Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

January 3= 1, 2005

&nbs= p;

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glenn Akers, Rosa Antonecchia, Mark Bealo, Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Bonnie = Ann Dowd, Molly Faulkner, Candi Francis, Robert Gilson, Sherry Gordon, Brent Go= wen, Anne Hohman, Barb Neault Kelber, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Norton, Patrick O’Brien, Jose Rangel, Shayla Sive= rt, Fari Towfiq, Katie Townsend-Merino, Lori Waite

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; =

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; M. Jayne Conway, Jose Fernandez, Sarah Foglesong, Marty Furch, Julie Ivy, Bill Jahnel, Renee Roth, Mary San Agustin, Anne Stadler, April Woods, John Woods=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

CALL= TO ORDER: &= nbsp; The meeting was called to order by the president, Katie Townsend-Merino, at 2:00 p.m., in Room SU-30.

Appr= oval of Minutes: &n= bsp; The minutes of January 24, 2005, were approved as amended.

Publ= ic Comments: &nbs= p; None. Those guests present will address the Senate on issues currently on the age= nda.

Anno= uncements: &= nbsp; Jose Rangel was welcomed as a new Senator.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino announced that Angelo Carli, a faculty member in the English department for over 30 years, passed away last Saturday. Senators were sadd= ened by the news and acknowledged contributions Angelo made during his tenure to= the students and district. Senato= rs asked Katie to send a sympathy card to his family on behalf of the Senate.

Repo= rts: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; There were none.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments: &= nbsp; None.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika Brannick asked Katie to direct the Elections Committee to send out a call f= or nominations to faculty members to fill 3 alternate positions on the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Following up on discussion last week regarding some faculty members serving on the Ta= sk Force for the Title V Grant without being officially appointed by the Senat= e, Monika stated that Calvin One Deer Gavin has indicated to her that those faculty members in question who were not appointed by the Senate are no lon= ger serving.

Marty Furch said that she has been serving on the task forc= e and would like to continue. She submitted her name to Calvin initially and thou= ght she had been appointed.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika stated that the only faculty member on the task force officially appointed = by the Senate is Katie Townsend-Merino, so Marty would have to be confirmed by= the Senate.

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Levy: Faculty Senate confirms the appointment of Marty Furch to the T= itle V Grant Task Force.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika reported that two faculty members are still needed to serve. Another call f= or volunteers will be sent out immediately requesting a response by February 7= to fill these vacancies. Appoint= ments will be short-term commitments because the deadline for submission of the g= rant is in March; however, much must be done in the next month so the commitment= in the short-term will be significant.

Comm= ittee Absences: &nbs= p; Monika asked for input from Senators on whether or not the Senate should consider having an absence policy with regard to committee meeting attendance simila= r to the Senate’s absence policy. The issue being that a few individuals w= ho have signed up for committees do not attend the meetings. Katie Townsend-Merino suggested that the Committee on Committees meet to discuss this issue and b= ring a recommendation to the Senate if they so desire.

Curr= iculum

Moti= on 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Gowen: Faculty Senate ratification of numbers 3–11, 15-37, = 39, and 45-49, of the Curriculum Committee Approved Items List.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; In response to a question at last week’s meeting as to why the repeatabi= lity of all of the dance courses had been removed, Teresa Laughlin indicated that the dance repeatability issue has been clarified, and students can take any combination of those courses up to 4 times. Items 38 and 40-44 are producti= on classes and they are repeatable up to 4 times. The Curriculum Committee will look at these items again and they will likely be changed back to the way t= hey were initially written.

Moti= on 3 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Francis: To suspend the agenda to discuss information items= F, Health Services Update, and E, Palomar Mentor Program.

Moti= on 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Nebelsick-Tagg: To extend the meeting until 4:00 p.m.

Heal= th Services Update: Jayne Conway provided the following outline of information related to College Hea= lth Services:

= ·= ; = College RN visit to classroom ̵= 1; faculty should call ext. 2727 or go to pwebb@palomar.edu if interested in scheduling a visit.

= ·= ; = New fliers/posters are available for classrooms.

= ·= ; = Injury/Accident Procedure: Call 2289/direct 911 in severe emergency only. Please do not walk students up to Health Services.

A Medi= cal injury report must be filled out – in first aid kit or Health Services Web Page

= ·= ; = Monthly Emergency Summary Reports will be distributed to faculty.=

= ·= ; = Special Screening/Programs for the Academic Programs

It is hoped that an= RN can speak at the orientations of the RN, EME, MA, Dental, Fire, Police, Childcare, and DMV programs. Other screenings can be scheduled as needed.

= ·= ; = Blood Pressure screenings are available for the Health 100 classes.

= ·= ; = Health & Wellness Promotional & Health Expo. An attempt is made to coordinate w= ith classes.

= ·= ; = Over 400 flu shots were given out this year. They will be available next year an= d a memo will be distributed in an attempt to find out how many faculty and sta= ff members are interested in receiving it so enough vaccines can be ordered.

= ·= ; = Student Accident Insurance. This is covered by the Student Health Fee with a $50 deductible per student.

= ·= ; = Supplemental Domestic Insurance is available to students taking at least 6 credit hours.= It is on a sliding scale and increases with the age of the student.=

= ·= ; = Smoking Education Grant

= ·= ; = Health Services has been working with the Vista Community Clinic for approximately= 1 ½ years to address smoking issues on campus. The current policy is no smoking within 20 feet of the building. Issues relating to compliance shoul= d be directed to Bruce Bishop, director of Student Affairs.

