Agenda Item Information/Discussion Action 1. Welcome and

Transcription

1 Committee Name: Planning and Resource Allocation Committee Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 Meeting Chaired By: Ron Gerhard & Donna Gibson Start time: 3:04 p.m. End time: 5:00 p.m. Minutes Prepared By: Heather Hernandez Present: Chasity Whiteside, Christine Herrera, Jim Matthews, Donna Gibson, Heather Hernandez, Katie Messina, Laurie Dockter, Blake Lewis, Ron Gerhard, Jeff Drouin, Andrew Pierson, Ken Grace, Rachael Tupper-Eoff, Gordon Watt, Alex Haney, Zaheer Ebtikar, Robert Nakamoto, Sara Parker, Bill delos Santos, Yvonne Wu-Craig, Amy Mattern, Gabe Chaparro, Mark Anderson, Patricia Shannon, Jennifer Lange, Carolyn Arnold, Na Liu, Bonnie Stipe, Bob Buell, and Jeannie Wilson. Agenda Item Information/Discussion Action 1. Welcome and Call to order at 3:04 p.m. Introductions/Call to Order 2. Review of Proposed Questions/Concerns none noted. Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes Minutes for meeting were approved with no corrections. Minutes approved for One abstention noted. 4. Information/Discussion Items 4. a. Review Draft Integrated Planning and Budget Development Calendar for FY a. Review Draft Integrated Planning and Budget Development Calendar for FY b. Review CLPCCD Final Adopted Budget c. Review Year-to-date Expenditure Report d. Review Draft Annual Goals e. Program Review Activity A draft FY Integrated Planning & Budget Development Calendar handout was provided to the committee and reviewed by VP Gerhard for review and recommendations. VP Gerhard would like to approve the calendar at the next PRAC meeting with a recommendation that it be sent to Dr. Sperling for approval. The calendar was developed taking into consideration the program review calendar as well as a typical budget development calendar. The February 7 March 19 time frame will be important as we should expect to have the Governor s budget proposal. Any base augmentation increases from the Governor Bring back the FY Integrated Planning & Budget Development Calendar for approval on 1 P age

2 4. b. Review CLPCCD Final Adopted Budget would be part of the discussion for funding augmentation requests coming out of program review. Requests would be prioritized for funding. The draft tentative budget would come before this committee then go to Dr. Sperling for approval. Budget forums would be held in May 2018 and then the final proposed budget would go to the Board on June 19, 2018 with spending power by July 1, It was suggested that the budget forums include both budget and planning information. The forum could also include the recommendations from this committee to other committees; the communication/recommendations between committees as it relates to budget and planning. Document and discuss the process and end results/why budget decisions were made. Keep in mind certain computer equipment may be purchased by District IT under Measure A as was the case under Measure B. Will the prioritization process for faculty and classified positions be added to the calendar? When would funds be allocated to positions? Planning would happen prior to funding and once funding is available positions would be advertised. Faculty prioritization presentations are set for December 4, That would be after the allocation rubrics are done on December 8, A request has been made to President Sperling to notify the campus before finals week in December 2017 on which faculty positions will be hired. Areas would like those positions posted as early in January 2018 as possible. Earlier than November 29, 2017 would be best for the faculty prioritization synthesis statement. Need to look at timing around the SERP. We need to know what the impact of the SERP will be and who may be taking it and how it will affect certain areas. The current program review due dates and faculty prioritization dates do not align well with the SERP. Two options were considered: delay program review or add an addendum to the program review forms to be completed once the SERP information is made public. It was decided that adding an addendum would be the best option. Trish Shannon will work with Wing Kam to add an addendum to the program review forms. It is hopeful that the Dean and the person who drafted the program review would update the addendum information. VP Gerhard will try to find out more information about the SERP from the District Office. The Board meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, was cancelled. The final adopted budget would have been approved at this meeting. Adoption has been postponed until October 17, VP Gerhard send out the CLPCCD Final Adopted Budget via and it can be found here: VP Gerhard discussed Chabot s adopted budget for FY and final budget for FY October 4, VP Gerhard will try to gain more information on the timing of the SERP as it pertains to the faculty prioritization process and program review dates. Trish Shannon will work with Wing Kam to develop an addendum to the program review forms to accommodate the SERP. 2 P age

3 4. c. Review year-to-date expenditure report FY was a turbulent year for the unrestricted general fund balance. Revenue was about $64M dollars; $65M total in resources with sabbatical leave replacement funds and other income. The college overspent by about $2.6M dollars last year. This is significant because we started FY with a negative $1.4M dollar fund balance. This was discussed on college day and at budget forums held on FLEX Day. The college needed to put forward a plan on how to correct the negative balance to become positive. This plan was forwarded to the Board with the budget for FY VP Gerhard provided a report on Chabot s plan to rebuild the college fund balance as required under the BAM. The plan includes using a piece of new revenue being allocated to offset and rebuild our fund balance. Also, to the extent that we have savings, that those savings drop to the fund balance. Under the BAM Chabot must rebuild the fund balance to a positive number within five years. Looking at the financials this is the best plan that will not require further cuts to programs. Should the BAM be considered in this discussion; how money flows to the colleges through the BAM. Hopeful that this will be addressed by both colleges. Members asked to view VP Gerhard s PowerPoint on the budget deficit for FY and it will be sent out via . The District s reserve is 26% or $28.2M. The state average is 16%. What is our ability to forward things to PBC? Within the BAM, $10.2M is taken off top under 3A. A big piece of that is RUMBLE, marketing, District office expenses, and M&0. Keep in mind that the District does not have to pay for Canvas. VP Gerhard shared that in the vein of transparency, and where we are financially, we must ensure that the budget deficit that happened last year doesn t happen in the future; so the committee will review the overall college budget monthly. Budget status reports by organization and account will be presented as informational items, but will be discussed as needed. VP Gerhard provided a current budget status reports for the unrestricted general fund which shows the adopted budget by account code as well as by organization. The reports show the available balances as of the date of report; encumbrances; and the percent expended to date. These reports will provide transparency on the fiscal condition of the college. Committee members inquired about making corrections for the FY adjunct budget? The Adjunct budgets were parsed out by division, but not by class this past year. It made some adjunct budgets go over last year in compared to previous years. We have taken a step toward correcting the problem. In years past 1301 budgets were rolled over from year to year. Getting away from that model, this year and in future years, the college will allocate budget based upon the FTEF recommended by DEMC. FY 3 P age

