Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Present: Norma Ambriz, Debbie Budd, Brenda Carr, Jane Church, Bob Curry, Ken Grace, Sally Jahnke,
Melinda Matsuda, Clara McLean, Laurie O’Connor, Gerald Shimada, Carolyn Arnold (note taker)
Melinda Matsuda called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. She asked IPBC representatives to review the draft minutes from April 13th. Minutes were edited to reflect that the two summer meetings are not required for faculty; then they were approved as edited.
Melinda Matsuda opened this discussion by asking if any of the representatives present would not be continuing on IPBC for the next year. Carolyn Arnold passed out a list of the current representatives, which divisions they represent, and which IPBC reps sit on college committees. There was some discussion of suggesting that representatives have two-year terms due to the learning curve. Everyone agreed that this would be good, and if it was done that terms should be staggered. However, there was no move to implement at this time. Carolyn said that she would send out an Email asking if any other IPBC representatives are not continuing.
Norma Ambriz said she would not be continuing. Rick Moniz has been attending meetings with Norma in order to be prepared to be the Social Sciences Division representative. Ken Grace will not continue, and their division will select a new representative in the next week.
Gerald Shimada asked if we could discuss the composition of the Budget Committee. Bob Curry said he has asked Classified Senate and Association, and Faculty Senate and Association for recommendations. Carolyn pointed out that the Budget Committee is a subcommittee of IPBC. Brenda Carr said that no classified staff could be on both committees – it is too much work. This discussion was tabled for the next meeting.
Carolyn Arnold called for a subgroup to create a proposal for convocation week, guided by IPBC and the strategic planning priorities for next year. She said that Carol Bauman of Staff Development and Tom DeWit of
Program Review had agreed to be on this group too. Clara McLean and Rachel LePell volunteered. They will report back as they come up with a plan.
As we turned to the unit plan presentations, it was noted that there were only 8 people attending to listen to those about to be presented, which was disappointing to the presenters and to the other members, since the purpose of these presentations was to prepare us for our future planning. It was reiterated that it was the learning about the units that was most important, not the recommendations.
The next group of unit plans and budgets were presented by the next three review teams. The teams were Gerald
Shimada, Clara McLean and Jane Church, and Brenda Carr and Sally Jahnke. Each team was given about half

hour to present their seven units. Building on the feedback about the diverse format from last meeting, these teams told us as much as they could about the goals, objectives, and budgets of each unit
Gerald Shimada gave his presentation for himself and Chad Mark Glen on the units of: Electronics and
Computer Technology, Cooperative Work Experience, Sociology, Special Projects (CHARLIE, Service
Learning, Springboard to Transfer, Activity Director Training), and Architecture. He provided the mission, goals, and priorities of each unit, as well as interesting commentary on the data. See his handout.
Afterwards, Melinda Matsuda recommended that Service Learning be forwarded to Tier 2 to explore how to institutionalize it, with grants or other funded or unfunded ways to get this into more course outlines. This started a discussion about whether the purpose of the Tier 2 recommendations was to support budget augmentations or to suggest budget scrutiny or cuts, and this was not clear. Norma Ambriz pointed out that we are still learning how to review units and budgets, and that many elements are still missing in the unit plans and budgets this year. We are going to need to specify what elements must be provided so we can make decisions at the Tier 2 level. Matsuda said that without that structure, we are just saying that these units will be considered in
Tier 2. It was decided that a subgroup would meet to develop a process and some structure for Tier 2, both for recommendations that augment funding and those that address problematic units. This subgroup will be Norma
Ambriz, Debbie Budd, and Melinda Matsuda, and they will report back to IPBC the next meeting on May 4th.
[which was cancelled, so May 11th].
During this discussion, Bob Curry reported that the Budget Committee would make recommendations on augmentation funding to IPBC by May 18th.
Clara McLean and Jane Church then reported on the units of Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, and Physics, the
Children’s Center, Health Information Technology, Welding Technology, Mass Communications, and
Geography. They gave a passionate presentation about their units. See their handout.
Clara recommended that more funds be found for Chemistry for their ongoing supplies shortage. This prompted a discussion of whether the units that have presented before would have suggested budget augmentations if they had know we were accepting them for Tier 2. This was left unresolved, and so nothing will be recommended to
Tier 2 until that process is clarified. Jane suggested that Health Information Technology look at taking their services online across the board, especially for technical programs.
Brenda Carr and Sally Jahnke then reported on the units of Puente, Emergency Medical Technician (EMT),
Real Estate, Humanities: Philosophy/Religious Studies, Music, Teaching & Reading Developmental Program
(TDRP), and Psychology. They gave a very thorough and interesting presentation. See their handout. They had no recommendations.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Arnold.