs a cost to cover a
portion of medical premiums for that employee from age 55 – 65. The actuarial valuation
developed in 1995 which identified that El Camino’s obligation at January 1, 1994 was
estimated at $7 million is now at $15 million.
 $276,000 is transferred each year into the Auxiliary Services Fund from the Bookstore fund.
A discussion followed regarding the future of food services and the use of conference rooms
in the cafeteria building.
 To answer D. Vakil’s question about the PBC proposed funding for academic software, it
was mentioned there is a delay of getting expenditure figures from ITS and that the funding
would come from the Library/Instructional Equipment/Technology apportionment fund.
 2005-06 apportionment is based on 19,328 credit FTES and 20 non-credit FTES.
- Page 2 -
In lieu of confirmation of the budget, it was recommended that PBC acknowledge receipt of the
2005-06 Budget document. The key points listed in the August 18 Final Budget 2004-05 memo
from the President to the Board will be included in the 2005-06 budget.
A. Spor agreed to postpone discussion of Addressing Planning Agendas until the next meeting to
allow for enough time to discuss the Budgeting and Planning Process.
Budgeting and Planning Process
J. Marsee wanted to discuss the planning portion of PBC and how it links planning to budget
development and assessment. How is planning linked to budgeting perceived by PBC? Some of
this is addressed in questions and anticipated responses to the self survey (next paragraph).
Planning and Budgeting Committee Self Survey – handed out by D. Vakil. Regarding the survey
format, it was mentioned that a rating system is used to respond to statements rather than
questions. The first survey question asked if PBC ensured campus-wide participation in
planning and budgeting. The answer was no for campus-wide, but managers were involved in
creating plans and budgets for 2004-07 in Q-Builder. There does not appear to be linkage to
outcomes and assessment. There is a need to identify in an assessment process strengths and
weaknesses and areas to improve. Key indicators are used to determine what’s working and
what’s not working.
How can we assess this institution and improve what’s not working? Five academic program
reviews are currently in progress using a model based on the Student Services program review
model. Program review is critical in the accreditation process. What are our indicators that drive
performance? Benchmarks comparable to other institutions can be established. What standards
are used for facilities, student outreach, and other non-academic activities? Student services also
impact student retention. Accrediting teams look for evidence based on reporting and accounting
processes, planning and budgeting and program development linked to government valuations
and student learning outcomes. Managers, not regular staff, are more aware of budget processes.
It was mentioned that to develop processes, one person’s guidance is needed to ensure the job is
done right. In response, a suggestion was made to consider other processes that do not require an
individual or committee to accomplish goals. PBC can determine standards or outcomes and
recommend how resources should be allocated to achieve those outcomes.
J. Marsee would like to hold off in discussing a budget model. It is critical for PBC to define a
planning process, identify criteria and determine the outcomes, objectives and strategies. By
January, critical action plans and costs to implement plans should be discussed – this institution
is not yet at that level. PBC should be involved in global issues linking planning to budget by
starting with program reviews. But what will the committee between now and when program
reviews are completed? The global pieces of planning can be worked on now; program review
provides specific information about each program.
On a number of occasions, PBC spent considerable time determining priorities in program
funding, personnel, etc in various areas and recommendations were largely ignored - no
explanation to the committee is given as to why decisions were made.
- Page 3 -
Further discussion about the budgeting and planning process will continue at the next meeting.
D. Vakil will resend the self survey form with a few changes to the committee and asked
members to submit their self surveys via e-mail or paper copy to Mattie Eskridge by next
Thursday, September 8 2005.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Recorder: Lucy Nelson
- Page 4 -