MINUTES 12:00 PM MAL COMM. ROOM - College of the Desert€¦ · Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Farley

College Planning Council

MINUTES MAY 14, 2010 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM MAL COMM. ROOM

ATTENDEES

Members: Jerry Patton, Jeff Place, Rick Rawnsley, Wendy Sanders, Doug MacIntire, PE Vacant, Victor Rios, Ty Thomas, Chris Nelson, Rey Ortiz, Daniel Kleinfelter, Lisa Soccio, Chuck Decker, Fergus Currie (Cathy Levitt), Ted Grofer, Mary Lisi, Terri Fleck, Aries Jaramillo, Michelle Price, Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Farley Herzek, Diane Ramirez, Edwin Deas. Non-Voting Members: Matthew Breindel, Amy DiBello. Recorder: Revae Reynolds

Agenda topics

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4/9/10 AND 4/23/10

J. PATTON

DISCUSSION

J. Patton expressed appreciation for the time committee members have dedicated to College Planning Council this year. Some are rotating off the Council or changing their representation: J. Place, T. Fleck, D. MacIntire, M. Price, W. Sanders, T. Thomas, C. Nelson, T. Grofer, and A. Gonzales. C. Nelson made a motion to accept both sets of minutes (attachment #1 and #2), seconded by J. Place. J Patton noted that he was not present at the April 23 meeting, so the minutes will be amended accordingly. Approval was unanimous with one change noted.

CONCLUSIONS Minutes of April 9 and April 23 were approved.

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

1. None

2. EDUCATION MASTER PLAN REPORT

F. HERZEK

DISCUSSION

F. Herzek reported that he is very pleased with the draft Educational Master Plan which is approx. 200 pages. He noted that there is still work to do to finalize the plan, but this document is a very solid foundation. It will be used for planning and contains lots of useful information and data. It begins with an outstanding external scan. The demographic statistics alone are valuable. The committee discussed the internal scan and how it would be completed. There is information about enrollments, FTES, etc. It is interesting to note that in Fall 1995 we had 2,500 FTES. In Fall 2009 we had 4,600 FTES - almost double. In Fall 2020, it is estimated that we will have 6,146 FTES. This is only one example of how this document will help us plan and prepare for our future. This draft has all of our Program Reviews, complete or not. The populated data from Research is there, but not all of the program-specific information. He recommended that members go back to their areas and let people know this PRU information is critical to this planning opportunity. A program survey was conducted and survey results distributed to CPC (attachment #3). Sixty percent of the respondents on the survey were faculty members. Students were also surveyed by way of focus groups. The survey asked about new programs to offer and programs that need strengthening and on which campus they should be located. These are recommendations in a draft, not a final plan. The completion of this document early in the Fall is critical to our planning. The subcommittee of CPC will continue to meet periodically to review the plan and make necessary updates. F. Herzek distributed a sampling of the comments from the survey.

J. Patton reported that he has started reading it and is impressed by the document. Everyone has access to an electronic copy. P LiCalsi will check to see where the document is posted on the porta l and include the link in today’s bullets. D. MacIntire noted that the student responses are not included in this handout. The student surveys were conducted in 3 focus groups, and not at EVC, but students were asked if they had taken classes at the MT campus. It was noted that it would be interesting to know the faculty breakdown – full time versus adjunct, and which disciplines were represented.

CONCLUSIONS The draft of the Educational Master Plan is complete and ready to be reviewed and finalized ea rly in the Fall. Complete Program Reviews are critical to this document and our planning process.


1. Include link to portal document w/bullet list from today. P. LiCalsi 5/21/10

3. EVALUATION TASK FORCE REPORT

C. NELSON

DISCUSSION

C Nelson distributed a flow chart depicting the reconstructed planning process (attachment #4). D MacIntire asked about faculty input. C Nelson responded that faculty have input at the PRU, program, and unit levels. The replacement of a faculty person who leaves was discussed. The unit would visit the matter with attention to the strategic goals. The operational planning would be done with an idea of the unit’s budget, not a financial vacuum. The outcomes will capture accomplishments that didn’t cost money as well as those that do. There was discussion about whether or not positions are automatically replaced when vacated. The manager should have the information to make these decisions, but he/she must have consistent information to make informed decisions considering the well being of the institution as a whole, even if it means they give up their position for another in another area. The decision should be made by the manager in that area, with the commitment to the institution, not their own area. The task force noted that CPC was spending more time on operations and too little time on how strategic planning gets done. There are details about operations that have yet to be worked out. Some believe faculty positions are strategic and some believe they are more operational in nature. E Deas is in favor of the proposal to have managers in charge of their own budgets. He also noted that Business Affairs has 5-year rolling budgets, so providing budget information in the fall for the following year is possible. D MacIntire noted that the PRUs need to feed into college goal setting. C Nelson confirmed that this is the intent. J Patton asked what is required between now and next fall. Chris responded:

