College Council -- November 30, 2012 Special Meeting + December 7, 2012

Quick Jump to Sections: FTES+FON, Budget, BCATT, Accreditation, Program Review Summary, Next Meeting.

The November 30th special meeting was to discuss the revised budget figures with the passage of Prop 30 and the re-org process. The regular College Council meeting was held on Friday, December 7th.


With the passage of Proposition 30, the cuts will not be as large as the doomsday we were planning for. The general public believes that Prop 30 gave us a whole bunch of extra money, so we should be rolling in dough. The reality is that Prop 30 would give us the smaller of two possible cuts. Since we're paid on the basis of full-time equivalent students (FTES) and the number of full-time equivalent faculty we're required to have (full-time faculty obligation number = FON) is based on FTES, what are the new FTES and FON? The attached FTES-FON spreadsheet for November 30, 2012 gives the numbers. What follows is some explanation of the numbers.

For 2012-13, the funded FTES for the district = 18,219.09 with a target of 18,830.78 and BC responsible for 12,559.30 of that. This is the "apportionment funded target". Recall that the target gives us some cushion in case actual enrollments don't go as planned. Additional FTES above the apportionment funded target we plan for includes non-resident students, apprenticeship (paid for by local fees), and corrections from the CCFS-320 funded FTES report sent to the state. The revised 2012-13 comprehensive target for the district = 19,053.48 and BC is responsible for 12,696.40 of that (66.6%).

The full-time faculty obligation number (FON) allocated to the district from the state for Fall 2012 was 372.8. With the spring 2012 budget cuts announced by the governor's office in spring 2012 resulting in a "workload reduction" (drop in funded FTES), the FON dropped to 365.8. However, in Fall 2011 we had to plan ahead for an increase in the FON before the revised state budget 2012 was announced, so the FON used in budget projections and hiring that took place in spring 2012 was 376.6 for the district (254.0 for BC's share)—see my October 20, 2011 report. The Fall 2013 FON set by the Board of Governors (at the state level) is 365.8 for the district which is 10.8 less full-time faculty than the Fall 2012 FON. However, districtwide we have had 8 late separations (those leaving after March 15, 2012) and 10 retirements announced for the 2012-13 school year for a total of 18 faculty leaving. Therefore, the district needs to hire 7.2 faculty and BC will get 5.0 of that => 5.0 replacement hires for BC to meet our share of the district FON which is 4.0 less than the 9.0 needed to fully replace positions. That 4.0 FTEF reduction will be used to try to get more savings in our budget (discussed below) Those are the numbers quoted in the attached Nov 30, 2012 spreadsheet but the number of retirements was nudged upward at the December 7th meeting to between 11 and 13 districtwide. After some negotiation with Cerro Coso and Porterville, BC might be able to pick up another 1 or 2 replacement hires.

Many Spring 2013 sections were "ghosted", meaning that they were put into the schedule but hidden from the students depending on how the Prop 30 vote went. When considering which sections to "unghost", the chairs, deans and vice president look at how that will affect the productivity number (FTES/FTEF) and the requisite extra adjunct/overload expense that opening sections will entail. For whatever extra adjunct/overload expense we have, we'll need to find savings in some other part of the budget. Therefore, there's a balancing act in FTES income vs. instruction expenses.

Link to FTES-FON spreadsheet for November 30, 2012. Note that these figures are preliminary!


Bakersfield College's carryover going into this fiscal year (starting July 1, 2012) was $3,591,864 according to the attached Prop 30 passage budget spreadsheet. The BC revenues with the passage of Prop 30 will be $63,369,622, or about $4 million more than the original doomsday scenario budget. The adopted budget expenditures for BC was $49,382,085 + the district chargeback of $13,088,912 for a total of $62,470,997. However, the adopted budget had an overly optimistic estimate on savings for items that would not have to be paid for right away or not at all (such as positions not getting filled until some later time, called "breakage"). In the attached spreadsheet that summarizes the budget impact from the passage of Proposition 30, this is called "structural balance imbalance" and it amounts to $1,661,893.

