>> I'd like--I'd like to call the meeting to order, Mrs. Thomson, would you please call the roll. >> Dr. Mann? >> Present. >> Bradbury-Huang? >> Present. >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> Present. >> Mr. Baum? Mr. Martin? >> Present. >> Mr. Thomson? >> Present. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Present. >> Mr. Abadia? >> Okay, is there anyone here who would like to address the Board on a closed session item? If not, the Board will adjourn into closed session Government Code 54957: Public Employee Discipline, Dismissal Release. Government Code 54957.6: Labor Negotiations (PCCFA; CSEA 777; ISSU; POA; Confidentials; Management Association), Government Code 54957: Public Employee Evaluation (Superintendent/President), Government Code 54957: Public Employment (Superintendent/President), and we will reconvene at 7 o'clock. [ Noise ] >> Could I ask the Board--I'm here all by myself. Could I ask the Board members to-- [ Laughter ] >> You're not alone. [ Laughter ] [ Inaudible Remark ] >> As soon as we get 4 people here we'll--okay. I'd like to reconvene the meeting, and I'd like to announce that no action was taken in closed session. [ Noise ] >> And Mr. Schulman, will you lead us to the pledge to the flag? [ Noise ] >> Please join me, I pledge-- >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all. >> Thank you. Dr. Perfumo do we have any introduction? >> Not at this time. >> Okay, the next item is Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items. Members of the public may request the opportunity to address the Board regarding any item on the agenda. To do so, please complete a request to address the Board form and give it to the Board Secretary, Mrs. Thomson, prior to the deliberation of the agenda item. Individual speakers are limited to five minutes total audience participation on any agenda item is limited to thirty minutes. I--alright? So I have three speakers on items not on the agenda, the first one is Silvia Villanueva, and Enrique [inaudible]? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yeah. Well I have your names together on the card, so why don't you come together? [ Noise ] >> Good evening President of the Board and members of the Board of Trustees. My name is Silvia Villanueva, I am a professor of English here at Pasadena City College, and I'm also the past and projected co-leader of the Winter Study Abroad Program to the lovely city of Guadalajara, Mexico, projected for this coming winter 2010. I'm speaking to you in behalf of my colleague and fellow co-leader Dr. Orozco of our Social Sciences Division and the students seated or standing behind me who are in support of and some of whom are anticipating what has come to be known as PCC's annual trip to Mexico, which is again projected for winter of 2010. Dr. Allen Dooley and--of Study Abroad and Dr. Jacqueline Jacobs, Vice President of Instruction informed us that there is a concern among some of our Board of Trustees regarding the publicized alerts in Mexico. Dr. Jacobs advised Professor Joseph Sierra of City Abroad to investigate any potential alerts visitors of Mexico. Professor Sierra reported and I quote, "That the state department has issued no formal warning but has acknowledged that incidents have arisen in the border areas with the United States, but certainly not inland." Furthermore, Professor Sierra and I also contacted the representatives of Leonardo World, our travel agency and again they reiterated that I quote "There are no travel warnings for travel to Guadalajara." Additionally, the officials of the University of Guadalajara CEPE, our cohort over there also reported that no threat exist in the areas our students will be visiting. I urge the Board to consider Joseph Sierra's statement to Dr. Jacobs, which states, "I think the winter intersession in Guadalajara is a feasible and a desirable program. Last year's program was very strong and garnered very positive feedback from the students and great publicity for Pasadena City College, and Chicano Studies Program that we offer here." Given Joseph's statement, I'd like the Board to recall the wonderful responses that were given by at least half a dozen students earlier this year. This program speaks and responds directly to our students here at Pasadena City College. Student interest has not wavered or lessened at all despite the publicized safety concerns. The Study Abroad Office, Dr. Orozco and I have all received numerous inquiries in person, over the phone, and via e-mail at a constant pace from March to the present, and that has a lot to do with the word-of-mouth accounts of previous participants as well as the ad that we have currently in our fall schedule of classes for the trip. We're here tonight to emphasize that our excursion and travel time in Mexico will not be in any danger zone as evidenced by various sources already mentioned. We anticipate that the Board will approve our plans to return to Mexico for unexpected, successful, and educational venture for winter 2010. We also ask that the Board honor the time and effort of all involved in the planning of this project, we have received the first draft of the color brochure from Leonardo World and we are ready to edit so that we can provide it to our students and let them decide for their own and with the sufficient time that's necessary to plan for something like this. With this in mind, we hope for a timely response from the Board. Thank you! >> Thank you! >> Thank you! >> Professor Orozco, did you want to add something? You have a little bit time on the clock. [ Laughter ] >> I support whatever she said. You know we did discuss this. And she's very concerned about the Board not recognizing that it is safe where we--we are going and I've already contacted Sep and myself and they've indicated that if there were any problems, they would let me know. So I trust them, they're at campus at the University of Guadalajara, and they're quite professional about the whole thing, and they really were very nice to us last time and they want us to come back. >> Thank you! Lawrence Gandara? [ Pause ] >> Members of the Board, my name is Lawrence Gandara, and I'm here to speak on behalf and support of the--also the Mexico Trip which I went actually in 2008 which was--I can't even stress and explain what I got out of the trip. It's just overwhelming, the whole experience, and you can't sum it up in just, you know, five minutes but I definitely got a lot, brought back a lot. I come from Lincoln High School, that's right here in--in Lincoln Heights. The dropout rates here in LAUSD, they're really high and to--you really have to find yourself when you're in the situation like that, when you're in a school where it's surrounded by poverty. So--I mean trips like these just take you away out of that little--that little box you're in, you know, give you a different aspect of everything. And I just wanna share some words I've wrote down and some--everyone here has probably seen the fashion images on the TV screen. I'm talking about the images that have been displayed recently of the growing violence in Mexico "violence". Some of you might say that 20--22 years of experience isn't enough to really know about the overall matters that happen around the world. Well I come from a poverty-stricken family, and grew up--and grew up in the ghettos of the city, age is irrelevant to that. For you see--'cause you see and experience the violence firsthand. I know one of your reasons for thinking about cutting the Mexico Trip is for the safety of the students, while I--while I mentioned earlier, I know violence firsthand. And what is more violent in my eyes is ripping away the culture and education of all these students--yeah. We would like to take--take a chance--now we will be taking a chance if we decided to go but still let me emphasize on the chance. If this trip were canceled, then even that would be taken away from us. We are adults here, we know the risks and we know what can happen. Let us make that choice though, please. To deny our study abroad is to deny some of our culture, our tradition, our education, and our existence. >> It is a flat out attack on us. That is your violence. The violence is here and not there. That's all I've got to say. >> Thank you! I should've--I should've announced this but the Board--Brown Act prohibits the Board from discussing or taking any action on any item not on the agenda, but members may make a brief comment or ask questions in response to public comment. So we'll have our third speaker, Hugo Castillo. >> First of all, good--good afternoon to the Board members, and second, thank you for allowing us to express our feelings about this. Okay, I mean, everything that I got like--like he said--like Lawrence said, it cannot be just summed up in five minutes, but just a quick--something I wrote here. So we hear about marginal personalities, it's topic, it's size, an existing problem in our societies especially in the Chicano lifestyle. Imagine a--personality war which is very well described and elaborated by Dr. Orozco here, but its not 'til we see how people in Iraq, in Mexico, the Mexican marginal--I mean, in Mexico, we come from--I mean, we come from Mexico myself. But there is different lifestyle, there's a different culture, we were able to--we were--we were exposed to the way they treat each other, the way they talk, the--the way the communal society is. And it is completely different. It is completely different so it is easier to understand that when people come here they have--they have their battle, their inner battle, it's to--to adapt to the society, to assimilate everything there is when they have a different background, making the marginal personalities present. Also, I mean, and that is just something I learned by--by going there. It was something also taught by--by Mr. Orozco here but not--he wasn't as understood as when it is exposed as when--when we see it, when we see what is really--what he's really talking about. That is--that is just one of the class we took. We took also Literature with Ms. Villanueva and we learned--I learned about survival, language, and treason, and hatred to a woman who what she was save her life and then translated for--for Cortez and--and then bringing upon the western and the--European continent together to make the--the most important we--that Mexico is and especially the USA. So--let--let's further read that, I mean if I can get inspired and learn so much experience of a new country and the way of life, that does not revolve around the best fashion or the electrical device but a communal lifestyle wherein new--new foods, smells, nature, sceneries, art, handicraft and native people are living, I was fortunate enough to experience this and grew as an individual. A person with--with new friends bonded by this trip if--I mean, I consider myself lucky, very, very lucky that I was able to experience this and to--if I'm lucky to have this I don't--I really feel that it's an injustice to rip it--out of--out of further students--future students who might also learn this or even more about this experience. This not--this is not a field trip, this is not like going to the park and then just playing around, it is a Study Abroad Program. We go there, we study, we see in person, we experience in person what is it that our teachers talk about and I--to me that is part of the learning journey, part of the learning journey that one of the few colleges like this college here, Pasadena City College, can offer. And I hope, I plead to you that you guys will continue to provide this opportunity to the rest of the student to learn and to go on with--in their lives as a well-rounded educated person, and that is what education really is, a well-rounded, understanding of the world, and by going to different places of the world. It is that understanding, that knowledge that's absorbed. Thank you! >> Thank you! Does-- [ Applause ] >> Does anyone have any questions or comments? Mr. Baum? >> Just we--I should make it clear that there's no Board, there's no agenda or plans to take any action with respect to canceling this program. I--I think, I want--I just think they should be aware of that. >> Well I--I don't know whether that is true or not-- >> From the Board level-- >> Oh from the Board level, I don't think there is, I don't know what--what is going from the administration, Dr. Perfumo can't you comment on that? >> Well, we're looking at all of winter session issue you know right now in terms of our offerings so there's been no [simultaneous talking] right, there's been no decision. >> No decision then has--has made, and thank you very much for coming and sharing. We were very impressed when you came the last time and told us about your experience. Thank you! >> Thank you! >> I--I fail--yes? >> Can I do a follow-up? >> We're just concern then, when will we have a final answer? >> You'll have to work with Dr. Jacobs on--on that. She's the Vice President for Instruction. Thank you. >> Thank you! >> I failed to announce that the Board did not take any action in closed session but we did not. >> No, you did. >> Did I? Okay well-- >> You did. >> I'm smarter than I thought I was. [Laughter] The next thing is the Approval of the Minutes of Regular Board Meeting number 14, and I would like to point out that there has been extensive revision of--of the Board of the--those minutes and it's in your purple folder to get the--the order of the minutes in line. >> Move approval. >> Is there a second with the--with the revisions, correct? >> Yes, with the revisions. >> Is there a second to that? >> Second. >> Second. I have a motion section--second. Is there any discussion? >> Yeah. >> Yes, Dr Rey Castro? >> On the--I would like to make a correction to Item G on the Revised Agenda Item, the first motion, and I will read. On the motion of Dr. Rey Castro, seconded by Dr. Mann, the Board voted by a unanimous vote of the 6 members present to approve making budget reductions as presented by the administration in the amount of 7.7 million. The correction I would like is to delete the language "as presented by the administration", so that the motion would read correctly that I made, "to approve making budget reductions in the amount of 7.7 million," as you will see from the--if I may speak to-- >> Sure, of course. >> Correction. As you will see by the following 2 motions, I did not support the budget reductions that were presented by the administration and I was the sole vote of--of the Board against the--the budget reductions as presented by the administration. So the initial motion that was made by myself was to make budget reductions in the amount of 7.7 million, it was not to approve the budget reductions as presented by the administration. >> Does anyone have any problem with that amendment which is all around? >> No. >> Mr. Baum, do you have another amendment? >> Yeah, I just--I wanna make sure that I'm clear on this because the--the language says, "to approve budget reductions," and what I believe we were doing is authorizing budget reductions, but we haven't actually--we were still pending the results of the--the state budget to come to us so that we were unable to actually make a specific budget reduction, we're authorizing it pending the--the approval of the state budget but if my understanding of that was mistaken then I'm one individual. The other item I--I was going to do on the--the second motion, so it would be--change the word "six members present to authorize budget reductions," and then on the second motion, on the motion of Mr. Martin's, seconded by Mr. Wells-Miller, "the Board voted to authorize the administration to actualize the budget reductions." >> Actually I--I asked Mrs. Thomson to go back and listen to that entire tape, which she did and I wonder, is that what it said on the tape, Mrs. Thomson, do you remember or did it--mention actually "to approve"? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Because my understanding was that if the budget picture had changed with the adoption of the budget we had more money than we thought, we would not make all the changes based on that memo. I mean, we would--it was a menu by priority of budget reductions. >> What is the Board pleasure? It--it--I mean we all voted on it, did we--do we vote to approve it or we vote to authorize the administration to make the reductions, is that what you--? >> That's what we did. >> That's what we did. >> So is it the decision of my colleagues on the Board that we actually voted cuts? >> Yes. >> Or we voted to authorize a--a variety of possible cuts? >> Well that's what--that's what-- >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> The second motion is--is very--is very clear. >> Yes. >> It's all those items above the dotted line on the proposed prioritized list. >> And it was very clear that they--those were the reductions that would be made. >> Yes, I have those right here. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller, is that your understanding? >> Yes it is, completely. >> That's not my understanding though, that's--but again-- >> Well, do you want to make a motion or we can vote it up or down--an amendment? >> Okay, so-- >> I believe that the way-- >> Let's--let's accept Dr. Rey Castro's amendment first and then I--I will vote-- >> Okay we did. >> Okay, then I'm going to move that on page G, that we change the word "to approve budget reductions" to the word "to authorize budget reductions" both in that clause and then in the next one, "the vote was to authorize the administration to actualize budget reductions" on--above the dotted line. And then finally, I would strike that last sentence because that's not part of the motion when the Board requested information on current vacant administration positions, that's just a request for information from the Board. >> Alright, is there a second to that motion? >> I think it dies for the lack of a second, Mr. Baum? >> That's fine. >> Alright, are we ready to vote on approving amendments? >> Yes. >> Do we have an advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Right! The rest of the Board all in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> I--I abstain because I wasn't here. >> One no and one abstention, that still leaves-- >> I was in affirmative, yeah. >> You--you what? >> I was one of the affirmative. >> Alright, so that means we have 5-1-1. >> 5 affirmatives. >> 5 affirmative, 1 abstention, and 1 negative. >> Correct. >> Do you have that Mrs.--Mrs. Thomson? Alright! The next is the approval of the minutes of the Board retreat on July 15th do I have a motion on this? >> Move approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second for Mr.--Mr. Thomson, any additions or corrections? >> Alright! I don't think our student was at--were you at the summer retreat? >> Part of the open session only. >> Open session, well then that's--your advisory vote? >> Aye. >> And the rest of the Board, all in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Approval of Consent Items, does anyone have a consent item that they would like to have addressed, or would like to discuss? Dr. Rey Castro? >> I'd like to move approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Okay, it's been moved and approved, and now, does anyone have an item they would like to have addressed, Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> At 14-P. >> 14-P? >> No, excuse me, 13-P. >> 13-P, Dr. Bradbury-Huang, any other items? Okay, 13-P, Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> I wanna take this opportunity to recognize Edgar--I always get your name wrong, Edgar-- >> Nandkishore. >> Nandkishore! For your--are you here? [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Edgar is right there. >> Edgar is here. >> I know you're here 'cause you're always here. [ Applause ] >> Edgar has served for 17 years, and I want to wish you luck in your retirement, and thank you personally for your friendliness to me when I came on the Board, you were one of the--the first to--to reach out, and I'm grateful for that, and that you wear green on St. Patrick's day also makes me proud. [Laughter] Good luck in your retirement. >> Mr. Baum? I mean--yes, Mr. Baum? >> And just on--on 14-P. >> Yes? >> I just like to ask Vice President Jacobs to convey our thoughts to Dr. Alquaddoomi, and that we sincerely hope that he'll find a way back to PCC. We're authorizing another year for a leave of absence but he's a valuable member of the team and we hope he comes back. >> Anything else? Are we ready to vote on the consent items? >> Yes. >> Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Other votes? All in favor? Please say aye. >> Aye. >> Alright! The next item is the Budget Update: Discussing--Discussion with Possible Action to Reconsider Cuts Approved on July 1st, 2009, Dr. Perfumo? >> Yes, as you know the governor signed the state budget into law on July 28th, and since that time the Fiscal Services Staff has been tirelessly working to get our more accurate numbers based on what the state projections are for us now. And I wanna really thank Dr. Sugimoto while I was away on my vacation for stepping in and--and getting folks organized around this item and Dr. Zacovic leading the charge to put these materials together. I'd like to ask Dr. Zacovic to come to the podium now and walk you through this packet of information, there were a number of copies, they're over here for the public if any of you would like one. >> Thank you! I wanna make sure that everybody's on the same page and so we're using a document that looks like this, the bright Kelly Green cover. This is probably about our 10th version but if you look on the bottom of left hand corner of the page, it's version 8509, so the--the copy that was delivered to the Board members yesterday as information is out and tonight is in. >> Thank you. >> Okay? And--and we do have plenty of copies over here in the--for the audience if anybody would like to listen to that, so-- >> I don't--I don't have 8509, where is it? >> Its in your packet. >> Its in your-- >> Its in your packet. >> Well? >> Okay, thank you, there it is, thank you. >> Okay so, we're--we're all set? Everybody--? >> Yes. >> Okay! If you turn to the--the yellow page, the big question I think in a lot of peoples minds is what exactly has happened between July 1st and August 5th in regards to the budget and specifically in regards to the budget of how it affects Pasadena City College. And so the Executive Committee working the last couple of weeks were very helpful in assembling all of--of this information. I drew the short straw and that's why I'm standing here, they--they made me make the presentation. And I wanna make sure that we have enough time to walk through it carefully, to answer questions that--that you may have, clarifications that you may have so that--that there's really some clarity and illumination about the budget process and--and what we're suggesting as a possible solution. I wanna be really clear with the Board that we're not asking for action tonight on this document or--or this proposal. We're really just looking for your affirmation nod, thumbs up, thumbs down, about the direction that we're moving. I wanna remind you that we have one more Board meeting on August 19th that you'll get another budget update and then, in the first meeting in September will be when the--the budget comes to you as--for your approval, the adopted budget. So knowing that, you'll have another opportunity to hear more information and then I think that the President is gonna discuss later on in the meeting the meeting scheduled for the Board 'cause we're suggesting that we actually--perhaps have a special meeting on the 14th of September or whatever day that you might decide to allow us more time to really do the--the detail work of putting this budget together. We--we've received this information rather late in the--in the season, the budget season. Not the latest we've ever received it, but often if the budget is signed by the governor beyond September 1st, they'll extend the statutory deadline which is September 15th for you all to approve the adopted budget. In a conference call, statewide conference call with CEOs and CBOs last week, I was the one that asked the question, "Are you planning to extend the deadline so that the districts have more time to prepare their adopted budget?" And the answer was "No". So we still have that September 15th deadline. In any case, we wanted to make sure everybody understands what's changed in the last month, and so on the yellow sheet, we have 10 points that I'll run through quickly that--that have really impacted the budget and some other changes. First of all, student enrollment, we wanted to--to make sure that people understand that all the work to--right size, or resize the curriculum really goes back to a February 18th memorandum from the President to the Board that was discussed at the Board and really approved by the Board, it's the blue sheet, it's the next page that--that--gives you information from the 18th of February about general conditions including preserving access for students and preserving full-time employment and benefits and expense considerations that included, number 1 on the list, realigning course schedule to reduce over Cap FTES to no more than 2 percent of the--over the funded Cap. >> And a number of others selected hiring freeze, all things that you're familiar with, we've been working on these, we've been doing these, and following the lead that the Board gave us in February to get to this point. And that also includes item number 7 and these weren't in rank order, but item number 7 that's early--considering early retirement options. And so I wanted to make sure we have that sort of a historic document as part of this--this packet. So, among those--the guidelines I wanna get to this later in the presentation, but now we're--we're recommending that 308--16 sections be proposed to offer--offered in the Winter 2010 Intersession. So we wanted to be clear on that. The ending balance since July 1st, we've had an opportunity to fine tune-that ending balance, we know that that's a moving target for us but it has come in higher than projected and that has influenced the recommendation that, or excuse me, the proposal that we're--we have before you and--and are sharing with you tonight and I'll get to that information more. Facilities limitations, at some point in the--the discussion about the budget and about the reduction in the Winter Intersession and the suggestion that perhaps courses would be moved from winter into fall and into spring, the reality of that is, is that we're full to the--the gills in terms of classes and courses and sections, and that there's really no room in the fall semester or the spring semester for us to move over 500 sections from the Winter Intersession. And so that--that reality sort of took hold and we understand that better now. Number 4, regarding summer versus winter session reductions and if we have to reduce and we do have to reduce, where should we reduce? Well, generally in the last month, there's been conversation and we've learned that students, faculty and administrators agree generally and that--have expressed a preference to reduce summer offerings over reducing Winter Intersession offerings, and that's part of the goal to achieve the minimization of the impact of these cuts on the attainment of student educational goals. Item number 5 is the Tax Revenue Anticipation Note, and this is not news to anyone, we've been talking about this for the last 4 or 5 months and simply that the first week in July, we did receive that the trend occurred, those notes were--were sold and we did receive the 10 million dollars from that--that operation which does need to be paid back by the end of the fiscal year. And as a matter of fact, we have to show 5 million of it, in a--in a basically a restricted reserve in December and then the additional 5 million in June. So halfway through the year they wanna make sure we have half the money ready to be able to make that payment. The deferrals that we've talked about throughout the--the last few months are now permanent. The state has told us that on a regular basis, on a permanent basis that a portion of our apportionment payments each month will be withheld and then they're--they're projecting or suggesting that this will be done a thirdly basis. So for instance, part of July, part of August, part of September, they'll catch us up in October, then November, part of November, part of December, part of January caught up in February, and then part of March, part of April, part of May caught up in June. And they're telling us, get used to that, it's going to be an ongoing deferral from hereon out for future--not just '09-'10 but future years. So that really makes us wanna pay--pay more attention and be a little more keenly aware of the cash flow situation for the district. Not--not an insurmountable problem, but it's another layer of complexity regarding the finances of the district that we need to pay attention to. The receipt of the deferral money has occurred also. The money that was withheld, the 13 plus million dollars that was withheld, part in, I think I said--is it February, March, April, May, June, part of each of those months, 13 million dollars plus, we did receive that payment, which should make us smile--state's good for their--their promise and--and that money has been received by the district. The state budget has been signed as you all know on the 28th of July. And that allows us to now get into the nitty-gritty, the real numbers that as real as they can be in regards to--to putting the budget together, seeing where the cuts are and we're gonna go into that detail a little bit later in this presentation. The workload measure decrease is something that has firmed up since July 1st. And essentially as a way to accommodate the cuts in the community college budget, the state's proposing to reduce our funded Cap as a way to recognize that decrease in revenue. Okay, normally they would just leave our Cap the same and--and in past years, and almost every year, we would have--received some type of a deficit in our funding. And they--they tell us about that throughout the year often it's a surprise to us, or we're not aware absolutely about it and they'll just say, "Well we're deficit funding, we'll send you the numbers." And off goes that money. So they're suggesting, and--and as a matter of fact, from when this document was prepared--well we've been preparing this for a couple of weeks, but I'm gonna get in to specific numbers with you tonight because that 2.5 to 3.5 percent decrease in our funded Cap, this morning they gave us the real number. And so I was able to change the numbers in--in the presentation and we're gonna give you that real number a little bit later. And I guess this--the second--the second part of that is the likely reduction for the decrease in the workload measures has not been incorporated into our budget planning and our budget numbers. I'm gonna talk about it a little bit later and give you some of that detail, and that--so we still have a little bit of a--of a--maybe a little bit of a problem that--that again is not insurmountable but will require some attention. And then the final point that--that changed is the Federal Stimulus Funding. A lot has been talked about that, you know, people talking about the 12 billion dollars, it's over a number of years, it's not all in one year, it's gonna be shared with 49 other states. And that because it's so undefined and unclear to--to us at this point, we don't feel that it's prudent to incorporate the receipt of those federal stimulus dollars in any of our budgeting activities. We need to meet--make sure that we have the actual numbers from the federal government and the state of California regarding those dollars before we--we can't count our chickens before they hatch. And so we think it's more prudent that we don't include those. And I'll talk a little bit later about how we will address those funds should we--should we receive them. So in a relative nutshell, a lot has changed in the last month and--and a lot of things that have brought clarity and--and clarification for us and we've been able to--to do some more numbers and I wanna go over those with you. So the next page was the blue sheet which was the--the February 18th memorandum. They gave us the--sort of our marching orders from the Board in developing the budget for the '09-'10 year. The--always mixed up on the colors, is this the buff page? [ Inaudible Remarks ] >> Is this the buff? On the buff page, I wanna talk a little bit about Unrestricted General Fund on '01 and Revenues and Expenditures. So I'm gonna talk about 2 years, so I'm gonna talk about '08-'09, and then the column