1. Planning and Institutional Effectiveness plan should be revised to accommodate this proposal. 2. Develop a plan and materials, and training in the new process. (Chris distributed a timeline. The

items in bold take place in CPC.) 3. Develop a process for managing our strategic planning sessions. There are 2 six-hour meetings.

What will happen then? First would be SWOT using the strategic educational master plan and second would be approving a 3-5 year plan, establishing annual strategic goals for 2011-12.

4. Determine the budget plan/timeline. October 30 is proposed. D Ramirez asked about evaluation on one year before planning for the next. One option is to use the summer to process the May progress reports and then assess the previous academic year in September and then set the new goals for the year. C Nelson’s timeline suggests that the strategic planning takes place in April. By September, we are already into the year about which we are planning. The operational accomplishments cannot be known in April, but the strategic level would be known in April. P Licalsi noted that all of Student Affairs’ February progress reports are in. C Nelson asked if there might be consensus about this proposed plan. D MacIntire noted that there is still a question about how vacant faculty positions are replaced. J Place clarified that the answer to this question does not impact the faculty positions discussed at the last meeting. There was consensus on the updated

planning process.

CONCLUSIONS

The Evaluation Task Force presented a redesigned planning process and timeline so CPC could spend more time on strategic planning and less time on operational matters. There is clarification required on how vacant faculty positions are handled.


1. Update Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Plan with these changes.

2. Develop the plan, materials, and training for this new process. 3. Plan CPC strategic planning meetings: timeline and content. 4. Determine the budget plan/timeline.

P. LiCalsi Who? Who? Who?

8/30/2010 8/25/2010 8/15/2010 8/30/2010

4. PRES. EFFICIENCY TASK FORCE REPORT

J. PATTON

DISCUSSION

J Patton distributed a report by the task force (attachment #5) and noted that recommendations are divided into short-range and long-range plans. Short-range addresses the reorganization due to the loss of PIO and Director of Research. Institutional Effectiveness Office will pick up Public Relations along with R Cotton. Also P Chapman will help with research in IS. Information Systems will pick up Research and E Rahimic will report to IS. The Data Task Force that reports to CPC will work with IS to provide the data to the end users in Academic Affairs. International Education could be expanded to include faculty exchange and our students studying abroad. It will now report to President because it includes aspects of all 3 Vice President areas, as shown on the proposed org chart included in the report. With respect to the Foundation and Alumni Association, these 2 groups have been somewhat disconnected from the college. Proposed reporting will help coordinate these fundraising opportunities and create efficiencies. Our Alumni Association is currently primarily a street fair organization, not a traditional alumni association. President will work with the alumni board to bring them under the college and leave the street fair as a stand alone. This is the short-term piece. Also within the report, J Patton presented the short-term versus long-term list. This task force will continue to meet next fall to discuss long-range matters. M Lisi would like to discuss with supervisors the positions with dual reporting.

CONCLUSIONS The President’s Efficiency Task Force has short- and long-term plans for efficiency, as well as a proposed new organizational chart for this area. The task force will resume meetings in the fall.


1. None.

5. STUDENT AFFAIRS EFFICIENCY TASK FORCE REPORT

D. RAMIREZ

DISCUSSION

D Ramirez reported that the task force met ten times. Their focus was the economic impact of the budget cuts. Categorical funds were cut 40%. There was backfill from ARRA funds, but not the full amount promised. Again for next year, district will backfill some. Here is the link to the report: Student Affairs Efficiency Task Force Report, April 2010 They are looking at some new job classifications and improving student contact hours, expend ing some things, reorganizing some things, and reallocating institutional resources. They created a table with 20 recommendations, not prioritized. She reviewed each of the items on the table.

http://campus/Committees/pc/cpc/Efficiency%20Taskforce/1/SAETF%20Final%20Report%20041910.pdf

http://campus/Committees/pc/cpc/Efficiency%20Taskforce/1/SAETF%20Final%20Report%20041910.pdf

CONCLUSIONS Student Affairs Efficiency Task Force will continue to meet next year to implement some of these proposals.


