CPC Minutes

printer friendly

Approved MINUTES

COLLEGE PLANNING COUNCIL (CPC)

Monday, 15 December 2008

1:30 pm

LRC 207, Smart Classroom

Presiding: B. McNeel

Members Present:

Co-Chair: J. Smith, B; McNeel

Administration: l. Spink, A. Patterson, L. Rosas, N. Malone, D. Humphreys

Faculty: AFT: J. Stanbery, S. McMurray, B. Young

Senate: L. Mckenzie, N. Barakat

Classified: I. Clarke, L. DaSilva

Students:

Guests: S. Fasteau

Absent: Administration: B. Richards, A. Tomlinson; Faculty: AFT: M. Wood, L. Lane; Senate: N. Barakat; Classified: R. Nadler, w. Gilliam; Students: R. Richards

Meeting was called to order at 1:35.

Acceptance of Agenda:

The Agenda was accepted as presented.

Acceptance of Minutes of 11/24/08

Minutes were not available for acceptance.

Public Comment Time

No public comment.

Reports:

Administrative report (taken out of order):

Building report/District information and updates:

L. Spink discussed the budget crisis. She reported that she met with Senator Lowenthal Friday afternoon. Three budget plans are being discussed. The plan backed by the governor would raise our rates to $26 a unit in January and $30 in September; the last time the rates were raised there were also ramifications to financial aid. The chancellor seems to feel we can manage the cuts for this year, as long as the cuts are around 10 million. If the state doesn’t do anything it will run out of money by the end of March. The district could last another month or two before it ran into problems with payroll.

Hopefully we will know this week if we’re moving on the 22^nd; we are nearing the end of the approval process.

The decision about summer school will be made when we see the spring FTES. Most of the colleges are talking about starting summer session on the first of July; it all depends on the FTES. The question was raised about running 4-day weeks during the summer; would the resulting savings make it worthwhile? If classes are kept to a minimum of buildings, it is easier to clean, etc. It is critical we make our FTES base.

L. Rosas raised the question of the upcoming Accreditation Training at the end of January; discussion included how to fund attendance, how many people to send and who they should be.

L. Spink discussed Proposition J and the need to prioritize projects; discussion included choosing a date for that meeting, and for the Educational Master Plan meeting as well. The Educational master Plan meeting will be held on 1/27, and the Proposition J meeting will be held on 2/2.

Special Report: An update on the ARCCC report by Associate Dean Richards:

R. Richards not in attendance; report not presented

College Planning:

Educational Master Plan (taken out of order):

J. Stanbery reported that the college’s presentation of the Educational Master Plan before the district is anticipated for spring, 2010.

J. Stanbery distributed and discussed the Educational master Plan and the Strategic Plan.

Action Items: (taken out of order)

3. Discussion and adoption of changes to the program review/accreditation planning calendar. Discussion included:

Revised planning calendar
Changes in due dates for program review process to allow as much time as possible for the process while considering the rest of the timeline.
D. Humphreys pointed out that we need to plan in advance of the upcoming academic year, to have a plan in place at the beginning of that year to be implemented that year, rather than to begin planning in the beginning of the academic year for that year, which leaves little time for implementation.

Changes in the planning calendar were adopted by consensus.

Discussion of a draft matrix to coordinate the college goals with the ISLOs

and adoption of a matrix for use in creating the Educational Master Plan. Discussion included:

Linking of the college goals to the SLOs. There is a gap in the planning process between the goals and the ISLOs; they need to be integrated.
The question of Service Area Outcomes vs. Student Learning Outcomes was raised; everything done on campus contributes to student learning, including the work of the Facilities Department.
Per A. Patterson, Student Services is comfortable combining and measuring both Service Area and Student Learning Outcomes.
ISLOs should be instilled and in use in all areas.
Per I. Clarke, the Administrative cluster goals are tied back to SLOs. Measurement can’t always be on a one-to-one basis, but can be done on a general basis by polling students and doing focus groups.

L. Spink and J. Stanbery are to work together to create a matrix. Each of the clusters will move forward with linking ISLOs to one of their particular goals.

2. Discussion of a draft prioritization of cluster priorities rubric to be used in creating the Educational Master Plan. Discussion included:

Each cluster will list proposed activities; the matrix will include criteria by which to judge each activity.
It was proposed that the model for the process be based on the Academic Affairs process: everyone received a ballot listing the activities, they are discussed and prioritized. The priorities are then brought to CPC for a college-wide prioritization.
Each cluster uses their own criteria for prioritization.
Whatever the position of an activity on the priority list, grants can still be found to pay for the activity. Priorities should fuel what grants we go after, but should not stop something from being looked at. The budget committee would fund the college priories; planning would drive budget.
Future grant applications will be granted increasingly by priorities. A plan is necessary to insure future funding.
Updating the college plan should be a regular part of every CPC meeting.
Whatever system we put in place has to be adaptable and responsive to the needs of the community.