Institutional Planning and Budget Council
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Present: Melinda Matsuda, Rich Talmo, Laurie O’Connor, Rachel LePell, Ron Taylor, Stephen Small, Chad
Mark Glen, Denise Noldon, Debbie Budd, Bob Curry, Gerald Shimada, Kari McAllister, Kathleen Schaefer, Joe
Kuwabara, Ken Grace, Clara McLean, Sally Jahnke, Bob Carlson, Tom DeWit, Carolyn Arnold (note taker)
1. Review of November 17, 2004 Minutes
Melinda Matsuda called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. She asked IPBC representatives to review the minutes
from November 17, 2004. They were approved as revised.
2. Fall 2004 IPBC Accomplishments
Carolyn Arnold passed out a one-page summary of IPBC actions, arranged by IPBC meetings, and asked the
group to review it (see handout). The summary documented how much the Council had accomplished this Fall,
in only eight meetings plus a retreat. The major objectives—updating the strategic plan, choosing priority
objectives, developing college-wide learning goals, providing community input to strategic planning, and
evaluating the PFE projects—had been accomplished on schedule. A question was raised about how we will
accomplish more during or between the meetings, as the responsibilities on IPBC grow. This discussion was
postponed to the first meeting in Spring semester, when we will evaluate our meeting and group process, and
have a clearer idea about our tasks for the Spring.
3. Next Steps for Planning and Budget Integration
President Carlson commended IPBC for the work they had accomplished this semester, and said they had gone
farther than Chabot has ever gone in getting onto an annual planning and budgeting cycle, and that he was here
to help outline what the next steps are. He passed out a chart/timeline that showed an 18-month planning and
budgeting cycle that we have almost caught up to, and will this year with some minor adjustments.
This year, the priority objectives were completed on November 19th, which was after the disciplines were
already working on their unit plans and budgets, so this year, the deans and managers will be the ones to
integrate the college priority objectives with their unit plans. In future years, the college objectives will be
provided before disciplines start any planning.
Carlson then explained how he wanted it to work in the future. There are several issues with the objectives.
They need to be data based, and he knows that we have specific objectives in particular basic skills disciplines,
such as English and Math. But if we make them broader, other disciplines can address these issues too, as well
as getting the original discipline to do so. So instead of just increasing percentages in Latinos persistence in
English, have an objective about improving overall persistence for Latinos, so the entire campus can address the
issue as well as the English department.
He also wants to see fewer priority objectives than the 20 some we have now. He would suggest between five
and seven, and put them in two categories–improvement objectives and new/development objectives.
How will we get it all done? We must be able to see the forest (the college) for the trees (the units), and not be
so close to the trees, which means thinking more like a President than a Dean. The committees that report to
IPBC have to both trained and trusted. We need to delegate work to them, and then rely on what they come up
with. That is what he has done with IPBC during his first 3 years. Three years ago he did not see that we could
make good college-wide decisions, but now we can, so he thinks we are ready to take on the major role, which
this Council was designed to play. He has not had to guide us. We are still working out whether we are using
the model of a large committee doing everything, and that of small groups/pairs becoming expert on parts of the
task for the whole group. The following discussion ensued:
Rachel LePell: What about committees that do not report to IPBC?
Carlson: Wherever they report to, he is giving us support to direct them to focus on the strategic planning
priorities. We have done excellent work this year – next year we will have objectives done earlier. This [his
chart] is a map of the next steps for this Spring and the Fall.
LePell: Can we combine program review/discipline plans/unit plans with addressing the strategic planning
objectives and curriculum questions – can we do it all at once? Can we have one yearly report that includes it
all?
Carlson: Yes, we are working towards this. He is working on a timeline that will show how all
reports/committees/deadlines work together. He wants to all these to feed into a final product.
Chad Mark Glen: I agree. Faculty are now working on 3-4 different things.
Matsuda: We are developing this process with a spirit of experimentation.
Arnold: We are trying different things as we go, and we will see how it works.
Carlson: The next step we are trying for the first time is having the Deans and VPs synthesize the different unit
plans in their areas. We are working on how and when they do that, and we will see.
LePell: I suggest having longer terms for IPBC members, since it takes a semester or two to get the complete
picture of what we are doing.
Steven Small: Yes, this is my first semester, and I’m just putting it together now.
Clara McLean: Yes, that might help to have longer terms.
Ken Grace: He likes the idea of us giving direction and others having to follow the objectives and link all
resources to those objectives.