1. None.

6. ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT

R. ORTIZ

DISCUSSION

Regarding the representation of instructional divisions in CPC, the Academic Senate hopes to finalize the representation by the end of the academic year. There are currently 11 representatives, but the reorganization of Academic Affairs may influence the representation. Some are concerned about having unit leaders represent their areas on all campus committees and that would be a lot for these individuals. There are 5 Senate committees. Nine of the current units will continue, add non credit and one more math/science. R Ortiz has suggested that the smaller departments pool their representatives, but they don’t meet as a unit so CPC information would not be disseminated. There may be a difference between representation of academic units at the Senate and representation at CPC. This will be reviewed over the summer.

CONCLUSIONS Academic Senate will decide the instruction representation by the end of the academic year.


1. Determine CPC representation. Academic Senate 6/1/10

7. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

J. PATTON

DISCUSSION

J Patton believes professional development is important and recognizes this is difficult when our budget is so restricted.

CONCLUSIONS


1. None.

Adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

Attachments (see following pages):

1. Minutes from April 9, 2010 2. Minutes from April 23, 2010 3. Education Master Plan, Survey Results 4. Evaluation Task Force – New Planning Process Flow Chart 5. President’s Efficiency Task Force Report

Attachment #1

Minutes from April 9


MINUTES APR. 9, 2010 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM MAL COMM. ROOM

ATTENDEES

Members: Jerry Patton, Jeff Place, Rick Rawnsley, Wendy Sanders, Doug MacIntire, PE Vacant, Victor Rios, Ty Thomas, Chris Nelson, Rey Ortiz, Daniel Kleinfelter, Lisa Soccio, Chuck Decker, Fergus Currie (Cathy Levitt), Ted Grofer, Mary Lisi, Terri Fleck, Aries Jaramillo, Michelle Price, Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Farley Herzek, Diane Ramirez, Edwin Deas. Recorder: Revae Reynolds

Agenda topics

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ALL

DISCUSSION Chris Nelson made a motion to accept the minutes for Feb. 19 (attachment #1) and March 12 (attachment #2) as distributed. Jeff Place seconded. Approved unanimously.

CONCLUSIONS Both minutes approved.


1. None.

2. FEEDBACK ON BULLETS FROM LAST MEETING

ALL

DISCUSSION

Feedback was positive. It is too soon to determine if bullet list will improve communication from College Planning Council to the rest of the campus. It was suggested that directions to portal documents should always be included on the bullet notes.

CONCLUSIONS Continue printing the bullet list summary of CPC meetings. Directions to portal documents will be included.


1. Continue printing bullet list summary – with directions to portal documents.

LiCalsi / Reynolds ongoing

3. URGENT FACULTY HIRE REQUEST

D. RAMIREZ

DISCUSSION

President Patton noted that our predecessor group, SEMPPC, talked about how to fill an unexpected faculty vacancy. C. Nelson reported that SEMPPC considered the emergency hire a temporary position so time would be available to evaluate whether or not the position needed to continue. J Patton remembered that during Dr. Browning‟s time, the emergency hire would be added to the current year faculty priority list, although we have none for 2009-2010. D. Ramirez noted the vacancy left by the passing of David Buttles and described the unique skills the position requires: knowledge of transfer, athletic eligibility, commission on athletics, and academic counseling (attachment #3). D. Ramirez suggests this position be placed as #1 on the 9-10 priority list for student affairs. T. Thomas noted that the vacancy has clearly impacted students negatively. C. Nelson added that the college has had eligibility issues over the past year which suggests urgency to this matter. Most colleges have such a position. There was discussion about how to handle this situation because CPC did not create a faculty priority list for 2009-2010. It was noted how many students are affected, whether or not we have retirements, and