Instructors interes= ted in providing smoking cessation information to their students should contact He= alth Services.

= ·= ; = The Palomar College Evaluation from the Lung Association Evaluation recently we= nt from a F to a B.

= ·= ; = Health Services is looking into the purchase of 2 Automatic Defibrillators. It is hoped that one can be housed in Health Services and one at Campus Police.

= ·= ; = Employee Health & Wellness Services: Faculty and staff interested in TB screenin= g, RN visits, Workman’s Comp issues, and information about MD visits sho= uld contact Health Services.

= ·= ; = Health Services is funded exclusively on the Health Services Fee of $13 for Spring= and for Fall. $167,500 was waived for BOGW students and the state is not provid= ing refunds for that so legislation is being looked at in an attempt to recover some of that money.

Palomar Mentor

Program:&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; John Woods outlined the Palomar Mentor Program in the following handout:

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Program Components:= (Faculty)

= 1. &n= bsp; Students will be in your group until they graduate or transfer.

= 2. &n= bsp; A new student will be selected for your current classes to replace them.=

= 3. &n= bsp; Make initial contact with student.

= 4. &n= bsp; Students receiving support from other programs would not be asked to participate. (Athletics, EOPS, DSP&S)

= 5. &n= bsp; A communication mechanism would be established with each student.<= /span>

= 6. &n= bsp; Communicate with each student on a regular basis. A suggestion would be every two weeks= .

= 7. &n= bsp; Review or refer for an Individual Education Plan.

= 8. &n= bsp; Refer to college resources as necessary.

= 9. &n= bsp; Meet with student prior to registration for each semester.

= 10. &= nbsp; Follow-up on all referrals.

About the Program (Students)

Have you ever had questions about college or your studies and you weren’t sure where to= go, or who to ask? Palomar College would like = you to participate in the Palomar Mentor Program. As part of this program, a facul= ty member will become your mentor. Your mentor can help you meet your educatio= nal goals. This might mean reviewing your educational plan. It would also mean helping you work through an academic problem or issue, referring you to the right college service, or helping you learn how to conduct research on the Internet. The relationship that you establish with your mentor will be up to you and your mentor.

Palomar College has a number of resources and programs to help you reach your goals. We believe that one of= our strongest resources is our faculty. As a member of the Palomar Mentor Progr= am, you will work directly with your mentor throughout your stay at Palomar College. We hope you will take adv= antage of our new program. Let’s work together to help you become the best y= ou can possibly be.

Benefits:<= /p>

= ·= ; = Student Success

= ·= ; = Increase retention

= ·= ; = Maximizing college support resources

John also provided= a brief history of the program, and a brief questi= on and answer period followed.

Anno= uncement: &= nbsp; John Woods announced that Palomar College student Maximillian Zavodney has been n= amed California’= ;s Male Scholar Athlete of the Year. =

Moti= on 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Dowd: To suspend the agenda to address action item H, Job Responsibilities of Advisors vs. Counselors.

Job Responsibilities of

Advi= sors vs. Counselors: Patrick O’Brien explained that this agenda item was brought forward due to recent job announcements for ESL A= dvisors. The original job description included under the Advisors responsibility was= the assignment of providing Electronic Ed Plans. This raised a red flag in the = counseling department because that task is a counseling responsibility. The qualificat= ions for the position as listed in the announcement are a high school diploma or equivalent, which is significantly less than that of a counselor.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino added that one of the reasons this issue has arisen is that there is a six-year history of using adjunct counselors to do some of these tasks. The individual hired for this position would be in place of those ad= junct counselors. She indicated that a meeting was held this morning with April Woods, Anne Stadler, Lynda Halttunen, Katheryn Garlow, Jose Fernandez, Rocco Versaci, Marty Furch, and Julie Ivey on this issue because of its possible implications for both the Faculty Senate and the PFF. The history was discu= ssed but no consensus was reached on the issue.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Patrick added that since that meeting it has been decided that the job announcement= will be pulled and a new announcement will be sent out eliminating any reference= to Electronic Ed Plans.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Anne Stadler provided some history and the current process of how students are l= ed through the ESL program.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; April Woods questioned the language included in the job description and also reiterated the need to work together collegially and also follow the govern= ance planning process with regard to creating&n= bsp; new positions. <= o:p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Marty Furch indicated that the job description has be= en rewritten and the wording changed. A copy of the amended job description was provided for review.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie pointed out that the big issue here is that there used to be a Counselor as= signed to this work and now those services offered will be provided by an individu= al who does not meet the minimum qualifications of a Counselor position. Many = in the Counseling department feel that if an advisor is hired he/she must be working under the umbrella of a Counselor who is assigned a percentage of t= ime towards ESL. Or, student advisement must be done by an adjunct counselor no= t an advisor. Whatever the arrangement, a Counselor needs to be an integral part= of advising students.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie also distributed copies provided by Maria Miller of a resolution passed unanimously by the Counseling Department. Maria has asked that the Senate review it and vote on whether they support it as a group.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Lengthy discussion followed. Senators observed that much of this discussion would be more appropriate at a joint meeting with the two departments to identify a resolution. The Counseling an= d ESL Departments are urged by the Senate to meet together as a group and discuss= how to best serve students.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Patrick O’Brien provided copies of excerpts of a publication by The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (January 1995) entitled, The Ro= le of Counseling Faculty in the California Community Colleges. The entire paper can be found at:

http://www.academicsenate.cc.ca.us/Publications/Papers/Rol= e_counselingfaculty.html.

