Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Approved  Minutes

Thursday,  October 11, 2001

 

I.       Call to Order/Roll Call

            The meeting was called to order by President Jane Patton at 2:10 p.m. 

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Bell-Cheung  (Ext.5385) AAS

    

    X

Martin     (Ext. 5349) Tech

    X

 

Brennan    (Ext. 5313)  Comm

    

    X

McGee     (Ext. 5042) Stud Dev

   

   X

Cochran    (Ext. 5176)  Stud Dev

   

    X

McKean   (Ext. 5326)  Math

 

   X

Estrada      (Ext.5164) CommSvc

 

    X

Moore     (Ext. 5382)  AAS

  

   X

Guich       (Ext. 5270) SocSci

 

    X

Myint      (Ext. 5316) ESL

 

   X

Jackins      (Ext.5322 )  Math

    X

   

Patton    (Ext. 5296) Comm Stud

 

   X

Johnson    (Ext.5277) CATA

    

   X

Sippel      (Ext. 5118) Comm

   X

 

Light       (Ext. 5413) AF/CIT

 

   X

VanTassel (Ext. 5334) Tech

 

   X

Lynne      (Ext. 5248) CommSvc

 

   X

ASB:    K.Nguyen, C.Vincenz

 

   X

Mancini   (Ext. 5855) AF/HM

 

   X

Guests: S. Dinger,  S. Kinsella,

 

   X

Other:  B.Grayson (Staff Dev)

 

   X

M. Knowles, D.Matarangas,

 

   X

Guests:DMcKay,PMesserschmidt

 

   X

S.Monahan W.Negash, C.Olson,

 

   X

             

 II.    Approval of the Minutes

            The minutes for the October 4, 2001, meeting were accepted and approved with a correction to the roll call (M/S/U – Moore/Lynne).  Senator Moore and Senator Van Tassel were present.

 

            The minutes for the September 20, 2001, meeting were amended as follows (M/S/U – Cochran/Estrada):

 

            Page 1, Item VI.2 (Datatel Implementation Committee Report) – Senator McKean  requested that the third sentence in the last paragraph be deleted. 

 

            Page 2, Item VI.E.3 (MC Compressed Calendar Committee Report) – Carolyn Fisher requested that the second sentence in the lst paragraph be changed to read as follows:  “Carolyn also advised  surmised that any additional cost incurred by the colleges because of the two different calendars will  probably be absorbed by the district.

 

III.    Order of the Agenda

            It was agreed (M/S/U – VanTassel/McGee) that today’s business would begin with Item VIII.A to accommodate guests.

 

VIII.  New Business

           

  A.     Discuss Freezing of Dept. Funds and Process

            Jane explained that Vice Chancellor Steve Kinsella and Dean of Administrative Services Worku Negash were invited to today’s Senate meeting to address the issues and concerns of the Mission College faculty and the MC Academic Senate relative to the freeze on Fund 17.  A handout was distributed with a list of questions posed by Jane to Vice Chancellor Kinsella on this issue, the Vice Chancellor’s responses to those questions, and excerpts from the district’s adopted budget.

 

            Referring to a number of pages in the handout, Steve explained that the district’s total unrestricted general fund includes Fund 10, Fund 12 (PFE), Fund 16 (Contract Ed), Fund 17, Fund 23 (Community Ed) and Fund 61 (Land Corp. Foundation).  The revenues and expenditures for these funds are left to the discretion of the district.  The budget plan for fiscal year 2000/01 indicated that expenditures would leave the ending fund balance of the Unrestricted General Fund considerably below the minimum reserve level required by the state.  Steve explained further his belief that the threshold level is 5%, and the State Chancellor’s Office uses 5% of the total funds received by the district as a minimum figure for a reserve.  If the ending balance falls below 5% of the total revenue, the district is placed on the state’s financial “watch” list.  The state may then send in a monitor and/or withhold state revenues.

