Planning, Review and
Budget Council
Regular Meeting
October 23, 2013
Building 400, Room 405
3:00 – 5:00 PM
MINUTES
Attendees: Tram Vo-Kumamoto, Sara Parker, Andrew Pierson, Kathy Kelley, Becky Plaza, Trish
Shannon, Christine Warda, Deonne Kunkel, Yvonne Wu-Craig, Jan Novak, Mireille Giovanola,
Vanessa Sadsad, Matt Kritscher, Wayne Pitcher, Kristin Land, Jim Matthews, Catherine Powell,
Steve Stevenson, Carolyn Arnold, Sandra Genera, Ken Grace
Approval of October 16th minutes. Some date changes.
Houses presentation to November 6.
Deonne asked how much time for the presentation? 20-25 minutes unless otherwise requested
replied Sandra.
All student names have been corrected.
With no other corrections Yvonne moved to approve, Kathy Kelley seconded,
Sandra moved the meeting forward into the agenda.
Delay on Jennifer.
President Sperling talked on several issues. First, the classified position requests (two handouts).
These requests came from the 2012-13 Program Review, organized by areas, in the first handout.
The second handout is a progress report made to the Classified Senate on prioritization. Susan
outlined some context for classified hiring. The Classified Senate has effectively summarized the
requests from Program Review. Clearly, as I set out in the progress documentation, we can’t wait
for the prioritization process to fill. Examples of these positions are the DPSP Special Projects and
kinesiology positions. Then, there are grant-funded positions that also need to be filled to perform
the contractual work. These are “no-brainers,” these positions should be filled immediately. I
reported that some of these positions have been filled or are being filled, that are not categorically
funded. This also includes positions that are entrepreneurially funded, for example, a position at
the Performing Arts Center. This leaves the balance of our needs, which are not funded through
these alternative funding sources. Yesterday, Yvonne gave a presentation on our process, mapping
the decision-making process, that is the way that we go from this step (PRBC recommendations) to
the next step. For example, can anyone describe what the process is for either positions or
materials?
Catherine Powell answered, by referring to the stream of where needs are identified and said, in the
end, PRBC and Classified Senate.
PRBC Minutes
October 23, 2013
P age |2
Susan said, is it actually clear that the decisions are made by PRBC, or does the actual funding
determine the decision?
Deonne: Isn’t this, pointing to Jan Novak, what we were discussing at the end of last year? Where
is the final decision-making actually made?
Carolyn: It has been different every year. We have actually made recommendations to the
President, then decisions are made.
Trish: there was a conversation last spring about what happens when PRBC makes
recommendations, not just classified staff, but recommendations in general.
Jan: I just pulled a document from 2010-11 pilot process for hiring classified personnel.
Susan: If we put the accreditation team in the middle of the room, we would have to say that we
have a process, with the draft process, with administrators, and sometimes a consultative process.
Tram: Our most recent experience is with the SERP, and the process was proposed due to the large
outflux of personnel at that time.
Jim: I can read what we told them six years ago. The deans bring the list forward from Program
Review to VPs for a consultative process.
Yvonne: please see the spreadsheet, this spreadsheet was sent to deans to set the priorities
(columns on the far right). The purpose behind it was to track what was requested, what were the
priorities, and what got filled. The classified senate did not want to get in the middle of an
administrative decision-making process. We did not want to tell another colleague, x is less
important than y. We left the prioritization process up to administrators.
Susan: I think there are a lot of different ways that this can be done. We need to have a process
that suits our college. I have a strong commitment to the idea that administrators should make
these decisions based on a strong consultative process. I would like to ask, because we’re now at a
point where our budget information isn’t changing everyday, I think we’re ready to go forward, but
we need a process nailed down. What I would like PRBC to do, because I think it’s part of this
group’s mission, to make recommendations to me about process. Does this spreadsheet get sent
back to deans/VPs about prioritization, then come to PRBC, which with the strategic plan in mind,
makes recommendations to senior administrators.
Sandra: What I am hearing is that there are 3 options: 1) continue with the previously stated
position, 2) follow the pilot process of 2010-11, or 3) evaluate or improve a third process. I see
these as the basic options.
Kathy K: There have been several discussions at the Chancellor’s workgroup about how we make
decisions given the constraints of our budget (availability). We don’t usually talk about how much
it costs to hire x or y, and given those costs, what is the impact?
