MINUTES
PLANNING ACTION COUNCIL
(PAC)
Thursday, December 5, 2002
2:40 p.m.
LRC 125
Members
Present:
AFT – W. Hollis,
R. Oakes, J. Stanbery
Co-Chairs: M. Wood, L. Spink
Resource Persons: G. Wood
Guests: B. Englert, , S. Sandt, B. Young
Absent: Classified: L. De Silva, G. Mendoza, T. Gonzales, K. Gentry, L. Payne; Students: M. Abercrombie,
M. Khan, G. Palmer
Meeting called to order
at 2:45 p.m. Quorum present. Minutes for the November 21 meeting were
accepted with changes. Consensus.
M. Wood stated that academic senate had approved sending a one-paragraph executive summary of what had transpired in the meeting to LAHC All over e-mail. PAC was asked for a similar one-paragraph summary to be sent via e-mail within 48-hours to LAHC All. The committee agreed.
1. PAC Evaluation Process
Dr. Ann Tomlinson
PAC is now in the process of performing its annual evaluation which can be both internal and external. Considerable discussion followed on how the committee functions, who makes policy, where the agenda items come from, why the budget was not included as an agenda item. R. Oakes stated he thought the committee was avoiding addressing policy issues thus concerns such as the budget were not included on the agenda. The college needs to deal with the impact of how the budget is affecting the college. Discussion on the agenda process ensued. Campus perceptions of PAC along with what models were previously employed with both positive and negative aspects was also discussed. In the past, all committees made monthly reports to PAC. If there was no report for that month, there was no report. W. Hollis indicated the co-chairs for the Budget committee had tired of asking to be placed on the PAC agenda. Some felt that PAC became primarily reports, but it is important that action items be on the agenda. A committee will further pursue this.
S. McMurray suggested the possibility of 3 chairs. N. Carson suggested a chair and chair emeritus to allow for absences and to assist with the learning curve of chairing. There was discussion of the perception that
co-chairs control PAC and its agenda. A separate chair was suggested so there would be no accusations that the president controls the committee. This perception may have come from the name of the President’s Advisory Committee. N. Malone commented on the productive nature of having caucus within the 4 constituency groups. Individuals had a voice along with the group. However, it was noted that needing to have all four constituencies agree was destructive to the process.
In original discussions 2 years ago for the chair arrangement, the president had not been in favor of having a president act as co-chair of the committee. J. Stanbery stated this model was proposed to fully engage the president in the governance process and not have what previously existed. He stated there should not be a disconnect in the model. However, in light of the current budget and not having unit plans available, we can’t have a budget plan if a college plan is not available. Money should not be driving planning. An example of the importance of committee involvement was the sub-PAC Budget committee, which should be considering how to deal with the current budget crisis. W. Hollis indicated that the Budget committee has been meeting on a regular basis and that every area will need to make cuts.
In February, the committee will address the separate functions within the committee and the chair issue.
2. Review Goals and Assess Progress
Dr. Ann Tomlinson
Dr. Tomlinson distributed a summary of college goals and progress to date, and requested input for integration at our January PAC retreat. She also distributed an excerpt from the AACC handbook providing a construct for college outcomes assessment, and recommended that we update our goal achievement strategies and key performance indicators in this context.
Not all units meet on a regular basis. The sub-PAC committees in Academic Affairs, Administrative Services and Student Services work on the unit plans for their respective units.
3. EIR Update ____
__ Dr. Linda Spink
Dr. Spink updated PAC on potential problems in the environmental impact report, primarily the recommendation by the consultants responsible for the report that four of our buildings might be of historic significance. The implications are still unknown. The traffic study showed we would only need to explore mitigating two intersections (the Anaheim off-ramp and the Five Corners intersections).
Other Items:
· The president stated that any growth in enrollment over 95% of last year’s will need to be documented. Five colleges are in a deficit with LAHC’s deficit expected at $4 million. A team will be visiting the campus.
· Caucus - Dr. Spink finds the caucus idea interesting and suggested one be implemented before making decisions. A lot of decisions have been made over the past 1-1/2 years with the Prop A funds. Dr. Spink noted that the college be seen as a whole and had concerns about consitutencies dividing the campus. N. Carson indicated that caucusing did not always occur, only when the committee was not able to reach consensus. S. Sandt noted that having 4 constituencies allowed one group to veto what the other majorities felt was for the good of the campus.
· The meeting time for PAC is a problem following the Academic Senate meeting.
· It was suggested to form an executive sub-committee with one member from each constituency acting as a real representative, and have comments before next semester. M. Wood and L. Spink will meet with S. McMurray, S. McMullen, N. Carson, and A. Tomlinson.
Meeting adjourned 4:30 p.m.