Docstoc

DiStRict BOARd OF TRUStEES

Document Sample
DiStRict BOARd OF TRUStEES Powered By Docstoc
					District Board of Trustees



         June 26, 2012
                                         AGENDA
                 The District Board of Trustees - State College of Florida,
                                     Manatee - Sarasota
                             Regular Meeting, June 26, 2012
                                  SCF Lakewood Ranch


1. Call to Order – Chairman Beruff

2. Invocation – Rev. Williamson

3. Pledge of Allegiance – Chairman Beruff

4. Announcements - President Hafner

5. Attorney Report – Mr. Prouty

6. Approval of Non-Financial Consent Agenda Items (“Consent Agenda A”) – Chairman Beruff

Exhibit A:     Minutes of December 8, 2011 Budget Subcommittee Meeting – Page 1
Exhibit B:     Minutes of April 17, 2012 Special Meeting – Page 13
Exhibit C:     Minutes of May 30, 2012 Regular Meeting – Page 19
               Amended Schedule of Non Credit Courses CCD Summer 2012 (201235) –
Exhibit D:
               Page 40
               Curriculum Development and Review Committee Recommendations for
Exhibit E:
               Programs and Courses – Page 41
Exhibit F:     Human Resources Office Personnel Actions – Page 43
Exhibit G:     SCFCS Monthly Report – Page 45

7. Approval of Financial Consent Agenda Items (“Consent Agenda B”) – Chairman Beruff

Exhibit H:     Monthly Financial Report – May 2012 – Page 50
               Budget Amendments FY 2011-2012 May #43-46 (SCFCS Included) – Page
Exhibit I:
               54
Exhibit J:     SCFCS Financial Statements May 2012 – Page 58
Exhibit K:     Property Disposals – Page 68
Exhibit L:     Gifts and Grants – Page 88
               Authorization to Charge Off Delinquent Student and Other Accounts – Page
Exhibit M:
               89

8. Exhibit N: Approval of Recommended Prequalified Construction Contractors – Ms. Steen –
   Page 90
9. Public Notice, Public Hearing and Final Action for Course and Fee Revisions – Dr. Probstfeld
   Exhibit O: Tuition, Course Fees and Additional Fees - Page 91
10. Exhibit P: Approval of SCF Operating Budget & Salary Schedule 2012-2013 – Dr. Probstfeld –
    Page 102
11. Board Requested Information
12. Board Comments & Adjournment
                                                                              EXHIBIT A

                                  MINUTES
         THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES -- STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA
                            MANATEE – SARASOTA
                        BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING


Date: December 8, 2011 5:00 p.m.                            Location: Lakewood Ranch Campus

Proceedings:

1. The District Board of Trustees of State College of Florida, Manatee – Sarasota held a budget
   subcommittee meeting on Thursday, December 8, 2011 at SCF Lakewood Ranch.

   Board Members Present: Edward Bailey, Carlos Beruff, C.J. Fishman, Lori Moran, Jennifer
   Saslaw and Dr. Craig Trigueiro.

   Administrators Present: President Lars A. Hafner, Vice Presidents, Don Bowman, Jack
   Crocker and Carol Probstfeld and General Counsel, Steve Prouty.

   Chairman Trigueiro called the meeting to order.

   Pledge of Allegiance.

   Chairman Trigueiro invited any and all questions.

   Dr. Probstfeld explained some of the aspects of the hard copy of the budget. She explained
   how it is broken down into Upper and Lower Divisions, Restricted and Unrestricted, actual
   budget and proposed for next year. She explained the different organizational units of the
   college. She explained the PECO funds are divided into 4 different sections, first being the
   totals, then the local fees, the CONDS and lastly what comes from the state. She stated
   those funds along with the capital improvement fees raised from students fees are monies
   that are available for bonding. She stated there are very specific requirements for what they
   can be used for.

   Dr. Probstfeld pointed out that the out of state fee is 33.2% of the total fees. She stated that
   generates a lot of revenue for the college. She pointed out the student activity fees and
   capital improvement fees and explained how they can be used.

   Dr. Probstfeld pointed out that the testing fees had gone up. She stated that was the state’s
   choice to move from the CPT test to the PERT test. The college passes those costs through
   to the students. She stated another big change was the stabilization fund. She pointed out
   auxiliary funds that were transferred to support other programs.

   She went on to explain the Upper Division Revenues, one from the Foundation and the other
   from auxiliary support, and the Collegiate School. She pointed out that funds from the state
   went up because a grade was added to the Collegiate School and that will continue to rise




                                                 1
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 2



    each year as another grade is added. She explained that once all the grades are
    implemented the Collegiate School will be covering its costs. Chairman Trigueiro asked if the
    auxiliary fund support is a loan to the Collegiate School. He asked if it was considered a long
    term debt. Dr. Probstfeld stated according to contract the school cannot show a negative
    fund balance for the collegiate school. She stated all the funds are college funds, as if the
    college was making a loan to the college so it doesn’t need to be listed separately, they are
    considered a transfer from one fund to another. Mr. Beruff stated from the college standpoint
    they should have a separate accounting so they could see when the negative starts going to
    positive. Ms. Kester stated the college fully intended to support the Collegiate School until it
    became profitable. At that time, they will start to pay the college back. Dr. Probstfeld stated
    she could, as a footnote, show a running total. Mr. Beruff asked if she could also show what
    was originally projected to happen.

    She next pointed out the expense details and asked if there were any questions. She
    pointed out travel expenses had gone down because of the academic reorganization. She
    also pointed out that the budget managers did a good job when they were told to cut costs.
    Some of the increases came from opening the second building at Lakewood Ranch.
    Chairman Trigueiro asked if a lot of money is spent on student related material. He asked
    why they aren’t just available on the internet. Dr. Probstfeld stated that some of those items
    are used by Dr. Bowman to take to college fairs as recruitment materials. Chairman
    Trigueiro asked about using DVDs or thumb drives. Dr. Hafner stated that has already been
    done with the College Catalog, it is online and available on DVD. Dr. Bowman stated the
    entire view book is online but for recruitment there is one piece that leads the students to the
    online services. He agreed it is an ongoing effort. Chairman Trigueiro gave an example of
    asking the vendor to take less. Dr. Probstfeld stated that they have, in fact, looked over all
    the current contracts and almost everyone agreed to take less to keep the college as a client.

    Ms. Moran went back to the travel expense and asked if employees are paid to travel back
    and forth between the three campuses. Dr. Probstfeld and Dr. Bowman explained that if the
    employee travels to one campus and stays there the entire day there is no reimbursement.
    Dr. Probstfeld stated they had faculty teaching in Bradenton, then they would travel to
    Lakewood Ranch to teach a class and then back to Bradenton for a third class. Dr. Crocker
    stated the college also now uses Lifesize Video Conferencing so the faculty does not have to
    go back and forth between campuses.

    Dr. Probstfeld stated the college is now going through an LMS (Learning Management
    System) transition. She stated the college now uses Angel for their online interaction with
    students and for online classes. She stated that company was sold and will no longer be
    providing support so the college is forced to transition. There are costs associated with that
    to get through that transition.

    Dr. Probstfeld pointed out the reduction in equipment expenses. She stated the stabilization
    money was dedicated to purchasing equipment. Again, she explained the budget managers
    are told to forget your wants, just tell us your needs and they do a very good job at doing that.




                                                  2
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 3



    Next she explained the $5 million allocation for construction of the library which was
    subsequently vetoed by the Governor.

    Dr. Probstfeld stated that the Upper Division and the Collegiate School are simple, small
    budgets. She stated the increase in revenue and expense are from the increase in the
    programs that have been added this year. The Foundation contributions were dedicated to
    non-recurring startup costs and curriculum development for those programs. The Collegiate
    School added and grade and the college was able to save a lot on the transportation
    expense because they negotiated an agreement with the Boys & Girls Club to drop off
    students for after school care instead of taking them all the way to their homes. That resulted
    in a 50% cut in transportation expenses. Lastly, she explained the PECO funding. She said
    it has been going down over the last several years. She stated it went down for $1.5 million
    last year and the news now is that it will be on life support this year.

    Dr. Probstfeld followed up on credit card fees. She stated the College is paying 3 cents for
    every face to face transaction and 4 cents for any online transaction which is bank charges.
    She stated the College pays about 1.9% for the interchange fee which comes from the credit
    card company and the agreement with the bank is that the College pays no merchant fees.
    Which usually ranges approximately 2%. She stated the total charge is approximately 2% of
    the cost of the transaction.

    Dr. Probstfeld clarified that the agreement with Quorum is a piggy-back on a contract of
    Hillsborough Community College. She stated that contract was for one year with three
    subsequent one year extensions. SCF extended it for each of those subsequent years. The
    contract ended in August, 2010 at which time the college believed they had a gentleman in-
    house that was going to take on that responsibility to do the inspections. She stated over
    $100,000 a year was spent on those inspections so having an in house employee take over
    was a significant savings. She stated it took a little longer than anticipated for the employee
    to take the classes and pass the examinations for approximately 9 months they had to
    continue on a month to month basis with Quorum to continue services. Starting in May, all
    the inspections have been done in house and the College has only spent $500 on Quorum.
    She stated Quorum only does fire inspections at this point. She explained that the college
    needs a fire inspection after a room is remodeled. She said before the Certificate of
    Occupancy is given the fire inspector has to come in and give the okay. Our employee
    doesn’t have that license. All other inspections he can do. There is an open encumbrance of
    $2,400 that should take the college to the end of the year. So, rather than spending
    $100,000 the College will spend roughly $3,000 by virtue of this employee taking on this
    responsibility. She stated the agreement with Quorum is for small projects the College will
    pay $100 an hours. She stated it is roughly $300 for each small project. If it is a large
    project, such as an entire building, there is a different scale, which is a pricing schedule that
    was kept in place from the original contract and it is based on the value of the construction
    project. The percent paid is .0297 percent of the total project and then 5% of that calculation
    is the amount paid to Quorum.




                                                  3
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 4



    Mr. Bailey asked what a fire inspection entails. The process of a fire inspection was
    explained. He stated they need to look at the capacity of the room and sign off on it.
    Chairman Trigueiro asked if there was an outside contractor doing the remodeling. It was
    stated that it depends on the project. Sometimes it is done in house through the
    maintenance department. It is managed in house instead of bringing in a general contractor.
    It depends on the scope of work. Mr. Beruff stated that typically the fire department comes
    out and there is a fee.

    Dr. Probstfeld gave examples of ways the College has looked at thing to see how they could
    be more efficient. She stated they contracted a new phone system instead of outsourcing
    with USF. That was brought in house which saved approximately $150,000. Mr. Beruff
    asked what was paid before. Dr. Probstfeld stated they were paying for the entire phone
    system. The new system runs through the computer system. She stated the college still has
    to pay for long distance service. Chairman Trigueiro asked about companies that provide
    phone and internet for the business. Dr. Probstfeld stated that is the new system. Mr. Beruff
    asked the cost. Dr. Probstfeld stated it is about $150,000 a year and it used to be $300,000
    a year. Mr. Beruff asked how much capital was laid out for Lambdarail. Dr. Probstfeld stated
    originally it was about $400,000 but it came in less than that. Dr. Hafner stated the college
    had asked for a loan from the Foundation for that but never had to take advantage of that
    because it came in less.

    Dr. Probstfeld stated that “server virtualization” is the technical term for having a server for
    every function that is being provided. Through technology the services can be put on one
    server so the big server rooms of the past, the college is able to virtualize all that software
    onto one computer so they do not have to keep buying more servers which saves a lot of
    money on server replacement.

    Dr. Probstfeld explained seasonal employment. She stated the College used to hire
    seasonal help directly but now it is bid out through an outsourcing company which saves a
    considerable amount of money for the College. Mr. Beruff asked if the college was now
    leasing employees. Dr. Probstfeld explained that the college renegotiated the contracts to
    save money every year. She explained that student refund distribution was outsourced. She
    explained there are a lot of student refunds that are made. That was outsourced so the
    College no longer has the printing costs or the check stock and the postage, etc. The
    savings is $88,000 a year. She stated the company is its own bank and they provide the
    students a Higher One card. The vendor is receiving a banking customer so the College
    doesn’t have to pay for that. She stated Higher One provides ATM machines on the campus
    as part of the deal. It is a good deal for the students who can use those cards at the book
    store, etc.

    Dr. Probstfeld encouraged the board members to visit the school store to see all the new
    apparel. She stated the apparel sales have increased by about $40,000. She asked them to
    contribute to the apparel income. Ms. Saslaw asked if the cookbook was still available and
    stated it was a good Christmas gift.




                                                  4
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 5




    Dr. Probstfeld then discussed the legal services issue that Dr. Trigueiro brought to the
    committee. She stated that when legal services was brought in house the cost was about
    $212,000 a year, versus the last year, which was about of 11 months, where the College
    spent approximately $106,000. She drew attention to the affirmative decision being made to
    eliminate a position at the College to apply to the expense because it was important to
    reduce the risk of exposure of the institution by having in house counsel. All contracts can
    now be reviewed. Before they weren’t, leaving the College exposed to additional risk. She
    stated the College also didn’t have legal input until matters became an issue. Now, the
    College will not be put into the position of being at risk. She stated they cut from the budget
    at points and added to the budget at points in the budgeting process. She explained that the
    College is also protected by the risk management consortium. Any slips and falls are
    handled by the risk management consortium legal counsel.

    Mr. Beruff asked about the position that was eliminated.

    Dr. Probstfeld explained it was a gentlemen that started out doing project management but
    was moved beyond project management to do oversight and supervision of facilities staff.
    When the department was reorganized they decided they didn’t need that position.
    Chairman Trigueiro clarified that it wasn’t an actual legal position but it was a savings from a
    different part of the College that would be applied.

    Mr. Beruff asked what was paid per hour for outside legal counsel. Dr. Probstfeld stated it
    depended on the attorney/associate/partner in the firm that was involved. Mr. Beruff clarified
    it was a discounted rate. Dr. Probstfeld stated it was definitely a discounted rate. Chairman
    Trigueiro, confused, asked why a partner with a contract would charge a certain amount. Mr.
    Beruff stated the outside legal counsel was in the private sector and a certain partner with a
    reputation could charge a certain amount per hour but junior counsel would not charge as
    much with less experience. Mr. Prouty stated the arrangement with the law firm was, the firm
    would charge 80% of the normal billing rate for attorneys and capped it at $160.00 an hour.
    If you had that $500 an hour, he would only charge $160 an hour. Mr. Fishman stated that
    as an entrepreneur he has different levels of staff. He stated that when quoting level of
    services, sometimes you need a higher level of expertise in one particular instance or
    another. He stated that is normal. Mr. Beruff stated that the law firm flatted the rate out at
    $160 per hour and that is a good rate. Dr. Crocker brought attention to Chairman Trigueiro
    that with the previous contract of an Affiliation Agreement with FCCU on adjunct training, he
    stated that normally that would not have been taken to the outside law firm but with an in
    house attorney, it goes down the hall and if you look at the hours that the College is using
    legal opinion and legal work if they had to do the equivalent with the contract that was had
    with the law firm they would have to pay much more. Chairman Trigueiro stated it was like
    having health insurance and a copay. If you have copay, utilization is high but without copay,
    utilization is low. He asked about the legal assistant compensation and if that was strictly
    related to in house counsel. He asked if part of that salary was related to another job, before
    in house counsel. Dr. Probstfeld stated that the legal assistant has taken on the




                                                  5
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 6



    responsibilities of the board which was formally another position that has not been filled.
    Chairman Trigueiro asked why it was priced under legal counsel. Dr. Probstfeld stated when
    the college went down this path there was a different utilization for the board assistant. She
    stated it is a much bigger job than was envisions and if she were to do it again she would put
    100% of the cost on the board. When it was envisioned the legal assistant was going to be
    100% supportive of legal counsel. Discussion ensued about the logistics of the budget
    summary. Chairman Trigueiro stated that it came down to convenience in having legal
    counsel in house. Mr. Beruff stated the pro was that the College has legal counsel 24/7 and
    documents that normally wouldn’t get reviewed are now getting reviewed. Discussion
    followed regarding insurance coverage of counsel. Dr. Probstfeld stated the College is
    covered by the consortium. Ms. Beck stated the consortium covers all employees. Mr.
    Beruff commented that outside counsel would have their own insurance. Mr. Fishman stated
    he hopes inside counsel would prevent the college from having to go to outside counsel. The
    ability to have in house counsel to have immediate review of contracts is invaluable. He
    believes an organization as large as SCF needs to have in house counsel. He asked what
    the other state colleges have. Dr. Hafner stated that his prior employer, St. Petersburg
    College had three full time attorneys on staff.

    Chairman Trigueiro stated that it boils down to approximately $100,000 more to have in
    house counsel. Mr. Fishman stated they shouldn’t look at the cost, they should look at the
    value. He again stated having in house counsel has got to be much more beneficial than the
    cost. The historical value of the outside law firm was discussed. Mr. Beruff stated that
    fortunately for the college, Mr. Prouty was from that law firm and he could bring that historical
    data with him. The board discussed looking back 10 years to see how much legal costs were
    over the years.

    Mr. Beruff stated that the board needs to decide what their mission is. Chairman Trigueiro
    asked in the last ten years, prior to bringing in house counsel, what the cost was due to
    litigation on contracts. Dr. Probstfeld stated there are other parts to that equation. She gave
    an example of wanting to pay out a contract because they want to terminate it early but they
    didn’t have it reviewed by counsel and didn’t have a 30 day out clause because of that. She
    stated that wouldn’t be a litigation issue. Again, Chairman Trigueiro asked in the past ten
    years, how much on an annual basis, has SCF paid to attorneys for litigation costs due to
    what they would call unreviewed outside contracts. Dr. Probstfeld stated she wouldn’t even
    know how to equate that number. Discussion ensued. Mr. Prouty stated they could include
    personnel issues as well with litigation. He stated the firm would represent the college
    through the EEOC charge up until the person filed suit and then it would be handled up until
    the deductible was met and then insurance counsel would step in.

    Chairman Trigueiro stated it was his job as a board member to try to find places for the
    college to save money and he would like this issue to be brought to the entire board for
    further discussion.




                                                  6
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 7



    Mr. Fishman asked for clarification from Chairman Trigueiro as to his concern for in house
    counsel versus outside counsel. He asked if the budget committee decides to bring that to
    the full board for discussion and if the budget committee as a majority decides that is not an
    issue then will it stay with the budget committee. Chairman Trigueiro stated he would need
    input from Mr. (Chairman) Beruff as to that process. He stated he thought it should be
    brought up at the workshop. Mr. Fishman stated that if having inside counsel is working well
    for the College and helping it move ahead that they should think through it thoroughly before
    trying to change it.

    Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Prouty if he was the College attorney before he came in house. He
    asked how much his workload has increased now that he is in house. Mr. Prouty stated it
    has greatly increased. He stated when he was in the private firm the College was not his
    only client. Now it is. Mr. Bailey stated the School Board and the County all have in house
    legal counsel and he believed the way the College is growing that it would behoove them to
    keep the in-house counsel to help protect them. He stated it is a 100 million dollar institution
    so spending a little more money to have the in-house counsel reviewing everything is
    beneficial. Dr. Hafner stated that one of the reasons the decision was made to hire in-house
    counsel was because of the way the College has evolved. With all the new programs,
    Collegiate School, etc., the College staff was reluctant to pick up the phone and call the legal
    office because they knew it would cost money. The bottom line was, the College was in a
    budget cutting mode and that was one area, whether right or wrong, conscientiously there
    was a pull back on not getting the advice necessary. They felt they were flying by the seat of
    their pants on occasions and nervous about not getting the advice they need to be sure
    everything was in order. If one mistake is made, everyone is going down because they
    chose not to spend that $160 an hour for a consultation. Dr. Hafner stated the ability to walk
    down the hall and go to legal and prioritize doesn’t cost anything now. He stated if he called
    the old law firm and asked to switch priorities it would cost him.

    Chairman Trigueiro stated he does not disagree with anything that has been said. He hasn’t
    made a decision on his position yet. He just sees his function as Chairman of the Budget
    Committee to raise the question. He stated the entire board will decide how they want to
    move forward on this issue.

    Ms. Saslaw stated that being the board member that has served the board for a while she
    recalled Ms. Morris the previous board secretary and that the new board secretary has taken
    over that entire job and that she is very responsive to the trustees needs. Chairman
    Trigueiro agreed that position was never in question.

    Chairman Trigueiro moved on to discuss the tennis team. He asked the rationale of it being
    the President’s decision as opposed to the board’s call. Dr. Hafner stated he had the
    flexibility to move forward on certain issues but it would always go to the board to be
    accepted or rejected. He stated it provided opportunities for flexibility for funding those types
    of events. He stated there was a gender equity problem and that was part of the reason
    women’s tennis was started. He stated if someone from the community was willing to donate




                                                  7
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 8



    $100,000 to start a women’s soccer team he would have the ability to move forward with that
    and then bring it to the board. He stated if he didn’t have the flexibility to move forward he
    might lose that funding. He stated the board had the ability to say no to that donation but if
    he waited to move forward they may not be given that opportunity. Chairman Trigueiro
    stated he understood it was a done deal. Dr. Hafner stated that was incorrect because the
    board had final authority over any option. He stated he cannot do something that big without
    the board acknowledging that was the direction they wanted the College to go. If he brought
    the board an idea to start something he can’t go and do it without their consent. Dr. Trigueiro
    stated he thought the President could decide and the board would have to go ahead. He
    understood that the President has the authority to explore whether to start it and then bring it
    to the board for the final decision.

    Chairman Trigueiro stated he understood there are certain thresholds that have to be met
    before purchases are brought to the board. Dr. Probstfeld stated in day to day operations the
    threshold is $65,000. She stated the College has done 5 of those types of bids this year.
    Such as hearing impaired interpreters, audit services for the Collegiate School, call center for
    the financial aid operation, video cameras for surveillance in the parking lots and bus
    services to support the athletic programs.

    Chairman Trigueiro brought up construction costs and the cost per square foot. He stated
    that Mr. Beruff mentioned something of the costs being much more than they should have
    been. Mr. Bailey stated it had come up in the Capital Improvement Subcommittee meeting.
    Chairman Trigueiro stated with negotiations he thought costs could be brought down. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated that in the budget kick off she asked everyone to try to get their contract
    prices down.

    Chairman Trigueiro brought up a lack of accountability as related to the financial aid matter.
    He stated he does feel there was accountability there. He stated if you really mess up, you
    lose your job. He stated that is what happened with the financial aid issue.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked if the College had any cost plus contracts. Dr. Probstfeld stated
    she didn’t think they had any in the operating contracts. Mr. Prouty stated the college tries to
    stay away from that type of contract. Chairman Trigueiro asked if the college had any open
    ended contracts. Dr. Probstfeld stated, for example, they have one year contracts with a
    three year extension but there is always a termination date. She stated they do have
    agreements that are on a month to month basis but they are for small services that fall under
    the $65,000 threshold.

    Mr. Fishman stated the meetings have been very enlightening and he has learned a lot from
    them. He stated Dr. Probstfeld has done a tremendous job at answering all of the board’s
    questions. He stated he has a better appreciation of what the administration does.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked about the Planning & Budget Committee and if a trustee should be
    involved. He stated they could discuss that at a later date. Dr. Hafner stated that any board




                                                  8
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 9



    member is welcome at any time to sit in on those meetings. Dr. Probstfeld stated as long as
    there was not more than one trustee, otherwise they would have to publicly notice the
    meeting. Mr. Bailey asked if those meetings are usually advertised. Mr. Prouty stated those
    meetings are not advertised because they are staff fact-finding meetings. He stated it is
    advertised on the College’s regular calendar. If the board is involved we have to give public
    notice. Mr. Fishman clarified if it is only one board member you do not have to give public
    notice. Mr. Prouty stated if there is a delegation of a board member to make decisions on
    behalf of the board then it would have to be advertised. Chairman Trigueiro asked if one
    board member is delegated by the board to negotiate a monetary cost to the College it would
    have to be noticed. He inquired about the 28 day notice. Mr. Prouty stated the 28 day notice
    is required for rules or for changes to fees. For a negotiation type of thing it would require a 7
    day notice. Mr. Prouty stated if just one board member wanted to attend it would not have to
    be publicly noticed unless they meant to report back to the board. Mr. Fishman pointed out
    that the board members would have to let the board assistant know if they wanted to attend
    the meeting so no more than one would show up.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked for clarification of the President’s authorization of a dollar value.
    Dr. Hafner stated he has the authority statutorily to approve change orders up to a particular
    number. The College adjusted that amount to comply with the statute several years ago. He
    state it is $350,000. Mr. Prouty clarified that for change orders it is $325,000. He stated for
    competitive solicitations he is authorized to approve anything under $250,000. Competitive
    solicitations above $250,000 the board has to approve.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked about a previous board member recalling approving $50,000 for
    the tennis courts and the final cost was $500,000 plus the Foundation money which resulted
    in approximately $700,000 for the tennis courts. He asked how that happened. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated the first early release package came in under the $325,000 and was
    approved by Dr. Hafner. That then went to the board the following month along with the
    GMP for that full project in the amount of $538,000. She stated the early release went to the
    board in the quarterly report regarding the change orders. The full package was approved in
    April 2011. Chairman Trigueiro asked what would happen if the board stated they didn’t want
    to approve that. He asked if that money would already have been spent. Dr. Hafner stated
    he had discussions with the board prior to that. Chairman Trigueiro clarified if, under the
    President’s authority, if he felt he needed to make a decision that was below the $250,000 or
    $325,000 threshold and then brought it to the board and the board chose not to approve,
    would that money already be obligated? Dr. Hafner stated there was a continuance of
    services at that time so there was a significant cost savings to the College by moving things
    forward. Dr. Probstfeld stated the company, AD Morgan, was doing site work related to the
    library project so at the same time they were there doing the work the College requested a
    bid to work on the site work as it related to the tennis project. Chairman Trigueiro stated the
    bottom line was that the College was going to save money and it was within the statutory
    requirements for Dr. Hafner to approve it and he did.