on the right which is '09-'10, so our adopted budget revenue from last year that the money that we expected to get was about 125.3 million dollars, that's what we--you approved the budget, that's what we thought we were gonna get. And as you will remember, it was very important that we--we had a truly balanced budget that our current year expenditures were gonna be covered by our current year revenues that we weren't gonna have to dip into reserves to balance the budget. And so the expenditures in the adopted budget were the same 125.3 million dollars. >> But what--now that we're at the end of the year and--and congratulations to Odessa today, the books were closed, right Odessa? Way to go! [Applause] And her staff, who were--where is she? There she is. We're tethered you know, how you got so far away from me here. [ Laughter ] >> Can you people move so she--no, I'm just kidding. [ Laughter ] >> So they were able to close the books, and again the numbers here are as of 7:30 so these numbers are slightly different as of the 5th of August, but basically the revenue that that we received was only 122.8 million and our actual expenditures were only 120.3 million dollars. So we didn't get all the revenue that we expected but we way under spent what we thought we were gonna spend. So bottom line that's--that's a pretty good thing. How that reflects in the '09-'10 budget that we're working on, so the top of that that column on the right, we're anticipating approximately a 119.6 million dollars in revenue. That's the information that we're getting from the state, the--a number of revisions that have been going through the--the legislature, but that's--that's the number that we're--we're using. That number indeed, and you all know, you're familiar with budgets, that number's gonna change. By the time we bring you in one month an adopted budget, it's not gonna be that exact number but we think it's a pretty close estimate. What we're also proposing, a little different way to estimate our expenditures is if we were able to run the college in '08-'09 and spend 120.3 million, that number really should come forward as sort of our base expenditure budget for 2009-'10, so you see that on the next item, the Proposed Budget Expenditures, the next line that 120.3 million. Without getting into too much detail, let me remind you that because we're using the 120.3 actual expenditure number from last year, any savings that we've talked to you about before in--in specifically in relation to the hiring freeze and you know we've been using about a 2 million dollar savings by having that hiring freeze that 2 million dollar savings is already represented in that 120.3 million dollar number. So you're not gonna see a line item anywhere else in--in this presentation that says, we're gonna save 2 million dollars in hiring freeze. We're already saving it 'cause we've adjusted down our rev--our expenditure estimate to include that 2 million dollars. Furthermore, what we need to look at too is what additional expenditures can we project for 2009-'10? In no rank order, except in magnitude, we've listed what we feel are the--the major significant additional expenditures that we need to have money for in the '09-'10 year. You'll remember from the July 1st presentation that we were recommending because of the severe cuts to categorical programs that directly serves students that if we had the opportunity, we felt that we should move some general fund money into the restricted fund to help lessen the blow to our students for those programs. We're suggesting that that 2 million dollar number stay in at that level, I'm gonna go into a little more detail about the categorical cuts and you'll see that even 2 million dollars is not even a 50 percent restoration of the cuts that we're gonna be experiencing the categorical programs, but it's a significant step. We're-- >> May I ask just one question about that number? >> Sure. >> Where was that--? >> Is that alright with you Mark to ask--? >> Absolutely! >> Just that one number, where did that money come from last year if we--if we spent 120 point--million three hundred thousand, where--where did that categorical money come from--? >> Different fund. So this is-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Okay. >> That's in fund '03. >> Yeah, that's not general fund. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay? So the next item is our estimate of what we think the health benefit increases for our employees is gonna cost us, for '09-'10, and again it's an estimate, that number will change, and that's at about 1.3 million to provide our employees with their step column and longevity increases, we're estimating that to be about a million dollars for--for next year. The next item is an ARC augmentation, and as you know that we've proposed and supported by the--the ARC Committee who has disbanded that, what's worked very well for a number of years here at the college in terms of having a separate allocation process, those ARC moneys really are received by the district in the general fund in--in whole. So in--in that 119.6 million dollar estimate for adopted budget revenue, the ARC money is in there. There's not a separate fund. And that because we're budgeting actual expenditures, ARC programs that were supported in 2008-2009, and they had expenses in 2008-2009, we're moving those expenses at the same level into the 2009-'10 budget so that that ARC program and those ARC-supported programs will continue. We are--because of the Board's interest in segregating those funds and--and being made aware of those funds, we are coding those uniquely in the budget so at the end of the year, like we do every year, we're gonna be able to give you a report about ARC supported programs. But there's very different between ARC programs that were recommended by the ARC Committee, ARC programs that were funded by the ARC Committee and the actual expenditures of the ARC money. So for example, if we gave Trustee Wells-Miller 50,000 dollars in an ARC--for an ARC--ARC project, and she only spent 40,000 of it, that 40,000 is going to be included and is rolled forward in that 120.3 million dollar expenditure number. So you'd have 40 million dollars to support that ARC program. Because there are a number of ARC supported programs but not necessarily ARC-funded programs, Dr. Jacobs is really the--does that make you the mistress? I was gonna call you the master but then you're probably the mistress of--of the ARC funds. And there're a number of programs that--that we definitely wanna provide for students that we definitely wanna support for--for student achievement that are endorsed but not funded by the ARC Committee and we said, we need about 700,000 additional dollars to support those projects. And so we're suggesting that we include that in the budget as an additional expenditure. The total--and Dr. Jacobs, maybe you can help me with this, but the total--with the 700,000 dollars of ARC support, isn't it just under 3 million dollars in total? >> Yes. >> Okay, so--so that you know that what we're working on is a budget that provides about 3 million dollars out of the General Fund to support ARC, so 2.3 million are in that base proposed expenditure number, the additional 700,000 is here. The next item is the Board Election Expense, we budget this number every year but because we didn't have Board Election Expense last year, it wouldn't move forward in that 120.3 million dollar number, so we need to add that back in and as you know the County of LA has notified us that the numbers almost double what its been in past years because of the county's shortages from--from the state, so we have it in the budget at about 660,000 dollars. We're also--we've been notified that the PERS Program is going to increase the employers' contribution to the PERS Program, that's the Public Employee Retirement System, and that--that number we're estimating in about 500,000 dollars, and then you also know that we launched the Vision 20/20 Initiative for the college to develop that Educational Master Plan because only 9,000 dollars of those, that contract was spent in '08-'09, we need to fund that--the rest of that contract that will be completed in '09-'10, so that's an additional expense of--of 225 dollars--225,000 dollars. >> The original contract is 225, we paid 9, but we're gonna have 9,000 dollars in additional expenditures for the cost of providing the--the town hall meetings, some of the duplication and reproduction cost and things like that. So we're trying to keep the entire Vision 20/20 budget over the--the life of the budget to about 234 thousand dollars. So those additional expenditures that we're projecting for--for '09-'10 total about 6.4 million dollars. So if you have the 6.4 million to the 120.3, you come up with 126.685 million dollars in estimated expenditures, the problem becomes apparent when our revenues are only119.6 and it really gives us a projected short fall of 7,085,000 dollars, little bit of good news in that number is we've been using a 7.7 million dollar deficit number all along, and so now, because we have better information from the state, the deficit's gonna be about 700,000 dollars less than--than we were projecting, but it's still a problem and we're gonna get to that in a minute. Any questions on that page? >> May I ask a quick one? >> Yes. >> Do you happen to know offhand what our healthcare increase is as a percentage? How much has the price gone up? >> You know for our Kaiser Program, its gone--which is the majority program--most of-- >> Second largest program-- >> Second largest. >> And it's going up maybe close 14.6 percent increase on Kaiser a rate pass of Blue Cross and a little over 8 percent for California Care HMO, a little over 9 percent for our dental program, no increase to vision or life insurance for long term disability. >> It brings home and it situates PCC in the wider conversation we're having right now about healthcare cost explosion. Thank you. >> Did--did you mention Blue Cross? I didn't hear. >> Rate-- >> Rate pass. >> Rate pass, they're not going to increase, Blue Cross this year. >> They're not, alright, thank you. >> Again, it's an estimate at--at this point but we--we wanna make sure that we--we are able to fund those increases so-- >> Yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> I--I withheld my questions when you did the yellow page because I thought you were gonna take questions at the end, but since you're starting to take questions by page, I'm gonna go back to the questions I had for the yellow page. >> Okay. >> If you don't mind? >> Okay, right. >> Because I think they're pertinent. You stated that the 13 plus million in deferred funding from the state has been received by the college? >> Yes. >> Alright, does that mean that our reserve here at PCC has been completely reimbursed? [ Pause ] >> No--I wouldn't--I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that because--the clarity that we need to have is that--that our budget is very different than our cash flow, okay? So the--cash flow has--is helped by that 13 million dollars. It doesn't really impact the budget. >> You--you didn't answer my question. I--I understood that at our last meeting on July 1st, when I made a motion that one-half of our reserves be used to address the 7.7 million deficit that we faced that the reserves had already been committed because of the state deferrals of our funding, and that therefore, they were not available. Now that that 13 plus million has been paid to the college, what is the impact of that on our reserve? >> You know, as you all know, I was not here at the July 1st meeting, and I think that to say that the reserves had been--what's the word?--Spent or-- >> Depleted. >> Depleted. >> Depleted. >> Depleted, was a little bit of a misstatement and its certainly, you know, the rhetoric of accounting and--and numbers gets to be very complicated and--and that's why I'm trying to make a differentiation between--what we budget, the revenue we are expecting in and how we plan to spend it is different than the actual balance in our checkbook basically. So our checkbook was very low as a result of those deferrals. >> Right. >> But it didn't really affect our--our budget which includes a line item in for a contingency reserve. >> Right. >> Okay? >> Which was approximately 15 million if I'm not mistaken? >> Right. But the contingency reserve has nothing to do with our balance in our checkbook at any particular time. >> But it--but it was--it was explained and I though you were here on the 1st, you were not? >> No, he was not. >> Oh okay, I'm sorry. I thought you were here on the first. >> Nope. >> I thought an--I thought the presentation he made the previous meeting to the first, is that correct? 'Cause you made a budget presentation-- >> Yes. >> No, I listened to the tape and the comment was made that the--that the reserves had been--had been-- >> Committed. >> Obligated--committed. >> Committed or obligated-- >> Exactly! >> And--and all that. >> So you're saying that that's not the case? [ Pause ] >> We rely on the--oh--Odessa wants to speak? [ Laughter ] >> The answer to your question is yes. Once we received the 13 million then the reserves were restored. >> Okay. >> But before that, we were using the reserves, and then once we do receive the 13 million, it does get restored like he was saying, its like you your checkbook, you get down low but then when someone repays you, then it's restored back to the [inaudible]. >> That's wonderful news Odessa. I really appreciate that--that very straightforward explanation. >> Right. >> That she got it down to a level that we understand. >> Yes. [ Laughter ] >> Mark, we're not on the budget level, we're on the checkbook [simultaneous talking]. >> Right! >> Right! >> Okay, that's fair. >> Because again where you're using cash, as the cash is depleted which when we got down to a very low level, you have to start using your reserve because the revenue you're receiving month to month was not sufficient to pay the bills, so we were using the reserves, but again, once we receive our 13 million from the state, it was restored. >> So our reserve is currently been restored? >> Yes. >> Wonderful! Now let me go to my second question. Mark you were-- >> Yes? >> You were saying "Part of our funding each month will be permanently deferred." Do you know what the percent will be either per month or overall, what percent is going to be permanently deferred? >> We're expecting that between two and a half and three million dollars a month will be the size of the deferral. >> Okay. >> That's based on the February through June deferrals and they're suggesting that's its going to be in some kind of an equivalent amount. >> So that--that's the piece, what percent of our--our total monthly funds that we receive from the state is that? >> Okay, there's--let me just tell you, there's no connection between the dollars that we receive--the amount of dollars we receive each month from the state, and what our monthly obligation is for paying our bills. They don't pay us 10 million dollars a month because we spend 10 million dollars a month. >> No, no, no, I'm not asking about our obligation. >> Okay. >> I'm asking about the money that we receive from the state, what percent is that part-- >> Well, it takes us about ten million a month. >> Well if it's a [simultaneous talking] yeah, so 10 million dollars a month, at 2.5 reduction is about 25 percent. >> Right. >> Is 25 percent. >> No, but you're talking about our bills, I'm talking about our income. >> I--I think what she's-- >> What I'm saying because we would have to calculate our apportionment receipts month by month by month which differ--they differ widely-- >> Right! >> And to tell you what percentage 2.5 million dollars is of each month's amount. >> So then it's not a set amount is what you're saying? >> That's right, it's not a set amount. >> Not a set amount. >> Okay, alright. >> But it's approximately two and a half million dollars a month. >> I think what she's asking is how much money do we receive per month from the state? >> Yes, right. >> That's what she's asking. >> It's 12 different amounts. >> It's 12 different amounts, so you can't tell her what percentage it is because we don't know how much money we're going to get. >> Not even ballpark. >> Each month is different. We used to get 8 percent of our apportion, a certified apportion amount each month. Now, one month we might get 3 percent, one, we might get 5 percent, and another month we might get the full 8 percent. They will send us a schedule as soon as everything is decided and actually the deferrals increase too. I think it was 703 million this year from 540. >> Okay. >> For early '09 so the deferrals will be more this year than they were last year. >> So these are some of the details that you were talking about, you're still sort of hammering and noodling out in terms of reducing our expenditures. >> Right, and the details are--they can change it any moment. >> Right. >> And say, "Oh, we gotta short you more," you know, whatever. >> I see. >> So, it is difficult and I think your questions really illustrate how complex this budget process is and it's for every Community College in the state, every public agency, but you know, it's very complicated to balance the budget and the expenditures, the cash flow going on here, borrowing money, being shorted, apportionment, all of that. >> I really appreciate your patience in this process and I understand how complex it is. >> Yeah. >> Just from where I'm at, I am not an accountant. I don't hope to be an accountant after this. [Laughter] But--and I know how complicated this stuff is, but the questions I'm trying to ask, I'm trying to keep as clear as possible from a layman's point of view so that people in the audience, you know, also-- >> Yup, I understand. >> Can relate to these--the complexity of these accounting concerns and go away with an understanding of them. >> Uh-hmm, okay. >> Are those all your questions? >> Yes. Yes. >> Would you like to continue then Dr.