EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes – October 21, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT
David Vakil, Chair
Miriam Alario
Cheryl Shenefield
OTHERS ATTENDING
Patricia Caldwell – Staff Support
Carolee Casper – Alternate
Susan Dever –Alternate
Ann Garten – Guest
Susan Taylor
Harold Tyler
Lance Widman
Mike D’Amico – Staff Support
Pam Fees – Staff Support
Arvid Spor – Staff Support
Handouts:
1. Appendix A – Master Plan – Planning Agenda Items from each Master Plan chapter
2. Appendix E – Master Plan – The El Camino College Strategic Planning Process and
Action Planning Process flowcharts
3. Excerpt from the Planning Process Evolution – Master Plan
4. Recommendations for Linking Planning to Budgeting – Master Plan
5. Planning & Budgeting Committee Self-Evaluation Survey – Questions & Responses
6. 2005-06 System Budget – Board of Governors California Community Colleges,
September 13-14, 2004
7. 2005 El Camino College Winter/Spring schedule postcard mailer
8. El Camino College informational CD and case
David Vakil called the meeting to order at 1:05 pm.
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes from October 7, 2004 were approved by the committee after the following questions
were asked and answered by Pam Fees:
1. Could you clarify #6 – Computer System on page 3 of the October 7th minutes?
- Answer: The demands on the computer system allow for very little down time for
maintenance. When the system is up for several days all the memory is used up,
causing a slowdown, or freezing of certain computer applications. To resolve
this, the computer system must be brought down and restarted to free up the
memory.
2. Could you explain “Block Grant” on page 4 of the October 7th minutes?
- Answer: Block grant funds are restricted to instructional equipment and
instructional supplies only.
-1-
3. What does “cushion” mean on page 2 of the October 7th minutes in the second paragraph
of the Budget Update?
- Answer: If overcap growth is funded next year, we should still have additional
funds. It is not determined whether overcap growth is funded growth. The
growth rate should not be confused with the funding rate. Dollars divided by
FTES equals funding rate. The money from overcap growth is a part of the
apportionment, and it may only be funded one time. We will find out in February
from the State. Salaries are to be discussed by the union and negotiating
committees.
4. It was stated that emails sent by Lance Widman and Susan Taylor should be sent to all
PBC members and then discussed by the PBC whether meeting time should be used to
discuss certain items.
5. What is CPR Review on page 2 of the October 7th minutes?
- Answer: CPR stands for “California Performance Review” for the State. It
determines how to make state government more efficient.
6. What is Total Available Revenue?
- David Vakil suggested that since this was not a topic on the agenda for review,
that question should be discussed with Pam Fees, Victor Hanson, Susan Taylor,
and Lance Widman outside of the meeting, and then the answer should be given
at the next meeting.
- It was stated that total available revenue was in both versions of the budget book,
but the dollar amount for FTES is different. The August budget book has FTES at
19,900, and the Final copy of the budget book has FTES as 18,424 (corrected
version).
7. How would funding for over-enrollment affect us?
- Answer: Tying apportionment to the funding number, we are not sure whether the
base number will change, but it will not change the apportionment. When P2 was
submitted, FTES had to be projected, and it was too high. When the final report
was written, the FTES were lower. An error in the statement was based on the
FTES, but it was corrected. Equalization changes the funding rate, which is a part
of the base. There is an increase in money, but there is no increase in base FTES.
8. Why is there almost a 9% increase in funding, but a small increase in FTES?
- This question was not answered during the meeting.
Announcements
Ann Garten made a short presentation regarding the ad campaign for El Camino College. She
distributed promotional CDs and CD cases to all those that were present. The target audience for
the CDs is high school students. The CD gives a tour of the campus and an overview of what
resources are available at El Camino.
-2-
In addition to the CDs, postcard mailers were also distributed. The postcards promote the
Winter/Spring sessions and inform people that the schedule of classes for those sessions are
available online. The postcards are mailed to all District residents and those who have taken a
class at El Camino within the last year.
Budget Update – Pam Fees
A handout from the Chancellor’s Office was distributed discussing the 2005-06 System Budget.
Portions of the “Analysis” section were read, as well as, the “Appendix – Summary of
Recommended Funding Increases”. The five areas discussed from the appendix were Maintain
and Restore Educational Quality, Provide Equitable Student Access, Restore Essential Services
Critical to Student Success, Maintain State’s Investment and Maximize Facility, and Enhance
Technology Infrastructure and Data. There is no comment at this time from the Chancellor’s
Office, but this budget is a focus for them for the 2005-06 year.
There was a question as to whether half of the prior year’s lost COLA can be restored, and the
response was that it is not certain as to how much money El Camino will receive. In 2003-04, El
Camino received “0” COLA. Because K-12 received money last year and this year, the state felt
that maybe they could try to give the community colleges lost COLA.
Planning Process Update – Arvid Spor
The Accreditation Report and Program Review were discussed. Arvid is asking for the PBC to
give him a response to the information presented today. Reviewing Appendix E – The El
Camino College Strategic Planning Process (Figure 1) and Action Planning Process (Figure 2)
flowcharts, Arvid wants to know whether the flowcharts show the PBC model and whether this
is meeting the planning function.