                                                   9
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 10



    Chairman Trigueiro asked if Consent Agenda items could be clearly labeled and self-
    explanatory. He asked if that was an issue for any of the other board members. Ms. Moran
    asked if page numbers could be added to the Agenda directing them to the exhibits.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked if the tennis courts were lumped in to the Consent Agenda. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated the GMP was a line item on the April Agenda. The confusion came in with
    the early release that was on the Consent Agenda. According to policy it was something that
    would go to the board quarterly as a Consent Agenda item. She stated the part that said
    Approval for the tennis center project was included in the body of the Agenda.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked about the requirement of board approval in advance of work for
    new programs. He asked what the mechanism is for starting to spend College money on
    programs. Dr. Hafner stated that new programs are brought to the board and the board must
    approve. He stated the new AS Program in Biotechnology and every Baccalaureate program
    was brought before the board before the College was able to take it to the next level of
    action. Once the board approves moving forward, then Dr. Mears pulls together the
    community leaders. Dr. Hafner clarified that starting a new program is not an internal thing
    that festers up and the College decides to do it. The community comes to the College with
    needs. If the College can get a good sense that it is a legitimate request they would then
    bring that concept and idea to the board of trustees who would say whether they would like to
    move forward on that program. He stated when the early childhood education was brought to
    the board they were made very aware that SCF would have the only program in Florida and
    that the VPK Programs were making baccalaureate be a required degree in those areas.
    The board thought it was a great idea and approved the college to do the due diligence
    process, in which Dr. Mears puts together a community task force and then there is a needs
    assessment and several hoops the college has to go through. Then it is passed on to the
    State Board of Education in an Application form once the college sees there is validity to go
    forward. He stated they have had workshops before the board where different leaders from
    the community came in and different students that wanted the degree but couldn’t find it
    anywhere would testify before the board. Then the State Board of Education makes the
    decision as to whether or not the College can provide that. Mr. Fishman asked if the board
    makes the final decision to move forward once the state approves it. Dr. Hafner stated the
    board could stop the process at any time. Mr. Fishman used the Venice Charter School as
    an example stating that right now, all the board has approved, is to apply to the school board
    to see if it is approved but they can still stop that process at any time. Dr. Hafner stated if the
    board requests an update on that process it can be given at any meeting. Dr. Hafner stated
    he brings information on those programs and the funding in his announcements and that
    would be a time any board member could raise questions. Chairman Trigueiro asked if 8 or
    10 programs are projected for 2013-2014. Dr. Hafner stated the College cannot afford to do
    mass movement, so they do what they think they can do at a particular time as it works for
    the community and the students. The programs that are still available to move forward with
    are education programs. The college is looking at the potential of a teaching institute that
    could train teachers to teach in charter schools as creative as ours and to hit what the
    Governor has been asking for, which is STEM. Dr. Hafner stated the College prides itself on




                                                   10
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 11



    being cutting edge. He stated the degree of Energy Technology Management is the first in
    the state of its kind. Early Childhood, Birth to 4, is the first of its kind in the state of Florida.
    He stated we are populating areas that are non-existent right now and they are finding
    opportunities for us to move forward. He stated the board allowed the College to start
    looking at elementary math and science. He stated there is no degree in Florida for
    elementary math and science. Why can’t we be the first to provide that? Why can’t we fill
    that need in Florida, especially with the Governor’s initiative in STEM. He stated that will
    work hand in hand with the Charter School in Venice as well as for the state of Florida.
    Chairman Trigueiro stated maybe they should have summer programs to enhance teachers
    that are already in math. Dr. Hafner stated that is being talked about as a teacher institute
    because once there is a program like that you can do a summer program and certification
    program. He stated once you have the program it is an entrepreneurial opportunity because
    then the College starts pulling in teachers from all over the state. He stated there may be
    some start up dollars but in the long term we are in the cutting edge and doing it for perhaps
    the entire state. Dr. Hafner stated he takes pride in the College and the board to have the
    forthsight and perspective that allows us to get out front and be well respected and reputable
    around the state of Florida. Dr. Hafner stated because of their ingenuity, for the first time
    ever, the State Board of Education came to our Collegiate School to hold their statewide
    meeting. He stated never in the College’s history has a University President came to any of
    our campuses until Dr. Bradshaw from Florida Gulfcoast University came to tour the
    Collegiate School and that generated scholarships for the Collegiate School students. Dr.
    Hafner stated he appreciates this type of meeting because it educates everyone to
    understand how these things generate. He stated there is so much potential to continue to
    do good things while keeping the community college mission. He stated SCF is an open
    access community college, we will always be 90% that. We will do the good things for the
    community, but if we can keep people here to live, work and retire in our community, then
    they have done their job.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked to invite Bill and Melinda Gates. Dr. Hafner stated there has been
    talk about that because their ideas jive with our ideas. His conversations with Governor Bush
    have also touched on that. He stated doors are being opened.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked if there was any intellectual property at the College. Dr. Hafner
    stated we do have a policy on that. Dr. Probstfeld stated that anything that is created on
    College time with College money while you are being paid by the College is the property of
    the College. Dr. Hafner discussed how SCF has a partnership with FSU to develop a
    software package for the Collegiate School that will be second to none. That intellectual
    property will become SCF’s property and if other schools around the country want to use it
    SCF can either sell it or give it but it is SCF property.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked Dr. Probstfeld to explain her tuition pie chart. Dr. Probstfeld
    explained there is a portion of tuition that is generated from the students in what they charge
    per credit hour and that is mandated for use in different places. She stated 81% goes into
    the regular operating fund. 8% goes to the Plant Fund. The CIF (Capital Improvement Fee)




                                                   11
Proceedings, December 8, 2011 | 12



    is a fee that is charged to the students and generates about $2 million a year that can be
    used for technology refresh, renovation and remodel and support building projects. Four
    percent is a Financial Aid Fee and that is collected from the students and it goes into a pool
    that is used for financial aid, parameters that are defined broadly by the state. Some has to
    be for need, some can be for academic performance, some can be for athletics, but they are
    divided into subcategories that way. The last 7% is a Student Activity Fee, money that is
    managed by the students to determine how much money is allocated to various clubs for
    various types of student activities.

    Chairman Trigueiro asked if the EAL funding would be included in the 8% in the event of a
    shortfall. Dr. Hafner confirmed. He asked if that $2 million is spent every year. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated it doesn’t necessarily have to be spent every year but a question that the
    College gets from the state auditors is that if the money is accumulated, how is the student
    that paid it getting an advantage of the money that they contribute.

    Dr. Probstfeld passed out the budgets for all of the baccalaureate programs. She stated
    there are 7 programs. Two have been in operation and there are 3 starting in the Fall, and
    then 2 more will start next year. She stated she is just giving them that information for their
    review at their convenience. Dr. Probstfeld stated these were the budgets that were
    submitted to the state when they asked for approval of the programs.

    Dr. Probstfeld then passed out information where the College is year to date with the
    baccalaureate programs. She stated it included every baccalaureate program that was
    budgeted for this year. It showed the revenue and expense, the budget and the actual. She
    stated the good news is year to date the College is ahead of the game. She stated they have
    not used any of the grant money or any of the auxiliary money, largely thanks to the early
    childhood education program which is doing really well.

    Chairman Trigueiro thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and stated it was very
    useful.

    The meeting adjourned at 6:45.




___________________________________                   ___________________________________
Carlos M. Beruff, Chair                               Lars A. Hafner, Secretary
Board of Trustees                                     Board of Trustees




                                                 12
                                                                                      EXHIBIT B


                                  MINUTES
         THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES -- STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA
                            MANATEE – SARASOTA
                              SPECIAL MEETING


Date: April 17, 2012 5:00 p.m.                                      Location: Bradenton Campus

Proceedings:

1. The District Board of Trustees of State College of Florida, Manatee – Sarasota held a
   special meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at SCF Bradenton.

   Board Members Present: Carlos Beruff, C.J. Fishman, Lori Moran, Jennifer Saslaw and
   Dr. Craig Trigueiro.

   Administrators Present: President Lars A. Hafner, Vice Presidents, Don Bowman, Jack
   Crocker, Mike Mears and Carol Probstfeld and General Counsel, Steve Prouty.

   Meeting was called to order and the Chairman led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Discuss Construction Documents and GMP for Project Number 3-11-2-31, Science
   Building,#200 Chemistry Lab 209 Remodel

   Ms. Steen prepared a book with the GMP and a breakdown of the different divisions and the
   advertising that was done for this project and presented that to the board. She stated this is
   one lab on the Venice Campus. She stated the last lab that was renovated on the Venice
   Campus was done in the Summer of 2007. She stated this will be the last of four (4) labs
   there that need to be renovated. She stated it is in very much need of repair and renovation.

   Ms. Steen explained a pie chart which broke down all the work percentage-wise of the GMP.
   She stated the faculty team and facilities team that worked on the GMP proposed to use the
   same contractor that did the 2007 work. She stated that vendor was chosen off of a state
   contract to do this work. She stated a significant amount of the GMP total in the
   construction work itself was the casework. Chairman Beruff asked if that segment of the job
   was bid out. Ms. Steen stated the casework was not bid out because it was a vendor off the
   state contract and matched the existing labs that were renovated previously. She stated the
   faculty, architect and facilities staff chose that vendor to do the design specifications for that
   work. Chairman Beruff clarified that the 27.63% of the money that was spent was not put
   out for competitive bid. Ms. Steen confirmed it was off of the state contract. Vice Chairman
   Trigueiro asked if there was only a sole source for the lab tables. Ms. Steen stated there
   are a variety of different vendors that are approved off the state contract and this vendor is
   one of them. They were chosen, to her understanding, because they did the casework on
   the other lab, previously done in 2007, so they would match. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
   asked if another vendor would be able to match the furniture of the other labs. Ms. Steen
   stated she would venture to guess that depending on the specifications there may be more
   than one vendor that could reproduce the furniture and she stated she would check on that
   decision and bring that information back to the board. Ms. Moran asked if this is the last lab
   that needs to be renovated out of four. Ms. Moran asked if enrollment numbers ensured
   usage of this lab. Dr. Crocker stated it is the only lab on the Venice Campus that would
   serve the science needs there. Dr. Bowman stated the enrollment in those programs that



                                                 13
Proceedings, April 17, 2012 |2 


    require the lab is strong. Chairman Beruff asked the duration of the project. Ms. Steen
    deferred the question to the contractor. He stated it will take 8-9 weeks for completion.
    Chairman Beruff asked for the total numbers for the onsite management, reimbursable GC,
    project overhead, project fee and design/phase fee. Ms. Steen directed the Chair to the
    Summary section of her binder. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated it was about $74,000.
    Chairman Beruff pointed out that is approximately $8,222.22 a week that the GC will get.
    Ms. Steen directed the board to the summary which shows a breakdown of the general
    conditions. She stated under the general conditions they will see the management fees as
    well as the reimbursable general conditions as required by the contract as well as SREF.
    She stated there will be receipts for all those fees so basically the amount is an allowance.
    She stated the only fixed amount is the overhead of $9,635.00, the project fee of $9,635.00
    as well as the design phase fee of $4,067.00. Chairman Beruff asked Ms. Steen about the
    Construction Phase GC’s. Ms. Steen stated that is the management fee that is negotiated.
    Ms. Steen stated it is a not to exceed number and if they get the job done sooner any
    savings will be returned to the college. Chairman Beruff asked who determines the savings.
    Ms. Steen stated the contractor is required to provide receipts. Chairman Beruff asked
    where the savings would come from. Ms. Steen stated if they finish the job sooner they will
    not need the level of project management. Chairman Beruff stated it should either be 8
    weeks or 9 weeks. The contractor stated it is determined by when they get started.
    Chairman Beruff asked if the $39,000 fee is based on 8 or 9 weeks. The contractor stated it
    is based on 9 weeks. If they finish the job in 8 weeks the college will save a week’s worth of
    fees. Chairman Beruff asked the incentive to finish in 8 weeks. The contractor stated that
    they want to continue working for the college and stay in their good graces. Ms. Steen
    explained whether it is the project manager, superintendent or any other reimbursable
    general conditions, that is a not to exceed number and they are audited on all those
    receipts. She stated that all savings will go back to the college which is different from a bid
    situation. She stated they did bid all of the subcontracts for all of the divisions. Chairman
    Beruff stated that no one is questioning the process. He stated the question is the delivery
    system and is it the best for the taxpayers. He stated since it is not a hard bid the general
    contractor does not go back to his subcontractor to make sure they got the best bid he just
    takes the bids across the table. He stated it is all about getting the hard bid which is getting
    a better delivery system. He stated he does not care who is a sub to the contractor that is
    their responsibility. If the subcontractor does not do the job the contractor still has to stand
    behind the job. He stated they should not care who the subcontractors are, they should
    care about what is best price driven for the taxpayers. He stated there is also a substantial
    amount of fee income that is guaranteed for an 8 week job. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked
    if he was talking about the approximate $74,000. Chairman Beruff stated it is a $280,000
    job and 25% of that is going to the bottom line in 8 weeks. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if
    the lab has been red tagged by the health department so the students cannot use it. Ms.
    Steen stated no, but the reality of it is that the lab has been demoed in preparation for doing
    this project. She stated with the changes that have been made with the new board they had
    to change gears and bring this project forward whereas normally it is under the threshold of
    the President’s authority. Vice Chairman Trigueiro clarified that the lab has been
    demolished. He asked if they demolished it before they had approval. Ms. Steen stated
    they did have approval under the threshold of the President. Chairman Beruff asked if that
    was included in the 8-9 week timeframe. Ms. Steen stated yes it was. Chairman Beruff
    asked if that took off a week. The contractor stated the key to the process is ordering the
    case work because that takes 6-8 weeks for delivery of the cabinets. Chairman Beruff
    asked how long the job itself would take. The contractor stated it would take 4-5 weeks.
    Chairman Beruff stated the job is driven by the casework and that is all the more reason why
    the fees are exorbitant. He stated they order the stuff, they sit and they wait, they install the



                                                 14
Proceedings, April 17, 2012 |3 


    stuff and then they finish the lab. He stated it is not continuous work every day. Ms. Moran
    noted it was said that it would be substantially completed by July 20, 2012. She asked if
    they were still able to meet that deadline. Chairman Beruff asked when school starts in
    August. Dr. Bowman stated it starts 2 weeks before Labor Day. Ms. Steen stated they need
    to get the casework ordered and reviewed and approved through the process. She stated
    that would take the majority of time. She stated even if they back out 8 or 9 weeks, as she
    said at the last board meeting, it was not about having it approved that day in terms of
    making the Fall schedule. Chairman Beruff stated it is about the process if they decide to go
    hard bid. He stated it will have to go to bid which could go out next week and then they
    have 30 days. Ms. Steen stated the problem is that they have to have a prequalification
    process per the state regulations which has to be advertised that the board intends to
    prequalify contractors to do the hard bidding. She stated they have it worked out so they
    can bid it out by July 31. They have to get solicitations of approved contractors, the board
    has to approve them, and then they can bid out the work. That process, because it is a new
    process and is different from the one they have been working under they have to comply
    with the rules. It just takes time to gear that up. She stated she was hoping the board
    would approve under this contract the current process and allow her to walk through the
    bids on the subcontractor level and show the board the reasonableness of that work and
    show the board that the actual construction is not a large job. She stated if they would
    approve it, they could move forward with the chemistry lab under the contracts and the
    process they have done and then let them bring to the board at the May meeting the board’s
    intention to prequalify and then they can receive bids on all future miscellaneous work. She
    hoped they could transition to what the Chairman would like to do under the very best terms.
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if he understood that it would take 3 months to do a hard bid
    process. Ms. Steen stated she has to advertise for 30 days that the board intends to do the
    prequalification of contractors. She stated that is a 30 day process that could be done in
    May. Chairman Beruff asked if it was state statute or Department of Education rule. Ms.
    Steen stated it is based upon the state statute and under the State Requirements for
    Education Facilities which is a compilation of state laws which are the rules, regulations and
    statutes. Chairman Beruff asked what precludes them from saying today that they need to
    put out an RFP for qualified contractors and asked if the time is set by them. Mr. Prouty
    stated in SREF that the legal advertisement has to be out there for 30 days. Chairman
    Beruff asked in order for them to put out an RFP for qualified contractors next week, say on
    the 25th, they would have to qualify by the 25th of May. Ms. Steen stated the college must
    put an ad in the paper 30 days prior and again 7 days prior to the board meeting where the
    board tells the college they want to prequalify contractors. She stated that 30 days prior to
    the board meeting that the board will approve the packet that will be submitted and
    advertised to select qualified contractor. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked what there was to
    approve. Ms. Steen stated they would have to approve the packet that would qualify the
    contractors. Mr. Fishman asked the board to allow Ms. Steen to go through the entire hard
    bid process for this project. Ms. Moran asked about the original memo that went out in
    November or December and asked if the board new about that and could it have gone out to
    hard bid then. Mr. Fishman explained that Dr. Hafner has a limit that he can authorize work
    to be done that does not go before the board. He stated his limit is more than this project.
    He stated Dr. Hafner was still within his right to authorize this project but since the new
    board has started to change the system he believes that Dr. Hafner thought he should bring
    this project to the board so they could make that decision even though it is in his realm to
    authorize the project. Chairman Beruff stated Dr. Hafner said as much at a previous
    meeting. Mr. Fishman asked if they start the hard bid process with this particular project will
    it be completed in time to get the current students graduated on time. He asked if the board
    is going to micromanage every project that the school does or are they going to set a limit



                                                15
Proceedings, April 17, 2012 |4 


    that the board does not have to authorize. Ms. Moran stated that if a project is brought to
    the board to be voted on she would expect to get it sooner. Mr. Fishman stated that the
    board normally would have never needed to vote on this project until Dr. Hafner decided to
    not do it on his own. He stated the board needs to come up with a system for the future but
    right now they need to deal with this particular situation. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked
    how long it would take the board to officially approve a bid. He stated he personally, at this
    meeting, does not need to know the entire process, he needs to know the soonest they
    could receive the hard bids to look at and would that allow enough time for construction to
    finish the project to get the students in the lab. He stated that does not require 45 minutes
    of page by page explanation of the hard bid process. Mr. Fishman stated that they need to
    give Ms. Steen five minutes to explain how long they need to advertise so the board can
    calculate the project. Mr. Fishman asked the board to take into consideration that the
    current contractor has already started to work on the project. Mr. Fishman again asked Ms.
    Steen to take five minutes to explain the timeline. Ms. Steen stated that she put together a
    timeline that complies with SREF and state laws associated with it. She stated they believe
    the college can go out and solicit hard bids for this project and other projects that are
    approved by the board at the end of July. Chairman Beruff asked why it takes from April 17
    to July 30 before they can go to bid. Ms. Steen stated it takes that time to comply with the
    law. Dr. Hafner stated they are talking about two different things. Dr. Hafner clarified he
    believes the Chair would like to change the process for projects over a certain threshold to
    hard bid. Dr. Hafner asked if this current Venice project, if they were to wipe out the current
    contract and start anew to finish the project, what the timeline would be. Ms. Steen stated
    that they cannot hard bid until they prequalify contractors. She stated they could advertise
    for subcontracts on July 31st as soon as the board receives and prequalifies contractors.
    Chairman Beruff stated he does not want to see subcontractors; he only wants to see a
    qualified contractor. Ms. Steen stated the prequalification process needs to be put in place
    and that is what takes time. Ms. Steen stated the contractors can be prequalified annually.
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if the current contractor is the only approved contractor in
    the area for this project. He asked if there is a list existing of approved general contractors
    for educational facilities in Sarasota or Manatee County. Ms. Steen stated there is no list
    that this board has approved which is required by the hard bid process. She stated she
    would check into piggy-backing on Sarasota County’s list. She stated she still believed she
    would have to bring that list before this board to approve it. Chairman Beruff asked who
    arbiters that. Ms. Steen stated it is the Department of Education. She stated Jon Hamrick is
    the person that generally manages the content of SREF. Mr. Fishman asked if the past
    board approved any general contractors. He asked if it was a new year so they needed new
    approval. Ms. Steen stated the college had redone all the facilities rules a year ago and
    before that the college did not have the prequalification process in place. She stated they
    put a process in place in compliance with SREF and that section in SREF has changed over
    a period of years. She stated they now require construction managers, design builders,
    contractors, etc. be prequalified either annually or by project. She stated the previous board
    selected W.G. Mills for the library project under a CM at risk process and AD Morgan as the
    miscellaneous contractor for projects on a continuing contract basis. She stated they have a
    three year contract so that is why they are able to do all these projects at the college
    because they were approved for a project which is under continuing contract and under
    Chapter 287, the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act. She stated the definition of a
    project is a continuing contract and that is what they are approved for. She stated that is the
    current process. She stated she understands the board wants to shift the direction and she
    does not have a problem with that, she just has to get the institution caught up to where they
    want to go and make sure the college is in line in terms of their approval process. Chairman
    Beruff again asked for a definitive answer on how fast they can get this process done if they



                                                16
Proceedings, April 17, 2012 |5 


    use hard bid. Ms. Steen stated she believes they could take this project and go out and get
    bid at the end of July once the board approves the prequalified list. Chairman Beruff stated
    he did not understand why it takes 113 days to get to be able to bid a project. Ms. Steen
    stated it is not about the technical side of the project. It is about State Requirements for
    Educational Facilities, 4.1(7) which is Prequalification of Contractors. Ms. Moran asked if
    the college has two in place that have been prequalified. Ms. Steen stated the college has
    one miscellaneous contractor. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if Venice High School would
    allow SCF students to use their chemistry lab. Faculty stated that would not be acceptable.
    Chairman Beruff stated he does not like getting put in a corner and that is the position he
    feels he is in. Mr. Fishman stated that the board would not be sitting there on this particular
    project if Dr. Hafner would have exercised his current authority to authorize this contract.
    The current board chose to go through this challenge because Dr. Hafner brought this
    project to them. He stated they changed the rules going forward but right now they are here
    to decide on this particular project. He agreed they were being put in a corner regarding this
    particular project but they are only put in that challenge because they did not accept the past
    board’s commitment on the $325,000 or less to Dr. Hafner. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked
    if the demolition was already done on this project. He was told it was. He then asked if they
    take this project to hard bid will they be charged for the demolition of that project and asked
    that dollar figure. AD Morgan representative stated it was in the $22,000 range. Ms. Steen
    stated that is work performed. Mr. Fishman stated, in fairness of the contractor that is there
    that he is not going to question the contractor’s numbers and he trusts the college’s staff to
    do good due diligence because that is there job and it falls under Dr. Hafner’s responsibility
    to make sure they are doing their due diligence in this process for this project. He stated
    where they go after this project and how they want to do it as a board is fine but he will not
    question the numbers on this project. Chairman Beruff stated that this project needs to be
    hard bid and it needs to be done correctly. He asked how many square feet is involved.
    Ms. Steen stated it is approximately 1,500 square feet. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated that
    is a lot of money for 1,500 square feet. Mr. Russell spoke from the point of view of
    academics and stated in terms of the lab and the condition of the lab, it is something that
    has been on the list for a while. He stated he appreciates the conversation about the
    process but the concern he has is that this is a lab that would not function in the future at all.
    He stated he was concerned of what the students would think in terms of coming from the
    high school. Chairman Beruff stated it has nothing to do with that, he stated it is getting the
    best lab that they can get for the money for the taxpayers because the more money they
    save the more things they can do. He stated if the best they can do is go to bid on July 30
    then by August 30 they should have a contract and September 30 the lab is done and it is 6
    weeks late. He asked if that was the end of the world to save $80,000. Vice Chairman
    Trigueiro stated losing 6 weeks of a chemistry lab in a science course would be the end of
    the world. Chairman Beruff asked what lab they are currently using. Dr. Hafner stated they
    took Chemistry off line this last semester so they are not using any lab. Vice Chairman
    Trigueiro asked why they could not take chemistry offline for another semester. Dr. Hafner
    stated they could but that would delay nurses from graduating. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    stated at this point the board is going to have to drink the kool-aid and approve this contract.
    Chairman Beruff stated he is not prone to drinking kool-aid. He stated he prefers to go to
    Tallahassee but it is the entire board’s vote. Mr. Fishman stated he is not cool with holding
    the students up from graduating. He stated on this particular project and this particular
    situation he does not want the project completed 6 weeks late. He would rather do what
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro proposed, which was to approve this project, and start the new
    hard bid process for future projects. Mr. Fishman spoke to the AD Morgan representatives
    and stated he respects that they want to continue to do business with the college. Mr.
    Fishman stated he would like to move ahead and get this project done.



                                                  17
Proceedings, April 17, 2012 |6 



    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved that they table this issue until the next regular board
    meeting to give the Chairman time to call Tallahassee or the Governor and see whether
    there are things that they know that we do not know. He stated if there is nothing they can
    do then they can approve the project next week. Ms. Steen stated she will also check on
    the piggy-back issue to see if there is a way around it.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro motioned and Mr. Fishman seconded to table the issue until the
    next regular meeting and the board unanimously approved.

