From ‘Vine 17,
September 9, 1999
Title:
VIGOROUS
FINGER POINTAGE: MATHURIAN SHENANIGANS AT THE 8/30[/99] BOARD MEETING
1ST, VICE CHANCELLOR [Gary] POERTNER EXPRESSES DISCONTENT; HAS AN IDEA:
Wagner and Poertner, more than a decade later |
Number 1: what were the kinds of
things that occurred during the year that resulted in this ending balance being
larger?…There’s been some initial enrollments above what was projected in the
original budget a year ago. And that brought in an additional $559,000. Lottery
brought in an additional $171,000. Partnership for Excellence brought in
another $104,000. Interest was $275,000 more. A part of the Orange County
bankruptcy payment that went into our general fund—some of the money, by the
way, went to other funds…so the general fund got an additional
$315,000…[Inaudible] enrollment fees and a prior year adjustment of $1,086,000.
The total of all those…is two million and seven, which, added to the 3.8, which
is roughly the 6.5 million that we have in the unrestricted ending balance.
Now the point that I want to
make about this is that—I’m new to your district and reporting like this is not
the kind [of reporting] that I’m normally used to—waiting till the end of the
year and then popping this kind of information out at a board meeting…
What I had in mind is that, every month, when one of these kinds of
piece of information come along and we’re alerted to them, then we’d like to come to the board
with a statement and (revise) the budget for whatever it is that occurs in that
month. It may be positive and it may be negative. And it’ll be confusing
to you because sometimes it’s up and sometimes it’s down…but at least what
you’d have is the best information that the people in the district
administration know about what’s being changed…So if we change the reporting to
you and change the budget every month you’ll know at all times what the
projected ending balance is and you won’t have a surprise like we were looking
at this year.
[Trustee Dave] LANG: …I for one would welcome that kind of ongoing
reporting and changing of the budget to update us on what’s happening…
…..
[Trustee Dorothy] FORTUNE: …We now need to recess for a public hearing
on the proposed 1999-2000 final budget…Comments? [Peter M. raises his hand.]…We
have a representative of a shared governance group. Mr. Morrison [IVC academic
senate president], would you please go to the podium?…
P[eter]. MORRISON NOTES $4 MILLION UNDERREPORTING AND A FAILURE TO
CONSULT:
P. Morrison at his retirement party, several years ago |
Although this is obviously extremely welcome news to this
district and to the college, we must ask that the trustees duly appreciate the havoc this causes for any efforts at
rational budget planning and timely development of the budget. It’s a
very serious matter. We do
understand and appreciate very much that Vice Chancellor Poertner agrees with
this and, as he indicated to you, [he] is hoping to bring forth to you some
recommendations for how this might be better addressed in the future, and we
are very very supportive…The import of this can hardly be overstated….
Secondly, we are not only
surprised but we are frankly dismayed at the process by which
recommendations for the college FINAL BUDGET have been brought to you this
evening—[namely,] without benefit of any consultation by any members of the
faculty or the administration
(inaudible) excepting, so far as we can determine, the vice presidents. Despite repeated efforts this
summer on our part to secure copies of the college budget during the process of
budget development—from the time you adopted a tentative budget until this
evening—we have yet to receive a copy of the college budget, and we have been
unsuccessful in getting any information to this effect.
We particularly want to call your attention to changes in the college
budget…and among them I call your attention to a change in excess of 4
million dollars in the projected cost of academic salaries and benefits
from the time you adopted a tentative budget for IVC to the final budget
presented to you tonight, which occurred, not as a result of matters you might
reasonably anticipate, but because the tentative budget you adopted in June excluded
the salaries of hourly faculty [part timers] at the college. That’s like balancing the
household budget and forgetting to include the mortgage.
We appreciate and we are relieved
that the unexpected windfall that we are suddenly facing has brought about an
increase in the (inaudible) fund balance. In our particular case [at IVC]…this
means we’re dealing with, suddenly, over night, an additional $870,000 that we
have to (inaudible) back into the budget that we had cut out and now we have to
turn around and put back in.
Now, we do expect in this process
that the [academic] senate will be involved in all phases of recommending how
these monies will be restored to the budget, as we were not involved in the
reduction proposed to you—and I will remind you that both Title V and the board
policy delegating authority to the senates makes us [the senate] primarily
responsible for the process of budget development at the colleges. We further
ask the board to appreciate that, even with the increase of 1.86 million, the
college will be obliged to reduce its budget in response to very large cost
increases…imposed upon the college by this board.
Thank you.
FORTUNE: We are looking at item 41, the final budget. Um, President
Mathur, would you like to address any of the comments that Mr. Morrison brought
up?
PRESENTATION OF THE SCAPE GOAT; CONFIRMATION OF MORRISON’S CHIEF
ASSERTIONS:
Mathur loved to point a finger of blame |
FORTUNE: [The chancellor and various trustees speak. Chaos prevails.]
Tell me, what’s the right thing to do here? [Board members fret about the
legality or propriety of the proceedings.]
[IVC beancounter Beth] MUELLER: I’d like to respond to Mr. Morrison. Number 1, he is correct
that it does create budget havoc when we have a pleasant surprise like this
because we’ve been trying to deal with how to balance the budget with much
fewer funds. It’s made it much easier at this point, knowing that we have the
additional revenue.
