Introduction - East Los Angeles College

president and the Academic Senate is the Senate’s request that a faculty member be present when
the president interviews the recommended candidates for a position. In all other respects,
however, we are in agreement, and are following the policy strictly in all cases. It has been a
successful policy to date, particularly as it allows us to recruit more broadly, thus providing us
with a much larger and stronger pool of candidates.
By July 1, 2004, the district had the process in place for its role in faculty selection and hiring. In
May 2005, the district’s Office of Human Resources formalized the process in its Recruitment
and Selection Handbook. The manual describes the decentralization changes and includes all
related forms, policies, and procedures. All of the up-to-date Human Resource Guides for
recruitment, selection, and employment are posted on the district website and are accessible from
any computer.
The formation of the District Human Resources Council, composed of representatives from the
colleges and the district office, has led to increased input from the colleges in the creation and
implementation of hiring policies and position classifications.
Standard Nine - Financial Resources
Recommendation and Response
9.1 The district should strengthen budget accountability and expenditure controls to ensure
that each site exhibits fiscal integrity and sound management and accounting practices.
Moreover, the district should ensure that the allocation model is fair, consistently
implemented and well understood (Standards 9A.4, 9B.1, 9B.2, 10C.6).
In response to ACCJC concerns, in the spring of 2006, the district engaged a third- party
consultant to review the district’s budget allocation and funding mechanisms. Studies were
conducted to find out whether the model contained inherent disadvantages for the smaller
colleges in the district. Among the findings were that the district should move quickly to bring its
internal budget allocation formula into alignment with the provisions of SB 361, adjust the
allocation model to make assessments on a cost per FTES basis, and to consider a different way
of conducting assessments. In October 2006, then-chancellor Rocky Young established a DBC
budget allocation task force, comprised of stakeholder groups, including representatives of both
small and large colleges, to review the district’s allocation model.
The Budget Allocation Task Force thoroughly discussed the findings contained in the
independent studies, and in January 2007, issued its recommendations for a new budget
allocation model, which was adopted by the DBC on January 17, 2007. The new LACCD
allocation model parallels the state budget formula, distributing funds to the colleges on a credit
FTES basis with a two-tiered basis for noncredit. However, it does differ from the state formula
in one critical respect: it increases the foundation grant for the district’s four smaller colleges
(Harbor, Mission, Southwest, and West) by $500,000. This augmentation of the basic $3,000,000
foundation grant was made in acknowledgement of the additional administrative expenses
incurred by the smaller colleges.
Responses to Previous Recommendations Page 36