    Dr. Hafner stated it would be on the next regular meeting’s agenda. He stated that whatever
    the resolution is for this particular project, moving forward, with the Chairman having some
    great ideas up in the legislature in the works. If the college can be a model institution and
    start leading the way within the parameters of what we have been given within the state
    statues in the education environment and be efficient it will be a great standard for other
    college’s to follow in the future. He stated that is the commitment of the college to do the
    will of the board and try to establish a new process that creates the efficiency that the Chair
    and all of the new board members want. Mr. Fishman stated he would like to establish
    something with this board that the next board does not go through a process and change it
    again, so whatever they do he wants them to take their time and do due diligence.

    Mr. Fishman motioned to adjourn and Ms. Saslaw seconded.

    The meeting adjourned at 5:50 pm



    ______________________________                          _____________________________
    Carlos M. Beruff, Chair                                 Lars A. Hafner, Secretary
    Board of Trustees                                       Board of Trustees




                                                18
                                                                                EXHIBIT C


                                   MINUTES
          THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES -- STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA
                             MANATEE – SARASOTA


Date: May 30, 2012                                       Location: Lakewood Ranch Campus

Proceedings:

1. The District Board of Trustees of State College of Florida, Manatee – Sarasota held a
   regular meeting on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at SCF Lakewood Ranch.

   Board Members Present: Edward Bailey, Carlos Beruff, Joe Miller, Ann Moore, Lori
   Moran, Charlene Neal and Dr. Craig Trigueiro.

   Administrators Present: President Lars A. Hafner, Vice Presidents, Don Bowman, Jack
   Crocker, Mike Mears and Carol Probstfeld and General Counsel, Steve Prouty.

   Chairman Beruff called the meeting to order. Reverend Williamson gave the Invocation
   followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Announcements

   Dr. Hafner announced that the college received good news that the Dental Hygienist
   Program once again got a perfect record of 100% passing grade on the national board for
   the Dental Hygienist graduates. He stated it is a real compliment to that program and to
   their leadership to do that year after year.

   Dr. Hafner announced SCF’s tennis team finished #2 in the nation as the national runner up.
   He stated they won four championships out of nine and the next closest was three out of
   nine but because of the point system they ranked #2.

   Dr. Hafner announced that SCF’s softball team finished seventh in the nation out of 16
   teams in the championship round.

   Dr. Hafner announced the college has had some good opportunities in the area of STEM.
   He stated there have been internships offered to bio tech students from the local companies
   in the area.

3. Approval of Non-Financial Consent Agenda Items – Consent Agenda A

   Chairman Beruff asked the board members if they had any questions regarding the Non-
   Financial Consent Agenda.

   Exhibit A:        Minutes of March 30, 2012 Workshop - Page 1
   Exhibit B:        Minutes of Regular Meeting April 25, 2012 – Page 9
                     Amended Schedule of Non Credit Courses CCD Summer 2012 (201235) – Page
   Exhibit C:
                     27
   Exhibit D:        Amended Schedule of Non Credit Courses CCD Spring 2012 (201235) - Page 28
   Exhibit E:        Curriculum Development and Review Committee Recommendations for



                                              19
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 2 
 

                            Programs and Courses – Page 42
    Exhibit F:              Human Resources Office Personnel Actions – Page 44
    Exhibit G:              SCFCS Monthly Report – Page 46

    Mr. Miller moved to approve the Non-Financial Consent Agenda seconded by Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro seconded and the board unanimously approved.

4. Approval of Financial Consent Agenda Items – Consent Agenda B

    Chairman Beruff asked the board members if they had any comments on the Financial
    Consent Agenda or if there was anything they would like to remove.

    Ms. Saslaw stated she was confused by page 56 of the packet (Collegiate School Financial
    Statements). She stated there is no revenue number showing for April 30. Dr. Probstfeld
    stated the statement reflects non-operating revenues from the state and auxiliary funds and
    they would find that number below categorized not as operating revenues but as non-
    operating revenues. She stated that those are revenues that were received by virtue of
    appropriation or gifts to the college. She stated that is revenues that were received from the
    state for the collegiate school students from the auxiliary fund, etc. She stated it is a
    classification. Chairman Beruff commented that they end up with a positive of $1,836. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated they have an increase in net assets which is inclusive of the transfer from
    auxiliary.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if it would be appropriate to reclassify the subsidy from the
    college from the revenue to long-term debt. Dr. Probstfeld stated that under the last section
    of this meeting there is an item for board requested information and she prepared a handout
    with all of that information.

    Exhibit H:              Monthly Financial Report – March 2012 – Page 48
                            Budget Amendments FY 2011-2012 February #40-42 (SCFCS Included) – Page
    Exhibit I:
                            52
    Exhibit J:              SCFCS Financial Statements March 2012 – Page 55
    Exhibit K:              Property Disposals – Page 65
    Exhibit L:              Gifts and Grants – Page 69
    Exhibit M:              Authorization to Charge Off Delinquent Student and Other Accounts – Page 70
    Exhibit N:              Mauldin & Jenkins, CPA Engagement Letter for SCFCS – Page 71
    Exhibit O:              Kerkering, Barberio & Co. Engagement Letter for SCF Internal Audit – Page 79

    Ms. Saslaw motion to approve the Financial Consent Agenda and Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    seconded and the board unanimously approved.

5. Exhibit P: Approval of the Capital Improvement Program FY 2013-2014 through 2017-
   2018

    Ms. Steen presented the Capital Improvement Program. She stated that each year the
    college brings to the board the Capital Improvement Program which is a requirement by the
    state and the basis for the legislative budget request for the capital projects for education
    and for the colleges. She stated this year, beginning with the premise that PECO has been




                                                      20
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 3 
 

    depleted and for the foreseeable future will not rebound quickly, they reduced the scope of
    the capital improvement program to three projects. She stated those three projects include
    the number one priority which is the renovation and remodel and addition for buildings 8 and
    9. She stated they reduced that scope primarily for a replacement of the facilities that were
    there. She stated they reduced not only the cost but the scope of the building knowing that
    they will do more programming to it later, but with the timing and the board’s intention they
    reduced it. She stated it is still the number one priority. She stated the college is on the one
    year funding list at the state level for that project. She stated it is important to keep that as a
    first priority to maintain that. Chairman Beruff asked if that is what needs to be reported
    externally. Ms. Steen stated the CIP is brought to the board as a draft document so that
    they can make comments or changes and then it will come back to the board for final
    approval in June to be sent to the state by July 2, 2012. Chairman Beruff asked what they
    are telling Tallahassee and what buildings they are talking about. Ms. Steen stated they are
    talking about three projects. The number one priority is buildings 8 and 9. She stated the
    second project being talked about is the Venice Student Services Building. She directed the
    board to page 104 of the packet. She stated that is primarily new construction and it is
    moving the student services and activities into a new building. She stated that is part of the
    Master Planning and Survey process that has been on the list as a second priority. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro asked what exactly goes into the Student Services Building. Ms. Steen
    stated the detailed programming for it is the cafeteria and the student services offices and
    administration and all the things that relate to student service activities such as are in
    building one in the Bradenton Campus. Dr. Bowman stated it is designed to be a one stop
    place for students to go for any of their needs from the college store, registration, advising
    and student life. It is meant to give the students the opportunity to have one place to go to.
    It will allow the college to build an answering center or a welcoming center for students to
    get their questions resolved quickly. He stated right now they are close to being a tent city
    because they are expanding so much on the Venice Campus they do not have any space
    for the students to come into the office spaces. Ms. Steen directed the board to page 104
    which contains a brief description of the scope of the project. Ms. Moran asked what would
    go into the current building that houses the student services. Ms. Steen stated that building
    is primarily the cafeteria along with the book store and security offices. She stated they
    would most likely keep the cafeteria there. She stated they have not gotten to the level of
    deciding what would go back into that building. Dr. Bowman stated it was their hope that it
    would provide the school with the enrollment growth that the programs need in South
    County. He stated it is anticipated as being a high growth area. He said they want to make
    sure they have the one stop for the students in the main building and it would behoove them
    to look at what program choices students are looking at and what areas they need to
    improve to keep students from going between campuses. Ms. Steen stated at least half of
    that building is geared toward instructional facility in terms of classrooms. Vice Chairman
    Trigueiro asked what the usable square feet is in the current building. Dr. Bowman stated
    he was not sure of the actual square feet of the building. He stated at this point they are in
    cubbies and keep adding cubbies into the waiting area. He stated they have run out of
    space that is appropriate for student use. Ms. Steen stated it is approximately 5,000 square
    feet but it is divided by a breezeway which includes the offices and lobby and functions that
    are very crowded. She stated the other side has some test space but it is more geared
    toward classrooms. Dr. Bowman stated they could not accommodate the veteran’s center in
    that building so they had to put it someplace else on campus. So again, that does not
    create the synergy that they want to create. Chairman Beruff asked how many people they
    envision in the new building. He asked if at this point they were just using this as a
    placeholder in Tallahassee. Ms. Steen stated they went through the master planning
    process and all these concerns and issues floated to the top and because of their need they



                                                  21
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 4 
 

    can show that this would be a preference of the college to create this space. She stated the
    replacement of this space would be done as they got closer to receiving PECO funding.
    She stated the details at this point would be premature. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if all
    of a sudden they had PECO money could they change the priorities. He asked if they were
    locked into these projects if they send it to the state. Ms. Steen stated what the board
    passes will be in concrete for the state as they submit the legislative budget requests. For
    example, the college library is on their first year of the three year priority list now. It was last
    year and it is anticipated it will be this year. She stated that no other SCF projects are on
    the three year list. They have never gone to the top of the state’s priority as it balances out
    with all of the other colleges and their requests. Currently the library project is the only
    project on the top of the list. She prefaces that because in the event the board wants to
    change their mind the CIP can be amended. Chairman Beruff asked if they were lucky and
    received $10 million dollars the money would have to go toward the library. If it is not used
    to build the library they cannot use it for anything else. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if
    they received the money and asked for approval to swap it out to do something different,
    would that be allowed. Ms. Steen stated it is not allowed through the Department of
    Education. Once the appropriation is made they would have to go back to the legislature
    and ask for a re-appropriation of funds. Dr. Hafner stated it is on a specific line item. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated there is no flexibility. Chairman Beruff asked again if Ms. Steen
    knew how many people they hope to accommodate in the new building. Dr. Bowman stated
    it would be every student that would walk through, which would be about 3,200. As an
    example, he said they have 12 spaces to test students for placement testing so that area
    would be expanded. Chairman Beruff stated that 35,000 square feet is a lot of space. He
    stated it they are strapped in 6,000 square feet, he understands that, but doubled or tripled
    should be enough. He could not understand going from 6,000 to 35,000 square feet without
    someone telling him the purpose and how many people will be served by it or will the
    buildings be empty for 5 or 10 years. Ms. Steen stated the utilization and the space
    categories are calculated when the State is calculating the need. Student services and
    auxiliary (non-classroom) spaces are based upon FTE. She stated the state will go through
    their formula to generate the number of square feet they will provide. She stated they could
    certainly reduce that and base it upon their numbers. Chairman Beruff brought up the
    projected enrollment for the library project. He asked if this building was designed on the
    same flawed trajectory of enrollment. He wanted to make sure the board understands. Ms.
    Steen stated that it is based on a three year average and it will be readjusted and it will be
    reflected on the readjustment. Chairman Beruff asked if the college provides the state with
    the projected numbers. Ms. Steen confirmed. Chairman Beruff stated the state is reacting
    to what we provide them. Ms. Steen stated that is correct but it feeds into their formula.
    Chairman Beruff stated if they take our numbers and our numbers are wrong then their
    numbers will be wrong. Dr. Probstfeld stated they take our actual numbers and do a linear
    regression to forecast the future and then the college has the opportunity to say whether it is
    right or wrong. Chairman Beruff asked where the numbers came from for the premise of the
    design and the size of the library. Ms. Steen stated the same data was used. Chairman
    Beruff questioned if the state is that flawed. Dr. Hafner stated this was based on the model
    that the state has utilized but they have now found that it is faulty so they are in the process
    of amending the model to create a better model that is more thorough. He stated some of
    the growth projections were way off the scope but also some of the decreasing of students
    was way off the scope of the three year model. He stated they are in the process of
    tweaking that model and hopefully in the next couple of months they will come out with a
    new model that will feed the numbers in and will be a more actual picture of what is going
    on.




                                                  22
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 5 
 

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated unless they were going to amend the CIP he would motion
    to approve. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and the board unanimously approved.

6. Exhibit Q: Review and Approval of the Contractor Prequalification Process
   Exhibit R: Approval of the Contractor Prequalification Review Committee Membership

    Ms. Steen stated her next item is in two parts which consist of the prequalification process
    for contractors to give hard bids. In SREF, the board has to hold a public hearing to discuss
    the college’s intent to prequalify construction contractors. The contractors will be qualified
    for a one year period or for a specific project. Prequalification of contractors shall be based
    upon the type of license, experience and capabilities, evidence of satisfactory claim of
    resolution, bonding and financial capacity and any other criteria the board sees fit to adopt.
    The materials Ms. Steen brought to the board include, beginning on page 144 of the board
    packet, the procedure that the college developed and that is brought to the board for
    approval. She stated that procedure follows SREF. She stated it was kept at a minimum of
    what the prequalification process needs to have in it in order to qualify contractors under the
    state requirement. She stated it begins with the criteria and has the procedures, the
    applications contents, how certificates are issued, how they would be renewed at the end of
    the year, issues if there were delinquent contractors that would need to be suspended or
    rejected for non-performance and the appeals process. She stated the college is in stage
    one of that process which is presenting to the board for approval a request for qualifications
    packet that will be submitted to any of the contractors that want to submit and will be
    reviewed by a committee and then brought back to the board for approval of that list of
    contractors. Then they will develop the certificate to be issued. She directed the board to
    look at page 116 of the board packet. She stated they have taken the procedure and put it
    into the request for qualification. Ms. Steen asked the board to consider that there are areas
    within the qualification packet that the board can make changes to as well as things that
    SREF requires. Chairman Beruff asked which areas were required. Ms. Steen stated right
    now it is opened up for general contractors that submit for hard bid. She stated they also
    opened it up for mechanical, electrical and plumbing licensed contractors because there are
    times when it is more cost effective to contract directly with those contractors to do a
    replacement of a specific job where a general contractor would not be needed to oversee.
    She stated that is an area that could be modified. She stated they also included a
    construction manager at risk and the design builder contractors for the same reason.
    Chairman Beruff asked if there was a state requirement for bonding for small amounts. Ms.
    Steen stated there is no bond requirement for up to $100,000. She stated $100,000-
    200,000 is the board’s decision (which she highly recommends) and over $200,000 is
    required. Ms. Steen directed the board to 118 of the board packet. She stated they looked
    at different categories, at different colleges and local governments that have used this
    process and they recommend the board look at the four categories that break up the dollar
    amount of the projects so that different contractors, depending on their capacity, could get
    qualified for different amounts. She stated they could be classified into different categories.
    She stated some of the institutions policy is if they qualify as a large contractor they do not
    allow them to bid on the smaller categories. She stated the college did not put that in their
    procedure because they wanted it left open as much as possible but that is the board’s
    decision. She stated there is also a caveat in there for educational facilities. She stated this
    will require higher education experience. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked the Chairman if a
    general contractor that builds shopping malls would be unqualified to do a large educational
    institution. Chairman Beruff stated they could work their way up by starting with smaller
    projects to gain the experience. He does think there are plenty of qualified general
    contractors that have never touched an educational facility. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated



                                                 23
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 6 
 

    that if they limit the pool the price potentially goes up. He stated he would prefer to use local
    companies. He stated he sees no advantage in large contracts to use only contractors with
    educational experience. Chairman Beruff stated unless it is required by the state. Ms.
    Steen stated the qualification by the state is to have two projects completed out of the last
    five years that are similar projects. She stated that could be similar in scope or similar in
    size. Chairman Beruff asked if it specifically said higher education. Ms. Steen stated it is in
    SREF, so it is about education, but it does not specifically say higher education or
    education. It does not use those terms, it states similar size and similar scope of work. Ms.
    Steen stated they could remove that caveat. The only requirement is that they have done
    at least two of those projects to be qualified.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved that they remove that requirement on large projects that
    they have higher education and large building experience. Mr. Prouty asked the Chairman
    to wait to make a motion until they open the public hearing. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    withdrew his motion at that time.

    Ms. Steen stated the categories are broken down into four categories and asked if that was
    acceptable. Chairman Beruff stated except for the prior discussed change they were happy
    with the process. Ms. Steen stated the information provided on page 119 of the packet
    shows all the requirements of SREF. She stated they have the requirements in a form so
    that they can respond and evaluate in a short turn around.

    Chairman Beruff opened the public hearing and asked for public comment.

    Being no public comment the public hearing was closed.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved that they eliminate the requirement of having constructed
    higher education facilities from the proposal. Mr. Bailey seconded and the board
    unanimously approved.

    Mr. Miller commented that when he was on the School Board they built four high schools
    and many of the contractors and architects came from out of town. He stated the board at
    that time made it a priority that those individuals, architects and general contractors looked
    to hire local subcontractors and he did not see that in this process. Ms. Steen stated it is a
    hard bid process; they have to take the low number. She stated the subcontractors can
    come from anywhere. Mr. Miller stated the local contractors pay taxes in the county, they
    hire employees in the county and as he sees it, they are not given any preference. He
    stated he has not been awarded bids because he is not a local business establishment. He
    stated he lost jobs even though he was low price because he was in Manatee County, when
    the job was in Sarasota or Port Charlotte. He wanted to know if they could do anything to
    avoid that from happening. He stated they, as a board, have a responsibility to the
    taxpayers. He stated most of the businesses give back to the community in various non-
    profits and foundations. Ms. Steen stated the premise of prequalifying contractors is to
    prequalify the general contractor no matter where that contractor comes from. She stated
    they do not have a local preference in this qualification that the contractor be a local
    contractor. She stated SREF does not require that. The basic premise is to not hinder any
    competition other than what is required. She stated they could assume a local preference in
    the prequalification but she would need to check that out to find the answer. Ms. Saslaw
    asked if Ms. Steen could give the board the current grading and to see if they could add
    points for local contractors. Ms. Steen stated this process is about approving or not
    approving a contractor and putting them in a pool. She stated they would take the bid



                                                 24
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 7 
 

    package and submit that to anyone at this point that is qualified and they would bid on it and
    that lowest number, provided the scope was correct, then they could present the lowest bid
    to the board for acceptance or rejection. She stated they are currently under the
    construction manager at risk process and that process gives points for a Manatee/Sarasota
    company with lesser points for areas further away. She stated that is not part of the hard
    bid process. Ms. Neal asked about the selection process of board of trustees representative
    on the review committee. She asked if it is an appointed position. Ms. Steen stated that
    was next on the agenda. Ms. Neal asked if they are talking about the general contractor.
    She asked if there was language they can put in for the general contractor being local and
    then encourage local subcontractors. Ms. Steen stated they do not have control over the
    subcontractors. Ms. Neal asked if they could put in language that the preference would be
    local subcontractors. Ms. Steen stated it is not a point system, this is a qualified or a not
    qualified system. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if they approve a contractor and then add
    points to people that use local labor forces. Chairman Beruff and Ms. Steen stated it is a
    low bid process. She stated the CM at risk is about balancing the costs, the local, and the
    prequalified subs. She stated that is not the case in a general hard bid situation. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated that in a large contract they are going to be using local labor
    anyway. He stated if they hire out of state labor their profit will not stay in the community to
    be circulated. He stated they are there to get the best value for the taxpayer in large
    projects but unfortunately this is the price they are going to have to pay. Chairman Beruff
    stated they are stewards of the taxpayer’s money so to the extent that it is the lowest price,
    in his perspective, it is understood. He stated most of the contractors that are qualified will
    be within 100 miles because it costs money to travel.

    Ms. Steen directed the board to Exhibit R on page 150 asking the board to approve the
    Review Committee. She stated she listed people that she thinks will be important to the
    process and opened it up to a member of the board to be a part of this review committee.
    The timeframe was discussed to take applications. Chairman Beruff asked if they went
    through this process quickly for the chemistry lab if there was anything precluding them from
    doing it again. Ms. Steen stated there is nothing except time and commitment to the
    process. Chairman Beruff volunteered to be a part of that review committee with a meeting
    set for June 25, 2012 at 9:30 am in the board room on the Bradenton Campus. It was
    discussed whether they could review the proposals ahead of time. Confirmation that they
    would receive the proposals individually but they would not be allowed to discuss the
    proposals in a group without it being a public meeting due to Sunshine Laws.

    Mr. Prouty stated the Chairman needed to open a public hearing again for approval of
    Exhibit R.

    Chairman Beruff opened the public hearing and asked for public comment.

    Being no public comment the public hearing was closed.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved to approve Ms. Moore seconded and the board
    unanimously approved.

7. Exhibit S: Course Fees and Additional Fees

    Chairman Beruff opened the public hearing and asked for public comment.




                                                 25
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 8 
 

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if they were required to have a presentation. Dr. Probstfeld
    stated her presentation is merely directed to page 151 of the board packet and she would be
    happy to answer any questions.

    Chairman Beruff asked if there were any public comments or questions.

    Being no public comment the public hearing was closed.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved to approve Exhibit S, Ms. Moran seconded and the board
    unanimously approved.

8. Approval of Grant Proposals

    Exhibit T:   12-05 Carl D. Perkins Grant, Career and Technical Education
    Postsecondary Programs, Section 132 (Federal Funds) Fiscal Year 2012-2013

    Mr. Davis stated the first Grant is the Perkins annual allocation. He stated the initial
    estimates were $477,315.00. He asked the board if they had any questions.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if this grant cost SCF any money. Mr. Davis confirmed.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved to approve Exhibit T, Ms. Saslaw seconded and the board
    unanimously approved.

    Exhibit U: 12-06 College Reach Out Program (CROP) Grant (Tampa Bay CROP
    Consortium)

    Mr. Davis stated the second Grant is the CROP Program, which is the college reach out
    program. It is a consortium with other institutions in the area and it is a very successful
    program having a lot of seniors in the program having moved on to higher education in a
    very high percentage.

    Ms. Moran asked if the site coordinators are supplied by SCF. Mr. Davis stated it is usually
    an employee of the school that is given a small stipend to do activities after school with the
    students.

    Ms. Saslaw asked about the $96,500.00 match. She asked if that was from SCF operating
    funds or the Foundation. Dr. Bowman stated it is operating funds. Chairman Beruff asked if
    it is in the budget. Dr. Bowman confirmed.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved to approve and Ms. Saslaw seconded and the board
    unanimously approved.

9. Board Requested Information (360 Evaluation, Compensation Consultants)

    Chairman Beruff asked if part of this presentation entailed what they have been discussing
    regarding the Collegiate School finances. Dr. Probstfeld confirmed.

    Ms. Beck first discussed the project of hiring a consultant to do a total compensation study
    for the college. She stated they evaluated many companies that other colleges have used
    as well as the SWFWMD board.



                                                26
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 9 
 


    Ms. Beck presented the process they recommend to get a contractor to do total
    compensation study. She stated an RFP went out to several companies and she showed a
    list of vendors that would be sent a proposal, as well as posting it on the college website and
    publicly notice so any other contractors who may not be on the list might apply. She stated
    the deliverables for these contractors in the RFP would be total compensation, comparison
    benchmarks for three different categories and they could give prices on each of those three
    categories. She stated there is one for administrative and professional positions, which is
    approximately 90 positions. She pointed out they are not talking people, they are talking
    positions. Next category is career positions, which is approximately 110 and then all
    positions would be approximately 250 different categorized positions. She stated they
    would give rates on all three categories. She stated then they would request that they
    compare the college staff salaries to those benchmarks and let the college known where
    they are on target, where they are behind and where they need to adjust upwards or
    downwards. Ms. Beck stated they set up a timeline for this project. They need to write the
    RFP and get that in order for the college so they have given themselves until Thursday,
    June 21, 2012 to complete that. Next it will be posted on June 26, 2012 for three weeks to
    give the bidders the opportunity to respond to the bid. The committee will then review those
    proposals. She requested a board member on the committee and suggested Ms. Neal, if
    available, since she was head of the Staffing & Compensation Committee. Ms. Beck stated
    the committee would then evaluate the bids on Thursday, July 19, 2012 and do a quick
    turnaround by Monday July 23, 2012 to evaluate and score on July 24, 2012. Once those
    are scored they hope to have it down to three finalists and then those finalists would be
    notified on July 25, 2012 and the finalists would do a presentation for the committee on
    August 10, 2012 with the final scoring day on Monday August, 13, 2012. The finalists would
    then be presented to the board for approval at the August 29, 2012 Regular Board Meeting
    to have the contract written and accepted by September 14, 2012.