Second, the budget process that he
was talking about—that was not complete at the time of the tentative budget.
That’s correct, we did not have the, um—I think I skipped one point, but I’ll
go to the part-time salaries: they were omitted. When I came to IVC, I came
in the middle of May and had two weeks before the tentative budget was adopted.
Many things had been put into the budget; the part-timer salaries had not. That
was, I guess, done at a later date. Um, there just wasn’t enough time for
somebody who was brand new, [to do it] in 2 weeks. Since then, we have
recalculated; I’ve worked with the Vice President of Instruction and they’re
completely funded for this year.
As far as the budget process:
I believe there were budget—I know there were budget committee meetings throughout
the year by my predecessor, Judy Christensen, and when I came in, you know, I
had a lot to learn and a lot to work with, plus dealing with the summer
process—a lot of people gone. So I did pretty much deal with the vice
president and the president in making those decisions. [I.e., no one else
was consulted.]
We have our budget committee set up for the new year. It will convene
in about two weeks in the middle of September. I hope to open that up to
everyone, get their input from the college. I want to learn everyone’s needs
and get their input so we can address those in the upcoming year. But I’ve not
been there very long to absorb all of this and get the job done.
FORTUNE: OK, thank you. Any additional comments?
MATHUR POINTS A NASTY FINGER AT MORRISON/THE SENATE; OFFERS ONE OR TWO
RED HERRINGS:
MATHUR: I’d just
like to add that, as you know, in the past years, we’ve had four individuals in
the budget office. We started out with the budget development for 98-99—was Bob
Loeffler, and he served as vice president of Business Services. Subsequent to
that we had Dr. Bob Mathews, who started out as the acting VP of Business
Services at IVC and then moved on to the district. At that point, we had Judith
Christensen, who was the Acting (VP) of Business Services and she chaired the
budget committee and was the person at the time when the budget development
process started. And, subsequently, toward the end of the year came Beth
Mueller that you just heard from. Judith Christensen solicited input from all
the schools, from all entities of the college. All of that input was received
and considered.
[NOTE: On her last day as Acting VP
(4/29/99), Judy Christensen visited the IVC Academic Senate, where she
acknowledged that the budget development process was going very poorly. She
referred to the “vacuum” in which budget decisions seem to be made at IVC. She
recommended broader input.]
Dr. Morrison is totally wrong
to suggest that the faculty input was not sought. And I want to make that
very very clear. And, if anything, I’m determined to make the budget
development process more open in the coming years than it has ever been. In
fact, I’ve asked Dr. Morrison if he would provide to me a copy of the budget
development process that’s [inaudible] been used in the past. He has (refused?)
to do so. And he provided me with this document which consists of many spread
sheets, but not the process. “Process” means that there will be text to it.
There is no text. I’ve been misled. So we need to work in the spirit of
collegiality and honesty and openness and without attacking each other, and
so I’m very disappointed with his approach to all of this.
But, again, I would just like to
emphasize that we have sought faculty input and administrative input,
classified staff input, through the deans, through the (inaudible), and will
continue to do that and build on it to make the budget development process more
participatory. To say anything to the contrary, to me, it is an
irresponsible act. Thank you.
.....
LANG AND WAGNER ARE DISAPPOINTED, TROUBLED, CONCERNED ABOUT HOLES:
LANG: I guess, first off, I have to say that, obviously, I’m
disappointed that the fact he feels at least that they didn’t have adequate
input into the budget process this year—I think we need to make every effort
to remedy the situation. And I wonder under the system you’ve described whereby
you are going to report changes and perhaps revise the budget on an ongoing
basis this year, if that would provide some additional time for perhaps you to
get together with [the] Academic Senate, make certain that this information…we
do get some feedback…and get appropriate input into the process…
I guess…we’re up against the wall….
FORTUNE: Trustee Lang, could we deal with…actually accepting or
rejecting the budget?
LANG: My comments specifically relate to that—
FORTUNE: Well, you’re asking the vice chancellor to go work at IVC, and
there is a president—
LANG: No, I’m expressing displeasure with the fact that this wasn’t a
more participatory process—
FORTUNE: —although the president says that it was—if they wanted to
participate.
LANG: I understand that…
…..
WAGNER: Where to start? I would like to also express…I am quite
disappointed in some of what I’m learning tonight. It’s great to have an
additional 3 1/2 million dollars, but that begs the whole process question, and
I’ve gotta echo some of what Trustee Lang was saying earlier…Now I’m hearing
that the tentative budget—that we were given…three months ago—for the first
time we’re hearing now that the people who presented this to us, when they were
giving it to us, knew that they didn’t
have all the information and never told us that, and as a matter of
process, I find that very troubling. You can come to me and say, “Here’s
the tentative budget; there are holes in it and here are the reasons there are
holes.” But I think there are serious problems when you come to me and say,
“Here’s the final budget. Oh, and by the way, the reason it bears no relation
to the tentative budget is because of all of these holes.” And that’s what I’m
hearing, and that’s what troubles me in terms of the process…[T]here are issues
that need to be addressed on an ongoing basis. I think what vice chancellor
Poertner is proposing in coming with monthly [reports] may take us some steps
along that way. But, in general, this board has got to be kept more informed of
holes, of problems, of missing information, when the administration knows that
the information is missing.
GRAPHIC:
“Ratitude”