College Planning Council

College Planning Council

Minutes

/

mar. 27, 2009

/

10:00 am – 5:00 pm

/

east annex 1

Attendees / Jerry Patton, Jeff Place, Rick Rawnsley, Wendy Sanders, Anthony Tesch, David Buttles, Victor Rios, Ty Thomas, Chris Nelson, Rey Ortiz, Daniel Kleinfelter, Lisa Soccio, Doug MacIntire, Pat Keller, Susan Evans, Ted Grofer, Mary Lisi, Terri Fleck, Anthony Armenta, Michelle Price, Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Jack Randall, Diane Ramirez, Edwin Deas, Matthew Breindel.
Recorder: Revae Reynolds

Agenda topics

1. membership term lengths

/ /

Council

Discussion / The membership list with start dates and length of terms was distributed. Members asked to review and email Revae of they have a change. The purpose is to determine the length of terms for each individual. The question was asked, “If your term ends, can you volunteer for a second term?” The Council discussed the value of continuity vis-a-vis the value to the campus of more people having the opportunity to experience the Council’s operations. For now, Council will finalize current terms and then address re-elections at a future date.
Conclusions / Current terms will be clarified so each individual member knows when his/her service concludes and terms are staggered.
Action items / Person responsible / Deadline
1. Email Revae if you have a change to the list. / Council Members / 4/20/09

2. late submissions

/ /

council

discussion / Some late proposals were submitted and posted. The Council discussed procedure to deal with such submissions after the deadline.
It was noted that other late items were not submitted out of respect for the deadline. Explanations for late submissions: #38 History Faculty – was mistakenly not submitted due to Vice President turnover. #39 Articulation Officer - missed the list because of staff turnover, however this was on the “intent” list and it is an accreditation requirement. #40 MTC Bilingual Secretary – the need was not known at the time of the deadline; #41 Horticulture Faculty Replacement – was on last year’s priority list as #2, but not funded. Dean missed the deadline this year so department let it go.
It was suggested that if some proposals are added after the deadline, then all late submissions should be added. Moreover, the general campus should be made aware that late submissions are being considered, otherwise CPC members have an unfair advantage. It was suggested that a deadline should be respected; after all, 37 proposals were submitted on time. The college also needs a mechanism for flexibility and to consider items throughout the year. It was noted that what constitutes an “emergency” has not been articulated. An unexpected vacancy could be considered an emergency, and such vacancies are usually filled with temporary replacements. In the past, faculty positions have been prioritized with all the rest and later pulled from the list for the deans to address. The validity of these late additions is not in question, but our process is.
Pam LiCalsi suggested a compromise: discuss the 37 on-time submissions today. Then notify the campus that late submissions will be considered and they must be accompanied with an explanation as to why they were not submitted before the deadline. Following some discussion, this course of action was agreed.
It was noted that CPC continues to address operational activities and spends little time on truly strategic activities. The Council will have to do operational work until the planning process is better defined and implemented.
conclusions / This year, the priority deadline was changed which might have created some confusion, and the budget was so uncertain that there may have been proposals that were deemed futile and not submitted. The Council agreed to allow late submissions as long as they included an explanation as to why they were late. These late proposals will be considered at the next prioritizing meeting.
action items / person responsible / deadline
1.  Advise campus that late proposals will be considered. Must include an explanation for tardiness. / Office of the President / ASAP

