(0:00 - 0:12)
It is 4.32, we will call this budget workshop to order. We do have a quorum present. First order of business is public comment.

(0:13 - 0:34)
No one signed up to speak, Mr. Chairman. Main order of business, budget development workshop, fiscal year 2024-2025. I wish we had the attachment that I sent out, sure, it would be better if it was on the screen.

(0:38 - 0:48)
It should be behind everybody's agenda, it should be behind everybody's, did I not put it out? My bad. I don't have an agenda. My bad, okay.

(0:48 - 0:54)
I got it. My bad, yeah, that's right. Yeah, we got two, yeah, we didn't do it for everybody.

(0:55 - 1:31)
My mistake. Okay, so I sent an email out with some priorities as a starting point for discussion, so we'll open the floor up to discussion. Any thoughts on the listed priorities? So, well, the first one, student success, do we have any details on what that, where all that is? I guess.

(1:31 - 2:16)
Yes, Regent Hempstead, so what this is, the $750,000 amount that we see right now is simply the addition of all of the different objectives and or strategies, what is the title of that? Objectives or measurable objectives that we are, that we have proposed to accomplish in the next budget year, and that's the amount that it will take in our vision document, our strategic plan, Vision 2028. So it's an addition of all of those cells. So, okay, so we'll get some detail later, I guess, on what all that is, or I don't remember, I'm sorry.

(2:16 - 2:43)
It's okay, if you go to our, if you go to our main website page, and you go to about college, and then you can download the strategic plan, it's very prominent. And it's also in our agenda tonight. If you, if you go to the regular agenda tonight, you can see, yeah, the whole, because we're being, you're being presented the updated vision document that reflects the changes.

(2:45 - 3:06)
I printed hard copies for. Can I ask a clarifying question? Is the purpose of tonight to go through each one of these items in detail, or is it to just agree on a list of priorities? For me, it's to agree on a list of priorities so that the administration can start developing a budget. Developing the details and put some budget together.

(3:06 - 3:24)
I think, I know what Mark's looking for is there's a number, there's a dollar number, nothing to support it in front of us. Typically, we would have those details. So, I think what we're talking about is supporting a priority that would be these measurable objectives, and there's a dollar value, we'll probably get details later.

(3:25 - 3:46)
But as a priority, do we agree that that should be something to consider, or that they consider in a budget preparation? And I also want to point out that it's February, and as Judy suggested, last budget development time, we need to start this process in February, and we are. I think that helps everybody. Yeah, I do.

(3:46 - 4:01)
So, if in February, we can agree on a list of priorities, and the administration can more thoroughly put together a working budget. I've got a question. Yeah.

(4:01 - 4:07)
Are these priorities listed in like a rank of them? They don't have numbers on them. There's no, no. Okay.

(4:07 - 4:31)
Don't read anything into it. It's just, that's one of the bullet points. I just, when we're looking at the reserves and so forth, I would put that, if we were ranking them, and like filling this priority number one, since we're within, I believe you reported to us the other day, that we're within the four months, or right close to it, of our board reserves.

(4:33 - 5:28)
Well, that number's been increased a little bit. You can, because our budget, our monthly operating expenses have also increased with the surplus. I will be coming back to you at that time with a recommendation that we move, of the 5.5, that we move 3.5 of that into the board reserve, and then there's still the 332 or whatever that we would want to move into our insurance reserve, and then the remainder of those funds, I'm going to be asking you to allocate those funds to be used to update and upgrade furniture in our classrooms.

(5:29 - 5:39)
We had seen that in the building committee. The rest of the board hadn't seen that. I just would prioritize the named storm coverage reserve and those things.

(5:39 - 5:56)
Once we get into our designated range of four to six months on our overall reserve, which we should be there after we make the, take action in March, is that correct? That's correct. We'll be like at 4.2 months on our reserve. Okay.

(5:57 - 6:22)
And I think, I think what's good about that is, as a priority, we keep it in front of us, but it does not appear that it will impact our upcoming budget, right? Right. But we keep that in front of us, and looking at our reserves is a priority we should look at each year. Had we not had these, these excess, the excess revenue from last year to apply to our reserves, we may be budgeting for that in our coming year.

(6:23 - 6:45)
Right? Right. I would, I would hope maybe at a future time we could consider the property, once we're in this range, the property that we own, which is not included in any of this, a number in there as a reserve, because we're all kind of holding in this reserve. You mean to factor the value of it in? The value.

(6:46 - 6:53)
Or a portion of the value. Say half. And what does that get us? I mean, just factoring it in.

(6:53 - 7:14)
What does that do? Current value is 11. Kind of puts it on the table that we do have other assets that we can turn into cash quickly, or semi-quickly, or before we borrow a bunch of money for long term. That's the case either way, because we own it.

(7:15 - 7:21)
Right. But we don't really recognize it. We don't recognize it or count it in our cash reserve.

(7:21 - 7:28)
We used to count it as our, what did they call that? It was a bad word or whatever. Yeah. It was a bad word.

(7:28 - 7:39)
And he got in trouble for it. No, I'm asking what value does it add, I'm asking what value does it add to count it, because you know you have it. So I'm just asking for what's the.

(7:39 - 7:43)
We don't recognize it. It was his thing. Well, I'm going to help him answer.

(7:44 - 7:51)
He used his lifeline. I know what he's. If it's worth 20 million, then that's that much value, but I don't think.

(7:52 - 7:59)
It's a long term asset. It's a long term asset of which it's not a building that we're using. It's just a. I know what it is.

(7:59 - 8:13)
Okay. Are you asking the dollar amount? I'm asking what's the value, and you said maybe we should include it in the value. I'm asking what's the value to us to add it in there? Well, if we had it in there, we may not.

(8:13 - 8:32)
Maybe could use some money for something else that we're putting into reserves. We recognize we got 12 million bucks out there that we could turn into cash over a year's time or six months time. Then we can maybe not put keep putting money in reserves and use it for debt payment or building repairs or whatever.

(8:32 - 8:51)
Okay. But by definition, an operating reserve of four to six months of operating reserve is liquid in there when you need it. As you just stated, if it takes you six months to a year to turn something into value, it's of no good to you as an operating reserve.

(8:51 - 9:15)
We can always borrow short term. And if you are suggesting what we need to do is have some kind of line of credit at the ready tied to that property, that's a different argument. But to just say when we are in need of reserves, we're going to start looking at getting a loan against that property, that's too much time involved.

(9:16 - 9:23)
You can't count it as an operating reserve. Technically, we have the reserves. We're over, I think, four months now.

(9:23 - 9:54)
So, we could stop at 4.5 months or whatever it is and use that money for something else if we knew we had 10 or 20 million or whatever that we could access in 12 months or 18 months or whatever if we needed to fire or sell the property and get money in a disaster or something. We could borrow money short term on our signature and then pay it off and we got to sell the property if we had a disaster. But continually building up reserves, we're already at what we need, it sounds like.

(9:55 - 10:13)
We got our four months. We have the money in the account to equal the four months, right? We have it here somewhere. We're planning.

(10:14 - 10:17)
This is a planning session. So, we have the money. We have the money.

(10:18 - 10:24)
So, we can kind of count on it. We can kind of say off the record we have our four months, right? Yes. Okay.

(10:24 - 10:34)
So, as stated earlier, though, we're here to just agree that these are our priorities. Is that right? Did I understand that? Yes. To give the administration guidance.

(10:34 - 10:37)
Or identify others, maybe. Yes. Yes.

(10:37 - 10:43)
This is not meant to be a be all and end all. It was meant to be a starting point of discussion. So, yes.

(10:43 - 11:12)
If you have a priority that you want to throw on the table and we can discuss and coalesce around, that'd be great. Mr. Chairman and other board members, I think at the end of the day what we're hoping for is more kind of a dichotomous yes or no. Is this a priority to the board as we continue to move forward with our budget process? As Chairman Fontenot mentioned and Judy wisely encouraged us to do, we're starting very early.

(11:13 - 11:58)
And we want to because we want to be able to have these kinds of discussions. But I think at this point we're just needing some guidance on, yes, is this a priority? So, for example, is continuing to adhere to our policy of having reserves in four to six months still a priority if we look at next year's budget? And or is institutionalizing, for example, our first time free elite program important to the board as a priority as we set our budget? And bring it back to you with more numbers? Another thing is we typically, year over year over year, we're having four to six or whatever million dollars left over. But when we calculate our reserves, we're calculating the whole budget even though we have money left over every year.

(11:58 - 12:12)
So we could probably. Yeah, we are kind of in that situation as I understand because as Regent Santana kind of pointed out, we had an extra. If we didn't have the surplus, we wouldn't be able to fund at four months.

(12:13 - 12:28)
We would be having to budget next year. We continually over budget four to six million or whatever year over year over year, which is really not a good budget thing if you think about it. You should budget within, you know, a few percent, especially if you do it year over year over year.

(12:28 - 12:44)
But it sounds like we're calculating the reserves on the full budget amount every year. No, we're calculating the reserves based on actual operating results. That is how we are establishing our four to six months of operating expense.

(12:44 - 13:06)
We're not calculating it based on a prior year budget. Okay. And you know, last year, I guess it was last year, when we based our funding on HBA, you know, the 98 percent versus 100 percent.

(13:07 - 13:23)
And so that brought us closer to actual funding as Annette had just described. So I think we are moving in that direction that we are not funding a reserve. We are funding our actual expenses.

(13:29 - 13:59)
But would our reserves be a, when you're looking at the budget, you're looking at funding the reserve that's under, right? That's where it goes to. And I, in my opinion, where I would kind of think we're saying this, I think for all of us, it probably is a priority to make sure that we have the minimum of four. But if we're there, then I think for a particular year, then I think our focus drops off for that year and that funding goes maybe, or revenues go to something else.

(13:59 - 14:31)
But I would think that, I think I know everybody enough to know that we probably all think it's very important to maintain that four to six months. But if we're there, then we can focus those revenues on something else. Based on where we are with our reserve balances, once we make this next deposit, I would not anticipate that the budget that we will bring to you would have a line item asking to increase that board reserve.

(14:34 - 15:04)
And I am good with these priorities. I am. I guess the only other thing I would share with the board at this point, though, is that we are in the middle of a 30-day period of comment period on our House Bill 8 funding, which we all know is the new performance funding model, of which now the Commissioner is proposing that 95 percent of our funding now be based upon the performance metrics that we've outlined and shared with the board.

(15:04 - 15:36)
But there are some changes. And working with my team, there's a lot of pieces that we're not aware of yet, is one of the things that I would say in speaking with the Commissioner and other CEOs earlier this week. But the other thing that we do know for sure now is that they are going to implement what is called a dynamic criteria, dynamic model, what? Dynamic funding model.

(15:37 - 16:02)
And we don't, but we do not know the, we don't have the formula. And so we are not able to, on our own, and they are also going to be predicting what we get based upon how much they believe a student should earn 5 and 10 years out. And comparing that to what students might have if they just, well, we know what they would earn with just a high school diploma.