Susan: It is incumbent on senior staff to know and communicate what the availability of funding is,
and the impact.
Interchange between Kathy, Catherine, Jan, Susan on the carryover of funds/positions. And, where
we could get this information to make the requests and their impacts.
PRBC Minutes
October 23, 2013
P age |3
Susan: I think there is a path forward on identifying a process, this committee should make
recommendations based on the strategic plan/needs. This committee doesn’t necessarily need to
know the exact parameters for each position. The prioritization should occur whether there is any
budget at all. Should we return the spreadsheet to deans for prioritization, then keep moving
through the 2010-11 pilot process,
Yvonne: I don’t know that we would want to use last year’s list. Perhaps we should use the list
coming out of this year’s Program Review (due in two weeks).
Catherine: We should perhaps be more attentive to the description of the positions, are these new
positions or existing positions (known costs).
Tram: I am looking at this from a practical point of view, when we need to hire classified positions,
it can come and go at any time (not hiring for the academic year). I don’t know that its possible to
have an “annual” process. Perhaps when someone leaves, we rehire.
Yvonne: this is built-in to the process, that there might be immediate need rehires
Trish: I want to counter the immediate rehire with the need to consider positions in terms of the
changing needs of the campus. We might not refill immediately.
Jan: we need to consider both the immediate and the larger question.
Jim M: the VPs and the Deans might have the most experience and best be able to identify criteria
for immediate needs as well as emergent needs. We’ll never have a perfect list, but if we discuss
the criteria and build a process that is both setting priorities and a hiring process that is transparent.
Yvonne: you are referring to a process for new as well as existing positions.
Deonne: I think it would be useful to compare the criteria that the deans identify with the PRBC
planning criteria.
Susan: If you could give me the graphic plan for how you would like to see this list of
recommendations made sometime during this semester, it would be very helpful.
Sandra: as Program Review is completed, including the master spreadsheets, we would accumulate
that information, we should try to use existing job descriptions or to be clear about what the
position is. (Asked Catherine to be clear about what she meant.)
Sandra, Catherine, Jim, etc. Also include information about last filled, new, etc. Given where we
are, maybe deans could do this, particularly because deans already have this information.
Yvonne: Whatever criteria we identify, could we please allow enough time for classified staff to
review it.
Carolyn: Where is this list going? Its too late to change this form for this year, but there are a
variety of causes and effects, and these situations need to be taken into account.
Susan: Not all of these situations are going to be taken into account, and administrators will need to
factor all this in. I think we have a plan, which is PRBC will recommend a plan, it will be
implemented with this 2014-15 information.
PRBC Minutes
October 23, 2013
P age |4
Jan: I’d like to suggest a subgroup.
Christine W: This group (or a subgroup) could come up with a list of needs or priorities that should
generally be used for all decision-making, not just classified staff.
Sandra: As Susan was talking, I was making notes on the calendar that this is something we need to
do. Members of the subgroup: Catherine, Tram, Yvonne, and Donna G
Susan: so this is the way that we will identify a transparent process.
Yvonne: is the subgroup proposing criteria? Do we have a list for faculty prioritization (as Marcia
requested)?
Susan: Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Two other issues. 1) the presidential task force
name TBD. I want to refer to an email that Jan sent and the role of the task force on planning
processes, etc. Here’s my rationale for the value of this task force. My understanding is that,
coming out of discussions last year, were some subgroups that formed initiatives in response to the
strategic plan goals. One had to do with houses/green; another had to do with community
engagement/passion and purpose project. On Convocation Day, chair meets with me and I met
with leaders of those groups (which seemed valuable to me), and in an effort to move that work
into the next stage. Convocation planning comes, and there’s a discussion of including the
houses/greens that day. The presentation takes place and within weeks of the presentation, I started
hear that there were many people critical of what they heard at the presentation and others who
were angry about it. There were concerns voiced from multiple places. I thought and I think that
the idea of first-year experience and learning communities is inarguably a good one. But, there is a
lot of contention about what this is and expectations of others. Someone recently pointed out that I
probably have heard more from the negative than the positive, but it seemed to me that as a college
we needed, if we were going to be talking about pathways and how to meet our strategic plan, to
come together in some kind of setting that allowed us to focus together on this set of ideas and
initiatives. Hence, the task force. I asked people, didn’t you bring your criticisms to PRBC, and
people tended to state that there were people seizing a moment and moving forward an agenda. It
emerged to me that we needed a place to bring these thoughts and reflections together—that is this
task force. The recommendation should be sent everywhere: divisions, senates, PRBC, etc. The
Task Force can serve as a meeting place, because we do not have consensus on how to move
forward. I could say, as President, that I think it’s a great idea and move forward, but I think that
we need to have a broader conversation and build greater consensus about these ideas.
