August 20, 2020 - Special Budget Meeting

Attendees

---

Attending Members:  Alexander, Balducci, Booye (co-chair), Galoyan, Kirkpatrick, LeBleu-Burns, Mandy, Mieso (co-chair), Shannakian, Shively

Guest:  Tracy Chung-Tabangcura

Meeting Items

---

Student Services Budget 2020-21

The 3rd Quarter Report from 2019-20 and the presentation from Business Services was posted so members could review the current budget status and projections that have been made. It is projected that there will be a $11.5 million District budget deficit and the District is requesting budget reduction suggestions be submitted by both colleges for Board review on November 1, 2020. The cuts if initiated, would be for the 2021-22 fiscal year.

• Shively wanted to know the rationale for the $11.5 million reduction being requested. Shively explained that the budget number the District was using is based on a May budget that has since been revised and not applicable anymore. The revised budget was signed by the state and he believes that at this time, the data doesn’t justify the amount of reductions being requested. According to Shively, the $11.5 million is also the figure needed to go into Basic Aid funding.
• The $11.5 figure coming from the District is what De Anza will be working with at this time unless anything changes.

De Anza would be responsible for $5.75 million in budget reductions with the request that Student Services reduce $2.0 million from its fund 14 budget. Instruction has been asked to reduce $3.5 million and Administrative Services $250k.

Mieso explained that what was being presented today are not recommendations at this time but Student Services was asked to develop budget reduction scenarios to review and discuss. Information was provided on the last round of budget cuts and each area presented their budget scenario for review. Out of the $5.75 million requested, Student Services provided about $1.47 million in cuts if the scenarios were to be implemented. Even with the shortfall of about $530,000, it was noted that the cuts would greatly affect student equity and the quality of services it provides to students.

Full Presentation

Budget Discussion

Discussion following the presentation included the comments below:

LeBleu-Burns said that with each budget cut, Student Services gets cut deeper and deeper and reductions in one area does affect other areas. Student Services is critical for enrollment but also retention services as well. Higher enrollment requires even more services that need to be provided, especially in this online environment with COVID-19. The current employees have already taken on the work from the eliminated positions from the last budget reductions and we are going to burn them out if we continue with reductions.

Shively agreed with the need for enrollment and outreach services since we have been chasing FTES and new students due to lower enrollment over the last couple of years. He had some questions regarding the budget breakdowns between areas and how those were decided. Shively mentioned that IPBT had met and discussed merging resources and that a joint meeting should be scheduled to continue this discussion.

Booye commented that she has been with the District 30 years now and in the last 10 years we have gone through four budget reductions. During these budget reductions, Admissions & Records gets cut every time and are often hit the hardest. She expressed that we really need to keep A & R fully staffed.

• Galoyan mentioned that they only have 4.5 positions in A & R right now and the requests for assistance have increased about 30%.
• There really isn’t anywhere that can be cut that will not affect providing services for enrollment and retention.
  
  

Shannakian and Kirkpatrick also had questions regarding the budget breakdown and how the $2 million figure was calculated. Are the overall budgets considered, including what is available that can be reduced?

Categorical funds were brought up as possible transfer options such as Workforce and SEA Program funding.

• Mieso mentioned that the SEA Program funds were overspent and that it would be difficult to move more positions over to that fund. Current vacant positions in the SEA Program are still being reviewed.

Overall, the committee didn’t see how cuts could be initiated at this time, especially after the cuts that were made last time to Student Services and could not move forward with a recommendation.

• Mieso emphasized that at this meeting we were not recommending cuts but were required at this time to put forth budget scenarios to review.

LeBleu-Burns put forth a motion that a more thorough analysis of alternate/categorical funding sources needs to be done for the positions that have been put forth as possible reductions. There also needs to be more review of how everything works together and more collaboration across all PBTs before moving forward with reduction recommendations for Student Services.

The motion was seconded and carried.