Self-Study Issues

PAGE 9 OF 10

Standard Nine

Committee Membership

Dr. Tom Kimberling, Co-Chair, Vice President of College Services
Ginnie Atmore, Co-Chair, Fiscal Budget Tech
Dr. Robert Arce, Professor of Spanish
Richard Goff, Academic Senate President, Professor of Criminal Justice
Michael Gregoryk, Deputy Chancellor
Dan Kumpf, Instructor of Mathematics
Linda Rubenstein, Professor of Business; Coordinator, Off-Campus Programs

Standard Nine: Financial Resources

The institution has adequate financial resources to achieve, maintain, and enhance its programs and services. The level of financial resources provides a reasonable expectation of financial viability and institutional improvement. The institution manages its financial affairs with integrity, consistent with its educational goals.

A. From the 1996 Self-Study Report

Issue 1: Significant enrollment decline.

Discussion Summary:
This is no longer an issue. The College enrollment has been increasing at a steady rate of approximately 2% per year for the past several years and the district as a whole has remained at or above its enrollment CAP. Refer to Response to Recommendation Seven - Enrollment Management for further information regarding this issue.

Issue 2: Insufficient resources to maintain quality programs and services.

Discussion Summary:
This continues to be an issue. For the past three years the College has sought mitigation through the budget allocation process to stabilize its budget. Even with annual resource adjustments of $500,000 or more the College has been forced to make significant reductions in order to balance its budget. It is hoped the new allocation process under development will at least halt the continued decline in relative funding to allow the College to begin stabilizing its operation. During this time the College has relied on grant/contract and external funding sources to augment its operating budget. The Institute for Community and Professional Development (ICPD) was designed specifically for this purpose and has provided the College considerable budgetary relief over the past two years. Refer to Response to Recommendation Eight for further information regarding this issue.

Issue 3: Loss of 26 full-time faculty and 24 management, classified, and non-instructional faculty positions since 1990-91.

Discussion Summary:
This continues to be an issue. During the past three years the College has lost an additional 19.5 full-time faculty and reorganized its management component to absorb one dean position. A number of classified positions have also been eliminated through retirement, resignation and/or reorganization.

Issue 4: Under-funding of equipment.

Discussion Summary:
The Instructional Equipment and Block Grant allocations provided through the State budget in 2000-01 and the Instructional Equipment allocation in 2002-03 have allowed the College the opportunity to address many of its equipment needs. The loss of TTIP-TCO funding has impacted its ability to continue adequately addressing technology issues. However, overall the issue of under-funding of equipment has been reasonably resolved for the short-term.

Issue 5: Allocation model substantially reduced College’s operational flexibility.

Discussion Summary:
The Allocation Model implemented in 1997-98 provided for far greater flexibility in College operations by removing most decision constraints. Regrettably by 1999-2000 the resource level it provided the College was insufficient to maintain the quality of programs and services the College required.

Issue 6: Review/revise allocation model for equity.

Discussion Summary:
The Allocation Model was replaced in 1997-98 and has undergone annual evaluation and revision since. It was recently determined that the Allocation Model was no longer equitable and a new allocation process is currently under development. Refer to Response to Recommendation Eight for further information regarding this issue.

Issue 7: Share budget reductions equally among the Colleges and District Office.

Discussion Summary:
Until recently budget reductions were driven by the allocation of resources through the Allocation Model and were therefore far from equitable since the Allocation Model to a great extent advantaged the most rapidly growing colleges. As of November 2002 the District Executive Team (DET) comprised of the Chancellor, Deputy Chancellor, college Presidents and District Vice Chancellors, prescribed that subsequent budget reductions, at least for 2002-03, would be shared among the colleges and District Office based upon their proportionate share of the total budget. This arrangement has been evaluated as equitable by the colleges.

Issue 8: College constantly reacting to District mandates to changing budget guidelines, which spawns instability and lack of predictability in the budget process.

Discussion Summary:
Under the terms of the Allocation Model implemented in 1997-98 the guidelines for budget development have remained relatively stable allowing for much better predictability in resource allocation. Thus the instability issues that were built into the earlier allocation model have been substantially resolved.

Issue 9: Concern regarding increased centralized (District) control of campus based funds (i.e. Trust and Agency, Bookstore, Cafeteria, etc.).

Discussion Summary:
This is no longer an issue. The District Office and colleges have over time developed and implemented procedures which provide for reasonable flexibility for access to and use of funds which had previously been under control of the colleges. The ability to establish local bank accounts for high volume users, and the issuance of college-assigned credit cards and procurement cards, has substantially resolved this concern.

Issue 10: Post emergency procedures in all classrooms and offices and test the procedures annually.

Discussion Summary:
This is no longer an issue. Emergency procedures have been posted and they are periodically tested. The College has also implemented and tested Standard Emergency Management Systems (SEMS) practices during the past two years (S 8.3). The College has also implemented a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) to address on-going student and staff issues.

 

B. From the 1998 Mid-term Report

Issue 1: Develop comprehensive enrollment management plan to ensure the maintenance of base revenues and eligibility for growth funding.

Discussion Summary:
The Office of the Executive Vice President is currently developing a comprehensive enrollment management plan for the College. Refer to Response to Recommendation Two for further information regarding this issue.

Issue 2: Need for growth and marketing plan.

Discussion Summary:
The enrollment management plan will address the College’s growth requirements. In 2001, the Public Information Officer position was re-staffed, and as a result, the College has implemented a systematic process of upgrading and enhancing its marketing efforts. The extensive revisions to the College’s Web site in 2002, and the gradual migration to Web-based registration have substantially increased the College’s visibility and access to its customer base. Staffing to ensure ongoing maintenance of the Web site remains an issue.

Issue 3: Allocation model should be modified to allow for greater flexibility in funding operational needs.

Discussion Summary:
See Response to Issue A.5 above.

Issue 4: Develop a plan to deal with retiree medical benefits.

Discussion Summary:
This is no longer an issue. The past two comprehensive negotiation processes first limited and then eliminated retiree medical benefits. Regrettably since the contract language provides for limitation for only those employees hired after July 1, 1990 and subsequent elimination for only those employees hired after July 1, 2001 it will be a distant time in the future before the District begins to realize the savings from these provisions. Currently the District is addressing the annual retiree medical benefits costs on a pay-as-you-go basis.

 

C. From the 2002 Update Report

Issue 1: Continue development of enrollment management plans and tools to serve the people of Ventura County.

Discussion Summary:
See Response to Issue B.1 above.

Issue 2: Continued inadequate resource allocations to maintain quality operations.

Discussion Summary:
See Response to Issue A.2 above.

Issue 3: Encourage District-wide review and modification of the Allocation Model.

Discussion Summary:
Review and modification of the Allocation Model is currently underway. It is expected a new allocation process will be designed and in place for development of the 2003-04 budget. Refer to Response to Recommendation Eight for further information regarding this issue.


Standard Nine List of Documents

S 8.3 SEMS Materials (Please note: Document is referenced under S 8.3)

 

PAGES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

Last Updated 12/7/07
Ventura College does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, creed, religion, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, or sex.