(16:03 - 16:19)
And so with the dynamic funding model, what we do know is an FY25, they will begin settling up with each college. And we always knew that that was going to kind of be in place. So that could mean something positive or negative for Lee College.

(16:19 - 16:52)
So if they estimate for us that we should be, you know, earning, let's say, $10 million per year, which is, we did about 9 this last time with the funding model. But let's say they said 10, but they predicted, or when they estimated 10 and we, you know, only should have earned 8, they're going to take the 2 million to settle up. On the other hand, if they predicted 10 and we actually performed at the level of 12 million, then they're going to settle up by giving us 2 million extra dollars.

(16:52 - 17:22)
But that settle up process is something that we're now going to have to incorporate. And as we look, you know, and talk with industry partners and look at these models, we're being very mindful of what are, you know, real high demand fields that will provide our students family sustaining wages. And it's just a very serious conversation, you know, that has, you know, not just outcomes for our students' lives, which are most important, because we want to improve the quality of their lives, but it is a financial implication for us.

(17:22 - 17:37)
Because we are being funded on that now. So, let's take your worst case scenario and they did penalize us 2 million or came up and took back, fall back. Is that a good term? I think that's a good one to look at.

(17:37 - 17:49)
That's part of what our reserve is for. We've got plenty of reserves to cover situations that we've never experienced quite like that. I think we've got to fall back a few hundred thousand, if not millions.

(17:49 - 18:14)
Isn't that what a reserve is for? I think of a reserve, and I guess I'm not the chief financial officer, but for me it is an emergency. And that is either disaster, you know, it could be, you know, weather or I don't know, there could be a chemical spill or a weather event. But the whole college generally is typically shut down.

(18:14 - 18:29)
We cannot operate like we normally would. So, for example, we had an arctic storm or, you know, flooding and the colleges had to shut down for, you know, at some point two weeks in a row. But if it were longer than that, that's what an operating reserve is for.

(18:29 - 18:52)
I don't view a clawback as an emergency because I would certainly assume that it would be something you see coming down the horizon. Okay. Just like we were told what our funding for this year was going to be before the fiscal year started, you would also know what, that's factored into the funding model.

(18:52 - 19:14)
So, before we would adopt a budget, you would know that number. So, we're supposed to get the formula and some of the runs at either the end of April or the beginning of May. And we're going to use just, as you said, that information to do our very best to forecast and determine what our budget value should be in that area.

(19:14 - 19:34)
But at this point, we don't know. And we're still also waiting to see, you know, if during the next legislative session they'll continue to fund at the same amount that they have been or more. Because we're going to continue to increase in our outcomes, that's what we anticipate, but will the legislature continue to increase at the same levels? And we just don't know.

(19:34 - 19:52)
Yeah, can I have a comment on that? I mean, I think that's where we all have different perspectives on what, how we would apply this reserve. And I would think if we lost new real news millions in the middle of a budget year, we would need some of that to adjust, you know, to wind down. If you lost it in the middle of a funding year, right.

(19:52 - 20:07)
Then that's what, right. We would need some support because we couldn't just cut millions out in the middle of a school year. But if we knew ahead of time, like Daryl said, then I would expect, just like when we knew we were getting more and we ramped up, we know we're getting less, we're going to ramp down some more.

(20:08 - 20:18)
We'd have to make an adjustment. So I wouldn't see the reserves used in that case unless it was unknown, surprise, we're cutting you off. That wasn't the intent of my comment.

(20:19 - 20:28)
It was a mid-year or mid-biennium or whatever you call it. Correction, settle up. Which we did experience one time, a long time ago.

(20:28 - 20:33)
But it wasn't new. It was unexpected. Right.

(20:33 - 21:03)
And, you know, that's why we try to, you know, have a contingency in our budget because, you know, so we hope that all of our machines and, you know, supplies and everything are where they should be. But, you know, if Dr. Walters were to come to me tomorrow and say our pet plant broke down and we were trying to, you know, train our process operators and we didn't budget for that, then that's when he would probably come to me in a net and say, you know, I need to access contingency if we need it. And that's what that money is for.

(21:03 - 21:14)
It's unanticipated consequences. Well, unanticipated needs. I have a question about compensation.

(21:15 - 21:40)
Based on salary surveys, what surveys is that? It's the annual employee salary surveys that we receive through our Human Resources Office. And so we all participate in an annual compensation survey that is collected through the state and then they give those values back to us and we're able to estimate where we stand in relation to our peers. Okay.

(21:40 - 21:58)
And is it like by a position by position like a classroom teacher, an administrator, things like that? It is. But, you know, not always is it a 100% match, but it's pretty good. It's the most considered, yeah.

(21:58 - 22:53)
Okay. I guess because I was thinking, this may be off the wall, but when we give a flat out percentage raise and I know that inflation is going to hit people who make less money harder than people who make a much higher salary. And it occurred to me, which may be disagreeable, that have we ever considered giving a higher percentage to some group and a lower percentage to someone who makes a much higher salary so that that kind of falls in line where it helps those that, and I would assume that would maybe be on the faculty level that maybe, I'm just wondering have we ever considered varying the percentages so that it enables those that make less money to be able to bridge the gap of inflation? We've done a couple things.

(22:53 - 23:05)
I'll start off and if you want to add on. So we've done a couple things. One is we raised the minimum wage two or three years ago and we might be looking at that as well.

(23:05 - 23:47)
So we tried to help those who were at the lowest levels by just increasing that minimum hourly rate. And we did that pretty substantially at that time. But the second thing that we did was we engaged in a salary survey that was able to help us, as you may recall, with the compression analysis in which we learned that there didn't seem to be, and compression again refers to where people who are in the same position have been at the college for say, one's been here for 20 years and the person who comes in at one year is making the same salary as the person who's been here for 20 years.