 

Steve stated that the district had designated $2 million for a reserve (approximately 3%). He expressed concern about the level of the reserve at 3% during the development of the budget last year. At that time, however, revenues were up and the state’s economy was strong, so there was no sense of urgency to take immediate action.  There was ample time to develop and phase in a larger reserve.  In addition, the state calculates the 5% figure based on the combined balance of all unrestricted funds.  Hence, it was decided that a reserve of $2 million (approximately 3%) would serve, and the budget process moved forward.

 

As part of the budget process, funds received from the state are added with local sources of funds, and the district uses the budget allocation model to distribute the funds.  Last year, the revenue from PFE was blended with the Unrestricted General Fund 10.  The district uses two major components relative to the budget: the allocation model and reported financial statements.  After all expenditures were applied to the total fund, the ending balance in Fund 10 for the 2000/01 fiscal year was $292,054, leaving the district with a reserve well below the minimum level of 3% (approximately $2 million) and far from the desired 5%.  The ending fund balance for PFE, however, was $4.4 million.  What seems to have occurred is that dollars were drained from Fund 10 (General Unrestricted Fund) and accumulated in PFE Fund 12.  Steve explained that those funds were spent on normal operations, as well as a number of things that might have qualified as PFE expenditures. PFE dollars cannot be used for a reserve.  The shortfall could not be covered, therefore, using PFE money.  In addition, the projected budget based on the previous year indicated that Fund 17 dollars were going to be expended.  Since Fund 17 was the only other unrestricted fund available to use for a reserve, those accounts were frozen.

 

Steve was asked why the expenditures against Fund 10 that were appropriate for PFE were not tracked and expense transferred against PFE to create the reserve.  He explained that was done just before the close of the FY 2000/01 and the ending balance remained insufficient.  Any PFE expenses in accounts from previous years that may have been designated inappropriately against Fund 10 were no longer transferable since the accounts were closed.  He acknowledged that the combined amount of the total unrestricted general fund came to approximately $6.2 million. The state considers the bottom line, not the individual pockets, and would consider that an ample reserve.  However, he feels that the individual pockets must be recognized internally and steps taken to ensure that the reserve is ample. The intent of a reserve is to cover any shortfall in revenue or increase in expenditures. If a shortfall in revenue occurs or an increase in expenditures is required, it shows up in the Unrestricted General Fund 10, and the balance was approximately $292,000. 

 

During a heated discussion, Steve was asked why the decision was made at this time to raise the level of the reserve from 3% to 5%.  He explained that in the past, others may have been comfortable with pushing the limit.  It is not an approach he promotes, particularly in light of the current economy and the state budget.  He believes the reserve must be maintained at this level.   He explained that a 3% reserve could prompt oversight activity by the state, and if the state administers the district’s budget, there is no opportunity to provide input.  The issue was whether or not to comply with Title 5 requirements, and it is his intention to develop a budget that complies with those requirements.  He explained that the major shift occurred in July, when the governor cut $90 million from the budget.  At the end of July, the state’s economy headed downward and the economic condition now has changed significantly.  In his opinion, the option to phase-in a larger reserve was no longer feasible, and the budget was approved with the freeze on Fund 17 in order to remain off the state’s “watch” list. The Executive Management Team and the Board made the decision based on his recommendation.

 

He noted that the district’s spending patterns have not changed over the years, and although a great deal of money has flowed through the district, it has not created an adequate reserve during high revenue years.  Holding Fund 17 (approximately $1.7 million) was a way to ensure that the district had an adequate reserve.

 

As discussion continued, it was strongly stated that the assumption that all Fund 17 money would be expended was false.  Departments with Fund 17 accounts were forced to place those funds in specific categories (object codes). The practice at Mission College has been this: Fund 17 accounts have been used by departments to save money over a period of time, sometimes years, for a specific use. Steve explained that object codes are required in order to obtain legal authority from the Board to expend those funds, and the budget that was submitted indicated that those funds were to be spent.

