President’s Report to the Senate

Meetings:

FABPAC: Dr. Laguerre announced that on Monday the Vallejo Center was approved as a center by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors (BOG). As a result, the District expects to receive will receive $1 million for 2009-10 and the funding is ongoing. Chancellor Jack Scott commented that his first day on the job was at Solano College. Chancellor said that he's proud of the progress our college has made. Dr. Laguerre reported that the $1 million is allocated towards the Vacaville Center and at the next meeting we will bring forward some initial proposals for allocating the dollars. The District has essential staffing and service needs to fulfill for Vacaville like maintenance & operations, lab technicians, and so on. The Vacaville Center has been receiving $1 million since it achieved center status in the early 1990's.

The Variance Report: In FABPAC, several members indicated that the discussion on the report elicited more disagreement and discontent than was recorded in the minutes. The members had many questions and concerns about the report, the clarity and validity of the numbers, the disproportionate percentages, and were informed that responses were forthcoming. Jeff Lamb and Louis McDermott questioned expending exactly 75% of the year's budget. The report's variance numbers would naturally trigger a barrage of questions—how true are the numbers. Dr. Waits responded to the amendment comments by saying that VP Roth is currently intensely involved with Banner training six out of the last 10 days since the April 21 meeting. The short-term delay is expected to benefit us in the long-term. Generally, we would expect a response, however, it's her understanding that a definite date was not mentioned to respond. Last year's variance report format was provided to VP Roth, which staff is attempting to recreate. The comments will be shared with VP Roth.

SGC: In Shared Governance I provided a regular PERT and Accreditation update. We discussed the possibility of using the CCLC's Policy and Procedures numbering system instead of our own to facilitate the continual revision and editing of our Board Policies.

We further discussed some of the language in the 5000 series Board Policies and reviewed a new one, 1140, on Building Dedication Plaques.

Finally we received from Human Resources an updated ALG BP 4800 that reflects the changes in administrative structure after the reorganization and changes in the title and compensation of the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs. The new title is Executive Vice President and there has been an increase in salary by $10,000. We were provided with a revised ALG salary schedule that includes a new step 53. Of concern here is that SGC had always expressed concerns about the workload and salary of this position. Dr. Laguerre downgraded it in order to make the re-organization more fiscally palatable. Additionally, the changes to the ALG salary schedule was not presented to that group.

PERT: The FABPAC provided helpful comments to the IPP:

Thoughtful discussion ensued on methods to help the proposer(s) know FABPAC's role and expectations in evaluating a proposal's budget. Comments and suggestions for PERT to be sent from FABPAC via Jeff Lamb include:

• The proposer should have a list of FABPAC's general guidelines on what it will look for. FABPAC agreed to begin the work to develop guidelines for distribution. For example, because FTES apportionment is general fund revenue, should a proposal "claim" FTES as a sole funding source when these dollars already "hit" and are allocated in many areas? Example: A PE Program's funding is proposed to be offset by FTES. A student isn't taking only PE courses. Is there a rule of thumb on what percentage goes to the program or course and what goes elsewhere? What is the expected FTES offset?
  
• We should have a fiscal services "fiscal review" of the proposal prior to the FABPAC committee review. This review would give the committee guidance on how the funding might work.
  
• The Review Groups could play a stronger role. RGs look at existing programs and determine if it's a duplication of efforts and to make a determination of how the new program fits with existing programs.
  
• Proposal needs to take into account the current state-wide budget climate—whether good or bad—to assess viability of passage and funding.
  For example,
  given the current budget climate, proposals should consider the state's focus on basic skills, transfer rates, and workforce development.
  
• It is helpful if the proposer can be present at the meeting to answer questions and mitigate concerns.
  
• One of FABPAC's charges is to identify potential funding sources, and when we do approve and fund a proposal, we have to somehow track all sources. Last year's proposals would be funded if there was money available—no specific budget was identified.
  

 

Additionally, we have been working on the metrics that accompany the Strategic Goals and Objectives.

Accreditation:

In FaBPAC, I expressed concerns that the work accomplished last year in creating the Special Report is in jeopardy this year in terms of accuracy on the fiscal side, vis-á-vis the Third Quarter Variance Report. Dr. Laguerre responded that this report was shared at the Supt/President's Cabinet meeting and they also had questions but there is an explanation for it. He noted that confusion arose because the 2009-10 budget was not set up properly—it was just rolled over. Categorical budgets were either lumped together or did not move over to 2009-10. Excel shadow spreadsheets were maintained to track budgets, rather than fully utilizing Banner. Training is the top priority so data can be extracted accurately, and staff is working very hard to rectify systemic issues. Prior administrators did the best they could with shadow systems—in the short run it worked okay, but in the long run it is not.

 

Events:

I represented faculty at the Vacaville Center Opening Ceremony and gave a small speech.