Jim M: I would recommend a small charge that this group figures out how “to do these things” the
next time. Make recommendations about where such college-wide new initiatives and programs
“fit” in the planning process.
Kathy K: Maybe the problem is that not enough details were presented. Maybe before “airing”
things that might have serious implications
Sandra: one of the charges from last year was that new initiatives get started, and these new
initiatives were approved by PRBC, are those new initiatives now under the new task force. Most
of them are listed on this handout. This is a whole list of initiatives that were approved. Are we
now “reapproving” them?
PRBC Minutes
October 23, 2013
P age |5
Susan: One of the things that is missing is… when initiatives are approved by the PRBC, what
other bodies are these ideas shopped around to? For example, three of five deans do not approve of
the idea (houses/greens) as currently framed?
Sandra: the reason for the presentations this fall is for updates, but many of these groups presented
in spring 2013.
Christine W: I think we perhaps should have “sent” the ideas make through the “vetting” body,
there’s not the right agency. Some things would have to be approved by individual committees.
Everybody take these ideas make to your constituent groups. Strong dialogue needs to occur
between the committees and this group. Implementation isn’t our problem.
Donna G: building consensus at this campus is almost impossible. We can’t provide any details,
because nothing can be top-down or there’s not enough detail for me to evaluate. We have an
extremely difficult process for how “change” occurs at this campus. I would like to add, at
professional development events, if people plan events and people come to participate, then the
event should occur, not get hijacked.
Susan: I want to say that I appreciate your concern, but I disagree that consensus is impossible. We
can do it (last year, we did it). We DO have significant barriers, including indicting those who step
up to lead and are then castigated publicly or privately, I think we really need to stop doing that, it
has become part of our institutional culture, and it is unhelpful and not our best. I would like the
task force to be a place where these ideas can be vetted, part of our strategic plan, and moved
forward. We have communication and consensus issues.
Yvonne: I just want to say that perhaps there should be a clearer process within PRBC that there is
some listing of the consultative bodies that are “brought” on board. Part of our procedure should
include where this is being discussed. Everyone else could also talk within our committees, and
making the communication more transparent.
Matt K: I want to also echo the communication problem that Christine mentioned. We haven’t had
“report” outs from committees. When we come up with initiatives, we also need to ensure that all
the interactions and affected groups. We need more opportunities for committees to report back.
Jan: I have heard so many times that we did well last year. The only time we’ve been successful,
is when there is a crisis.
Susan: Data from the blitzkrieg of London, that there was an absolute abatement of depression
during that time (due to the sharing). How do we come together and solidarity when it isn’t a
crisis?
Jan: Exactly. We can pull it off when there’s a crisis. If PRBC isn’t working, we should not start a
parallel body to fix it.
Susan: The Task Force is not a replacement for PRBC. The group is taking up one area of the
discussion,
Jan-Susan dialogue around the relationship of the Task Force to PRBC.
PRBC Minutes
October 23, 2013
P age |6
Jan: two other comments. We haven’t had any opportunity to report back. We have been trying to
hold a conversation about what these things might look like, and people are sporadic and presume
that they know what this is about. We don’t have effective mechanisms for building consensus.
Susan: I don’t think they’ve been used well in this case. I have to be out of here in 5 minutes.
Deonne: Jeanne and I are chairing this Task Force. It’s our commitment to be as neutral as
possible. My understanding of the committee is that if we’re developing all these initiatives and
that many of them are running into the same silos and problems and coordination. It will often
seem as if these efforts duplicate or clash or unclear (too many messages). The task force will be a
place to bring the efforts together. The share-out to divisions is still weak because of the
constituencies. We have four counselors, members of divisions, and the people who have been
working on initiatives. Also, all the deans and VPs. The problem is when to schedule the meeting
and an invite list that is inclusive. First work: schedule, research, sharing current project
information.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm