Institutional Planning and Budget Council
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Present: Melinda Matsuda, Ken Grace, Debbie Budd, Rachel LePell, Patricia Shannon, Bob Curry, Tom
DeWit, Gerald Shimada, Steven Small, Denise Noldon, Clara McLean, Laurie O’Connor, Chad Mark Glen,
Kari McAllister, Johnny Chen (ASCC), Ashnika Narayan (ASCC), Linda Barde, Carolyn Arnold (note taker)
1. Review of October 27, 2004 Minutes
Melinda Matsuda called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. She asked IPBC representatives to review the minutes
from October 27, 2004. There were no revisions, and they were approved as written.
2. Finalizing IPBC Norms
Melinda Matsuda passed out the finalized list of IPBC Norms that Norma Ambriz had discussed with the group
at the last meeting. Melinda noted that there was an inherent tension between Norm # 3: “Move agenda
forward” and Norm #8,”Allow time for dialogue,” and that when she and Carolyn Arnold plan the agenda and
facilitate the meeting, they are constantly trying to balance those two needs. It has been particularly hard to plan
agendas that allow enough time for discussion when the agendas are filled with time-sensitive items. She noted
that they have chosen not to schedule more meetings this semester, which might have alleviated some of the
pressure. Moving the agenda forward depends on another norm, #14: “Provide clear charges to task forces and
subcommittee,” because this allows IPBC to trust task forces to discuss and complete their tasks, and save the
IPBC meeting for acting on their recommendations rather than starting the discussion again from scratch. Ken
Grace pointed out the IPBC is to have a global vision and should not have to be involved in the details of tasks
we have delegated. The group concluded that there would always be some tension because part of our charge is
to monitor the details and to stay global as well.
3. Prioritizing Strategic Plan Objectives for 2005-06: discussion
Rachel LePell asked about the role of the 2005-06 Priority Objectives, which we were about to discuss and vote
on. She asked how much weight they would have in the college, and with who? How much would they
influence the deployment of precious resources? Others wanted to make sure it was a working document, rather
than one that is just put on a shelf. Clara McLean asked about things that are not priorities – will they just fall
off the list? She wanted to make sure that the items that were priorities got support, and that we carry through
with our priorities as a community. Chad Mark Glen echoed Clara, that we should really support our priorities.
Ken Grace said that every meeting in the college that approves resources or actions should have a form to check
off that shows that the Strategic Plan supports the actions or resources. Gerald Shimada agreed, and asked that
we get a united statement from the administration and senates that everything we do in terms of deploying
resources will refer to the Strategic Plan. Chad replied that yes, he believed that Carolyn was working towards
that, and that the Faculty Senate will do that. Carolyn Arnold pointed out that this process we are doing today
would not be our only vote on these priorities. We will finalize these priorities on Nov 17th, after we consider
what the community and the Faculty senate, and other college staff say. In addition, we are developing both a
three-year plan, and a one-year plan. Everything in the plan are things we want to do in the next three years, and
many of them will have to start next year. Right now, we are just discussing what the top priorities are for next
year, but in fact, all of the objectives in the plan are important. Melinda Matsuda concluded the discussion by
reminding the group that the Strategic Plan is for new and improved projects, and that funding may be available
from the Chabot Foundation, Title III, and other grants, to fund the plan. In addition, we want to work toward
institutionalizing successful project and buy-in.
4. Community Input to Strategic Planning Priorities
Carolyn Arnold passed out three handouts, which described the process she used in October to conduct focus
groups with ‘key community advisors’ about Chabot planning issues, and the results from those focus groups.
She asked Chabot staff and community members to help her come up with a list of leaders from the following
local constituent groups—businesses/employers, unions/labor, community service organizations, governmental
agencies, faith-based organizations, ethnic/cultural communities, four-year colleges and universities, high
schools, and K-12 school boards. In addition, she invited members of the Chabot Foundation, who were
representative of those groups. The result was a list of 128 people invited, and 26 who attended the focus
groups, providing a representative sample of those target groups (see handout). The focus groups were
conducted on campus on October 25-27 by Dr. Carlson, Melinda Matsuda, and Carolyn Arnold, and facilitated
by Chabot faculty and staff—Chad Mark Glen, Katie Hern, Gerald Shimada, Norma Ambriz, and Tom DeWit.
The focus group attendees were asked for their feedback on our new vision/mission/values statements, on their
top choice for College-wide Learning Goals, and on how well Chabot was or was not “responding to the
educational needs of the community.” In addition, they were asked to prioritize selected objectives from the
Strategic Plan (this was the 10/10 draft, without internal staff objectives).
For this IPBC meeting, Carolyn provided a summary of their overall feedback on how well Chabot was
responding to community needs, and a tally, with comments on their top choices of objectives. There was some
discussion about the comments in the feedback section, which mostly echoed our strengths and needs to
improve that the college staff has voiced. The top five priority objectives of these community members were
about strengthening partnerships with local businesses and employers in order to provide “meaningful” job and
career placements for students, promoting curriculum that fosters understanding of cultural diversity,
developing and enhancing Basic Skills offerings to meet our students’ needs, and increasing the number of
student who transfer. In addition, they were supportive of service learning, addressing student success
inequities, and enhancing occupational training, and integrating the Facilities Plan with the bond-funded
projects. Carolyn summarized by saying that these priorities also echoed many of our own concerns. Rachel
LePell pointed out that the local businesses would of course have an interest in developing job placements in
their businesses. Carolyn replied that this in the best interests of our occupational students and programs as
well. She showed the comments from community members that stated that if we had good partnerships with
business, we would have, among other things, occupational certificates and degrees that benefit students and are
up to date and a dynamic between colleges and employers that leads to good jobs. Rachel asked if she could use
the list of focus group attendees to invite them to see the theatre production of La Posada as a thank you for
their contributions, and Carolyn and the group agreed.
5. Prioritizing Strategic Plan Objectives for 2005-06: voting
Rachel LePell instructed the group to voting for their priority objectives by using 12 green dots per person to
vote for the objectives, which were listed on the wall. The 18 people present voted, except for the ASCC
representatives, who preferred to wait since it was their first meeting. Rachel then summarized the top votegetting objectives, which will be presented at the next meeting.
6. College-wide Learning Goals project: Status Report
Denise Noldon and Patricia Shannon passed out the draft of the college-wide learning goals that they had
developed from four college-wide forums (see handout). They discussed how they had grouped all the
suggestions under five major goals—global/cultural awareness, development of the whole person,
communication, critical thinking, and civic responsibility, and that the detailed list of subjects under each goal
are for illustration purposes. They also showed that they had divided the goals into student goals and college
staff goals, since the role of the staff in helping students learn kept coming up in the forums. The group was
enthusiastic about and appreciative of the results of this project, pointed out some typos, and commended them
on their work. Denise asked for IPBC’s blessing to present this present this draft to the college for finalizing on
November 16th, and the group agreed.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Arnold.