Electronic Board Packet for CLPCCD IPBM Revised Feb 25 2014

DRAFT REDLINE VERSION - Integrated Planning & Budget Model (IPBM)

Updated documents with redline notations are marked with a date, and the text edits of Section IV and V in the webpage below are bolded.

Presentation by Chancellor Jackson on IPBM - UPDATED February 28, 2014

If you would like to provide feedback on the IPBM process, please send an email to districtipb@clpccd.org.  Beginning in 2014 we will establish a discussion board for comments.

The following documents are a result of comments and modifications from the CLPCCD community based on open forums held on the campuses and meetings with all constituency groups:  DBSG 12/20/13, Administrator 1/10/14, Chabot Open Forum 1/30/14, District Open Forum 2/4/14, Las Positas Town Hall 2/5/14, DBSG 2/7/14 and DBSG 3/7/14.

Highlighted in BOLD (on this webpage) and in RED (in the documents) are those changes that the Chancellor received as feedback from these constituency groups.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This document contains the following sections that outline the general structure of the Integrated Planning and Budget (IPB) process.

I.    Introduction

II.   Background

• Progress
• Long Range Budget Plan
• Deficit Spending
• Reserves

III.   A Collaborative Process

• List of STEP 3A expenses

IV.   Guiding Principles of the IPB Process

V.    Guiding Principles of the District Wide Committee

VI.    Shared Agreement Decision Model

• Support for Effectiveness

VII.   College Planning

VIII.  District Support Services Planning

IX.    Review and Update

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - CWG Meeting Notes

Attachment 2 - Chancellor's Work Group (CWG) Membership

Attachment 3 - CWG Guiding Principles and Timeline

Attachment 4 - Survey of Campus Budget Allocation Models, Feb 2, 2010

Attachment 5 - CLPCCD BAM PowerPoint- Convocation Presentation

Attachment 6 - Coast Community College District "Adopted Budget Allocation"

Attachment 7 - Gavilan Joint Community College "Linking Program Review and the Annual Budget for Better Outcomes" presented at the Spring 2008 Conference of the Association of College Business Officials (ACBO), 5/18/08

Attachment 8 -

A. Kern Community College District, "Budget Allocation Model: BAM" presented at the ACBO Spring 2008 Conference, 5/19/08

B.  Kern Centralization of Business Services

C.  Kern Mapping of Decision Making

Attachment 9 -

A.  Los Angeles Community College District Budget Allocation Model, presented at the ACBO 2008 Conference, 5/19/08

B.  Los Angeles Community College District Budget 2007-08

Attachment 10 - Los Rios Community College District, "Budgeting Principles and Formulas"

Attachment 11 -

A.  Peralta Community College District, "Budget Allocation Model"

B.  Peralta Community College District Budget Allocation Model Additions-Modifications Supplemental Information

C.  Peralta Community College District Budget Allocation Model Assessment 2013

Attachment 12 - Skyline College, "Balanced Scorecard", Fall 2007, Office of Planning, Research and Institutional Effectiveness

Attachment 13 -

A.  CLPCCD Budget Allocation Model (BAM) Administrative Procedures

B.  CLPCCD Budget Allocation Model (BAM) Procedural Steps and Budget Allocations

Attachment 14 - Status of Deficient Spending

Attachment 15 - Status of Reserves Level

Attachment 16 - Email from LPC President on IPB Process with URL links

DIAGRAMS

Diagram 1. Chabot College Planning & Budget Process

Diagram 2. Las Positas College Planning & Budget Process UPDATED February 28, 2014

Diagram 3. District Service Centers Planning & Budget Process (TBD)

Diagram 4. Integrated Planning and Budget Model (DRAFT) UPDATED February 28, 2014

Diagram 5. Cyclical Evaluation, Planning & Improvement Model

DISTRICT-WIDE COMMITTEES

District Educational Support Services Committee UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

District Facilities Committee UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

District Planning & Budget Committee  UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

District Technology Coordinating Committee  UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

The District Budget Study Group (DBSG) held its initial meeting for the academic year 2013-14 on September 6, 2013.  During the course of this meeting the new Chancellor, hired in July 2013 raised the question of the district's procedures for integrating the budget with the planning processes conducted at the campuses.  Based upon the discussion that ensued it was agreed that a subcommittee of the DBSG would be formed to address the lack of a "formal" budget integration process to include the campuses, the district service centers and Maintenance & Operations.

