College Planning Council
Minutes
/apr. 9, 2010
/10:00 am – 5:00 pm
/MAL Comm. Room
Attendees / Members: Jerry Patton, Jeff Place, Rick Rawnsley, Wendy Sanders, Doug MacIntire, PE Vacant, Victor Rios, Ty Thomas, Chris Nelson, Rey Ortiz, Daniel Kleinfelter, Lisa Soccio, Chuck Decker, Fergus Currie (Cathy Levitt), Ted Grofer, Mary Lisi, Terri Fleck, Aries Jaramillo, Michelle Price, Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Farley Herzek, Diane Ramirez, Edwin Deas.Recorder: Revae Reynolds
Agenda topics
1. approval of minutes
/ /all
Discussion / Chris Nelson made a motion to accept the minutes for Feb. 19 (attachment #1) and March 12 (attachment #2) as distributed. Jeff Place seconded. Approved unanimously.Conclusions / Both minutes approved.
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
1. None.
2. Feedback on Bullets from last meeting
/ /all
discussion / Feedback was positive. It is too soon to determine if bullet list will improve communication from College Planning Council to the rest of the campus. It was suggested that directions to portal documents should always be included on the bullet notes.conclusions / Continue printing the bullet list summary of CPC meetings. Directions to portal documents will be included.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1. Continue printing bullet list summary – with directions to portal documents. / LiCalsi / Reynolds / ongoing
3. urgent faculty hire request
/ /d. ramirez
discussion / President Patton noted that our predecessor group, SEMPPC, talked about how to fill an unexpected faculty vacancy.C. Nelson reported that SEMPPC considered the emergency hire a temporary position so time would be available to evaluate whether or not the position needed to continue. J Patton remembered that during Dr. Browning’s time, the emergency hire would be added to the current year faculty priority list, although we have none for 2009-2010.
D. Ramirez noted the vacancy left by the passing of David Buttles and described the unique skills the position requires: knowledge of transfer, athletic eligibility, commission on athletics, and academic counseling (attachment #3). D. Ramirez suggests this position be placed as #1 on the 9-10 priority list for student affairs. T. Thomas noted that the vacancy has clearly impacted students negatively. C. Nelson added that the college has had eligibility issues over the past year which suggests urgency to this matter. Most colleges have such a position.
There was discussion about how to handle this situation because CPC did not create a faculty priority list for 2009-2010. It was noted how many students are affected, whether or not we have retirements, and the fact that this hire will meet our Full-Time Faculty Obligation for FY10-11. It was noted that retirements are handled differently. This is an unexpected vacancy. There was discussion about whether or not the position would be full-time temporary or tenure track and the ease/difficulty of finding a qualified person in this job market.
M. Price made a motion to accept hiring the replacement; T Grofer seconded.
Discussion: There was discussion about positions that deal with legal/Ed Code mandates and the handling of past cases. If CPC approves this, it must make sure to provide the unique justifications for the hire.
The faculty on the 2009-2010 priority list was shown. Following the process in the CPC Handbook, D. Ramirez (Student Affairs) made a secondary motion to place this position at the top of the 2009-2010 faculty priority list. Discussion: Should the position be temporary or not? It was noted that placement on the list implies that we go forward with full-time hire. J. Berg called for the question: 20 yes, 3 opposed. Motion to place the Athletic Advisor on the 2009-2010 faculty priority list in the number one position passed.
Back to discussion about first motion: hiring the replacement. There are currently no intentions to hire faculty from the 2009-2010 list, but we must hire two in 2010-2011 because we are 2 under our Full-time Faculty Obligation (FTFO). See page 33-34 in the CPC Handbook. There was discussion about the open faculty positions that were in process for hiring, but frozen when budget crisis hit. The handbook doesn’t cover freezes.
E. Deas believes that frozen positions should go forward. Second, he just came from a meeting regarding FTFO and COD only needs to hire one full-time faculty in 2010-2011.
J. Patton asked if there were consensus that the frozen positions be considered. We are now talking only of faculty hires. There are other positions that were prioritized and frozen due to budget. Positions that never make it through the budget process are treated differently than those that were through budget and frozen after that.
There was consensus that the frozen positions will be placed on the 2009-2010 priority list, with no rank, and the emergency position will be #1 on the list and one position will be hired. It’s presence at the number 1 position implies that it will be hired. Doug noted that historically, the CPC would determine the priority order of faculty, not deans.
C. Nelson noted that the position is placed at #1 due to consequences of its responsibilities.
J Patton noted that the position will now be advertised.
conclusions / * The Athletic Advisor was placed on the 2009-2010 Faculty Priority List in the number one position.
* The positions that were already through the budget process when they were “frozen” will be added back on the 2009-2010 priority list, without a rank.
* By virtue of being on the priority list, the position is considered full-time, tenure track.
* The college must hire one full-time faculty person for 2010-2011 to fulfill its FTFO.