    Chairman Beruff asked if they could post for four weeks instead of three. Ms. Beck stated
    she has a conflict with vacation. She did state she could adjust the schedule accordingly.
    Chairman Beruff stated he did not want to ruin anyone’s vacation he just would like more
    time to receive bids. Ms. Beck stated they could stretch any of the timeline out, her intention
    was to have it ready for the August board meeting. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if when
    the project was finished if the impact would be in the next budget. Chairman Beruff stated
    they discussed at the Budget Meeting that they would take action in the budget year. He
    stated a budget is a budget and gave thanks to Dr. Probstfeld and everyone else that
    participates in that and stated that they are constantly monitoring their budget and making
    adjustments throughout the year. He stated it will not impact them if it takes a few weeks
    longer for that process to occur. He stated he thinks they should make it a longer process
    so they can fine tune the dates instead of approving the dates given. Ms. Neal stated her
    and Ms. Moran both had a conflict on the 19th and 20th. Chairman Beruff asked Ms. Beck to
    coordinate with Ms. Moran and Ms. Neal to come up with a new schedule that works with
    her schedule. Ms. Beck stated she work with everyone involved. Chairman Beruff noted
    they are on board, subject to the finalization of the schedule. Ms. Beck asked if there were
    any other questions on the process.

    Next, Ms. Beck moved on to the 360 degree evaluation. She stated it was brought to the
    strategic planning committee and they referred it to the management accountability group
    which is part of the service excellence committee and they will be creating a task force and
    they will evaluate the areas. She stated she has looked at different companies and there
    are many different companies that do it in a variety of ways for a variety of costs. She stated



                                                27
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 10 
 

    they will look at the various companies and look at questions to make it as user friendly as
    possible as well as ask the questions that they want to know about the managers. Once
    they do that, it will be brought back to the executive management team and to the board as
    to what the final picture will look like. She stated that committee is meeting for the first time
    next week. Chairman Beruff asked if the board would have a report in June. Ms. Beck
    confirmed that. Chairman Beruff asked if the board had any questions regarding that.

    Dr. Probstfeld addressed questions that came up during the budget workshop. She first
    brought up the parameters for travel. She asked if a particular board member would like to
    work with her independently to review the Rule and Procedure and all of the documents
    related to travel to make recommendations regarding the parameters. Vice Chairman
    Trigueiro asked about conferences coming up. He asked if the executives have a series of
    conferences they attend each year. Dr. Hafner stated there are state meetings. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated he was talking about non-required meetings. He learned the
    executive suite does not go to conferences that are not required of their job. Dr. Crocker
    stated they attend the SACS meetings because that is integral to accreditation. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated that is part of the job. He stated he goes to CME meetings that
    are out of the country and that is great and wanted to know if any of the executives do that.
    Chairman Beruff asked for a volunteer to review the policies. Vice Chairman Trigueiro as
    well as Chairman Beruff asked for the travel policy to be sent out to the board via email for
    review and comments. Chairman Beruff stated the idea was for the board to review the
    travel policy before the adoption of the budget next month. Chairman Beruff asked if the
    board could comment directly to Dr. Probstfeld without violating the Sunshine Law. Mr.
    Prouty confirmed that was correct.

    Dr. Probstfeld next brought up the disaster recovery solution and passed out a chart on the
    findings related to this. She introduced Mr. Hou to explain the chart. Mr. Hou provided the
    board with information and updates regarding the disaster recovery solution. He stated they
    checked with Florida Statute 252, which asks for disaster recovery facilities to be provided.
    He stated they are providing the most cost comparison information as well as service
    comparison. He stated the disaster recovery is about restoring the college’s critical
    services, which is education, back to normal condition as quickly as possible with minimal
    disruptions. He stated the solution the college is currently using is renting the Winter Haven
    space as well as disaster recovery facilities and network connectivity costs. He pointed out
    they are currently only renting one rack space. He stated USF is also using the Winter
    Haven facility and they are using a suite. He stated the rack space only costs about
    $450.00. He stated they also offer disaster recovery infrastructure. He stated they used to
    have a contract with Sungard which provided only 2 services that cost of $40,000.00. He
    stated that was way too expensive. He stated they are very mindful of the expenses related
    to this system. He stated it is like a life insurance policy. He stated they need it and they
    are required to have an alternate facility to support it. He asked the board if they had any
    questions. He stated that Manatee County is not ready to open to the public for this service.
    Chairman Beruff stated they have the building but they cannot take on any revenue. Mr.
    Hou stated there has been discussion to generate revenue they are just not at that point yet.
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if a motion to approve was needed. Dr. Probstfeld stated
    they were just following up on the information because it was part of the budget. Chairman
    Beruff asked if the capacity was available in the bandwidth. He stated the current provider
    has 200 mbps and Manatee County has 100 mbps. Mr. Hou stated that the college is
    currently using the Florida Lambdarail which is a high speed network service. He stated the
    current Manatee EOC does not have that service. So, to answer that question, in order to
    get that level of service the cost is higher. Chairman Beruff stated he is only looking at the



                                                 28
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 11 
 

    total annual recurring cost. He stated he does not care how they get there but they are
    currently paying $57,216.00 and if he is reading the comparison correctly, if they could get
    Manatee County to do this, they could get the service for $45,900.00. Mr. Hou stated that
    amount only includes the cost of connection. Chairman Beruff asked if Sungard is not
    offering that is needed at $45,000.00. He asked what they do not provide. Mr. Ho stated
    they do not provide a permanent space for the college. They have a pool of servers and the
    college can schedule once or twice a year to test or if a catastrophic event were to occur
    they can then, within 48 hours, they will provide some service. Chairman Beruff asked if
    they are like a cloud. Mr. Hou agreed. Chairman Beruff clarified that the college does not
    have a server, they only receive space on the server. In Winter Haven they have their own
    dedicated rack. Dr. Probstfeld stated Sungard supported only 2 servers. Winter Haven is
    supporting 20 servers plus. To get the same 20 servers plus with Sungard was very
    expensive. Chairman Beruff asked if there were any other providers other than those two
    available in the entire country. He asked if it could be outsourced to China. Mr. Hou stated
    they did check the Northwest Regional Data Center as a possibility but they are
    consolidating their facility and there is no availability. Chairman Beruff clarified that there is
    no other provider in the country. Mr. Hou stated that is why USF and several other colleges
    in the state of Florida are using the Winter Haven facility. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if
    the Board of County Commissioners ever asked Mr. Hou to give this presentation of what
    they would need to be a player would that be possible. Mr. Hou agreed. Chairman Beruff
    again clarified that the answer to his question was that there are no other providers for this
    service. Chairman Beruff asked if they were given more time could they find the level of
    service needed at less cost. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked what the contract deadline
    was. Dr. Probstfeld stated this contract is already in place and it has a three year term and
    we are in year one. Chairman Beruff asked if there was any provision in the contract to
    sever it. Mr. Prouty stated yes. Chairman Beruff used an example from the Airport. He
    stated a year ago they had a service provider for a certain system that they have to have for
    FAA requirements. He stated the price went from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 in one year.
    He stated the board had the option to enter a three year agreement or one year agreement.
    The board approved a one year contract at $100,000.00 and after the first year another
    provider met all the requirements for $57,000.00. Chairman Beruff asked the staff to do a
    little research and see if they can get a better deal. He stated eventually the competition will
    drive the bar down.

    Next, Dr. Probstfeld showed detail of the 65024 account which is service contracts. She
    welcomed the board to look through that at their leisure. Chairman Beruff asked if this is the
    detail of $1,653,000.00. Dr. Probstfeld confirmed. Chairman Beruff asked about the piano
    tuning. He asked if the college had people on staff to do that. Dr. Probstfeld stated it is a
    specialized expertise. Vice Chairman Trigueiro questioned why they did not have someone
    that could tune a piano. Dr. Mears stated that do not have someone on staff that do that.
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated he has a granddaughter in middle school and the music
    teacher tunes as needed every students instrument before they play. He stated that is like
    saying someone can prescribe medicine but they cannot use a scalpel. He did not get being
    a piano teacher and not as part of their job making sure that the tool is correct. Dr. Mears
    stated it is not a part of their job. Dr. Probstfeld stated they do not ask the science teachers
    to calibrate their microscopes. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated there is a difference between
    calibrating a microscope and tuning a piano. Chairman Beruff stated they are just asking
    out of curiosity. He stated he has his own piano tuned once a year. Mr. Bailey asked how
    much it costs to calibrate a microscope.




                                                  29
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 12 
 

    Dr. Probstfeld gave the highlights of the collegiate school. She stated they had more detail
    in the board packet. She showed the total construction cost and the total equipment and
    furniture costs and the grand total of those two. It also included the total of utilities, security
    and custodial since the school opened and the auxiliary fund transfer. Year to date there is
    approximately $4.9 million in the collegiate school. Chairman Beruff stated they have spent
    $5 million. Dr. Probstfeld stated this was the estimate through June. Chairman Beruff
    asked if this included any of the revenue. Dr. Probstfeld stated this number has nothing to
    do with operating funds. Dr. Probstfeld proposed that they include this schedule as part of
    the statement that the board will receive every month as the update of the collegiate school
    expenses. Chairman Beruff stated the school generates income through the School Board
    of Manatee County. He asked if that was included. Dr. Probstfeld stated the revenue he is
    addressing is offsetting operating expenses not these expenses. She stated this is
    addressing Dr. Trigueiro’s question from the last meeting of what the college has invested in
    the collegiate school. Chairman Beruff asked for clarification that this amount is the total
    cost of the collegiate school through June 30. Dr. Probstfeld confirmed. She stated this is
    the amount that the college contributed to the collegiate school. She stated everything else
    would be money that is generated from the collegiate school via the School Board or lunch
    sales or grants, etc. Chairman Beruff asked if she took that out of this total. Dr. Probstfeld
    stated she had not. Chairman Beruff clarified that this amount is all cost and no revenue.
    Dr. Probstfeld stated there is no cost against his revenue. Chairman Beruff stated it is
    because the revenue comes to the State College of Florida. Dr. Probstfeld stated the
    revenue offsets the operating costs of the school which are not included in this chart. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro clarified this is only money the college has put out. Dr. Probstfeld stated
    this is money from the college that was put towards the collegiate school. Vice Chairman
    Trigueiro stated that basically the college has put out $5 million of unreimbursed money. He
    stated he likes the collegiate school but that is not the question. He thinks they need to be
    clear and the news media needs to be clear to the public that to date the collegiate school
    has cost $4,959,072.52 of unreimbursed funds. He asked at what point it in time it is
    appropriate for him to make the motion to reclassify the auxiliary fund transfer total of
    $643,095.73 as long term debt instead of as an asset. Dr. Probstfeld recommended that the
    collegiate school is eligible, effective July 1 to start receiving PECO funds. With that money,
    they can pay for a lease. She suggests they structure the lease that they have been
    referring to in the statements since the inception of the collegiate school so they can bring
    that money back to the college to begin paying the college back for these costs, plus the
    ongoing regular costs associated with custodial and security. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    asked of the financial year end of the collegiate school. Dr. Probstfeld it was the same as
    the college, which is June 30. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated the issue is not going to go
    away from his viewpoint. He stated the total auxiliary fund transfer amount is incorrectly
    stated on the financial form as an asset instead of as a long-term liability. He stated the
    board will have a vote and the board can make the decision. He stated it is not his decision
    except that he will bring it up and he hopes there will be a second and a debate on the
    issue.     He stated whatever happens, happens, but that is the truth and if there are
    consequences to that, so be it. Dr. Probstfeld stated if this board chooses that this amount
    or any portion of this amount becomes the debt of the collegiate school then, of course, they
    can set up a liability, but it is like the discussion of the President’s Contract, it is not a liability
    unless some action happens that causes them to have to pay out that contract, at which
    point, it becomes a liability. She stated this is a gift from the college until such time as the
    board decides that they want the collegiate school to pay it back, then it becomes a liability
    and they can start reflecting it as that. Chairman Beruff stated that if you go back to the
    board records and the discussions of the collegiate school, he was very clear that if they
    were going to compete, they wanted to compete. He stated they essentially got into the



                                                    30
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 13 
 

    charter school business and he did not want to compete with an advantage that the private
    sector charter schools did not have. He stated essentially that is what they have come to
    with the $5 million. He stated they have gifted $5 million to the collegiate school. He said a
    private sector charter school would have a hard time getting $5 million for free. He stated
    he has not seen that happen too many times. He stated they do receive a lot of grants and
    they do the same thing we do but at the end of the day their capital comes from the private
    sector and they compete. SCF has given the collegiate school a substantial advantage over
    the private sector by not paying anything on the $5 million that has been invested. Dr.
    Probstfeld did not disagree. She stated if they are going to do it they should structure a
    lease or a debt repayment so they can legitimately call this what they want to call it. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated he would beg to differ. He stated reading the minutes and
    reading the auditor’s report on the collegiate school, they all refer to that it is the intention of
    the collegiate school to pay it back. He stated that is in multiple documents in multiple
    locations. To him, that establishes the fact that the school expects to be paid back which
    makes it a long-term debt. He stated it puts the college at a disadvantage to follow the
    School Board of Manatee County then the board of trustees would have to deal with that.
    He said the board of trustees could say they have $15 million in reserve funds and we are
    going to make a gift of $643,095.73 from that to pay off the debt so that there is no debt and
    that they are going to make it a gift and not a long term obligation but they need to clean up
    the books. Dr. Probstfeld stated she is very familiar with what it says in that note and the
    last part of the sentence says, “when the collegiate school begins to cover its cost.” She
    stated the intention is to pay it back when the collegiate school begins to cover its cost. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated that is why it is called a long-term debt. Dr. Probstfeld stated the
    collegiate school has not begun to cover its cost yet so it is not a debt to them until such
    time as that happens. She stated that is the way it has been reflected in its statements.
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if she was saying that it is an asset and when the collegiate
    school then starts to pay it back all of the sudden it becomes a long term debt. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated she is saying that when the board determines that it is now an obligation to
    be repaid by the collegiate school that it becomes a debt. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked
    what if it is now. Dr. Probstfeld stated that no one has said that it is something that they
    have to structure. The board has not taken any action that has said that they have to
    structure something to have the collegiate school pay it back. She proposed that they talk
    about accessing the PECO money that the collegiate school will start getting in July and
    structure that so that they can start paying it back and they can reflect the debt. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro then stated that they might be put in the position of potentially having to
    approve a year-end financial statement on the collegiate school which may not reflect
    reality. Dr. Probstfeld asked why it would not reflect reality. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated,
    from his viewpoint, he believes it is a long term debt. He believes that the record in the
    minutes of the meeting and in the auditor’s report states that it is a long term debt. He
    stated she could paint it with any words that she wants but if it were not a long term debt it
    could not be converted into a long term debt when the collegiate school actually has another
    revenue stream. He stated you do not take an asset and then all of the sudden make it a
    long term debt because you can now pay it back. He stated as long as you cannot pay it
    back it is not a long term debt it is an asset. He stated he is not an accountant. Dr.
    Probstfeld stated that she is an accountant and the state auditor would have made them
    reflect it as a long term debt in the financial statements if indeed they determined that it was
    a long term debt. She stated they had them reflect it in a note because there is no
    obligation put on the school, by this board, saying that it is a debt. Other than it is the intent
    to do so at some point in time. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if this board at the June
    meeting said this is a gift then it clears up the entire discussion because nothing changes, or
    the board can say it is a debt. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked the board to make a decision



                                                  31
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 14 
 

    at the June meeting. Chairman Beruff asked for recommendations as to how the college
    proposes to convert the money into an obligation where they can see the money coming
    back from the collegiate school. He stated they do not want to have any dollars in the
    collegiate school that they do not have control over coming back to reimburse the college.
    Dr. Probstfeld asked if they are looking to recover the auxiliary and the ongoing operating of
    the building or are they looking to recover the initial building investment. Chairman Beruff
    stated he is still not clear. He asked if in addition to the expense that were spent they have
    operating expenses for the collegiate school. Dr. Probstfeld stated that is the budget the
    board has for the collegiate school. Chairman Beruff stated taking the revenue from the
    School Board that comes to the State College of Florida and then there is operating
    expenses that the college pays for the collegiate school from those revenues. He asked if
    they use 100% of those revenues. Dr. Probstfeld stated yes, and then some from the
    auxiliary fund. Chairman Beruff asked if the projected budget next year would bring the
    collegiate school into the black. Dr. Probstfeld answered not next year, but the year after
    when they have the full complement of grades. Chairman Beruff stated once they have the
    full complement of grades they will be on the positive side on operational expenses but they
    have not put a dent in the $5 million that was already laid out. He stated they will subsidize
    the collegiate school for another year and that subsidy gets smaller each year on an
    operational front. He asked what kind of PECO dollars they will receive. Dr. Probstfeld
    stated it will be approximately $9,000.00 a month. She stated SCF could charge a lease
    cost for the building to bring some of the dollars back to the college in both the operating
    case and the auxiliary case. Chairman Beruff stated it is the board’s decision. Dr.
    Probstfeld suggested, related to the building and the fixtures and equipment, that building is
    used by the collegiate school but it also is used by the college. It is used as a teaching lab
    for the education students and also a facility that is available all summer long for college use
    for meetings or other things. She stated it is used in the evening for other types of events
    when the school is not in place. She stated that building is not 100% used by the collegiate
    school. She also stated that using the same analogy, they got into the collegiate school
    business as another aspect of the continuing education that the college provides. She
    stated you could make the same argument that a private business could not get into
    providing nursing programs either without the infusion of money to build a building. She
    stated nursing is the most expensive program that they have at the college but they do it
    and they pay for it with the other programs that they offer because it is part of what they
    want to offer as a continuum. She stated her understanding, when they went into the
    collegiate school, was that it was part of the complement of all of the activities that the
    college was providing and that the reconstruction of that building was for the purpose of the
    college as well as for the purpose of the collegiate school. She stated she is in total
    agreement with all of the operating costs being recovered but she sees the building a little
    different and hopes they can have a conversation about that. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    brought forward her comment of Dr. Probstfeld seeing part of the purpose as part of the
    college’s basic focus. Dr. Probstfeld stated it is the continuum of educational opportunities
    that the college provides. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if that was part of the mission
    statement. Dr. Probstfeld stated that it is. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated that when Dr.
    Hanna gave the commencement speech at graduation he asked him if he could define for
    him the mission of the state colleges and he said it is workforce development. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated he likes the collegiate school, he likes charter schools but could
    someone put in focus for him how the collegiate school meets criteria for workforce
    development. Dr. Probstfeld said to him, if the definition of what they do is workforce
    development they would be out of business tomorrow because the only thing that supports
    the STEM and workforce activities is the AA transfer program, which is not workforce. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated he would beg to disagree. He asked if she was talking about the



                                                 32
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 15 
 

    2+2 program. Dr. Probstfeld said yes. Dr. Crocker stated that 70% of the college’s students
    are in the 2+2 program. The AA degrees to go to university. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    stated when they make that statement it assumes that when the student completes their
    college education and they are unqualified for a job. He stated according to the Governor
    he thought that was only in Anthropology. He stated he does not buy the fact that the 2+2
    transfer program is not part of the workforce. He thinks training a nurse is a workforce. He
    disagrees with that statement absolutely and completely. Dr. Crocker stated that is how Dr.
    Trigueiro is defining workforce development. He stated everything that they do would be for
    getting students jobs. He asked if citizenship is workforce. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated
    they could get into a political debate on that. He stated that there are community education
    programs which a school offers to the public, most of which are self sustaining, like
    backpacking and canoeing and kayaking that are offered through the college which are
    usually self supporting, if the students pay for everything involved, etc. He stated to the best
    of his knowledge, everything else that the college does has two focuses. One is workforce
    development in a 4 year college. He stated he appreciates his 3 years as an undergraduate
    and that was part of his workforce development. The other aspect that he sees for the
    college is that they participate in economic development and wellbeing of the community by
    being responsive to the needs of the community, not only in business and job growth but
    also in the arts. He asked if they could imagine a society without art. He stated the college
    also provides the potential where some students end up in a job in theatre related stuff. Dr.
    Probstfeld suggested the same argument he made with the AA transfer that the collegiate
    school meets the same criteria. She stated these are children that are first generation and
    many of them who may drop out of school and become a burden on society but the college
    is not letting that happen. They are making sure, not only do they finish high school, but that
    they get a 2 year degree at the same time and now are workforce ready. Dr. Crocker stated
    a private school cannot give the AA degree. He stated these students are the college’s
    students that are coming in, they just start at the 6th grade. Chairman Beruff stated it is the
    responsibility of the society to educate the children. He stated the question is, are they the
    most cost effective way of doing that. Instead, when it comes to the collegiate school, there
    is no question that the State College of Florida is an effective benefit. Specifically, the
    question remains, which is the same question he raised three years ago, which is why did
    they get into a business that is not a business where what they are doing is subsidizing and
    making it more difficult for the private sector because they are taking public funds, taxpayer
    funds and creating a school that cannot stand on its own. He stated that is not what was
    represented to himself, as a board member, three years ago. He stated that eventually the
    collegiate school should stand on its own and he would like to know how they can get there.
    He stated he understands the statistics, he reads there are failures in the charter school
    system, it is no different, but it fails on its own. He stated they are taking taxpayer money
    and they will not let it fail because they have access to the money that comes to them every
    year from someplace. He stated they should try to come up with a business model and
    potentially find a mechanism that shows that it will stand on its own and pay a return based
    on the mechanisms of revenue, whether it be through the School Board or Tallahassee but
    they need to know that the revenue that is coming in is at the $5 million they have invested.
    Dr. Hafner stated it will do that and that there are a few points that are being left out
    completely. He stated when they talk about taxpayers, the taxpayers are benefiting from
    this collegiate school because kids are getting 8 years of education in 6. He stated that is 2
    less years that the taxpayers are supplementing and funding students in the state in this
    particular school. The college saves money because they will not have to remediate these
    kids to the tune of $100,000.00 a year, if not more, when these kids reach 10th and 11th
    grade and become part of this process. He stated as the Chairman indicated, the vision of
    the whole thing was always that it was part of the continuum of educational opportunity



                                                 33
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 16 
 

    offered by the college. It is a college run facility and as Dr. Probstfeld indicated, if they took
    the Simulation Center and put those same numbers up there and took the Science
    department and put those same numbers up there, or took the music department and put
    those same numbers up there, you would really grasp what supplements the college. He
    stated it comes back to the AA degree supplementing the running of the college. He stated,
    while the Chancellor said workforce is a major cog, understand that different state colleges
    and community colleges throughout the state are run differently because they have different
    aspects. He stated SCF is not a technical college. Florida State College in Jacksonville has
    a technical component to it. Our community has MTI to do that locally, Sarasota has SCTI
    to do that so SCF is not in the particular workforce business. He stated you cannot just
    broad based say that the mission of the college is strictly workforce because all 28 state
    colleges have a little bit of a different opportunity. He reiterated again, that when the PECO
    dollars come in, that yes, the college supplements those funds like it does nursing and other
    issues but there will come a point, and he is glad that it is being flushed out, to show how
    this will begin to recuperate some of what has been invested but the biggest investment the
    college has made is in first generation children that were not getting the opportunities in
    Manatee County to get a quality education, including a college degree over the AA and at
    the baccalaureate levels. He stated these kids, as Dr. Probstfeld indicated, could easily be
    dropouts under normal circumstances and taxpayers would be paying more in this society to
    give them the services that they are now not going to need because they are getting a
    college education. Ms. Moran asked how they could have dropouts of kids that are in the
    collegiate school when they have to be smart before they can even get in. Dr. Hafner stated
    that is not true, he stated that is a false statement. Chairman Beruff stated the collegiate
    school is a lottery, he stated the names go in and they get picked, it doesn’t matter what
    their grades are. He stated whoever applies gets in the lottery and it has nothing to do with
    whether their school grades are good. Ms. Moran asked if their grades are poor can they
    still stay in the school. Dr. Probstfeld stated they could absolutely stay. Ms. Saslaw stated
    the entire population can be in the lottery. Chairman Beruff referred to Ms. Monod stating
    that when they get to a certain grade level, if they are not making it, more times than not, the
    student and the parents will recognize that and then leave the system. Again, Chairman
    Beruff stated the collegiate school is open to everyone. Vice Chairman Trigueiro
    commented that it is healthy to have a debate and he thinks these questions are good and
    have been simmering in the community for a couple of years and he has not seen anything
    he has ever read about the board addressing these types of concerns. He commented that
    a statement was made that without this program a student could not graduate high school
    with an AA degree but that is not true. He stated the college had an outstanding, possibly
    future doctor, at commencement that received her AA degree as a dual enrollment student
    before she got her high school degree. He stated there are avenues within the system now
    to do exactly what the collegiate school does. He stated they did not have to invent the
    collegiate school in order for graduating high school students in Manatee or Sarasota
    County to have an AA degree. He stated they did not need to do that. Dr. Hafner stated
    that is very limited. He stated usually a high school student in dual enrollment receives
    about one year of college. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated what he said was that the
    opportunity existed before the collegiate school for graduating high school seniors in
    Manatee County who were motivated and had the talent for them to graduate with an AA
    degree. He stated some may be a little short but they did not need a collegiate school to
    accomplish that mission. Another statement was that it was a part of the educational
    spectrum. He asked if that means that the State College of Florida is going to start a VPK
    Program. He stated certainly educational research will show that the earlier you get the
    children and start getting them focused on learning instead of playing that you can have a
    huge impact which is why VPK is so important in the state of Florida and why it is funded.



