Some Critical Concerns with the Power Outages Were

Summary April 2-3 BAC Monday, May 25, 2015 10:56 AM Continuity of Operations: UW and several system Public Safety staff reported.

 Scenarios were given with one being a Systems Outage: Power Outage with recent examples from Skagit, Everett:

 Some critical concerns with the power outages were: o Refrigeration o Systems o Need a plan for how to continue to do business:  Essential functions: . Need to define what continuity of operations plan is. . Need to have same list of priorities for college management.  Ask who needs to know and how soon  Determine what are the short and long term goals. . Short-term goals are different from long-term and include  Safety  Hygeine  Elevators  Location of all people on campus  Call 911 . Define plans for different time horizon.

o Note how power outage affects business with a Connectivity Loss:  Temporary location for Cashiering, AP, Deposits  Business office notices if electronic records are broken for student financials . Example for college when data back-up to Olympia didn't occur with a job that was turned off too early.  200 payments were not in system.  There were resulting serious core system issues  Couldn't register or take payments.

 Continuity of operations is a marketplace advantage:

 Virginia Tech was the first to achieve accreditation for Emergency Management programs after their severe shooter on campus incident.

 Advised to work on a response plan called all hazards approach . Plan for any hazard whether natural or human-caused.  Plan for the impact--ask what is disrupted, and what the actual effects on institution, same for most emergencies. . Perform risk assessments. . You will miss something - scenario driven plans don't capture everything, like specific threat-driven planning. . Instead look at resources and consider a new normal may emerge  Resource-oriented planning.  ID resources and plan Zombie Apocalypse like the Centers for Disease Control approach.  Principle-driven preparedness. Same effect for any disruption regardless of scenario.  Look at essential functions like Payroll. Stay off rabbit-trails.  What do you need to protect?  People  Facilities  Information  Equipment  Pick a unit and have conversations.  Priorities in Crisis: . Safety . Incident Stabilization . Property protection . Environmental protection . Operational resilience-Confirm people are safe. . Then, how do we get back to work.  Traps to Avoid: . Having a plan and failing to use it.  Plans are nothing, planning is everything.  Plan is incidental to planning process which is a learning effort that produces knowledge. . Most plans are based on threat not impact. . Some place reliance on insurance  Insurance is only part of recovery--priceless collections e.g.  Some insurance is important. . Important to avoid the Ostrich approach. Never happen here . Also important to avoid Fatalism.  If it happens, all will be lost, the Possum Principle . Also avoid the excuse you have too little support.  Legally you will be asked if you should have planned.  Remember, you can create a plan instead of a program.

 Define who is accountable . Establish delegations of authority . Establish process for developing COOP--who leads, who is accountable . Use template or plan development online tool.

 One way to logistically plan is to have an EOO work with departments to fill out plans.

 Plan for situational events using preparation checklists: . There is a difference between COOP and Emergency plan  The event is not over when the incident ends  Core of the plan is resource planning.  People will do what they do and improvise--whoever is there constructs plan and responds.  2 levels of response  There is a difference between command post and emergency management . Navy has cycled between threat-based and resource-based planning.

 As part of planning ask what represent to our community: . We are a business available to communities if something dire happens . We should share plans with community. . Make sure we are prepared in advance and have thought through single-points of failure  Plan for off-site power or data resources.  Study from other events and ask how it may affect us.  Perform mitigation planning  Start broad all-hazards approach and narrow this.  This eventually gets to a tactical level

 There is an evolution in thinking about events when you go through the planning exercise. . An example was when Meals Ready to Eat were stocked for an emergency. When staging a mock event, those with food allergies couldn't eat the MRE's. . Begin asking critical questions like do you refund some tuition if classes can't be held for a while?

 Operations Committee Meeting discussion

 CTC Link Progress: o ITC met jointly with BAC to discuss CTC Link: o There was also a WAC discussion on CTC Link. o Concluded that CTCLink is moving forward.  Implementation moved out one year.  Suggested another year was needed to really do this right

Barbara Martin Report:  Noted regarding concerns on missing GL and potential problems with data format: o April 9th was scheduled for discussion with BAR and BAC members with a follow-up planned on chart of accounts with BAR and BAC with a wider group follow-up. o Financial Statements in CTC-Link will be rolled-up by tree, going through some of the Account fields. o Some known issues: We haven't made FMS GASB 65 deferred revenues and outflows GL's. GASB 54 unspendable, vs. restricted, GL's etc. o There was a need to do more thinking about account fields in CTC Link and requirements for GAAP and IPEDs reporting; some question whether the current approach to coding fund and appropriation would work. o 1-2 weeks after the April 9th review it as planned to have a larger group look at proposed solutions. o Time is of essence. Need to make time for this. o CTC Link Has been trying to gather a list of all the issues that have arisen. o Send topic list out to BAC

 SAO has worked on data upload with CTC Link staff. o Part of their budget is for systems review.  One project is called ethical hacking to test security of system.  With the first colleges to migrate they will look at system testing. o Auditors will mostly opine on test balances for statement auditing with financial statement audits.

