West Valley-Mission Community College District
Administrative Services Council
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
West Valley College
Board Room
9:00 a.m. –11:00 a.m.
Approved Minutes
Members present: Linda Francis, Ed Maduli, Graciano Mendoza, Albert Moore, Ron
Smith
Others: Christina Booth – recorder
Called to order at 9:09 a.m. by Vice Chancellor Ed Maduli.
1.
Order of the Agenda (A)
Mr. Moore asked that items #3 and #9 be removed from the agenda because Mr. Davis
was not in attendance, and that item #4 be removed due to low attendance. All items
will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The agenda was approved as
amended. (Moore/Smith)
2.
Approval of the March 24, 2010 meeting minutes (A)
The March 24, 2010 meeting minutes were approved as presented. (Moore/Smith)
3.
Exit Checklist – categories to be added (A) - Davis
This item was removed from the agenda.
4.
Measurements for Accountability (A) - Moore
This item was removed from the agenda.
5.
Organizational Review Update – Moore
Mr. Moore reported that he hopes to finalize and post the next matrix update by
Monday, April 12, but that he is still waiting for additional information. Mr. Maduli
asked what process was being used to close-out and disseminate the eight focus reports.
Mr. Moore indicated that all reports are available on-line and that specific questions
about closing-out the reports should be addressed to the Chancellor.
Ms. Francis asked about the Live Scan matrix item and who was responsible for
providing the update to Mr. Moore. She indicated that she and Mr. Rolen discussed
and researched the issue, provided the information to the Vice Chancellor, and that
EMT decided not to accept their recommendations. Mr. Maduli stated that he would
1
District ASC, 04/07/10
provide the update to Mr. Moore. He then reported that EMT made the decision not to
charge employees or volunteers for fingerprinting but that the Police Department
should move forward with obtaining a Live Scan machine.
Mr. Moore commented that the District may be out of compliance with finger-printing
standards, especially as it relates to cash-handling in the Admissions and Records
Office. He also stated that he believes there are several felons working at the District
who have not been finger-printed. Mr. Maduli noted Mr. Moore’s comments and
responded that, minimally, workers in Child Care must be finger-printed.
6.
Review of new job descriptions (I) – Espinosa
Job descriptions for Buyer and Purchasing Agent were reviewed. The following
concerns were expressed:
• The Senior Buyer position has been down-graded to a Buyer. Has the salary for
this position also been down-graded?
• Is there a net increase in cost to Fund 100? If so, where is the funding coming
from?
• Both job descriptions have essentially the same job definition.
• Conceptually, managers are creating new job descriptions in which they can
delegate their duties to lower level staff on either a permanent or regular basis.
Will the lower level staff be compensated for the additional work and will the job
description for the manager be revised to eliminate the duties being delegated,
which should result in a decrease in salary and job title.
A discussion took place regarding morale at the District based on proposed changes in
job descriptions and how those changes affect the workload of lower paid positions in
other areas. Mr. Smith asked how the concerns will be addressed. Mr. Moore
responded that the discussion should take place at EMT or at an all Managers meeting.
He added that each entity must look at the process it uses for reclassifying positions and
the affect it has throughout the organization. Each entity must be consulted before
changes are made so discussions can take place regarding the ramifications (workload
issues) of each decision.
It was then suggested that job descriptions that are no longer in use be eliminated. For
example, if the Sr. Buyer job description is being replaced by a Buyer and Purchasing
Agent, then the Sr. Buyer job description should be eliminated. Mr. Maduli stated that
he would speak to Mr. Davis about this issue.
7.
Final Land Corporation funding request prioritization (A) – Maduli
Mr. Maduli reviewed the final Land Corporation funding request prioritization sheet,
which was revised by EMT. The revisions included:
• Removing State Schedule Maintenance funding.
• Reducing funding for Strategic Planning from $75,000 to $50,000.
2
District ASC, 04/07/10
•
Removing the explanation as to why the submissions from the colleges for Eco
Pass funding and Underwriting Staff computer loans were not prioritized
Mr. Moore expressed concern regarding the removal of the explanation for why two of
the projects were not prioritized. He stated that the Land Corporation should know
why the funding requests were not considered, which is that the requests were actually
made by college employees, not by Central Services staff. Mr. Maduli responded that
President Gaskin had already questioned why the projects were not prioritized and that
he would verbally respond to any inquires. Committee members did not agree with
Mr. Maduli’s opinion on verbally responding to questions and recommended that the
explanation be reinserted. Mr. Maduli agreed to reinsert the explanation.
The Land Corporation Funding Prioritization List was approved as amended.
(Smith/Mendoza)
A discussion then took place regarding line item detail for Land Corporation funding.
In order for the funding to be included in the Tentative Budget, all line item detail must
be provided by April 15. If not, the funding will not be available until the Final Budget
is approved. Mr. Maduli stated that he would contact the VP’s of Administrative
Services to ensure that line item detail is provided by the April due date.
8.
Central Services cuts/savings for FY 10/11 (A) – Maduli
Mr. Maduli reported that the target cut for the colleges and Central Services has
decreased from $4M to $3M. Central Services will have a reduction target of $900,000,
or 30%, with the remainder split between the colleges based on the FTES split. Mr.
Moore expressed concern because the belief has always been that Central Services
would cut $1M, which is what the colleges are expecting. He also questioned the
wisdom of decreasing the target cut to $3M, especially since employees/Unions are still
being asked to reduce their salaries by 5%. A lengthy discussion took place regarding
the possible ramifications of decreasing the reduction target amount, especially as it
related to negotiations and mediation.
Mr. Moore and Mr. Mendoza both asked about the reductions being made at the
colleges and the fact that the actual dollar amount has not yet been validated. Both are
concerned that the identified amounts will not materialize; additionally, the colleges
have yet to submit any paperwork deleting/reducing positions.
No action was taken. This item will come back for additional discussion.
9.
Benefits Meeting Recap – Davis
This item was removed from the agenda.
3
District ASC, 04/07/10
10.
Reports from District Council and DBAC Representatives – Moore/Espinosa
This item was tabled due to time constraints.
11.
Recap of EMT discussions/decisions – Maduli
This item was tabled due to time constraints.
12.
Other items
This item was tabled due to time constraints.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 am.
4
District ASC, 04/07/10
FY 10/11 Land Corporation Funding Proposals
Central Services
April 7, 2010
PRIORITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
*
*
PROPOSAL
Employee Assistance Program
Replace seven (7) Grounds and Custodial Trucks
Mobile Patrol Computers
Desktop Optimization
Agenda Manager Software
Datatel Portal Expansion
Payroll Document Management Systems
Strategic Planning
Other proposals considered
Document Management/Retention
Eco Pass Program
Underwrite Staff personal computer loans
SPONSOR
Human Resources
Maint Op/VC
Police Department
IS/WV and MC A&R
IS/chancellor's office
IS/chancellor's office
Payroll/Finance
Chancellor
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
240,250.00
147,310.00
100,000.00
487,560
IS/Risk Manager
David Esmaili/Patricia Stokke
*These items were submitted by the colleges and are
not truly Central Services proposals. Additionally, the
individuals submitting the proposals did not identify
who the responsible parties are.
5
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
AMOUNT
35,000.00
107,225.00
60,000.00
47,410.00
30,154.00
39,733.00
88,000.00
50,000.00
457,522
District ASC, 04/07/10