                                                  34
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 17 
 

    He stated if they are going to take the analogy that they have the collegiate school as part of
    the educational spectrum why don’t they start a VPK Program. He stated it would probably
    be the hottest program in town. Dr. Hafner stated he would enjoy having that challenge
    because he thinks as an institution they should provide quality of education starting at that
    guidance. He asked them to go back to the last discussion at the workshop where they
    talked about bringing middle schoolers to the college campus in order to give them the going
    to college mentality. He stated that is what they are doing in the collegiate school. He
    stated if the law permitted that, they could start at VPK. He asked to explain the first
    generation issue. Dr. Hafner stated neither parent has a baccalaureate degree. Dr.
    Trigueiro stated that would make him a first generation. He asked if the charter of the
    collegiate school is to be a first generation school. Dr. Hafner stated it emphasizes first
    generation. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated they target specific areas in town to get target
    groups who are often under-represented in higher educational situations or in college prep.
    He stated he sees the collegiate school as college prep. He stated they target them, yet
    when it comes to the source of the funding they do not target the same groups for the
    revenue that is spent. He asked what they do about a normal class family in central
    Bradenton who would really love to have their child come to this school but they never get
    marketed for the opportunity. Dr. Hafner stated they do get marketed and that is part of how
    they get the 70% number. He stated they go into those areas and heavily recruit students to
    join the lottery. He stated it is still the luck of the lottery how they get the 70% first
    generation children. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if they market all over Bradenton. Dr.
    Hafner stated they market all over Manatee County but they emphasize the areas such as
    Samoset and the areas that have first generation families hoping they will get more in the
    pool so more chance and opportunity come to first generation children. He stated he also
    wants to say that every charter school you have an emphasis area and one of the areas of
    emphasis they put on the school was first generation families because they knew that
    college could potentially make a difference in these kid’s lives and that is why they
    structured it with that focus. Dr. Probstfeld stated she would bring back to the board a
    proposal to help the collegiate school break even. Dr. Crocker also wanted to clarify that the
    college has an agreement with Florida Gulf Coast University that they will give any graduate
    of the collegiate school a 4 year full scholarship. He asked if that money should be
    accounted as accounts receivable or does that factor into the budget at all because you are
    looking at the potential of $5 million or more. Chairman Beruff stated unless they are going
    to provide the college a check it would be hard to account that as receivable. Chairman
    Beruff clarified that FGCU is giving the students a 4 year degree so they are getting two at
    SCF and two at FGCU. Dr. Hafner stated it is approximately a $10 million commitment.
    Chairman Beruff understood it was a lot of money but they are still only providing two years
    of education.

    Dr. Probstfeld moved on to the next item. The board had requested, if not next year, but the
    year after would the college be subsidizing the baccalaureate program after the Foundation
    money that was raised winds down. Dr. Probstfeld stated she provided them with an
    analysis that showed the proposed budget for the area is expecting about $165,000.00 to
    the good. Next year, if they do not raise tuition again in 2013-2014, it would be in the
    negative but if they have a tuition increase it could break even again for the subsequent
    year. When 2013-2014 is over, unless the Foundation is raising ongoing funds for existing
    baccalaureate programs she anticipates they will have no more Foundation funds for those
    programs after the 2013-2014 year. Dr. Probstfeld stated that at the 2 year level, tuition
    covers about 52% of the costs and state allocation covers about 38%. Unless the state
    allocation continues to grow as the program grows it is not going to cover its costs. She
    stated neither would the 2 year.



                                                35
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 18 
 


    Dr. Probstfeld also provided the board with the policy of student fees. She clarified that by
    law they can only pass through actual costs. She stated student fees, unlike at the
    university or private institutions, are not a revenue generator. She stated if the college
    generates costs, they can pass it through to the student.

    Lastly, Dr. Probstfeld showed a paragraph on each of reinvestment initiatives that were
    identified with the actual dollars. She stated she would be happy to go through those if the
    board would like.

    Dr. Probstfeld then asked Dr. Bowman to speak regarding the middle and high school
    outreach and then more detail on the degree works software.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if it was possible to get this information in advance so they
    can read all of the information before they get to the board meeting so that they can focus
    on questions instead of the full presentation. Dr. Probstfeld stated she would have loved to
    have done that but to remember that they met last Monday and she literally finished
    gathering this information the night before at 7pm. She stated she would try to get the board
    everything as far in advance as possible. Chairman Beruff again told the board to feel free
    to direct questions to Dr. Probstfeld and at the June meeting they can fine tune the budget
    to the point where the board members are comfortable with the budget based on the
    information that was generated at this meeting. He stated he appreciates all Dr. Probstfeld
    has done and he does not want to hold another budget workshop so he hopes the board will
    digest all this information over the next few days and then reach out to Dr. Probstfeld directly
    and the fine tuning will go to the board in June so they can get it to Tallahassee by July 2.
    Dr. Probstfeld stated June 30 is the deadline.

    Dr. Bowman spoke of Degree Works and the software package. He stated there is a little
    more detail in the handout that Dr. Probstfeld gave the board. He stated they are looking to
    move forward to provide better career pathways for the students through that particular
    software package. He stated the software allows a student to do a “what if” so if they are
    looking to make a change in their major it allows that and it also allows them to do better
    curriculum planning, and forecasting course demand, which means they would not need to
    look at putting more adjunct or full timers in classes which they already know are not going
    to be in demand.

    Dr. Bowman moved on to outreach. A handout was given showing the outreach to high
    schools. He explained that first and foremost they have a very specific program that was
    developed several years ago in collaboration with USF and now the current technical
    education program where they go into the middle schools and they specifically look at
    workforce degrees and how students can start getting prepared. He showed a packet. He
    stated anyone, including several of SCF faculty have gone into the middle schools and work
    with the students to start looking toward their different occupational degrees in the future.
    He stated they also are going more and more to church youth groups because schools are
    not letting them into classrooms for presentations because it is time on cast for the FCAT
    score. He stated they are not invited into the high schools or middle schools as they used to
    be so they have become creative in working around that. He stated outreach is not just high
    schools. The target is the 18-35 year old. He stated they are at all of the Chamber events
    and at all of the networking events and that means they have whole calvery of individuals
    whether it is faculty, staff outside of the admissions arena as well as those that are in the
    career technical education, they all share the responsibility to go out and do outreach. Ms.



                                                 36
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 19 
 

    Moran commented the President of TSA, the Technology Student Association, which is a
    nationwide program. She asked if SCF reaches out to them. She stated it is a STEM
    related student program and starting next year all high schools will have a club. Dr.
    Bowman stated again it is working with the timing that is appropriate when they meet. In
    Manatee County it is the new AVID Program and they need to find out when they can work
    with them. He stated they invite them to the college campuses whenever they can. He
    stated last week they hosted 40 students from the AVID Program from King Middle School.
    He stated with this particular group, they invite them, but they also try to see if there is a way
    to fit into their ongoing program. He stated they look into just about any group they can find
    so that eventually, in terms of marketing, they can harvest that prospect to eventually want
    to be a member of the college community. Chairman Beruff asked if there was a program
    because it is unaffordable to actually get middle school students to the campus so that they
    can experience that. Dr. Bowman stated they do not finance the trips but they welcome that
    and they find that many times it is better for the college to go to them and show them that
    the college has a virtual tour online and then if they can, they are invited to open houses.
    Chairman Beruff asked if the schools are not allowing that because it takes out of the time in
    the classroom. Dr. Bowman stated that is correct. Chairman Beruff asked Dr. Bowman how
    long the presentation takes. Dr. Bowman stated it can be 15 minutes to an hour and a half.
    Chairman Beruff asked that the schools cannot make time for that. Dr. Bowman stated in
    many respects the schools are really pressed and condensed in time frame so they want to
    have the student on task. He stated it is up to the individual schools. He stated King Middle
    School has been excellent in bringing students over but they might not have that opportunity
    from another school. Chairman Beruff asked in Dr. Bowman’s opinion is it important to have
    a relationship and reach out to middle schools consistently every year for the first three or
    four years to get them comfortable with the college experience. Dr. Bowman stated they
    absolutely have to start in the middle schools. He stated he would like to start at the fifth
    grade before they even get into middle school because that is when you are creating
    attitudes. Chairman Beruff asked how to make that happen. He asked it part of it was
    funding for transportation, etc. Dr. Bowman some of that is very critical. He stated part of it
    is that they are not able to get to the campus. He stated they have open houses and they
    provide a lot of different time frames but there are constraints. Chairman Beruff stated the
    part of the problem is that the parents work and are not able to get the student to the open
    houses. Dr. Bowman stated they need to get to the students outside of school time. That is
    why they go to church youth groups and after school programs. Chairman Beruff stated he
    would like to get broader participation. Ms. Moran stated the students should be
    encouraged to watch some of the videos on the website at their after school clubs. Dr.
    Bowman agreed. She asked if those clubs could be notified to show the videos. Dr.
    Bowman stated they have done that and they are looking to improve that. Ms. Moran stated
    she would speak to the President of the TSA Club and ask him to get the word out on the
    videos. Dr. Bowman stated it is all about building relationships. He stated they try to build
    relationships high touch and high tech. He stated SCF lacks a little bit in high tech. He
    stated they are trying to build a website that is specific for students to go and get just what
    they need and the focus is on the student experience. Vice Chairman Trigueiro displayed a
    flyer from Keiser College advertising an Open House on a Saturday with music and prizes,
    etc. He stated that is what SCF is competing against. Dr. Bowman stated he would provide
    the board with the SCF flyer for the June 19-20 Open House. He stated they work
    collaboratively with the schools so that invitation goes out to the specific target market within
    the school system. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if that is on the weekend. Dr. Bowman
    stated it is usually in the evening, one for each campus. He stated June 19-20 is a Tuesday
    and Wednesday. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if they have thought of doing it on a




                                                  37
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 20 
 

    Saturday. Dr. Bowman stated they have thought of that, they have done that and they can
    do that again. Chairman Beruff stated it all has to do with the response rate.

    Dr. Crocker stated another aspect is also the faculty side and Ms. Wedler-Johnson at the
    Venice Campus has done a great job with the STEM-smart conference. He stated from that
    there is a lot of interest in the school system in Sarasota County for SCF to help train the
    Science teachers and that would be at the middle schools as well. He stated it is very
    important that that makes a connection to SCF programs that they see the emerging
    technologies. He stated they now have a concerted effort that SCF Science faculty will start
    helping some of the middle school and high school teachers. Dr. Bowman stated the faculty
    is involved in the “Getting Ready for Life” program and to have a college faculty member
    walk into a class with middle school that is having that exchange can be quite dynamic and
    it gives those students something to look forward to. He stated they have a very specific
    post test asking what are they looking at and then where do they think their life experiences
    will take them now that SCF has opened up some of those opportunities. Ms. Saslaw asked
    if he could distribute a copy of the packet to each board member.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro commented that he had gone to the Smoothie King in the campus
    library café and it reminded him on dungeons and dragons. He stated he is personally
    going to bring up at the next meeting to put some money into updating that café. He also
    noted that the sidewalk as you come in from the West side of the campus is really disgusting
    and needs a severe pressure cleaning and TLC and maybe an acid wash. He stated he is
    going to propose some sort of a budget so it would be helpful if there was a proposal at the
    June meeting for the board to look at regarding those issue. He also stated he is going to
    propose at the next meeting that the college comes up with $35,000.00 as a cash award to
    be divided for outstanding teaching at the college. He envisions three awards at $10,000 for
    lecturer of the year, $10,000 for professor of the year, etc. Ms. Beck stated they cannot do
    that. She stated the statute does state there can be bonuses which they were not able to do
    before, but, there is criteria that needs to be met. One of the criteria is that all employees
    must be eligible for any bonus. Vice Chairman Trigueiro clarified that custodial has to be
    eligible for the same bonus award as a full professor. Ms. Beck stated if it is going to be
    done as a bonus it must be done that way. Vice Chairman Trigueiro then asked if it could
    come from the Foundation. Ms. Beck stated any money outside of public funds would be
    okay. Vice Chairman Trigueiro asked if Ms. Lowery wanted to give $35,000 as a bonus she
    could do that. Ms. Beck stated if the Foundation Board wanted to do that, they could. Vice
    Chairman Trigueiro stated he would love to give everyone a raise but the money is not
    there. Ms. Beck stated some concerns about that type of a program. She stated right now
    the faculty is extremely collaborative. They share and they really work together to help each
    other and mentor each other. She stated when you start putting people on a competitive
    basis we lose a lot of the collaboration. She stated she thinks they can come up with some
    kind of bonus program but she thinks doing it this way will create a whole different
    atmosphere than what the faculty has now. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated that $35,000
    from the Foundation would not go very far as a bonus for instructional personnel. He stated
    it would only be a few hundred dollars each. He stated he personally has no problem, if the
    Foundation came up with the money, giving lecturer of the year $10,000 on a 1099,
    professor of the year $10,000 on a 1099, and outstanding classroom educator of the year
    $15,000 on a 1099. Ms. Beck stated they cannot do 1099s because they are employees.
    Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated they could take the taxes out but asked if they could do that
    if the Foundation would come up with the money. He addressed the faculty and asked Ms.
    True if it would be objectionable to the faculty. Chairman Beruff stated if they are going to
    do the Foundation, that someone should meet with the Foundation to instill a program that



                                                38
Proceedings, May 30, 2012 | 21 
 

    makes some sense to the faculty and the Foundation, the second avenue is that the
    legislature has changed so they can provide bonuses and he would like to investigate
    details on how they would be able to do that. He does think there is a mechanism for
    everyone to share in the accomplishments in the college to the bonus system. He stated
    they just need to identify how that can happen. He stated there are two different topics, one
    is if it is within the budget and secondly is whether or not they can create another program
    with the support of the faculty and the staff that might not create a decisive atmosphere so
    that everybody is pushing to achieve a goal and they are not afraid to share that with their
    colleagues. Chairman Beruff stated that is the Foundation’s determination if the board feels
    it is something they are interested in doing for purposes of rewarding the exceptional talent
    at the college. Ms. True stated that the faculty would very much like to have a conversation
    so that they could have a dialogue on that. She stated they already have awards that honor
    excellence. She stated there is no financial reward associated with it but it is a nomination
    process from within the entire college. Chairman Beruff stated maybe the system is already
    in place and maybe they can tie those awards with a monetary reward. Ms. True stated the
    faculty would rather share the wealth to keep collaboration. Chairman Beruff stated the
    message from the board members is that they appreciate what the faculty does and they
    appreciate taking it to whatever level they can and by increasing financial compensation that
    is also going to help. He asked Ms. Beck to provide the board how the state will allow that
    to work and have a conversation with the staff and faculty. He asked Vice Chairman
    Trigueiro if he would represent the board in that area. He stated he would be happy to do
    that but it would have to be after 5:00 p.m. or on a Friday. Unless another board member
    would like to be involved. Chairman Beruff nominated Dr. Trigueiro to start that process.
    Ms. Saslaw stated there is a Foundation meeting coming up in a couple of weeks and asked
    if they would like that on the Agenda. Chairman Beruff stated Ms. Saslaw could handle that
    as she feels is appropriate because she knows the board. He would like to be able to
    discuss it at the June board meeting. Ms. Lowery stated that typically they would take
    anything before a board meeting to the Executive Committee but Executive Committee will
    not meet again until August. Vice Chairman Trigueiro stated he did not feel there was a
    tight timeframe because he does not envision this happening until the end of the school
    year. Chairman Beruff directed Ms. Lowery to go through her normal process. He asked for
    a motion to start that process.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro motioned and Mr. Bailey seconded and the board unanimously
    approved.

    Chairman Beruff asked if there were any other board comments.

    Vice Chairman Trigueiro moved to adjourn, Ms. Saslaw seconded.




    _____________________________                          _____________________________
    Carlos M. Beruff, Chair                                Lars A. Hafner, Secretary
    Board of Trustees                                      Board of Trustees




                                               39
                                                                                                                         EXHIBIT D
              AMENDED SCHEDULE OF NON CREDIT COURSES, CORPORATE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, SUMMER 2012 (201235)

        Course Number         Course Title                           Start/End Date        Start/End Time   Instructor       Total Fees
35575    MUSZ 70217     BD2   Private Voice/Dickerson           5/17/2012      6/28/2012   1000      1100   Dickerson             $290.00
35579    MUSZ 70203     BD5   Piano/Turon                       5/23/2012       8/8/2012   1600      1700   Turon                 $290.00
35580    MUSZ 70247     BD5   Private Voice/Randolph Locke      5/22/2012       7/3/2012   1300      1400   Locke                 $290.00
35581    BCTZ 70108     LE2   TBL Manufacture Essential(ETAM)   5/22/2012       8/2/2012   1730      2230                         $385.00
35582    MUSZ 70229     BE1   Private Drums/Tom Suta            5/23/2012      7/11/2012   1700      1800   Suta                  $290.00
35592    MUSZ 70222     BD2   Private Voice/Carol Sparrow       5/30/2012      7/18/2012   1400      1430   Sparrow               $145.00
35593    MUSZ 70203     BD6   Piano/Turon                       5/29/2012      6/19/2012   1500      1530   Turon                 $145.00
35600    MUSZ 70217     BD3   Private Voice/Dickerson           6/5/2012       7/17/2012   1330      1400   Dickerson             $145.00
35601    WDSZ QCBU2     L01   QuickClass Series Pkg $147        5/1/2012       8/31/2012                                            $98.00
35603    MUSZ 70217     BD4   Private Voice/Dickerson           6/7/2012       7/19/2012   1400     1430    Dickerson             $145.00
35606    MUSZ 70247     BD6   Private Voice/Randolph Locke      6/13/2012      7/25/2012   1700     1730    Locke                 $145.00
35612    CDAZ 70202     LE1   Redirecting Children Behavior     7/10/2012      8/14/2012   1800     2100                          $195.00




1|Page                                                    Board of Trustees                                      June 26, 2012

                                                                   40
                                                                                                EXHIBIT E
                                              RECOMMENDATION TO
                                            STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA
                                                  MANATEE-SARASOTA
                                          DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Title: Curriculum Revision

Background:

In order to insure that the requirements are current and responsive to student needs, the Curriculum Development and
Review Committee has taken action on requests from various departments to revise selected courses and programs, and
to establish new courses and programs.

Objective:

To approve actions of the Curriculum Development and Review Committee and the recommendations of the President
to manage curriculum changes as necessary.

Legal Authority:

Rule 6HX14-1.07        Responsibility and Authority of the President

Recommendation:

The President recommends that the Board of Trustees approve the recommendations of the Curriculum Development
and Review Committee to establish/revise/delete programs and courses as described. (See Attachment)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Vice President, Academic Quality & Success                                  Date



President                                                                   Date



Chair, District Board of Trustees                                           Date




Board of Trustees Exhibit/CDR                               June 26, 2012                                     Page 1

                                                             41
PROGRAMS: NEW, REVISED, DELETED
Programs: New
  (None)

Programs: Revised
  (None)

Programs: Deleted
  (None)

COURSES: NEW, REVISED, DELETED

Courses: New
  (None)

Courses: Revised
  BSC 2031 Topics in Biology – Bioethics (1) (A.S.) ........................................................................................................... Course Prerequisites
  BSC 2419C Plant and Animal Cell Culture (4) (A.S.) ........................................................................................................ Course Prerequisites
  BSC 2427C Biotechnology Methods II (4) (A.S.) ............................................................................................................. Course Prerequisites
  BSC 2435C Introduction to Bioinformatics (3) (A.S.) ...................................................................................................... Course Prerequisites

Courses: Deleted
  None

State Common Course Numbering System Changes (SCNS) – Information Item
  (None)




Board of Trustees Exhibit/CDR                                                      June 26, 2012                                                                     Page 2

                                                                                          42
                                                        EXHIBIT F




                State College of Florida
                 Manatee - Sarasota
             Human Resources Office Personnel Actions
                 Board Exhibits: June 26, 2012




Appointments
       None


Changes
      None


Separations
       Administrator
       Professional
       Technical/Paraprofessional




                                       43
                                                        Personnel Actions Board Exhibits June 26, 2012




Name                Effective Date           Classification               Classification Title                 Department                          Site

Appointments
None



Changes
None                                 From:
                                     To:



Separations
Bonnie Hesselberg   06/30/12                 Administrator                Provost-Lakewood Ranch               Provost-Lakewood Ranch              Lakewood Ranch
Tim Hill            06/30/12                 Professional                 Administrative Projects Specialist   Student Services-Special Projects   Bradenton
Rebecca Lewis       6/12/2012                Technical/Paraprofessional   Advisor I                            Student Development                 Venice
Gerry Sklenicka     06/30/12                 Professional                 Coordinator, Benefits                Human Resources                     Bradenton




                                                                                      44
                                                                                                                EXHIBIT G


     Board	of	Trustees	Report	June	2012	
     FCAT	Results	for	the	State	College	of	Florida	Collegiate	School	
     	
     FCAT	results	for	SCFCS	indicate	that	our	students	are	progressing	academically	mostly	
     above	the	state	and	county	average.	Students	were	tested	in	reading	and	math	for	all	grades,	
     science	and	writing	for	8th	grade,	and	advanced	7th	and	8th	graders	sat	for	the	Algebra	End	of	
     Course	(EOC)	exam.	Three	8th	graders	sat	for	the	Geometry	EOC,	and	all	passed.	There	is	not	
     a	graph	for	this	subject,	however,	as	there	were	not	enough	students	for	an	accurate	
     comparison.		
     	
     Reading	scores,	all	grades	
                                                   FCAT	Reading
                                           percentage	scoring	3	and	above
                                            6th	grade        7th	grade         8th	grade
                   100
                                    80
                   80                       72
                              67
                                                                    54                 57     58      55
                   60                                    51               49
                   40

                   20

                    0
                                   SCFCS                      Manatee                       Florida
                                                                                                                  	
               	
                                      6th	Grade	Reading	FCAT‐school	comparison
                                      Percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above
80
70
60                                  69                  73
50                                         63                                          66                        67        67
                              57                                                                           59
40                       48                                          47                                               49
30                                                            40                  42
20   33   30                                                                                       31
10                 17                            11                        15                25
 0




                                                                                                                                	




     Revised‐KLM	                                                                                                      1
                                                               45
                                         7th	Grade	Reading FCAT‐school	comparison
                                         Percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above
    100
     80
     60                                                      73                                                                          80
                                    64           66                                               69                           66   62
     40                        51         54                                 54             56
                43                                                 48                                            44   47
     20    36        24                                7                               20                 27
      0




                                                                                                                                              	
	
                                         8th	Grade	Reading	FCAT‐school	comparison
                                         Percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above

    80
    60                                                                                                                                   72
                                    61         59            63                                   59                           61   57
    40                     51            51                        49        51             45                   44
    20    34    33   30                                6                           20                    25           22
    0




                                                                                                                                              	
          	
          MATH	scores,	all	grades	
          	
                                                       FCAT	math
                                              Percentage	scoring	3	and	above


                      100                        6th	grade        7th	grade             8th	grade
                                          82
                          80        74            72
                                                                        53                       53     56      57
                          60                                  47                  51

                          40
                          20
                          0
                                         SCFCS                     Manatee                            Florida
                                                                                                                           	




          Revised‐KLM	                                                                                                               2
                                                                   46
                                6th	Grade	Math	FCAT‐school	comparison
                               Percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above
80
60                                            70                                                         74
40                        62   60    59
                     45                                     50                            52   47
20                                                     39             35   42                       38
      30   29   16                        3                      15             30   17
 0




                                                                                                              	
                                                   	
                                7th	Grade	Math	FCAT‐school	comparison
                               Percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above

100

50                                            73                                                         82
                          68         63                     59
      33   49   28   56         54        4            46        13   48   46   20   39   42   54   50
 0



                                                                                                              	
                                                   	
                                8th	Grade	Math	FCAT‐school	comparison
                               percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above
80
60                                            72                                                         72
                     59   65         63                     60        59
40                             57                                                              53
                                                       45                  49                       49
20    29   35   32                        4                      7              19   33   26
 0




                                                                                                              	
                                                        	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	
      	



      Revised‐KLM	                                                                                   3
                                                       47
     8th	grade	Science	
     	
     	
                                                 FCAT	Science
                                  percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above
                                              SCFCS      Manatee     Florida
                                    57
         60
                                                                                     46
                                                              41
         40


         20


          0
                                                                                                                  	
     	
     	
                                            FCAT	Science‐ school	comparison
                                        percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above


70
60
50                                                  58                                                            57
                                   54    54                                                         53
40                      46   49                                 48             45
30                                                       39                               35             37
20                                                                       32
     21       24
10                 14                          3                     0               15        17
 0




                                                                                                                       	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	
     	




     Revised‐KLM	                                                                                             4
                                                           48
            8th	grade	Writing	scores
                                                       FCAT	Writes
                                        percentage	of	students	scoring	3	and	above
                80                                                               Florida,	78
                                   SCFCS,	74
                75
                                                           Manatee,	69
                70
                65
                60
                55
                50
                45
                40
                                                                                                                  	
            	
            	
                                                  FCAT	Writes	‐ school	comparison
                                               8th	grade	students	scoring	3	and	above
 100
  80                                                                                                                       94
                                                                      86
  60                               75     75    78         79                   78                  78                74        74
                67                                               72                     72
                              63
  40   49               55                                                 53                                52
  20
                                                     25                                        23
  0




                                                                                                                                     	
	
	
Algebra	EOC	
                                                Algebra	End	of	Course	exam
                                                   accelerated	8th	graders
                                               percentage	scoring	3	and	above
                        100              93                     95
                        90                                                             86
                        80
                        70
                        60
                        50
                        40
                                    SCFCS                   Manatee                  Florida
            									                                                                                    	


            Revised‐KLM	                                                                                              5
                                                                49
                                                                           EXHIBIT H


                   OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
                BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

                        Carol F. Probstfeld, Vice President



TO:           State College of Florida, Manatee – Sarasota
              District Board of Trustees

FROM:         Carol F. Probstfeld
              Vice President of Business and Administrative Services

SUBJECT:      Monthly Financial Report – May, 2012




                               Two Year Programs

The report for Two Year Programs presents the Budget and Year-To-Date
Revenue and Expense for this fiscal year and last fiscal year as of May 31, 2012.

