|
By Howard Stahl
As summer approached with the prospect of another budget stalemate developing in Sacramento, Dr. Tsang championed a Town Hall meeting in June to inform the college community of the ramifications of the proposed state budget reductions for our college. Over the summer, the DPAC Budget Committee developed a number of budget recommendations to deal with our funding shortfall. In the shared governance model at our district, all approved recommendations of the DPAC Budget Committee get forwarded to DPAC (the District Planning And Advisory Council) to be discussed. DPAC, in turn, makes recommendations to the Superintendent/President.
In this article, I will be describing the recommendations made by the DPAC Budget Committee. These recommendations were supported by all the campus constituent groups represented at the DPAC Budget Committee, including faculty, staff, students and administration.
Understanding The “Deficit Factor”
Like any other budget, the college budget can be broken down into two major sections: the revenue received and the expenses paid. College revenue comes from a variety of sources including our state and federal government and our local property tax. In last few years, our state funding has not been a reliable source of revenue because the state does not have enough cash to pay all its bills.
Like all other state institutions of higher education, our college educates students with the expectation that the state will pay us for the work we perform. Unfortunately, in the past few years, the state’s general fund has been unable to support all the funding demands placed upon it. As result, the state does not pay the district completely for the services we provide to our students. Instead, the state implements a “deficit factor” which reduces our revenue by a certain amount.
The chart below illustrates this funding problem. The blue bars show our apportionment revenue, which is the amount of money the state should pay our college for the number of students we served that year. Over the past few years, the blue bars are going up, showing increased levels of revenue as our college has regrown out of the recent period of stabilization. In contrast, the red bars show what the state actually paid our college. For each year, please note the difference between the two bars. Some years, the two bar match. But more recently, they don’t. This difference is due to the “deficit factor” in actual dollar terms. This factor shows the inability of the state to meet its obligations. To our college, this deficit factor is lost revenue and is one of our biggest budgeting challenges. 
The Latest Budget Solution: “Workload Reduction”
Moving forward into the new academic year 2009-2010, notice the dramatic drop in state revenue shown in the chart above. At the current time, the District is expected to receive approximately $4 million less in revenue from the state. This drop in revenue is being implemented as a “workload reduction” of 3.39%. In response to the state budget problems, the district is being asked to serve fewer students. In reality, given the state of the economy and our open access mission, we are, in fact, seeing more students enroll, not less. At exactly the time when state residents need us, the college is being told to work less.
Budget Savings Ideas
It is in response to these funding problems that the district began seeking budget savings ideas to improve its financial outlook. Following the DPAC Town Hall meeting on June 10, 2009, the DPAC Budget Committee considered all the budget savings ideas that were submitted by the campus community. In addition, a number of different savings ideas were generated by the committee members themselves. In total, 40 different ideas were evaluated. 22 savings ideas were supported and forwarded to DPAC for its approval. DPAC approved 21 of these saving ideas and forwarded these recommendations to the Superintendent/President. These savings ideas are listed in the table below.
Normal.dotm 0 0 1 217 1241 Carmelina Films 10 2 1524 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
| 1. Close campus each Friday during intersessions. | | 2. Reduce the costs of mailing, including schedules and events calendars, by 50 %. | | 3. Reduce advertising/marketing expenditures by 50 %. | | 4. Reduce consultants and temporary limited-term employees by 50 %. | | 5. Reduce conference/travel costs by 40 %. | | 6. Health Benefits Plan Change Incentive. | | 7. End campus airport lease as soon as feasible. | | 8. Ask Personnel Commission to reduce costs proportional to the District. | | 9. Reduce legal fees by 30 %. | | 10. Reduce utilities by 5 % through conservation. | | 11. 1/22 reduction in all management salary expenditures, mirroring reduction in FTES. | | 12. Adjust categorical management overhead in relation to funding. | | 13. Halt the transfer of GASB 45 monies to revocable trust until the Board of Trustees offers further guidance. | | 14. Offer retirement incentives to employee groups | | 15. Fund 100 percent of the 2009-10 Retiree H/W cost increase from the CalPERS Irrevocable Trust. | | 16. Ask the Associated Students to contribute up to an additional $200,000 for the Big Blue Bus | | 17. Explore external funding sources for the Big Blue Bus. | | 18. Assuming a portion of fees collected can pay parking staff costs currently borne by the unrestricted fund, collect parking fees on satellite campuses | | 19. Automate the purchasing process as soon as possible. | | 20. Educate faculty/staff to efficiently use copier printing, rather than laser printing. | | 21. Encourage Purchasing to seek alternative office product vendors. |
At the August 19 DPAC meeting, Dr. Tsang’s response to these recommendations was received. Certain recommendations were accepted; some recommendations were accepted on a lesser scale; some recommendations were rejected; and finally, some recommendations are under study and will be decided upon at a later time. The current status of the 21 budget savings recommendations are shown in the table below.
| Accepted | Accepted On A Lesser Scale | Under Study | Rejected | | #8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 | #2, 3, 4, 5, 9 | #1, 6, 14, 19 | #7, 11, 15, 18 | 
The Faculty Association continues to participate in its shared governance role to seek clarity, accountability, and fairness in the way budget decisions are being made. We hope to report soon on the status of the recommendations that, at this time, remain under study.
|
