Meeting Notes - January 28,2010

Members: A. Argyriou, C. Castillo, J. Chou, S. Cook, M. Custodio, G. Durham, Jr., C. Espinosa-Pieb, A. Guevara, R. Hansen, L. Jeanpierre, L. Jenkins, A. Khanna, D. Kubo, A. LaManque, C. Lee-Klawender, B. Murphy, L. Parent, C. Pereida, R. Schroeder, M. Shirazi, M. Spatafore, R Tomaneng

Guests:  D. Alves deLima, M. Browning, F. Frazer, L. Hearn, D. Howard-Pitney, H. Irvin, G. Knittlel, R. McFarland, J. Mowrey, E. Norte, C. Ramskov, J. Rosenberg, A. Simes, M. Stevens, C. Wilkins-Greene, C. Woodward

 I. The College Council minutes of January 14, 2010 were approved. 

Handout #1  

II. Categorical Funds Mandate – Handout #2 

L. JeanPierre distributed the “2009-2010 Categorical Funds Mandate” document for review. College Council adopted the mandate which redirects federal funds to backfill categorical programs (for up to $1,000 maximum). The mandate was on the agenda for the February 1 Board of Trustees meeting. 

III. Budget Reduction Scenarios – Handouts #3-6 

See handouts for further detail and information

Handout #3: Other Categorical Reductions (not requiring backfill)

Handout #4: Categorical Fund Cuts Analysis

Handout #5: Savings from Positions Only by VP Area

Handout #6: Proposed Reductions to College Council 2010-2011

Plans were discussed to address the $4.8M budget deficit for the college. Processes for each group were highlighted and targeted classified positions were identified. Future discussions will focus on finding ways to defer job losses. The Board of Trustees adopted a plan to use “staff protection funds” (now called Escrow II) to carry some positions through 2010-2011. Escrow II will become effective July 1, 2010 to fund classified positions through June 30, 2011. However, some positions will not be funded and will be eliminated on June 30, 2010, in addition to positions in Escrow I. Many of the positions are currently vacant, and some may result from reorganizations. 

The PBTs used three guiding principles in the budget review process:

 1. protect core services to students and maintain offerings

 2. not expect categorical programs to absorb the full hit of cuts

 3. make efforts to reorganize whenever possible

The following PBT budget recommendations were presented to College Council.

  1. $1.44M of $3.075M categorical cuts are not being backfilled (Handout #3)
  • Total Personnel, Phase I & II = $3.2M (Handout #5)
  • $2.8M total from personnel areas
  • $389K Savings from Student Success Center Reorganization (includes elimination of positions & creation of new positions)
  •  Total 1320 savings = $120,000/no cut in enrollment

 2. Proposed reductions for 2010-2011

  •  Phase I (~ $2M)—proposed projected layoffs on June 30, 2010, or funded from other funds (Fund 15, or Measure C)
  •  $ 0.5M of positions in categorical programs
  • Escrow 2 account now approved; some positions will be carried for 2011 (IPBT determined positions based on where reorganizing would be required)
  • Senior employees on layoff list will have opportunity to "bump" more junior ee’s
  • FPBT – savings from unfilled vacancies
  • Most serious position eliminations from IPBT and SSPBT:

 - IPBT: Proposed Student Success Center reorganization affected 36 part-time positions

 - Each division submitted $200K for targeted reductions and IPBT submitted votes or 

 alternate proposals.

 - Escrow 2 positions -- based on votes AND needing time to restructure/ reorganize

 - SSPBT positions discussed since Fall; Stacy received more info from CalWorks,

 Counseling, (Assessment Supervisor in Escrow 2 account to have time to restructure)


  • C. Wilkins-Greene (and Psychology Department members) presented a letter from Palo Alto University (P3) claiming $153K in payments to DAC (plus possibly $87M more), as a result of agreement with J. Miner and PGSP for revenues after 3 years. Murphy shared that projections have been consistently incorrect and had no recollection of agreement with our Board & P3. Wilkins-Greene was hoping to leverage revenues to avoid cuts in her division. However, due to contract uncertainties, it was suggested NOT to count on these revenues. (College Council is not the venue for this discussion).
  • R. Schroeder raised a question of using Fund 15 to rehire eliminated positions.
  • A. Guevara brought up the subject of a parcel tax; we would be the first community college to propose this. A feasibility study will be required. (Cupertino Union’s failed).
  • R. Hansen: we are really discussing 7 affected positions for 6/30/10, with 9 being created by the SSC reorganization. What is the justification? Why are we bringing back the Dean of Library Services? J. Rosenberg expressed the need for more support from Distance Learning and new Student Success Center. What will occur when the Dean of ICS/IIS becomes vacant the end of this academic year? FA is recommending no new hires, but instead find ways to reorient, become more efficient or reorganize in order to save positions.
  • C. Espinosa-Pieb discussed ACE agreement whereby affected employees would have first opportunity, following classification recommendations, and board approval. Old SCC: 55% administrative/45% direct student services vs. NEW: 34% and 66% respectively.
  • G. Anderson: Title III demands that we reorganize & restructure SSC
  • Roles and responsibilities of IIS Dean’s position discussed (diversity, multiculturalism)
  • Positions discussed: DSS faculty coordinator, Veteran’s Coordinator
  • E. Norte raised the issues “budget lens” and compensatory trade-offs to offset position eliminations.
  • Definition of Escrow account -- special account put aside to spend one-time only -- now used for backfilling positions for one year
  • These are preliminary numbers. Despite a budget release, these numbers can still change. (ALL of these positions are technically eliminated on June 30, 2010, only some carried by Escrow 2 to June 30, 2011). IPBT will continue conversations about reorganizing some programs.

College Council Vote: M. Shirazi made a motion to approve the budget reduction plans, given the acceptable range of options. There was one dissention. College Council acknowledged this was the best we could do at this time. 

IV. Burning Issues, Quick News, Wrap Up 

Murphy acknowledged the work of Englen, Norte and Reza for their work on “Compassionate Communications” at the Deans’ Council meeting.
Back to Top