MINUTES
PLANNING ACTION COUNCIL
(PAC)
Thursday, November 1, 2001
Members
Present
Faculty: Senate – N. Barakat, S. Fasteau, S. McMurray
AFT – W. Hollis, R. Oakes,
J. Stanbery
Classified: G. Mendoza, B. Sotelo, L. Payne, T. Sulyok, L. DeSilva
Students: A. Bolis, A. Khalid, M.
Larios, D. Powell, M. Ramos
Co-Chairs: L. Spink, M. Wood
Resource Persons: C. Liddle, G. Wood
Guests: K. Campbell, B. Englert, T. Liley, T. Munasinghe, S. Sandt
Meeting called to order at 2:10 p.m..
This is the first meeting of the newly constituted PAC committee and the college’s new governance process. Anytime you would like to add agenda items contact M. Wood or L. Spink. The agenda will be created and distributed from the president’s office.
PAC
will serve as the final level of review for all planning. If an item is not in the plan, it will not
get budgeted. PAC represents the formal governing body on campus. Last year few classified participated and
the president acknowledged the increased classified participation with
appreciation.
1. Reaffirmation or Appointment of Facilities
Sub-committee Dr. Linda Spink
Last year a strategic planning taskforce was formed to develop the college master plan. With the passage of Proposition A, division chairs and PAC were asked to decide the priorities of the college. The Facilities Sub-Committee was involved in selecting the architects for the campus and has met with them on two occasions to work on a Facilities Master Plan. They will make recommendations to PAC for Prop A priorities. The committee is composed of 6 faculty: N. Barakat, S. Fasteau, S. Sandt, J. Stanbery, M. Wood, A. Wakita
6 admin: L. Spink, A. Tomlinson, B. Englert, L. Menzies, J. Ricci, L. Rosas
2 classified: C. Youins
There were no students last year
Motion: S. McMurray made a motion that the Facilities Sub-Committee be composed for 6 faculty; 6 administrators, 2 classified and 2 students. Seconded: N. Barakat. CONSENSUS
There was discussion concerning this group setting facilities priorities. Members requested more clarification on the duties of the committee and its make-up since it will be giving direction to the architects and is very influential. It was noted that nothing will be adopted that PAC does not approve. It was also noted this is an open committee and all are welcome to attend. The architects will be hearing the comments of the sub-committee and it was noted that they listen very well. The committee could be the whole of PAC but that may be too large. The committee should be a consistent group of members and be open to all on campus.
The next Facilities sub-committee meeting is Friday, November 9, 10-12 with the architects.
A question was raised concerning the oversight committee whose purpose is to see that the college spends Prop A funds on the right things. The president did not see any overlap of committees.
2. Discussion of Strategic
Planning
Tomlinson / Spink
A. Tomlinson provided an overview of what we’ve done
and where we are. Planning is
fluid. The elements of our strategic
plan were reviewed with development of our vision, mission, values, and 7 goals
with strategies and measurable outcomes. A
A unit plan is a plan developed by a workgroup designed to help the college achieve its goals and objectives and is based on measurable outcomes. The plans are written by planning clusters and units and are linked to other planning documents and can be linked to other planning units. The next step is organization of the budget and other sub-committees as part of PAC. Followed by organization of the action plan budget request and process.
Strategic planning actually has military roots with the three elements being a definite purpose; understanding the environment, and effective responses to environmental forces. Traditional planning speaks to the past while strategic planning speaks to the future. A successful strategic plan leads to action, a shared vision that is values based, an inclusive participatory process, accepts accountability to the community, is externally focused, based on quality data, and a key part of effective management. There are four planning clusters: president’s office; academic affairs; student services and administrative services. The next step is to review what went well and review how we can improve the process.
3. Review of Unit Plans Process _Tomlinson
A. Tomlinson indicated there may be a retreat to evaluate the planning process from last year. She will be meeting with areas to work on their unit plans; match goals to strategies and measure outcomes. She will also be attending PAC sub-committee meetings to provide concrete tasks for the unit review process. It was suggested to make the plans available on campus and put them on the internet.
The unit plan for Behavioral Sciences was distributed and used as an example. It was suggested that departments break down activities into small chunks with corresponding small dollar figures, and to prioritize them. PAC will be looking at all the numbered priorities so it was suggested to be specific and breakdown requests. This data may further help in writing grants.
The budget committee will implement those priorities selected by PAC. The committee currently does not have any direction from PAC. They will be writing a new budget policy and procedures manual, finding funds for projects, doing more analysis to address financial problems, and making less allocations. A planning timeframe with lexicon was distributed.
4. Discussion of Program Review
__M. Wood
Our last accreditation visit indicated the college needed to develop a way to perform program review from all sides, i.e. administration, academic, student services, etc. M. Wood, J. Thomas-Spiegel and L. Rosas recently went to an assessment institute that provided some good ideas. Fullerton College has a good process with a good narrative, that is easy to understand and yet still provides a guide to the future. In mid-November the division chairs will receive their program review. All areas on campus will be doing a program review. On the academic side, the reviews will rotate every 2-3 years. The program review becomes the resulting foundation for the unit plan and will identify the resources needed to move ahead.
5. Review of Accreditation
Report
Spink/M. Wood
6. New Accreditation
Standards
Tomlinson
The number of accreditation standards is being changed from 10 to 4 and will focus on accountability and outcomes. 1) Institutional Mission & Assessment of Effectiveness; 2)Student Learning Programs & Services; 3) Resources; and 4) Leadership & Vested Authority.
The committee will meet at least once each month and may call a second meeting as necessary. It was suggested to change the start time to 2:30 p.m. Meeting date: December 6
Meeting adjourned