Budget Development 2002-2003

Lane Home Search Lane

11/13/01
(Approx. 25 responses)

1. What do you believe has worked in previous budget development processes?

• Unfamiliar  with process, first year at LCC.  Interested in process, please inform.
• Usually the information comes with instructions and a deadline.  We have always had someone well informed to answer questions.
• Every program got to state its case.
• The process of creating the responses to the questions generated good discussion.
• The discussions among managers over several months were okay.  There was a bit too much performance by people asking for lots of money, but overall, people were realistic and descriptive.  The process helped me learn how much it costs to keep mec tech up to date and how far LCC has fallen behind.
• I like the open forum to discuss how increases and decreases in the budget should be handled.
• Meetings w/small groups (i.e. CE/O, Professional Technical, Transfer Troop, Classified, Faculty, Managers Forum, etc.) where programs are prioritized for funding purposes.
• Comprehensive information on what the real and full data is.  For example, last year was the best presentation about the restricted and un-restricted carry over balances.   Prior to that it all felt like less than full disclosure.  Credit goes to Marie M. for better  clarity.
• Decisions that are made by the highest level of our administration who have a "sense of community".  Of course, input from all parties is helpful, but I believe the President's Council has a global view.
• The Division in which I work has a good process for sharing information and for determining priorities for funding and lack of funding.  There is a representative body that works with and for us.  Our Division Chair and Associate Chair are very open about information college wide and scenarios which are both possible, probably and actual.
• Collaboration among the managers in different areas, e.g. PT Council and the Transfer Troup, to prioritize budget additions and reductions has worked extremely well. Although this process has at times been painful, it has been effective in bringing the collective wisdom of faculty, staff, and managers to the decision process.
• Using managers to solicit involvement by department staff. Departments being involved in what kind of cuts theirs should be.  Managers being informed by Group (as in COLT) about impact of cuts in departments and prioritizing as a Group.
• The timeline has worked.  We've generally had the work done when it has to be.  It's hard in Financial Aid because I have to guess about resources I'll need before I have final information about the college's campus-based awards and about tuition rates for determining the $$ I need for institutional scholarships.  However, I think it works generally for departments.
• Open communication with the campus as a whole and the various administrative teams and executive staff and board.
• What has worked in the past is when cuts have not been made across-the-board, and thoughtful, well-researched information led to cuts of classes, programs, and/or positions.

• Spend a significant amount of time preparing and compiling data and putting the reports together.  We don't ever know for sure if the information was considered in making budget decisions.
• I don't think it differentiated between potential programs. Things were too difficult to compare with other things. Everything served a good purpose.  After the second year there was little new to add to justifications.  * Many instructors saw it as someone else's job.
• No clear focus on the part of the college.  So far I don't see that the currently proposed criteria will help us discriminate between and among expenditures and programs.

We need to say what we are  and are not going to excel at.
Maybe we say:  We will offer a minimum of classes in English because students can take English at George Fox, UO, AP English at their high schools, Online from other college, etc.
We will offer a full and up-to-date curriculum in welding with x slots annually because there is a need now and a projected need in the forthcoming 10 years according to our discussions with Peterson Pacific, and the other 10 largest firms hiring welders in our 100 mile radius.  There is no other school within 100 miles that offers this.  We can do it well.,  We have the facilities.  We will invest in this and charge enough so that we can maintain our facilities and equipment at a state-of -the art level.

 Saying that we will support SLI says to me that we will leave a window of development open for faculty.  This implies a commitment of funds on a recurring basis.  The funds could go to any of a variety of places, and the amounts may vary.  There might be a base level that needs to be committed to support onging development.
 
We have made no cogent commitment to develop online curriculum.  Yet the college is spending dozens maybe hundreds of thousands a year on this area with no plan, no outcomes, and no evaluation.

At the same time there is lots of courseware developed by others nationally and internationally that can be used and evaluated at very low cost.  Again, the college has not plan, though we are also spending money on this and also not evaluating the results.

This is not a problem of the budget process.  It is a problem of the college focus and planning.  It seems clear that absent a clear direction and focus for the college, the budget process will be problematic and outcomes will seem arbitrary to all but those they directly benefit.
 