(23:48 - 24:32)
And so doing that, using that compression analysis and then applying the funds, what we learned is that, just kind of like you said, that in the upper band grades, for us it was D and E, that there wasn't compression that existed. But there was a little bit of compression in bands C and then the most of the compression was at the lower bands in A and B. And so what the board approved, which I believe was about $600,000, is that about right? Yeah. To allocate was pretty much spent primarily on the lowest bands of A and B. What we want to try to avoid though is a compensation system where it's not a, we don't have a true merit-based system.

(24:32 - 24:59)
And that is very different than the one that we have and would be very inconsistent with other colleges and universities. I'll take that question also because you can speak to what you've done since you've been here, but many of you guys have been up here for decades. Have you ever approved or authorized raises in the context of you speaking up, Ms. Judy? Not that I can remember.

(25:00 - 25:20)
The only thing that's done, not to this level that I recall, is that where there are some outliers, either the lower level of the scale, you try to bring them into compliance. And that's a review that occurs every year. I know that's what we did in Griesburg.

(25:20 - 25:39)
We always made sure that we did that, and it was the employee group that you were referring to. But not where we did a significant amount, where, I mean, looking at all of those bands, that was a pretty comprehensive study. I haven't done it where you split it up that way.

(25:40 - 25:56)
I guess I'm wondering, is that not a good idea every once in a while when we're in a point of inflation? I mean, the numbers were just released the other day. Inflation is not behaving. And I don't know.

(25:56 - 26:26)
I don't know, in my mindset, I just don't know that that wouldn't be a bad idea to have a varying percentage in a time where the raises are great for everyone, but if you're on that lower level, that raise is not going to go as far. There's just, I don't know. I don't think this should be like every year, but I just wonder if that wouldn't be something to consider in a time like right now.

(26:27 - 27:12)
You know, sometimes, Regent Geralds, you do this comprehensive review like that maybe every three to five years so that you're keeping up with the market, and that's a good thing. But then there are some, you know, I know there was a provision at Goose Creek if a person wanted to have their own salary reviewed in a certain area, and those things were done as well. But when a projection is being made from administration for salaries, it reviews, you know, a little bit of those salaries that are outliers, and then you do have to do exactly what you're saying every three to five years because the market changes.

(27:13 - 27:32)
And then you have new positions that you're creating sometimes that were not part of the original salary, and then there is recruitment as well as retention, so you're looking at a salary that's a compensation structure that's going to help with both recruitment and retention. So you do have to do it. It's not a one-time thing.

(27:32 - 27:40)
No, I just still stand behind what I say. I don't think it might be a bad idea. I know what she's talking about, dealing with just inflation.

(27:41 - 28:00)
Yeah, I'm just talking about when you get your raise, your money is not going as far when you get your raise if you're at the lower level because everybody is paying the same prices but when you have a much higher income, and I'm not looking for income equality. That is not what I'm looking for. I don't think everybody ought to get the same amount of money.

(28:01 - 28:50)
I'm just saying periodically when we're facing higher inflation, your money just doesn't go as far, but some people's will go farther just because they have that higher income. I just think from time to time if we're faced with that, to me it makes sense to maybe vary the percentage. So just to maybe put a fine point on, and you tell me if this is, because I think this is what you're saying, is you would be in favor of a cost-of-living allowance for faculty only? No, I'm saying that, I think, what did we do, 5% last year across the board? I'm saying not across the board.

(28:50 - 28:56)
Not everybody gets five. Maybe some get five and some get three. That's what I'm saying.

(28:57 - 30:30)
Maybe I can help, just kind of mirroring back what I think I'm hearing, and what I think I'm hearing is the value that we also place on ensuring that not just our students but our employees are making family-sustaining wages, and I absolutely agree that, and we talk about this, that when I go to buy a gallon of milk, it doesn't hurt me, or a dozen eggs, it doesn't hurt me the way someone who's in, for example, a non-exempt position at the college. And so what we try to do is, again, we do these analyses, and we look to see where we stand in terms of others, but we also, and I think we're going to do this again this year, is look at whether the minimum wage for those who are in those areas needs to be raised, because we did have a long-term goal of increasing it even further when we did the first part of that, and I think that would help accomplish that, and that is what the board actually did when the pandemic hit, and it was recognizing that a lot of people were suffering, and so that's why the board raised, we asked the board to raise the minimum wage for a number of workers, so it accomplished exactly that, and we hold the same value. I think the difficult thing is when, cost of living, when you look at that number, it's given as just a number.

(30:31 - 30:49)
It's not given as a number based on income, or based on the cost of goods, or based on anything, it's just, inflation is just a number, and we can look at benefits to employees. I'm sure health insurance costs the same, no matter what you make. I mean, it costs the same for the lowest-paid employee to the highest-paid employee.

(30:50 - 31:17)
How do you factor those expenses as well? I mean, it's a difficult thing to look at. You've got a great heart, but I don't know how we can draw a line and say, at this point, you get this much based on how much you make and you don't make, when it's an inflation number, it's really intended to be just a baseline for, just in place everyone's expenses. I'm all for looking at it.

(31:17 - 31:35)
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that it's tough, because there are a lot of things that employees pay for. I deal with it the same way, and as an employer, it costs me the same for a lower-level employee and a higher-level employee, and the lower-level employee doesn't bring me enough money to cover that cost that I have to pay, right, in a markup, because a markup's just a markup, kind of like inflation is just a number.