Glen: Yes, continuing on IPBC for more than one year is good
A discussion ensued about workload of IPBC and how to share it, and whether faculty with science,
occupational, or other labs have time to do it.
LePell: As IPBC has become more important, more faculty will want to step up and take part.
Carlson: You must be more like a President. You have done great work. You can now take time to reflect about
how you did this and evaluate yourself and how you want to go about your tasks in the future.
4. PFE Institutionalization Sub-committee Report
Tom DeWit and Clara McLean passed out their committee’s report [see handout], which summarized the PFE
progress reports and requests for institutionalization. They recommended that 6-8 groups be institutionalized,
with requested amounts ranging from $2,000 to $30,000, have support to be institutionalized. The subcommittee
had also identified any unused PFE funds, and recommended that these be used to offset the amounts for these
groups. The discussion focused on whether the requested funds will all be granted, and whether they were
expected to be one-time, or ongoing funds. The request, minus the existing funds, totaled $55,000, although that
might be lower.
Since we have no funds to distribute on a long-term basis, Rachel LePell proposed that we support the work of
the committee by supporting institutionalization of these projects in the form of recommendations to the Deans
that they are high priorities. Carolyn Arnold pointed out that we have not resolved whether these are one year or
ongoing priorities. Dr. Carlson suggested that we treat these as ideas from the units that we are saying we like,
and think about how we handle this on an ongoing basis.
IPBC decided to accept the report, and agreed that the bolded projects would be institutionalized as priorities for
unit plans, although there is not a funding mandate.
5. Title III Update and Next Steps
Kathleen Schaefer had the sad task of announcing disappointing news—the US. Dept of Education had
cancelled the Title III competition for 2005, which is the competition for which we had been preparing. The
proposal was almost written. Luckily, the proposal was written based on the strategic plan, and the activities
reflect our current planning priorities. We will just have to find other ways to carry them out, without that
$350K per year. These goals are already being moved ahead with the college-wide learning goals, and writing
the Carnegie grant which some of the key activities, to name two effects. [The Carnegie grant was awarded later
that week, which provides $75-$120K per year!].
Rachel LePell wanted to be sure that the concept/goal that was developed in the Title III planning process of
becoming a learning-centered college with a culture of thoughtfulness would endure as a priority. She wanted
IPBC to reiterate the Theme A goals of thinking about learning. The group agreed that we would continue to
carry out these goals.
6. College-wide Learning Goals
Denise Noldon passed out the final draft of the college-wide learning goals [see handout], which she pointed out
was part of the process towards becoming a learning centered college, along with the vision, mission, and
values. She noted that this draft included one addition – “political,” to the list of “Informed citizenship..” and a
question about whether “Timeliness” was needed. Chad Mark Glen suggested that she put the list in
alphabetical order and she agreed. She said that his draft will be taken to Classified Senate and ASCC, and then
finalized at College Council. This d\raft had been vetted with LPC, and it was found that the two colleges had
developed very similar lists.
7. Team Training Plan for Student Learning Outcomes
Carolyn Arnold reported on options for sending teams to workshops on student learning outcomes/assessment
of student learning/becoming a learning-centered college. These all carry out our goal of becoming a learningcentered college and our objective of educating the college community about student learning outcomes.
There are three available workshops:
•
•
•
Feb 4-6 (weekend), in San Mateo put on by WASC/AAHE for $550 each for teams of 5 or more.
Mar 10-11 in Berkeley, led by Norton Grubb/Norena Badway for free for teams of 5
April 7-8 in San Mateo, led Norton Grubb/Norena Badway for free for teams of 5
She recommended that we send a team of IPBC members to the first one, because it is put on by WASC, Ron
Taylor and Cindy Hicks had a good experience at this conference last year, and the result of that workshop is a
college plan for the implementation of student learning outcomes/becoming a learning centered-college, which
is one of IPBC’s goals. The team who goes can then bring their draft plan back to IPBC for IPBC to approve as
a college plan, so we would have an organized approach to this goal in 2005-06. The college plan will include
how to include the rest of the college. The group agreed with this recommendation, and approved the funding
for a reasonable sized team (5-8?). She asked who would go, and who would work with her to come up with a
representative team. Glen, Arnold, and Matsuda were the only ones who could commit to going at this point,
but Tom DeWit, Rachel LePell, and Melinda Matsuda volunteered to help form a team. Chad Mark Glen asked
if we could send other faculty and staff to the other workshops, since they were free, and Arnold replied that
was a good idea, and that the team-planning group could work that out.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Arnold.