| VII |
VII. Updates:
A. Association of Community College Trustees 43rd Annual Leadership Congress –
President John Rizzo, Vice President Anita Grier, and Interim Chancellor Pamila Fisher will report on their activities at the ACCT Congress held in Boston on October 10-13, 2012.
B. Accreditation Update – Accreditation Liaison Officer Gohar Momjian will present an update on the College’s progress in responding to the 14 recommendations and unmet eligibility requirements, and Show Cause Report due March 15, 2013.
C. Monthly Financial Report – Vice Chancellor Peter Goldstein & Chief Financial Officer John Bilmont will share the latest information affecting the 2011-2012 budget and projections for 2012-2013. The college is facing a $15 million shortfall in 2013-2014 and must plan for a permanent reduction in the unrestricted budget equal to at least that amount. If Prop 30 fails, an additional $11.4 million in permanent reductions must occur during 2012-2013. If Measure A passes the reductions are mitigated but not eliminated entirely. Thus the college is planning for various scenarios while also trying to address FCMAT recommendations for long-term fiscal solvency.
D. Enrollment Management – Interim Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Joanne Low and Vice Chancellor Peter Goldstein will describe the work of the Chancellor appointed ad hoc committee on enrollment management. The report will include activities underway to plan and project more accurately a cost effective Spring schedule. Steps designed to monitor the process and backup plans, if needed, will also be described. Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Services Ed Shenk also will describe efforts to inform and recruit students.
E. Site Consolidations – Vice Chancellor Peter Goldstein will update the Board on consolidation of college sites, expected savings and review that is underway.
|
| VIII |
VIII. Discussion/Action Items
A. Child Care Programs - As the Board of Trustees has been advised before, the Child Care programs offered by CCSF serve student parents and provides laboratory sites for Child Development majors. Unfortunately, although these programs receive State Preschool funding, they are not close to being self-sufficient. In budget year 2011-2012 the College planned to subsidize the program by $600,000 but by years end had to provide an additional $300,000. At that time, the Board of Trustees approved closing the Child Care contract at Hunter’s Point which resulted in approximately a $200,000 savings.
For the current fiscal year, the college budget for Child Care programs includes a subsidy of $700,000. Revenue for the summer of 2012 was $100,000 less than expected. Based on current costs, lower demand and the unknown implications if Prop 30 fails, there is no guarantee that even $700,000 will be sufficient. Thus, it is imperative to make alternative plans now in order to reduce the program costs in an attempt to keep the facilities open, albeit on a different schedule.
The options under consideration consist of these actions; the first is to close the small facility in Bernal Heights (with a savings of approximately $84, 000 annually). The second is to close the three remaining facilities (Ocean, Mission & John Adams), in the summer and whenever the college is not in regular session. These facility closures will necessitate significant staffing changes/ workload reductions. The estimated savings from operating the three child care facilities only during the regular fall and spring terms should result in a savings of approximately $358,000. Thus, the total savings would be approximately $442,000.
While these measures would not cover the entire Child Care facilities budget shortfall, they do make a major step in that direction and still preserve services for student parents and laboratory access for student majors in Child Development.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Trustees authorize the closure of the Bernal Heights Child Care facility effective December 19, 2012 and the operation of the remaining three child care facilities (Ocean, Mission and John Adams) only concurrently with the college’s regular fall and spring academic terms, effective immediately.
B. Collection of Student Fees - A. The current policy for collection of student fees calls for students to pay their fees at the time of registration. Based on Board direction a number of years ago this policy has not been enforced. The current outstanding debt owed to the college by students is approximately $ 8,500,000. Each year the college writes off approximately $400,000 of this debt as uncollectible. Interim Vice Chancellor Ed Shenk and Vice Chancellor Peter Goldstein will describe the current process and possible alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees clarify their position on this issue and direct staff accordingly.
C. Collection of past due student fees - As referenced in Item VIII. B. the college is currently owed approximately $8,500,000. Given the current financial crisis the Board is asked to consider options for resolving this issue. Vice Chancellor Peter Goldstein and Interim Vice Chancellor Ed Shenk will describe these possibilities.
D. Policy Revisions/Aditions - The Accrediting Commission strongly recommended the college review, revise and add various policies that reflect best practices in community colleges. The following policies are part of that effort and reflect the issues and recommendations included in our Accreditation Report submitted on October 15.
Following the second reading and adoption of these policies, the Chancellor will, in
consultation with appropriate constituent representatives, develop implementation procedures. These revised documents will supersede any previously approved policies and procedures related to these topics. In some instances, the replaced policies and procedure date back to 1991. See Appendix A.
Policies 2.07 and 2.08 replace the old 2.07 which was 20 pages long, included both participatory and collegial governance and also included detailed procedures. For reference purposes, that policy will be found in the Appendix to this agenda. Policy 2.07 was developed by Accreditation Workgroup #12/13 and was reviewed by the Academic Senate. Both policies respond to the charge to create and implement policies that are effective, contain clear role definition, are efficient and result in timely high quality recommendations. See Appendix B.
Policies 3.04 and 3.18 are initial steps in addressing various recommendations related to a more effective administrative structure. Other tasks in progress are revised job descriptions for academic administrators that describe role and accountability, the development of contracts for academic and classified administrators that clarify employee and management rights and the revision of the Administrator Handbook to accurately reflect the new policies and procedures. Additionally, plans have begun for formal professional development in addition to the activities already underway. See Appendix B.
Collectively, the following policies are positive outcomes in response to the Accrediting Commission’s recommendations.
1.Board Organization Policies 1.00 through 1.35
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Trustees conducts a second reading and approves this set of policies.
2.Board Policy 2.07 – CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT POLICY
ON PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Trustees conducts a first reading of BP 2.07.
3. Board Policy 2.08 - CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO COLLEGIAL
GOVERNANCE: ACADEMIC SENATE
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Trustees conducts a first reading of BP 2.08.
4. Board Policy 3.04 – CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICY GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMIC AND CLASSIFIED ADMINISTRATORS
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Trustees conducts a first reading of BP 3.04.
5. Board Policy 3.18 – CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICY
GOVERNING EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC AND CLASSIFIED ADMINISTRATORS
RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Trustees conducts a first reading of BP 3.18.
E. Administrative Structure - The Accrediting Commission, FCMAT, and our own constituent based workgroups all have made various observations and recommendations about our current administrative structures. Recommendations and subsequent dialogue have focused on leadership effectiveness, efficiency, qualifications, accountability and costs. The Office of Student Development is currently undergoing a review of services and related issues. It is expected that Interim Chancellor Dr. Thelma Scott-Skillman will propose some structural changes to that area of the college no later than December 2012. It is expected that these changes will result in more effective service to students and significant cost savings.
Over the past three months several changes have been implemented in the Office of the Chancellor based on Workgroup #7 recommendations, best practices, reduction in number of Vice Chancellors and opportunities to reduce costs. These changes include eliminating the Office of Governmental Relations and the Office of Shared Governance as separate entities and moving planning and research, and grants and development to the Office of the Chancellor. It is appropriate now to formalize the attached organizational chart. See Appendix C
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve the attached organizational chart for the Office of the Chancellor.
F. Instructional Administrator Structure - A. As referenced in the previous agenda item both the Accreditation Commission and FCMAT strongly recommended changes to our Academic Affairs administrative structure to provide better planning and oversight. Those reports called for administrators responsible for that oversight to be highly competent, to have the authority to carry out what is commonly considered administrative responsibilities, to be available year round and to be held accountable for their performance.
Additionally, FCMAT and others reviewing our current practices have seriously questioned our inordinate use of reassigned time in the college. Not counting grant-funded reassigned time which amounts to approximately 25 Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF), our use is currently approximately 85 FTEF. A significant portion of this is allocated to the department chairs and coordinators. After modest reductions this year, the FTEF still is approximately 51.
As directed by the Board action on September 27 which said “…Propose a new administrative structure that reflects the previously mentioned sources that has academic integrity, and includes an increase in the administrative instructional oversight, and a reduced number of department chairs that results in significant cost savings.....” the following proposal is presented for consideration. This proposal should not be considered a “final” proposal but is a model or template of what could be done to accomplish the objectives of excellent accountable instructional oversight that also results in significant cost savings. A number of details will need further review and discussion and some modification is likely. However, the goal of increased academic integrity, accountability, and anticipated savings should be adhered to even if changes are made. Another specific task is the formal codification of new job descriptions for center deans and school deans as recommended by Workgroup # 7 and others. See Appendix D
Individual departments, per se, remain intact, but are not necessarily led by a single discipline chair. Rather, in some cases more than one department will be “led” by the same chair. In other cases, departments will be “led” directly by the dean. In all cases, the expertise of the discipline faculty within a department will be respected and utilized.
To summarize the proposal, there is more responsibility given to associate vice chancellors, center deans, and school deans. There is significantly less reassigned time and stipends allocated to department chairs and coordinators.
The proposal results in a net savings of approximately $2,087,835.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Trustees approve the proposed structure for the Office of Academic Affairs with the understanding that upon further review the Chancellor may make some modifications but will adhere to these basic principles and the anticipated budget savings.
|