This ad-hoc group would be called the Chancellor's Work Group (CWG) and would meet in lieu of the full DBSG during the fall semester to establish the parameters and guiding framework for the district-wide integrated planning & budget process (IPB).  The meeting notes for this committee are attached as reference (Attachment 1). The CWG membership as well as the committee's charge and timeline are also included as Attachments 2 and Attachment 3.

In order to expedite the process, a subcommittee of the CWG was formed to conduct the preliminary review of IPB plans from the following seven colleges and districts:

1. Coast Community College District "Adopted Budget Allocation" (Attachment 6)
   
   
2. Gavilan Joint Community College "Linking Program Review and the Annual Budget for Better Outcomes" presented at the Spring 2008 Conference of the Association of College Business Officials (ACBO), May 18, 2008 (Attachment 7)
   
   
3. Kern Community College District, "Budget Allocation Model: BAM" presented at the ACBO Spring 2008 Conference, May 19, 2008 (Attachment 8A, Attachment 8B, Attachment 8C)
   
   
4. Los Angeles Community College District Budget Allocation Model, presented at the ACBO 2008 Conference, May 19, 2008 (Attachment 9A, Attachment 9B)
   
   
5. Los Rios Community College District, "Budgeting Principles and Formulas" (Attachment 10)
   
   
6. Peralta Community College District, "Budget Allocation Model" (Attachment 11A, Attachment 11B, Attachment 11C)
   
   
7. Skyline College, "Balanced Scorecard", Fall 2007, Office of Planning, Research and Institutional Effectiveness (Attachment 12)

Also included in the subcommittee's review was the CLPCCD district report from School Services of California, Inc (SSCal), "Survey of Campus Budget Allocation Models". This report was completed in 2010 and was used to inform the current budget allocation model (BAM) adopted in FY 2012-13; with initial implementation slated for FY 2013-14 (Attachment 4 and Attachment 5).  The SSCal report addressed the question: What models are multi-campus districts using to allocate budgets to their campuses?  The districts surveyed included:

• Foothill-DeAnza Community College District
• Kern Community College District*
• Los Angeles Community College District*
• Los Rios Community College District*
• Rancho Santiago Community College District
• San Diego Community College District
• San Mateo Community College District, and
• Yuba Community College District

As noted above with the asterisk (*), there was a duplication of three colleges from the original report by School Services and those reviewed by the CWG.  In total, twelve different colleges and districts informed the recommendations contained herein as part of the CLPCCD Integrated Planning and Budgeting (IPB) process.

-back to top-

II. BACKGROUND

In November 2009, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) conducted a comprehensive site visit at the two colleges in the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District (CLPCCD): Chabot College and Las Positas College.

The ACCJC made the following recommendation under Standard IIIB.

“To meet the standards, the team recommends that the district and the college

complete the evaluation of the resource allocation process in time for budget development for the 2010-2011 academic year, ensuring transparency and assessing the effectiveness of resource allocations in supporting operations”.

On September 4, 2012, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges notified the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District that after its review of the district’s Annual Fiscal Report (AFR), the District had been identified as having a potential financial risk. The reasons for the review were negative ending balance and significant enrollment loss.

In October 2012, Chabot College and Las Positas College submitted the Midterm Reports outlining the Progress Made, Analysis of Results Achieved, and Evidence, as required for a Midterm Report. The ACCJC accepted the reports from both colleges.

Evidence:

Chabot College Evaluation Report - College/District Recommendation 1 & 2

http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/documents/AccreditationEvaluation.pdf

ACCJC Letter of Acceptance of Mid-Term Report from Chabot College

http://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/letter.asp

Las Positas College Mid-Term Report – College/District Recommendation 1 & 2

http://www.laspositascollege.edu/accreditation/documents/01MidtermReportLPCFinal_10-15 12_withlinks.pdf

ACCJC Letter of Acceptance of Mid-Term Report from Las Positas College

http://www.laspositascollege.edu/accreditation/documents/AccredMidtermLetter2-12-13LPC.pdf

On December 18, 2012, the ACCJC notified the CLPCCD that the Financial Review Team had met and conducted an in-depth analysis of the institution’s financial reports. The Team recommended that the District provide a Special Report to the Commission. On February 5, 2013, the ACCJC requested that the Special Report be provided to the Commission by April 1, 2013. The purpose of the Special Report was to develop a long range budget plan to address deficit spending and low reserves.

Progress

Since the writing of the Midterm Reports there has been another Joint Consortium meeting and several DBSG meetings held. The Interim Chancellor held a Joint Consortium Special Meeting on September 11, 2012 with Chancellor’s Cabinet, Chancellor’s Council and the DBSG. The purpose of the Consortium meeting was to create values (how we are going to heal ourselves and each other) that will be used as we work together throughout the year on various issues including the crafting of a Budget Allocation Model, and of CLPCCD, given the changes happening in higher education. The values and compelling statements from this work were carried forward as the DBSG continued to meet.

Evidence

http://www.clpccd.org/board/Chancellor.php

The DBSG met on October 26, 2012; November 16, 2012; December 7, 2012; January 25, 2013, February 8, 2013; and March 15, 2013.

Evidence

http://www.clpccd.org/business/BusinessServicesDistrictBusinessBudgetStudyGroup.php

Response to Financial Review Team Recommendation

Long Range Budget Plan

At its meeting on March 15, 2013, the DBSG approved and adopted a Funding

Allocation Model (Attachment 13A and 13B) to be utilized in the development of a 3-year budget cycle starting with fiscal year 2013-14. A vote was taken with 20 yes, 3 no and 3 abstained.

This model was recommended to the Chancellor, who in turn recommended it to the

Board of Trustees at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

Recommended Action: The Board of Trustees approves the Funding Allocation Model recommended by the District Budget Study Group (DBSG) and the Chancellor. This approval is a commitment to a three (3) year budget cycle from 2013-14 to 2015-16 and is to be reviewed annually.

By this recommendation, the Board authorizes the Chancellor to develop Board Policy and Administrative Procedures utilizing the appropriate shared governance processes to implement this model beginning FY 2013-14. The Board also authorizes the Chancellor to conduct an external study of District Operations (District Office and Maintenance & Operations) to determine the appropriate size of District operations to support the Colleges. This study is to be completed within the FY 2013-14.

The Board of Trustees unanimously approved the Funding Allocation Model recommended by the District Budget Study Group (DBSG) and the Chancellor. Adoption of the new model provides the District with the financial tool for long-range budget planning that addresses deficit spending and low reserves. This approval is a commitment to a three (3) year budget cycle from 2013-14 to 2015-16 and is to be reviewed annually.

Evidence:

Draft minutes of March 15, 2013 DBSG meeting http://www.clpccd.org/business/BusinessServicesDistrictBusinessBudgetStudyGroup.php

Draft minutes of March 19, 2013 Board meeting

http://www.clpccd.org/board/BoardAgendaArchives.php

Deficit Spending

The District has reversed its deficit spending as shown in Attachment 14. For the 2012-

13 fiscal year, district revenues are more than expenditures by about $1.7 million. The two (2) main reasons for the reversal in deficit spending are: 1) expenditure reductions made by the district and 2) the passage of Proposition 30 and avoidance of mid-year trigger cuts.

Evidence:

Board Presentation  - Budget Update for FY 2012-13 & New Allocation Model

http://www.clpccd.org/business/documents/AllocationModelUpdate3-5-13BoardMtng-BoardPosting- Revc.pdf

Reserves

The District Reserve is now projected at $7.6 million or about 8.37% of expenditures as shown in Attachment 15. And with the district no longer deficit spending, the reserve is expected to increase above its current level. The new Funding Allocation Model also

incorporates a process by which reserves can be increased district-wide and by location (College, District Office and Maintenance & Operations).

