Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Present: Debbie Budd, Ken Grace, Sally Jahnke, Melinda Matsuda, Clara McLean, Laurie O’Connor, Gerald
Shimada, Rachel LePell, Chad Mark Glen, Gene Groppetti, Judy Young, Ron Taylor, Steve Small, Tom DeWit,
Rachel Maldonado-Aziminia, Marge Maloney (note taker), Carolyn Arnold (editor).
Melinda Matsuda called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. She asked IPBC representatives to review the draft minutes from April 27th. Minutes were edited to note that it was not resolved what to recommend to Tier 2 until that process is clarified, and ‘online’ was added to a suggestion for HIT. Minutes were approved as edited.
Carolyn Arnold reported that the subgroup to create a proposal for convocation week had met twice, and provided a summary of their latest ideas for feedback. See handout. The three priorities for the week were: to introduce student learning outcomes, start program review, and focus on strategic planning priorities have been accomplished. The group wants to 1) promote an outside speaker on SLOs and the resistance to them. (Norena
Badway, who speaks from a faculty perspective), 2) provide a forum to discuss peoples fears about the upcoming construction, and 3) present the vision of the next 10-15 years, including celebrating the achievements so far. Feedback was positive on these plans, and it was recommended that we not advertise events using words like ‘resistance’ and ‘fears. ’
Carolyn presented a list of choices for the break out sessions that all related to planning priorities. A few choices were added, and there was a discussion about whether to ask Staff Development to set up additional workshops that are for more personal enjoyment and information. The consensus was to try it this way this year by focusing all choices on planning goals, upcoming faculty/staff projects, and to keep it as interactive with other faculty and staff as possible. It was recommended that we evaluate this way of doing it, and the group agreed. The subgroup will continue to meet to refine the plans further. The subgroup consists of Rachel LePell,
Carol Baumann, Kari McAllister, Rebecca Otto, and Tom DeWit.
Chad Mark Glen noted that he is on the District planning group for the Wednesday morning, and asked if others could join him, but no one volunteered. However, he was encouraged to share our plans with them, so they would be somewhat coordinated.
Carolyn Arnold and Melinda Matsuda passed out a 3-page handout that listed all of the tasks that they had taken on in the last two years as part of their responsibilities as co-chairs. Carolyn had designated which of the tasks she considered as part of her Institutional Research responsibility and would continue to perform. The purpose of the list was to let IPBC and those considering being chair what needed to be handled either by the chairs or other members. Tom DeWit suggested that two functions could be taken out – reviewing the unit plans/budgets, and communicating with all the committees who were supposed to report to IPBC – not the communicating but the reporting. This prompted a discussion on the roles of IPBC. The group agreed that this discussion did not need to be resolved today, and that discussions will occur over the summer about the role of College Council,

IPBC, etc. Rachel LePell suggested that the new chairs meet with top management and discuss roles and duties of IPBC, and then communicate it to the rest of the college.
Melinda then asked who is interested in being chair, and Rachel LePell and Sally Jahnke said that they were.
Rachel said that she would need release time to be chair or co-chair. Carolyn suggested that Sally and Rachel talk at next week’s meeting about their ideas for chairing IPBC, so we can be informed when we vote on the chairs. Tom DeWit asked what if others outside the group are interested in being chair? This prompted a discussion of whether it should be opened up to college-wide. AT first the consensus was yes, and that Melinda would send out an email to all the college. After further discussion, it was decided to just open it up to those who were considering becoming members, and Melinda will send an Email to them.
Carolyn Arnold reported that the Grants Committee had reviewed a proposal to write a preliminary grant proposal letter to the Ford Foundation to hold forums and develop curriculum on ‘difficult subjects, ’ specifically to reduce bigotry against Middle Eastern and Muslim people, but also about to address other issues of ethnicity, gender, that are salient on our campus. Since it is a large ($100,000) grant and would require the time of the grant writer to write the final proposal, the Grants Committee and IPBC needed to support it to proceed. The grant falls under the strategic plan goals and objectives to cultivate multi-cultural awareness and promote equity and diversity systematically across campus.
IPBC representatives expressed support for the purposes of the grant and for Kip Waldo to be the coordinator.
In order to support it, IPBC would like input into the grant planning and/or representation on the subcommittee to ensure that the focus is on the learning college/learning/teaching outcomes aspect, that the dialogues represent balanced points of view, and that sensitive facilitation be provided. In addition, the 10% overhead should be requested and used for District and College administration costs. It is understood that this grant would substitute for current Staff Development funds now spent on similar activities, which would allow SD funds to support other endeavors such as Student Learning Outcomes.
Melinda Matsuda provided a graphic explaining two possible directions for the Tier 2 process and decisions, and talked it through with the group (see handout). In one direction (proactive), IPBC is very well informed and can make specific recommendations to the institutional decision-making group. In another direction (active),
IPBC is more informed (but not as well-informed) and IPBC responds to options and endorses recommendations from the institutional decision-making group. She pointed out that on May 25th we would look at what recommendations have been forwarded to Tier 2. From there, we will need to gather more information to make an informed decision, so no matter which direction we take, this discussion will extend into the summer. Which direction we take will be determined by the amount of time people are able and willing to put in to becoming informed.
A discussion ensued about which direction we can take, and who is making the final decisions on program elimination, etc– College Council, Chancellor’s Cabinet? Ron Taylor pointed out that IPBC is now better prepared to respond to recommendations because of the work that has been done on unit plans. It was suggested that the one-page strategic planning priorities should be more widely distributed.
Conclusion: all groups who have presented or will present unit plan reports should send their recommendations for Tier 2 consideration to Melinda by Monday, May 23rd 5 pm, so they can be compiled for the May 25th meeting. We will determine at that meeting what types of recommendations we are providing.

The next group of unit plans and budgets were presented by two review teams—Ken Grace, for himself and
Patricia Shannon, who could not attend, and Debbie Budd, for herself and Rick Moniz, who could not attend.
Each team was given less than half hour to present their seven units.
Ken Grace gave his presentation by playing a Video CD which provided facts, figures, music, and a voice-over presentation about the units of: Anthropology, Daraja, Math, Health Education, Business (Misc. Institutional
Services), Design Technology, and PACE. . He also provided a handout. He had given a copy of the CD to each
IPBC representatives several weeks ago, and it was so enjoyable we all sat through it again and applauded. He pointed that anyone could produce this type of a presentation.
Debbie Budd then reported on the unit goals, priorities, budgets, EMC numbers, and funding requests of the units of English/WRAC/ISLS, Theatre Arts, Engineering, Admissions & Records, Foreign Language, Quick
Start projects, and Digital Media. See her handout, which included many thoughtful questions about each unit.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Marge Maloney and Carolyn Arnold.