 CTC Link Planning is also looking at what we can do and can't do. Some things have significantly bigger implications.  First Wave college implementation is scheduled August 16. o Did an analysis with Ciber for what it would take to make first step:  Moved implementation out a year for first wave.  After Pilots Launch, there will be 90-day stabalization period . Don't know how many resources will be used. . Didn't want to commit too early.  Plan is to keep the work moving for First Wave, but CTC Link staff recognized there would be a period of time when there wouldn't be able to help First Waves after pilots launch.  No decision yet on timing for steps for implementation between First Wave and Second Wave i but may be:  August launch for -2016  May launch for 2017?  Then may be February of 2018 for 9 months between or  August of 2018 for 12 months for last WAVE o Updated project plan should be out soon

 Joint Policy Development Effort: o Could collaborate to write common missing policies o Cascadia asked their President's Staff to mark which policies needed work. Theirs was Title IX.  This was one way to ID which policies were significant and missing. o Another approach would be to ask colleges to name the top 5 missing policies  Determine if there is commonality o Another process would be for each college to come-up with local recommendations. o Decided, each college will send the top 5--critical missing policies by end of May to Jennifer Howard.

 State Board asked for input on defining acceptable debt ratio. o Legislature has asked State Board. State Board has raw data. o Legislature is risk avert, so need to reassure them. o Committee polled on advisable maximum debt ratio, and BAC is still studying this. o Legislature is moving toward a 7% cap on debt service to budget-type limit.

 New deadline on Procurement training is moved by DES to October. Currently planned in BAC academy agenda.

 Megamations: In previous testing data didn't match. Depreciation schedule would need to be redone. o One reason Megamations was looked at for depreciation calculation was that we were told that FAE was dying with no support. o OFC wanted to do this for other reasons like missing data fields for their reporting. o Rather than devoting time for Megamations, It was determined that staffing for our legacy system should be prioritized.

Rob Langrell WAC representative with BAC: o Encouraged to retain Optimism despite possible loss of funding with new Allocation and Accountability model of distributing allocation to colleges. o Though it is obvious we are not going to be doing more with less, we need to continue to articulate story on this.  Reduction scenarios performed just months ago, though our 15% reduction worst-case planning is not evident in the current budget proposals.  Hang onto those scenarios though  You may need them.  Look to 2020, Look at our students or learners, how does our current cost/value strategy align with how learning will take place in five or ten years?  Our missions must address sustainability as well as fulfillment.  Other colleges are doing this strategic planning.  There needs to be a total reset of approach.  Not in dollars and cents but on principals.  There will likely not be much new state funding for higher education.  How do we share services between colleges? o There are alot of agenda items now between colleges.  Rob doesn't remember a time when there has been as much inter-college rivalry.  Conditions in environment have us pitted against each other.  There is a strength in commitment to system. o Make sure you are developing teams and focused on teaching and learning.  Make sure you are thinking about what the new models of education are and how we will fund ourselves if there is no new state money.  Like what the future will endorse as modes of instruction. o Asked, what BAC expects from WAC?  Proposed that BAC meets with WAC before President's retreat to align work plans.  Relationships with Presidents on all the hot topics.  Things are moving fast so need to push this forward now.  Get other commissions into this format too.  Joint commission meetings may make sense.  One example is that In Michigan, all council and commission meet periodically.  This will be on WAC agenda. There will be an opportunity to be heard. We have good leadership. Denise Graham: o Quietly asking for contingency plans for not having budget completed by June. o Biggest problem is funding for capital projects. o New WAC group looking at evidence based practices. o Like identifying student achievement and completion. o Currently there is instruction, Student Services and , institutional research involvement. o Question does BAC wants representation? Timeline to finish next March. o Enrollment workgroup is forming. o Related to the new allocation model using enrollment data. o Made up of BAC, instruction , and student services. Will start soon. o Recommendations will be presented to WAC next March. o BAC invited to WAC academy for the new allocation model discussion at Lower Columbia. o High stakes conversation:  New allocation model will result in money moving around.  Questions about what is included in 3-year actuals and how we will receive state money. o Re-examining 2007 decision to have colleges either classify international students as contract or state TES's. o When International students are counted as contract, there is currently no payment of Innovation fee or building fee.=$1,700  For colleges with excess enrollment, counting international as state would move them to excess without building fee payment  There is about an $1,100 benefit to excessing without building fee. o International contract is an invention of our system. o Except for Running Start students, if you are in state-support classes, you get state funding. o International students are sitting in state classes but don't pay into building or innovation fund. (New headcount formula does have international students paying into innovation account) o Shakiness of international contract category that is making SBCTC nervous. Options proposed include:  Count as state  Count as contract  Minority report. Count only up to 100% of target.  Otherwise count as contract.  Colleges would be counting in both buckets.  May have 30 in state and lots in contract. Would looks like gaming the system.  What can be defended to legislature? o Concern:  What if the legislature knew that some colleges have 20% international when avg. is 7% and 5% for 4-year. Highest for 4-year is 10%. o Some citizens are starting to make the case to question why we have this category. o Presidents want to hear from BAC members on the topic. o SBCTC Modeled scenarios to demonstrate impact:  Showed which colleges gain and lose relative to current allocation models. This is change from last summer's allocation model. o There was also a question about capital scoring including international students.  Minor, RMI and Major works include all FTE's for scoring purposes but a disconnect with minor money is derived solely from Bldg. fee with no payment from international students.  Revenue model looked at discrete revenue changes, if 23% of tuition is kept local (though Innovation assessment is now headcount which lowers this) with International contract count method. o BAC input:  Bound to have this decision come to the forefront.  Image in public sector--need to be careful. UW had a public backlash on their international enrollment growth.  We need to standardize the choice to report international students as either international contract or state not hybrid.  One opinion that international enrollment shouldn't be counted for state; that the public understanding of this is important.  Phase-In period should have a date. One or two biennium.