(31:35 - 32:03)
It's a challenge. It is. And I, again, would just kind of echo back what we, in terms of shared governance and my role in working with leadership across all three assemblies, staff, faculty, and administrative, that the presidents of those assemblies, on behalf of those employees, really wanted the board to know that the 6% raise that you approved last year really meant a lot to them.

(32:04 - 32:26)
They were, I mean, and from the comments that were made, I think, during the budgeting process, it was something that, a gesture from the faculty and the staff and the administrators, that they really appreciated from the board. So I think that that 6% was, it really meant something. Typically, if it's inflation-based, we're not even talking about performance.

(32:26 - 32:51)
No. No, I mean, it's either you get a raise or you don't. I like the increasing the base wage because, rather than giving percentages, because if you give percentages increased to some groups and not others, there can be contention between, because maybe they just don't understand how it's calculated or why them and why not me.

(32:51 - 33:27)
And so, and you have some at the top of B that are right close to the bottom of C. And so why is this guy getting it and not this guy? So, being increased, it's, you're giving it, but it's not, it's obvious. Yeah. So it's not, we do our salary studies and the feedback comes back and we go through, it goes through some pretty rigorous analyses and we end up modifying our, our, our bands with that data.

(33:28 - 33:45)
And then, then what happens, like, like I said, is sometimes it then leads to that compression though. So we do modify the bands and then people are placed based upon their knowledge, skills and experience as well as, you know, their, their degrees. And then they're placed, you know, accordingly on those bands.

(33:46 - 34:09)
And, and it's a system that, you know, has served us pretty well because it's a lot, you know, it's generally, I mean, you're always going to get some people who are just unhappy. I mean, even when you approve the, you know, the band or the compression, there were some people who benefited much more than others, but it was because they were much more compressed than others. And so that's just how the data are applied.

(34:09 - 34:18)
I would just go back to your original statement. And I think it's a valid one. I understand exactly where you're coming from.

(34:19 - 34:55)
But it's from the context of what I think you're saying is, you know, 5% off of a hundred dollar bill is a lot more than 5% $10. And so I equate the hundred dollar bill to those that are at the higher tier and the $10, even though it's not exact, but the $10, but if you give them the same percentage, this person is still getting more money because they started out with more money. And so I just wanted to say that cause I know exactly how you're looking at it.

(34:55 - 35:14)
You're saying they didn't have enough to begin with. And then if you give 5% of that, yeah, they get some, but it's not nearly as much as a person who's making a hundred thousand a year. 5% of that is much greater than 5% of the person who's making 40,000 a year.

(35:14 - 35:29)
So I, I heard you. So I just wanted to say that. Well, most of the statistics that I've seen said people making $250,000 a year or less are living paycheck to paycheck, just like the people that are making $15 an hour.

(35:29 - 35:44)
So paycheck to paycheck means you don't have a whole lot of slack in there no matter what you're making. Cause even though you're living in a nicer house, you're paying a lot more for it. You drive a nicer car, you're paying the same thing.

(35:44 - 36:02)
Those bills are hard to cut back. You pay the same for food, you pay the same for gasoline, you pay the same, but you're living paycheck to paycheck. Well, I could say that's also a personal choice sometimes on how you make your decisions.

(36:03 - 36:28)
It is, but it's still paycheck to paycheck. You don't have that extra slack in there. So are we looking at doing any type of merit? Do we do an evaluation of our employees annually? And do we take that into consideration for pay or anything at all? Well, it's either a recommendation to receive a pay raise or not.

(36:29 - 36:34)
So, and again, we're not a merit based. This is not a merit based system. Some colleges are though.

(36:34 - 36:40)
I think you may have said. Most people in the world aren't anymore. Do what? I said, most places are not merit based anymore.

(36:40 - 36:50)
I am not familiar with an educational institution that is merit based. You will find some that are, I just said the majority. Years ago, unless they've changed.

(36:50 - 37:20)
I mean, we're seeing Jack went to a merit based. But isn't that more fair to everyone when you, when you have evaluations and you use those to, to pay the better performers and you, you don't pay the folks that don't perform very well less to encourage them to do better, to help the whole overall organization, the system, unfortunate. And I will say that in theory, yes, in theory, absolutely.

(37:20 - 37:30)
You want to evaluate in your overachievers. You want to give them more. And the ones that are just showing up, just doing enough not to get fired, you know, then yeah.

(37:30 - 38:05)
The problem is, is that the process for going through the evaluation period, it's all subjective because what I think is overachieving in the way that I evaluate my team is going to be a whole lot harder than the way that Judy evaluates her team, because you get to decide whether you think you believe they should earn more or not. And most times it doesn't go strictly off of the performance. It gets into your relationship, whether you liked them or not.

(38:05 - 38:20)
What have you done for me lately? And you don't evaluate it based off of the entire year. You re you evaluated off of the last thing you remember. So if they've done something really great over the last month, then you tend to write the evaluation based on that.

(38:20 - 38:42)
I'm just telling you from years of having to go through it so that that's the reason why I believe most organizations have gotten away from it because it ends up not being fair and equitable as you would think it is. And I'm not speaking for the whole world. I'm just telling you from my experience, the city of Baytown does not do that.

(38:42 - 38:51)
Absolutely not moved away from it. Everybody gets raised the same across the board. No matter you get up across the board.

(38:51 - 39:13)
Well, again, remember that in our performance appraisal system, a supervisor has the discretion to recommend that someone is not receiving a raise. And that goes through a process that's reviewed. But otherwise our employees are receiving a raise that's based again consistently across all employees and dependent upon where they are in the band and great.