the fact that this hire will meet our Full-Time Faculty Obligation for FY10-11. It was noted that retirements are handled differently. This is an unexpected vacancy. There was discussion about whether or not the position would be full-time temporary or tenure track and the ease/difficulty of finding a qualified person in this job market. M. Price made a motion to accept hiring the replacement; T Grofer seconded. Discussion: There was discussion about positions that deal with legal/Ed Code mandates and the handling of past cases. If CPC approves this, it must make sure to provide the unique justifications for the hire. The faculty on the 2009-2010 priority list was shown. Following the process in the CPC Handbook, D. Ramirez (Student Affairs) made a secondary motion to place this position at the top of the 2009-2010 faculty priority list. Discussion: Should the position be temporary or not? It was noted that placement on the list implies that we go forward with full-time hire. J. Berg called for the question: 20 yes, 3 opposed. Motion to place the Athletic Advisor on the 2009-2010 faculty priority list in the number one position passed. Back to discussion about first motion: hiring the replacement. There are currently no intentions to hire faculty from the 2009-2010 list, but we must hire two in 2010-2011 because we are 2 under our Full-time Faculty Obligation (FTFO). See page 33-34 in the CPC Handbook. There was discussion about the open faculty positions that were in process for hiring, but frozen when budget crisis hit. The handbook doesn‟t cover freezes. E. Deas believes that frozen positions should go forward. Second, he just came from a meeting regarding FTFO and COD only needs to hire one full-time faculty in 2010-2011. J. Patton asked if there were consensus that the frozen positions be considered. We are now talking only of faculty hires. There are other positions that were prioritized and frozen due to budget. Positions that never make it through the budget process are treated differently than those that were through budget and frozen after that. There was consensus that the frozen positions will be placed on the 2009-2010 priority list, with no rank, and the emergency position will be #1 on the list and one position will be hired. It‟s presence at the number 1 position implies that it will be hired. Doug noted that historically, the CPC would determine the priority order of faculty, not deans. C. Nelson noted that the position is placed at #1 due to consequences of its responsibilities. J Patton noted that the position will now be advertised.

CONCLUSIONS

* The Athletic Advisor was placed on the 2009-2010 Faculty Priority List in the number one position. * The positions that were already through the budget process when they were “frozen” will be added back on the 2009-2010 priority list, without a rank. * By virtue of being on the priority list, the position is considered full -time, tenure track. * The college must hire one full-time faculty person for 2010-2011 to fulfill its FTFO. * The selection process will be initiated for the Athletic Advisor position.


1. Initiate selection process for Athletic Advisor position. HR Fall 2010

4. DEVELOP 2011-2012 GOALS

ALL

DISCUSSION

It was noted that the current college goals are broad. Chris noted that the Evaluation Task Force is talking about how institutional goals are written. We might establish annual goals separate from broad institutional goals. Before the semester is over, we need to establish 11 or 12 goals for next year. We should review the previous year‟s assessment before we establish new goa ls and the Evaluation Task Force is in the process of doing that, so we will have them before we finalize the 2011-2012 goals.

CONCLUSIONS College should assess previous year‟s goals before 2011-2012 goals are determined. Evaluation Task Force is reviewing this process.


1. Assess progress on previous year‟s goals. Eval Task Force ?

5. CPC MEETINGS ALL

DISCUSSION

Page 10 of the College Planning Council Handbook describes the Council‟s decision-making process. CPC decisions use the consensus method, which is somewhat more chaotic than Roberts Rules of Order, but allows for more in depth exploration of the topics. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Consensus is a decision making process (a certain percentage threshold can be determined) and is separate from discussion. The voting method can lead to a lot of dissention. Agendas can be created that separate discussion from decision-making. Our discussions tend to wander and the group should empower the chairs to keep the discussion on track. Agenda can identify timelines for topic discussion. Time can be saved if reports were submitted in advance so members could review them ahead of time. A task force makes a report. They should submit it ahead of time so it can be distributed in advance. It may be for information or decision.

CONCLUSIONS College Planning Council makes decisions based on consensus. Advance notification of reports is helpful. Task forces report to the Council.


1. None.

6. CONSTITUENT FEEDBACK – BUDGET TASK FORCE FINDINGS

ALL

DISCUSSION This topic was covered in the discussions above.

CONCLUSIONS


1.

7. CONSTITUENT FEEDBACK – PRIORITIZED GOALS

ALL

DISCUSSION

Comments include: There was a comment that the library is underrepresented on the list. M. Lisi noted that the

library staff should forward their concerns to their supervisor. J. Place reported that vocation is one of the three primary missions of the community colleges,

yet the list does not adequately reflect this priority, Members should be reminded of sorting criteria before sorting Process suggestions should be directed to Ted Grofer, head of Assessment Committee People still claim insufficient information Consistency over time will resolve some of these concerns.

There were no additional comments on the priority list. Consensus achieved; this list is Council‟s recommendation to the president (attachment #4).

CONCLUSIONS With comments noted, the priority list was finalized and recommended to the President.


1. Final priority list will be posted to the CPC portal page. P. Chapman ASAP

8. DEBRIEF PRIORITIZATION PROCESS / BRAINSTORM IMPROVEMENTS

ALL

DISCUSSION

The evaluation subcommittee has been working on this, too, so this is input for them. They will present a report to CPC during one of the next two remaining meetings of this year. P. LiCalsi recorded the suggestions on paper.

1. Everyone liked the pizza 2. Use a standardized form so that each year change the date only 3. There was pleading of cases at the final prioritization meeting / more opportunity for interested

parties to advocate and we have said that is not allowed 4. Post the criteria before prioritizing 5. Need consistency in the writing of goals 6. Prioritize by groups of 4: one item from each of the 4 areas in each group 7. Find a way to do clustering earlier in the process – deans? Areas? 8. Prioritize all things having to do with classroom learning separately on a separate list 9. Business affairs is different. Prioritize operational items versus learning items 10. We struggle with prioritizing the variety: equipment, positions, other stuff. 11. CPC rearranged the area priorities – what is the definition of a good reason to change? 12. Goals/objectives at 3 different levels in the institution is problematic – institution, area, unit. 13. Council should send poorly written goals back for clarification – screen first. 14. PRUs should be on file before item is submitted 15. We need consistency of data requirements 16. Meet deadlines and stay on target 17. We need workshops for writing goals 18. Should be able to submit proposals all year „round 19. Promote ideas as a year-long activity 20. Submit the priorities in your area with your PRU attached 21. CPC should identify annual goals based on our institutional values 22. From eval task force: need full consultation in a program area in writing goals and proposals 23. And – area level goal forms become so complex they are hard to read 24. And - different deans/directors/VPs blended their lists differently, some added all in as goals,

other goals became objectives. 25. And – inserting all other items into academic affairs was unfair to AA 26. And – what is a “darn good reason” for changing the order 27. It‟s ok to think differently about how to get to a goal 28. Improve communication of the process campus wide 29. Work toward simplification of the forms and process 30. Distinguish the idea of goal versus stuff – maybe that‟s why some of the campus is confused.

Discussion/clarification: Some wondered if we are making this harder than it needs to be. Items can be clustered, many ideas overlap. With frequent changes in the process we lose the benefit of consistency. Maybe implement a smaller number of changes. The three big issues appear to be: write goals better, process completion, big picture vs. little picture. Task force will meet Tuesday 12:30-2:00, every other week. This information will be discussed by the evaluation subcommittee which meets April 20. All are invited to attend. They will provide a recommendation of process improvements at our April 23 meeting. The group will do a lot of work via email. Individuals who want to be included in the email discussion should let C. Nelson know. J. Patton noted that he pushed the college to begin a process and now it is the work of CPC and reminded the Council that the planning process should answer who are we, where are we going, how to get there, and how do we know when we get there? Answering these questions is required of the planning process. The evaluation section of everyone‟s goal forms needs to be completed.

CONCLUSIONS The Evaluation subcommittee will take these comments together with their review of the process and report back to CPC at the next meeting.


1. Put Evaluation Subcommittee report on next agenda. R. Reynolds 4/10/10

9. MEMBERSHIP OF CPC ALL

DISCUSSION

The current membership of CPC was distributed (attachment #5). Because the membership of CPC is representative of the college‟s work units, the reorganization will impact the membership. The academic senate will continue to recognize the instruction units, with the addition of non-credit. A. Gonzales noted that the CPC representation should mirror the academic senate structure. Then CPC would adjust to maintain 50/50 representation faculty/other. Academic senate will review the representation. There was discussion as to whether the BSI and SLO coordinators should be voting members, ex officio? There is also a question about the changes in titles, such as from Dean to Director. There was discussion about the difference between ex officio and whether or not a member was able to vote. C. Maldonado made a motion that the Director of Student Life be a full member of the CPC, Rey Ortiz seconded. There was consensus, but not unanimity. Motion passed. D. MacIntire noted that the Curriculum Chair should be a member of CPC. R. Ortiz will review the academic senate representation and report back to CPC. Terms: There are 10 people who are scheduled to term out at the end of this academic year. The Eval subcommittee has concern about such a high percentage of turnover. However, there is value to having the experienced people going out into their divisions and off the committee. It was noted that the outgoing members be part of the training committee for newcomers next year. Members rotating out in June should help recruit their replacements. The Eval subcommittee will bring back a recommendation about membership. New training for new members. If a member serves on a task force or a committee, the person rotating off CPC will also need to be replaced on the task force. Training/orientation for new members is important.

