In the past, the board of trustees has approved the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, or at least has SEEN a budget, before the fiscal year ended, since legally it has to be public for 30 days before adoption.
For example, records on the JAL website show that the FY13 budget was presented April 30 and adopted June 28, 2012. The FY12 budget was presented to the board for approval in June 2011, and adopted august 23, 2011.
But there's no mention of any FY14 budget, not in April, May, or June minutes, or on the July 23 agenda. Was it mentioned or discussed at the meeting? If you were there and taking notes, please let us know.
What legitimate reason could there be for a public body NOT to have a budget a month into a new fiscal year? Isn't that an important part of the job they were elected to do?
Is it possible there's been some attention paid to the huge increases in "institutional support," making it more difficult to keep sliding money into that category?
For example, the FY12 budget comparison page (pg. 77) shows the change from FY10 to FY 12 in expenditures on "instruction" goes from 13,530,859 to 14,510,685.
During the same time period, expenditures on "institutional support" goes frm 10,491,697 to 18,920,265. What? BIG difference in increase there.
What's being funded by "institutional support" that's more important than instruction? The increase is also larger than the increase for student scholarships and waivers. This is disturbing—what are the institutional priorities?
(And anyone who can figure out what "institutional support" really means is a more patient reader than anyone here at MW).
Maybe if they re-schedule the retreat once Mr. Rendlman's "administration" is more seasoned, and those "new" board members (ahem, neither of which is NEW, Mr. Rendlman) get some experience, they can re-consider where the college should spend money.
Any theories, followers? Where's the budget?
Thank you!
ReplyDeleteAlways follow the money.
I looked for a definition of instituttuional support, here's one from a university (http://www.wisconsin.edu/fadmin/activity/instsup.htm) that covers pretty much anything you would want to put your hands in if you were a micro-managing board member... and aren't these guys the definition of 'micr0-managing'? anyone who works at JAL and talks to employees at other comm colleges finds that their boards have virtually nothing to do with hiring, do not hold up programs for political/personal reasons, do not promote their own children shamelessly, and act solely to promote students and education. They SERVE the people of the district, not themselves and their cronys and friends.
ReplyDeleteDoes institutional support mean money for the board room? LOL when you find that the board room and adjacent room now possess a 72" Smart TV and an 82" TV smart t.v. Why would you want to put that in the board room? Another waste of money which could be going to faculty increases. What a joke!
ReplyDelete