• In past years, there hasn't always been good communication about those new items that were requested and not approved.  Once a request is put in for something, it would be great to hear if it was approved or denied.
• Two years ago I went to some of the budget "hearings." There were many people who wanted to ask questions or to make statements. There was no control on people's time so one individual dominated the time to the disenfranchisement (is that even a word?) of other faculty, managers, and classified. Please make a time limit on each person and if everyone has a chance, people who want more time can have it after others have a first chance.
• The establishment of a ìNovakî vocabulary and aspects of the elements of the budget.  ìI  was at several Board meeting when the budget was discussed and watched the semantic battle over elements of the budget under discussion take place and the frustration of the board members and at times the budget committee in trying to understand both the big picture and more micro elements of the budgetî  Annunciate the whole budget term/item not ICP, OPE, NWC, 6100, etc.  The staff, board and others who do not work with these budgets and term cannot follow the verbal conversation.  Use flow diagrams,  have large font overheads or video projected simplistic examples with ìStreet Termsî as well as budget language to describe the function or operation that is being discussed.  Get a consensus on the overall budgeting concept before going forward.  Give the board and budget members a Directory of vocabulary and abbreviations as a reference as well a examples for each phase that is to be discussed.
• Not seeking input
• Spending too little time on planning and orientation with the Board and Budget Committee.

Having to rank or vote  on cuts in other Divisions
Those functions sheets that required hours of development, but seemed to have very little impact.
Rumors
• Conversely, it worries me that individuals make decisions about programs that they have no clue about.  I've been working at the Florence campus for two years and I am amazed at the different challenges this community has versus the Goshen Campus.  I would advocate for the budget decisions being made with respect to community and the challenges each outreach program represents.  Florence has increased ft 88% in three years due to the unique needs our community.  Economic issues with family-wage earning jobs has created a dependence of the Florence campus.
• The timing is never adequate to get Full Division extensive dialogue or Advisory Committee input into any part of the process.  Also criteria for decision making is not clear and specific.  There is never a feedback loop that shares how/why decisions have been made, and possible this is because of unclear criteria which can be interpreted by those outside of ELT.
• What feels like it gets in the way of good decisions is the Board's decision process which often seems to disregard the best thinking of college faculty, staff, and administration.  In some cases, the Board's decision process has been influenced by a few emotional pleas from people who are most affected by cuts or enhancements.  This undermines the credibility of processes which have been followed by faculty, staff, management, and administration.
• Expecting too much response in a short period of time.
• What do you believe has worked in previous budget development processes?  Virtually nothing has worked from my perspective.  The 10% cut exercise for every dept or division was an unmitigated educational and public relations disaster.  The presentations done to the Board and the Budget Committee are detail overload presentations without a clear framework that tend to confuse rather than clarify an actual financial picture of where the college is now.  And by having 4 different documents to deal with at all times, and not clarifying which one is being referred to or switching back and forth, budget and board members' questions are answered in ways that  obfuscate rather than clarify - not intentionally mind you but the result is obfuscation because the presenters cannot envision a budget process outside of the one they have operated in for years.  Four or five years ago the college community was promised a new budget process.  It has never appeared.  The old one has been tinkered with but not successfully to help fully involve the college community in an informed decisionmaking process.


There is a stated assumption that only people who work directly with the overall budget can ever fully understand it or have the ability to make strategic decisions.  The rest of us have our own personal interests in mind, or worse, are incapable of fully participating in strategic decisions about the budget or budget process and financial stability of the college.  There is often a pratronizing approach, a delayed presentation of information and then a claim that we either don't or can't understand and besides it's too late because decisions have to be made immediately by people in power and people in the know.

There is an assumption that prehaps BAG is not fully representative of all of the college community, that there is not a regular feedback loop between present representatives and their constitutents, yet that BAG has the power to "deal" with the Board and has the full knowledge of all budget processes and information so that you all can make timely, informed recommendations and decisions with the Board because they have been given everything they need by Marie Matsen.
 

• I don't think function sheets work.  We've been shaving resources from areas that are critical to the college's life.  It's time to make choices between what we can live without and what we can't.
• When the only cuts considered were in classes, faculty, and programs as opposed to analyzing all costs in the college such as administrative and/or costs for equipment and capital.

• I'd like some indication that our input was considered and used.
• This survey helps. No other ideas.
• I'm new to Lane, so questions 1 and 2 don't apply, and I don't know enough about the process yet to answer 3.
• My supervisor ensured that I felt heard.  He was clear and consistent in his communication.  He told us the bad and good news while it was happening and changing.  I understand that the game plans and the bottom lines are constantly shifting throughout the process.  So I don't have a problem if there is one answer one day and a different answer the next day.  I DO want to know when and why the processes and numbers are shifting - as the shifting occurs.
• I do feel I have had the opportunity to be heard in the past.
• I do feel heard, but perhaps some mechanism is needed to have additional community involvement .
• I think the appropriate VP or AV.P. would need to have clear understanding of each program and its role in meeting the college's mission.  Again, I put the responsibility back to our leadership team.  Another important consideration is getting feedback from advisory boards.
• Additional discussions/brown bags/conversations of an open forum type where ET would be specific about criteria and amounts of $ need to balance the budget (I realize this is a moving target).  Also timeliness of the process being realistic.  I respect ETs right to make these tought decisions, I just want to understand why they made the choices they needed to make.
• I would like to see our new president work with and educate the Board about procedures the college community uses to make budget recommendations.  After expending so much effort, much less emotional energy, to generate potential budget cuts, it would be nice to feel that the Board valued our recommendations.
• Regular open meetings schedule in late afternoons.
• We have taken too narrow a view of things in the past.  We need to look at the college as a whole rather than in narrow silo slices and figure out what to hang on to.  I like the question "If this were a brand-new college, would we need to plan for this service/program."

In the past, I have felt heard, even if I haven't always felt listened to.  My staff has not been particularly excited about participating in the budget development process and has seen it as something of an additional task or burden when they are already carrying a heavy load.  I don't think they really feel as if their input matters, and the process has asked them to make impossible recommendations for cuts from an already tight budget in a department that is essential for the college.
• Provide as open a process as practical.  Make the decision process as quantifiable as possible so that there is a clearer prospective of what values, conditions, strategic elements outweigh others when decisions are made.
• It would be important to know exactly how much in cuts needs to be made in terms of dollars, why the reductions need to occur, and by when.
• If there is time to do thoughtful research, I'd recommend that all departments be given equal opportunity to review their efficiencies and present their situations.  In the past, sometimes those with decisionmaking authority did not have enough information to justify the cuts they were making.
• In order to make intelligent decisions about the budget, decision-makers need complete relevant information about past expenditures and future expectations.

Past problem:
The largest problem with the budget process in the past is that the accounting system has either not captured relevant information or the information has not been made public.

Solutions:
Design the new chart of accounts carefully
A well-designed chart of accounts allows for the complete and consistent capture of all kinds of information, both at the detail and at the aggregate level. Account coding can identify expenditures not only by various operational units, but also by type of expenditure.  For example, the accounting system could tell us the expenditures on different types and uses of technology, regardless of which unit was doing the spending.

The new chart of accounts needs to be designed to meet the information needs of every operating unit on campus, from the president on down to the smallest committee. The team currently designing the new chart of accounts should be soliciting feedback from all. Then the system can be designed in such a way to actually gather the data needed to make sound decisions.

Policies for data capture
The accounting data is only useful if transactions are coded consistently across campus. Education of all involved in expenditure coding and a written policy for how things are to be categorized are necessary components in a well-functioning accounting system.

Premise 2:
No matter how fair the budget process is in reality, it will always be perceived to be unfair if the underlying data is not made public.

Solutions:
Make the accounting information public.
Salaries can be aggregated, but otherwise information can be made freely available. This is being done in many organizations. Not only does it help members of the organization be more accepting of decisions that are made, it also makes for better decisions based on the collective intelligence of all. Anyone tempted to make a decision that canít stand the light of day will also be forced to think twice about that decision, to the benefit of the college as a whole.

Add a faculty member to the budget committee
Representation on the budget committee by a knowledgeable faculty member would increase the faculty perception of an open and transparent budget process. In addition, there are members of the faculty with extensive experience in budgeting and accounting for large organizations. Their expertise would be very valuable to the budget committee.