-- >> Oh, I think--did Trustee Baum have a question? >> Was there another question? >> Again, I just was trying to calculate. Because of the way the budget was passed, these--you projected revenue of 119.6 so we've lost--we're getting a cut of 5 percent from the state budget just in our general fund and then the later page on the categoricals, we're taking another hit from the State. >> You looked ahead? [ Laughter ] >> I'm kidding. >> Why don't we let him get there then Jeff, is that okay? >> I was just trying to get the magnitude of the cuts to Pasadena City College from the State budget and it looks like it's on the tune of 10 plus million dollars. >> Yeah. >> Yes, yes. >> It's what did you say? >> It's 4.4. >> What, 4.4? >> Plus the--about 6 million, so around 10 million. >> That we're getting cut. >> Okay, that's fine. >> All right, may Dr. Zacovic proceed now? Do you have any other questions? >> Oh, that's true. >> Dr. Zacovic, you wanna go to your next page? >> Okay, we're gonna go to the lavender page. >> Yup. >> I want to tell you a little bit about beginning and ending fund balances, again, showing you the two-year comparison. The adopted budget last year had an ending balance of about 15.9 million dollars estimated, but we're projecting the ending balance to be as of a day or so ago and by tomorrow, we should have an actual final number because we're not--we closed the books, about 18.454 million dollars, so the difference is about 2.6 million dollars additional in the ending fund balance. If you look at the column that shows the '09-'10 budget, the projected beginning balance is last year's ending fund balance, so you see the same 18.454 million dollars. >> That's built in. >> In our budget how we account for our contingency reserve as it comes out of that projected balance and at the 10 percent level that we proposed, the contingency reserve, which is reserved on current year expenditures, so we're projecting the '09-'10 expenditures to be about 127 million dollars, so we're reserving 12.7 million dollars for our contingency reserve. In addition, we had to carry forward some anticipated expenditures for purchase orders that were cut basically in the '08-'09 year, but the items won't be received and paid for until the '09-'10 year, so I have about a quarter million dollars and this is standard. We do this every year and that's an estimate, so approximately a quarter million in prior year carry forward purchase orders. So that leaves us with an unallocated contingency reserve of about 5.5 million dollars and we're gonna talk about that a little bit later, but did you have a question? >> I have a question, just so for my information, what is the mandated reserve the college must maintain, so that we are in compliance with the Ed Code and everything else? >> Well, you know, most boards have a policy that directs what those reserve levels should be. Pasadena does not and one of my recommendations to you is that you establish that policy, but what the State looks like, what the Chancellor's Office, what the Budget and Accounting Manual and all those talk is about a 5 percent reserve. >> Five percent of what? Is that your annual budget expenditures? >> It is always based on current year expenditures. >> Okay. That's helpful. >> So if we drop down below 5 percent, we start coming under the scrutiny of the Chancellor's Office and the State for fiscal instability, fiscal mismanagement and, you know, most districts have a reserve of somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent. >> Okay, that's all. >> And then the districts are even over. >> Okay. >> He just wanted to make sure we got the number out. Okay, next page. >> On the pink sheet, I wanted to show you again the six-year budget trend for our ending fund balances and so we go back to 2003-2004 and you'll see that we had a difference of 2.8 million in '04-'05 that dropped significantly to 1.3. The reason why the '03-'04 ending fund balance is so high relative to the subsequent years is because in the '02-'03 year was the midyear deficits, funding was very unstable, we took to college cranked down on expenditures, 'cause we didn't know where we were gonna be. Every college did this, so naturally the impact would be to drive up the ending fund balance, but you'll see then as things start to settle that unallocated or that ending fund balance was decreased by about 1.3 million then it went up to 1.5, up to 2 million, down again to 1.4 million and then what we're projecting about 2.6 million. So I wanted to illustrate for all of you and everybody here that the ending balance is--why we're moving target? It moves up and down, in random often nonsensical manner. It often has a pattern that reflects the business cycle and what we're doing with funding and again you know, ours is driven up because of a very conservative spending this last year, in '08 and '09, and that's what contributed to the rise to 2.6 million. So the next page, the gray sheet, really sort of summarizes the problem and presents a possible solution. So you're familiar with the problem being this 7,085,000 dollars shortfall between what we are projecting for our expenditures and what we're gonna receive in revenue. Possible Solution, the first item on here is again, it has to do with direction that we're given by the Board back in February to right size the class schedule. So we're suggesting and I'm gonna get into the details to this, but we're suggesting that we need to reduce the number of sections by about-- by 380 sections. We've talked to you before a lot about FTES because we get paid on the basis of FTES, but we control our costs by controlling the number of sections that we offer. We're estimating and using 6,400 dollar per section cost to us that is very close to what it costs us for a Winter Intercession class. We probably--we do pay more for a fall or a spring class, but to be prudent and to be conservative we're using the 6.4 number. >> If we overestimated that number in coming up with a balanced budget, we could be stuck at the end of the year with a shortfall, so we don't want to be there. We want to be conservative about that expenditure and we wanna make sure that everybody realizes that we're including offering--this includes offering 316 sections in the winter intercession for 2010. The next item is Utility Savings. This number essentially has nothing to do with the Utility Savings that you have heard about before from reducing the size of the Winter Intercession because we're going to be offering a Winter Intercession. It's gonna be difficult to have any really substantial Utility Savings. What this number represents is our investment in the physical plant of the college and consolidation of the chillers and the projects that Dr. van Pelt has talked to you about, in terms of the grant that we received from the city to really accelerate the insulation and the consolidation of these systems and so we're predicting that we can probably realize about 125,000 dollars in savings. The next item is the Early Retirement Plan. When you saw this list before, you saw a number of about--I think it was about 167,000 dollars that we estimate in savings. That number had to do with if we had the Early Retirement Program and the people participated and that we 'd fill every position, we'd realize about that 167,000 dollars savings a year over the, I think it was four or five years. And what we're suggesting is that we're gonna hold positions vacant additional to the ones that we've already taken into consideration for the 2 million dollars savings because of the hiring freeze, but we're gonna do additional savings. And again, conservatively, we think that number is half a million dollars and this is just based on the person's [inaudible] plans, it's based on six months of savings and as it says there in the parenthetical leaving some of the positions vacant. We are also looking at the SERP Plan which is a little differently structured plan and we're trying to put together that information to the guidance of Dean Engeldinger in terms of which is the best plan for our employees, which is the best plan for the district, and how can we realize that savings. Even under the SERP Plan because we're able to control the number of positions that we would hold vacant, we feel that that 500,000 dollars in projected savings is a realistic number. We've talked about a reduction in the amount of the fact that we release time, the reduction that you saw before was about 50 percent savings, a million dollars. We've reduced that to about a 40 percent reduction that would save us about 800,000 dollars. Reduce travel by 80,000 dollars and also reduction in the use of consultants, 400,000 dollars. Probably one of the most significant items is the last item on this list because as I understand it that this is fairly unprecedented at Pasadena City College that we would really transfer money from our unallocated contingency reserve into the general fund, because then truly when accountant speak, the budget isn't gonna be balanced. Because the balance budget is your current year revenues and your current year expenditures are covered. We're suggesting that we wanna move 50 percent of that 5.5 unallocated contingency into the general fund to help balance the budget. >> Did I understand you to say that we would be having a Winter Intercession? >> Yes, and-- >> Have students been notified of this? >> You know what? We always were going to have winter intercession. It was just going to be, at one point, extremely small. >> So I gather that it's been increased. >> Dr. Mann we haven't taken any action on any of these yet, so. >> No we haven't, let's go on through, okay. >> We're not taking action. >> Okay, well let's--why don't you finish your presentation and let the Board [simultaneous talking]. >> So, early unprecedented 2.75 million dollars transferred from that unallocated contingency reserve. And as the parenthetical suggest the remaining 50 percent would be held so that we can make that same contribution in 2010-2011, should it be needed. Okay. So that's the Unrestricted General Fund. The next page is the golden rod sheet and this gets into some information about our actual section accounts and again we're showing you what our actual numbers were from 2008-2009, by semester or by intercession, and you'll see that we had a total of 6,019 sections offered in 2008-2009. This proposal we're talking about the summer of '09-'10 is already a done deal. We reduced sections by about 75 percent. We're predicting 23 reduced sections in fall, 282 reduced sections in the winter and we're holding spring constant until I get to the bottom of the page. But that shows a net decrease in sections for the current year of 380 over the previous year. In regards to how the course schedule and the academic schedules have been determined, we had a couple of goals. And again these are goals set by the Board of Trustees that we want them more closely aligned, actual credit FTES production with our funded Cap. And we also want to ensure that the district credit FTES production does not fall below the funded Cap and you all know that we don't want to be below the funded cap because then we'll lose additional revenue. Some facts that people need to be aware of is that in 2008-2009, we produced or we reported 22,650 credit FTES, done deal. We were only funded for 21,288 of those FTES and so we were 1,362 FTES over Cap in 2008-2009. And that number about 1400 is not a number that should be new to you or that you could say you haven't heard before. We've been talking about that for a number of months, so basically that what the State tells us that they were working, that our credit Cap for 2009-2010 would be the same funded Cap from the previous year which would be the 21,288. A couple of formulas that we want you to be aware of--if you think about those 380 sections that we're reducing the schedule by for this year, times that 6400 dollars per section, that's where you see the 2.432 million dollar savings that you saw on previous pages. In terms of FTES production, 380 sections at an average production of three and a half FTES per section, is 1330 FTES. So you see that if we can reduce the class schedule by the 380 sections, we'll also eliminate the 1300-1400 over Cap FTES that we're not getting paid for, so we'd really be balancing the revenue with our production or balancing our production with what they're willing to pay us. And then line C under formula, that shows us that 22,650 was the actual production if we reduce the funded cap, again 21,288 FTES, that shows that 1362 over Cap FTES, just sort of trying to help people through that. All this would be excellent news and we'd be feeling really good about the right sizing of the schedule and eliminating that unfunded FTES except for the fact that we've been advised that there's going to be a workload reduction and that's the number that we just got this morning. >> I was able to adjust this numbers and if you go get line D, again, with our funded cap would have been, should have been is the 21,288. We reduce that by 3.54 percent which is what they're telling us will be the FTES reduction. That leaves us and I transpose some numbers in this next numbers so you can make this correction, its 20,534 and that would be our funded credit FTES cap for '09-'10. The problem is that even if we take last year's actual FTES production, we subtract the 380 sections which is equal to the 1,330 FTES, we're at 21,320 FTES where that will leave us 786 FTES over our funded cap for '09-'10. So we're sort of back in the same boat although at 50 percent less than the over funded cap from the previous year but we're still in the unfunded F. So if you translate that 786 FTES into sections at the 3 and a half FTES production level that means we need to cut an additional 225 sections from the propose '09-'10course schedule. Fortunately, because we held spring constant and in consultation with Dr. Jacobs and I know she's at meeting with the deans, we feels very realistic that we'll be able to reduce with minimal impact the size of the spring schedule by approximately that 225 FTES. So, yes? >> That's when I have a clarification 'cause what I have understand--I understand your points but as I was said before, we have a budget revenue of 125 million dollars this year. Based on the new state budget, we will have general fund revenue of 119.6 million dollars, so our apportionment has gone down. That's the reason why they're suggesting reducing the cap but that--so that we're not going to be spending--that's where that reduction of 2 and a half to 3 percent and the cap is coming from because we're getting less money from the state. They're saying, okay we're gonna lower