Moti= on 6 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, O’Brien: Whereas, Title 5 Regulations specify that California Community Colleges offer counseling students for their students.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Whereas, Title 5 clearly articulates the requirements for counseling programs to inc= lude academic counseling, career counseling, and personal counseling and crisis intervention.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Whereas, the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges has clarified the role of counseling as a discipline in the California Community College Syst= em and recognized that professional counseling faculty are critical to assure = that students achieve their educational and career goals.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Whereas, Counselors provide guidance on academic choices; on career decisions; and on personal issues; they are trained to intervene in crisis situations; they a= re at the heart of all matriculation activities; and their knowledge and guida= nce is essential to smooth and successful student transfer to four-year institutions.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; ~~Be it resolved that Palomar<= /st1:PlaceName> College supports a counseling program that is staffed by professional counseling faculty and n= ot paraprofessional advisors.~~

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Patrick O’Brien suggested that the last paragraph be replaced with language similar to that which is included in the Statewide Academic Senate’s paper regarding the role of a faculty counselor versus a paraprofessional.<= o:p>

Moti= on 7 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, O’Brien: Faculty Senate acceptance of Motion 6 with the replace= ment of the last paragraph as follows:

Be it resolved tha= t Palomar College supports a counseling prog= ram that is staffed by professional counseling faculty. Furthermore, the Senate adopts the standards defined by the Statewide Academic Senate, in its publication dated January, 1995, entitled “The Role of Counseling Fac= ulty in the California Community Colleges” with regard to paraprofessional= s.

Instructional

Plan= ning Council: = ; Katie Townsend-Merino announced that faculty members are needed to serve on the Instructional Planning Council. Currently, there is only one faculty member= serving on this very important council. The group meets on Wednesdays from 2:30 = 211; 4:00 p.m.

Moti= on 8 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Francis, Gowen: To suspend the agenda to address action item F, Request to Remove Specific Senate Minutes from the Website.

Requ= est to Remove

Spec= ific Senate

Minu= tes from the

Webs= ite: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Follo= wing up on discussion which occurred at last week’s meeting, Katie Townsend-Merino indicated that a faculty member has requested that three se= ts of Faculty Senate minutes be removed from the website: April 26, 2004, May = 3, 2004, and October 11, 2004.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; There was a comment made that this is a dangerous precedent to set. Katie asked if there were any Senators who wished to make the request that the minutes be removed. No requests were made; therefore this item will be removed from the agenda.

Moti= on 9 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Brannick: To suspend the agenda to address action item E, F= and FW: Petitioning for a late W.

F an= d FW: Petitioning

For = a late W: = ; &n= bsp; Monika Brannick provided the following history of the FW grade as it has been brou= ght to the Senate and included in the minutes:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; February 5, 2001: A Title 5 change effective January 1, 2001, giving local districts= the option to offer FW grades for students who have ceased to participate in a course after the last day to officially drop or withdraw without having achieved a passing grade.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; February 12, 2001: Herman Lee outlined to the Senate the proposed addition of the FW grade to BP411.1. The Senate approved the addition of the FW grade to BP411= .1.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; March 26, 2001: It was announced during the President’s Advisory Council re= port that the FW grade would be forwarded to the Governing Board for approval.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; April 16, 2001: It was announced that the Governing Board approved the FW grade.<= o:p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; November 26, 2001: A faculty member asked for clarification on an announcement sent = out stating that faculty members can assign an FW grade to students “who = have stopped attending classes without officially withdrawing.” In respons= e to a question regarding to what degree students are able to provide input on receiving an FW rather than an F, it was stated that it is completely at the faculty member’s discretion to assign an FW but that it would be easi= er for the student to petition to have the F changed to a W if it were an FW.<= o:p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; December 3, 2001: It was reported that a memorandum from Herman Lee specifically sta= ted that if a faculty member assigns an F grade rather than an FW grade, the student cannot petition to have that F changed to a W. It was believed that= the intent of the Senate was to allow students to petition to have F and FW gra= des changed to a W by providing substantial reasoning why they did not continue= to attend the class. There was discussion on the need to clarify Title 5 guidelines before taking any proposed action.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika added that there may be some misconceptions about students who drop after t= he drop deadline. Many faculty members have thought that after the drop deadli= ne the student is locked into the class and could not withdraw. But according = to Herman Lee, when a student drops a course after the drop deadline a default grade is assigned: an FW.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Herman Lee has indicated that an audit discovered that we were not reporting finan= cial aid students who stopped attending classes, causing a potential liability f= or overpayment of federal funds. Consequently, we had to change the process to allow drops after the drop deadline and so the default FW grade records.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; When asked when this change was done, Herman Lee indicated that the FW grade was= the default grade in Fall 2002 for financial aid and veterans students only. Once the drop deadline has passed = all students are committed to an evaluative grade or FW.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; For Senators’ information, Mary San Agustin provided copies of a memo sen= t to all instructors regarding U.S. Department of Education Regulations on Certification of Last Date of Attendance. Regulations state that if a stude= nt drops, withdraws (officially or unofficially), or receives the grade of an = F, FW, or NC from a course, the institution is required to determine if funds = are to be repaid back to the Federal IV Programs by the student and the institution. In order for the institution to be in compliance with this Fed= eral regulation and determine if funds are to be repaid, the student’s “Last Date of Attendance” must be reported. <= /p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators asked that Herman Lee be invited to address the Senate on this issue and th= at it be brought back next week.

