February 15th, 2001

The meeting started at 8:05am in room 200 with Becky Elam (co-chair), Dewey Heinsma (co-chair), Carol Montez, Gale Ward, Dennis Anderson, Dennis Hogan, and Jeanine Woodford in attendance. Absent were Mary Helen Ish, Guy Reams, Gail Jensen, and the ASB representative.

The minutes of November 16th, 2000 were approved as submitted.

Becky discussed the 50% law. Each sector has been tasked with presenting possible solutions to bring us into compliance. Several options were discussed, as well as, what other colleges have been doing to come into compliance. The negative impact of not meeting the 50% law is that our apportionment will be decreased. There was further discussion between Becky, Dewey, and Dennis Anderson in regard to the needed outcomes and the ways to achieve those outcomes. Some of the suggested recommendations have been to have chargebacks for custodial and/or grounds maintenance and proper coding of expenditures. Exemptions and exclusions were discussed at length.

Becky stated that a plan has to be filed with the Chancellor's office by June 30th of this year as to how we are going to achieve compliance with the 50% law. Dewey stated that he believes it is this committee's responsibility to discuss the recommended solutions that are being brought forward. It was agreed by all members that the Budget Committee will review all 50% proposals prior to being submitted to the Cabinet for review. Additionally, Becky stated that it is hoped that the approved recommendations to solving the 50% issue will be the least disruptive to the students and staff.

The proper coding of expenditures was discussed further by Becky, Dewey, Dennis Anderson, and Dennis Hogan. Dewey stated that most of the faculty are unaware of the 50% law and the impact it will have on the college. Becky mentioned that there are many different scenarios that need to be explored. The question was posed can we afford the cafeteria, the bookstores, and community education courses? Dennis Anderson stated that there is the possibility of the symphony not being around by this time next year. The symphony is a very high cost maintenance program. The general consensus, in regard to the 50% law, is that it is a very complex and complicated issue.

Becky distributed a handout outlining how the PFE dollars were allocated and awarded. Dewey Heinsma had requested that the PFE monies be discussed at this budget meeting. The allocations were awarded based on the proposals that were submitted and how they equated to the six PFE goals. A general PFE discussion between Becky, Dewey, and Dennis Anderson followed explaining the time frame (two years), what happens afterwards, and how some monies were used for people, some for equipment. Becky stated that a PFE certification of the expenditures to the outcomes is due in the Chancellor's office on Friday, February 16th. Future PFE monies may be allocated in direction relation to the completed outcomes. Concern was voiced by Dewey as to the best way to spend PFE monies.

Becky, Dewey, and Dennis Anderson discussed the P1 posting. Becky stated we had an approximate 12% growth rate. We were funded for 3% growth. Dennis Anderson commented how our student demographics have changed, our students are getting younger, and are predominantly more male than female.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00am. (REVISED)

Administration > Committees > Budget Committee > Minutes