CONCLUSIONS The Academic Senate will review the CPC representation and report back to CPC. The Director of Student Life will be a full member of CPC. New members should receive orientation to CPC.


1. Put Academic Senate report on future agenda. R. Reynolds 5/14/10

10. CPC MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2010-2011

P. LICALSI

DISCUSSION

The meeting schedule for 10-11 was reviewed and the holidays noted (attachment #6). C. Nelson reviewed the Evaluation Task Force‟s summary of deadlines (attachment #7). This list includes two meetings in March with an optional additional meeting. Training in August was added for faculty and staff to understand how to write goals and objectives and understand the process . There would also be a training during Flex for faculty and goal writing/planning process. The timeline and the meeting schedule will be blended together as best they can and brought back to CPC before the end of this semester.

CONCLUSIONS Meeting dates for next year must be determined considering the deadlines for CPC tasks. Training in COD‟s planning process will be offered in August and during Flex.


1. Offer training in August for the planning process and goal writing.

2. Offer Flex session in goal writing and the planning process. 3. Establish meeting calendar for next school year.

? ? ?

Aug. 2010 Aug. 2010 May 2010

11. EFFECTIVENESS TASK FORCES – REPORTS

LEADERS

Attachment #2

Minutes from April 23


MINUTES APR. 23, 2010 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM PSA 18

ATTENDEES

Members: Jerry Patton, Jeff Place, Rick Rawnsley, Wendy Sanders, Doug MacIntire, PE Vacant, Victor Rios, Ty Thomas, Chris Nelson, Rey Ortiz, Daniel Kleinfelter, Lisa Soccio, Chuck Decker, Fergus Currie (Cathy Levitt), Ted Grofer, Mary Lisi, Terri Fleck, Aries Jaramillo, Michelle Price, Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Farley Herzek, Diane Ramirez, Edwin Deas. Recorder: Revae Reynolds

Agenda topics 1. MINUTES APPROVAL – MAR. 26, 2010

ALL

DISCUSSION L. Weaver moved to accept the minutes as presented, J. Place seconded. Minutes approved (attachment #1).

CONCLUSIONS


1. None.

2. EVALUATION TASK FORCE REPORT

C. NELSON

DISCUSSION

C. Nelson presented the PowerPoint prepared by the Evaluation Task Force which reviewed our planning process and offered recommendations for an improved, simplified process. PPT file attached (attachment #2). C. Nelson reported the task force’s concerns and 4 overarching concepts to address the concerns: 1. Strategic planning should be the primary job of the CPC, 2. Annual college goals should guide and focus planning, 3. Strategic planning should be separate from operational planning, 4. Strategic planning should develop around achieving goals, not Area and Unit priorities. Recommended that CPC spend more time strategic planning and less time prioritizing, and do it at the beginning of the process. Annual goals should guide and focus planning achievable in one year, that move the strategic goals forward. They propose change in procedure for planning, should give more time at the unit and area level to work on priorities. J. Berg requested the Council review and discuss the four summary conclusions above. Goals should be measurable and/or observable. Faculty are involved on “both sides:” they are involved in PRUs and the strategic planning side. How to do it: “Long-term” goals should read “3-5 year” goals. Chris explained the diagram depicting the new process. Budgets should be set at the Area level to determine how money is distributed, not at the CPC level. If a unit believes they want to add something new that promotes strategic action plans, they follow the process on the right side of the slide. Normal expansion due to college growth and ongoing operations would follow the left side of the slide. The managerial decisions that should be made at the unit level could be made at the unit level. L. Young asked about incorporating grants into strategic planning. Some grants include hiring people and she would like to see that change incorporated into strategic planning so that when the grant ends, the positions and program improvements can remain. How to do it in the coming year: The September entry is a one-time element, because in future years the strategic goal-setting would take place in April /May.

This is an information opportunity. C. Nelson will send the PowerPoint to all members of CPC. The council will review this at the next meeting. Council will vote on accepting/rejecting the proposal from the task force. This change impacts other areas, like the budget process, so we need assurance that the others are also on board.

