EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes
April 7, 2005
MEMBERS PRESENT
David Vakil, Chair
Miriam Alario, ECCE
Thomas Jackson, Academic Affairs
Dawn Reid, Mgmt/Supervisors
Susan Taylor, ECCFT
Cheryl Shenefield, Admin. Services
Lance Widman, Academic Senate
OTHERS ATTENDING
Patricia Caldwell – Staff Support
Arvid Spor – Staff Support
Susan Dever – Alternate, ECCFT
Alex Kelley – Staff Support
Pamela Fees – Staff Support
Billy Wilson – Alternate, ASO
Donna Grogan – Alternate, Academic Senate
Handouts
1. PACE/Q-Builder Timeline/Misc Info
2. PFE Summary Example
3. Goals/Objectives Example
4. Chancellor’s Office 2004-05 Revised First Principal Apportionment for Comm. Colleges
David Vakil called the meeting to order at 1:04pm.
Note: David Vakil will ensure that all handouts are provided to committee members who may be
absent. Information will be sent either electronically or via campus mail. It was further suggested
that presenters provide an electronic version of material to the chair of PBC and the information can
then be sent to committee members electronically.
Approval of Minutes
The meeting opened at 1:05 p.m. Minutes of March 17, 2005 were approved as presented.
Developing a Process to Budget with Q-Builder (Not written in chronological order)
Pat Caldwell suggested a review process for Q-Builder requests. Consider the possibility of using
the system that was done with PFE. Last year the vice presidents prioritized projects and grouped
costs by personnel, supplies, etc., based on Q-Builder projects. A sample of the page used to review
and prioritize was distributed as well as a sample of how Pat summarized requests in her area.
Pat Caldwell said the vice presidents will prioritize Q-Builder projects in their own areas, then will
pull out dollars for personnel, technology, equipment, and miscellaneous, grouping them to see the
bulk of dollars. Pat Caldwell said she expects the vice presidents and PBC to do something similar
to the PFE rating sheet. When completed, the information goes to the president.
Ask vice presidents to finish their revise by the end of April, then come to the May 5 PBC meeting
to explain their ratings. Consider inviting those not making the vice presidents ranking to come to
the meeting. PBC wants to hear about some of the proposals. It is not known how many proposals
in total there might be.
1
David Vakil said he understands that selection of the top proposals will start this month. PBC
talked at the last meeting about setting up a type of appeals process for those not ranked. This
would need to be completed by early June to have everything together in the priorities list. What is
needed to develop an appeals process?
The vice presidents in the next few weeks will prioritize what they have seen, PBC will prioritize
what it thinks is important in a parallel process. Lance Widman said the reality is that, if the vice
presidents do not rank highly in the beginning, do not expect it to change upon further review.
David Vakil proposes bringing the top 20 VP choices from each area and looking at those below 25
that are not being chosen.
Several ideas were suggested about how PBC should proceed:
1) Scheduling a half-day or full-day retreat to come together to consider this. It gives a chance
for dialog. This would need to be done by late May. No idea how many functions will be
involved.
2) Extra PBC meetings could be held, possibly all day, to go through the projects that the vice
presidents recommend,
3) Turn the initial project over to a sub-committee to make recommendations to PBC. Have the
sub-committee go through all proposals, and present them at either the May 5 meeting or a
retreat of committee members, then take PBC’s recommendations and merge them with the
vice presidents ranking, and make joint recommendations. The committee should not base
decisions on what the vice presidents decide. The sub-committee will weed out, do first
pass at ranking as a beginning step.
4) Have meetings every Thursday in May.
The goal is to give something to the president by the end of May as a PBC recommendation. It was
noted that this time constraints are putting undue pressure on the committee because the State
budget impact may not yield specific information before September or October. Do not make the
process go faster than you are comfortable dealing with it.
Later in the meeting, it was determined to take the sub-committee approach. The Sub-committee
will do a “first pass” at ranking the projects without seeing the vice presidents recommendations.
Susan, Miriam, Lance, Harold, and Dawn were volunteered to review the entire set of Q-Builder
projects. The sub-committee will meet and bring groups of projects they have considered to be
worthy of funding.
Other Concerns related to Developing a Process to Budget with Q-Builder
1. Alex stated a discussion about future planning being revised so Administrative Services writes
their goals/objectives after the Academic Affairs and Student and Community Advancement
input has identified projects so Administrative Services can provide the support.
2. It was reemphasized the discretionary funding from Q-Builder is a very small amount of money
from the total budget. All plans are put into Q-Builder whether or not there is a monetary
impact.
3. Susan Taylor also felt that PBC should look at other funding decisions that are made that are not
in Q-Builder. Susie Dever mentioned most of the rest of the funds are committed as “roll-over”.
4. Some of the committees on campus or division reps might be brought in to discuss college goals
and how specific programs are meeting those goals.
5. At a future meeting, discuss the cost impact to the General Fund and resources relating to grants
or other categorical funding.
2
6. Discuss how to remove funding from areas when the area need is no longer in keeping with
current vision.
7. David Vakil thinks the PBC should look at planning concerns at a later time because of time
constraints and consider only funding issues at this time.
8. Susan Taylor requested coming back at a later time and looking at areas outside of Q-Builder.
David Vakil asked how to find these. What are requests that were identified on planning
concepts coming from individuals or divisions? The vice presidents should be aware of them.
9. Alex Kelley said that as a group PBC should periodically come up with specific topics that
apply such as technology support for faculty. Look at goals and objectives. Take specific
topics, come up with specific plans. Dawn Reid said that sometimes there are requests that
improve technology that need to be made known to ITS. All areas need to have plans that
support District goals.
10. PBC needs to develop a long-term planning process that links objectives to budgeting.
Agenda Development
Approval of Minutes – April 7, 2005 – All PBC Participants
Finish up this process at next meeting
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
Recorder: Delores Buerger
3