 

It was reported that Mission College’s PFE funds were well tracked locally during previous years and, therefore, Mission College should not be accountable for the shortfall. Steve explained that approximately $800,000 in faculty costs, i.e. faculty hired with PFE money, from MC was charged against Fund 10, not Fund 12.  Reconciliation of the accounts did not occur until the end of the year, and many items intended to be charged against PFE were charged against Fund 10.  He was asked how Mission College’s percentage of coverage out of Fund 17 compares to that of West Valley College and the district.  Steve advised that the information is available in the budget book.

 

Dianne McKay remarked that in the past, accumulated PFE dollars have been carried over. Had PFE funds been carried over this summer, and if the district’s shared governance policy, which requires the Senate’s involvement in budget preparation, had been implemented and truly exercised with Title 5 regulations in mind, another solution might have been found. It might have been possible to find expenses charged against Fund 10 that are appropriate for an expense transfer to Fund 12, or to find other legitimate PFE expenses charged incorrectly to other accounts. Certainly, those affected would have had a better understanding of the situation through their senate presidents, and the decision would have had a better “buy-in” by the college community.  She expressed her view that the freeze on Fund 17 was a draconian measure that can seriously impact Mission College adversely.

 

Steve responded, stating that DBAC and others approved an authorized list of PFE expenditures for the prior year ending June 30th.  The easiest way to meet the state’s deadline, set the reserve, and balance the budget was to freeze Fund 17.  The Board can amend the budget at any time, and DBAC has ample time to explore other options and decide how to address the issue and determine how best to free those funds. In the meantime, PFE dollars have been clearly identified for each college and the district and they are 100% available.  Mission College has been allocated $900,000 in PFE money, and that should help to bridge the gap until the issue of Fund 17 can be addressed.  There is no intent to deprive any department or individual of money.  Simply put, the district has over expended and the reserve has been spent.

 

Jane opened discussion to the floor, asking for examples of how the college has been impacted by the freeze.  Several people spoke to the issue with great passion, consternation, and dismay. Their examples are reflected in the following list:

 

      •     The English Department had set aside Fund 17 monies to pay for a guest speaker contracted for this semester, and there was doubt that the commitment could be honored due to the freeze on the account.

•     Fund 17 is similar to a bank holding money earned by individual faculty members through Contract Ed – some department accounts have been accumulated over a ten year period, saving for a specific purpose.

•     In accordance with the ACE contract, Corporate Training has agreed to pay 3% of the monies earned by a department through Contract Ed to the department.  The district only holds the money in Fund 17 like a bank holds a savings account.  It is not really the district’s money.

•     Part of Mission College’s identity and mission is manifested through its relationship with Corporate Training and the community.  Faculty may be reluctant to continue serving the community through Contract Ed without the benefit of the additional funds allocated to the departments. This will undoubtedly undermine and jeopardize the future of the Contract Ed Program. The program’s revenue is approximately $800,000 to $1 million per year.  The program at WVC is not as active, and the impact on WVC will not be as great.  

•     The release time for the department chair of ESL is funded through Fund 17.

•     Corporate training and economic development (CTED) is required by the district to remain solvent by generating its own income.  In addition, ED>Net grants received through the state and signed by the district Chancellor, state that all monies earned by these grants will be used to meet grant goals and cannot be used by the district for any other purpose. Technically, the hold on Fund 17 could constitute a breach of contract and places the district in the position of losing $2 million dollars in grant funding. 

 

      Jane asked for suggestions on how to proceed, and the following suggestions were offered:

 

•     Take the issue to DBAC, consider other options, and amend the budget accordingly.

            •     Develop a plan to refill the Fund 17 accounts.

•     Develop a phase-in plan to create an adequate reserve.

•     Ensure the shared governance decision-making process occurs.

•     Clarify the assumptions that Fund 17 accounts were projected to be expended and drained.

•     Consider and clarify the colleges’ and district’s accounting records.

•     Consider what items currently expended out of Fund 10 can be applied against PFE funds.

 

This item will be placed on the agenda for the next DBAC meeting, and Jane and Steve will present the issues discussed today.

 

The order of the agenda was resumed.

                   

 IV.    Oral Communication from the Public

            There was no oral communication from the public at today’s meeting.

