3.18.15 CPC Minutes
Committee Name: CPC
Date: 3/18/2015
Time: 2:00pm – 4:00pm
Facilitators/Location/Chair: SAC 225E
Attendees:
Guests:
Topic,
Info/Action
Public Comment
College Restructure
Process
Info/Action
CPC Members
Click here to enter text.
Topic
Lead
Colton
Willey
Kathie &
Cabinet
Time
on
topic
3 min
2 Hrs
Discussion
Student Senate has issues regarding committee participation.
Commend faculty senate and CCEU, they have been very
cooperative. Concerned regarding new process to place student
reps on committees. Would ask administration to take another
look at the process. Administration has rejected student reps on
certain committees.
There is a Student senate meeting tomorrow. Everyone received
an email today regarding student issues. Keep in mind the source
of the email and whose budget will be impacted by the proposed
changes by the student senate.
Highlighted changes in the document. Added new paragraphs in
Goals, Approach and Ground Rules.
Comments/Questions:
 Cross component representation is good. Communication
facilitation – might be gaps.
 Make sure info gets out to all constituencies. Ideas are
welcome. Need to look holistically.
 Reported out via CPC is important
 Intranet is important as well
 $2M cut is about 4% - target of 5% is pretty close – is there any
flexibility? Maybe the growth formula might not be as bad as
we thought. Some components might have to take more of a
reduction than others.
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link

Revised draft
to CPC
members by
3/20/14. Will
post on CPC
website.
Members to
bring to
constituencies
for comments.
Back for
review at 4/15
meeting.
Institutional
Effectiveness
1
3.18.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
Will prioritize within our components. Cabinet will prioritize and
bring back recommendation to CPC.
In the past we’ve had targets of 5, 10, 15 and 20%. Bubbled up
from the departments, then through the councils, then college
wide. The percentage point was just a starting point.
 Will CPC provide oversight of the restructure pros and cons?
Hard to imagine pro’s. Seems not as accurate as we want to
make it. Is this the only role the CPC has? Do we discuss the
impacts?
Pros and cons came out of an understanding that not everything is
going to be a reduction. We can do things better where it’s
appropriate. Intent in terms of oversight is there is a group who
are going to read those thoroughly – someone is looking at the
whole picture. Intent is to be inclusive. “Impact” can be positive
and negative as well.
 Final approve resides with the President – written response?
What is the president responding to?
Responding to the recommendations. Looking at the bottom line
and pros and cons – want to have a written document that explains
rationale.
 5% starting now? Each component area is supposed to have
an open dialogue, submit recommendations to the component
council. When do the specialist come in and inform? When
does it come to CPC?
Dual process – components are having discussions and think tank
experts are deep diving at the same time.
Recommendation that comes forward to President makes sure that
I do my due diligence as well. Make a decision on your expertise as
well.
 Will all bubble up at the same time?
Get started on the dialogue now because over the summer it will
be hard to get representation. Look at component questions –
should be able to answer some questions via technology now.
2
3.18.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
 Timeline?
Need to have reductions in place by the fiscal year 2016.
 What role does CPC play?
Quarterly updates will be provided to CPC. CPC is the
recommending body. We can note this in the process document.
Maybe have a CPC responsibilities section.
 Those with categorical budgets – do we have conversations
with all programs? Get info from business office?
Student services has already moved 3 counselors off gen fund–
part of our recommendation.
Have a form that will allow you to state what you have already
accomplished.
 How far back can we go?
Based on our preliminary planning assumptions that we brought to
CPC in Feb which had our deficit number. Things are changing all
the time.
 Looking at 5% criteria for components – Student services has a
lot of money coming in from categoricals. How do we reconcile
cutting when we have the funds in categoricals?
Leverage categoricals to save money in the general fund.
Components will look at their entire program
 Is the 2/11 planning assumptions document the law? If July
2016 is the target date, when will we know what kinds of SSSP
funding we can leverage for that year?
No, this document is just a snapshot. Until we get the May revise
and the budget for next year, we won’t know. Have been told that
SSSP is on-going money.
 Maybe look at this as an “infusion”; never know what a new
governor or legislature will fund.
Have to meet the requirements, we’ve put an infrastructure in
place to support this legislation.
 What do we leave with today?
