Planning, Review and
Budget Council
Regular Meeting
November 13, 2013
Building 400, Room 405
3:00 – 5:00 PM
MINUTES
Present: Wayne Pitcher, Marcia Corcoran, Sara Parker, ValJean Dale, Jim Matthews, Becky Plaza,
Andrew Pierson, Carolyn Arnold , Jennifer Lange, Catherine Powell, Kristin Land, Mireille Giovanola,
Matt Kritscher, Donna Gibson, Tram Vo-Kumamoto, Ken Grace, Sandra Genera, Steve Stevenson, Nijel
Quadri, Chad McCane, Yvonne Wu-Craig, Charles Parra, Deonne Kunkel, Luis Flores, Eric Schultz,
Kathy Kelley
Meeting started @ ~3:10PM
Sandra led the group in a stretch
November 6th notes reviewed
Corrections: minor submission by Carolyn
MSC (Catherine, Jim) to approve minutes with minor changes as noted
Agenda changes:
houses/pathways conversation postponed to future date
re-scheduling issues: need to have lots of conversations (initiative reports, faculty prioritization,
etc.)
Faculty prioritization committee—PRBC joint meeting next week? (Carolyn, Tram)
Carolyn: The faculty prioritization meeting yesterday discussed what data to use.
Eric: Faculty prioritization meeting discussed involvement of PRBC
Tram: Is there some confusion as to timeline? The next step: what should the faculty prioritization
committee—PRBC communication be like? A joint meeting is possible. Another option is separate
(parallel) review of proposals.
Carolyn: The faculty prioritization committee needs to hear from PRBC some sort of statement relating
strategic plan to prioritization.
Tram: Both groups should look @ prioritization separately, then confer, but there are timing issues this
year.
PRBC Minutes
November 13, 2013
P age |2
Sandra: We should have made a subcommittee at PRBC to look at guiding principles and then report back
to PRBC and the faculty prioritization committee.
Eric: The process is very old. If we followed it letter for letter we’d have a way bigger investment of
time. There was concern at the faculty prioritization meeting about getting this done in a reasonable
amount of time to get positions posted.
Tram: There is coordination that needs to be done with the district for posting, so we may have delays
anyway.
Kathy: In the past, we didn’t have a PRBC. Now that we do, we should have PRBC work hand-in-hand
with faculty prioritization committee. I’d like to propose to change procedures to look @ things in a joint
manner (PRBC & faculty prioritization committee)
Sandra: This is the first time we’ve done fall Program Review.
Tram/Carolyn: At faculty prioritization committee it was decided to follow existing process, but create a
subcommittee to examine changes to process.
Carolyn: Deans’ summaries drove some of faculty prioritization committee meeting.
Kathy: I wasn’t able to make it to faculty prioritization committee meeting.
Tram: Did you have a rep there?
Kathy: No.
Jim: I would hope we would have a process in place by the second go-around of faculty prioritization
committee. The number we get for growth positions should be coming soon. Word on the street is 3 new
(growth) positions.
Sandra: looking for members for subcommittee
Becky, Kathy, Christine W. (tentative), Tram, Jennifer, ValJean were nominated/volunteered.
Eric: The number of requested positions was way more than the number of positions available. The
existing process doesn’t mention deans’ summaries. Yesterday deans made recommendations; what is
procedure for additional recommendations made by other faculty? Has a preliminary ranking already
been done by the deans?
Ken/Sandra: Faculty request summaries, including late proposals, handed out
Marcia: The faculty prioritization committee discussed an “appeals process”—there would be an option
for disciplines to present faculty requests if desired.
Sandra: It will be important for PRBC to receive deans’ summary for posting. I am working with Bella
for updating website.
Deonne: Would it be helpful if this committee could get general guidelines from subcommittee and
faculty prioritization committee? The joint meeting sounds like a good idea.
PRBC Minutes
November 13, 2013
P age |3
Yvonne: One past interpretation of the two committees working together (IPBC and faculty prioritization)
was to have one member (Ron Taylor, then VP of Academic Services) on both committees.
[There were comments from several people that this didn’t work so well.]