your cap. >> Right. >> But at the same time were not--the way it sounded though is that we're going to be--we're still be over cap even if we cut the--from where we are this year but we are--we're not gonna be getting less money than the 119.6 million dollars if they lower the cap, 2 1/2 to 3 percent? >> Correct. >> Right. So we don't have to anticipate losing additional revenue beyond the 119.6 million dollars. >> Correct. >> They're adjusting it. >> It's just the reflection of that they've given less money and they've lowered our cap. >> Alright, Dr. Rey Castro. >> You know, I think we have to draw a picture for the audience on this issue that puts in perspective this board's commitment to access for students to classes as are probably as our first priority. This last year is a good example of that. We were, as you pointed out here, well over cap, well over our funded cap and yet because we very conservatively manage our budget and set some priorities, we ended with a 2.5 plus million dollar balance that we didn't anticipate. So just because we're over cap in terms of funding, it doesn't mean that we are going to end up in the [inaudible]. >> That's right. >> Well. >> It--because we were able to generate the additional surplus by conservatively cutting on other items in order to maximize courses and sections for our students. >> I think. >> Isn't that correct? >> Mr. Martin? >> I think you're correct and the only place that scares looking forward, Dr. Rey Castro, is back on the very first assumption where the expenses which were a 125 million and dropped to 120, we 're starting at the 120. So the new budgets already wrung out-- >> All of it. >> --5 million of expenses that contributed to the 2.5 million and still covered extra classes over cap. And that 5 million now in the very first assumption on page 3 of whatever [inaudible] has been wrung out when we're starting at 120. If we were starting to 125 and the math came out the same, I'd be--yeah were no problem, right. >> Right. >> We're starting now at 120. >> Right, if you started at [inaudible] the problem wouldn't be 7 million dollars. >> So every good effort that was done by everybody through the college this year and all the positions that weren't filled and all the trips that weren't taken and everything that wasn't done that's assumed never be done, never be taken, never be spent, never be filled. Starting, it just the ones that were, the 120 that we did spent, this is the starting position. >> What. >> Dr. Rey Castro. >> What I'm suggesting and I hear your point Trustee Martin and I appreciate that clarification in terms of where we started and where we're going and what kind of pot holes are we gonna--we might fall into along the way. However, if you look at the estimate for the FTES over cap, we've allowed ourselves with the 21.28 credit FTES cap above cap for 2009 and '10 and then you look down at point E down at the bottom where you've added the additional deduction in the workload measure, I understand, so that it actually ends up being much more than the 1.362 FTES over cap. We're looking at actually 786 FTES over cap. But my point here is this, we have to find a medium--I don't--the point that I'm trying to make is I don't think it has to be a perfect match. I think that we can balance this without it having to be a tit for a tat. >> Correct, indeed. >> Could we let Dr. Zacovic finish his presentation, he's almost done and I know everyone has the things they want to say. >> Okay. >> Yeah, but. >> There's only one more page, right? >> Yes. [ Laughter ] >> I don't have any surprise pages tonight. >> That's good. >> One of the things that we have not talked a lot about to you is the categorical cuts. You know, we've always been focused on the general fund because essentially the philosophy for a categorical program is, categorical program budgets will equal whatever the categorical program revenue is in a given year. And is that--as those programs go up and down, we always balance that way and that's how most colleges do it and it's a good way to do it. But as you see here, we're showing that in the first column the amount of categorical that we certified on our second principal apportionment about 9.9 million dollars we received. The next column shows that percentage reduction that the states telling us program by program and you see it varies widely from 15 percent up to 62 percent or actually a 100 percent for a cap of programs. So then the next column is the dollar amount that those programs are being reduced that the total 4.4 million dollars for Pasadena City College. And then it shows you based on those reductions that the projected budget for '09-'10 would be about 5.5 million dollars. So that 2 million dollars that we're suggesting we transfer from the general fund to the categorical programs would be additional. It would reduce the short fall to 2.4 million dollars for those programs, okay? So to see that, still substantial reductions in those programs, important for you to know that we will not be able to, on a percentage, proportionate basis, you know, restore those dollars. >> 'Cause for instance, if you see midway down that list. You see part time faculty allocation. Those are dollars that to come to us that originally designated for part time faculty health benefits to fund part time faculty office hours. And so it's a bargain of long established practice at PCC. It was decided rather than get into the allocation of those dollars on a per adjunct faculty member basis. Those dollars were all put into the adjunct faculty salary schedule, so that all adjuncts benefited from those dollars. Because the board's interest in not impacting our employees, because of the budget cuts, it's likely that we're gonna have to restore that full 613,000 dollars as one of the first things we do with that 2 million dollar because we've promise our adjunct employees that that's the level which we're gonna get paid. So that's just an example of some of the complexity of the categorical funding. In addition, if you say that matriculation, credit matriculation program cut by 62 percent, 922,000 dollars, you see that line? Many, many of those dollars in the matriculation budget are spent on salaries and benefits for employees. We have to be sure before we allocate that 2 million dollars. That throughout all of our categorical programs that these cuts aren't going to affect or impact the stuffing in those areas because again the board has told us we need to preserve jobs and we need to preserve benefits. So we're gonna have to do a lot of work, Dr. Sugimoto and Dr. Jacobs are poised and ready to go as is. Ms. Odessa and Sheri [phonetic] to really look at those numbers on a program by program basis so that we're really honoring your desire to not impact the employees and that we make those whole. And then the remaining dollars of that 2 million we will device an equitable way to spread those throughout the budget but there's a lot of work to do on that, exactly. So, anyway, we just-- >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> We haven't talked about the categoricals in much specificity with you. I though it was important that you see these numbers. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang. Do you have comments you have comments you wanna make, are you ready? >> I am ready. It's more of a closing comment to you rather than a question if that's-- >> So go ahead. >> --pleases the president. I'm sitting with both, you know, good cheer and a certain sense of desperation. The good cheer is, if I've understood correctly, our winter intercession is being cut less than 50 percent. >> Yes. >> Which is really terrific news, okay. What makes me feel a little upset is that I basically didn't understand that at the last meeting. And maybe my colleagues didn't either. And so in expressing our willingness to make the cuts we did so in good faith that that's--that's what Pasadena City College needed. So I'm actually thrilled and delighted that because numbers have changed and so on that we don't have to make those kind of draconian cuts. I hope that will be headlines in the courier. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> There she is. [ Laughter ] >> Moreover, I'm learning that it was summer rather than winter that was intercessions that were play according what the campus was cheering. So again these are things that I did not understand. I apologize for not understanding them and I would say that I acted in good faith with the partial information that I had. And thank you, thank you for the-- >> Statement. >> --clarity of your--of your presentation. >> Go ahead. Let her finish. >> Let me finish. The last page, the pink page is the part that, you know, is associated with the most sadness. We essentially, again if I understood correctly, we have 2,750,000 dollars to make up for short fall that is much greater than that. >> 2 million. >> We have 2 million. >> 2 million. >> So it's even less. You mentioned the issue of part-time faculty allocation that is of course a huge concern for me but as big if not even bigger are basic skills being cut by 32 percents. So these are desperate times and I know it sounded like Dr. Sugimoto and Jacobs will be taking this under advisement. I know you share the concerns that we do. I think it's like a King Solomon's job. How do you preserve the baby here, very, very hard? And so--you know, so there's aspiration and desperation and I thank you for the clarity of your-- >> I want--I have no cards that any member of the audience wants to address this. So now it's time for the board's discussion. I saw Mr. Martin, Mr. Baum, and Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> A point of clarify for Dr. Bradbury-Huang. We made some decisions on July 1st in the state information that we have before us today came in on July twenty-- >> 28. >> 28. >> 28th, right. I think we made the decisions we had to make with the information that was possible to have and in light of new information tonight. We do have an opportunity to make a new decision. And so I don't feel--I'm usually very quick to apologize because I have a lot to apologize for but this is one case where I don't quite feel that way. I think we made the best decision we could make with the information and the timing that we had to make it. We're all delighted we got more money. You know I said on that state deferral of 13 million, I believe it's a deferral and they're not keeping it when I see it. Well, we actually did see it. Okay! So you know I think--I don't think we have to apologize. I think we can rejoice but I don't know that we have apologized for where we were on that. I wanted to then clarify a comment that Mr. Zacovic made. We certainly have a policy of preserving our general physicians here at the campus. I don't know that we've had a policy that has supported grants and funding that is come--that positions that are supported by specific grants and funding for specific timeframes. And when those timeframes end, we have seen those physicians have to go away 'cause the funding behind them has gone away. So I'm not--I'm not arguing whether to put 2 million into categoricals or not. But I am marginally--and I appreciate how you're thinking. But I'm also saying to us--to the extent that the decision is made for us by the state or a higher authority. We have traditionally as a practice when the funding of a position goes away. Lots of times it's understood that that was a funded position and that's a little out of our control. I'm not trying to debate it. I'm just trying to say given in historical perspective. When you--And I'm not--Again, I'm not speaking for against the 2 million but it obviously is a decision when we're starring down the potential of a further 225 class cuts in spring and we look up here and see the 380 class sections translates approximately to 2.4 million dollars. You know you could certainly make an argument that the 2 million that we're transferring could also be used instead to preserve the 225 additional class cuts which is preserving somebody else's job just in a different side of the college. So--And again, I'm not making a play for that tonight I'm just kinda putting it into perspective for everybody historically. >> Mr. Baum, [inaudible] had her hand up so I'd like to hear from her then Mr. Baum and Mrs Wells-Miller. >> And I wanna just take a moment before the board finishes its discussion because I know how very, very difficult and challenging this budget times are and it's because the board early on adapted the guidelines from a year ago that we continue to utilize through fall through fall. >> And then again guideline in February that allowed us to operate with the physical prudence, gave it the college the guidance that we've had to now come in with much more reserves as Dr. Rey Castro pointed out that is helping with the problems. So I think this is certainly a tough, tough budget and a tough year but I do believe the board should feel very good about your guidance early on with the guidelines and the direction you have given to help keep the budget dollars in place to support student success. And that's really what this has been about. >> Okay, Mr. Baum? >> I wanna get a little bit of clarity as to what's before the board right now. And as I understand what's before the board as an administration recommendation is to resent the motion we made on July 1st and replace it with what's on the green--with the gray sheet. >> I--Excuse me, yes, I--go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Because as we discuss at the--in the minutes discussion, we actually made a move to cut the winner intercession on July 1st. And so in order to restore that, we would have to take a motion to resent that as well as adopt these cuts--this other budget modification as recommended by the administration. >> That is--That is my understanding also. I mean we actually voted to approve these as cuts. I think the intent may have been from--I have the vantage of hearing this twice. I got it--I understood a lot better the second time, I think the intent was that this were the directions the administration was proposing to us in preparing the budget and that we didn't really need to act and say do this or don't do this. But just do you approve this direction. However, since we took an action and we said we approved the cuts. I would think that what we probably should do would be to have a motion to change that from approving the cuts of this, I think Robert will let you do this, to saying this is direction we're giving to administration to go in this direction. And not to approve this because I assume two weeks from now we may have different suggestions. And I don't think the motion actually said to cut the winter intercession. I think it was more to cut most of it. That would be my understanding of where we are here. >> The motion above the line as it was described was cut winter intercessions savings three point some million dollars. >> Exactly. >> Alright, then I think we do have a motion--we do have to have a motion to-- >> Reinstate. >> --reinstate. >> What would be--What would be the--and again as a matter legal counsel is present tonight. >> Yes, I was looking over there being so happy she's here. >> What's wrong with the idea of just letting your previous action lie until we get to the adopted budget that you need to approve in September? >> And that would be a possibility safe. But what I understand from the--what I'm hearing from the campus community is that they need the time to plan their sections and hiring and things like that. So it's--So if we wait till September 15th then it'll be hard press to-- >> I don't think there'll be any impact on course scheduling between now and the 15th. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> I don't know what the academic senate or the other feel about that. >> Dr. Jacobs before you speak to that I would like to remind--you know, I went back and listened to that tape, too. And if anyone is a masochist you might wanna listen to that tape. [Laughter] But we were specifically told that we need to take this action that night because we're getting ready to print the catalog for the winter intercession. >> That's right. >> So, I--Dr. Jacobs if--is it--do we need to take an action to prevent a partial catalog to be printed? I mean we need some help here from the firm. >> It would help us if you did on the winter part because we have in our planning it would help us to go. And plan so far ahead for that particular part it would. And it would clarify a lot of things for the deans as they work with getting faculty and setting up for the winter. But let's say if we didn't--we could wait but we would prefer. >> Ms. Wells-Miller, I know you wanna speak but I would like to ask Mary Dowell who is our attorney, if she can help us out of this dilemma. Since she's sitting there, she might as well come up and give us some advice. >> Dr. Mann, is this on? >> Yes. >> Dr. Mann, members of the board, Dr. Perfumo, I'm here to assist solely in a technical capacity. I don't--It'd be totally inappropriate for me making sort of substitute recommendation to you. >> We're not asking for substitute. We're asking you for a technical. >> Yeah. The board can reconsider the motion that was made previously as long as a member who voted with the majority at the time moves to reconsider. And if that motion passes then the Board can go back and essentially change, substitute--I think Mr. Baum made the suggestion or Mr. Martin, I'm not sure which that essentially what you would do would be reconsider your previous motion and then substitute for the actions that were taken that night, the actions that are reflected in some of the recommendations that you've heard from staff tonight and I think that that would be procedurally appropriate both from a parliamentary standpoint and from an open meeting standpoint. Because that is your agenda tonight would permit you to do that. >> So I'd like to move reconsideration of that. >> Alright, reconsideration of the cuts. >> Second. >> Right. That is I have a motion and a second. Mrs. Wells-Miller can you wait towards what you're gonna say before we do this. >> Well, it was to make a motion to resent-- >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But we've got the motion. Mr. Thomson? >> I'd like to get some clarity on a couple of things. The first, if I may 'cause I think it bears on this at least indirectly. I'm looking at what we call the orange colored page. >> There is no orange colored page. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Second to the last, gold orange, you know, gold, okay. As I'm looking at this, the proposed 2009-'10 academic schedule is gonna be to cut the summer intercession by 75 sections and winter by 282. Is that correct? >> Yes. Summer has already been cut. Fall by 23-282 and that sort of solves today's problem regarding the size of the class schedule and our number of section in FDES. >> But the problem having is reconciling that with the first page which I would say the yellow page that says [inaudible] for summer versus winter session reduction. Students, faculty, administrators generally have expressed a preference to reduce summer offerings instead of winter intercession offerings to achieve the goal of minimizing impacts to students attainment of educational goals. I don't understand how we can cut the winter by three times the number of sections. And still be sanguine with the--or consistent with number four. >> The summer session that's noted on the page 409-10 has already occurred and it's over. So that's done. What that point on the yellow page speaks to is that summer of '10-'11. What we'd look at the scheduling for summer '10-'11 in the context of the '10-'11 year to more evenly spread out that reduction or size that schedule. And again, Dr. Jacobs could perhaps speak to that. >> You know we have a motion on the floor. I'm sorry. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> But does that--does your question address the motion on the floor? >> It does in my mind. I wasn't here when you made the motion on July the 1st. I'm trying to understand what was done. I'm also trying to understand the impact of what--as far as resetting the motion, no. This has nothing to do with that. It will have a lot to do whatever substitute motion presumably somebody is gonna make. >> Right. >> Well, can we first of all vote on the reconsideration, then we'll look at the substitute. >> Of course. >> Okay. >> So. >> Any other discussion on reconsideration? >> And just so it's clear, it's just we're reconsidering--we're bring back to the table the motion that was made on July the 1st for open for discussion. We're not deciding anything else other than that. >> The motion that is on the floor is to reconsider the motion that was previously taken. If it passes, then the board will be in my view free to discuss new options. >> Alright. >> Right. >> So the motions is-- >> It's not directing any of these changes. >> Right. >> No, I understand that. >> You now--understand, okay. So it's just if the motion is to reconsiderate--reconsider the motion that was made by someone who voted infirmity. And so is there any more discussion on the motion to reconsider? Alright--yeah, Ms. Wells-Miller. >> I'm trying to ask why it is not possible rather than to reconsider why is not possible to make a motion to resent. >> Because that's the parliamentary process is to reconsider. >> Thank you. >> Alright, are we ready to vote on the motion? >> Mr. Martin. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Martin. >> Is it possible to resent that motion and simultaneously in the same motion approve a new motion? Does it have to be a two step process? And why do I ask that, because there could be a condition where we don't want to resent the previous motion unless we're comfortable with the new motion. >> That's why a motion to reconsider is appropriate. >> Yeah. >> Because by--if you pass the motion to reconsider, then all your options are available to you. >> Okay, alright, alright. >> Yeah. And everyone--Mrs. Wells-Miller that's a much better answer to yours. Reconsider is just means we're gonna rediscussed it. We're not resenting it, we're just--we--okay. >> And again just to clear for Mrs. Thomson's purpose on this. We're opening--We're reconsidering the motion that says that to direct the administration to actualize the budget reduction above the dotted line on the proposed prioritize budget reduction options recommended by the President in the Ad Hoc budget committee. >> Yes. >> That is the motion we are--reop--I'm moving that we reconsider. >> Alright, which one are you moving that we reconsider? We've got a bunch of them. >> Right, it's in the minutes. >> Okay, the second one, alright. >> It's the second one. >> Alright, is everyone clear on that? Alright, all in favor please--of reconsidering, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? And advisory vote--I'm sorry. >> Aye. >> Okay. Now we can have a motion to do whatever we want to. And what I would suggest we might want to do is to do what we probably should have done last time which is to direct the administration to--I don't know. We could direct the administration to follow this line in developing the budget. I think that's what Dr. Zacovic would have asked if he had been here. Is that correct? >> I'm under the impression that we don't need action from the board in any form or way to proceed upon these lines in developing the adopted budget for the college. We can move forward and do that. We don't--Because I'm worried that exactly what happened as a result of a very specific motion on July 1st is going to reoccur because there are still many ambiguities and uncertainties about the actual numbers. I just talked about a 225 section problem that we have that would--could cost the district 2 million dollars to offer those sections, 2 million dollars that we're not gonna get paid for by the state. We still need to do some work about that. And I'm worried that if you take that action, we're going to not get the train back on the track in regards to having an adopted budget for you in September. >> What action are you referring to? >> He's referring to any action. >> Any action? >> Right. >> Yeah, I just--I think we can--I know we can continue to do our work and develop this budget. You liked what was in here. If you like, we get a nod, we get an affirmation. We do not need formal budget. You have delegated the responsibility for the development of budget to the president of the college. She is able to direct us to develop this budget. We have guidelines. We've operated. We've demonstrated since February. We're following. I just don't think we need it. But legal counsel is sitting here so I don't know what-- >> Mr. Thomson you had your hand up. >> Well, I just want to--if I may go back to the questions I was trying to ask before and make sure I understand this. The 70th--and this is back to whatever this is color-- >> Gold. [ Laughter ] >> --page. >> It's gold. >> It's gold, whatever. You're saying the 75 summer site--intersite--summer sections have already been cut. I understand that. And the proposal at least as of this point in time is that as far as the winter intercession goes, 282 section would be cut. >> Right. >> Now you're saying it's not locked in concrete and we understand that. But clearly that's the direction of things we're going. And I still have difficulty reconciling that with the consensus of the faculty, students, and everyone else at summer ought to be not winter. >> Well, because we can't in this budget year-- >> I understand that that. But where do we go the next budget year? We're gonna then re-add more winter sections and then redo summer? >> I would say that that's exactly what's gonna happen. >> Right. >> Okay. Can we kinda flush that out before we start down this path? >> When you say flush it out I don't understand what you mean about that. >> Part of the negative publicity that's risen result from some information that was apparently misunderstood or not accurate or whatever it was about cuts in the winter intercession. If we take this gold piece of paper, we're still having [inaudible] as many cuts as apparently proposed or talked about before, nonetheless very significant number of cuts of sections. We're now saying that, well, we get around to the following year's budget, we may add sections back on that and take it away from summer. It'd be nice at least I would find it helpful and interesting if nothing else to have some hints of what we might be wanting to add back for up to the winter or maybe wanna take away from the summer before we get too locked into a budget for '09 and '10. It this taking almost 50 percent cut in a number of sections of the winter intercession. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> I think what you want, Bill, is gonna happen nine months from now when we'd looked at the same sheet only instead of '09-'10 we're really looking at '10-'11. >> Yeah. >> And if all else was equal and it wasn't summer yet and we we're looking--or when we look at it, maybe six months from now we're looking at '10-'11 I would surmise that the number of summer classes will be down. And the number of winter classes will be up to reflect the comment that's on the front of the sheet. But that's impossible to do for '09-'10 because summer is over. >> Right. >> So I think that's where that's gonna--where you're gonna see it is six months from now when we're talking about summer '10-'11 we're gonna hopefully have a--well, I guess not hopefully, but regretfully a smaller summer so that we can have a better winter. >> And the difficulty arises because the schedules have to go to print so much sooner than we have our budget information from the state. >> Right. And I understand that and I do appreciate that and I think that's one of the concerns I have about and I understand your point that the next 26 days of this month who knows what's going to happen and money may appear out of the blue or disappear or whatever else it maybe. And so it's premature to start taking specific actions or giving specific directions to the administration to do this evening. But how do we get a catalog that goes to press, it's printed, but in a clue what's gonna be offered. >> Because of the relative size--and of Jackie feel free to jump in, Lisa. [Laughter] Because of the relative size of the winter intercession we're actually proposing and talking about the delivery of that course schedule in a very limited print edition using the internet. It's online and really directing students to do it that way. So we're a little less impacted by in the printing deadlines because electronic deadlines are instantaneous. >> I f I could make maybe a comment--I hope will help us get out of this dilemma. I think it's usual for the board to start--but--voting on pieces of the much budget until we get the whole budget. >> Right. >> We usually wait and look at the whole budget. What happened was on July 1st, we were presented some budget recommendations and directions which we then voted on which had this effective camp, you know, which was to cancel the winter intercession. But I think if we--I agree with Dr. Zacovic. If we start voting on different things now as the circumstance change then we're gonna have to keep reconsidering, reconsidering, reconsidering. So what I would hope the board would be willing to do would be to vote to resent the action of cancelling the winter intercession. And then direct the administration either to continue to develop the budget along the lines that have been presented or if you have some concern. For example using that two million, whatever is from reserve, is something we've never done before. If you wanna say we don't want to do that we want you to consider other options, give it to them as direction but not vote on it and put it in stone. Mr. Baum. >> So I agree with that. I'd like to give the administration flexibility to come back to us with a budget. One thing I wanna see in that budget is the restoration to the extent possible of courses offered during the winter intercession. But I have--I've got to be candid I have some concerns about some of the other items on the gray sheet that the administration is proposing. And for example Mr. Martin [inaudible], I wanna make sure that any of this gray sheet items right size and the class schedule, reducing faculty release time, early retirement plan are not subject to a collective bargaining review as well. Are we confident that that's not the case? And also the transfer from the unallocated contingency reserve that is a first time thing. And then it could even be on the table, do we really need, do wanna budget at 10 percent reserve this next year? Do we wanna budget a 7 percent reserve this next year? And do we wanna allocate 50 percent of the unallocated contingency. We wanna allocate a budget 100 percent of the unallocated. Those are discussions I want to have. And so I don't want it by our motion today saying that the board offers to approve this direction in the grey sheet 100 percent. But I do wanna--but the one thing I'd like to see is the restoration of it as much as the winter intercession. >> Dr. Rey Castro. >> I have a point of information, a point of clarification. We voted to reconsider and we approved that vote to reconsider the motion and the vote to reconsider was not in and off itself a vote to resent the motion. So as we currently stand we need to--if I'm not mistaken, need to make an additional motion if it's the will of this board to resent the specific motion with regard to cutting winter intercession then we need to make that motion. >> That's what I've been trying to do. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yes, Mr. Baum. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I've got a point of order. I think to reconsider means that that motion is not now on table again. We just voted-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> We can amend it or do whatever change. >> Yeah, I think it's a little simpler. >> It's just that we're reconsidering it. We can either vote this up or down. >> Right. >> And the reason we're having this discussion is because in some people's minds the vote that up or down maybe impacted on the direction we wanna give the college on this sheets. >> Dr. Zacovic I saw your hand. >> In reading the motion, I understand that the motion has to do with more items than just cutting winter intercession. >> Yes, it does. >> So, we need to be specific that if you're gonna recent it's that motion to move the dotted line-- >> We can just vote down. >> The motion is the motion. We already approved a motion to reconsider that entire motion is up for reconsideration. >> All of it is. >> Yes, but I hear people saying that the motion was to cut winter intercession. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> That was one of the options. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> I haven't heard that. >> Yeah. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> If they wanna save one of the cuts, they have to make an amendment to the motion to do something. >> Okay. >> Alright. >> Or we could vote down the motion right here. >> Alright, I would suggest that we consider--someone consider making a motion that we--a voting down this motion. And the whole thing not just winter intercession. And the reason why is we would then but I don't know we may have to vote down all these other motions, too. But that was only to pass. Okay, because then we can give the administration direction to go ahead with the other items in the motion without it being in a motion. So if they did wanna come back and change the direction a little, we don't have to go back and take action to change it. >> It seems to me that Mrs. Wells-Miller has been trying to make that motion. >> Okay, Mrs. Wells-Miller, please make that motion. >> I would like to make a motion to resent. >> Point of order. >> Yes. >> That's not the motion. >> We have a motion on the table, we can't make another motion. >> Okay, what we need to do is vote this one up or down? >> We need to vote on this motion, yes or no. >> Okay, alright, alright, Mrs. Wells--yes, Mr. Thomson. >> I think the counsel can correct me if I'm mistaken, but certainly we can entertain a motion to substitute, a substitute motion. >> And I apologies Mrs. Mann, the motion to reconsider has been voted on. >> That's correct. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Now we've got the original motion. >> Now you've got the original motion before you and I wasn't here until foresee this. I don't know who moved or seconded it. >> It's right here. >> Moving pass the procedural issues of who can make the motions et cetera. >> Right, but that is the motion before you. You can move to amend it and if the second--mover and seconded accept the amendment then you can vote on it. You could move a substitute motion or you can vote on it and if fails it fails. But you don't need to move to resent it. >> Right. >> Alright, thank you. >> All you need to do is call for the question and defeat it. >> Alright, we could--so what we could do is we could--if people do not support this we can just call for the question and vote it up or down. Is that correct? >> I believe that's correct. >> Is everyone--Does everyone understand that? >> Yes. >> Um-hmm. >> Alright. >> Can we have the motion read so we know what we're doing? >> Could you read the motion? >> It's in our packet. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> I'll read--I'll read. A motion by Mr. Martin and second by Mrs. Wells-Miller to direct the administration to actualize the budget reductions above the dotted line on the proposed prioritized budget reduction options recommended by the President and the Ad Hoc budget committee with the understanding that the early retirement plan will need to come before the board for review and approval. Further the board requested information on the current number of vacant administrative positions in relation to the proposed budget reduction. That's the motion. Are we ready to vote on that motion? Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Alright. Board members all in favor? >> You said aye? >> Aye. >> You need to clarify what an aye means [inaudible]. >> Exactly. >> Aye vote means we're back to that same plan. >> Square one. >> We're going back to square one. Do you wanna go back to square one? >> And a no vote means it's like it never happened. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Oh God. >> Okay. Okay, so every one in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Motion carries. >> Good. >> Motion failed. [ Simultaneous Talking ] [ Laughter ] >> The motion fails. >> Fail. >> Okay, alright. Alright, now if you look at these motions that we took is there--there is no other motion that we need [inaudible] nothing else carried. >> Yes. We do need to correct the motion immediately above that now. >> Yes. >> So I move we reconsider the motion that we made to approve budget reductions in the amount of 7.7 million dollars. >> Okay is there a second on that one? >> Second. >> Okay. So the motion is to reconsider the motion to approve making budget reductions in the amount of 7.7 million dollars, is everyone-- >> That motion never got active fund. It was withdrawn. >> No, it wasn't. Voted by unanimous vote of six members present. >> That's why unanimous vote. >> It's this first one on the page. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> No, the first one on the revised. >> Under G. >> Oh, revised okay. >> Yeah, okay. So that is the motion. Is it clear we're going to reconsider this? >> And part of the reason obviously any budget reductions if the numbers have changed. >> Alright, alright, alright. Is everyone clear that we're voting to reconsider the motion to approve making budget reductions in the amount of 7.7 million, advisory vote? >> Aye. >> All in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Alright, the motion to reconsider passes. Now-- >> Call the question. >> Call the question on the motion itself, right. Dr. Rey Castro? >> Point of information. The only thing that really needs to change here is 7.7 million to 7.1. >> It maybe a different number two weeks from now. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> So shall we just throw it out? >> Let's just throw it out. >> Not the motion but the number. >> The number, right. >> So the new motion would be-- >> That we're gonna throw the whole thing. >> I think we should throw the whole think out and then just give oral direction. >> When we get new numbers back we'll make another motion. >> That would be my recommendation. You just want to give oral directions. You don't want to put it in. >> Alright, so what we're doing is we're voting on the motion to approve making budget reductions of the amount of 7.7 million dollars, advisory vote. >> Aye. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> [Inaudible] you voted yes. Okay. >> No, didn't you say to--was to resent that motion? >> No, were not resenting it, we're just voting on the motion itself. >> Oh, excuse me. No. >> No, okay. Is there--other Board members all in favor say aye. All oppose say no. >> No. >> Alright. >> That has been taken care off . It took what two and half hours. So now let's go back to the presentation just given to us by Dr. Zacovic. What I think Dr. Zacovic is asking for direction from the board. So if there items in--that he has here on any colored sheet. >> And next time I suggest you number them because some of us are color blind. And then you could refer to the number. If--Is anyone has anything that they have concerns about we can bring it up and discuss it as part of the direction to the administration without actually taking a formal vote. >> Right. >> Is everyone clear on that? And is there any issue? Dr. Rey Castro? >> Yes, I would like--I would like in the followup report in this budget a status report on the reserves both the allocated and the unallocated because there is references to unallocated contingency reserve which leads me to believe that there is allocated contingency reserve somewhere. >> Well that's the 12. >> Well you don't have to explain what they are now. But I want a report on the reserves, how much we've got. >> They're all there. You already have it. >> But I want a report. >> Okay. >> It's already there. >> Alright, you have that we can have that again. We may have different numbers two weeks from now. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Anything else, any other concerns, anyone has about the direction we're going and developing the budget. Because this is just like a roadmap and if we wanna--having go that main street rather than green street we need to [inaudible]. Mr. Brown. >> I just want to be sure of where--what the source of this possible solutions are. Is there a functioning campus process that has reviewed this so that we don't get mixed signals about winter versus summer or things like that? So when it comes back to us I'm hoping that whatever is our suggested possible solutions I feel either reflect the campus communities participation in that process. >> Dr. Perfurmo can you respond to that? >> Yes, the Ad Hoc budget committee is meeting again. I believe it's this Friday we meet? >> Okay. >> Or is the week from Friday. >> What I want to say is that-- >> We meet a week from Friday. >> We got--we've got in conflicting direction from the ad hoc budget committee because the ad hoc budget committee recommended the winter intercession gets to be cut. And then in today's memo, we were told that the campus community would rather see summer cut than winter cut. So I wanna make sure that there's some consistency in what recommendations we're receiving. >> Alright, so the--and Dr. Perfumo, could you please clarify for us whose sets on the ad hoc budget committee. >> Those are the different shared governance groups along with executive committee. So--and it's only been in this last month where students have expressed their preference that it be summer over winter. And other people have come forward with other suggestions. So I think we've been listening. I think we've just been trying to listen to people and I think as we go forward, we continue the dialogue. >> So just--when we're asked to act, I'm hoping that that information doesn't change its consistency. >> Yes. >> So the question I asked was who is on the ad hoc budget advisory committee. My recommendation is that there were 2 trustees who were also supposed to be in some way involved with it. So I hope that the 2 trustees are also advised when we meet because we are supposed to--I think the word in the motion was monitor this. >> Right. >> I think if the trustees had a heads up maybe, I know last time it may not have happened but what we would like to know. I think it's--and you don't--are you and I the 2? >> Yes. >> Alright, Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Yes, I would suggest that perhaps let's go through Academic Senate and the college coordinating council that way we've got-- >> Right, we have representatives from those groups on the committee. >> And I don't think the Academic Senate actually meets again. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know your name, you're representing the senate. >> Yes, right. >> For Dr. Bickley. >> But when does the senate meet again? >> I don't have that. >> But it's not till the fall, is it? >> No. >> It doesn't meet till the fall. Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> Two issues, I already mentioned this. I just wanna reiterate it 'cause of its importance to me the final sheet--the pink sheet, tough decisions need to be made. I would just request that they be made as transparently as possible that we understand what it is we have accomplished when we make the cuts that we make. And then my following point relates to that. My biggest problem with the difficulty that I experienced at the last meeting was we're not really having enough time to fully understand what was coming before us. Being surprised by the 15 speakers who we're speaking about a service being shut down so all of these coming while at the same time because we didn't have representation on the budget committee important issues for me like let's put at least salary including our salary on that table. You know that needs to be represented. It may come off the table if that's the pleasure of the committee but there are important issues for me and perhaps for us that need to be on the table. Because when stuff comes to us and there's no place to insert it, all I can do is react. And it was the having to react that I think caused the flummoxing that we've just spent the last hour undoing. >> Alright, Mr. Thompson. >> One question to kind of follow up on that or tag along with it. At some point, it would be nice to be able to coordinate the cuts and the sections and with the academic offerings that we're going to end up having. Because our goal is to provide the opportunity for students to come here and get the classes they need, education they need, transfer, go out and get a job or whatever it may be. And so I'm certainly very supportive of a collaborative process to determine what sections should be cut. But at some point, I think the board ought to be told at least in a general way how all of this fits in and meets our goal of providing the educational opportunities for the students that we have. >> Students success. >> Yeah, that's--students success. That's why we're here. It's one thing to get a cold butter and get a budget and vote on that. But something else has a better understanding on how that fits in with the goal of the college. >> I think that's an-- >> Dr. Zacovic, do you have-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> And I don't know if Dr. Jacobs want to respond but, you know, what might be not readily apparent is it that the whole process of developing the initial schedule and then we announce it, we start watching which classes are filling, which classes aren't, where's there demand, where is there not. It's a very dynamic, very active and all the deans under the leadership of the vice president-- >> I don't dispute any of that. >> Are involved in making those changes. >> I don't dispute any of that. All I'm saying is I think this board ought to have an understanding of how all of this fits in and furthers our goal of student success. And I'm not quarreling with the process. I'm sure you're very inclusive. >> Okay, [inaudible]. >> Okay, I was--said do you want a report as to give you something in writing to explain it? >> Yes, whatever is the best way to get it across to the 7 of us? >> Okay. >> Does it have to be written it can be reported? >> We can ask the administration. >> It's up to you. >> The officers can work with them. We can figure it out. Now, is there anything any other direction that we want to give to the administration as they develop the budget and in preparation for 2 weeks from now when we see--where we are and then it's next step, Mr. Martin. >> Well, obviously last minute changes in this budget that you presented is 2 million out at the moment and I'm sure that'll get addressed with the 225 or 2 million or 225 class sections one or the other, somehow it's out, so. >> Thank you for doing that math. >> Yeah. [ Laughter ] >> Whatever--well, we are assuming that's the number. I'm not sure how accurate that is. I would caution trustees being in the conference meeting where the counsel--collaborative budget counsel is meeting. I think it's good for the trustees to monitor--the 2 trustees to monitor to the process. But I do not think it's in the best interest of the campus to have a trustee presence in that initial level of discussion where the campus I think needs to be free to really come up with their recommendation to us with an understanding that we as trustees have a right to reflect on whatever Dr. Bradbury-Huang or any of us feel is important. And if on account of board need that, it's in. So to me that's where our role comes in but we should start by allowing the campus to be neutral of trustees in that discussion to work up what they think that proposal is. So I--but I think it's great that we're monitoring that the meetings are happening and-- >> Right. >> Everybody is involved in all of that. >> Our role is to monitor not to-- >> And I appreciate that. >> Alright, is there anything else--any other direction that anyone wants to give to the administration in developing the next step in developing this budget. Yes. >> Just quick question, so given we leave things the way they are and we leave what's gonna happen to the discretion of the administration, is it--are you guys--do you feel confident that the 316 sections that you are proposing will be offered in winter? Is that a pretty good estimate that I can go to my constituents and tell them that's roughly-- >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Absolutely, that's a very-- >> That's what we're planning. >> That's the planning remember. >> That's the direction that we're planning. >> Okay, okay, thank you. >> Alright, can we now go to the next item which is the approval of 2010-2011--or are you through, Dr. Zacovic. >> I'm not through. [ Laughter ] >> I just want to say-- >> Oh. >> This is my last meeting with you. I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to be here. It's been my privilege and my pleasure to serve the district for the last year. And Pasadena City College is a great college and even more significant I think it has great people working here and wonderful students. I've been very impressed and again appreciate the opportunity. And I--we'll certainly not abandon you in these last few weeks of budget development. If Dr. van Pelt or Dr. Perfumo have any questions or clarifications, I'd be happy to be available for that. So I just wanted to say thank you and good night. >> Thank you. >> Good Night. [ Applause ] >> Alright, the next item is item G, 2010-2011 calendar, Dr. Perfumo. >> Yes, this is the annual calendar for the academic year for 2010 and 11. And I am recommending approval. >> Move to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> It is not a discussion. I just wanna--because [inaudible], I'm sorry he left, raised the issue about that our students successes have actually declined since we adopted the new schedule of classes and so the winter intercessions, the summer sessions so at some point I hope we review the impact of the calendar on students success. >> Okay we'll note that. Alright, student trustee, advisory vote. >> Aye. >> Other trustees, all in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> Motion carries. Certification of signatures discussion of possible action, Dr. Perfumo? >> Yes, we need add Dr. van Pelt as the signatory for certified signatures and I am recommending approval. >> Do I have a motion? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Second. >> Alright, is there any discussion? Right, advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Other trustees, all in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Now we go to policy review. I would think that at least the first 1, 2, 3, 4 policies could be deferred. But I did hear that some of the trustees would like to address the policy on smoking on campus. But I would prefer if we defer it. >> Me too. >> I do too. >> I would object to that. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> It's getting late. >> I think we-- >> And so-- >> We might manage it very quickly. >> Alright. >> We move approval of policy 5575 as presented, smoking on campus. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> Yes, at the last meeting, the objections that were raised with regard to the policy under consideration were the additional cost related to building some designated smoking areas. Do we have any estimates of what those additional costs are? >> Dr. Perfumo? >> Yes, actually Dr. van Pelt isn't able to be here but he felt that they would personally be able to do those in his shop area for about 200 dollars for each area to have a designated area. >> And how many areas will there be? >> There're 3. >> So it's about 600 dollars? >> Correct. >> I have a question. >> Oh, there's 4 accounting CEC, thank you Sherry. >> Yeah, 4. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> So there're five. So we're talking about a thousand dollars. Yes, Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes, is it out of the question that this campus could be a nonsmoking campus? >> That would be the next step for consideration but this is what's gone through our entire shared governance process and college coordinating council has approved we go with the smoke-free campus and then we proceed next year to look at a hundred percent smoke free. So this is our first step. Dr. Rey Castro. >> Seems to me we could save a thousand dollars if we simply go to step 2 and make it a smoke-free campus. >> I agree. >> Call the question. >> Okay, we've had a call for the question. All votes in favor of this--oh wait a minute, advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All those in favor of this policy, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> No. >> No. >> No. >> What do we--what's? >> We'll do the vote over again. All in favor of the policy-- [ Inaudible Remark ] >> This is the policy which would--you could only smoke in 4 or 5 designated areas. >> It's not smoke free? >> It's not smoke free. >> Oh, then that's no for me. >> Okay, let's do the vote over again. I'm gonna ask for show of hands. Alright, advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Alright. All in favor of the policy, please raise your hand. Two, 3, 4. Opposed? [Pause]. Motion carries, 4 to 3. You know, I would like--I know our time is running out but I would like to make a comment that to me, the fact that something has gone through the college council only means that the college counsel is giving the board advice. The Board is no way bound to follow the advice of the coordinating council. So the next item on the agenda is--yes, Dr. Rey Castro. >> Just very quickly, I really do want the record to show that those trustees that voted no on this policy support a smoke-free campus. >> Right. >> Then let the record show that I and probably all the rest of us support a smoke-free campus. [ Laughter ] >> But the policy is not a smoke-free campus. >> Not yet. >> No and I think that's a true point. I think we--I'm in favor of a smoke-free campus but wanted to go through the coordinating council so I mean it's working people. >> Right. >> Let's move on. >> Okay, president's report. We have a really quick president's report. Dr. Perfumo? >> Yes, the workload adjustment information has been sent to all of the trustees that was e-mailed to CEO's last night and you should have received it by now. The board did request at the last meeting to know the number of vacancies in management administration. And that percent of reduction of the 63 management positions, we now have 6 vacancies unfilled and that represents a 9.52 percent reduction. Also, classified positions 334, currently 32 vacancies. That's 9.58 percent reduction, although we are planning to fill 3 critical positions in the classified areas. I would just like to point out that Measure P, we have a great deal of activity going on there. All of the landscaping is completed except the west side of the tennis courts. Our punch list for the ITB is now completed. We have all of our VIP's confirmed for our groundbreaking ceremony and ribbon-cutting on August 28th. I hope you all have that on your calendars for 7 a.m. The bookstore's presently moving into its new location with the full opening expected by next Monday after everything is completed there. And I did wanna just note that we have received 2 more sizable gifts for our Center for the Arts campaign. That should actually say Mary Lou Boone as well as Steve and Sindee Riboli from sharp seeding in your notes. And the one other item I would just share with you is that we have all been invited for the KPCC Southern California Public Radio groundbreaking event, Tuesday, August 18th at 5:30 p.m. The address is noted there in my report on Raymond Avenue. I've been asked to be one of the speakers along with assembly member Portantino, Bill Davis, and Mayor Bogaard. And that concludes my report. >> Okay, reports by shared governance. Any report from the Academic Senate. >> Yes, my name is Joe Futtner and I'm sitting in for Dr. Bickley this evening. Jim Bickley asked me to announce that the Academic Senate will hold its annual executive Board retreat September 12th at the Huntington Library, that's the only report. >> Alright, thank you. Classified Senate? >> Yes, today we had the elections. We have elected a new president, vice president and treasurer and parliamentarian and board of trustee number 2. President is Leticia Velez. I'm pronouncing wrong--names wrong. Vice President, Anne Ostrander. Parliamentarian is Tamiya Cousins. Treasurer is Julio Huerta and I remain as the board of trustee representative. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> AS? >> Yes, the Associated Students has finally moved into the new CC building and we love it very much. >> Thank you very much. And I also like to report that Associated Students has also started working on preparations for welcome day. We expect a big turnout and great results. >> Great. >> Management Association? >> No report. >> Uh huh. >> Student Trustee. >> No report. Oh, actually on the 14th up to the 15th is the student trustees retreat for all student trustees in California. I hope I will be able to make it. Just because AS accidentally made the AS retreat on that same weekend, so right now we're discussing in AS. We have a meeting tomorrow so we're gonna discuss if we're gonna move the AS retreat to accommodate me being able to go to the student trustee retreat. >> Right. I hope you can. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Thompson. >> No. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller? Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> Yeah, I wanna report that I attended the Measure P Committee and the tour recently of the new buildings and like our friend from the Associated Students mention that they really are wonderful. So first of all, kudos to Jack Schulman who I think is in the room as well as--he's not, maybe he's taken off. God Bless him. Dr. van Pelt--what they have pulled off is just so incredible without that much disruption to the campus. A question, however, was posed by my representative. By the way, I met Mr. Thompson's representative a particularly lovely and confident lady, so thank you for sending her along. My representative is also very confident and she left with a question that was not answered that I think is important for all of us to know. What actually is the cost of square foot construction? The math didn't quite work out for her. I'm not raising a red flag. We just need clarification and an actual number. >> Alright. >> Is that the actual number at the conclusion of construction or is that the funded level from the state or-- >> These were--what don't you--maybe, you can talk it in private later. >> Yes. >> Just cost per square foot? >> You know, like when you're buying a house you get the number. What's the square foot? >> Construction cost. >> The equivalent. >> We can talk. >> Okay. I have nothing to report. >> Nothing to report. >> Mr. Baum? >> Nothing. >> Mr. Martin? >> Alright, the next item is future board meeting dates and this is something I think we do have to address. We're meeting on August--we're scheduled on August the 19th, how many trustees will be here on August 19th, so people raise their hand. Okay, we have a quorum. We have 4. We have 3 who don't knows and 4 yeses. Okay, now we heard from Dr. Zacovic that the state budget has to be on September the 15th and there was a suggestion that we either meet on the September the 9th which would be the second Wednesday or we could meet on, I think the 14th would be a Monday, probably most people would not wanna do that or we meet on the 2nd and the 9th? So I guess my question is, how many people are going to be here on September the 9th? Is there anyone not gonna be here on September the 9th? >> Is that a regular? >> It's a Wednesday. >> No, it's not a regular. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> The second Wednesday of the month. [ Whispering ] >> I think I can. >> Pardon me. >> I think I can. >> Alright. Would-- >> It's a famous quote by the way if you read children's book. [ Laughter ] >> So if we could, Dr. Zacovic. would that help to move that meeting to the 9th? >> That would help, yes. I guess I would be curious if the 14th is that all possible. >> Okay, is that on Monday? >> That's a Monday. >> That is a Monday. >> Okay, what about the 14th? Does that give them the whole weekend in advance, Dr. Rey Castro? >> I can be present. >> Is there anyone who couldn't be present on the 14th, and meet on a Monday for a change. >> I would prefer it. >> No, I do have a conflict. >> Okay, there's one. >> I could meet. >> Is there anyone aside from Mr. Martin who could not meet on 14th? Well, so what is the board's pleasure and do we want to meet on the 2nd and the 2nd date, meet on the 14th instead of the 16th. Dr. Rey Castro. >> I don't think we should meet without Trustee Martin. I really think that the budget material requires that--you know, especially for board members who we consider, you know, our budget people. >> You're considering moving the meeting of the 16th to the 14th? >> Well, that would be one option, yeah. >> Okay. I mean I do have a conflict. I'm not saying I can't get out of it. I just would have to try. >> Why, could you try? >> I can try. >> We can keep it on the 14th if it suits you. >> Okay. Yes, Mr. Baum? >> I'd like to suggest we say we're gonna meet on the second and the 9th and then if we have to, we can adjust the--a meeting for the 14th. >> Dr. Zacovic. >> No. >> That doesn't help us. Because since the 14th wouldn't be a for certain. >> You're saying you wanted the extra time-- >> Yes. >> In a few days to do that, okay. >> Because this is a huge budget thing and an awful of it has to be entered by hand I understand. >> Okay, 2nd and the 14th. >> Okay, would-- >> Is meeting it on 15th itself too late? >> That's our statutory deadline. It's the 15th and our next date is until the 16th. >> Too late, too late. >> And I'm not available on the 15th for sure. >> We really need the 14th. >> So we're meeting-- >> We'd wanna transmit it on the 15th. >> We're meeting on the 14th. >> We wouldn't be able to-- >> Well, right now, we're meeting on the 2nd because that's our regular date. But would you be interested in moving the 2nd meeting in September from the 16th to the 14th in order to accommodate the people who have to prepare the budget. >> Yes, that's fine. >> Do I have motion to that effect and Mr. Martin, will you--and you will know by 2nd? >> I'll know, yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. We're not gonna be here on the 2nd. We're gonna meet on the 14th and the 16th? >> No, we're meeting--we are gonna meet on the 2nd. >> Second and 14th. >> Right. >> Second and 14th. >> Right, 2nd and 14th. >> Alright, so the 2nd is our normal meeting. We're not doing anything to--alright. >> Okay. >> So I would like a motion to change the second meeting of the month of September from the 16th to the 14th. >> I move. >> Move to--second. >> Okay. Any discussion, all in favor, advisory vote? >> Aye. >> You have to promise to call us multiple times. >> Okay. All in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Alright, motion carries. Future agenda items. >> One thing on the schedule, is there any desire to consider moving the meeting of the August 19th in 2 weeks to the previous Wednesday or the succeeding Wednesday so you have more than 4 trustees. >> If we move the meeting on August 19th, say to august the 12th. >> No. >> How many people could be here on the 12th. >> No. >> I cannot. >> Or the 26th? >> Or the 26th? >> The 26th really isn't an option regarding some resolution that you have to pass in order to make the--regarding the sale of the next bonds. We have to pass the resolution so that the LA County supervisors can put it on in their agenda and the 19th is the day. We could do it earlier but I don't think we can do it later. >> So we can't meet later than the 19th so the other thing would be to meet on the-- >> Week of the 12th. >> The 12th. >> That doesn't work. >> That doesn't work. >> No. >> That doesn't work. So I guess we might as well--okay. >> Just let it go. >> Alright, future agenda items, does anyone have a future agenda item. If not, then the--yes, do you have a future agenda item? >> Yeah, it was brought to my attention that one of the audits red flag issues is still hanging out there. We briefly touched on it I recall but we need to address it so in case that's fallen off somebody's radar. >> Sure. What is the item? >> Be specific. >> It was only one red flag. >> Oh okay, the audit red flag item so we'll figure out what that is. >> The audit red flag item. >> We're still supposed to reconvene the audit committee, so. >> Okay, alright. Any other future agenda items? If not, the board will adjourn into close session to address the government codes that it had looked at the last time. And we are meeting at the same place is that correct? >> Yeah, yeah. [ Laughter ] >> No. [ Laughter ] [ Silence ]