        

  V.    Information & Announcements 

         1.   The Accreditation Team visit starts October 16th.  The final report will be made on Thursday, October 18th, at 12:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the Campus Center.  The final report is determined by WASCC.

            2.  The Mission College Academic Senate meeting scheduled for October 18th will be cancelled in order that the Senate members may attend the accreditation report.  The next regular Senate meeting will be held October 25, 2001, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Room 219 of the Campus Center.

 

 VI.   Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

  A.    Curriculum Committee – The Senators requested that a Curriculum Committee Agenda Packet be made available for their review.  The secretary will request same.   

  B.    Staff Recognition -   No resolutions were presented at today’s meeting.

  C.    Committee Appointments

         a)  Academic Council  -  Edith Dooley volunteered to serve and was unanimously appointed to the Academic Council (M/S/U –  Cheung/Lynne).   

         b)  Instructional Program Review Committee  -  Jane advised that no other faculty have volunteered to serve on this committee.  We will advise Jody and will request that the Division Chair Council appoint a member from each division to this committee.

  D.    Oral Reports

         1.  Staff Development  - Betty Grayson reported that the committee has developed and approved a handbook, describing how staff development works.  The intent is to distribute the handbook to all faculty once completed.  Jane requested that a copy be sent to all the Senators with the minutes and placed on the agenda for approval by the Senate.

         2.  Datatel Implementation Committee  - Quin reported that she received information from Amelia Akers-Martin and Chris Olson on the last DISC meeting.  The key factor is that there is not enough funding available to complete the conversion of all 90 reports on PARIS.  Joseph Giroux gave estimates of costs to complete STAR conversion at Mission, PARIS conversions in progress, and West Valley STAR conversion and indicated that the district may have approximately $150,000 to support the project. While guidelines are that reports available on Datatel  will not be duplicated on PARIS, the problem remains how to provide information or reports needed before those conversions are completed. Joseph Giroux also stated that one goal was to have access to information through both WebAdvisor and PARIS, so that users of computers incapable of handling Datatel  would still have access to the information. The subcommittee determined its next tasks to include developing a process to test and sign off on reports (for accuracy), exploring other options for programming that might make more efficient use of what limited resources remain, and getting input from the colleges as to their prioritization of the next 25 PARIS reports to be converted.  It is believed that each college uses PARIS differently, with Mission using PARIS as a decision-making tool and WVC uses PARIS as a research tool.  In order to ensure that the final decision is an informed decision, Jane was asked to follow up with the West Valley College Academic Senate and the WVC Division Chair Council on the prioritization list.

         3.  MC Compressed Calendar Committee – Jane reported that the committee is scheduled to meet for four hours tomorrow to discuss and report on research activities.   During a brief discussion, concern was expressed regarding various rumors pertaining to ACE issues, SEIU issues, grievances, disparate treatment, etc.  Jane emphasized that this committee is a college committee with all four constituent groups represented, and it is the intent of the committee to research and respond to all concerns.  

         4.  Instructional Technology Committee  - Carol will report to the Senate at the next Senate meeting.

         5.  Others:  

         a)  Ian Walton’s State Report –  Just a brief follow-up on my state Academic Senate activities for the last month.

•     Our September Executive Committee meeting was cancelled.

•     At last weekend's meeting we interviewed faculty candidates for the Board of Governors and forwarded three names to the Governor:

            Mike Anker from Diablo Valley College

            Janis Perry from Santa Ana College

            Linda Collins from Los Medanos College

(The term of Pat Siever expires in January and the Governor is expected to appoint a replacement then.)

Most of the meeting involved planning for the Fall plenary session to be held in Cerritos on November 1and 2.

Earlier in the month I attended several statewide meetings:

1)  WEDAC in Sacramento where the discussion centered around the implementation and funding plans for the Board of Governor's career ladder initiative in occupational education.

2)  The Chancellor's Office Technology summit in San Francisco where advisory groups DETAC and TTAC met to coordinate strategy for the coming year.  I was elected vice chair of TTAC (chair is Martha Kanter from De Anza)

3)  The FACCC conference right here in San Jose.

