• The data from the review process would guide budget reductions and in turn, a possible reinvestment of dollars to lower cost FTE.
• Productivity and efficiencies would be reviewed and would require a lot of people to work together to identify redundancies and inefficiencies. Some examples might be: Inefficiencies of the current computer systems, and how utilize the space for new growth opportunities. Staff release time - needs to be explored. Is it all necessary?
• Questions have been asked about faculty overload pay so this should be reviewed. The issue of moving to a full time faculty needs discussion and should include a makeup of distribution between the work done by full time vs. part time faculty, i.e., contribution to institution above classes taught.

Revenues

• A tuition policy needs to be developed by the Board that guides us long term. Ex. Increases in tuition would be tied to certain changing revenue factors factors.
• Revenue enhancements other than tuition need to be explored: what are our local options?
• Can Foundation bring in additional funds, create more scholarships, etc.?
• Some of the other revenues proposals are a year or two in the future.
• Figure out what kinds of FTE are lower cost while maintaining a balance between transfer and technical programs.
• More of state funding is being consumed by new OCC's means less to share.

**Mary invites BAG to refer any of their questions concerning this budget chart to her or Marie.

Mary's Vision of BAG's Role
Mary said she will be thinking over the next few months on how certain groups such as ELT, the councils, BAG, etc. serve the college. She will also be working with Margaret Bayless, Alen Bahret, Patti Lake, Marie and Tracy Simms as she addresses this issue. After working with this group, she will make some suggestions on what role BAG would best serve. At this time, she feels BAG would most likely report to an administrative structure. She feels it is important that the Board gets to hear from different groups but the nature of the BAG group would be advisory. Mary feels that BAG should not report directly to the Board, but through her and the Budget Leaders, since she feels we need to develop further as a team before healthy debates are brought before the Board. She also envisioned actions coming out of the work that BAG and the Budget Leaders would do together.

**Mary is open to hearing from BAG what they think should be BAG's role.

An issue that requires further discussion is: what is the role of union leadership in decisionmaking/shared governance and how does that differ from the role of the councils (faculty and classified)? Should bargaining units have involvement in the budget development of the college? How does that fit with the shared governance policy? The college may be inconsistent with exclusiveness in some committees but not in others.

Budget Policy Issues, #2 and #3
Marie reported that ELT recommended to the Board that these policy issues be made separate from current budget planning but the Board wishes to keep policy issues #2 and 3 in this budget planning process. That the college should not make long-term policies based on an immediate crisis. A sub-group of Managers' Forum is reviewing each department's plans for ICP and M&S carryforward and will get a commitment from those departments to carry out those plans. (ICP and M&S carryover department plans were prepared by managers in February.) On May 9, a Management Strategic Discussion (managers' subgroup) regarding ICP and M&S carryforward will take place at a Board work session.

Some BAG discussion on these two policy issues:

• BAG felt it important that they "weigh in" on the Board and manager discussions on the use of ICP and M&S carryover.
• "Rumored" reports from Salem indicates less-than-originally-planned ($45M vs.$35M) was designated in the state's budget for community colleges. Could mean an estimated $700,000 deficit for Lane.
• Another tier would be added to PERS which will drive up PERS costs for the college. Both new factors would have an impact on how we look at carryover.
• What happened to other revenue options listed in BAG's Financial Strategies report to the Board? Ex. a) Maximize Indirect costs charged to grants. b) Examine/change credit extension policies). In ELT discussion but not considered highest priority.
• Can the Board actually use ICP carryover to meet general fund obligations if these fees are collected for a specific use? (What's the policy?)
• Phase in a tuition increase after non-accounted-for accumulates of ICP are determined and used to balance the budget.
• BAG's energies may be best spent on long-term policy making.

A motion was made by Linda Loft and seconded by Bill Kyker that "The Board would not take the position in making a long term policy in regards to Policy Issues #2, and #3 at this point." The motion was approved. Marie will bring this motion forward to the May 9 meeting and will report to BAG the discussions and outcomes from that meeting.

The next BAG meeting will be May 8, 3-5PM in SCI 211. Helen Garrett to facilitate.

Proposed AGENDA

1. Tuition Subcommittee report on Tuition recommendation
2. Revenue Subcommittee Report on Levy options
3. Process Subcommittee report?
4. Budget policies (further discussion?)
5. What can BAG do to change the budget climate this year?
6. Specific changes in budget structure and process for next year.