Premise 3:
To be effective and competitive in todayís environment organizations must make their workers informed and then use that collective intelligence for the good of the organization.

Solution:
Use the Banner system to make the information freely available on our intranet.

We now compete for student FTE in a global educational marketplace. We need to use our collective intelligence to keep the college vital and financially sound.

The following quote is speaking about a business environment, but with the advent of online courses and degrees our competition is no longer local.

We are seeing companies empowering people at virtually all layers of their corporate hierarchies ñ from the CEO to the rank and file ñ allowing them to access, analyze, and share information over the Web. We are seeing companies dramatically improve operations by leveraging the insights, the intelligence wrung from purely transactional data. We are seeing them take advantage of newly powerful and user-friendly Web-based analytic tools, using disciplined analytic practices that have matured in only the last several years. This is what we mean by developing enterprise-wide business intelligence: turning raw data into usable information and distributing and sharing that information throughout a company, hence creating a collective intelligence about oneís business. In virtually every industry ñ from retail, to health care, to insurance, to transportation, to financial services ñ we are seeing companies at the vanguard of e-business exploiting this intelligence to build and fortify relationships with their customers and partners, to drive one-to-one marketing campaigns, and to reduce costs and improve operational efficiencies.(1)
(1)( Bernard Liautaud and Mark Harmon, Turning Information into Knowledge into Profit: e-business Intelligence, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2001), 8.)
 

• The "feeling you'd had the opportunity to be heard" is the Old Lane speaking.  You are dealing with fellow professionals here.  'Feeling' I have been heard is an insult to my professionalism, is an insult to true shared governance, is an insult to anyone who is a strategic thinker and who takes responsibility for her or his informed participation in decisionmaking.  The people who designed this question need to think long and hard about their definition of colleague and of shared governance.
• I find the question "How could the process be changed so that you would feel you'd had the opportunity to be heard?" extremely problematic.  Not only is the issue not about whether someone "feel[s]" they were heard, nor that they were given an "opportunity" to be heard, nor even whether they actually were heard; in fact, the goal isn't about being heard at all!, but rather about being part of the actual decisionmaking.  If the goal is mere public relations and making an undemocratic process appear to be democratic, than there's nothing wrong with the question.  But if the goal is to follow the principles of shared goverance, something the college is supposedly committed to, then the question is badly misconstrued.  People can "feel" they were given an "opportunity" to be "heard" and have had no part in the decisionmaking at all.  I hope instead that the BAG will work to empower faculty and implement shared governance principles, not work to make people "feel" they were part of a shared goverance process that they weren't actually part of.  To be clear, I am NOT accusing members of the BAG of necessarily intending to do the latter, but the question, as its framed, does both misstate the issue and misleads members of the college community to think that they're objective should be "feeling they were heard" rather than being part of a democratic institution.
• We have taken too narrow a view of things in the past.  We need to look at the college as a whole rather than in narrow silo slices and figure out what to hang on to.  I like the question "If this were a brand-new college, would we need to plan for this service/program."
• In the past, I have felt heard, even if I haven't always felt listened to.  My staff has not been particularly excited about participating in the budget development process and has seen it as something of an additional task or burden when they are already carrying a heavy load.  I don't think they really feel as if their input matters, and the process has asked them to make impossible recommendations for cuts from an already tight budget in a department that is essential for the college.
• Provide as open a process as practical.  Make the decision process as quantifiable as possible so that there is a clearer prospective of what values, conditions, strategic elements outweigh others when decisions are made.
• It would be important to know exactly how much in cuts needs to be made in terms of dollars, why the reductions need to occur, and by when.


If there is time to do thoughtful research, I'd recommend that all departments be given equal opportunity to review their efficiencies and present their situations.  In the past, sometimes those with decisionmaking authority did not have enough information to justify the cuts they were making.