* The selection process will be initiated for the Athletic Advisor position.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1. Initiate selection process for Athletic Advisor position. / HR / Fall 2010
4. Develop 2011-2012 goals
/ /all
discussion / It was noted that the current college goals are broad. Chris noted that the Evaluation Task Force is talking about how institutional goals are written. We might establish annual goals separate from broad institutional goals. Before the semester is over, we need to establish 11 or 12 goals for next year.We should review the previous year’s assessment before we establish new goals and the Evaluation Task Force is in the process of doing that, so we will have them before we finalize the 2011-2012 goals.
conclusions / College should assess previous year’s goals before 2011-2012 goals are determined. Evaluation Task Force is reviewing this process.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1. Assess progress on previous year’s goals. / Eval Task Force / ?
5. CPc meetings
/ /all
discussion / Page 10 of the College Planning Council Handbook describes the Council’s decision-making process.CPC decisions use the consensus method, which is somewhat more chaotic than Roberts Rules of Order, but allows for more in depth exploration of the topics. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Consensus is a decision making process (a certain percentage threshold can be determined) and is separate from discussion. The voting method can lead to a lot of dissention. Agendas can be created that separate discussion from decision-making. Our discussions tend to wander and the group should empower the chairs to keep the discussion on track. Agenda can identify timelines for topic discussion. Time can be saved if reports were submitted in advance so members could review them ahead of time.
A task force makes a report. They should submit it ahead of time so it can be distributed in advance. It may be for information or decision.
conclusions / College Planning Council makes decisions based on consensus. Advance notification of reports is helpful. Task forces report to the Council.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1. None.
6. constituent feedback – budget Task force findings
/ /all
discussion / This topic was covered in the discussions above.conclusions
action items / person responsible / deadline
1.
7. constituent feedback – prioritized goals
/ /all
discussion / Comments include:· There was a comment that the library is underrepresented on the list. M. Lisi noted that the library staff should forward their concerns to their supervisor.
· J. Place reported that vocation is one of the three primary missions of the community colleges, yet the list does not adequately reflect this priority,
· Members should be reminded of sorting criteria before sorting
· Process suggestions should be directed to Ted Grofer, head of Assessment Committee
· People still claim insufficient information
· Consistency over time will resolve some of these concerns.
There were no additional comments on the priority list. Consensus achieved; this list is Council’s recommendation to the president (attachment #4).
conclusions / With comments noted, the priority list was finalized and recommended to the President.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1. Final priority list will be posted to the CPC portal page. / P. Chapman / ASAP
8. Debrief prioritization process / brainstorm improvements
/ /all
discussion / The evaluation subcommittee has been working on this, too, so this is input for them. They will present a report to CPC during one of the next two remaining meetings of this year. P. LiCalsi recorded the suggestions on paper.1. Everyone liked the pizza
2. Use a standardized form so that each year change the date only
3. There was pleading of cases at the final prioritization meeting / more opportunity for interested parties to advocate and we have said that is not allowed
4. Post the criteria before prioritizing
5. Need consistency in the writing of goals
6. Prioritize by groups of 4: one item from each of the 4 areas in each group
7. Find a way to do clustering earlier in the process – deans? Areas?
8. Prioritize all things having to do with classroom learning separately on a separate list
9. Business affairs is different. Prioritize operational items versus learning items
10. We struggle with prioritizing the variety: equipment, positions, other stuff.
11. CPC rearranged the area priorities – what is the definition of a good reason to change?
12. Goals/objectives at 3 different levels in the institution is problematic – institution, area, unit.
13. Council should send poorly written goals back for clarification – screen first.
14. PRUs should be on file before item is submitted
15. We need consistency of data requirements
16. Meet deadlines and stay on target
17. We need workshops for writing goals
18. Should be able to submit proposals all year ‘round
19. Promote ideas as a year-long activity
20. Submit the priorities in your area with your PRU attached
21. CPC should identify annual goals based on our institutional values
22. From eval task force: need full consultation in a program area in writing goals and proposals
23. And – area level goal forms become so complex they are hard to read
24. And - different deans/directors/VPs blended their lists differently, some added all in as goals, other goals became objectives.
25. And – inserting all other items into academic affairs was unfair to AA
26. And – what is a “darn good reason” for changing the order
27. It’s ok to think differently about how to get to a goal
28. Improve communication of the process campus wide
29. Work toward simplification of the forms and process
30. Distinguish the idea of goal versus stuff – maybe that’s why some of the campus is confused.
Discussion/clarification:
Some wondered if we are making this harder than it needs to be. Items can be clustered, many ideas overlap. With frequent changes in the process we lose the benefit of consistency. Maybe implement a smaller number of changes. The three big issues appear to be: write goals better, process completion, big picture vs. little picture. Task force will meet Tuesday 12:30-2:00, every other week.
This information will be discussed by the evaluation subcommittee which meets April 20. All are invited to attend. They will provide a recommendation of process improvements at our April 23 meeting. The group will do a lot of work via email. Individuals who want to be included in the email discussion should let C. Nelson know.
J. Patton noted that he pushed the college to begin a process and now it is the work of CPC and reminded the Council that the planning process should answer who are we, where are we going, how to get there, and how do we know when we get there? Answering these questions is required of the planning process.
The evaluation section of everyone’s goal forms needs to be completed.
conclusions / The Evaluation subcommittee will take these comments together with their review of the process and report back to CPC at the next meeting.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1. Put Evaluation Subcommittee report on next agenda. / R. Reynolds / 4/10/10