Moti= on 10 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Levy, Nebelsick-Tagg: To postpone action item E, F and FW: Petitioning for a late W, until next week.

Moti= on 11 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Francis, Kelber: To extend the meeting until 4:15 p.m.

Fisc= al Stability Task

Force Report: = &nb= sp; Bonnie Dowd presented the remainder of the Fiscal Stability Task Force Report. A c= opy of the written report is as follows:

&= nbsp; Fiscal Stability Task Force Mid-Year Report

Background

In 2001, Palomar College initiated a strategic plan= ning process, which set goals and action priorities for the three-year Strategic Plan 2005. One of the five goals identified in the plan was Resource Management, which set as an action the need to “utilize existi= ng human, physical, technological, and fiscal resources efficiently and effectively and increase external funding.”

The FY04-05 budget development process was a rolled-over budget as had been the case throughout recent years at Palomar College. Because Palomar has never engaged = in a “zero-based” budgeting development, budgets that exist througho= ut the district have never or at least in recent years justified unit budgets. It was hoped that the FY04-05 budget could have included a restoration of the planning council reductions taken as a result of a statewide budget crisis during the previo= us fiscal year and address additional district needs of equipment, supplies, a= nd increased operating costs. Gi= ven the fact that the budget crisis is expected to continue into FY05-06, Palomar College projects that it will cont= inue to run an operating deficit unless budgeting issues are addressed that shift current budgets, reduce expenses or identify new sources of revenue. <= /o:p>

In anticipation of the projected deficits for FY04-05 and 05-06, the Strategic Planning Council directed the Revenue Allocation Committee (RAC) on May 18, 2004 to form a task force consisting of RAC members plus two members from e= ach of the other four governance’ planning councils (Instructional Planni= ng Council, Student Services Planning Council, Administrative Services Planning Council and Human Resources Services Planning Council) to address the follo= wing objective as assigned by SPC:

FSTF’s role is to develop a two-year plan to balance the budget where expenditures equal revenues by the end of FY05-06 and fund balances equal a minimum of a 3% reserve on June 30, 2006.

FSTF reports to the Strategic Planning Council and the expected outcome of its w= ork is a balanced budget with detail documentation on “right-sizing= 221; of expenditure plan due January 1, 2005.

To accomplish the stated objectives, a true commitment to “right-sizing&= #8221; the budget requires open dialogue and agreement to engage in an organizatio= nal and budget review to determine where the college is over-spending or misspending. The task force w= as formed in May 2004 and met regularly throughout the summer and fall of 2004= . At FSTF’s first meeting on June 24, 2004, Je= rry Patton began the meeting by giving a brief budget update = that indicated that there was a serious shortfall in FTES for FY04-05, which wou= ld result in $843,000 loss of revenue significantly increasing the deficit bal= ance projected for the year. Two g= oals were discussed and established at this initial meeting:

1.&n= bsp; = ; Reduce defic= it financing for FY2004-05 to less than $1 million

2.&n= bsp; = ; Increase allocation for retiree medical to a realistic level

To achieve the above stated goals, Joe Newmyer (Interim Vice President, Financ= e) and Jerry Patton, suggested th= at FSTF

1.&n= bsp; = ; Review every vacancy

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Consider not replacing

Consider transfers to fill essential positions.

2.&n= bsp; = ; Review discretionary budgets

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Reduce 6000 allocations to absolute necessities

Review expenditures in other discretionary budget= s for last 3 years

3.&n= bsp; = ; Review other outgoing sources

4.&n= bsp; = ; Review Desig= nated Funds

It was also recommended that a review of the use of classroom be done by<= /o:p>

1.&n= bsp; = ; Comparing se= ats filled with lower of total seats or class maximum

2.&n= bsp; = ; Comparing ca= pacity with usage for each classroom

Additionally, the task force must attempt to “right size” the FY05-06 budget = in an attempt to reach fiscal stability.

Actions taken to address FY04-05 deficits

1.&n= bsp; = ; Retiree Medi= cal fund/restricted funds – the intent is to have all current categorical programs allocating for retiree health benefits by FY05-06 and to ensure th= at all future grants be submitted with the costs listed in the grant applicati= on. It was further agreed that current categorical programs might require time to phase in the costs over the next= two years but that every attempt would be made by each of the Vice Presidents to accomplish the intent of this action (July 13, 2004, FSTF motion).

2.&n= bsp; = ; Child Develo= pment Subsidy – because there is a sufficient ending balance, the district would forego making the FY2004-05 matching subsidy (July 13, 2004, FSTF motion).

3.&n= bsp; = ; Capital Outl= ay Budgets – it was agreed that 600010 accounts would be reduced to bare essentials for Fund 11 Unrestricted and Designated budgets to reduce the overall deficits. Department/= unit equipment or capital outlay purchases would have to be made by transferring from 400010 and 500010 accounts (July 13, 2004, FSTF motion). $100K in funds was identified for Instructional Equipment Emergencies in addition to $211K to replace out of warranty servers and switches such that a total of only $311 would remain in the Capital Outlay account with approximately $528K going toward the current deficit reduction (July 27, 2004, FSTF motion). As a result of additional Block Gr= ant funds, the $100K identified for Instructional Equipment Emergencies was not required and went toward the current deficit reduction (August 12, 2004, FS= TF motion). On August 24, 2004 a motion was passed that approved $211,394 from Capital Outlay Budgets for the purchase of the out of warranty servers and switches with remaining balance used to off-set budget deficit.<= /span>

4.&n= bsp; = ; Apprenticesh= ip Program – it was reported that this designated fund projected a $91,5= 84 balance after revenues and expenses. It was recommended that this ending fund balance be used to assist in offsetting the 2004-05 deficit (August 12, 2004, FSTF motion).

5.&n= bsp; = ; Other Design= ated Accounts – a recommendation was brought forward that three areas under the Administrative Services Division’s ending balances be used to off= -set FY04-05 deficit as follows: Follet Minimum Guarantee balance of $135,000; B= FAP (Board Financial Aid Program) is currently over-funded by $40,000 and Indir= ect Overhead has a surplus after expenses of $250,000 (August 12, 2004 FSTF). Discussion of proposed increase of= per copy costs at Comet Copy to include discussion of possibility of charging student’s material fees (August 24, 2004 FSTF). The need to review vacancy positio= ns before hiring the V.P. Human Resources and Foundation Office Director as we= ll as, all consultant contracts were addressed in various discussions with no = specific conclusion.

The actions above reduced the FY04-05 deficit by just over one million dollars. However, after meeti= ng throughout the summer and having addressed the issues listed above, the task force members expressed concern that there had been no corrections to the budget or structural issues. Thus the original task of “right-sizing” the budget for FY05-06 had not been accomplished. Concern was also expressed about the possibility that Palomar College projections indicate that it will not meet the Chancellor’s Office’s growth projections resulting in $2.4 million being lost to the district. At its September 21, 2004 meetings= , FSTF members voted to begin working in sub-groups in order to effectively tackle= the broad range of issues that needed to be addressed in an attempt to create a budgeting structure that would ensure that the district remains fiscally st= able beginning with FY05-06.

Recommended Process

The task force agreed to continue to meet during its regularly scheduled fall 2= 004 RAC meeting times on the 1^st and 3^rd Tuesday of each month. In addition, the working sub groups will meet on alternate Tuesdays = with each of the sub-groups assigned specific tasks. The sub-groups would report back t= o the large group with any issue that is ready for consideration by the entire ta= sk force, to be brought forward as a First Reading Action Item. The four (4) working sub-gro= ups were formed (as approved by FSTF on October 5, 2004) with the following assignments:

Group 1: Tasked with a review of spend= ing and staffing practices for all expenditures as compared to Gooder or other comparable colleges based upon factors such as FTES, WSCH.

Group 2: Tasked with the development o= f an organization/program formula model worksheet (e.g., zero-based budgeting in= an effort to develop applicable formulas.)

Group 3: Tasked with a review of the colleges organization/structure to determine appropriate workload issues, vacancy replacements and appropriate level of spending commitment for Educa= tion Centers.

Group 4: Tasked with reviewing Enterprise operat= ions, SIG Contract, Advancement/Foundation office arrangements and other consulta= nt contracts. and a review of designated accounts.

Progress Re= port of Groups and Actions Taken

The four sub-groups have met regularly since being formed in October 2004. It has become clear that FSTF must continue to work beyond the January 2005 date originally identified

to = address the FY05-06 budget. The group= s are committed to the task at hand and are presenting this report as a mid-year status report to SPC with a request that a report also be made at the Janua= ry Board of Trustees meeting.

To attain the stated goals, the four groups developed and compiled the followi= ng Guiding Principles (not listed in = any ranked order), which were accepted by the entire FSTF at its November 30, 2= 004 meeting.

