Campus Budget

Campus Budget

Meeting Notes - October 27, 2009


 

1) Approve Notes from October 13, 2009

The notes were approved with one minor correction.

 

2) Report back from PBTs  on Budget Discussions

Jeanpierre reported back from the SSPBT that they had chosen to look at what was good and successful within the student services area. From there they would work backwards to see which resources most directly supported these services.

Lee-Klawender, reported that the IPBT team was still in the discussion stage, but would look at the programs reviews; look at tiers of cuts instead of one large cut; ACCJC rubric; would look at the suggestions from the Deans’ meeting; cause and effect problems; reduction vs. elimination of programs.

Jeanpierre reported that the F&ER PBT team had identified some of it's funding reductions with vacant positions and reallocating some salary costs to Measure C. Within the VP1 area, the Child Development Center is effected by categorical budget reductions of approx.  $529K from eliminated tax bailout dollars, but the Director has identified savings, grant offerings, OTI opportunities, and other items that can be put toward covering this deficit.

 

3) Budget Update

Jeanpierre advised that there was no new news on the budget. She requested that the team refresh themselves on the Strategic Planning initiatives. She passed out and reviewed a document from the state of the College Annual Report 2006-07 that identified the Strategic Planning Initiatives from 2007. These core values may be a framework from which to look at goals and missions of the College.

Jeanpierre distributed a handout from the Deans’ meeting of October 15, 2009. The Deans brainstormed for ideas on how to establish the core goals of the College in order to set a basis of how to address the budget reductions. Sellitti reported that the Deans were trying to take a new look at what is important to the College now, rather than to use the goals from years ago. The Deans looked at establishing a new rubric for the College, addressing some of the ways to compare and evaluate course offerings. Sellitti discussed numerous examples from the document.

During a robust discussion, the team shared their thoughts on the following areas:

  • Demand for vocational programs
  • “Sacred cow’ programs
  •  The geographical focus area of the College
  • Look for and heed warning signs of changing populations to assist guiding the direction of the College
  • Education for the 21st century for the global economy
  • The Colleges needs to evolve over the next few years and identify where it will place it’s money
  • Over-reaction to a temporary problem
  • Ensure we have a viable learning institution at the end of the budget crisis
  •  During the last major budget crisis some programs were eliminated and were not able to be resurrected. In hindsight, it might have been better to shrink them so they are able to grow again in better times
  • Basic skills offerings/advisory vs. prerequisite/demand/community education
  • International student enrollment is currently static. De Anza tends to attract a more serious student
  • It is now more difficult to transfer to CSU/UC
  • What might be considered ‘cleaning up’ in one area may be ‘messing up’ in another area
  • Accreditation mandates

Jeanpierre requested suggestions to forward to College Council:

  • Core programs should not be eliminated; only downsized if necessary
  • Ask the question: What do we want De Anza to look like on the other side of this of this budget crisis?
  •   Sustainable planning
  •  College Council should revisit the four common themes and core competencies of the Strategic Planning initiatives to evaluate if they are still applicable

 

Argyriou, Bloom, Gerard, Jeanpierre, Jenkins,  Lee-Klawender, Michaelis,  Reza, Sellitti, Simes. Notes: Gibson.



Governance
Building: Administration
Contact: Pippa Gibson
Phone: 408.864.8936
sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 10/28/09