Operating Budget Committee: Nick Lutes:

 Building allocation scenarios for next year. o Factoring in new Enrollment rules: o Scrap current recovery language. o Method to determine current target for 2016 is the same as last year. Model allocation won't take place until 2017. o During 2016, allocation will come both as old and new in parallel. . Target in the new model--average of target if under-enrolled, this is average g target for 3 years . if over-enrolled target is average of actuals. . May propose recalculated value for students of color and disabilities. Discussions on whether to have this?

 Discussion around various budget proposals:

o State & Tuition fund budgeted salary increases for House and Governor's budget proposal will be distributed based on last year's salary totals. o Senate budget proposal would have salary increases of $1,000 each year. Senate provides 85% of funding to cover this increase. o O&M allocations. There was a question whether we should change the way we ask for "inflation" for this instead of a request for inflation for leases. The current approach is disjointed and not aligned with our capital allocation approach.  Supplemental retiree payments. SBCTC redistributes. Will increase by 14.8%. DRS should have funds by 2017 to pay for this.  Senate proposes Tuition should be constrained to 6% of average population's wages which would result in a 2% decrease in tuition decrease for CTC's in 2017. Senate proposes to backfill this with an allocation.  Current budget proposals allow Non-Resident tuition to be adjusted. This is delegated authority. Upper-division tuition is level on Senate budget but we may be tied to not exceed 4-year rates where tuition would be adjusted down 15%.

ITC report:  WAC Memo sent to CTC Link to express concern: o Advice was to not set a date that cannot be met. o August 23rd First Link o August 2016 for First Wave o Discussed meeting for Account and Chartfield issues: o April 9th meeting for BAR and BAC members o 1-2 weeks later, pull together a broader BAC/BAR group to discuss. o Hired 3rd party reviewer on project timeline. o Reviewer felt August 23rd date is reasonable. o CTC Link Staffing has been increased. o Hired a first Wave coordinator, Dennis Colgren. o Some reasons for delay, Payroll complexity issue  Adjunct faculty and AFRS interface are both issues. o Someone made decision to take out appropriation which was thought to be duplicated. o Looking at optional fields.

Safety & Security Report:

 Will be providing guidance around incident response team training and organization.  Legislative bills around reporting concerning safety and security. o Question whether state board will alert when there are bills that may affect our reporting requirements.  Discussions around campus security officer training o What level of training should they have? o Level of competency required. Discussions around this.

Operations Committee report:

 Fiscal health measure for debt service. o Every college has a debt policy. o Not sufficient for legislature to concur with Board. o Come up with a metric. o Debt Service as a percentage of revenue in operating budget has been used.  Concerns about being too restrictive.  But also concerns about being irresponsible  Came up with 10.5% of total operating revenue.  But nationally the rate is 5.7%  This is one of fiscal health measures for state  8 3/4% presently at state level but there is an initiative to bring this down to 7%.  Accreditation visits have shown that solid plans call for sinking funds to reserves to protect operating budget.  What % of operating revenue should be dedicated though? o Rating agencies use 4 criteria:  Debt/per capita  Debt Service % of income  Debt % of Gross State product  Debt Service as % of expenditures . NACUBO reports: Debt service to operating expenditure is 5.7%. . Recommendation: Need to look at data and see what other institutions have in place . Do a survey.

Capital Report:

 Wayne Doty. Discussion about catching up on fully spending minor works.  New Normal is that there will be no re-appropriations of minor budgets into next biennium.

 There will be two workshops to train on submitting capital budget proposals. o Post to website. o All of this is on the budget development website. o There is a best practices section.  WAC adopted a best practice for estimating construction costs. o 10 colleges eligible to submit for major projects o May change this process  Could change who is in the pipeline for instance  Suggest that we assess how we communicate the system needs.