(39:14 - 39:47)
And I'm glad you mentioned that because that is, and since you brought up the city of Baytown, if you are currently under any type of disciplinary or have received any form of disciplinary action during that year, you are not eligible for the raise. And then also there is, I'm going to call it a bucket, but there is additional funding that's there. If you have an employee that is just knocking it out of the park so they can receive something in addition to the standard that everyone else is getting.

(39:47 - 39:56)
But if you've been under disciplinary, you're not even eligible at all. That's city of Baytown. If I understood, I don't know if I understood this correctly.

(39:57 - 40:13)
So last year we approved a 6% across the board pay increase for everybody. Based on what you just said, there could be an employee out there that for some reason did not get that 6%. I'm not aware of any employee that didn't though.

(40:13 - 40:20)
I mean, cause that would have had to come through my office. So I did not. I was not asked to not recommend.

(40:20 - 40:35)
I mean, usually we would recommend it or we're not going to recommend keeping the employee. I mean, there's, I mean, this is a, this is part of our progressive discipline and I mean, yes. It seems like we have, you know, there's a process in place.

(40:35 - 40:45)
That's pretty much a common among higher education institutions. And we're following that process. We started talking about something different or tweaking it.

(40:45 - 40:55)
Then we have to develop a new process. And that takes time. Do we want to develop a new process or not? Otherwise we're following what apparently has been happening for decades here.

(40:56 - 41:10)
You guys have been here and doing the same thing. That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't talk about it. You know, that's what this whole workshop is about.

(41:10 - 41:24)
Being able to throw stuff out there and some stuff will stick to the wall and some stuff won't. But it would require us to do something more. If we were collectively decided, we wanted to move to a different process than the one we're using now.

(41:24 - 41:46)
So do we get, do we rate or do a valuation for every employee every year? We have that process in place. So can they, and is it right? Do you like a one to 10 or does it have a way of scoring the people? It's complicated. It just doesn't have money attached to it.

(41:48 - 41:59)
I mean, I'm just saying it. I don't think if we wanted to do that, we're not that far off from being able to do that. I mean, anyone that scored a one, you know, would get 2%.

(41:59 - 42:08)
Anybody that scored above three would get 6% or whatever. I mean, you could do that, but I think it would encourage people to work a little. Plans and things like that.

(42:08 - 43:32)
Like if someone gets reused low in whatever position, is there like a, I know that in teaching, if a teacher does not get scored well, they get put on a growth plan and they get mentored and things like that. Is there, is there something equitable to that? Like if someone doesn't get a good review that they're told, like, you know, you've got to change it and we're going to work with you, you know, make it like a growth plan or something. Yeah. 

We call it a PIP or a performance improvement plan. And, you know, we, we try to work with our employees as much as possible though early so that it doesn't hit them at the performance appraisal and it's a surprise. Now, you know, obviously things are documented throughout the year. 

But, you know, my goal with, with our team is to have regular conversations about how performance is going among employees. And so that it's more of a performance management versus just performance evaluation as a one-time event. And so it's a regular conversation when people understand, Hey, here's what's going well or here's not. 

And if we're, you know, we're seeing that there's a consistency in what's not going well, then we'll do one of those PIPs, performance improvement plan. And it is usually reflected in the annual performance review. And is that followed by every department that they have like a regular, like standing, like every two months we touch base and stuff like that.

(43:32 - 43:58)
Not a consistent it's, it's based upon the supervisor. So for example, the way Dr. Walser's or Annette or Leslie might implement, you know, their growth plan is dependent upon the employee. So you might have one employee who's asked to take training in a certain area or one employee who's provided with certain metrics to meet, you know, by this amount of time, but no, it's not the same thing across the institution.

(43:59 - 44:08)
It's just that across the institution, we should be having regular supervisory. That was my question. Yeah.

(44:09 - 44:24)
That was really what my question was, is every department, every supervisor making sure that they're meeting with every single employee under them. So six months, six months doesn't come down the road and all of a sudden, Whoa, you never told me these things were going on. I needed to fix these.

(44:25 - 44:51)
I mean, is there, is every department following it? So it does not come as a surprise to someone that, Ooh, I need to work on these things. And I think it needs to be consistent for all departments with all division chairs or whatever department heads or whatever. I think consistency is important within each section of the college so that it's not like, well, they never did that with me.

(44:51 - 45:03)
Why am I getting called out on the carpet? Because no one ever told me and somebody else says, well, my mom met with me every other month, every other month. Man, I was very clear on what was going on. So I just think consistency would prevent a lot of, wait a minute.

(45:04 - 45:41)
I hope I'm hearing you say that sometimes it's, it's, it's unique to the individual because we come with different skills and the remediation plan is not, what I'm saying is every person being met with consistently so that they know if there's something they need to work on or not. But back to what the president said, you know, one person might, it depends on what's in the growth plan or PIT. I'm talking about, are you meeting with them on a consistent basis so you can determine if they need to be on a growth plan? I'm not talking about after they're on a growth plan.

(45:41 - 46:15)
I'm talking about is every division operating under the same policy that every single person that is employed by the college is having a meeting on a somewhat regular basis or whatever is deemed appropriate because you don't want to meet for the sake of meeting and waste people's time. But I'm saying before you can get to needing to be on a growth plan is everyone are being told, not even the growth plan, are being told you're knocking it out of the park. You're not going to know that unless you're having some consistent meetings with people.

(46:15 - 46:43)
So can I just say that the employee evaluation starts with the employee? We said three, three to five gold metrics affiliated with those. And then you meet with your supervisor in the middle of the year and you look at them and see if you have come halfway there, kind of know where you are because you set your own goals with supervisors approval. And at the end of the year you report again, it's all online and you report in and say, I met my goal.

(46:43 - 46:54)
I exceeded my goal and this is how I went about doing that. So really an employee should know on their own if they're meeting their expectations. If you're meeting with them.