Evidence:

Board Presentation - Budget Update for FY 2012-13 & New Allocation Model

http://www.clpccd.org/business/documents/AllocationModelUpdate3-5-13BoardMtng-BoardPosting- Revc.pdf

March 15, 2013 Meeting Minutes http://www.clpccd.org/business/BusinessServicesDistrictBusinessBudgetStudyGroup.php

 

March 19, 2013 Meeting Minutes http://www.clpccd.org/board/BoardAgendaArchives.php

The new Funding Allocation Model provides the district with a financial tool that gives the following:

• Treats all employees fairly

• Simple to understand

• It is Revenue Based

• Puts money out to Colleges

• The College Budget Committees are empowered to make decisions

• We are all responsible to live within our means

• Promotes accountability and transparency district-wide

• Incorporates a process to build back our RUMBL and Reserve

• Addresses ACCJC Accreditation Recommendations

The following is the DBSG Committee composition and the constituencies they represent.  A step-by-step narrative and the accompanying calculations are shown in Attachment 13.

Chancellor’s Executive Staff:

Judy E. Walters – Interim Chancellor

Jeffrey Kingston – Vice Chancellor, Education Planning

Lorenzo Legaspi – Vice Chancellor, Business Services

Wyman Fong – Vice Chancellor, Human Resources

Susan Sperling – President, Chabot College

Kevin Walthers – President, Las Positas College

District Budget Study Group

Judy Walters - Interim Chancellor-Ex Officio

Lorenzo Legaspi - V.C. Business Services

Barbara Yesnosky- Director - Business Services

Tim Nelson - Director - M&O

Judy Hutchinson - Budget Officer - Ex Officio

Joanne Bishop-Wilbur - Classified Senate

Pedro Ruiz DeCastilla - Classified

Linda Wilson – SEIU

Pushpa Swamy – Business Operations Coordinator

Kevin Walthers - Presidents- Ex Officio

Susan Sperling - Presidents- Ex Officio

Designee - Natasha Lang - V.P. Business Services

Connie Willis - V.P. Business Services

Janice Noble - V.P Academic Services

Dale Wagoner (Interim) - V.P Academic Services

Diana Rodriguez - V.P. Student Services

Gerald Shimada (Interim) - V.P. Student Services

Dave Fouquet - Faculty Association

Kathy Kelley - Faculty Senate

Charlotte Lofft - Faculty Senate

Ming-Lun Ho - Faculty Senate

Yvonne Wu-Craig - Classified Senate

Gordon Watt - Classified

Andrea Preciado- Student

LaVaughn Hart - Faculty Association

Sarah Thompson - Faculty Senate

Bob D'Elena - Faculty Senate

Justin Garoupa - Faculty Senate

Todd Steffan - Classified Senate

Heidi Ulrech - Classified

Sundeep Sidhu- Student 

-back to top- 

III. A Collaborative Process

The IPB process outlines the partnership between the district and the Colleges in order to identify budget guidelines derived from several planning documents.  These planning documents include the colleges' educational master plans, colleges/district technology plans, facility plans, strategic goals established by the Board of Trustees, as well as other goals or board priorities that may require resource allocations that do not fall under one specific category.  In developing the budget, resources will be allocated to the extent that funds are available taking a conservative approach to allocation of funds.

In developing the final budget the first priority is to allocate sufficient resources to maintain those functions that support the mission of the colleges and the district so that high quality instructional services can be offered to students. The district recognizes that there are a number of permanent fixed costs that exist, these expenditures are identified in "STEP #3A" which represents those commitments and contractual obligations that support district-wide commitments:

In keeping with the alignment of college and district goals the Chabot Las Positas Community College District (CLPCCD) Board of Trustees adopted the following mission statement on April 16, 2013

The Chabot-Las Positas Community College District (CLPCCD) prepares students to think critically, engage socially, and acquire workplace knowledge and educational skills in order to contribute ethically as citizens in a Global Society.

