Regular Meeting
November 14, 2007 – 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, Building 200
IPBC Membership
2007-08
M i n u t e s
Cristina Ruggiero, Co-Chair
Yvonne Wu Craig, Co-Chair
Faculty
Carolyn Arnold
Mike Absher
JoAnn Galliano
Chad Mark Glen
Debra Howell
Joe Kuwabara
Linda Rhodes
Cristina Ruggiero
Wanda Wong
Classified
Rachel Ugale
Yvonne Wu Craig
Administrators
Norma Ambriz
Robert Carlson
Marcia Corcoran
Rosemary Delia
Heidi Finberg
Farhad Javaheripour
Melinda Matsuda
Gerald Shimada
Ron Taylor
Members Present: Cristina Ruggiero, Yvonne Wu Craig, Carolyn
Arnold, Chad Mark Glen, Debra Howell, Farhad Javaheripour, Ron
Taylor, Gene Groppetti
Members Absent: Mike Absher, JoAnn Galliano, Joe Kuwabara,
Linda Rhodes, Wanda Wong, Rachel Ugale, Norma Ambriz, Robert
Carlson, Marcia Corcoran, Rosemary Delia, Heidi Finberg, Melinda
Matsuda, Gerald Shimada
Meeting Minutes – The meeting minutes from the October 10th
and 24th meetings were approved.
Reports:
• Academic Senate Review of Planning Timeline
The IPBC Planning Timeline was presented to Academic Senate.
Overall, Academic Senate was pleased and there not too many
comments about the timeline. The two things that were mentioned
were the issue of feedback and closing the feedback loop. Also,
they liked the second page of the timeline, they stated that it is
transparent and easy to understand.
• Accreditation Report (Chad)
Chad informed IPBC that the Standard Committees are working. He also mentioned
that there was a Coordination meeting yesterday (11/13/07) where 10 to 12 people
showed up during college hour. The Accreditation chairs are getting feedback to
faculty. They want the Accreditation Survey to be 8 pages or less, and they are
trying to get feedback on the survey as well. Norma’s group is very well-organized,
and they have set an excellent example for the rest of the groups. Chad will
continue to include Cristina and Yvonne on Accreditation items in the future. Chad
said that the challenge is finding faculty who aren’t burnt out and have time to meet.
The schedule conflict next semester might be better than this semester.
Discussion Items:
• Faculty Prioritization Process
Need to respond back to the comments that the committee had about the memo
outlining “Faculty Staffing Priorities for 08-09.” Need to give Faculty Prioritization
answer to the concerns on the Faculty Prioritization Committee Summary Notes. The
next Faculty Prioritization meeting is on December 5th. IPBC will come up with a set
of responses to the concerns. There was a discussion on the guidelines.
There was a comment that there was too much detail in the memo. The Committee
wanted background about where these criteria came from - where did the
information come from? References should be cited from the Dean’s Summaries of
the previous year, the Strategic Plan and other documents.
Carolyn stated that the Faculty Prioritization Committee did not question the first set
of bullets about criteria. It was decided that the focus on the first page of the memo
should list broad criteria such as high student demand. The second set of bullets
should list general criteria instead of listing specific programs. It was decided that
there were two basic categories that should be highlighted when prioritizing faculty
hiring: 1) Faculty expertise, and 2) Criteria for Prioritizing Programs. Yvonne and
Cristina will review each of the bullets and make sure they fall under one of two
headings. Yvonne and Cristina will edit the memo and bring it to the next IPBC
meeting. The next Faculty Prioritization meeting is on December 5 and IPBC will
come up with a set of responses to the concerns.
In past College Council meetings, Dr. Carlson has stated the role of IPBC. As a
planning body, it needs to be decided what direction that the institution wants to go.
IPBC should be setting the process for Faculty Prioritization. Dr. Carlson has asked
IPBC in the past to provide direction. The question arose: what is the relationship
between IPBC and Faculty Prioritization? Should IPBC set tasks for Faculty
Prioritization and for policy in general? From conversations in the last meeting, it
was expressed that there is no process in Faculty Prioritization. Ron Taylor
responded that Faculty Prioritization looks at the Unit Plan and proposal information,
then they discuss it and vote. IPBC should let Faculty Prioritization continue with its
process while IPBC provides direction since there is no need to do the same work
twice.
• Continue drafting Division/Area Overview
The “Division Deans and Area Managers Overview” was reviewed. The second
paragraph is a long sentence, and it should be clearer. This paragraph should either
be the vision statement or stated as a goal. The priorities should also be stated in
goal format. A summary of what each division is going to do programmatically
should be added. There was a discussion on leaving small item requests. IPBC is
hoping that the Deans are getting feedback from their faculty. Deans should create
a list of goals for division, activities, resources, but keep it shorter than last year’s
summaries. IPBC is requested the bigger picture, not the details, therefore, it should
be more general. There was a suggestion to hand out the memo to faculty and ask
for a brief summary, and to use this as a basic unit plan. This is because it is a much
more presentable document and it keeps people from “freezing up.” Documents
should be useful for Deans and faculty to use. IPBC is not capable of saying what
their division’s priorities are and that the reason for this summary to be completed.
This could possibly be a Dean’s Meeting agenda item. Yvonne and Cristina will revise
the memo and take it to the Dean’s Meeting and stress the importance and
expectation that Deans/Area Managers are discussing division priorities with their
faculty and staff.
• Accreditation Standard I (Carolyn)
Carolyn Arnold discussed items on the handout “Standard I: Institutional Mission and
Effectiveness.” The first question was “What mechanisms exist for participation in
college planning?” The response was that the Unit Plan, Strategic Plan, and the
Collaborative Governance Model encourage dialogue within divisions and collegewide about college planning.
The second question was “How is broad involvement guaranteed?” The response
was there is open participation. Broad involvement is guaranteed because a lot of
people are going to College Council meetings now, and there is leadership training.
The next question was “To what extent does the college allocate resources to fulfill
its plans?” This question brings up another question: “Are resources being matched
to plans?” College plans are being bypassed. The Unit Plan addresses division
needs. Need to align needs with resources so that resources can go further.
The next question was “What changes have occurred as a result of implemented
plans?” The response was that plans have been implemented, there has been
continuous improvement, student learning has improved. Also, facilities, processes,
construction has effected student learning. It was decided that this topic was too
lengthy to discuss with the limited time left in this meeting. Therefore, the
conversation was postponed to the next IPBC meeting.
Decision/Recommendation
• Final Unit Plan Format Approval pending Budget Committee review of edits
• Unit Plan Cover Letter and Instructions - Yvonne and Cristina will email the letter
and instructions. Comments are to be sent to Cristina and Yvonne, and will be
discussed at the next meeting and approved there.
Future Agenda Items
• Program Review Presentation/Discussion (Tom DeWit)