3. sort proposals

/ /

Council

discussion / Council will review all 37: the authors (or their CPC representatives) can explain the proposal for clarification, not advocate for it. The Council will vote “yes,” “no,” or “need more information” for each one. Members are reminded to keep an open mind during the full discussion. If there is time today, the “yes” proposals will be prioritized. Council will decide whether or not to prioritize today after the yes/no sorting is completed. There will be a lunch break from 12:00-1:00 pm.
It was suggested that Council members discuss their overall impressions of the proposals. Members agreed to spend 15 minutes doing so before the proposals were reviewed individually.
Discussion About the Proposals in General
It was noted that some areas of campus had many proposals and some had none. Comments suggested that maybe employees don’t understand the process and/or assume that last year’s list rolls over. It was suggested that a Flex presentation on annual prioritization proposals could be useful.
Council members noted the following:
There were a number of proposals that needed funding, but no costs were stated.
Many proposals had no data attached and that would help the decision-making, such as how many students would be served. There are suggested/required ratios for some areas, such as # students per counselor.
There needs to be more reference to alignment with SLOs and Program (and Unit) Review.
If there is a position to be hired and the classification already exists on campus, include the classification and salary range (available on portal).
It is possible that people don’t know what data would be helpful.
Proposals need to include associated equipment, computer, furniture, etc.
We need generic amounts for personnel positions so people know how much to list in the proposal.
It is possible that there are proposals missing because people thought there would be no money available.
Far too many proposals listed the goal being addressed, but didn’t explain HOW their proposal met the goal.
Many proposals looked at items through a “money” lens, instead of a “goal” lens.
The college needs to have a general discussion about institutionalizing grant supported activities. (Institutionalization should be considered when the grant is being considered for application, in the very beginning of the grant process.)
The budgeting process must not be clear because some proposals were for small amounts of money, and not strategic but operational.
Some proposals seem to relate to each other, but there was no apparent dialogue between them. There could be more collaborating.
Some proposals look like they can be combined.
Assessment was very weak on many proposals.
It would be helpful to know which funding requirements will be met with external funds, but if the process is truly strategic, funding source should be irrelevant.
Some grant funded programs are looking at future needs; they should be applauded for anticipating.
On the form itself, College Goals and Justification could be merged.
The rubric should be included with the proposal form so people know what we are going to judge the proposal with.
“Efficiency” was not specifically listed on the form or in the instructions, so the proposals do not address this value.
Next year, CPC should hold this meeting in a computer lab so everyone can see the proposals w/o printing them.
The college needs a campus-wide, strategic approach to enhancing diversity awareness.
Action items will be created to address the comments above.
Discussion of Individual Proposals for Clarification and Sorting:
(Recorder’s Note: The proposals were discussed individually for clarification. Afterward, Council went back through the list and identified the “conclusion” for each one:
1. Yes, the proposal can go forward as written,
2. Yes, the proposal can go forward, but needs more information before ranking
3. No, proposal is not moving forward,
4. Determination cannot be made due to insufficient information/data – proposal will be considered at a later date when additional information is provided.
Some Council members printed and brought the proposals with them; proposals were projected on front screen.
#1: MESA Director Extension of Assignment
MESA is a learning community for math, engineering, and science students. This proposal would provide 28 additional paid days for the director of the program to cover summer school. #3 is also about Summer Bridge, but the budgets are very different. Council wondered if these proposals were redundant.
Facilitator (Pam LiCalsi) noted that the Council may find that some proposals could be combined. Identifying such proposals is one of the purposes of this overview discussion.
The Council wondered if this proposal would be paid by grant money or general fund. #3 talks about the director being present in the summer, too. Chris Nelson explained that #3 is not necessarily going to do what #1 does. Council would like to know how any students would be served and whether this is already being done in the summer w/o the director. Council needs more clarification.
Conclusion: NO
#2 Biology Faculty
Mainly for nursing courses. The amount of overload is the primary point with this one. Anthony T. noted that the # is off by a couple of SIUs. How many people teach in biology right now? How many part-time faculty are teaching? If the nursing division student capacity is full, do we still need this position? Need FT/adjunct ratio, faculty/student ratio. What student needs would this meet?
Conclusion: Yes, want more data
#3 Math Summer Bridge
If students have a refresher course before they take assessments they do better on the assessment test. Research to substantiate this should be provided. There are about 5 different pockets on campus talking about this refresher concept prior to assessment testing. Who else needs to be involved in this proposal: Assessment, Academic Skills, others? Maybe this is one of those proposals that should be grouped. When would the 3 week session be done? What is the success rate? How does this software relate to Accuplacer and how does that relate to the high schools? Where’s the data that this approach is effective? How many students will be served? If this is tied to grants, the data should be readily available.
Conclusion: Cannot determine, need more information.
#4 Physical Science Lab Tech
This proposal is for a full-time person to manage the lab equipment for physics, earth sciences, and astronomy to free up faculty to develop better lab experiences. The $50K quoted isn’t enough to pay for a full-time person. The safety issue is strong here, also efficiency because it serves more than one science discipline. Faculty is currently doing this job. Council would like to see data on how many courses, how many students, how much time does the current faculty spend doing this? Proposal needs to justify a full-time person. Struck by duplication of ordering, some strategic planning could be accomplished by this proposal. Data is critical.
Conclusion: Cannot determine; need more information.
#5 EVC Bilingual Secretary
Temp is in place at EVC, time soon to expire. Works from 2-7 pm, Mon-Thurs, at the front counter to answer the phone, interact w/ faculty/students, and communicate w/MTC by phone. This position is now filled by a temp. The previous employee is now working at the Mecca location and will stay there. The Council had an extended conversation about the Indio/Mecca staffing and the net change indicated by these proposals. The staffing needs at both eastern locations needs to be clarified and possibly combined with proposal #40. Is there data for the optimum number of secretaries per students? What hours are needed for the office based on hours open?
Conclusion: yes
#6 EVC and MC Lab Liaison
Full time coordinator to cover both labs – Indio and Mecca. Adjuncts currently cover both labs. 52 hours/week at Indio, in summer, 20 hours/week in Mecca. We will be able to decrease the # of adjuncts if this position is hired. This is a non-teaching faculty position paid at lab rate. Keep an adjunct at each location and the full time person would go back and forth. Justification: the adjuncts are not there long enough each day to do the coordination w/the teaching faculty, database maintenance, etc. Proposal needs to justify this as a faculty position. If FTE are generated, how many? Describe the interaction of the liaison with faculty and with students. What is the # of students served? The budget needs to cover gasoline going back and forth and office equipment, if necessary.
Conclusion: yes
#7 Enhance DSPS website functionality
This one didn’t require resources? Coincides w/green efforts. No costs listed because the cost isn’t a significant factor. Purpose is to be more green and more accommodating for students to get them the forms they need. This can be done internally by assembling a team. Submitters just wanted CPC to be aware they are doing this as a way of confirming that this activity is a priority. If all departments submit things like this, we can get bogged down. There is a difference between strategic and operational activities. There is a different between new things and everything. As we talk about Program Review, things like this would need to be included in our review. Can this type of communication be done via email or does it come here? Does this address the college-wide matter of putting more online? This distinction is that this item could be the beginning of bigger things on campus. Would this impact other students, potentially? Proposal should include a comment from the dean/supervisor. CPC requests more information about future potential costs.