 |
February 4, 2004
To: CEO's
From: Mark Drummond
Subject: Update
Greetings to all of you. First let me express my sincere
appreciation for the cordial and warm welcome so many of you
have extended during my first weeks in office. Also, the reception
given me at the CCLC Legislative Conference was also very
gratifying. Now I have to live up to your expectations, which
in this "house of mirrors" will be anything but
easy.
I will try to send an update to you every two weeks or so,
unless some unforeseen contingency emerges that I feel requires
your immediate attention/action. For now here are the major
issues I am dealing with:
-
Working to define the Proposition 98
split - I was given a cordial welcome by the Ed Coalition
my first week on the job. At that meeting I was given
assurances that there was a willingness to work on the
split issue. I immediately asked Vice Chancellor Turnage
to convene a work group to address the issue and negotiate
a resolution. I intend to press hard to get this work
done in time to possibly affect the May budget revision.
-
There are several changes in play regarding
our UC/CSU transfer process. The renewed look at dual
admissions; the January budget item that "redirects"
a number of students from UC/CSU and the new rules for
transfer readiness being considered by the CSU folks all
add up to potential change. For now I am concentrating
on developing a strong position to suggest that additional
growth allowances are made for the additional students
imposed, and that budget follows the students. Also I
am in discussions with CSU regarding my concern about
the mandate that transfer students have "selected
a major." We need clarification about this, because
to self-identify a major is one thing, while having a
major approved by a receiving department is quite another.
I have been assured that this is still "a work in
progress" and during my meetings with CSU leadership
in mid-February I will seek clarification on their intent.
-
As we continue to work on definitions
and processes regarding the "UC/CSU redirect"
contained in the January budget proposal I suggest we
include a discussion about those students who by definition
are UC or CSU eligible (the top 4% of graduating high
school class for UC). Many of these students, especially
those in low income areas are not properly counseled or
directed to take advantage of their right to admission.
If we had additional funding to reach these students we
could probably put them into the same "pipeline"
as the "redirect" students.
-
BOG Budget Response - I will be working
on proposed responses to the January Budget to stimulate
discussion at February Consultation. There will be ample
time to interact with the representatives of the various
groups, and to hear from the CEO's via the CEO Board.
It is particularly important that we develop a proposed
set of positions for the Board of Governors to consider
with reasonably broad support if that is possible. It
is also important that we have a position worked out on
the various aspects of transfer changes. Also there is
wide-spread concern over the handling of TTIP funding
as proposed in the budget, and this concern needs to be
addressed prior to the March BOG meeting.
-
Watch List Notification - As you probably
know, the watch list is a tool for the Chancellor to monitor
his/her obligation under Title 5, sections 58310 - 58313.
The list is intended for the Chancellor's oversight and
does not get publicly presented. I would appreciate some
guidance via the CEO Board regarding district perspectives
on any public notification. It does seem to me that there
is a possible advantage for districts in category 1 to
be publicly noticed, since those districts often must
seek concessions and other potentially drastic actions
to avoid additional consequences. Please pass on any thoughts
or opinions about this to your CEO Board representative
for discuss in February.
-
Please don't forget to do your part to
get Propositions 55-58 passed in March. Also please make
one last attempt to raise money in support of Proposition
55 as the community colleges are still quite a ways under
our obligation. The CSU and UC have exceeded their quota,
and since we continue to receive a larger proportional
share of the proceeds (40%) we need to "step up to
the plate."
-
Concurrent Enrollment Adjustments - Vice
Chancellor Turnage e-mailed the final distribution of
financial and workload adjustments stemming from last
year's concurrent enrollment fiasco. As you know, several
isolated instances of questionable practices exploded
into a crisis that posed a serious financial threat to
many of our colleges. The CEOCCC should be credited with
fashioning a solution that limited and contained the damage
as well as could be done, considering the severe posture
taken by the Department of Finance. The end result is
not pleasing to anyone, and every district in the State
(except for basic aid districts) was tarred with the brush
in a way that may not seem fair to many but did resolve
the problem without forcing several small districts (which
probably had no improper practices but were caught up
in the mess) into insolvency. There are lessons to be
learned from this about leadership vigilance at the district
level, and about the need for the State Chancellor to
react quickly and to work closely with the CEO's when
a problem of this magnitude arises. The distribution should
end this sorry chapter, except for a troubling court case
stemming from Orange County that many of you are following.
I personally believe that the districts and the system
acted forcefully and corrected any procedural issues in
a satisfactory manner. The court case may be the epilog
to this, and we will watch developments regarding it closely.
|