Presented is the Original Budget, Adjusted Budget, Year to Date Revenue and
Expense, and the Percent Year-To-Date is of the Adjusted Budget. Noteworthy
is the fact that total student fees assessed through May are greater than those of
last year by 0.46% due to an increase in the tuition rate from $73.00/load hr. to
$78.84/load hr and Non-resident fees. Federal Support reflects a decrease from
last fiscal year to the current fiscal year of $1,734,135.02 due to the ending of
ARRA funds. Overall, Revenues are $2,384,659.71 less than those reported last
May.

In the category of Expenses, overall Personnel Costs are down 2.42%. Other
Personnel Expense is down 8.31% and the Fringe Benefits are down 17.36%.
These changes are due to many factors such as timing differences in pay dates.

Even though the year is 91.67% complete, personnel costs are at 79.89% of the
amount budgeted for the current year. Current Expenses represent 75.48% of
the amount budgeted and Capital Outlay expended is 60.92% of the amount
budgeted. Due to timing differences on receipt and payment of vendor invoices,
it is very difficult to compare a specific point in time in different fiscal years.




06/26/12
                                         50
In summary, with the year 91.67% complete:
   •   Year–To-Date Actual Revenue is 92.61% of the Adjusted Budget.
   •   Year-To-Date Actual Expense is 78.51% of the Adjusted Budget.
   •    Therefore, Revenues exceed the 91.67% and Expenses are less than the
       91.67% that would be expected as a benchmark.




                          Baccalaureate Programs

Total Revenue is $436,756.39 with Student Fees totaling $387,190.22 and Other
Student Fees totaling $49,566.17. Expenses total $618,240.35, with Personnel
totaling $536,159.56 and Current Expense totaling $80,947.85. Total Revenue is
46.23% of that budgeted and Total Expense is 62.71% of that budgeted.

             Collegiate School (Reported under separate cover)




06/26/12
                                      51
                                                                                                        State College of Florida
                                                                               Two Year Revenue and Expense Comparison Report
                                                                                                 As of May
                                                                                             Two Year Programs
                                                                                                  May           , FY 2012                                               May      , FY 2011
                                                                                                                                     Percent                                                             Percent
                                                                                                                                  YTD Actual /                                                        YTD Actual /
Acct. Type Description                                                 Orig Budget              Adj Budget             YTD Actual Adj Budget         Orig Budget      Adj Budget      YTD Actual      Adj Budget
                  Revenue
      41          Student Fees                                           20,625,601.00          20,625,601.00          20,212,544.23       98.00%     22,815,708.00   22,828,518.00   20,120,728.64       88.14%
      42          Other Student Fees                                      3,269,457.00            3,284,542.00           3,166,318.02      96.40%      3,241,094.00    3,246,584.00    2,832,476.95       87.24%
      43          Support From Local Government                                       0.00                   0.00                   0.00                       0.00            0.00            0.00
      44          State Support                                          21,487,541.00          21,487,541.00          18,661,845.54       86.85%     21,624,467.00   21,624,467.00   19,471,884.38       90.05%
      45          Federal Support                                             43,500.00               43,500.00              72,889.20     167.56%     1,813,246.00    1,813,246.00    1,807,024.22       99.66%
      46          Gifts, Private Grants & Contracts                                   0.00                   0.00                   0.00                       0.00            0.00          500.00
      47          Sales and Services Department                              549,578.00             549,578.00             519,802.85      94.58%       611,838.00      611,838.00      791,078.00       129.30%
      49          Other Revenue                                              111,800.00             111,800.00             124,059.78      110.97%      113,494.00      113,494.00      118,459.67       104.38%
      4A          Non-Revenue Receipts                                        67,448.00               67,448.00               1,401.61      2.08%        67,448.00       67,898.00         1,369.08        2.02%

                                        Total : Re ve nue                46,154,925.00          46,170,010.00          42,758,861.23       92.61%     50,287,295.00   50,306,045.00   45,143,520.94       89.74%

                               Grand Total : Re ve nue                   46,154,925.00          46,170,010.00          42,758,861.23       92.61%     50,287,295.00   50,306,045.00   45,143,520.94       89.74%
                  Expense
                  Personnel
      51          Salaries-Full Time & Perm Part Time                    21,722,992.00          21,684,904.00          18,522,369.92       85.42%     21,357,034.00   21,229,263.00   17,839,756.09       84.03%
      52          Other Personnel Exp P/T (Non-Perm)                      5,205,093.00            5,151,153.00           4,224,830.90      82.02%      5,230,561.00    5,212,041.00    4,607,818.10       88.41%
      53          Personnel Benefits                                      7,577,238.00            7,468,360.00           4,658,355.06      62.37%      8,414,064.00    8,453,542.00    5,636,660.45       66.68%

                                      Total : Pe rs onne l               34,505,323.00          34,304,417.00          27,405,555.88       79.89%     35,001,659.00   34,894,846.00   28,084,234.64       80.48%
                  Current Expense
      61          Services                                                8,436,130.00            8,806,571.00           6,363,700.59      72.26%      9,563,753.00   10,283,327.00    7,120,491.09       69.24%
      62          Materials and Supplies                                  2,174,341.00            2,805,162.00           2,241,910.72      79.92%      2,927,325.00    4,004,997.00    2,681,755.18       66.96%
      63          Other Current Charges                                      392,060.00             387,250.00             616,798.74      159.28%      519,015.00     3,106,890.00    3,317,815.65      106.79%
      69          Transfers                                                  218,700.00             218,700.00                      0.00    0.00%       317,145.00      846,854.00      529,708.83        62.55%

                            Total : Curre nt Expe ns e                   11,221,231.00          12,217,683.00            9,222,410.05      75.48%     13,327,238.00   18,242,068.00   13,649,770.75       74.83%
                  Capital
      71          Capital Outlay                                             250,029.00             581,943.00             354,531.34      60.92%      1,958,398.00    2,620,299.00    1,065,155.19       40.65%

                                           Total : Capital                   250,029.00             581,943.00             354,531.34      60.92%      1,958,398.00    2,620,299.00    1,065,155.19       40.65%

                               Grand Total : Expe ns e                   45,976,583.00          47,104,043.00          36,982,497.27       78.51%     50,287,295.00   55,757,213.00   42,799,160.58       76.76%


Report created: 6/4/2012 3:52:29 PM                                                                                                52                                                                    Page 1 of 1
SCF.Production Reports.Finance.Board Reports.Two Year Revenue and Expense Comparison.Two Year Revenue and Expense Comparison - Report
                                                                                                        State College of Florida
                                                                               Two Year Revenue and Expense Comparison Report
                                                                                                 As of May
                                                                                            Upper Level Programs
                                                                                                  May           , FY 2012                                             May      , FY 2011
                                                                                                                                     Percent                                                          Percent
                                                                                                                                  YTD Actual /                                                     YTD Actual /
Acct. Type Description                                                 Orig Budget              Adj Budget             YTD Actual Adj Budget         Orig Budget     Adj Budget     YTD Actual     Adj Budget
                  Revenue
      41          Student Fees                                               364,541.00             364,541.00             387,190.22      106.21%      248,891.00     248,891.00     173,211.60       69.59%
      42          Other Student Fees                                          48,993.00               48,993.00              49,566.17     101.17%       21,254.00      21,254.00      26,799.00      126.09%
      44          State Support                                              178,342.00             178,342.00                      0.00    0.00%       181,242.00     181,242.00     166,184.00       91.69%
      45          Federal Support                                                     0.00                   0.00                   0.00                      9.00           9.00           0.00        0.00%
      46          Gifts, Private Grants & Contracts                                   0.00                   0.00                   0.00                      0.00           0.00           0.00
      4A          Non-Revenue Receipts                                       352,931.00             352,931.00                      0.00    0.00%        22,029.00      22,029.00           0.00        0.00%

                                        Total : Re ve nue                    944,807.00             944,807.00             436,756.39      46.23%       473,425.00     473,425.00     366,194.60       77.35%

                               Grand Total : Re ve nue                       944,807.00             944,807.00             436,756.39      46.23%       473,425.00     473,425.00     366,194.60       77.35%
                  Expense
                  Personnel
      51          Salaries-Full Time & Perm Part Time                        434,020.00             465,049.00             376,080.07      80.87%       223,058.00     223,058.00     251,655.48      112.82%
      52          Other Personnel Exp P/T (Non-Perm)                         144,612.00             144,612.00               86,289.96     59.67%        37,000.00      37,000.00      10,700.25       28.92%
      53          Personnel Benefits                                         139,425.00             144,718.00               73,789.53     50.99%        67,631.00      67,631.00      58,432.84       86.40%

                                      Total : Pe rs onne l                   718,057.00             754,379.00             536,159.56      71.07%       327,689.00     327,689.00     320,788.57       97.89%
                  Current Expense
      61          Services                                                   167,250.00             171,237.00               47,356.58     27.66%       123,736.00      99,325.00      10,528.12       10.60%
      62          Materials and Supplies                                      52,800.00               59,190.00              33,591.27     56.75%        12,000.00      36,411.00      27,557.90       75.69%
      63          Other Current Charges                                         6,700.00                     0.00                   0.00                      0.00           0.00           0.00

                            Total : Curre nt Expe ns e                       226,750.00             230,427.00               80,947.85     35.13%       135,736.00     135,736.00      38,086.02       28.06%
                  Capital
      71          Capital Outlay                                                      0.00             1,140.00               1,132.94     99.38%        10,000.00      35,440.00      25,440.00       71.78%

                                           Total : Capital                            0.00             1,140.00               1,132.94     99.38%        10,000.00      35,440.00      25,440.00       71.78%

                               Grand Total : Expe ns e                       944,807.00             985,946.00             618,240.35      62.71%       473,425.00     498,865.00     384,314.59       77.04%




Report created: 6/4/2012 3:53:33 PM                                                                                                53                                                                 Page 1 of 1
SCF.Production Reports.Finance.Board Reports.Two Year Revenue and Expense Comparison.Two Year Revenue and Expense Comparison - Report
                                                                                                                                                              EXHIBIT I




                                                                   BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST
                                                          STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE - SARASOTA

RESOLUTION NUMBER: Forty-Three (43)                                                                                                  FISCAL YEAR: 2011-2012
AMENDMENT NUMBER: Forty-Three (43)                                                                                                   May 2012




FUND NAME: CURRENT UNRESTRICTED                                                                                                                              FUND NUMBER: 11000


                                                                              PRESENT                                                                                      REVISED
          CATEGORY                                                            BUDGET                         INCREASE                   DECREASE                            BUDGET
--------- -----------------------------------------------------   -   --------------------------- ----- --------------------- ----- --------------------- ------- ------------------------------
Beginning Fund Balance                                            $               6,112,375           $                           $                          $                   6,112,375


REVENUES                                                                       46,154,925                         15,085                                                           46,170,010
   (Detail Attached)

                                                                      ---------------------------       ---------------------        ---------------------            ------------------------------
TOTAL TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR                                         $             52,267,300          $              15,085        $                      0     $                    52,282,385
                                                                      ===============                   ============                 ============                     =================


SALARIES                                                          $            34,397,363           $                            $             92,946             $                34,304,417
   (Detail Attached)


CURRENT EXPENSES                                                               12,098,006                       119,677                                                            12,217,683
   (Detail Attached)


CAPITAL OUTLAY                                                                      593,589                                                    11,646                                  581,943
  (Detail Attached)


ENDING FUND BALANCE                                                               5,178,342                                                                                          5,178,342
                                                                      ---------------------------       ---------------------        ---------------------            ------------------------------

TOTAL ACCOUNTED FOR                                               $         52,267,300              $        119,677             $        104,592                 $           52,282,385
                                                                      ===============                   ============                 ============                     =================




JUSTIFICATION:
        To realign budget to meet departmental needs.
        Revenue: Due to Engineering, Technology, and Math (ETAM) courses.




Certified ____________________________________________________________      Adopted: June 26, 2012
                               Lars A. President
                  Stephen J. Korcheck, Hafner, President
===== ============================== = =============== === ============ === ============ ==== =================




                                                                                               54
                                                                      BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST
                                                             STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE - SARASOTA

RESOLUTION NUMBER: Forty-Four (44)                                                                                                        FISCAL YEAR: 2011-2012
AMENDMENT NUMBER: Forty-Four (44)                                                                                                         May 2012




FUND NAME: GENERAL RESTRICTED                                                                                                                                     FUND NUMBER: TWO


                                                                                PRESENT                                                                                              REVISED
          CATEGORY                                                              BUDGET                          INCREASE                      DECREASE                                BUDGET
--------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------- --------------------------- ------ --------------------- -------- --------------------- ------------- --------------------------
Beginning Fund Balance                                               $                157,997           $                            $                               $                      157,997


REVENUES                                                                            7,181,705                       146,225                                                              7,327,930
   (Detail Attached)

                                                                         ---------------------------        ---------------------         ---------------------               --------------------------
TOTAL TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR                                            $               7,339,702          $            146,225        $                        0       $                   7,485,927
                                                                         ===============                    ============                  ============                        ===============


SALARIES                                                             $              3,519,390           $             90,795        $                                $                   3,610,185
   (Detail Attached)


CURRENT EXPENSES                                                                    3,326,193                         62,188                                                             3,388,381
   (Detail Attached)


CAPITAL OUTLAY                                                                         494,119                                                        6,758                                487,361
  (Detail Attached)


ENDING FUND BALANCE                                                                              0                                                                                                   0
                                                                         ---------------------------        ---------------------         ---------------------               --------------------------

TOTAL ACCOUNTED FOR                                                  $          7,339,702               $        152,983            $            6,758               $              7,485,927
                                                                         ===============                    ============                  ============                        ===============




Justification:
         To realign budget to meet departmental needs.
         Revenue: Due to SBDC grant in the amount of $68,525, second year of NSF grant in the $70,688, and Perkins increase of $7,012.




Certified ____________________________________________________________          Adopted: June 26, 2012
                               Lars A. President
                  Stephen J. Korcheck, Hafner, President
===== ============================== ==== =============== === ============ ==== ============ ======= ===============




                                                                                                   55
                                                          BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST
                                                       STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE - SARASOTA

RESOLUTION NUMBER: Forty-Five (45)                                                                                                     FISCAL YEAR: 2011-2012
AMENDMENT NUMBER: Forty-Five (45)                                                                                                      May 2012




FUND NAME: UNEXPENDED PLANT FUND                                                                                                       FUND NUMBER: Seven


                                                                       PRESENT                                                                                    REVISED
          CATEGORY                                                     BUDGET                            INCREASE                    DECREASE                     BUDGET
--------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------ --------------------------- ----- --------------------- ----- --------------------- ------ ---------------------------
Beginning Fund Balance                                               $             4,244,447           $                           $                            $             4,244,447


REVENUES                                                                            5,499,362                        67,725                                                    5,567,087
   (Detail Attached)

                                                                         ---------------------------       ---------------------       ---------------------        ---------------------------
TOTAL TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR                                            $               9,743,809         $              67,725       $                      0     $               9,811,534
                                                                         ===============                   ============                ============                 ===============


SALARIES                                                             $                 275,294         $                           $                            $                 275,294
   (Detail Attached)


CURRENT EXPENSES                                                                       491,289                       29,986                                                       521,275
   (Detail Attached)


CAPITAL OUTLAY                                                                      8,977,226                        37,739                                                    9,014,965
  (Detail Attached)


ENDING FUND BALANCE                                                                              0                                                                                          0
                                                                         ---------------------------       ---------------------       ---------------------        ---------------------------

TOTAL ACCOUNTED FOR                                                  $          9,743,809              $         67,725            $              0             $          9,811,534
                                                                         ===============                   ============                ============                 ===============

JUSTIFICATION:
        To realign budgets to meet departmental needs.
        Revenue:
          Bldg. 1 Roof Repair                                                           41,380
          Bldg. 1 Cashiering Office Remodel                                             25,000
          Bldg. 15 Roof Repair                                                           6,309
          Bldg. 27 & 29 Roof Repair                                                     20,869
          Undesignated CO&DS                                                             5,497
          Bldg. 900 Roof Repair                                                        (31,330)
                                                                                        67,725



Certified ____________________________________________________________       Adopted: June 26, 2012
                               Lars A. President
                  Stephen J. Korcheck, Hafner, President
===== ============================== === =============== == ============ === ============ === ===============




                                                                                                56
                                                          BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST
                                                       STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE - SARASOTA

RESOLUTION NUMBER: Forty-Six (46)                                                                                                      FISCAL YEAR: 2011-2012
AMENDMENT NUMBER: Forty-Six (46)                                                                                                       May 2012




FUND NAME: Collegiate School                                                                                                           FUND NUMBER: 23000


                                                                       PRESENT                                                                                    REVISED
          CATEGORY                                                     BUDGET                            INCREASE                    DECREASE                     BUDGET
--------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------ --------------------------- ----- --------------------- ----- --------------------- ------ ---------------------------
Beginning Fund Balance                                               $                         0       $                    0      $                            $                         0


REVENUES                                                                            1,563,178                                                                                  1,563,178
   (Detail Attached)

                                                                         ---------------------------       ---------------------       ---------------------        ---------------------------
TOTAL TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR                                            $               1,563,178         $                      0    $                      0     $               1,563,178
                                                                         ===============                   ============                ============                 ===============


SALARIES                                                             $              1,149,252          $                           $                            $              1,149,252
   (Detail Attached)


CURRENT EXPENSES                                                                       410,101                               5                                                    410,106
   (Detail Attached)


CAPITAL OUTLAY                                                                            3,825                                                          5                           3,820
  (Detail Attached)


ENDING FUND BALANCE                                                                              0                                                                                          0
                                                                         ---------------------------       ---------------------       ---------------------        ---------------------------

TOTAL ACCOUNTED FOR                                                  $          1,563,178              $              5            $              5             $          1,563,178
                                                                         ===============                   ============                ============                 ===============



JUSTIFICATION:

          To realign budgets to meet departmental needs.




Certified ____________________________________________________________       Adopted: June 26, 2012
                               Lars A. President
                  Stephen J. Korcheck, Hafner, President
===== ============================== === =============== == ============ === ============ === ===============




                                                                                                57
                                                                         EXHIBIT J

                       STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
   A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
                                STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
                                    As of May 31, 2012




                                                                          As of
                                                                       May 31, 2012

ASSETS

     Current Assets
          Cash                                                    $        27,858.83
          Accounts Receivable                                              83,901.74
                Total Current Assets                                      111,760.57

     Depreciable Capital Assets, Net of Acumulated Depreciation
          of $18,184.70                                                   169,903.51


                  Total Assets                                    $       281,664.08

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS

     Current Liabilities
          Accounts Payable                                        $            15.18
          Deferred Wages                                                   48,226.75
          Accrued Compensated Absences                                        675.88
                 Total Current Liabilities                                 48,917.81

     Non-Current Liabilities
          Accrued Compensated Absences                                     16,221.09

                  Total Liabilities                                        65,138.90


     Net Assets

          Invested in Capital Assets, net of related debt                 169,903.51
          Unrestricted                                                     46,621.67

                  Total Net Assets                                        216,525.18

                  Total Liabilities and Net Assets                $       281,664.08




                                                     58 1
                             STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
        A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
                     STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
                        For the One Month and Eleven Months Ended May 31, 2012


                                                                  For the Month Ended        Year To Date
                                                                      May 31, 2012           May 31, 2012

REVENUES
   Operating Revenues                                         $                   -      $                  -
          Total Operating Revenues                                                -                         -

EXPENSES
   Operating Expenses
      Salaries                                                              74,424.85             703,696.86
      Benefits                                                              15,649.93             156,799.45
      Contractual Services                                                     873.74              45,541.92
      Other Services and Expenses                                            7,276.77             163,437.56
      Materials and Supplies                                                86,174.97             314,584.55
          Total Operating Expenses                                         184,400.26           1,384,060.34

          Operating Loss                                                  (184,400.26)          (1,384,060.34)



   Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
      State Appropriations From County School District                      90,786.35             942,226.71
      Subsidy from SCF Auxiliary                                            14,000.00             251,000.00
      Federal Grant                                                         87,282.91             183,519.95
      Private Gifts and Grants                                                    -                   250.00
      Other Nonoperating Revenues                                            1,941.60              18,530.70
          Total Nonoperating Revenues                                      194,010.86           1,395,527.36


   Income (Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains or
   Losses                                                                    9,610.60              11,467.02

       Capital Appropriations                                               20,415.23              36,487.65
       Total Other Revenues                                                 20,415.23              36,487.65

   Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets                                        30,025.83              47,954.67


       Net Assets at Beginning of Month/Year                               186,499.35             168,570.51

       Net Assets at End of Month/Year                        $            216,525.18    $        216,525.18



                                                         59
                                                         2
                       STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
   A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
                                 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
                          For the Eleven Months Ended May 31, 2012


CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
     Payments to Suppliers for Goods and Services                      $     (523,984.41)
     Payments to Employees                                                   (695,321.89)
     Payments for Benefits                                                   (156,799.45)
         Net Cash Used By Operating Activities                             (1,376,105.75)

CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES
     State Appropriations Through County                                     942,226.71
     Subsidy from SCF Auxiliary                                              266,000.00
     Federal Grant                                                            99,618.21
     Private Gifts and Grants                                                    250.00
     Other Nonoperating receipts                                              18,530.70
           Net Cash Provided By Noncapital Financing Activities            1,326,625.62

CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES
     Capital Appropriations                                                   36,487.65
     Purchase of Capital Assets                                               (6,244.05)
           Net Cash Used By Capital and Related Financing Activities          30,243.60

     Net (Decrease) Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents                     (19,236.53)

     Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year                           47,095.36

     Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Month                         $      27,858.83



RECONCILIATION OF NET OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
     TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES
           Operating (Loss) Income                                     $   (1,384,060.34)
           Adjustments To Reconcile Net Operating Loss To Net Cash
            Provided (Used) By Operating Activities
                (Decrease) Increase in Accounts Payable                          (420.38)
                (Decrease) Increase in Accrued Payroll Expenses                 8,374.97
Net Cash Used By Operations                                            $   (1,376,105.75)




                                                  60 3
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

NOTE A – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Reporting Entity: The State College of Florida Collegiate School (the “Charter School”) is a restricted fund of State
College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (the “College”). The general operating authority of the Charter School is
contained in Section 1002.33, Florida Statutes. The Charter School operates under a charter with the sponsoring
school district, The School Board of Manatee County, Florida (Sponsor). The initial charter is effective until June 30,
2015, and may be renewed pursuant to Section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, for such duration as may be established
by mutual written consent of the parties and by successful completion of the renewal process. At the end of the
term of the charter, the Sponsor may choose not to renew the charter, in which case, the Sponsor is required to
notify the Charter School in writing at least 90 days prior to the charter’s expiration. During the term of the
charter, the Sponsor may also terminate the charter if good cause is shown. The Charter School shall notify the
Sponsor in writing at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the charter as to its intent to renew or not renew.

Basis of Presentation: The records of the Charter School are maintained as a restricted fund on the books of the
College and accordingly, they follow the same basis of presentation. The Charter School’s accounting policies
conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America applicable to colleges and
universities as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The National Association of
College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) also provides the College with recommendations prescribed in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by GASB and the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB), such as GASB Statement No. 35, Basic Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion
and Analysis for Public Colleges and Universities. GASB Statement No. 35 includes public colleges and universities
within the financial reporting guidelines of GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Management
Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments. GASB Statement No. 35 allows public colleges and
universities the option of reporting as a special-purpose government either engaged in only business-type
activities, or engaged in both governmental and business-type activities. The College elected to report as an entity
engaged in only business-type activities. Therefore, these special-purpose financial statements are presented
accordingly.

Basis of Accounting: Basis of accounting refers to when revenues, expenses and related assets and liabilities are
recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Specifically, it relates to the timing of the
measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The Charter School’s financial statements are
presented using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting. Revenue, expenses,
gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from exchange and exchange-like transactions are recognized when
the exchange takes place. Revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from non-exchange
activities are generally recognized when all applicable eligibility requirements, including time requirements, are
met. The Charter School’s principal activity is instruction. Operating revenues and expenses include all fiscal
transactions related to instruction as well as administration, academic support, student services, physical plant
operations, and depreciation of capital assets. Non-operating revenues include state appropriations from the
county school district, subsidies from the College, federal grants, Charter School Capital Outlay Funds (when
available), and other grants. The Charter School follows GASB pronouncements and FASB pronouncements issued
on or before November 30, 1989, unless the FASB pronouncements conflict with GASB pronouncements. Under
GASB Statement No. 20, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Proprietary Funds and Other Governmental

                                                           4

                                                          61
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

Entities That Use Proprietary Fund Accounting, the College has the option to elect to apply all pronouncements of
FASB issued after November 30, 1989, unless those pronouncements conflict with GASB pronouncements. The
College has elected not to apply FASB pronouncements issued after November 30, 1989.