Principle	Comments
1.= &nb= sp; Decisions = made that impact fiscal resources must be based upon comparison data and ranki= ng of Palomar College as compared to the Gooder Colleges. (Group 1)	Palomar College adopted the Gooder Colleges as the comparison = group more than a dozen years ago by board action. The 16 California colleges identified are s= imilar to Palomar in size and structure and represent a comparable group to establish b= enchmark data for decision-making at Palomar College. Due to variances in how data can= be reported by colleges to the Chancellor’s office, additional research has been and will continue to be done to validate comparable information.=
2.= &nb= sp; Any budget= ing model developed must facilitate greater focus on and alignment with Palomar College’s mission & strategic plan. (Group 2)	While recognizing th= at any budgeting model can only play a partial role in aligning activities with = the vision, mission and values of the college, there still needs to be an explicit consideration of such alignment within the budget process. In addition, the model must ensure that the human, physical, technological, = and financial resources to achieve its broader educational purposes, including stated learning outcomes in accordance with accreditation requirements are met.
3.= &nb= sp; The budget= ing model must enable the college units to take greater control over managing their budgets so as to enable them to undertake mid to long range planning with greater certainty. (Group 2)	The budgeting model = should enable all units to plan over a 3-year period with an emphasis placed on variance analysis of actuals to budget in the preparation of the 3-year forecast. The budgeting mod= el should also include the adopted multi-year flexible budget plan with a requirement that all budget expenditures require justification.
4.= &nb= sp; The budget= ing model and any review or changes to organizational structure including vac= ancy replacements must be transparent and trustworthy encouraging benefit and = risk sharing across the campus. (Group 2, 3 and 4)	There should be a co= mmitment to achieving transparency, to monitor and report based on reliable data w= ith the needs and priorities for the institution driving allocations. The budgeting model should also include a 3^rd party mid-year rotational review process by RAC = to include a process for objective consideration of any budget reductions or increases. Uniform procedures regarding vacancy replacements must be established and brought through the appropriate Planning Council to SPC a= nd include a 3^rd party review by RAC before proceeding with hirin= g of any replacements.
5.= &nb= sp; The budget= ing model must facilitate the setting of strategic priorities and provide allocation of funds that are driven by student demand and other high prio= rity areas. (Group 2)	The budgeting model = should include flexibility that allows for shifting of resources based upon stud= ent load needs but with regard to a commitment to remaining a comprehensive learning college. In additi= on, the budgeting model needs to include an opportunity to examine the funding being provided to support the broad initiatives of the guiding strategic = plan and accreditation requirements.
6.= &nb= sp; The budget= ing model must address a district wide level of service and determine the fun= ding split between academic and support activities to provide that appropriate level of service. (Group 2)	The budgeting model = should include a determination of the funding split between academic and support activities and consideration of which services are provided on what basis e.g., 24/7 college versus some other service constraint.
7.= &nb= sp; A review o= f the organizational structure to determine appropriate workload issues, process for handling vacancy replacements, and appropriate level of spending comm= itment for Education Centers must be tied to the vision, mission and goals of the strategic plan and accreditation standard requirements. (Group 3)	While recognizing th= at a review of any organizational structure must include input from those who = know the areas best i.e., the Vice Presidents and the Planning Councils there still needs to be an explicit consideration of any structural changes or vacancy replacements with regard to budget resource availability.
8.= &nb= sp; There must= be NO layoffs and an “ideal organizational structure” developed that provides for a five year plan on how to achieve that structure when opportunities are presented through vacancies. (Group 3)	In accordance with Accreditation Standard III: Resources: Human resource planning is integra= ted with institutional planning. The institution systematically assesses the effective use of human resources = and uses the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement. (Note: W= ith the exception of “soft money” budgets.)
9.= &nb= sp; The distri= ct must “live within our means” without regard for growth money. The ultimate goal be= ing to “right size” the budget and eliminate deficit spending such t= hat any growth funds are used for other than base costs. (Group 1, 2, 3 &= 4)	In accordance with Accreditation Standard III: Resources: The institution effectively uses i= ts human, physical, technology, and financial resources to achieve its broad educational purposes, including stated student learning outcomes. In addition, the structure must support attainment of the mission, vision and goals of the strategic plan= .
10. &n= bsp; Enterprise Operations and Consultant Contracts benefits impact on student and distri= ct success must outweigh the costs. (Group 4)	While recognizing th= at district Enterprise Operations contribute to the services offered it is imperative that any analysis must include a focus on the costs and benefi= ts of each operation to determine whether the benefits outweigh the associat= ed costs. In addition, any consultant contracts must include a review to determine whether or not the contracts should be continued or if internal staff could better serve the needs of the district. All reviews must include an analysis of the impact on student learning and im= pact to the district’s remaining fiscally stable. (Group 4)

Timeline Update and Group Status Re= port

This mid-year report given to SPC at its December 7, 2004 meeting represents an attempt to communicate to the campus community including the Governing Board the work that has been accomplished thus far and that which is yet to be accomplished. FSTF requests t= hat it be granted an extension beyond the original January 2005 date defined at the creation of this task force in May 2004.&n= bsp; It is anticipated that Groups 1 and 2 will be able to complete its w= ork in time for FY05-06 budget development process deadlines in March 2005. Groups 3 and 4 will continue to wo= rk throughout the spring semester until it has completed all of its assigned reviews so an extension to May 2005 is required.

Following is a summary report of the work completed thus far for each group (full mee= ting notes of FSTF are available at www.palomar.edu/commttees.htm).

Group 1 has completed an analysis = of the Gooder Colleges. It has been determined that Palomar’s ranking within the 16 colleges is not consistent across all activity codes. Instructional Activity and Facilities= in particular are significantly under-funded and fall within the bottom quarti= le as compared to the other Gooder Colleges. Group 1 is in the process of validat= ing the data but has determined that certain inequities must be addressed. Two preliminary goals have been established. First, it was ag= reed that the proportion of funds allocated to Instructional Administration (Activity 6000) should be reduced over a three year period. The second goal is to increase the proportion of funds allocated to Instruction (Activity 0100-5900) and to Ma= intenance & Operations (Activity 6500). In addition, Group 1 will review and develop guidelines for grant applications submitted by Palomar College to determine fiscal impact of any grants applied for currently and in the future. <= /o:p>

Group 2 is in the process of devel= oping a budgeting worksheet that includes a variance analysis of the three most recent years of “actuals” as a determinant for building FY05-06 budgets and justification of all budget expenditures such that budgets are = built rather than rolled over for FY05-06. The worksheet will also include= a provision for the multi-year flexible budgeting model adopted by the distri= ct in December 2003 (see Attachment A). The worksheet is not intended to be punitive or to reduce budgets bu= t to shift budget resources as needed while ensuring that each unit is able to plan for its current and future ne= eds at an agreed upon level of service.

Group 3 has gathered organizational charts, which will be sent to the four primary Planning Councils for their review. Vacancy procedures have been discussed but not finalized and it is agreed that procedures must address workload issues before any position is replaced. Also, all replaceme= nts must include consideration of the disparity in the various constituency matrixes. There must be a commitment to equalization of all of the various matrixes as ranked against= the Gooder Colleges. This group will need to continue its work into the spring = 2005 semester to address the above issues as well as the Education Centers, whic= h it has been unable to review up to this point in time.

Group 4 is reviewing the contracts= and enterprise organizations and will continue to do so in the spring 2005 seme= ster in order to make recommendations as to how they should be handled in FY05-06 and subsequent budget forecasts. In addition, the group expects to bring forward recommendations to FSTF early in the spring semester as to how Comet Copy can be self-supporting.

