1998 Self-Study Report - Saddleback College

Work with the District’s other college, the Chancellor and the 8oard to develop long-range
District plans that result in budget guidelines and considerations that appropriately
reflect the varied program expenditure demands between the two colleges.
The College has continued to develop non-deficit funded budgets and has always operated
within resource allocation limits. Furthermore, the College has not ended the year in a deficit
situation.
The make-up of the District Budget Committee was revised in the 1994-1995 year with recommendations
made for the 1995-1996 budget development process.The committee was reduced
in size and the recommendations were reached by consensus, rather than by majority vote.
However, the committee could not come to consensus on the final budget allocation and it was
referred to the Chancellor.The current FTES {Full Time Equivalent Student) driven District budget
model has.been studied thoroughly and is fully understood by Saddleback College representatives
who actively engage in the discussion regarding budget process and the allocation model.
The model is still not perceived t.o adequately recognize the differences between Saddleback
College and Irvine Valley College.The revenue based model primarily takes into account FTES, not
other revenue based items such as COLA, hold harmless provisions, and growth caps.
The Chancellor has taken actioh this year to address the budget allocation model by contracting
with a consultant to review the model.The College expects the District to provide more
direction and coordination in the budget discussion process.
Attempto increase harmony between the District and college budget allocation processes
by examining the difference in the models and the basis for ~he perceived inequities.
The District Budget Committee was reconfigured for 1994-1995 to include only key personnel
from each of the college’s respective governance groups.The change has increased the
committee’s efficiency by reaching recommendations by consensus and allowing leadership of
governance groups to access more detailed information regarding the budget model. Ultimately,
however, consensus for a final budget recommendation was not possible because of the inequities
in allocations between the two colleges.
The District budget development process remains well-documented and is fully understood by
the College personnel working on the District Budget Committee.The ~Jndamental problem
remains that the College does not agree with the revenue based formula, particularly since the
two colleges are very dif~rent. As a new and growing institution, the sister college has been
designed around a revenue based model that does not cap growth, does not fund COLA, and
does not have a hold harmless clause for revenue declines. On the other hand, Saddleback College
is a large and well established institution, not operating under the revenue based model, not
easily adaptable and not wishing to change just to meet the revenue requirements of the model.
The College has been placed in a difficult disposition to operate since the adoption of the new