Resource Persons: G. Wood

Co-Chairs: M. Wood, L. Spink

Guests:

Absent:

Meeting called to order at 2:45 p.m. Quorum present. A report on facilities was added to the agenda.

1. Proposition AA ________

Dr. Spink explained that the adoption of this proposition would finance most of the items excluded from our initial five-year plan for funding through Proposition A, and that PAC should decide on its process for confirming intended prioritizations. Consensus for a special facilities planning retreat Saturday,

April 5 from 9 to 1.

2. Committee Reports ______

· Academic Affairs sub-PAC Committee – L. Rosas: summarized the committee’s task to survey the division strengths and weaknesses one by one. Statistics supplied by the Planning Office show relatively strong offerings across the board. The committee will be stressing reviews for those programs which show questionable vitality. R. Oakes asked how the committee’s considerations are being addressed and was assured that its assessments not being made in terms of relative seniority of faculty members but by established planning criteria and that all final decisions will be made through PAC. L. Rosas also reported that LAUSD is proposing bringing in additional portable facilities to accommodate expansion of our academy program onto two of our eight tennis courts. In this connection, there was considerable discussion of the proposed expansion of the high school academy and the negative impact on the tennis program which would result, with the assurance that no decisions on such matters will be made except as provided in our shared governance process.

· Administrative Services sub-PAC Committee – J. Davis: the committee’s recommended priorities were distributed detailing an array of possible economies and service upgrades. The committee also adopted a draft report to the district allocation committee reflecting its proprieties.

· Student Services sub-PAC Committee – J. Ricci: the committee has reviewed and strengthened the plans of the units comprising the cluster.

3. Program Review ________

M. Wood distributed the draft program review document previously sun shined for the Senate, inviting input from all affected parties.

4. Participatory Governance

M. Wood sketched the intended timeline for approval of the revised governance document, reminding the body that [1] the college president had convened a special PAC working group through which an initial proposal had been referred to the Senate, [2] APPC had conveyed its response to the president, [3] the PAC working group, properly constituted, should respond in turn, [4] the resulting recommendations by APPC should then be referred to the Senate. Dr. Spink suggested that the working group and APPC work jointly. R. Oakes will appoint two AFT representatives to the working group.

5. Budget Update __________

L. McKenzie distributed a summary of the district’s second quarter budget report for Harbor College and of the Budget Committee’s meeting March 18. The District Budget Committee may at last be grasping that Harbor College is an “under-funded” college rather than a “deficit” college - that is, the equivalent, in a district frame-of-reference, of a “low-revenue college” in state terminology. The committee is now looking at revenue-generating accounts such as Program 145.

6. Facilities __________

B. Young read the contract provisions relating to the Work Environment Committee. PAC agreed that these must be reflected in the revised governance document. The Work Environment committee will have a comprehensive parking plan for the next PAC meeting. After a discussion of ASO parking, the committee’s report on disaster procedures was tabled to the next PAC meeting.

Meeting adjourned 4:30 p.m.