1
th
Attendees: Jim Matthews, Gordon Watt, Heather Hernandez, Mireille Giovanola, Michael D’Aloisio,
Minta Winsor, A.J. Asset, Bianca Bullock, Wanda Wong, Rachael Tupper-Eoff, Dale Wagoner, Matt
Kritscher, Donna Gibson, Mark Stephens, Ming Ho, Laurie Dockter
Called to Order at 3:10.
I Approval of Minutes: Postponed
II Follow-up Items:
PRBC: The Educational Master Plan planning charrette will be held this Friday. Late
RSVP’s are acceptable. The topics have been planned out with an emphasis on the big picture.
Shared Governance working documents are in the preparation stage with hopes to send them out by the end of the week for feedback from committees. We will discuss the feedback process later in our agenda.
III
The budget committee has received all of the budget requests that were made through
Program Review.
Faculty on campus involved in developing PRBC initiatives have been sent the Initiative
Update Form we reviewed February 4 th .
Student Senate: Bianca asked whether student representatives were attending committee meetings. Some committees, such as PRBC, see regular attendance while others see occasional, such as Technology. She is drafting a chart to organize student representatives.
Bianca also asked whether any instructors in the room would like student senate representatives to visit their class. An email has gone out to the college to solicit class visits.
SLOAC: A webinar to train faculty to use Curricunet for SLO’s in planned for February
24th from 12:00-1:00 room 453M.
Programs that did not include their SLO Close-the-Loop forms in Program Review will be asked to resubmit. Robert has compiled a list of courses needing documentation. A link to the list along with instructions will be sent to deans and faculty.
Budget Statement

IV
V
2
Yvonne drafted a statement and the work group reviewed and approved it. Yvonne is out sick today. We will share the statement at our next meeting.
District PBC
The district Planning and Budget Committee is organizing to hear presentations from both colleges on areas of need at the district and college levels. A draft rubric to organize the presentations was reviewed. The purpose of the presentations was discussed along with our process for preparing for them.
Purpose of the presentations: To build understanding between the colleges and the district, the PBC would like a view of each college’s areas of need, including present service levels.
Questions were raised regarding the need to build understanding as the present allocation model supports decision making at the college level. Some felt such presentations would be useful while others did not. Areas of friction between the campuses and district, including programs perceived to be costly were discussed in terms of the need to inform. Many felt that we should avail ourselves of any avenue to promote understanding.
In relation to process, Deonne suggested that the VP’s handle the presentations for their own areas culling from program review summaries and coordinating with deans.
The format of the rubric was questioned. The rubric asks areas to set service levels by which program needs could be measured. The form asks programs to answer the overriding question, “At what level are we currently meeting student and campus needs?” Concerns were raised around how levels of service could be quantified or defined. Many felt that Student Service and staffing needs may be more readily quantifiable.
Many felt that the rubric was not helpful and at the least needed clarification.
Deonne will bring PRBC’s feedback back to PBC on March 6 th .
Shared Governance Documents:
Working documents generated from last semester’s Shared Governance Retreats will be sent to the Senates, committee chairs, and administrators hopefully by the end of the week.
The role of PRBC in gathering feedback from committee chairs was discussed. Unclear reporting lines is a concern the college has in relation to shared governance, and this problematizes efforts to gather feedback; it is not clear where each committee should send their input. For instance, some committees such as Curriculum report directly to
Academic Senate while others, such as SLOAC may report to PRBC. For the purpose of organizing feedback at this stage, PRBC will solicit input from each shared governance committees that currently serve on PRBC. Some committees may also want to send feedback to the senates.

3
VI
At PRBC on April 15 th , committee chairs will meet to discuss and synthesize feedback.
April 9 th was the date set for committee chairs to send electronic versions of their feedback to Deonne to collate in advance of April 15th.
Academic Senate has formed a Shared Governance Advisory Committee with two representatives from each senate, two from PRBC, and two from Administration. They will meet after April 15 th to discuss and synthesize feedback, after which the drafting of a revised document will ensue.
Program Review Forms
The transition to curricunet is moving slower than expected. Most likely we will be using the our own forms for Program Review next year. Areas for revision in the current form were discussed, including redundancies, the need to update sections related to committee requests, and the need to better integrate the spreadsheets. The ad hoc work group previously formed with take up these issues.