Concluding Actions – Fall 200= 4

At its last meeting of the semester (November 30^th), FSTF passed the following motions and agreed that sub-groups would not meet until the spring semester but that FSTF will meet as a total group on December 7^th for its last meeting of the semester following SPC.

Motio= n: Ac= cept the Over-Budgeting proposal to include procedures that would be a two-step proc= ess and identify Phase I and Phase II. Phase I would include all levels identified and Phase II would be at= the FSTF level. Shift paragraphs identifying changes. (Dowd/Townsend-Merino) MSC. (See Attachment B)

Motio= n: A= ccept the recommendation of Group 1 as follows:

It is the recommendation of Group 1 of the Fiscal Stability Task Force that a policy should be established that all existing = and proposed grants be brought to SPC and RAC for approval if they meet one of = the two following criteria:

1. &nb= sp; The provisions of the grant limit the college’s recovery of indirect cost= s to a percentage less than full cost recovery.= Currently, it is estimated that full cost recovery would require indirect cost recovery of at least 27%. Or

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 2. &= nbsp; The provisions of the grant require matching funds from the college.=

It is the expectation that SPC and RAC would exam= ine the grant in terms of the mission and purpose of the college. (Gordon/Jay) = MSC.

Motio= n: Ac= cept Guiding Principles as written in the mid-year report with minor corrections= and the inclusion of “with the exception of soft-money” to be added= in #8. (Townsend-Merino/ Gordon)= MSC.

Motio= n: Su= bmit report to SPC with recommendation that the mid-year report be given to the Governing Board at the January meeting. (Jay/Neault-Kelber) MSC.=

Fiscal Stability Task Force Members= hip (includes the Revenue Allocation Committee (RAC) = and reps from each planning council):<= o:p>

Co-Chairs:

Bonnie Dowd (RAC)

Joe Newmyer (RAC)

Members:

Berta Cuaron (RAC)

Kathy Davis (RAC)

Sue Doran (RAC)

Carmine Eckman (RAC & HRSPC)

David Forsyth (RAC & PFF)

Tricia Frady (RAC)

Rick Gommel (IPC)

Sherry Gordon (RAC)

Ken Jay (ASPC)

Barbara Neault-Kelber (RAC)

Rick Kratcoski (RAC)

Joe Madrigal (RAC)

Becky McCluskey (RAC)

Wendy Metzger (ASPC)

Katie Townsend-Merino (RAC)

Jack Miyamoto (RAC)

Renee Roth (SSPC)

Mollie Smith (RAC)

Buddy Springer (SSPC)

Rocco Versaci (PFF)

Multi-Year Flexible Budgeting Work plan

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Work plan

Background

As part of 2005 Strategic Plan, the Annual Implementation Plans for FY02-03 and FY03-04 has included a goal under Reso= urce Management of exploring options for multi-year flexible budget planning. The assigned groups were Director = of Fiscal Services and Revenue Allocation Committee (RAC). Because of the mid-year budget cri= sis of FY02-03 and the Governor’s proposed budget cuts of $530 million for FY03-04, the Revenue Allocation Committee postponed any work on this task during the FY02-03 fiscal year. And, considering the budget cuts in the FY03-04 legislative budget, = plus the rumored cuts again in mid-year of FY03-04, RAC postponed any work on th= is Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) until October, 2003.

Definition of Terms in Work Plan

Unrestricted General Fund: that portion of the College’s budget that= is used to account for the ordinary operations of the College. These funds are available for any legally authorized purpose not specified for payment by other funds.

Budget= : a collection of income and expense transactions for any unit, program, departmental, division, vice president or presidential area of operations.

Reserve for Carry-Over: a holding place for carryover funds until disbursed.

Assignments

Due to the nature of this goal, RAC formed a subcommittee to study the AIP. This committee has met several times this fall to develop a recommendation to RAC for consideration and final submittal to SPC.

Goals

The subcommittee developed these goals: 1) mainta= in and sustain the financial stability and integrity of the college; 2) carry-over process must be simple and easy to implement and maintain; 3) assure roll-o= ver accumulated funds will remain available; 4) borrow from accumulation during= a budget crisis with priority on replacement when crisis is resolved; 5) addr= ess inequities between departmental budgets.

Tasks

The subcommittee established these tasks: 1) dete= rmine what data would be required to develop a multi-year flexible budgeting plan= ; 2) what simulations, if any, would reveal the financial impact on ending fund balances and 3) develop a recommendation for multi-year flexible budget planning.

Timelines

The Annual Implementation Plan requires RAC to de= velop a plan by June, 2004. The subcommittee set the end of the semester to develop a draft recommendation = to RAC. RAC will refine and subm= it a final recommendation to SPC in time for consideration for the tentative bud= get for FY04-05.

Progress

The subcommittee was advised that prior year̵= 7;s data would not produce any meaningful interpretation or results that would indicate whether to consider or not consider budget carry-overs and how much carry-over balances would be appropriate. The three primary areas discussed were:

<= span style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>· = Any study of= prior year’s ending balances would be meaningless due to the express intent= of all departments to expend all available funds prior to the purchasing cutoff each year. Prior year’s unspent balances in supplies, operations and equipment would not necessarily correlate to future unspent balances.

