1
Planning, Review and Budget Council
October 8th, 2014
Attendees: Mike Sherburne, Kathy Kelley, Gordon Watt, Heather Hernandez, Mireille Giovanola, Trish
Shannon, Jim Matthews, Carolyn Arnold, Christine Warda, Stacy Thompson, Bianca Bullock, Sara Parker,
Dale Wagoner, Laurie Dockter, Jeanne Wilson, Hye Yoon Shin(?), Steve Stevenson, Jeremy Wilson,
Michael D’Aloisio, Mark Stephens, Wanda Wong, Susan Sperling,
Called to order at 3:10
I
Approval of Minutes
Move to approve by Jim Matthews and seconded by Kathy Kelley.
II
Committee Updates and Reports
Classified Senate (Heather Hernandez reporting): Classified senate is updating the
Classified Prioritization process. Revisions for 2014-15 will be slight. A fully revised
version will likely be approved for 2016-2017. They meet with the President this week to
discuss revisions. Revisions will be presented to Classified Senate on the 17th and
College Counsel October 29th.
Classified Senate submitted additional information to be included in Program Review to
assist the Prioritization Committee with ranking classified staffing requests. It was
decided that it was too late to update the current forms for this year since faculty and
staff were already drafting. Deonne agreed to send an email to the campus with the
information to be included.
Student Equity Coordinating Council Recommendation: With respect to the State
Equity Funding Formula, Chabot College Student Equity Coordinating Council
recommends college allocations model the state equity formula i.e. 63/37 or higher
given that the funding formula does not include race/ethnicity data; if race/ethnicity
data was included the proportion for Chabot should be higher than 63%. Funding should
be used according to state eligible expenditure guidelines. Chabot would be interested
in any other equity data presented by LPC. Motion passes.
III
Follow-up
Shared Governance Website Updates: Rachael Tupper-Eof is in the process of updating
the PRBC website. All the minutes and agendas are have been posted.
2
IV
Shared Governance Retreat Preparation
Deonne distributed a preparation packet for the retreat, including the invitation letter, a draft of
the retreat plan, our current documents, codes and regulations, and a quiz. Jim reviewed the
information it included.
The first retreat is on the 24th and the second the 31st will plans for a third meeting, date to be
determined. He requested that those who attend plan to attend all three sessions.
V
Prioritization
The role of PRBC in Prioritization was discussed as well as the history of Prioritization in general.
A number of questions and issues were raised:
Christine: Is it [PRBC] about making recommendation, or content, or vetting the
process?
Kathy: PRBC is the reader of Program Review. This is the central location for identifying
overall needs.
Christine: If areas ask for things that aren’t in Program Review, what do we do with
that?
Sara raised the issue of pre-level one screening was raised. Not all requests in Program
Preview are presented to the Prioritization Committee. Deans select which to bring to
the forefront and the process they follow differs.
In conjunction, the council discussed perceptions of bias. Voting Prioritization members
are responsible for advocating for the college as a whole not for individual areas;
however, perceptions of advocating for the whole college differ as they are subjectively
influenced by individual context.
The council determined that the role of PRBC is to provide big picture analysis of College need as
relates to the College Strategic goal plan, culling from Program Review for a broad
understanding of current needs. PRBC does not need to confer with the Prioritization
Committee to agree upon first level ranking.
It was also agreed upon that at the next meeting, PRBC would look at the criteria it presented to
the Prioritization Committee last year and make any needed updates for this year.
In accordance with the current process, Dr Sperling presented her vision and priorities for
Prioritization for the current year:
Dr Sperling: The President’s vision should be expressed in broad strokes. I don’t think
the President should tell groups how they ought to rank. Here’s my broad vision.
People come to the process having not only the whole college vision as they advocate
3
strongly and passionately for their areas; they bring their vision and passion, as well, and
it’s going to be their own. At the same time, I have a vision that we can simultaneously
wear our whole college hats with our Strategic Plan Goal in mind. We have set up goals
and objectives that will help our students achieve their goals. I would like folks to keep
in mind that we hire people who will be the future direction and future of our college. I
would like to keep in mind the advocacy of specific areas and the whole vision,
specifically an intersection of student and academics services and support that will help
students achieve their goals. I want to give you an example of how that worked well last
year, with a fulltime athletic counselor. The advocacy was both from the division and
the college-understanding of what students need, and how this position could serve
both, and how the position serves the PRBC goal, students, and the division/discipline.
For the good of the order.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.