• E-mail, snail mail, meetings
• E-mail
• Use multiple forms of communication.
• sometimes e-mail --good for questions
• sometimes hard copy - - needed for analysis and thoughtful response.
• sometimes processing time - - needed for analysis and thoughtful response.
• email w/ summary & pointer to a web page with all the details
• E-mail and open forum discussions should provide the best communication.
• As far as communication is concerned, E-Mail really is the best for me.  Scheduled meetings also work well for me.
• E-mail
• E-mail with plenty of lead time for decisions
• Clear, published criteria which is specific and understandable is a must.  Also use of opportunities to provide feedback after the decisions have been made will help me to feel included.  You can do this via e-mail, The Daily, a personal mailing to me at my work station/mail slot.
• e-mail and group meetings
• The current use of electronic format is very effective.  However, not all personnel make use of this format.
• The most effective method of communication for me is E-mail followed by discussion sessions to explain details, provide opportunities to ask questions, and discuss concerns.
• E-mail
• E-mail is a better form of communication than paper, which just gets lost on my desk until past the deadline.
• E-mail
• e-mail and group meetings
• E-mail
• Make communication TIMELY.  Folks working on the new computer system are already considering how the budet info will be programmed.  If this is another back door approach to get systems in place and then say, Oh we just didn't have time for full participation - or the favorite word from on high - input - then we on the ground will be raising a lot more hell.  Get it on the WEB with notice in the Daily.  Be ready for questions and criticism about the lack of completeness, the lack of clarity.  There is a great deal of work to do.  This is an educational institution.  Faculty spend their time making complex data, complex info., & complex concepts accessible for students.  Some of our faculty and classified have worked with huge budgets and have experienced much more accessible processes: listen to them.  Don't assume that they have their own personal aexes to grind or that union folks who need to be fully involvedneed to be  only to work on wage issues and administrators of the budget are the only ones that have or are capable of having the whole college's interests in mind.  How the budget process works profoundly effects all of us and the well-being of the institution.  It is the last bastion of the Old Lane and the last major system to change.  We need more than information.  We need full participation.
• E-mail is a better form of communication than paper, which just gets lost on my desk until past the deadline.
• E-mail
• For me, it would be e-mail and/or voicemail.  However, I know that many staff members are bombarded with messages and may not respond too quickly.  In that case, print matter would be important.  Don't forget those who are at other LCC sites such as the Downtown Center and outreach.

• E-mail, snail mail, meetings
• E-mail or website postings
• E-mail
• E-mail, as my work site is off Main Campus.
• depends on what's being asked.
• web forms
• back to us?
• E-mail.
• E-mail
• e-mail and group meetings
• mail
• An e-mail address, much like this one, and #3 above.  Thank you!
• E-mail or questionnaires which could be dropped off.
• The most effective way to respond to our ELT is through small group sessions, such as the one held by the Tuesday Group (PT and Transfer Division Chairs) to discuss criteria to be used in budget decisions.  Our AVP Steve John attended this session, took notes, and relayed our responses to ELT.  His participation in the meeting was critical to his understanding our passion about specific issues and relaying those concerns to ELT.
• E-mail
• Intercampus mail or e-mail attachment
• E-mail.
• As far as communication is concerned, E-Mail really is the best for me.  Scheduled meetings also work well for me.

• Thank you for the opportunity to give input on the budget. I however have zero idea of what is going on or has gone on with the budget. I have been part of LCC for two and a half years now, but on a part time bases. I have hopes of becoming full time in the next few weeks. I guess what would help me is to know what's what about the budget. I don't know if that is information that you are able to email or I need to pick up on hard copy.
• Please be sure that the committee looks closely at the revenue/expense ratio of outreach facilities.  In times of severe budget shortfalls it would be prudent to contemplate temporary closure of certain outreach facilities that are not proven to be cost effective.  Of course, there is the political element to consider...but it should not be the driving force in making the decisions.
• I would like to suggest that you contact the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA), of which LCC is a member.  The OSBA can give you some great ideas regarding what a comprehensible budget document looks like.  The OSBA's assistance is generally free, and they have considerable experience working with financial documents that are unique to educational settings.
• As a personal recommendation the following concerns the issues of program cuts vs. progressive program elimination as it relates to both Instruction and Student Services as well as  College Operations:    I recommend Progressive and recurring budget cuts over a two-year period vs. program/department elimination in one year as a are more effective and less disruptive process to service operations.  The long term effects if successive budget cuts are needed will be similar, without the college wide impact of immediate RIFs of existing positions, major disruption of service and allowing time to evaluate outside services to replace those internal, as needed, to the ones being reduced.