The adopted BC budget also did not include the expenses of adjunct and overload instruction needed to meet the FTES target for Prop 30 passing. That is another $1,310,375.

Finally, all of the colleges set aside a small amount of money for scheduled maintenance projects. Bakersfield College had originally set aside just $10,000 and another $290,000 was tacked on after Prop 30 passed to bring our total scheduled maintenance cost to $300,000. The additional set-asides for Cerro Coso and Porterville are such to bring their total scheduled maintenance to $100,000 for each college.

Now add things up and BC's total expenditures are this fiscal year are about $65.7 million, or a negative balance of $2.36 million (income – expenses). If carryover absorbed all of that, our projected carryover going into the next fiscal year would drop to $1.23 million. Based on past years surprise expenditures and decreased revenue, that is too small a carryover. Therefore, administration (president and director of administrative services) will be looking to make $1.3 million cuts in THIS fiscal year's budget so that our planned for expenditures are about $64.4 million, boosting our carryover to $2.53 million. In planning for next fiscal year, the administration will be looking for ways to trim $2.2 million from this year's budget because they know that there are mandatory increases of $700,000 to $1 million coming in salary (step-column) and benefits increases for next year. Since we are not expecting to get any additional state funding to take care of those salary/benefits increases, we'll need to figure out what can be dropped from this year's budget to prepare for the hit in the next fiscal year, i.e., so that next fiscal year's expenditures turn out to be the same as this fiscal year's final expenditures.

Link to spreadsheet that summarizes the budget impact from the passage of Proposition 30.

Bakersfield College Administrative Transition Team (BCATT)

On November 29th, college president Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg sent out an email with the subject "Leadership Opportunity for Bakersfield College Staff" about the creation of an 18-month transition leadership team. First priority is how we'll take care of the administrative tasks in the immediate future that would have been handled by our former dean Dan O'Connor and Hamid Eydgahi. Rather than hiring outside interim deans ("rent-a-dean") who have no long-term commitment to the college, incoming president, Sonya Christian, wants to use the talent and commitment of the faculty and classified staff at BC. New STRS rules limit the length of time that retired administrators can come back to work at a college to $41,000 per year. That is why our interims have not been able to stay for more than just a few months. Incoming president Christian is also wanting us to restructure ourselves to meet the long-term goals of higher quality, progression, and completion: improving the quality of instruction and student services so that students progress through their sequence of courses faster (less repeats and false starts) and complete their studies here (get a degree or certificate and/or transfer). Recall from my April report, that the college presidents will be evaluated in large part on the student achievement data in the Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC) reports (click on the "Student Outcomes" tab and then set #5 ARCC reports)

Interviews for the administration slots were Wednesday, December 5th from 1 to 5 PM and Thursday, December 6th from 8 to noon. Interviews for those wanting to be on the BCATT team but remaining as faculty or classified staff will be held this coming Wednesday, December 12th, and Thursday, December 13th. Twenty-four statements of interest to participate in BCATT have been received.

One thing we'll need to be wary of is creating an additional council to the president than what already exists—College Council. How BCATT will interface with College Council is still a bit fuzzy and it will be a bit "fluid" over these next 12 to 18 months. College Council already has representatives from the employee + student groups on campus and it is tasked to be the president's "think tank" with a collegewide focus.


The chairs of Assessment Committee, Curriculum Committee, Program Review Committee, and the Accreditation Steering Committee have started discussions of how we can better link assessment of SLOs (course + program level + institutional) and curriculum review into the Annual Program Review process.

Program Review Summary

The administrative co-chair of the Program Review Committee, Emmanuel ("Manny") Mourtzanos, gave an overview of findings from the most recent annual program review. His PowerPoint presentation is essentially the same as the attached summary (PDF) given to the Academic Senate at its November 28th meeting. A lot of the challenges and common themes look very familiar from my department's discussion leading up to our APR report. How about yours?

Next meeting

Next College Council meeting will be January 1X at 8:30 AM.

Go to main BC College Council website

Back to Sciences/Health-PE reports archive

Last updated: December 8, 2012

Document author: Nick Strobel