This budgeting and resource allocation process was spelled out in detail in the progress reports the four colleges submitted to ACCJC on March 15, 2008. The new process begins with a research phase under the direction of the vice chancellor of educational services, who developed an Annual Planning Budget Framework to provide data on a variety of areas central to resource allocation. The process involves the District-wide Educational Master Plan Committee, college councils, college budget committees, the District-wide Budget Advisory Committee, and the Strategic Management Team, which make budget and resource allocation recommendations to the chancellor and the governing board. In this model, each college is provided a base budget, which includes funding for fixed costs and funding determined necessary to meet FTES and productivity goals for the academic year. In theory, this funding is made available on July 1, the start of the fiscal year. In practice, however, due in part to various systemwide funding structures, the college is often well into the school year (fall semester) before accurate data are available on current budgetary expenditures. If the state chancellor’s office in any given fiscal year makes cuts in funding or provides additional funding, this affects the base budget provided for each college. Available discretionary funds for faculty positions, classified positions, and funds for new programs are determined and allocated based on priorities set in the educational master plan through a review process in which the District-wide Educational Master Plan Committee and the district-wide Budget Advisory Committee make recommendations to the Strategic Management Team. The chancellor makes final decisions on the allocation of discretionary funds. Equity of resource distribution has long been an issue at the college. The board addressed this in July 2008, with a resolution that reads, in part: Whereas, the draft district-wide educational master plan calls for the development and implementation of budget formulas that reflect an allocation of resources rationally related to district educational priorities; and whereas, the current wide inequality among the four colleges
198
Laney College
in the ratio of FTES to FTE neither serves the best interests of students within the district nor does it meet with basic notions of fairness; therefore, be it resolved that it is the policy of the board that FTES funding for each college within the district be related both to FTES and productivity; and furthermore, the board directs the chancellor to develop a plan by June 30, 2009 that will lead to an equitable FTES/FTE ratio among the colleges (with a 15 percent allowable variance to account for program differences among the colleges)‌. (IVB-16) The chancellor is directed to report each spring on progress towards this goal. The interim vice chancellor of educational services is a strong voice for equitable distribution of resources based on growth targets and productivity. These measures support some colleges in the district relatively well; however, currently the distribution of resources to the colleges is not equitable. The following chart from August 2008 shows the percentage of FTES and the percentage of budget among the four colleges (IVB-17).