The Las Positas College mission statement was also adopted on April 16th:

Las Positas College is an inclusive learning-centered institution providing educational opportunities and support for completion of students’ transfer, degree, basic skills, career-technical, and retraining goals.

Chabot College has also updated its mission statement and is currently in the college review process and the final statement should be approved in spring 2014.

The following functional charts outline the campus and district allocation processes.

Diagram 1. Chabot College Integrated Planning & Assessment Diagram

Diagram 2. Las Positas College Integrated Planning & Assessment Diagram

Diagram 3. District Service Centers (In Progress)

Diagram 4. DRAFT-Integrated Planning & Budget Model

-back to top-

IV. GUIDING PRINCIPLES of the Integrated Planning and Budgeting (IPB) PROCESS (updated 2/28/14 and 3/10/14 in BOLD)

In an effort to increase communication, provide transparency and develop trust in the process the Chancellor's Work Group (CWG) established the following guiding principles in the development of this IPB model. 

• Educational planning and needs should be the foundation of all decision-making and should be in alignment with the colleges' and district educational missions.

• College planning should be the primary determinant for establishing shared governance recommendation.

• Be easily understood and provide a forum for shared participation in the decision-making process

• Insure educational planning, student needs and assessment of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are the foundation of all budget decision making.

• Provide a written narrative of the Integrated Planning and Budget (IPB) process and the Budget Allocation Model (BAM) in order to memorialize the process.

• Provide consistency in the allocation of funds in order to promote transparency and the integration of planning into the budgeting process while maintaining alignment with the State of California's SB 361 funding model

• Provide clear accountability amongst all stakeholders on roles and responsibilities and establish a periodic review and assessment of the process to make recommendations for improvement.

• Provide for autonomous decision making at the college level while using the college planning process as the primary source for determining shared governance recommendations.

• Provide a clear path from recommendations to consideration in the decision-making cycle in order to integrate policy, planning and budgeting across all major areas.

• The current district committees for District Enrollment Management Committee (DEMC), District Curriculum Committee (DCC), and the Academic Calendar Committee will continue to operate autonomously as separate committees.

Diagram 4 (updated 3/10/14)

Diagram 4 (updated 2/28/14, udpated 3/10 version - see above)

DISTRICT-WIDE COMMITTEES

District Educational Support Services Committee UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

District Facilities Committee UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

District Planning & Budget Committee  UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

District Technology Coordinating Committee  UPDATED Redline edits as of March 10, 2014

-back to top-

V. Guiding Principles of the District Wide Committees (updated 2/28/14 text in BOLD)

1. The role of district-wide committees is to provide uniform data, assure consistency processes, and to encourage and promote coordination and communication. The Colleges are the primary source because they are closest to student needs and have educational expertise to strengthen student success, completion and equity in alignment with the district and colleges’ educational missions.
   
   
2. There needs to be a clear flow of communication between committees so that the development of recommendations is transparent and logical.  Additionally, some recommendation(s) cross committee boundaries and clear communication ensures the recommendations are developed in the spirit of transparency and there is a logical process for review.
   
   
3. This IPB process provides a clear path from recommendation(s) inception to consideration/enactment in the decision-making cycle in order to integrate policy, planning and budgeting across all major areas.
   
   
4. All decisions and minutes shall be documented and publicized widely, using all available means. This ensures effective communication to colleges and constituencies.
   
   
5. The Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC-formerly the DBSG) has the authority to make recommendations to the chancellor and to make recommendations on initiatives proposed by the Chancellor. The Chancellor on behalf of the Board, and/or the Board Chair, provides a response to advisory and constituency bodies if the recommendations are not adopted or are substantively modified.
   
   
6. All committees have the right to make recommendations directly to the Chancellor and Board of Trustees.  No committee can veto a recommendation; however comments and/or modifications are encouraged in order to promote widespread support. The committees will regularly evaluate and assess the effectiveness of their processes, identify areas for improvement and make recommendations where appropriate.
   
   
7. The PBC is charged with using a district wide viewpoint of what is best for the organization as a whole. The PBC should avoid using the old logic of members’ taking a narrow perspective of “protecting the college”.
   
