Sunken Garden Fountain

College Council

Meeting Notes

June 28, 2012

Admin #109, 3:00 – 5:00 pm

College Mission Statement

       De Anza College provides an academically rich, multicultural learning environment that challenges students of every background to develop their intellect, character and abilities; to realize their goals; and to be socially responsible leaders in their communities, the nation and the world.

      De Anza College fulfills its mission by engaging students in creative work that demonstrates the knowledge, skills and attitudes contained within the college's Institutional Core Competencies: •Communication and expression   •Information literacy •Physical/mental wellness and personal responsibility •Global, cultural, social and environmental awareness •Critical thinking

Members:  S. Agrawal, K. Chow, S. Cook, G. Durham, C. Espinosa-Pieb, K. Glapion, R. Hansen, T. Hunter, L. Jeanpierre, L. Jenkins, R. Kazempour, A. Khanna, C. Lee-Wheat, V. Marquez, F. Milonas, B. Monary, B. Murphy, V. Neal, M. Newell, E. Norte, S. Ramos, R. Schroeder, M. Spatafore, R. Tomaneng P. Zamorano

Guests: G. Anderson, M. Booye, A. Caballero de Cordero, L. Chang, T. Chung-Tabangcura, T. Dolen, M. Fayek, J. Haynes, E. Kinner, A. Leonard, R. Mieso, K. Moberg, V. Moreno, V. Neal, D. Sarina, J. Thai, B. Watson

I.   Approval of Minutes of June 14, 2012

The minutes of June 14, 2012 were approved by consensus.

II. Budget and Measure C Allocations

Jeanpierre reviewed Measure C allocations and recommendations to “move up” college-wide priorities including (1) $2.6M for the pool, football and track fields, (2) $6.8M for Media & Learning Center Tech Resources Group requests and (3) $1.8M allocation to divisions and departments. The PBTs have approved the allocations and requests have been through shared governance process. Divisions have prioritized and allocated these dollars, which will be reviewed again in the Fall.

The district has requested our budget reduction scenarios by end June with a worst-case scenario and identification of consequences. The dollar amounts have been given to the PBTs, which have met jointly to review interdependencies and consequences.

Each of the PBTs reported on their budget reduction targets, methodologies and consequences.

FER PBT proposed target: $412,877 which includes vacant positions, transfer of expenses to different funds (Fund 15), shared FTE, department reductions in addition to a 8% decrease in all B budgets. Impacts: reduction time in support/services, no new technology innovations, erosion of services. Jeanpierre and Jones-Dulin to develop a campus “service agreement” in terms of what College Operations can and cannot do. Jeanpierre also reviewed history of reductions from 2008-2012 which indicated Fund 14, Part Time, categorical cuts and dollars deferred/escrowed.

SSPBT proposed target: $2.418M

Cook distributed a handout outlining Student Services budget reduction amounts, staff reductions, remaining staff and potential impacts by departments. Not included was a Foothill proposal to reduce counselor contracts from 11 to 9 months to retain these positions, resulting in a salary savings of $668,000, while maintaining diversity. Consequences of how reductions affect students, enrollment and services were highlighted.

IPBT proposed target: $3.3M (comprises 79% of entire budget)

More efficient programming, increased efficiencies, shifting funds, reduction of non-instructional positions and 33% target reduction across all divisions. The Division deans are charged with making these decisions. FTEF put into high demand courses which will increase FTES.

Discussion

*Question: If reductions prove to be less than anticipated, will there be a reprioritization process?

A motion was moved to accept the budget reduction scenarios with the caveat that we cannot function as a college with these levels of cuts.

The budget reduction scenarios are prepared to inform the Board of the crisis and as an aid in the decision-making process. This has been an exhausting, stressful, public and transparent process. A depth of gratitude was extended to PBTs for the work while BROC will be discussing revenue generation and efficiencies.

This work will continue during summer and we will spend time reviewing the reduction scenarios. We will work with the Chancellor about alternative proposals. The focus will be on outreach efforts to grow enrollment. All community colleges are in the same situation and there is a need to let the community know what’s going on. Perhaps California cannot afford 112 community colleges.

Thoughts on the process included humanity and sensitivity despite high levels of stress.

Discussion/Suggestions

-       One-time monies sweep?

-       Timing (March 15 notices for June 30 layoffs)

-       Bargaining units (concessions, different models)

-       Review of augmentation budgets

-       Structural inequity and affect on classified staff; review of equitable solutions that benefit the entire college.

-       “Student-centered” focus and involvement, student access

-       “How to” register for classes with maps; computers/open labs for students to add (1st week)

-       Mobilizing students



College Council
Building: Administration
Contact: Tina Woo
Phone: 408.864.8705
sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 11/1/12