<= span style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>· = Any simulati= on of unexpended supplies, operations and equipment by either a flat amount or a percentage really was meaningless when trying to compare to prior year̵= 7;s unexpended balances because those prior year’s unspent balances occur= red under differing circumstances and are an unpredictable indicator.

<= span style=3D'font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol'>· = The amount of unexpended funds in the object codes for supplies, operations, and equipmen= t is miniscule when compared to salaries and benefits. Unspent funds in prior ye= ars that have contributed to the financial health of the institution are primar= ily from salaries and benefits from unfilled positions.

The subcommittee also considered that departmental supplies, operations and equipment budgets were decreased twice since the e= arly 1990’s and were never restored except through augmentations from vari= ous sources outside of state appropriations.&n= bsp; The FY03-04 budget cuts makes the third time these budget have been reduced since the early 1990s without a subsequent restoration. There is a very serious need to in= crease the funds available for these types of expenditures.

Recommendation

The subcommittee recommends the following process= and procedures for multi-year flexible budgeting:

1.&n= bsp; Car= ry-over recommendation: 75% of unexpe= nded balances in supplies (4000 object code), operating expenses (5000 object co= de) and equipment (6000 object code) as of June 30 each year. However, each yea= r, RAC will review the state apportionment and local revenue estimates to determine if there is a need to adjust the percentage. For instance in FY03-04 and FY04-0= 5, the statewide budget crisis will preclude any percentage carryover and retentio= n.

2.&n= bsp; The release of carryover funds will not occur at least until the Governor’= ;s January Budget each year. Car= ryover funds will be held and identified in a reserve account until liquidated.

3.&n= bsp; RAC recognizes that there are significant inequities between departments in the funding amount for supplies, operating expenses and equipment. SPC is requested to consider reallocation where appropriate as each planning council develops their acti= on plans and budgets.

4.&= nbsp; Sh= ould the budget crisis reach a level of fiscal instability that the District is threatened:

= · = RAC will req= uest that accumulated carryover funds be frozen.

= · = The College = may borrow from any accumulation to restore the fiscal stability of the Distric= t.

= · = The District= will repay any respective budget the amount of borrowed funds in the next fiscal year after recovery.

= · = The College = will attempt to prevent the reduction of force through the use of accumulated carryover funds. <= o:p>

5.&n= bsp; The reductions made in the FY03-04 budget year to meet the state budget crisis = are to be restored in reverse order as submitted and accepted by SPC, unless the applicable planning council chooses to re-prioritize.

a. &n= bsp; RAC will make recommendations to SPC after review of the estimated state and restoration,= and the source of funding from which to make the restoration.=

b. &n= bsp; In the inter= est of financial stability, RAC may wait for any mid-year budget adjustments and f= or the Governor’s May Revise before releasing funds for restoration.

Attachment B: OVER-BUDGETING

Many of us were surprised but also distressed when the ending balance for 03-04 = was significantly higher than had been projected. It is imperative that we make sure= that a similar situation does not occur when the books are closed for 04-05. Some steps have already been taken= to avoid the surprise. Departmen= ts are not cutting back like they did last year.&= nbsp; Vacancies are being filled at a faster rate than in previous years.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Some measures were approved by FST= F that will reduce the potential for a larger ending balance than was projected. One issue that has not been addres= sed in total is the ‘over-budgeting’ that occurred in 03-04 and carried over into 04-05. The process = for addressing “over-budgeting” will be a two-phase process:

Phase I - The amount of ‘over-budgeting’ must be identified

First of all it is important to note that the budgets for permanent staff are established by computing the salaries and benefits and allocating the funds accordingly. The only ‘over-budgeting’ that occurs in these budgets is usually caused= by vacancies which are hard to predict. However the discretionary budgets usually follow a pattern and in mo= st cases are easy to predict. FS= TF has been provided a package that shows the actual expenditures for the prior th= ree years and the current budget for each account in each department. If the 04-05 budget is higher than= the actual expenditures of any of the three prior years, then it is likely that this account is ‘over-budgeted’. To address this, FSTF proposes the following:

A) We identify discretionary budgets as those in Unrestricted Fund 11 with Obj= ect Codes: 1400, 2300, 2400, 4000, & 5000.

B) We compare the 04-05 discretionary budgets with the actual expenditures in = each of the last three years and indicate the 04-05 budgets should be reduced to= the level of the maximum expenditure for any of the last three years.

C) We allow each area to provide justification why special circumstances exist that indicates the budget established in B) is not feasible. This justification will be reviewe= d and a final budget amount will be established.

Phase II ̵= 1; How the funds identified in Phase I are allocated will be addressed in the spri= ng semester by FSTF with the ten Guiding Principles as the foundational basis = for any re-allocation of budgets.

1. &nb= sp; The allocation of funds identified in Phase I must be made either to:

Reduce the current deficit financing

Provide compensation increases through the collec= tive bargaining process or

Meet high priority needs throughout the campus as determined by FSTF/RAC.

Phase 2 is expected to continue into the spring semester and may be partly out of= the hands of FSTF; however, Phase 2 cannot begin until Phase 1 is completed. While Phase 1 is being done, a pro= cedure for allocating any funds will be developed by FSTF. After the budgets in every = department have been compared with the prior three years of actual expenditures, then the re-allocation process can= begin at the VP, Dean, & Director level and based upon input from the Planning Councils utilizing last year’s prioritized list.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Again, Senate members commended Bonnie and the members of the task force for all of their hard work.

ADJO= URNMENT: &= nbsp; The meeting was adjourned at 4:26 p.m.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respectfully submitted,

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;