EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
February 20, 2003
MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES PRESENT:
Bobbi Villalobos, Chair
Miriam Alario-Wolski
Susan Dever
Thomas Jackson
ALSO ATTENDING:
Pam Fees
Victor Hanson
Alex Kelley
Donna Post
Bo Morton
Bernie Rang
Cheryl Shenefield
David Vakil
Lance Widman
Steve Fasteau
Suzanne Gates
Donna Post
Julia Stewart
Students: David Aguayo, Edgar Ibarria, Moses Cordova, Adan Andrade, Fransciso
Reyes, Adrian Lung, Francis Avila, Elizabeth Runkle, Dayna Johnson, Daniella Torres,
Elizabeth Gomez
Bobbi Villalobos called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
1.
Minutes
It was moved and seconded (Rang/Alario-Wolski) to approve the minutes of
February 6, 2003. David Vakil reported that he was not in attendance at the
meeting as the minutes indicated. In section 5, the state deficit should be
“billions,” not “millions, ” and “faulty” should be “faculty.” The minutes were
approved as corrected. Julie Stewart requested minutes be sent to her via campus
mail in time to be duplicated for the Academic Senate.
2. Educational Master Plan Timeline
Bobbi Villalobos said Pat Caldwell could not be at the meeting to comment on the
timeline. In her absence, B. Villalobos reviewed the timeline with the members.
Bernie Rang commented that it appears the focus of the timeline is still on
planning rather than budgeting. B. Rang said it was his understanding that this
committee was to focus on budgeting during the second semester. B. Villalobos
pointed out that the few times the PBC is mentioned in the Spring, the
responsibilities are minor, such as proposing task force members.
David Vakil asked a point of information about the three pages behind the grid.
In February it states names will be recommended to the college. He wondered if
the people will be appointed and/or if we would ask for volunteers. B. Villalobos
replied the college is expecting a list of 30 to 40 people of which a portion will be
invited to be on the committee. D. Vakil asked if only people who support the
administration will be picked. J. Stewart asked at what point would the Academic
Senate being involved in this process She commented that the Academic Senate
needs to be involved on the ground floor and not told what to do afterward. B.
Villalobos answered that the proposal was a draft submitted by P. Caldwell and
that the PBC, which has Academic Senate representation, had been asked to make
comments on it. She added that J. Stewart could take the proposal to the next
Senate meeting and report back at the next PBC meeting. J. Stewart commented
that the dates of the planning retreat are inconvenient for faculty, many of whom
would not want to miss that many days of instruction. B. Villalobos said the dates
were proposed dates that could be changed. B. Villalobos also asked that names
for the committee be submitted to her and she would forward them to the College.
D. Vakil said that he was reluctant to have consultant, Mike Maas work on the
Educational Master Plan. J. Stewart and L. Widman agreed.
D. Vakil asked for the definition of “departments” as it was used on page four of
the proposal. B.Villalobos said that “departments” could be divisions,
departments, areas, or any other work group.
D. Vakil also asked who would be in charge of the planning process should P.
Caldwell not be available. B.Villalobos replied that as integral as P. Caldwell’s
contribution to the process has been, the planning process could be assigned to
someone else.
J. Stewart pointed out that on page three of the proposal it says that the enrollment
management plan would be shared with the Senate. She said the PBC passed a
motion regarding the enrollment management committee before the Academic
Senate discussed it. B.Villalobos responded that we agreed to follow the Senate
method of discussion at one meeting with a vote following at the next meeting.
B. Villalobos said that the PBC would not vote on the proposal until the next
meeting. D. Vakil asked that changes to the timeline be sent out before the next
Senate meeting so the changes can be discussed.
3.
PBC Strategy
B. Villalobos asked permission of the committee to move this item to the end of
the meeting.
4.
Budget Update
V. Hanson provided the committee members with modified reduction memo,
pointing out that a new column had been added that gives the 2002/03 budget of
the account being cut. V. Hanson said he thought that current P4E funding from
the state will be carried into the next year. V. Hanson also commented that ECC
would be able to use bond money to match one dollar for each three dollars
funded. Susan Dever commented that the reduction of 2002/03 is, in effect, being
made over one semester while the reductions for 2003/04 will be made over 12
months. V. Hansen replied it might be that no new monies may be coming from
the state for 2003/04. No matter what the allocation from the state, he said we
would be using bond monies to match our required one for every three dollars. D.