(46:55 - 47:23)
If you're meeting with them. So I guess I would just want to say that I think it's important to recognize and I appreciate the need for consistency. There is not a policy if you, as you're referring to that consistency with every single employee, but you know, it's, it's, I would liken it to the way I work with, with those that report directly to me.

(47:23 - 48:12)
So the amount of time that I spend regularly with any one of those who report directly to me depends upon the person and their own needs with me too. So we, we try to, we try to have the consistency and ensuring, you know, that there's what we'd say equitable in terms of what individuals need. And so, you know, what one employee might need is different than another, but we do, I guess I would just ask the board if we might look at again, the administration is trying to seek a, again, a dichotomous yes or no on whether each of these categories is an important priority for us to consider as we build the budget and bring it back to you for your consideration.

(48:12 - 48:28)
And I think that all of these conversations are important and I appreciate that they show deep respect for our employees, but we do need the yes and no. And I think in the first five minutes of this workshop, we agreed that these are the priorities. Am I, did I not hear that? Okay.

(48:28 - 48:39)
Okay. So. Let's talk about taxes. 

No, I'm kidding. I'm just kidding. So my, my question now to administration is now you have the priorities.

(48:41 - 48:58)
When would we expect a first draft of a, of a budget for our next budget workshop? With the numbers. Numbers in a spreadsheet. Numbers and not words or numbers and words.

(48:58 - 49:07)
Numbers and words. So we would anticipate having our first budget workshop with the board. Can you give us the date? Cause we were actually talking about that today and.

(49:09 - 49:24)
Annette and Renee have put together based upon region journals. You might be proud of us making it a little bit earlier. So what is the first date as opposed to, and maybe the, the, the proposed finalized adoption of the budget with the caveat.

(49:25 - 49:36)
Right. So we have moved the adoption of the budget back one month. So we're, our goal is to have a final budget to you in July.

(49:37 - 49:56)
The July board meeting would be July 18th. Now I say that with this caveat, we will not have certified tax numbers by that date. So we will have our estimates, right? We won't have the certified numbers.

(49:56 - 50:36)
If the certified numbers come in drastically different than the estimates, for whatever reason, what that would mean is that we would be coming back to you for a budget amendment because we are a little bit different than some other entities in that, you know, over 50% of our budget is funded by taxes. And so if we have a dramatic change in that number, it does impact our overall budget in a serious way. That was one reason why we've kind of always waited.

(50:36 - 51:09)
You know, the reality is they're typically not drastically different. And so for that reason, we could go ahead and do a final budget in July. I just want everyone to understand that if something were to happen and those numbers did come in drastically different than we would be coming back to you with an amendment.

(51:14 - 51:34)
So when would you think we'd see a first, when would our, when's our, when do you anticipate a next budget workshop? Our first budget workshop we have scheduled for May 16th. Our second one would be June 20th. And then coming back to you on July 18th with a final budget.

(51:37 - 52:09)
Can I go back to the tax issue to help you? Could we, could we determine the no new tax revenue number? In other words, just say, okay. And that, because that's basically what that no new tax revenue number is. And if it, you know, this rate, you understand what I'm saying on the note so that you have, and you can say, you know, we, to develop this budget, we really need to have an additional half million dollars in revenue growth.

(52:10 - 52:26)
And so assuming values go up, but give you some post so that we can agree and operate. And then if it varies in taxes, values go down, then we have to go up on the rate. If they go up, then we can go down on the rate and use that as a, as a base.

(52:26 - 52:51)
Is that workable for you or possibility? So we typically receive our preliminary roles in April. And as I, as I mentioned earlier, our first budget workshop with you guys, we have slated for May 16th. So hopefully we will have some idea about where the, the valuations and, and the rates are going by that first workshop.

(52:52 - 53:06)
Okay. But is this, would this be something that would help you to say, okay, we are, we had $40 million last year, whatever it is. And we, we anticipate needing another 1 million or 2 million.

(53:07 - 53:24)
If the growth in our tax values don't get us there, then we have to go up on the right. If the growth gets us over that, then we can come down on the rating. And so that you can have, so we can kind of all agree on some, you know, I call it a poster.

(53:24 - 53:31)
This is our point. And then those things are out of our control, the value growth and all that kind. Right.

(53:31 - 53:53)
Is that possible or would that be helpful to you? I mean, obviously anything we can define up front is always helpful because it gives you those parameters, those bumpers, if you will. I would need to kind of look at the whole timeline on when we get that, no new revenue rate and all of that, because I'm sorry. I just don't remember right now.

(53:55 - 54:00)
But that generally last year it was pretty late in the game. Yeah. Yeah.

(54:00 - 54:16)
Last year. So, so I don't know if we would have, I, I don't know the date that we would have that information. So it's kind of hard for me to answer that question.

(54:16 - 54:25)
I was just, I was basing the on what revenue we're collecting this year. So we already know that we should know it. Yes.

(54:25 - 54:36)
And then we can, we can use that as our, as our basis and then whatever growth we have. That's what I'm saying. Going all the way back to the number that we have that we know.

(54:37 - 54:45)
Oh, and so in theory, that's kind of what we do. We start with what we know, right. Which is prior year.

(54:46 - 55:33)
And then we get with Dr. Walser's and his group and we say, okay, this is what we did on enrollment this year. What do we know about enrollment for next year? Are we adding new programs? Are we cutting any programs? What are we doing? And so then that, that helps us evaluate the tuition and fees because then we have to take our rate, compare it to everybody else out in the market and say, okay, if we were to raise our rate, what does that do to us in our standing against our, our peer institutions in the Gulf coast? We have been very fortunate in being able to hold our, our out of district rates pretty steady. We had one increase.