This coming weekend I am making two presentations on the faculty view of technology and educational policy.  The first is a California Virtual College webcast as part of their statewide seminar series for administrators.  And the second is at the CVC Online conference in Huntington Beach. Both presentations center around the collected technology papers that were reprinted by the Senate this summer. (Technology in Education)

 

If I can help you with anything please give me a call or e-mail.  I will keep in close touch with Jane but my schedule will rarely allow me to visit our senate meetings.

 

VIII.  New Business

 

    B.  Discuss Schedule Changes Relative to Contract w Students     

            This item was postponed to the next Senate meeting.   

 

    C.  Review MCAS Constitution and By-Laws

            Jane asked the Senators to review the constitution, particularly regarding the election of the Senate President.  The current timeline calls for the election in April.  She suggested that the Senators consider a February election and be prepared to discuss the matter at the next Senate meeting. 

 

IX.    President's Reports

          1.  District Academic Senate Meeting  - Jane asked the Senators how many would be able to attend a District Academic Senate meeting held on a Tuesday at the Central Park Community Center in Santa Clara.  Several Senators indicated they would not be able to attend.  Jane will discuss the date further with Linda King.  In the meantime, she asked the Senators to consider agenda items appropriate for the District Academic Senate, such as prerequisites, ACE issues, etc.

            2.  Board Meeting – Mission College presented its E&FMP to the Board and it was very well received by all.

         3.  MAT – The Management Administrative Team meets once or twice a semester.   Jane advised the committee of the Senate’s concerns regarding cross-training personnel.  Everyone agreed to address the concern within their programs.

         4.  Admissions & Records Office  -  Jane reported that A&R is having some difficulty with faculty submitting grades on time.  The Senators were asked to communicate the problem to their constituents, particularly associate faculty within their divisions. 

         5.  GAP – Jane reported that the Governance and Planning Committee has opted to change its membership.  The current membership includes 19 members:  the college president, 2 vice presidents, the dean of administrative services, two academic senate representatives, two classified senate representatives, one division chair, and one representative from community ed, grants, technology, staff development, research, student services council, and workforce development.  The proposed membership would include the first seven members as listed above, and two division chairs, three faculty at-large, two classified representatives, one student, and two other administrators/managers for a total of seventeen members.  It was agreed that a call for faculty be issued by the Senate as soon as possible.  It was suggested that selection criteria be developed.           

            6.  Area B Meeting  - Mary Moore will attend this meeting, scheduled for October 19th in Alameda.  This meeting is a precursor to the state senate’s plenary session.

            7.  Academic Senate for CCCs Plenary Session  -  The Fall 2001 Plenary Session will be held in Cerritos, California November 1-3, 2001.  Any Senators interested in attending should notify Jane or the Senate office as soon as possible.  The Senators agreed that Mary Moore serve as the voting delegate for the District Academic Senate (M/S/U – VanTassel/McKean).

 

 

 

 

 

X.     Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

            Correspondence

         Publications/Minutes

         1.   The October 5, 2001, issue of the DVC FORUM from the Diablo Valley College Faculty Senate.

            2.   The summary notes from the October 8, 2001, meeting of the Mission Administrative Team.

            3.   The agenda for the October 10, 2001, meeting of the District Council.

            4.   A publication from the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, Technology in Education, A Collection of Academic Senate Papers on Technology.

         Announcements/Conferences

            1.   Announcement of a new book from Rowman & Littlefield, Leaving the Ivory Tower – The causes and consequences of departure from Doctoral Study

 

XI.    Future Agenda Items

         1.  Status Report on Middle College (Marelick)

         2.  Status Report on Learning Communities 

         3.  Discuss Creation of Process for Obtaining Release Time for Learning Community Participants (Jane indicated that this is an ACE issue and does not fall under the purview of the Academic Senate.)

 

XII.   Adjournment

            The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. (M/S/U – VanTassel/McKean). 

 

            These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.