Vakil voiced a few concerns regarding the Project Success and Puente programs.
He said these are successful programs and that round-off errors in other areas
could fund both projects. D. Vakil asked if these two programs be combined in
order to save them. B. Rang asked D. Vakil if he was recommending that Item I.
E. and Item I. G. funding be restored fully. It was moved and seconded
(Vakil/Rang) that funding for the Project Success and Puente programs be
restored. The motion passed unanimously.
Miriam Alario-Wolski asked the committee members to consider Item I. C. It was
moved and seconded (Alario-Wolski/Rang) to place a hold on the implementation
of the class-size reductions of the math classes for a period of time or until the
budget stabilizes. In essence, this would increase the budgetary reductions
from$100,000 to $500,000. A student asked what change would come from the
motion, B. Rang used the example of taking four classes of 25 students and
creating one class of 100, commenting that he wasn’t sure if it is a good change,
but large class sizes is a practice in that division and that he was unwilling to
waste the money to change this practice when the funds could be used for other
college necessities. A student visitor commented that he thought the students
would go for that; especially if some of the money saved could be used for math
tutors. L. Widman replied that the committee was not talking at this time about
where the money would be allocated, but rather is was a motion to recommend a
savings at this time. The motion passed unanimously.
J. Stewart reported, in reference to Item I. B on the memo, that one of the board
members said that he didn’t feel it was appropriate to use bond funds on items
such as laptops that that will only last for three years. L. Widman asked if the
item on page four concerning the Office of Risk Management was a classified
expense. V. Hanson answered that no, this was a short-term employee hired to
determine and properly document the electrical wiring in the college. L.Widman
suggested that the Office of Risk Management be turned over to someone that
does not necessarily have “dean” status. This may not save $150,000 of director
salary and support staff, but it could save a considerable chunk of change. L.
Widman also proposed closing the office of Student and Staff Diversity and have
those responsibilities handled by HR, as well as the office of Public Information.
Susie Dever asked if ECC was using the bond funds to purchase new equipment
without thinking about having to pay for software and on-going licensing costs,
which cannot be purchased with bond funds. V. Hanson asked if the computer
could be equipped with software when they are purchased. Alex. Kelley replied
that we have 306 computers already purchased that will need software. He said
that most cases the software costs more than hardware. He said that too often in
past ECCs get grants for hardware and we find out that to utilize the hardware, we
need to borrow and beg for funds for the software. A. Kelley also said that 10%
of our computers must be ADA compliant. S. Dever said that software costs vary
from computer lab to computer lab and added that ECC needs to include in the
budget a stable funding source for software.
L. Widman pointed out that a number of restricted funds rely on interfund
transfers and asked if those funds have their own reserves, why we need to
transfer unrestricted funds to those restricted funds. Vic Hanson said that up until
three years ago, he deposited parking ticket monies directly into the police
accounts but then the parking committee felt that the money could be shown as
deposited in the unrestricted. L. Widman asked who was in change of oversight
for the funds. V. Hanson replied he was.
Miriam Alario-Wolski brought the issue of the current classified re-classification
to the attention of the members. It was moved and seconded (Alario-Wolski/
Rang) that the college honor its negotiated contract with the classified service
union ECCE. A. Ashcraft briefly explained the violation of Article 9 and the
letters that were sent to the membership that the selected consultants’
recommendations would not be forwarded to the board. S. Dever asked that the
motion include all union negotiated contracts. The motion passed unanimously.
PBC Strategy
The committee then returned to Item 3 on the agenda. Cheryl Shenefield asked the
members to review the handout that listed the 14 items to be discussed.
She said we needed to define the problem and where the PBC was going with the
items. She asked the members to look at scope of the budget problem and think
about objectives we could achieve. After a brief discussion, L. Widman pointed
out that some of the items were action items, some were recommendations, and
some were standards Bo Morton suggested the committee categorize the items.
Susie Dever asked if anyone had costed out the legal mandates to create a baseline
for such funding.
After more discussions, B.Villalobos reported that Suzanne Gates and she would
present a new perspective on the list and on prioritizing the items at the next
meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 2:35pm.