CONCLUSIONS The Evaluation Task Force presented suggested changes to the planning process and a proposed timeline. CPC will accept/reject the proposal at the next CPC meeting.


1. Review planning process recommendation before next meeting.

All Council Members 5/14/10

3. PRIORITIZE FACULTY POSITIONS

ALL

DISCUSSION

The faculty positions on the 2010-2011 priority list were prioritized by the Deans for CPC to review (attachment #3). The yellow row at the top includes the positions discussed at the last CPC meeting, namely those that were approved, but frozen, and one tenure position that was voluntarily vacated . It was noted that the full-time tutoring center coordinator was also part of the frozen positions and should be listed at the top with the other two. It is currently at 11. Not sure if this is a faculty position or not. It is also impacted by the reorganization. The deans did not want to rank the frozen positions because the insti tution has not made a decision about this anomaly. This is the deans’ recommendation, and the CPC has the prerogative to make changes. C. Maldonado made a motion to move #11 to the third line of the yellow section so the ranking of the deans is preserved, but the “frozen” status is acknowledged. Motion was seconded by Ted Grofer. Discussion: A. Gonzales noted that this position is moving from Student Affairs to Academic Affairs and those bodies need to have the discussion about whether or not this position is still needed. There were approved positions in the hiring process when the freeze was announced. There was confusion as to whether these positions needed to be resubmitted to the priority process this year; some were and some were not. The faculty contract states that the hiring process is not finished until tenure is granted, so a position left vacant by someone who chooses to leave before tenure is granted, would be filled ; the college would still be in the midst of a recruitment. J. Place noted that his number 10 was a tenure track position that was voluntarily vacated and it has been on the priority list for a number of years, first at #2, then #7 or so, now #10. There was acknowledgement that the college requires more discussion of the process for placing faculty on a subsequent priority list. The positions in the highlighted area need to go to Executive Cabinet. C. Nelson called for the question – passed unanimously. J. Place noted that there was a late retiring position, so his dean wants to know how this position can get on the priority list; the retirement was announced after the priority list was created. The Council noted that this is an example of an “emergency” and can be pursued. J. Jaramillo should meet with his Vice President. J. Place made a motion to highlight position #10 and place it in the yellow section because it is also a tenure “fallout.” C. Nelson seconded. Discussion: Positions 10 and 11 are similar. There was discussion as to whether the rankings remain. Ted Grofer called for an amendment to the motion to also move #11, T. Fleck seconded, J. Place agreed. Positions 10 and 11 to be placed in the yellow highlighted section w/o a ranking. Decision on amendment was not unanimous, called for a hand vote: In favor 8, opposed 5, abstentions 3. A. Gonzales noted that the executive cabinet will still make decisions about the ranking and the yellow. Council voted on the motion as amended (position 10 first and 11 second): In favor 11, opposed 4, abstentions 1. J. Place made a motion to accept the prioritized list as amended today, T. Thomas seconded, passed unanimously.

CONCLUSIONS

CPC needs further clarification on the prioritization of some special cases of faculty positions. The 2009 -2010 prioritized faculty list was approved with two changes: items #10 and 11 will be moved to the yellow highlighted section, in that order, but without their assigned numbers. Executive Cabinet will decide which positions are filled.


1. None.

4. OTHER BUSINESS

DISCUSSION

Announcements: T. Thomas: May 14 is the ABE graduation ceremony. All welcome. T. Thomas: In the past, the union leaders attended CPC and also met with the president. Believes the union leadership should have a place on the agenda for a report. There was brief discussion about whether or not CPC would hear reports or receive them in advance of the meeting. Tabled for future discussion. P. LiCalsi: Newly announced that accreditation evaluations will now include ARCC indicators about student success. CPC should pay more attention to the ARCC indicators. Also, the quality of distance education is going to have more importance in accreditation.

Attachments (see following pages):

1. Minutes from March 26, 2010 2. Evaluation Task Force PowerPoint Presentation 3. Prioritized Faculty Positions 2010-2011

Attachment #3

Education Master Plan, Survey Results

Attachment #4

Evaluation Task Force – New Planning Process Flow Chart

Attachment #5

President’s Efficiency Task Force Report

Documents

MINUTES 12:00 PM MAL COMM. ROOM - College of the Desert€¦ · Carlos Maldonado, Lee Ann Weaver, Leslie Young, Jim Berg, Adrian Gonzales, Juan Lujan, Bina Isaac, Pam LiCalsi, Farley