Present:  Ben Hill, Bill Kyker, Nanci La Velle, Linda Loft, Kay Malmberg,  Lynne Phillips, Jane Russell, Jane Scheidecker, Sandra Weise, Donna Zmolek
Absent:   Barbara DeFilippo, Marie Matsen, Jose Ortal
Facilitator:   Kay Malmberg
Recorder:   Terry Caron

Nomination/Selection of Facilitator(s)
The suggestion that there be three co-facilitators, one each from classified, faculty, and management, was offered.  Donna Zmolek was nominated via e-mail and accepted her nomination.  Nanci LaVelle was asked at this meeting if she would be willing to co-facilitate and she accepted.  It was agreed to wait until after Faculty Council met next week to determine which faculty members would represent BAG and then to ask for a nominee.  Donna agreed to facilitate next week's meeting.

Global Communication Plan
Jane Russell and Jane Scheidecker have drafted a short communication to college staff about the current status of BAG's work.  It was suggested to make this communication short and on a regular basis (usually after BAG's Wednesday meetings.)  The main vehicles for this communication could be The Daily;  also, notices would be sent to department managers to ensure that "all" their staff had an opportunity to view the BAG communications. The responsibility for the communication will rotate.  A draft would be sent to BAG members prior to submittal in The Daily. Jane Russell agreed to prepare this week's communication.

Budget Process Development
BAG spent time redefining its role in order to develop and facilitate the process for widespread input from campus staff regarding budget development.  Several questions were raised:

Q.  What happens to the three sub-groups that were formed last year, Tuition, Revenue and Process?
Summarized discussion:  perhaps these subgroups will reform on an as-needed basis.

Q. How do BAG members operate?   As representatives from a specific group? As a "think tank" and non-operational?   As more operational with an end product expected? 
Summarized discussion:  BAG could operate as "information gatherers" and  "information representatives" to and from their representative groups (councils to BAG, BAG to councils) and ultimately for the college as a whole.

BAG discussed the best methods to solicit and gather data.  Members determined: 

1. BAG could initiate an "informal" information gathering process, which would result in a more "formal" data gathering process regarding budget development. 

2. The "informal" questionnaire would a) inform and prepare departments/councils/ all staff  of next year's impending deficit and that the Executive Team wishes to transform the budget process to ensure widespread input, b) communicate BAG's role in gathering the input;  and c) solicit comments and input on what processes in the past have worked and what have not. 

3. The methods used to broadcast the communications would be The Daily, and messages to all managers, asking them to ensure all their department staff has had an opportunity to participate in the process. 

4. A BAG e-mail box would be given out as the main receptacle for staff comments and input. (Terry will arrange for the mailbox to be set up and give proxy rights to BAG members to read the information in the box.)

5. Nancy LaVelle agreed to draft an all-staff communication based on the above (a-c) and send to BAG for comment.  She would also inform ET of BAG's "informal" communication.