Take the process to your constituents. Reconvene on 4/8?
3
3.18.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
President will make changes coming from the group. Make CPC
responsibilities clear and consensus on our scenarios - best, mid
and worst.
 Feel this is an ftes driven reduction – do all components drive
ftes in equal ways?
Makes a good point for best, mid and worst case scenarios. Don’t
want to have a process that is different for different groups. Don’t
mind flexibilities.
 Agree that the process needs to be the same – is the reduction
uniform across all components?
 Have flexibility at the component level?
Way it has worked in the past: Each dept puts forward reductions.
Component council prioritizes reductions. Make not be equal
across all depts. Having those discussions at CPC is key.
 5% reduction including non-general fund. If you are funded by
both gen fund and categoricals is the target 5% of all?
Categoricals/restricted funds might not be reduced but could be
restructured.
Need a consensus if we using going best, mid, worst.
 2%, 4%, 6%?
Suggest: 2%, 5%, 7% – Three tiered approach. Need a clear
understanding of how we have that conversation. We will note
changes and send out to constituencies.
Non general fund piece – other part of discussion – some nongeneral fund programs have an impact on general fund. Everything
is inter-related on campus.
 What about the think tank teams?
They went down in size. Trust the process. Have had a few names
submitted. Constituencies need to have names submitted.
 Are there money’s that are off table that can contribute to
$2M? For example bond money.
No, can’t touch bond money – it’s gone. Otherwise we will look at
everything.
4
3.18.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
In tu allocation meeting was are constantly reducing tus. But we
have growing programs that generate more tus. All about
alignment and efficiencies. Finding alternative funding sources is
critical.
 Feels like we haven’t quite brainstormed the think tank. Point
of the think tanks is to reduce spending and look cross
componently. Doom & gloom activity. Think tanks for revenue
generation? Something positive.
Take to constituency groups. Think tanks are a good way to get to
the information. Opportunity to be as informative as we can with
one another. Messaging piece is very important.
Summary:
1) Consensus that we would be more descriptive about CPC
role.
2) Ultimately it’s gen fund money.
3) Going with a tiered system: include percentages of 2%, 5%
& 7%.
4) Leave “other” open so folks can talk in their constituency
groups.
5) Revised draft of restructure document to CPC from Laurel
for comments by Fri, 3/20. Post on CPC website with a
link.
6) Have constituency groups review electronically and send
questions forward. Get feedback by 4/8. Each
constituency group to use a different color for feedback.
7) No meeting on 4/8, get feedback so we are prepared for
4/15.
5
3.18.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Approval of
12/17/14, 2/11/15,
2/18/15 and 3/4/15
Minutes
Action
BP’s/AP’s
Info/Action
Agenda Building &
Summary Takeaway
Info
Topic
Lead
Laurel
Laurel
Laurel
Time
on
topic
3 Min
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
 12/17/14 approved
 2/11/15 approved
 2/18/15: Change to read “fraction of undesignated reserves to
bonuses”
 3/4/15 approved
 Suggested to remove individual names and use a bulleted
summary. One member suggested to use constituency groups
instead of names.
 Approved
with
changes
None
 February documents reviewed and approved.
 Approved
Board Goals
 Next meeting: Bring draft values statements. Need a
recommended process for vetting. Thanks to Conrad, Martin
and Alta for being on the Task Force. Recommend putting the
draft on the 4/15 agenda for review, then take out to the
college; need recommendation on what the process will look
like.
 Next meeting: Next year strategic goals put forward by Terrence
for a draft review
 Talk about committee representation as part of CPC committee
review.

None
10 Min
5 Min
Parking Lot:
Information Requested
6
3.18.15 CPC Minutes
1.
To be added during the meeting
2.
3.
4.
Meeting Summary or Take Away:
1.
To be added during the meeting
2.
Discussion of additional meetings: No April 8th meeting, would like an additional April 29th meeting.
3.
4.
Effectiveness Links
1.
Mission Statement and Core 4 Competencies (Communication, Critical Thinking, Global Awareness, Personal and Professional Responsibility)
2.
8.
Student Success
Enhance Institutional Effectiveness
Board Goals
Education Master Plan
Facilities Plan
Technology Plan
Program Plans
9.
Student Equity Plan
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7