Campus Budget

Campus Budget

Joint Campus Budget & Technology Task Force Meeting Notes - November 22, 2011

 

1) Approve Notes from November 8, 2011

The notes were approved.

 

2) Work On Measure C FF&E Evaluation Matrix

Jeanpierre and Chow had been working to revise the Campus Budget timeline.

Jeanpierre explained that both the Campus Budget and Technology Task Force had the charge to review and prioritize requests. She explained that this was why there are a number of joint CBT & TTF meetings scheduled.

Jeanpierre reviewed the timeline and drew special attention to the joint meeting schedules and the prioritization of the Measure C FF&E requests by the PBTs.

Although there are some Purchasing and ETS deadlines and procedures that have to be adhered to, Jeanpierre is hopeful that the college will be able to process some requests this fiscal year.

The timeline was approved.

Jeanpierre explained that work started on the matrix at the previous Campus Budget meeting and that Jeanpierre, Chow & Metcalf had continued to work on finalizing the matrix. The matrix is an important part of the process as it will be the basis of how the requests will be prioritized.

Chow explained that the matrix was based on the questions that are already asked in the application form. The governance groups will need guidance on prioritizing and every group should be using the same criteria. The PBTs will be reviewing and doing the prioritizing for their areas. There was discussion on whether the PBTs should send requests based on dollar amounts, number of requests, or just send everything. The team suggested that the PBTs should send everything forward. It was hoped that opening up the process to all the requests would result in the best ideas rising to the top, i.e. quality drives the process not cost.

It was expected that there would be more requests than dollars available. With scarce resources available, it may be worth considering benefiting as many students as possible. Although the request form does not include the number of students served, this information may be relevant in the assessment cycle and might be requested at a later date. The PBTs will likely have more information on the amount of students served. The amount of students served would be added to the matrix.

The Phase I dollars expenditure and the multimedia spreadsheet would be posted on the web site as soon as possible.

In response to a suggestion that there was a “hidden agenda” in this process, the co-chairs reminded the team that the academic senate, campus budget team, deans, district and PBTs had already had input on the process and that today’s meeting as well as all the others identified in the timeline showed that this was not the case. The process is open and transparent.

Some overseers of Measure C projects had been told that although there was enough money allocated to build/renovate structures, there were not enough funds to outfit the projects. This shortfall of money would come from FF&E dollars.

It was notes that as flawed as the process might be, it is a vast improvement over the last allocation of money, which did not have any review or prioritization process in place.

After much discussion, the following suggestions/points were made:

  • Add number of students to the matrix
  • Leaning outcomes – amend the criteria
  • Break out the matrix line by line
  • Consider a weighted scoring sheet
  • Some items will fit into the outcomes some will not
  • The new draft of the matrix would be available on the web site for everyone to see.

 

3) PBT Reports

Time limitations did not allow for this item.

 

4) Quick News

Time limitations did not allow for this item. 

 

Present: Bloom, Chow, Dolen, Englen, Gerard, Hansen, Jeanpierre, Kahn, Metcalf, Michaelis, Mieso, Mitchell, Qian, Rosenberg, Schroeder, Shannakian Pablo (DASB) notes: Gibson

Visitors: Wanda Lee, AmeetaTiwana



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


Last Updated: 1/25/12