Kathy: There is a risk for going ahead with this process when our new VP of Academic Services hasn’t
started yet. This is a 10+1 area and we need the new academic VP to potentially lead the discussion.
Tram: Good point Kathy. Maybe next week we can look @ data. Tues: faculty prioritization committee
Wed: PRBC After Thanksgiving: Faculty prioritization proposals
Marcia: What about the data training bullet point in the process document? We need to remember to look
@ prioritization from a PRBC lens—more globally than locally (discipline)—look @ data from a collegelevel perspective.
Jennifer: I haven’t been part of the process before. I see it as what the faculty prioritization committee
does is analyze data (historical trends). PRBC provides forward-looking vision. Then we have joint
meeting. Thus we meet and confer. But @ what point should we meet?
Carolyn: I agree with Jennifer, but the process document is very dated—we are much more sophisticated
with our analysis of data now.
Tram: There’s nothing that precludes that.
Kathy: The proposal was for next Tuesday for our new VP to look @ reviewing the process.
Marcia: We should do it so we can get it done. Then afterwards have a subgroup look @ revisions for
next time.
Sandra: For next week, what is our agenda priority? Initiatives? Program Review data? Faculty
prioritization data? New subcommittee presentation?
Kathy: We have the new VP starting next week, and then we have Thanksgiving off. I propose we have
the senate look at the process before we continue.
Eric: Senate won’t be able to reach consensus in a week.
Kathy: This process is so old, it needs some senate review.
Tram: Have the current reps on faculty prioritization committee been senate-approved?
Kathy: No. It seems the current state of the process is in disarray.
Yvonne: I think we’re trying to reach a happy medium and there are a lot of details to work out.
Kathy: The devil is in the details.
Sandra: A process has been in place, involving PRBC/IPBC.
Tram: Kathy’s point about the VP is well taken.
PRBC Minutes
November 13, 2013
P age |4
Yvonne: There is no separate senate rep. on faculty prioritization committee, but there are faculty reps
from all divisions.
Eric: The faculty prioritization committee is but the first step in the process. Even though the new VP’s
arrival may be at an inopportune time in the process.
Sarah: Can somebody at yesterday’s faculty prioritization committee meeting tell me what a preliminary
ranking is?
Tram: It has a loose definition. Yesterday the deans’ rankings were used
Sarah: Is PRBC bringing a ranking or are we setting ranking priorities?
Marcia: PRBC is more of a global view: How do these positions fit into the big picture?
Sarah: Are we using that perspective to inform a separate ranking?
Donna: That’s what Jennifer was saying.
Marcia: In practice the deans talk with their disciplines to come up with preliminary rankings. Thus we
had a discussion about “appeals” yesterday.
Sarah: What is the task of the subcommittee?
Sandra, Jim, etc.: The subcommittee should determine criteria for ranking.
Kathy: It’s backassward, ranking and THEN determining criteria. I recognize that we’re overworked and
thus we’re trying to be efficient and effective when maybe we can’t be with the time constraints.
Sandra: We can apply the criteria to the deans’ preliminary rankings to get our final list.
Eric: Faculty prioritization committee and deans’ rankings reduced list from 50-60 to ~24.
Kathy: For Susan and Dale [who arrived late], we are discussing that we have a new VP coming on board
and it will impact our faculty prioritization committee process.
Yvonne: The subcommittee should have criteria done by next Tuesday morning.
Dale: I’ve been working on the data and I’ll have it to the committee tomorrow morning. The idea was to
have a joint meeting (PRBC-faculty prioritization committee) on Tuesday and then PRBC.
Donna: I’d want the criteria before listening to proposals.
Kathy: I agree with Donna.
Sandra: PRBC is making recommendation to faculty prioritization committee to postpone proposals until
after Thanksgiving. PRBC will give criteria to faculty prioritization committee.
Tram: Can the subcommittee give criteria to faculty prioritization committee by 11/21?
PRBC Minutes
November 13, 2013
P age |5
Deonne: Is there data?
Dale: I have the data.
Tram: On Tues. the faculty prioritization committee can look @ data. On Wed. PRBC can do the same.
Jim: Our job is to come up with criteria, but we’re not making any decisions or voting.
Susan: (Jokingly) The process document states that the college president will provide his vision. But I
will be there, perhaps in drag.
Jennifer: Here is a proposed schedule:
faculty prioritization committee—look @ data next Tues. (11/19)
PRBC subcommittee—next Wed. present draft criteria (11/20)
next Wed.—Susan shares “his” vision (11/20)
[CEMC on 11/25]
Tues after Thanksgiving—faculty prioritization committee hears proposals (12/3)
Sandra: Returning to our agenda—next is finishing up Jennifer’s bottlenecks conversation, but we have
students here for opportunity & freedom group presentation.
Jennifer: real quick: PRBC needs to coordinate with CEMC!
Sandra: Does CEMC have a date/timeline?
Tom: The CEMC…the real trick is that once upon a time in the contract all assignments to FT faculty
were given before the break. So that’s really the answer. We can make teaching assignments based on a
rollover schedule. My guess is that the CEMC process should be done within next 2 CEMC meetings.
Sandra: PRBC does need to finish bottlenecks conversation ASAP.
Jennifer: We’re supposed to be having conversations to work on schedule
Tom: Can Jennifer go at the next meeting?
Sandra: Yes. I know I attached some of your (Jennifer’s) handout to the last PRBC email. Our
homework is to look at those handouts.
Jennifer: I emailed out the handouts and 3 questions for everyone to look at.
Sandra: Jennifer will be first next week.
Tom: That will be before CEMC
Sandra: Tom will introduce Opportunity & Freedom group. I want to apologize to Deonne for not putting
the presidential task force on today’s agenda
Tom: This is part of the Opportunity & Freedom team. A few students and faculty are missing.
Students introduced themselves
PRBC Minutes
November 13, 2013
P age |6
Tom: We’re going to share with you a couple of things. First a cheesy powerpoint. Then we wrote up a
handout of the relationship between our work and education reform. Then we’ll share our docs on google
drive and then where we’re going to go
Students gave presentation
Problem: community disconnecteducation disconnect
video: Jeff Duncan-Andrande, Ph.D.
Tom asked us to talk with each other, then asked for comments:
o Sandra: We shouldn’t feel like we have to leave our neighborhood.
o Marica: Gerald shared that someone took an interest in his success, which helped him.
o Gerald related his story.
o Kathy: Even if you’re not a minority, you can have PTSD. I don’t think our classroom
platform is such that students feel free to share. In ECD we talk about traumatic
experience in childhood—we talk to our students about talking to children about loss, but
how do we talk to our students about loss?
Tom: Maybe we can repurpose ourselves toward meeting our “goals” (accreditation, federal
regulations, etc.) by combining them with our true goals of serving our community (Tennyson,
etc.)
additional video clip shown (Andrande)
Solutions:
o community engagement
o finding your passion
o list of CBO’s and FBO’s presented
Tom described how they met/interacted with CBO’s and FBO’s to see how they worked. The
CBO’s are waiting for us to see how Chabot can help them.
Tom mentioned Policy Link (organization in Oakland) and their webinars.
Google Docs site for Opportunity & Freedom was presented, along with some of their
organization (Action Teams: Education, Healthy Food Access, Knowing Your Community, Legal
Aid, Student Resources, Transportation, Violence to Transformation)
Tom mentioned additional work the students have done (especially developing High School
curriculum)
Opportunity & Freedom is hosting an event next Tuesday (12-2 PM).
Matt suggested partnering with student organizations.
Jennifer: I’m blown away by the work you’ve (students) done!
Deonne: I’m hoping some of you (students) are available to come to the first Task Force meeting.
Sandra: Bringing it back to PRBC, one of the reasons Opportunity & Freedom is here is to address
student success.
Susan: I am aware of the fact that we have something of a meltdown in the area of aggregation, etc. of
SLO data. I’m thinking of some of the details Mireille has communicated recently in that area. This
needs to be fixed. There’s no quick fix for the larger philosophical issues as to what the hell it is we’re
doing. In the meantime, we need to fix the mechanics before we move ahead on the big picture. I’ve
found resources for a half-time “technician” who can help in this area. I think PRBC has a task for
determining where the “SLO technician” should be located. I would like to ask that discussion be made
an agenda item.
Meeting adjourned @ 5:04 PM