MINUTES
EMERGENCY
PLANNING ACTION COUNCIL
(PAC)
COLLEGE
PLANNING COUNCIL (CPC)
Thursday, September 25, 2003
2:40 p.m.
Members
Present:
Students: T. Bardwell, C. Garcia, A. Navarro-Rodrigues, Y. Talavera
Co-Chairs: N. Carson, S. McMurray
Resource Persons: B. Easley
Absent: Faculty: B. Guertin, D. Tull, J. Stanbery; Classified: L. Payne; Resource: G. Wood
Meeting called to order at 2:45 p.m. Quorum present. The 72-hour notice was not met.
Opening items. This is a single focus meeting to address the college response to the Grant Allocation Committee’s letter and will not include reports from the standing committees. N. Carson is the co-chair for the College Planning Council along with S. McMurray
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as modified to include a discussion of budget decisions.
As part of the agreement between the college and the Allocation Grant TaskForce, the college agreed to provide by September 30, 2003, a list of programs that will be undergoing program review. There is a December 31, 2003 timeline for vitality reviews if needed. A meeting with the AGTF is scheduled for the end of October regarding budget reconcilation. The TaskForce will return to campus in March of 2004 to meet with PAC/CPC. There was considerable discussion on how the reviews would be accomplished and what they would include. It was acknowledged that all areas need a program review prior to the accreditation visit next year. This action moves the college in the direction of meeting the Allocation Grant TaskForce Guidelines.
The District Budget Committee met with the unions to look at lay-offs. The lay-offs are moving forward with classified reductions. The District Budget Committee agreed to look at a proposal to hire a consultant to look at the allocation model. This is a major decision for the DBC and will give LAHC an opportunity to have their side heard. The results may or may not benefit the college.
The budget update document dated 9/23/03 was distributed and clarified. The college deficit remains at $553,894. It was noted that retirements for spring were not factored in, but the numbers did include the adustment for reorganization of the facilities area. There also was an increase in the cost for hourly replacements. The $300,000 funding from PFE was included and helped the college. Possible spring retirements raised concern about the vitality of programs. The college will not be funded for any FTES above 6400. Because of the large class sizes, the college may end up with more FTES for the fall which means reduced spring class offerings. Average class size increased from 32 to 36 student. Pierce and East have over 40. Class sizes may continue to incease with admissions at the local universities not accepting new or transfer students in the spring. CSU Long Beach, CSU Northridge and CSU San Diego are closed for spring admissions. CSUDH and CSULA are still open. M. Wood noted that faculty had accepted large class enrollments and now it appeared the college is being punished. A fatigue factor enters in when faculty are teaching so many students
The Chancellor has communicated to our President, that if the college does everything outlined by the AGTF, the district may look at waiving the debt payment for next year. W. Hollis expressed concern for next year’s budget. The district will receive $1 million less and COLA exists along with an increase in the PERS contribution by the district from 16% to 24%. The district was fined $2.955 million for over enrollment.
G. Mendoza’s concern for funding in IT was recommended for the agenda at the next CPC meeting.
S. McMurray provided an update on Academic Senate decisions including the PFE request to fund $20,000 for the Life Skills Center and $45,000 for the LAC. The Senate has worked on the program review document which was distributed along with efficiency data for fall 2002 from the Fact Book. Discussion followed. It was decided that PACE be considered as a whole area for program review and not the invididual classes. One criteria from the GAC for program review was average class size enrollment under 25. M. Wood recommmended the committee use this criteria to determine which program that will go through program review initially. The campus needs to use the fall 2002 district data despite it having some incorrect figures. However comments to explain the figures can be included in the review. Justification of the effiency for dollars spent on courses offered can also be included in the review. The program review template is seen as an opportunity for areas to present the best case for their areas. N. Barabkat said the Academic Affairs sub-PAC cluster recommended using the under 25 criteria to determine program review. L. Rosas made a motion. N. Barakat seconded.
CONSENSUS – To compile a list of disciplines for program review with less than average class size of 25. This excludes PACE which will be considered as a whole.
The completed program review document can be sent to A. Tomlinson
by November 7. The Division Chairs will
be advised of the date. The Senate, CPC
and sub-PAC cluster all need to look at the program reviews prior to being
submitted to A. Tomlinson. N. Carson noted there is a
review cycle which cannot be arbitrarily changed. L. Rosas noted there needs to be a quality control meaure in the
process so that reviews are consistent and of equal quality. Division Council is the first check of
quality and they can return the review to the division.
The participatory governance document approved by Academic Senate on 7/31/03 with changes was again reviewed with changes being made to the 9/24/03 version. It was acknowledged that the document can be changed and moved forward. S. McMurray stated the program review preceeds a viability review and wants to avoid any rush to discontinuing a program. The clusters for Administrative Services and Student Services need to adopt the Academic Support portion for the program review. Academic programs are identified with TOP codes. Each division will decide how inclusive to be of the various disciplines within the divison. L. Spink noted that there was nothing in the program review that assured currency to the program. It needs an assessment that the teaching is state of the art and she Swould like the divisions to look at currency. It was noted that peer evaluation can address the issues of currency of individuals. It was recommended that the two non-academic clusters have an opportunity to review the document since it needs to be mutually agreed upon.
CONSENSUS – To accept the Program Review Document dated 9/24/03 with changes.
Meeting adjourned 4:20 p.m.