4 4. d. Review Draft Annual Goals is the first year with new process and it needs to be assessed in the future. With this current version of the BAM, there is not a connection between budget and FTEF. In alignment of marginal costs of part-time hourly, and with raises for personnel, is Chabot still using the District s marginal cost number? The Districts number is low for pay by hour. Under this new plan we are using our numbers. In the BAM, the District does not pick a number, the college picks a number. The current BAM does not fund FTEF, but rather revenue and the college allocates the funds. VP Gerhard looked at payroll reports to determine how much part-time hourly is actually costing. Need to use salary savings to fund the backend of 1301 and 1100 part-time hourly budgets towards the end of the fiscal year. Members inquired about negative balances on the report in certain accounts. After the Board approves the final budget, we can then make budget transfers to cover those areas. This is what exists in Banner at this time. We cannot make budget transfers and reallocations until the Board adopts the final budget. Members inquired about reviewing all budgets on campus including SSSP, Equity, and other grants and categoricals. VP Gerhard does plan to review budget reports for grants and categoricals in the future; at this point budgets are not fully loaded for review by the committee. Donna Gibson presented a draft of the committee goals discussed during the September 6, 2017 meeting. Donna reviewed the ideas and comments and tried to combine them and make them into goals that the committee can measure. The goals were broken into two categories: structural goals and functional goals. Donna asked for member feedback on the goals. Jim Matthews suggested that a goal be added to address accreditation; some committee(s) or group(s) needs to oversee the process and ensure the standards are being met. New standards will be shared with several committees (PAR & President s Council). Carolyn Arnold pointed out the importance of adding a planning goal. The Strategic Plan goal needs to be mentioned. All committee members should have an idea of the strategic plan and initiatives. All college-wide plans should be referenced. Is there a difference between numbers 4 (identify and approve budget process timeline) and number 5 (identify and approve resource allocation process)? It is important to approve a timeline by which we will do things. Number 5 speaks to the many members of the college who do not know our process for allocation of funds. The planning component of the program review process will drive how funds are allocated. Amy Mattern suggested that number 4 (identify and approve budget process timeline) could be the integrated planning process timeline. Jan Novak and Trish Shannon worked on a detailed planning guideline. It will also be important to address items the flow up Donna will review feedback and return with revised annual goals. 4 P age

5 4. e. Program Review Activity and down between committees; provide some direction to committees that feed information/recommendations up to PRAC and how PRAC will communicate in return. VP Gerhard provide a handout with several examples of integrated program review, planning, and budget processes from colleges around the state for review and discussion. This committee needs to draft a resource allocation process for integrating program review, planning, and budgeting which will be recommended to Dr. Sperling for approval. Members broke into groups to review the examples and reported out on their thoughts. Member comments are listed below. How are we going to know whether requests were funded and from what budget they were paid? Speaks to transparency and who is paying for what. Providing the budget information will generate historical information which will allow for evaluation and next year s planning. Question: where does that discussion occur? Before we find out what is being allocated we should consult the strategic plan and annual planning priorities; how to prioritize requests college-wide; concerned about how academic departments and Administrators prioritize within their area but how will prioritization overall take place? There needs to be transparency in the prioritization and reporting out of funded items. This college has had a difficult time identifying what is a priority. At times areas/projects are only partially funded which is not helpful to overall success. On several of the examples, Instructional, Student Services, Administrative Services, has all of their information going to one group. Not having some sort of shared vision between those early in the process gets them more isolated, making it hard to integrate programs. Broad look before smaller details. True programs and not disciplines is a good goal. Program review and not discipline review. Programs needs to work together and see thing through students eyes. We don t look at students and how they follow their educational plan. How do we integrate all of those things? PAR s goal is to get 3-4 groups to pilot an integrated program review in spring. The STEM Center is an ideal candidate for the process. Look at questions on this program review as they pertain to students Think about areas that are underfunded; and think about making tough budget decisions when prioritizes need to change. Timelines for expansion and reductions; merging of areas. Where in the planning process does institutionalizing occur? Department? Discipline? Dean/divisional level? When doing program review, before it goes up to the Dean/VP, speak to each other about common/shared needs. This is a layer that seems to be missing in our process. We feed up and see if we get funded. 5 P age

6 Dean summaries can move up to the VP level and VP s can summarize for their entire department allowing for more college-wide planning at this level. The goal is to have better communication. 5. Action Items Norms/Ground Rules tabled for time. 6. Good of the Order Explore meeting in the Board Room for future meetings. Chasity will check on availability for the Board Room for future meetings. 7. Next Meeting October 4, Adjournment 5:05 p.m. Mission Statement Chabot College is a public comprehensive community college that prepares students to succeed in their education, progress in the workplace, and engage in the civic and cultural life of the community. Our students contribute to the intellectual, cultural, physical, and economic vitality of the region. The college responds to the educational and workforce development needs of our regional population and economy. As a leader in higher education, we promote excellence and equity in our academic and student support services. We are dedicated to student learning inside and outside the classroom to support students achievement of their educational goals. 6 P age