Cash and Cash Equivalent: Amounts reported as cash and cash equivalents consist of cash on hand and cash in
demand deposit accounts. Cash deposits of the Charter School are held by banks qualified as public depositories
under Florida law. All such deposits are insured by Federal depository insurance, up to specified limits, or
collateralized with securities held in Florida’s multiple financial institution collateral pool required by Chapter 280,
Florida Statutes. For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Charter School considers all unrestricted and
restricted highly liquid investments, such as money market accounts, to be cash equivalents.

Capital Assets: The Charter School uses the policies of the College for capitalization and depreciation. The Charter
School has a capitalization threshold of $5,000 for tangible personal property and $25,000 for improvements other
than buildings. All capital assets are depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives. A
useful life of 5 years is being used for equipment.

Net Assets: When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available to fund certain programs or expenses, it
is the Charter School’s policy to first apply restricted resources to such programs or expenses followed by the use
of the unrestricted resources.

Revenue Sources: Revenue for current operations is received primarily from The School Board of Manatee County,
Florida pursuant to the funding provisions included in the Charter. In accordance with the funding provisions of the
Charter and Section 1002.33(18) (b), Florida Statutes, the Charter School reports its student enrollment to the
Sponsor. State appropriations and grant funding are classified as non-operating revenue.

Estimates: The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain
reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.




                                                           5

                                                           62
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

NOTE B – CAPITAL ASSETS

Capital asset activity for the eleven months ended May 31, 2012, was as follows:


                                                Beginning                                              Ending
                                                 Balance              Additions      Deletions         Balance
Capital assets, being depreciated
     Equipment                                $ 181,844.16        $     6,244.05      $     -        $ 188,088.21
Total capital assets being depreciated          181,844.16              6,244.05            -          188,088.21

Less accumulated depreciation for
     Equipment                                   18,184.70                   -              -           18,184.70
Total accumulated depreciation                   18,184.70                   -              -           18,184.70

Capital assets, net                           $ 163,659.46        $     6,244.05      $     -        $ 169,903.51




Depreciation is booked at the end of the fiscal year, depreciation expense for the year ended June 30, 2011, was
$18,184.70.

NOTE C – COMPENSATED ABSENCES

Charter School employees may accrue vacation and sick leave based on length of service, subject to certain
limitations regarding the amount that will be paid upon termination. The Charter School reports a liability for the
accrued leave; however, State appropriations fund only the portion of accrued leave that is used or paid in the
current fiscal year. Although the Charter School expects the liability to be funded primarily from future
appropriations, generally accepted accounting principles do not permit the recording of a receivable in anticipation
of future appropriations. Compensated absences are booked at the end of the fiscal year. At June 30, 2011, the
estimated liability for compensated absences, which includes the Charter School’s share of the Florida Retirement
System and FICA contributions, totaled $16,896.97. Of this amount, $675.88 is estimated to be paid in fiscal year
2012.

For fiscal year 2011, all accrued vacation and sick leave for certain employees who were employed by the College
prior to the Charter School, was transferred to the Charter School. Therefore, the increase in the liability (expense)
in the amount of $16,896.97 for fiscal year 2011 reflects both the current and prior years accrued compensated
absences assumed by the Charter School.

NOTE D – STATE RETIREMENT PROGRAMS

Florida Retirement System

Most employees working in regularly established positions of the College, including the Charter School, are eligible
to enroll as members of the state-administered Florida Retirement System (FRS). Provisions are established by
Chapters 121 and 122, Florida Statutes; Chapter 112, part IV, Florida Statutes; Chapter 238, Florida Statutes; and
Florida Retirement Systems Rules, Chapter 60S, Florida Administrative Code; wherein eligibility, contributions, and
                                                          6

                                                          63
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

benefits are defined and described in detail. FRS is a single retirement system administered by the Department of
Management Services, Division of Retirement, and consists of two cost-sharing multiple-employer retirement
plans and other nonintegrated programs. These include a defined benefit pension plan (Plan), a Deferred
Retirement Option Program (DROP), and a defined contribution plan, referred to as the Public Employee Optional
Retirement Program (PEORP).

Employees in the Plan vest at eight years of service. All vested members are eligible for normal retirement benefits
at age 62 or at any age after 30 years of service, which may include up to 4 years of credit for military service. The
Plan also includes an early retirement provision; however, there is a benefit reduction for each year a member
retires before his or her normal retirement date. The Plan provides retirement, disability and death benefits, and
annual cost-of living adjustments.

DROP, subject to provisions of Section 121.091, Florida Statutes, permits employees eligible for normal retirement
under the Plan to defer receipt of monthly benefit payments while continuing employment with an FRS employer.
An employee may participate in DROP for a period not to exceed 60 months after electing to participate. During
the period of DROP participation, deferred monthly benefits are held in the FRS Trust Fund and accrue interest.

As provided in Section 121.4501, Florida Statutes, eligible FRS members may elect to participate in the PEORP in
lieu of the FRS defined benefit plan. Employees already participating in the State College System Optional
Retirement Program or the DROP are not eligible to participate in this program. Employer contributions are
defined by law, but the ultimate benefit depends in part on the performance of investment funds. The PEORP is
funded by employer contributions that are based on salary and membership class. Contributions are directed to
individual member accounts, and the individual members are allocated contributions and account balances among
various approved investment choices. Employees in PEORP vest at one year of service. There were no Charter
School employees participating in the PEORP for the eleven months ended May 31, 2012

The State of Florida establishes contribution rates for participating employers. Contribution rates effective July 1,
2011, are presented in the following table:



         Class or Plan                                                            Percent of Gross Salary
                                                                                 Employee        Employer
                                                                                                    (A)

         Florida Retirement System, Regular                                          3.00             4.91
         Florida Retirement System, Senior Management Service                        3.00             6.27
         Deferred Retirement Option Program - Applicable to
          Members from All of the Above Classes or Plan                              0.00             4.42
         Florida Retirement System, Reemployed Retiree                                      (B)              (B)

         Notes: (A) Employer rates include 1.11 percent for the postemployment health insurance
                    subsidy. Also, employer rates, other than for DROP participants, include .03
                    percent for administrative costs of the Public Employee Optional Retirement
                    Program.
                (B) Contribution rates are dependent upon retirement class or plan in which
                    reemployed.


                                                          7

                                                          64
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

The Charter School’s liability for participation in the Plan is limited to the payment of the required contributions at
the rates and frequencies established by law on future payrolls of the Charter School. The Charter School’s
contributions to the Plan for the eleven months ended May 31, 2012, were $31,523.12.

Financial statements and other supplementary information of the FRS are included in the state’s Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, which may be obtained by contacting the State of Florida, Department of Financial
Services in Tallahassee, Florida. Also, an annual report on the FRS, which includes its financial statements, required
supplementary information, actuarial report, and other relevant information, may be obtained from the State of
Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida.

State College System Optional Retirement Program

Section 1012.875, Florida Statutes, provides for an Optional Retirement Program (Program) for eligible instructors
and administrators of the College, including the Charter School. The Program is designed to aid colleges in
recruiting employees by offering more portability to employees not expected to remain in the FRS for six or more
years.

The Program is a defined contribution plan, which provides full and immediate vesting of all contributions
submitted to the participating companies on behalf of the participant. Employees in eligible positions can make an
irrevocable election to participate in the Program, rather than the FRS, and purchase retirement and death
benefits through contracts provided by certain insurance carriers. The College contributes, on behalf of the
participant, 10.43 percent of the participant’s salary, less a small amount used to cover administrative costs. The
remaining contribution is invested in the company or companies selected by the participant to create a fund for
the purchase of annuities at retirement. The participant may contribute, by payroll deduction, an amount not to
exceed the percentage contributed by the college to the participant’s annuity account. The Charter School made
no contributions to the Plan for the eleven months ended May 31, 2012.

NOTE E – OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

The College, including the Charter School, follows Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45,
Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post-employment Benefits Other Than Pensions, for certain
other post-employment healthcare and life insurance benefits provided by the Florida College System Risk
Management Consortium (Consortium).

Plan Description: The Charter School contributes to an agent multiple-employer defined-benefit plan administered
by the Consortium. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 112.0801, Florida Statutes, former employees who retire
from the Charter School are eligible to participate in the College’s healthcare and life insurance benefits. The
Charter School subsidizes the premium rates paid by retirees by allowing them to participate in the plan at reduced
or blended group (implicitly subsidized) premium rates for both active and retired employees. These rates provide
an implicit subsidy for retirees because, on an actuarial basis, their current and future claims are expected to result
in higher costs to the plans on average than those of active employees. The Charter School does not offer any
explicit subsidies for retiree coverage. Retirees are required to enroll in the Federal Medicare program for their
primary health coverage as soon as they are eligible. Neither the Charter School nor the Consortium issue a stand-
alone annual report for the plan and the plan is not included in the annual report of a public employees’
retirement system or another entity.

Funding Policy: Plan benefits are pursuant to the provisions of Section 112.0801, Florida Statutes. The Board of
Trustees for the College can amend the benefits and contribution rates. The Charter School has not advance-
                                                           8

                                                          65
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

funded or established a funding methodology for the annual other post-employment benefit (OPEB) costs or the
net OPEB obligation, and the plans are financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. For the 2010-11 fiscal year, there were
no retirees of the Charter School receiving post-employment healthcare or life insurance benefits.

Annual OPEB Cost and Net OPEB Obligation: Annual OPEB cost (expense) is calculated based on the annual
required contribution (ARC), an amount actuarially determined in accordance with the parameters of
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that if paid on
an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities over a
period not to exceed 30 years. For fiscal year 2010-11, the annual OPEB cost and net OPEB obligation for the
Charter School was determined by management to be insignificant due to the short period of time employees had
been working for the Charter School accruing this benefit, in addition to the Charter School having no retired
employees. Thus, no amounts have been reported by the Charter School as a liability.

NOTE F – FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES

Operating expenses on the statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets are presented in the
natural classifications. Presented below are those same expenses shown in functional classification as
recommended by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). The functional
classification is assigned to a department based on the nature of the activity, which represents the material
portion of the activity attributable to the department.

Functional classification of expenses for the eleven months ended May 31, 2012, are summarized in the following
table:



                   Functional Classification                    Amount

                   Instruction                           $ 872,223.67
                   Academic support                         48,051.85
                   Institutional support                   463,784.82

                   Total operating expenses              $ 1,384,060.34

NOTE G – Risk Management Programs

The College is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors
and omissions, injuries to employees, and natural disasters. The College provided coverage for these risks
primarily through the Florida College System Risk Management Consortium (Consortium), which was created
under authority of Section 1001.64(27), Florida Statutes, by the boards of trustees of the Florida public colleges for
the purpose of joining a cooperative effort to develop, implement, and participate in a coordinated Statewide
College Risk Management Program: The Consortium is self-sustaining through member assessments (premiums)
and is reinsured through commercial companies for claims in excess of specified amounts. Insurance coverage
obtained through the Consortium included health, life, fire and extended property, general and automobile
liability, workers’ compensation, and other liability coverage. Settled claims resulting from these risks have not

                                                           9

                                                           66
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL
A CHARTER SCHOOL AND RESTRICTED FUND OF STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF MAY 31, 2012

exceeded coverage during this fiscal year. The Charter School, as part of the College, is covered under the
Consortium’s plan.

NOTE H – Litigation

The College is involved in several pending and threatened legal actions. The range of potential loss from all such
claims and actions, as estimated by the College’s legal counsel, should not materially affect the Charter School’s
financial position.

NOTE I – Transportation

The Charter School has an agreement with the School Board of Manatee County, Florida to provide transportation
services to students. The Charter School’s payments to the School Board of Manatee County, Florida for the eleven
months ended May 31, 2012, were $42,299.01.

NOTE J – Related Parties

The College’s Unexpended Plant Fund is being used to remodel and renovate an existing College classroom
building to be used by the Charter School. In addition, the College’s Auxiliary Fund is being used to supplement
funds for the initial start-up costs and operation of the Charter School, until such time as it becomes self-
supporting. It is the intention of the College to formalize a pay-back plan and/or lease arrangement once the
Charter School is well established. Currently, there is no formal plan in place. For the eleven months ended May
31, 2012 the College provided funds for the Charter School in the amount of $251,000. Auxiliary Fund transfers are
as follows:


                  Fiscal Year                                 Amount

                  2009-10                               $      78,867.51
                  2010-11                                     327,228.22
                  2011-12                                     251,000.00

                  Total Transfers                       $ 657,095.73




                                                         10

                                                         67
     EXHIBIT K




68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
                                                                                             EXHIBIT L


                            sACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND GRANTS


It is respectfully requested the District Board of Trustees of State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota
accept and approve the following gifts and grants:


 DONOR:                                                AMOUNT:                TO BE USED FOR:




 GIFTS:




 GRANTS:

 United States Department of Education               $1,651,857.00                   Pell Grant Program
                                                                                     2011-2012



 Total Received in Gifts
 Total Received – Grants for 2011-2012               $1,651,857.00




 June 26, 2012
                                                      88
                                                                                                                                                                                        EXHIBIT M
                                                      AUTHORIZATION TO CHARGE-OFF DELINQUENT STUDENT AND OTHER ACCOUNTS


It is respectfully requested that the Board of Trustees of Manatee Community College grant authorization to charge off the following delinquent student and other accounts due to bankruptcy:


       ID#                            NAME                 TERM         AMOUNT           REASON FOR BALANCE

G00156648                                                 201210            $207.00      Bankruptcy Discharge




                                                                                                                                                                                                June 26, 2012
      Submission of Write-Offs to Board of Trustees

                                                                                                             89
                                                                                                               EXHIBIT N
                              State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota
                                 Facilities Planning and Management
 
                                            Board of Trustees Memorandum

To:                Board of Trustees

From:              Dr. Lars Hafner, President

Prepared by: Ms. Traci Steen, Associate Vice President, Facilities Management

Date:              June 26, 2012

Subject:           Approval of Recommended Prequalified Construction Contractors for Fiscal Year 2012-
                   2013

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

According to the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF), Section 4.1(7) Boards shall
prequalify contractors for a one-(1) year period or for a specific project. SREF requires construction
contractors to be prequalified in order for SCF to utilize a sealed bid method of delivery for construction
projects. The Contractor Prequalification Committee has reviewed the statements of qualifications that
were submitted by contractors who responded to the College’s public announcements requesting them.
The attached list of contractors has been recommended by the SCF Contractor Prequalification Review
Committee. The recommended contactors have been categorized by their bonding capacity and the
licenses that they currently hold.


Approval is sought for Recommended Prequalified Construction Contractors for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. 




 
                                                              90
     EXHIBIT O




91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
      EXHIBIT P




102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
2012 – 2013 SALARY SCHEDULE

These Salary Schedules are established pursuant to F.S. 1001.65 and rules or policies of the
Board of Trustees and serve as a guide for compliance.

Personnel actions submitted to the Board of Trustees for approval in conformance with the
salary schedules and/or in accordance with applicable SCF Rules and Procedures will be
considered routine personnel actions. The President may authorize variations in hiring
practices, travel reimbursements, leaves, compensatory time, overtime, special
compensation, severance and pay in lieu of notice, subject to legal requirements and based
upon justification and appropriate recommendations of the Executive Director, Human
Resources and executive staff. Special rates of pay that have been adopted for services
requiring special certification, and for unique or difficult to fill assignments may be
continued or revised to meet College needs and market conditions as deemed necessary by
the President. Examples include, but are not limited to, assignments in support of Health
Professions Programs; contracts with industry; local, state or federal grant programs; high
technology programs; new College initiatives; and special Staff and Program Development
activities.

Other full or part-time job classifications and hourly rates will be added as required. The
President, as needed, may authorize special fees and salary rates for independent
contractors, consultants, workshops, seminars, exams, grants and other services.
Compensation determinations will consider experience, education, special credentials and
employment market factors.

COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY

State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota expects to pay compensation and benefits that
are non-discriminatory and competitive with rates and benefits paid for similar jobs by
other employers in the labor market. However, all policy decisions regarding compensation
and benefits must take into consideration the College’s overall economic condition and
competitive position. The College will pay employees on a regular basis and in a manner
such that the amount, method, and timing of such payments comply with applicable laws
and regulations.

(THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RATES WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA PROFESSORIAL RANKING
SYSTEM AND RULES AND PROCEDURES MANUALS, AND ANY STATE OR FEDERAL
LAWS THAT APPLY.)

NOTE: Non-Faculty employees hired after March 31, 2012 will not be eligible for any
approved salary increases effective July 1, 2012.




                                             1
                                            146
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
2012 - 2013 ADMINISTRATIVE /PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT SALARY SCHEDULE
Twelve Month Positions Except Where Noted

LEVEL    POSITION TITLE                                          MINIMUM    MAXIMUM
 211     Accountant                                               $36,383    $57,484
         Accountant Foundation
         Advisor, III
         Art Gallery Manager
         Assistant Bursar
         Assistant Manager, the SCF Store
         Certified Business Analyst
         Coordinator, Compliance
         Coordinator, Customer Service, Financial Aid Services
         Coordinator, Early College
         Coordinator, Marketing Production
         Coordinator, Manufacturing Education Grant Projects
         Coordinator, Natural Science Lab
         Coordinator, Volunteer Services
         Coordinator, Web Services
         Executive Assistant to President
         Lab Manager, Academic Resource Center
         Manager, Constituent Database
         Specialist, Alternative Certification Program
         Specialist, Finance
         Supervisor, Maintenance/Site Utilities
         Supervisor, On-site IT Support
         Systems Analyst, Financial Aid Services
         Systems Administrator, Network

 212     Administrative Project Specialist                        $40,640    $64,210
         Assistant Director, Workforce Solutions
         Assistant Director, Financial Aid Services
         Assistant Director, Public Affairs and Marketing
         Coordinator, Alternative Certification Program
         Coordinator, Benefits
         Coordinator, BSN Program
         Coordinator, Educational Records
         Coordinator, Financial Services
         Coordinator, Foundation Scholarships
         Coordinator, Grants
         Coordinator, HRIS
         Coordinator, Procurement
         Coordinator, Public Information
         Coordinator, Student Support Services
         Head Athletic Trainer
         Learning Technologist
         Librarian
         P/T Librarian
         Manager, Natural Science Lab
         Manager, the SCF Store
         Program Director, Special Programs
         Programmer/Report Writer
         Specialist, Instructional Design
         Specialist, Learning – Nursing
                                                    2
                                                   147
213   Assistant Director, IT Training – CCD                     $45,395   $71,722
      Building Code Administrator
      Bursar
      Coordinator, eLearning
      Coordinator, Disability Resource Center
      Coordinator, Student Life
      DBA/Portal Administrator
      Facilities Project Coordinator/Designer
      Library Supervisor, Access Services
      Library Supervisor, Acquisitions and Technical Services
      Manager, IT Customer Service
      Manager, Environmental Safety
      Manager, Business Operations
      Manager, IT Training/Banner Security
      Manager, Telecommunication Services
      Program Coordinator, Traffic Safety Institute
      Programmer/Analyst
      Project Manager, eLearning
      Senior Accountant
      Senior Systems Administrator, Network


214   Director, Admissions                                      $50,706   $80,114
      Director, Career Resource Center
      Director, Institutional Research
      Director, Small Business Development Center
      Manager, Application Support
      Manager, Auxiliary Services
      Manager, Design & Construction Services
      Manager, Employment/Equity
      Manager, Facilities Operations
      Manager, Facilities Planning and Budgeting
      Manager, Financial Services
      Manager, Network Services
      Program Chair, I
      Senior Programmer/Analyst
      Web Developer


215   Director, Athletics                                       $56,638   $89,487
      Director, Advising Services
      Director, Development - Foundation
      Director, Library
      Director, Human Resource Operations
      Program Chair, II


216   Dean, Nursing Programs                                    $63,264   $99,957
      Director, Academic Resource Center
      Director, Business Services
      Director, Career and Technical Education
      Director, Financial Aid Services
      Director, Institute of Corporate & Community Education
      Director, Institute for Workforce Solutions
      Director, IT Administrative Services
      Director, Public Affairs & Marketing
      Director, Traffic Safety Institute

                                                 3
                                                148
217   AVP, Academic Quality & Success                        $70,665     $111,653
      AVP, Facilities Management
      AVP, Finance
      AVP, Corporate & Community Development
      AVP, Planning & Institutional Effectiveness
      AVP, Student Development
      AVP, Student Services
      Institutional Compliance Officer


218   Dean, Four Year Programs                               $78,934     $124,716


219   Chief Information Officer (CIO)                        $95,893     $151,509
      Executive Director, Foundation
      Executive Director, Human Resources
      General Counsel
      Provost


220   Vice President, Academic Quality and Success          $105,482     $166,662
      Vice President, Business & Administrative Services
      Vice President, Education & Student Services
      Vice President, Baccalaureate Programs / Provost BC


299   President                                             Negotiated




                                                4
                                               149
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
2012 - 2013 CAREER EMPLOYEE'S SALARY SCHEDULES


1. ANNUAL SALARY INCREASE DATE:

Career employees, full-time or part-time, who occupy a position, approved by the Board of
Trustees, which provides a technical/paraprofessional, clerical/secretarial, skilled crafts or
maintenance service for the College, have a common anniversary date for salary increases,
which is recommended by the President to the Board of Trustees for each fiscal year.


2. PAY LEVEL:

Each career employee position is assigned to a pay level depending upon the relative
complexity and level of responsibility of the tasks involved in its job description and labor
market competitive rates, based on the College approved job evaluation structure. Each
pay level has a distinct salary range determined by an annual review of the salary schedule
by the Office of Human Resources. Positions are established within the level structure on
the following pages based on recommendations by the Office of Human Resources and
approval of the President.


3. BEGINNING SALARY:

New employees, or current employees moving to a higher level position, who meet minimum
qualifications will usually be placed at the minimum rate for the pay level, regardless of the
fund source.

Additional credit will be allowed for related experience above the minimum experience
qualification of the position, up to a maximum of 10 years prior experience over the
minimum requirements for new employees. Current employees may receive more than the
10 years maximum experience credit for SCF experience, if it is relevant to the new
position.

The Director, Human Resource Operations may approve a step increment credit for each
year of related experience above the minimum requirements, up to 5 years additional
related experience. The employee will be paid at the Mid-point (Market Rate) if the
employee has 5 years additional related experience beyond the minimum experience
requirements for the position.

An experience calculation of an additional 1% above the market rate for those with more
than 5 years related experience beyond minimum requirements may be granted, up to 10%
above the mid-point of the range, with the approval of the Executive Director, Human
Resources.



                                              5
                                             150
Starting salaries greater than 10% above the mid-point of the range may only be granted
with the President’s approval. In some cases, relevant education above the minimum
requirements may be substituted for experience on a year for year basis. Depending on the
position, it may also be possible to substitute some experience for education requirements.
All experience calculations and salary rates above mid-point must be approved by the
Executive Director, Human Resources, or designee.


4. PROMOTION, REASSIGNMENT, REDUCTION:

   A. PROMOTION is the selection for appointment to a position with a higher pay
      level than the current position. The salary rate for an employee being promoted
      will be calculated in accordance with section 3, “Beginning Salary”. The employee
      will either receive this rate or 5% for a one level promotion; or 10% for a
      promotion of two levels or more, whichever is greater.

   B. RECLASSIFICATION is the change in position title and/or pay level based upon a
      significant change in the job responsibilities. Reclassifications for positions
      currently filled by an incumbent are usually requested during the annual budget
      process. Reclassifications for vacant positions may be requested at the time of the
      vacancy, in order to accommodate more effective departmental structures to
      better meet College needs.         A pay increase may be granted upon the
      recommendation of the supervisor and the area Vice President to the Office of
      Human Resources. The job descriptions for recommended reclassification shall be
      scored by the Director, Human Resource Operations or designee and submitted by
      the Executive Director, Human Resources to the President’s Executive
      Management Team and President for approval. Calculation of new salary rates
      for reclassification will be handled the same way as Promotions, as stated in
      section 4.A. Salary changes for reclassification during the annual budget process
      will usually become effective on July 1 of the next fiscal year. Salary changes for
      reclassification requests for vacant positions will become effective as approved by
      the President.

   C. REASSIGNMENT is the selection for appointment to a position with the same
      pay level as the current position. An employee who is reassigned will either
      retain his/her current salary or receive up to a 10% increase based on the
      recommendations of the supervisor and the Office of Human Resources and the
      approval of the President.

   D. REDUCTION is the selection for appointment to a position with a lower pay level
      than the current position. An employee who is reduced in pay level will receive
      either the calculated salary as stated in section 3, “Beginning Salary”, or a 5%
      reduction in salary for one level lower, or a 10% reduction in salary for two or
      more levels lower, whichever salary rate is less of a reduction, unless otherwise
      approved by the President.


                                             6
                                            151
  E. Promotions, reassignments, or reductions will be effective the date the employee
     assumes the position or the date the position becomes vacant, whichever is later.

  F. Generally, internal applicants must complete at least six months in their current
     position at a satisfactory level before they are eligible to apply for another position.
     The area Vice President and the Executive Director, Human Resources may waive
     this requirement if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the College.

  G. Employees who are on a development plan are not eligible to apply for another
     position, nor are they eligible for approved increases until they have
     satisfactorily completed the development plan.

5. PART-TIME EMPLOYEES:

  A part-time employee is an employee who is hired to fill a Board approved regular
  classification position, at less than 1950 or 2080 hours per year, for positions normally
  scheduled for 1950 or 2080 hours respectively. Part-time employees who are in budgeted
  positions of more than 20 hours per week are considered full-time for benefits eligibility
  only.