(55:35 - 56:13)
And so, so we're becoming more competitive in in that arena because some of the other schools have increased theirs. And we have not had to, to do that. And I, one of my goals is to try to continue that practice because we need to be very sensitive to what our students are paying because they can drive not very far and go to another school. 

Right. So we got to make sure our rates are very competitive. So that's a whole process that we go through as well.

(56:15 - 56:32)
What was the, the, your adoption date that you would like for us to adopt? July, July 18th. Okay. So I had a follow up on the compensation and your document here.

(56:32 - 56:49)
You have it, you said based on salary surveys to be determined, what, what does that mean? And are we going to do some actual salary surveys? Like we've done in the past where we've contracted it out? Yes, sir. Gerald's asked that question. Yes, sir.

(56:50 - 57:04)
No, I thought you said we were going to get, get it from a state. What were the surveys? That's what, that's the process that we use. No, I'm talking about, I'm talking about using the third party company that what Gallagher, Gallagher.

(57:05 - 57:16)
Yeah. Is that our, is that what you're asking about Gallagher? No, I just asked, what was the survey? It said survey to be determined. So we're talking about Gallagher then? Yes.

(57:16 - 57:32)
Yes. And we, so you may recall, you may not, but when Dr. V came, she was very clear and wanting us to be more consistent with having those salaries evaluated. And so we set up a schedule.

(57:32 - 57:42)
So one year we do staff, the next year we do administration. The next year we do faculty. We have it on a three year rotation.

(57:43 - 58:01)
Initially we were going to try to do a two year rotation, but in talking with our, our consultants, they said that that was too frequent, that they did not reckon, did not recommend that. And they recommended that we go to a three year rotation. And so this year is the rotation for faculty.

(58:02 - 58:20)
And so they will do a comprehensive study. But even in the years that we don't do the deep dive and the comprehensive study, they still do a market study. And they say, on average, your salary this year compared to salary last year.

(58:20 - 58:47)
And they kind of take into consideration the cost of living and general inflation in the market. And so they will come back and they would say, you know, to stay competitive in the market, we would recommend that you increase your bands by 3%, 4%, 2%, whatever that percent might be. But they might not do a full comprehensive study of administration and staff.

(58:47 - 59:08)
They would reserve that for following years. So we have gallons scheduled. And do they look at our benefits, our whole package when they do their, their study compared to other colleges, like our insurance that we pay and vacation and everything that we do.

(59:09 - 59:27)
Is that all part of it? Salary based. It's mainly salary because for the most part, the benefits are pretty consistent. There are some schools that might pay social security and some that might not, there might be some schools that give you an extra day here.

(59:28 - 59:47)
That you don't get over here. So there would be some of those benefits that might not align exactly, but when you're looking at health insurance, all of that is through the state and that's going to be consistent no matter which institution you're at. So for the most part, the benefits are pretty consistent.

(59:47 - 1:00:03)
There would be some variation, but the main thing that they're looking at is the salary amounts. So social security would be an example of what they're taking into account for faculty this year on the deep dive. No, I said that would not going to look at that.

(1:00:03 - 1:00:22)
Not going to take into consideration. I understand how that's, how that's fair because it's not comparing them to other colleges, but we're just looking at salary, salary dollars. We're not looking at the entire.

(1:00:23 - 1:00:43)
So will we be a part of this? We'll get to have them come out and do a presentation and, and ask them questions. I know in years past we were doing that and, but in the past couple of years, we've, I don't think we've had that ability to talk to them and see the detail report. We can definitely provide the detailed report.

(1:00:43 - 1:00:59)
That's not an issue. And if the board would like for them to come out and do some type of presentation to answer any specific questions you may have, we can certainly reach out to them and schedule something. I mean, I think this is a pretty expensive evaluation.

(1:00:59 - 1:01:10)
At least it used to be. It would, you would think that, that we ought to get a presentation. I mean, I think it, it costs more than our, than our audit did last, last time we did it.

(1:01:10 - 1:01:21)
So then they come out and talk to us. So that's what I would like to see. We received from the board, then we will certainly reach out to them and, and try to get that scheduled for you.

(1:01:21 - 1:01:28)
Well, okay. I would like to have a talk with them. So you schedule that and then you can decide if you want to do a full board.

(1:01:28 - 1:01:31)
That's not the way it works. We can, we can have a talk. That's not the way it works.

(1:01:32 - 1:01:38)
I think I can get requests, information I want to get. Right. Find out how much.

(1:01:38 - 1:01:45)
Not a one-on-one meeting you can't, but the information is going to be the survey, the results of the survey. Okay. I wasn't talking to the information.

(1:01:45 - 1:01:50)
I was just talking about the meeting. I think, I think we can, but that's fine. Okay.

(1:01:52 - 1:02:16)
So we're at the point of the agenda matters of concern for future agenda. I've heard two, one being the Gallagher survey and one being the tax rate. Are there any other concerns for future agenda that we want to talk about? If not, before we adjourn and take a break before our next meeting, I do have a, a reminder that I want to read.

(1:02:17 - 1:02:34)
Okay. So it was a busy time a year back in mid-December when our good friend Pete Alfero passed away. At that time it was announced that the Lee College Foundation would be accepting contributions to endow a scholarship in Pete's name.

(1:02:34 - 1:02:53)
This is a friendly reminder for anyone who may have thought of making a contribution back during that busy time and perhaps has not followed through on that yet. They are still looking for those contributions. So, and we are now in adjournment.

(1:02:55 - 1:02:56)
See it's.