Resource Persons: G. Wood

Co-Chairs: M. Wood, L. Spink

Guests: V. Calzaba, B. Englert, S. Fasteau, B. Mcneel, C. Muldoon, S. Sandt, D. Tull

Absent: Administration: N. Carson; Classified: T. Gonzales, L. Payne; Students: M. Abercrombie,

S. McMullen, G. Palmer, B. Pescult

Meeting called to order at 2:45 p.m. Quorum present. Minutes for the February 20 meeting were accepted as presented. Consensus. There were no changes/additions to the agenda.

1. Allocation Grant Update

M. Wood provided a summary of what the Chancellor shared with the Senate at their meeting concerning the allocation grant. The Chancellor apologized that dollar figures were not included in the letter with recommendations. He stated that the list of recommendations were suggestions and did not exclude the campus coming up with additional sources of revenue or modifying the requests with other proposals. He did emphasize that the five recommendations need to be addressed seriously. He was looking at a 3-5 year timeframe to implement the recommendations and he said there might be allocation enhancements during that time and funding if the campus is abiding by what they have agreed to. A final decision needs to be made in May. The Senate requested a letter to clarify that the recommendations are open to suggestions or additions. Suggestions from the campus to the 5 recommendations can be sent to the allocation committee. If the campus does nothing, the college will only receive the existing allocation. The Chancellor said he realized that the college will not be out of the deficit if it does the 5 recommendations and he saw no point in telling the college it would have to pay back the deficit as the college would remain in deficit.

Dr. Spink noted that Dr. Drummond continues to say that colleges in the red can’t continue in that mode. It was hoped that attaching dollar figures to the recommendations would create more options. J. Stanbery stated that a targeted incentive may be part of the package offered in September. It was noted this would require an analysis of costs/savings. W. Hollis pointed out the college need not wait to see who retires.

R. Oakes expressed concern that he has received calls from faculty that some are being singled out and that the process of locating faculty who may be interested in transferring or retiring is being done incorrectly. He would like to see the college find a way for people to explore the possibility of transfers and to talk with everyone. Division chairs ought not to be being asked to determine seniority. This is a function of the district and inappropriate on campus. The entire process needs to be done within shared governance and he suggested workshops on retirement and transfers. Dr. Spink noted that the academic cluster is currently working on a process for that. The data provided by the district needs to be reviewed for efficiency of department, staffing, etc. across the district. L. Rosas pointed out that there are different types of seniority. Voluntary transfers do not involve seniority. Involuntary transfers are based on seniority. He noted it is important that the division chairs understand the mechanism and how it works and has been in the process of educating the chairs. The chancellor thought the recommendations would be discussed on campus and not automatically accepted. The Senate passed a resolution that no administrator could pressure any faculty to retire or transfer. It was noted that the chancellor did not expect any transfer or retirees to come from the grant allocation. B. Mcneel indicated that the faculty perception may be wrong and that administration does need to start the process. S. McMurray recommended the situation could be handled differently. R. Oakes indicated some faculty may be interested in the voluntary program. People need to be presented with opportunities and not fear. B. Guertin mentioned the chancellor said transfers would only occur to schools needinig faculty. M. Wood suggested 2 seminars – What is Transfer and What is Retirement. The AFT could address retirement and academic affairs, transfer.

It was noted the chancellor would facilitate a package involving transfers. L. Rosas said some faculty were ecstatic about transfers and that there is misperception of the process. S. Fasteau reminded the committee there would be no replacements for any transfers. Dr. Spink recommended using the distsrict data for analysis.

Low Enrollment/Program not Vital: What process is in place to evaluate programs? Dr. Spink noted the college has been involved in developing unit plans. Smaller colleges may need to look at their mission and not offer such comprehensive curriculum. PAC would be the body on campus to determine the process. SAPPC (program review document) will be ready for the next Senate meeting. Dr. Tomlinson indicated that the district asked the college to take a look the classes with fewer than 25 students. B. Mcneel pointed out that in some cases 25 was an unrealistic class size in areas such as vocational and nursing. The vocational fields do not have a representative on the district committee. Advanced classes and progression of students through the programs is being evaluated. All the mechanisms exist for program initiation, program vitality and program discontinuence. There needs to be a more comprehensive and thorough program review. The data provides a sense of objectivity, but numbers must not make the decisions. All programs will need an analysis of the data. The data is driven by the program review. The academic affairs sub-PAC committee will consider the mission statement, market need, and relevance to students in evaluating programs, with the result being brought to PAC. It was noted that program review looks at program vitality which also includes bringing it up to speed and not only discontinuence. The program reviews will look at departments to help the over all college mission and establish a series of prioritizations.

B. Mcneel stated that programs are strong because of the faculty who work with industry and keep the curriculum current. R. Oakes reminded the committee that adequate funding and administsrative support is also very important in assisting faculty with access to the new technology. L. Rosas reminded the committee that during tight times of the need to utilize economic development, i.e, grant writing to bring in new dollars. The clusters can help identify these areas and PAC wants to encourage and monitor the issue. The accuracy of the data provided by the district was questioned. and needs to be cleaned up.

Dr. Spink noted that we have been successful in greatly reducing the sub & relief expenditures. The grant allocation indicated that the college was understaffed. M. Wood spoke to trustees M. Field and W. Furutani, and they are were committed to the permanent employees.

2. Cluster Committee Reports

· Student Services sub-PAC Committee – J. Ricci: the committee reviewed and updated the unit plans in light of the budget and mid-year cuts. They are currently reviewing this years’ unit plans, and will look at block grant funding, with a goal to complete program reviews.

· Academic Affairs sub-PAC Committee – L. Rosas: the committee is looking at ways to save funds in a positive, equitable and sensitive manner. The committee will be involved with analysis of program review.

· Faculty Leadership – M. Wood: The committee suggested that the allocation recommendations be addressed with the existing committee structure on campus. The Academic Senate affirmed this position.

· Administrative Services sub-PAC Committee – J. Davis: The committee will meet for the first time next week to define its goals. There is no history of program review and thus everything will be new.

· Budget Committee – W. Hollis: The president agreed to the procedure of placing the reductions from the clusters ($644,000), in a holding account at the college.

Meeting adjourned 4:30 p.m.