  Part-time employees will be paid based on the salary schedule and prorated based on the
  number of hours approved for the position.

6. TRAINING OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (TOP):

  Career and Professional Support employees, hired to fill a regular position, approved by
  the Board of Trustees, have the opportunity to earn additional pay for participation in
  training/education programs that improve their job skills and enhance their contribution
  to the College, subject to budget availability. When an eligible employee completes one
  calendar year of the required training/education activities that meet TOP criteria and
  are approved for TOP credit, he/she will earn $250. A pro-rated portion may be approved
  by the President subject to budget availability. Payments will be made in a lump sum,
  minus required taxes during the first pay period of December.

  Temporary employees are ineligible for this program.




                                              7
                                             152
7. CLASSIFICATION PLAN:
    Career – Non Exempt

LEVEL   JOB TITLE                                     MINIMUM   MAXIMUM

 111    Bus Driver                                      9.10     13.65
        Telephone Operator

 112    Campus Courier – VC                            10.00     15.00
        Groundskeeper
        Inter-Library Loan Clerk
        Library Assistant
        Mailroom Specialist/VC Courier
        Printing Equip. Operator
        Staff Assistant I
        Shipping & Receiving Clerk
        Shipping & Receiving Clerk - The SCF Store


 113    Academic Office Assistant                      11.00     16.50
        Accounting Clerk III
        Accounting Assistant - The SCF Store
        Buyer Assistant - The SCF Store
        Cashier - The SCF Store
        CAD Operator, Intern
        Campus Resource Officer
        Courier/ Staff Assistant II – BC
        Dispatcher/Permitting Specialist
        Educational Records Assistant
        Groundskeeper-Chemical Specialist
        Groundskeeper-Irrigation Specialist
        Lab Assistant
        Staff Assistant II
        Tradesworker I – General Maintenance
        Tradesworker I – Painter


 114    Academic Department Secretary                  12.10     18.15
        Assistant, Financial Aid
        Equipment Clerk
        Groundskeeper/Sports
        Lab Assistant Natural Science
        Operator - The SCF Store
        Specialist, Continuing Education
        Specialist I, Human Resources
        Specialist, Museum
        Specialist I, Payroll
        Specialist, Public Relations
        Staff Assistant III
        Tradesworker II – Carpenter
        Tradesworker II – Electrical
        Tradesworker II – Equip Op/Mechanic – VC
        Tradesworker II – Plumber
        Tradesworker II – Mechanic
        Tradesworker II – Venice


                                                 8
                                                153
115   Academic Division Secretary                       13.31   19.97
      Assistant Supervisor - Campus Grounds
      Administrative Specialist, Facilities
      Buyer/ Tech. Specialist - The SCF Store
      Box Office Manager
      Customer Svc/Facilities Op Spec-VC
      Executive Assistant II
      Graphic Artist
      Specialist, Accounting
      Specialist II, Accounting
      Specialist, CIT Operations
      Specialist, Customer Service/Permitting
      Specialist, Driver Improvement
      Specialist, Educational Records
      Specialist, Help Desk
      Specialist II, Human Resources
      Specialist, Instructional Technology
      Student Life Resource Officer
      Testing Technician

116   Accounting Technician I                           14.64   21.96
      Adjunct Coordinator
      Executive Assistant III – VP
      Instructional Assistant - Business & Technology
      Lead Graphic Artist
      Office Supervisor, Facilities Planning & Mgmt
      Office Supervisor, Traffic Safety Institute
      Specialist, Health Professions
      Specialist, Learning Management System
      Specialist, Multi-Cultural/Special Programs
      Specialist, Payroll/Supervisor
      Specialist, Placement
      Specialist, Public Safety
      Specialist, Student Services
      Specialist, Technical Support
      Specialist, Web
      Supervisor, The SCF Store

117   Accounting Technician II                          16.11   24.16
      Network Systems Technician
      Project Specialist, Athletics
      Sgt. Public Safety
      Specialist, Auditorium Support
      Specialist, Degree Evaluation & Projects
      Specialist, Library Support
      Tradesworker III – Electrician
      Tradesworker III – HVAC Mechanic
      Tradesworker III – PM


118   Athletic Trainer                                  17.72   26.57
      Chief, College Security
      Specialist, Grants & Research
      Specialist, Research
      Supervisor, Campus Grounds



                                                 9
                                                 154
      Career – Exempt


E16     Lab Instructor                                              28,548   42,822
        Production Instructor - Theater

E17     Advisor, I                                                  31,415   47,112
        Advisor/A.S. Recruiter
        Legal Assistant

E18     Advisor II                                                  34,554   51,812
        Advisor II, Veterans Benefits, Financial Aid Services
        Dental Hygiene Clinic Manager
        Lab Manager, Business
        Lab Manager, Nursing
        Lab Manager, SAIL
        Lab Technical Manager
        Specialist, Federal Programs, Financial Aid Services
        Specialist, Loan Officer, Financial Aid Services
        Specialist, Scholarships & Grants, Financial Aid Services




                                                  10
                                                  155
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
2012 – 2013 COLLEGIATE SCHOOL EMPLOYEE'S SALARY SCHEDULE


LEVEL    JOB TITLE                                                  MINIMUM    MAXIMUM

ADMINISTRATIVE/PROFESSIONAL

213      Senior Accountant                                           $45,395   $71,722
216      Academic Administrator                                      $63,264   $99,957
218      Head of School                                              $78,934   $124,716

CAREER

115      Executive Assistant II                                      $13.31     $19.97
115      Specialist, Educational Records                             $13.31     $19.97
116      Collegiate School Resource Officer / Behavior Specialist    $14.64     $21.96
116      Specialist, Technical Support                               $14.64     $21.96

ACADEMIC

110      Instructor – Bachelor’s                                     $39,300    $51,100
120      Instructor – Master’s                                       $40,359    $55,616
130      Instructor – Master’s + 30                                  $42,818    $59,516
140      Instructor - Doctorate                                      $45,277    $61,949

210      Guidance Counselor – Master’s                               $43,359    $59,835
220      Guidance Counselor – Master’s +30                           $45,818    $63,229
230      Guidance Counselor – Doctorate                              $48,277    $66,622

310      Curriculum Services Coordinator - Master’s                  $53,800    $67,250
320      Curriculum Services Coordinator - Master’s + 30             $56,640    $70,800
330      Curriculum Services Coordinator - Doctorate                 $59,470    $74,340




Adjunct Teachers: Part-time, temporary
Adjuncts will be compensated at a rate of $1900.00 per 3 semester hours.
Adjuncts will be compensated at a rate of $2660.00 per 5 semester hours.


Substitute Teachers:
Regular substitute teachers will be paid $100 per day. Long term substitute teachers,
defined as working more than three consecutive weeks, will be paid between $100 and $130
per day, depending on experience and discipline.




                                                     11
                                                     156
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
2012 – 2013 FACULTY SALARY SCHEDULE – LOWER DIVISION


1. ASSIGNMENT OF ACADEMIC RANK:

   A. Assignment of Academic Rank to new faculty and promotional decisions of
      existing faculty will be made according to the criteria in the Initial Hiring
      Criteria or Professorial Ranking System, approved by the Board of Trustees,
      as amended from time to time.

   B. The Professorial Ranking System recognizes the six ranks listed below:

      (1) ADJUNCT FACULTY: Part-time, temporary. See Section #4 below for
          salary information.

      (2) LECTURER: Full-time, temporary, non-tenure-tract. The salary is
          commensurate with Instructor, Minimum Salary l as stated in Section #3B
          below.

      (3) INSTRUCTOR                          (4) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR


       (5) ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR                (6) PROFESSOR

      Refer to Section #3B in this section for salaries for Instructor, Assistant Professor,
      Associate Professor and Professor.


2. ANNUAL AND CONTINUING CONTRACT STATUS: All new faculty with the
   Professorial Rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor
   will be placed on annual contract regardless of the number of years of experience.
   Annual contract status will continue for a minimum of three years and not greater than
   five years.

   Note: Those new faculty who begin employment after the regular start of the fall semester
   will have their pay pro-rated and paid through the final pay date of the 12 month
   deferred pay schedule. For years subsequent to the first year, the faculty member may
   elect to change status and be paid over 20, 23, or 26 pays, depending on the length of
   contract, with prior notice to the Executive Director, Human Resources no later than
    July 1 of that year.

   Continuing contract status for full-time faculty will be determined in accordance with
   rules and policies of the Board of Trustees. Adjunct and Lecturer appointments do not
   earn credit toward continuing contract status.



                                              12
                                              157
3. FULL-TIME FACULTY – LOWER DIVISION

  A. Full-time faculty are those faculty members who carry a full credit teaching
     load which is defined as a minimum of 15 classroom or on-line contact hours
     per week, or its equivalent, in each semester. A full-time faculty member's
     contract will state the amount of the salary and the term of employment: 9
     month/164 days, 10 month/194 days, or 12 month/247 days. Faculty on a 164
     day contract will teach both the fall and spring semester.

  B. The following salary schedule will be used for all full-time 9 month faculty:

   Level         Rank                               Minimum          Maximum
   A1            Lecturer                           $38,217          n/a
   A2            Instructor                         $38,217          $43,344
   A3            Assistant Professor                $44,955          $50,723
   A4            Associate Professor                $52,613          $59,015
   A5            Professor                          $61,178          $77,892

     For 10 month appointments add 20%            For 12 month appointments add 40%

  C. Establishing Salaries

     1. New Faculty will be placed within the range based on the evaluation of experience
        in accordance with College procedure for Initial Placement of New Faculty.

     2. Faculty will move within the range in accordance with District Board of Trustees
        approved salary increases.

     3. Faculty who have been awarded a promotion according to the Professional
        Ranking policy will receive the minimum salary for the next rank at the
        beginning of the next academic year.



  D. SUMMER A OR SUMMER B: Full-time faculty who are on continuing contract
     track, and who have been recommended for employment on annual or
     continuing contract for the next academic year, and who teach Summer A or
     Summer B will be compensated at a rate of $2,425.05 per 3 semester hours up
     to a maximum of 6 semester hours for each summer session. Summer A or
     Summer B semester hours taught above the established maximum will be
     compensated at the standard overload rate.




                                            13
                                            158
   E. SUMMER BENEFIT: Full-time faculty who are on continuing contract track,
      and who have been recommended for employment on annual or continuing
      contract for the next academic year, will be maintained on benefits, including
      health and other benefits paid for by the College between contract years.

4. OVERLOADS & ADJUNCT FACULTY (CREDIT): Overload and adjunct faculty
   (credit) will be compensated at a rate of $1,850.25 per 3 semester hours.

   Overload and adjunct faculty will have $30.00 deducted from their total compensation
   for each hour of class time for which he/she is absent.

5. SUBSTITUTES:
   Substitutes will be paid $30.00 per teaching hour. A full-time faculty member in a
   regular, budgeted position who is on annual or continuing contract will receive the
   substitute rate when substituting outside of his/her regularly established schedule.

6. SPECIAL FACULTY SALARIES:

   A. Artist-in-Residence                          $183 per student
      (Adjunct faculty who
       teach applied music classes)

   B. Faculty Assessment of Prior                  $6.00 per credit hr.
      Learning (Exam and Review,
      Portfolio Review) CEL Program

   C. Faculty Re-assessment (Re-Review             $3.00 per credit hr.
      of Portfolio) CEL Program



7. Duties other than those listed will be compensated by an overload, a multiple of an
   overload, a fraction thereof, or a daily rate commensurate with duties assigned.

8. MILITARY SERVICE will be accepted as credit provided the instructor was teaching
   immediately preceding and immediately following obligatory military service, up to a
   maximum of 5 years.

9. PROFESSIONAL/INDUSTRIAL/MILITARY EXPERIENCE directly related to the
   assignment at State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota may be accepted in lieu of
   teaching experience to the extent that the Board of Trustees considers justified, up to a
   maximum of 5 years.

                                            14
                                            159
10. HEALTH SCIENCE PROFESSIONS EDUCATION FACULTY are required to work in
    hospitals because such experience is essential to good teaching in this field. Therefore,
    full-time experience (not internship) may be credited for health science education
    faculty, up to a maximum of 5 years.

11. DIVIDED TIME EXPERIENCE: Employment of less than 9 months in one position can
    be added to those months of employment of another location during a single calendar
    year for credit of one year's experience. Example: 6 months of professional work, plus 4
    months of teaching during one calendar year will equate to one year of credit experience.

12. ADJUNCT INSTRUCTOR TRAINING CERTIFICATION: Adjunct Instructors are
    offered in-service training opportunities throughout the year. Any Adjunct Instructor,
    who completes six (6) authorized in-service training sessions provided by the College,
    will receive Adjunct Instructor Certification and be paid a flat sum of $200. Additional
    compensation will be paid to Adjunct Instructors who have completed the Adjunct
    Instructor Training Certification according to the following table:
           1-3 classes - $100.00
           4-5 classes - $200.00

13. DIRECTED STUDY RATES:

    5 (ILH)        Class =   1/14 x $ 3,083.75 =   $ 220.27 per student
    4.5 (ILH)      Class =   1/14 x $ 2,775.38 =   $198.24 per student
    4 (ILH)        Class =   1/14 x $ 2,467.00 =   $176.21 per student
    3 (ILH)        Class =   1/14 x $ 1,850.25 =   $132.16 per student
    2 (ILH)        Class =   1/14 x $ 1,233.50 =   $ 88.11 per student
    1 (ILH)        Class =   1/14 x $ 616.75 =     $ 44.05 per student




                                             15
                                             160
STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
2012 – 2013 FACULTY SALARY SCHEDULE – Upper Division

  BSN Program or other High Demand Disciplines

  A. FULL TIME FACULTY
     Faculty will be hired on annual contract and usually require a Doctorate degree.
     Masters +30 with exceptional experience may be considered in hard to fill areas,
     providing the requirements of SACS have been met, with the approval of the VP,
     Baccalaureate Programs, the Executive Director, Human Resources and the
     President.

     Faculty in the BSN program will be hired on a 9, 10, 11 or 12 month contract, with
     hiring salary based on experience and education and length of contract.

     BSN Salary Range:                      Minimum:            Maximum
     Doctorate Degree                       $61,884             $90,140
     Masters Degree + 30:                   $52,613             $76,815

  B. ADJUNCT FACULTY
     Adjunct and overload rate for doctorate degree faculty is $2,875 per 3 credit course
     Adjunct and overload rate for masters degree faculty is $2,375 per 3 credit course

  All Other Disciplines

  A. FULL TIME FACULTY
     Faculty will be hired on annual contract and usually require a Doctorate degree.
     Masters Degree + 18 with exceptional experience may be considered in hard to fill
     areas, providing the requirements of SACS have been met, with the approval of the
     VP, Baccalaureate Programs, the Executive Director, Human Resources and the
     President.

     Faculty in the Baccalaureate Programs will be hired on a 9, 10, 11 or 12 month
     contract, with hiring salary based on experience and education and length of
     contract.

     Salary Range:                          Minimum:            Maximum:
     Doctorate Degree                       $56,600             $80,884
     Masters Degree + 30:                   $52,570             $76,752
     Masters Degree + 18:                   $48,560             $70,898

  B. ADJUNCT FACULTY
      Adjunct and overload rate for doctorate degree faculty is $2,600 per 3 credit course
      Adjunct and overload rate for masters degree faculty is $2,185 per 3 credit course
      Adjunct and overload rate for curriculum development of an on-line course is
      $2,000 per course

  C. STIPENDS: Program Director, Baccalaureate Programs          $2000

                                            16
                                            161
 STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE-SARASOTA
 2012 – 2013 MISCELLANEOUS SALARY SCHEDULE


1.   Special Salaries

A    Accompanist                                                                         $ 20-30 hr.
B    Choreographer                                                   Up to $1000/per production
C    Guest Conductor/Clinician/Recitalist/Visiting Artist
     Category “A” –Local Venue Experience*                                               Up to $199
     Category “B” –Statewide/Regional Venue Experience*                                  $200 – 499
     Category “C” –National/International Venue                                      $500 – $4,500
          Experience*
      *Category placement will be based on a review of several professional factors such
      as academic affiliation, format of performance, degree of technical difficulty of the
      performance, critic reviews, geographic venues and reputation of individual(s).
      The Department will recommend the category and it will be approved by the
      appropriate Dean, Instructional Services, as defined in Category definitions.

D    Theater Prod. Director, Actor – Standard Production                               Up to $1,675
     Theater Prod. Director, Actor – Major Production                                  Up to $2,000
E    Guest Speaker, Science Speaker Series                                                   $ 75.00
F    Models                                                                              $ 16.00/hr.
G    Reader, Scribe for disabled students                                                  $ 7.25/hr.
H    Reader, Scribe for disabled faculty                                                 $ 11.74/hr.
I    Sports Camp Director                                                $300-500/camp (based on
                                                                      experience and size of camp)
J    Sports Camp Assistant Director                                                 $250-500/camp
K    Sports Camp Assistant                                                           $ 50-200/camp
       Salary will be based on the experience in the field of the individual. The Department will
        recommend the salary and it will be approved by the appropriate Sports Camp Director.
L    Interim Coach                                                                  Up to $100/day
M    Interim Trainer                                                                Up to $150/day
N    Wellness Trainer                                                              $25-50 per hour
O    Test Administrators/Proctors:
                        Test Administration
     Administrator - $75.00 (under 3 hrs.)                          Proctor - $50.00 (under 3 hrs.)
     Administrator - $100.00 (over 3 hrs.)                            Proctor - $75.00 (over 3 hrs.)
P    DRC Accommodation Specialist                                             $8.25-11.25 per hour
Q    CROP Site Coordinators                                                   $525.00 per semester
R    Licensed Dental Professional                                                         $40.00/hr.
     (Must be currently licensed in the State of Florida)

     Also see Non-Credit Salary Schedule for additional compensations.



                                               17
                                               162
2.   STIPENDS
     AMOUNTS ARE FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
     Advisor- Brain Bowl                                                     $3,700.00
     Advisor-Honors PTK Club-Bradenton Campus                                $2,000.00
     Advisor-Honors PTK Club-Venice Campus                                   $2,000.00
     Advisor-Math Olympics-Bradenton Campus (spring only)                    $1,000.00
     Advisor-Math Olympics-Venice Campus (spring only)                       $1,000.00
     Advisor-Phi Beta Lambda-Bradenton Campus                                $2,000.00
     Advisor-Phi Beta Lambda-Venice Campus                                   $2,000.00
     Assistant Coach-Baseball                                                $8,500.00
     Assistant Coach-Basketball                                              $7,500.00
     Assistant Coach-Softball                                                $8,000.00
     Assistant Coach-Tennis                                                  $6,000.00
     Assistant Coach-Volleyball                                              $6,000.00
     Chair - Department                                                      $9,000.00
     Clinical Instructor: Radiography/Respiratory Care
            - Class I (per semester) 1-5 students                              $300.00
            - Class II (per semester) 6 or more students                       $450.00
     Coach-Baseball                                                         $13,000.00
     Coach-Basketball                                                       $10,500.00
     Coach-Softball                                                         $12,000.00
     Coach-Tennis                                                            $9,000.00
     Coach-Volleyball                                                        $9,000.00
     Coordinator, Nursing – Venice Campus                                    $2,000.00
     PERT Update Initiatives                                             $2,000-$3,000
     Director, EPI                                                           $7,275.00
     Director - Choral Ensembles                                             $2,000.00
     Director - College Orchestra                                            $1,000.00
     Director – Guitar Ensemble                                              $1,000.00
     Director - Studio Jazz Band                                             $1,000.00
     Director - Symphonic Wind Ensemble                                      $1,000.00
     eLearning Mentor – Bradenton Campus                                     $3,700.00
     eLearning Mentor – Venice Campus                                        $3,700.00
     Faculty-Adjunct Training Coordinator                                    $2,000.00
     Faculty-Professional Development Chair                                  $2,000.00
     Faculty Senate – President                                              $2,000.00
     Faculty Senate – Officer                                                  $400.00
     Manager - Auditorium                                                    $4,500.00
     Music Production Director                                   $2,000 per production
     Theater Designer                                            $2,000 per production
     Theater Director                                            $2,000 per production
     Scorekeepers, Clock (basketball), Scoreboard, Ticket Takers    $25.00 per contest




                                        18
                                        163
                             Program Manager Schedule

   Program Manager A - $2,000                     Program Manager B - $3,700
   Art & Photography, AA                          Early Childhood, AS
   Bio Technology, AS                             Graphic Design Technology, AS
   Business, AS                                   Paralegal, AS
   Computer Science, AS
   Criminal Justice Technology, AS
   Engineering Technology, AS
   Film, AA
   Fire Science Technology, AS
   Music AA
   Multimedia & Telecommunications, AS
   Theater, AA




3. STUDENTS:

  A. For the purposes of employment at State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota,
     students are placed in one of three categories:

    1) Federal Work Study - Student seeking an AAS, AS or AA degree or a certificate at
       State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota, taking a minimum of 6 load hours,
       meeting Federal Financial Aid requirements.

    2) Student Assistants - Student seeking an AAS, AS or AA degree or a certificate at
       State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota and taking a minimum of 6 load
       hours. Employment/placement at SCF is through the Career Resource Center

    3) Peer Advisor Assistants – Student seeking an AAS, AS or AA degree or a
       certificate at State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota and taking a minimum of
       6 load hours. Employment/placement at SCF is through the Career Resource
       Center

  B. Students in categories 3A (1), and (2) above will be paid $7.75 per hour.
     Students in category 3A (3) will be paid $8.25 per hour.




                                         19
                                         164
4. TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES:

   A. TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES Most Temporary employees will be hired through the
      contracted vendor/vendors of the College. Normally, individuals hired to work at
      State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota on a temporary basis will be paid at the
      beginning salary rate for the employee position to which they are assigned.

      Retired and / or former employees of State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota,
      hired on a temporary basis, may be paid based on the position to be filled and their
      past SCF experience and prior relative experience as determined by the Executive
      Director, Human Resources or designee.

   B. TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES IN INTERIM POSITION                           When the College
      determines that it requires an existing employee to fill an Interim Position which is
      at a higher level than the employee’s current position, the College may pay a
      supplement which is normally 10% of the employee’s current base pay, or the
      minimum rate for the range of said Interim Position, whichever is greater, based on
      the evaluation of the Executive Director, Human Resources, and subject to the
      approval of the area Vice President, the Vice President of Business and
      Administrative Services, and the President.


5. GRANT PERSONNEL: The College will adhere to established salary schedules,
   classification plans and hiring procedures when appointing grant personnel.

6. OVERTIME AND COMPENSATORY TIME:            The provisions of the Fair Labor
   Standards Act and its amendments govern all overtime and compensatory time
   considerations.

7. COMPLIANCE: The College complies with Section 1012.885 and 1012.886, Florida
   Statute, in compensation to designated individuals by funding remuneration
   proportionately from authorized College operating revenue sources.

8. EMPLOYMENT OF RETIREES: Re-employment of SCF retirees, or former employees
   that have taken a distribution and / or retirees of other Florida state agencies shall be
   employed subject to FRS regulations.




                                            20
                                            165
 STATE COLLEGE OF FLORIDA, MANATEE – SARASOTA
 2012 – 2013 NON-CREDIT SALARY SCHEDULE

l. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF (NON-CREDIT):
      Part-time, non-credit instructional staff will be paid as follows:

A    (1)   Avocational / Occupational                                            $18.00-25.00/hr
     (2)   General Training and Expertise                                              $25.00/hr
     (3)   Recognized Expertise                                                        $35.00/hr
     (4)   Professional                                                                $45.00/hr
     (5)   Technical Expertise                         $55-75.00/hr (with approval of AVP, CCD)
     (6)   Highly Specialized                                  $76+/hr (with approval of VPAQS)

B.   Coordination: Coordination includes registration, planning, promotion, and other
     functions such as Range Aide deemed necessary to facilitate the instructional component.
      Class Coordinator                                                               $10.00/hr
      Student Assistant                                                                $ 7.25/hr

C.    Curriculum Development                                                          $10.00/hr

D.    Traffic Safety Institute:                                                       $25.00/hr
     (1) Clinical Supervisor                                                    $25.00-28.00/hr
     (2) Level II Class Instructor - DUI                                     $17.50 - $22.00/hr
     (3) Evaluator – Special Supervision & DUI                               $17.50 - $22.00/hr
     (4) Level I Class Instructor - DUI                                      $17.50 - $22.00/hr
     (5) Instructor – Driver Improvement                                     $15.00 - $20.00/hr

E.    Para-professional Certification Trainer                                      $20-25.00/hr

F.    Workshop Registration Assistant
      (1) Per 2 hour session                                                             $25.00
      (2) Per hour over 2                                                                $10.00



 2. Individuals hired to perform non-teaching duties in support of a non-credit program will
    be compensated at a rate equivalent to one overload or a multiple of an overload or a
    fraction thereof commensurate with assigned duties.

     Workforce Solutions Instructors who have provided over 500 hours of training for CCD
     by the end of the fiscal year will receive a one-time $5/hour increase in pay rate,
     calculated each June 30 and applicable to the following fiscal year. Instructors must
     have worked consecutive terms. Increases will be calculated to be effective for the fall
     semester. All instructors are required to attend CCD orientation with their respective
     director and complete SCF required training such as but not limited to Prohibited
     Harassment Prevention and FERPA training, as well as any mutually agreed upon
     training to be eligible for the increase.

                                                21
                                                166

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:9/29/2012
language:English
pages:168