Under Program Review, it was discussed that Academic Affairs has a program review model,
and Student & Community Advancement and Administrative Services have draft versions of
their models. PBC should see what is processed and needed for each area.
In the Master Plan under Strategic Planning, the planning and budgeting model includes a 3-year
cycle to show what activities will take place each year of the cycle. There were two parts
discussed from the Planning Process Evolution of the Master Plan: 3-Year Strategic Planning
Cycle (Beginning with 2005) and Off-Year Annual Planning Cycle. Arvid asked the committee,
“What is the planning prioritization for PBC?” Others on campus have been asked about the
focus for planning and both Suzanne Gates and Barbara Perez were focused on Program Review.
It was mentioned that Academic Affairs reviewed the Program Review process from different
schools, and approximately 6 people from El Camino met and put a program together.
PBC has seen the draft of the Master Plan that went to the Cabinet. A planning retreat is needed
to discuss strategic and master plans and other planning components. There was a retreat in May
2003 to develop the Institutional Goals, but the participants at the retreat have not had an update
regarding the action and master plans.
-3-
Planning and budgeting activities should be focused on how to get alternative funding other than
by the state. Bo Morton, at one time, gave a report on grants and alternative funding. Several
questions arose in reference to grant-funded projects and positions:
1. Should personnel positions be grant-funded?
2. Should release time be given to instructors to write grants, and if the instructor received
the grant, would the quality of instruction decrease because a substitute instructor has to
be hired to replace the instructor?
3. What is the sustainability for a grant-funded program?
4. For those programs that are grant-funded and need offices, where would we find the
space?
There were 80 planning agenda items in the Accreditation Self-Study. These are being reviewed
by the group that is writing the Accreditation Mid-Term report. We should start preparing in
2006 because the next accreditation visit will be in 2008.
Appendix A
For this portion of the Educational Plan, Arvid is asking that the PBC determine what its
priorities are so that he can determine how to help in the planning process. A question raised
was, “How does Q-Builder play a part in Program Review?” The response was that Q-Builder is
a system to bring information together collected throughout the campus to help each part of the
campus. It shows success indicators, discusses how certain projects were funded, and provides
information that can be taken to the Accreditation Committee. Dr. Caldwell felt that a Q-Builder
orientation would be beneficial to the PBC, and maybe for one of the meetings we could go to
the Innovation Center and have a demonstration. PBC should also have access to Q-Builder to
see updates on planning. A date and time should be designated for a Q-Builder demonstration 2
months from now.
Arvid will make copies of the Planning Agendas, the Mid-Term report to WASC, and the 4 key
recommendations made by the Accreditation Team and distribute them to PBC for their review.
PBC Evaluation (2003) – David Vakil
Everyone received a copy of the 2003 Self-Evaluation Survey (questions and responses). For
Question #1, the committee was neutral as to the creation of a planning and budgeting model due
to the fact that the committee was in a transition period. For Question #2, it was felt that the
committee, as a whole, did not provide guidance for the creation of a program review process.
It was stated that the committee has not been actively involved in program review. PBC has
been more informational rather than as a part of the review. PBC is trying to find a purpose and
make recommendations. It was stated that attempts have been made to try to direct change, but
there have been road blocks. The committee must be proactive and pull together information,
look at the different pieces of information, and see the commonalities. The mix of PBC
members is good, but the effectiveness of the committee should not be based on whether the
recommendations are accepted, but whether there are recommendations made. It was mentioned
-4-
that the responsibility to give feedback is not being taken seriously. The Program Review
Committee should be invited to a PBC meeting so that the PBC can give feedback.
Questions were raised as to how the PBC members communicate to their constituents, do the
PBC members receive feedback from their constituents between meetings, and in what way.
Communication will be improved if reports are given to constituents.
For the planning agenda, PBC should evaluate the current direction for planning. If there is a
discrepancy, then there should be a re-alliance of tasks. The Accreditation Mid-Term Report and
Program Review should be reviewed, and the focus of planning responsibilities throughout the
year should be discussed.
PBC Duties and Responsibilities – David Vakil
We were unable to discuss this portion of the agenda.
Agenda Development – David Vakil
These are suggestions for agenda items developed by the committee:
1. Exercise: Brainstorming & building an agenda for the year
2. Basic Skills
3. Explanation of Total Available Revenue
4. Presentation on Auxiliary Services Budget
5. Presentation on the International Student Program
6. Identify items that are not currently discussed in planning but are needed
7. Student Learning Outcomes
8. Accreditation Report
9. Q-Builder and how it functions
10. Funded projects from the Q-Builder plans
11. Review augmentation and enhancement priorities and the matrix
12. Staff Evaluations
13. Program Review (part of Accreditation – it is due in March and needs to be Board
approved in February)
14. Planning – reviewing the overall picture
15. Budgeting - details
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.
Note Taker: Renee Dorn
-5-