   
8. There needs to be consistency of membership to ensure the ability to function as a team in making tough decisions. Therefore, alternates are not allowed. Decisions will continue to be made if members are absent and they cannot challenge decisions made in their absence. If a member misses three sessions, the PBC will ask the appointing group to name a replacement, but the appointing group can only do this once during a term to avoid a loss of continuity and efficiency.
   
   

9. The initial term of membership will be two years to allow the system to be developed and run effectively before a new slate of members is installed. This allows for continuity and the development of a collaborative practice. Members are allowed to miss three meetings with no penalties; additional absenteeism will allow the appointing body to select a new member for the remainder of the term.
   

10. Start with a retreat to review the Chancellor’s and Board’s goals at the beginning of the year. This will help ensure a common direction and focus across the committees.

-back to top- 

VI.  Shared Agreement Consensus Decision Model

The recommended decision model has three key elements:

1.  All decisions are documented: Every recommendation will be documented in detail and forwarded to the Chancellor.

2.  Primary Decision Rule is through "Consensus" “Shared Agreement”: The PBC is charged with developing district-wide recommendations that best serve students and the community using evidence-based processes and criteria. Therefore, it recommended that the PBC work towards solutions that are based on the results of such agreed-upon processes and criteria, and the "consensus" “shared agreement” decision model. Shared agreement Consensus is achieved when all members of the group rate a proposal as A, B or C:

A: Unqualified support

B: Acceptable – best of the options we have

C: Can live with the decision – not especially enthusiastic but the process was followed and all viewpoints received a fair hearing. If all members do not indicate A, B, or C the group can continue to refine the proposal if there is sufficient time to do so to arrive at consensus shared agreement. Shared agreement Consensus can also be achieved if a majority of the group indicate A, B, or C, and the remaining members indicate:

D: Do not fully agree with the recommendation but feel the process was followed; need to have my viewpoint included in the documentation as a minority report

3.  Voting is the Back-up Process: If shared agreement consensus cannot be reached within the time constraints of the planning-budgeting cycle, the PBC will vote on the issue. However, voting will not be used to achieve a decision based on a majority of votes, but rather as a method of recording committee members’ assessment of proposals. The full record of the vote including any alternative viewpoints will be documented and sent to the Chancellor.

Support for Effectiveness

􏰀 The district will provide support for the PBI. This includes providing appropriate technical support (e.g., research, policy) and logistics and minutes.

􏰀 The goal is to have fewer, more highly supported action meetings at key decision-making milestones, rather than more frequent discussion-oriented sessions.

􏰀 An important support for effectiveness is to institute a regular review of district and college implementation successes and challenges, i.e., an assessment of whether previous year plans are being acted upon using agreed upon matrices or established rubrics. The following cyclic evaluation planning and improvement diagram provides a macro overview of the process.

Diagram 5

VII. College Planning

Each college is responsible for its planning and shared governance processes. With this in mind, the CWG recommends that each college conduct a process to assess, strengthen and streamline their local governance processes. This would allow the colleges to ensure a solid foundation for planning decisions that will move through the district-wide planning and budget integration process. Such a review would also provide an opportunity for the colleges to consider changes that might help to align their efforts with the IPBM.

VIII.  District Support Services Planning

Similar to the college’s program review process, each district service area is responsible for its planning and budgeting in order to effectively support the CLPCCD’s mission and to provide services to the campus sites.  The district planning and budgeting process

will be aligned with the established budget calendar prepared by the Planning & Budgeting Committee (PBC) and each senior administrator is responsible for completing an annual service area report.

Prior to review by the appropriate district wide committee, the chancellor (in collaboration with the district senior executive staff) will consolidate and prioritize the requests. Whenever possible, decisions will be data-driven to insure equity, accountability and transparency.  Service area plans will identify needed resources to include, but not limited to equipment, personnel, facilities and/or technology.

IX.  Review and Update

The Chancellor’s Working Group (CWG) will review the overall effectiveness of the implementation of this document after one year.

-back to top-