Institutional Planning and Budget Council
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Present: Melinda Matsuda, Sally Jahnke, Ken Grace, Gene Groppetti, Joe Kuwabara, Debbie Budd, Rachel
LePell, Patricia Shannon, Tom DeWit, Gerald Shimada, Steven Small, Denise Noldon, Norma Ambriz,
Norberto Ruiz, Clara McClean, Laurie O’Connor, Carolyn Arnold (note taker)
1. Review of October 13, 2004 Minutes
Melinda Matsuda called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. She asked IPBC representatives to review the minutes
from October 13, 2004. There were no revisions, and they were approved as written.
2. Distinction between the Various Plans (Strategic Plan, Educational Master Plan, and
Facilities Plan)
In response to questions at the previous IPBC meeting, Carolyn Arnold passed out the charts on the relationship
between the Educational Master Plan process and the Strategic Plan, and led a discussion on the relationship of
each to the Facilities Plan, which is called an Educational Master Plan by the state. This duplication of names
has led to confusion at Chabot about whether the Facilities Committee and consultants were duplicating the
Educational Master Plan chart developed by Dr. Carlson. It was clarified that the “Educational Master Plan”
required by the state is much more focused on space and Facilities, and that we do not have a written
Educational Master Plan based on Dr. Carlson’s chart. It was noted that LPC calls their Facilities plan a
Facilities Development Plan. The group asked for clarification from Dr. Carlson about whether his chart was
meant just to outline a process of planning, or as an outline for a written document. In addition, is there an intent
to have a written Educational Master Plan based on that chart?
Whatever the Facilities plan is called, representatives expressed concern about how the college’s new vision,
mission, and goals related to learning would become part of the vision and mission of the Facilities plan, since
the consultants are currently estimating the need for new building space based on current enrollment and spaceuse figures. Gene Groppetti and Sally Jahnke, who are both on the Facilities Committee, noted that overall
square footage of educational buildings is determined by the state. They expressed confidence that we (the
college users of the buildings and IPBC) will be able to have input related to the types of learning space when
the design for each building starts. There was a discussion of whether they needed input about the overall space
needs, and whether anyone was going to facilitate a process to connect new learning theories and plans to the
building plans at every stage. The IPBC representatives on the Facilities committee were urged to monitor this
process and to provide or ask for input whenever it was needed. They agreed to do so.
3. Plan and Timeline for Establishing the 2005-08 three-year Strategic Plan, and the 2005-06
Development and Improvement Objectives
Carolyn Arnold passed out the schedule for the rest of the IPBC meetings of the Fall semester, and noted the
deadline for finalizing the 2005-08 Strategic Plan at the meeting on Nov 17th, in order to have it accepted by
College Council on Nov 19th. This date allows the final Strategic Plan to go out to the college in time to
provide guidance for units planning their 2005-06 objectives and activities. We are on schedule for this, since at
this meeting we will approve the first draft to be sent out to the college. However, she noted that we were a little
behind the schedule for establishing the 2005-06 priorities, because we had only just finished this draft of the 3-
year objectives. Rachel LePell suggested that we set the priorities at this meeting after we finalized the 3-year
objectives, and the group agreed that they could do this since the meeting agenda was not full. [However, by the
end of the meeting, there was not time to do this. See below for the resolution under the Strategic Plan agenda
item.]
4. Technology Committee Status Report
Melinda Matsuda opened the discussion about the report that had been passed out at the last IPBC meeting from
Scott Hildreth, Chair of the Technology Committee. Scott had provided IBPC with a 7-page report on the status
of the Technology Committee. For various reasons, the committee has been unable to fulfill their charge of
writing the Technology Plan, and he cannot continue as chair due to his sabbatical next semester, so the
committee has stopped meeting. The report discusses various solutions and proposes three options—1) keep the
current charge of the Technology Committee, and reconstitute the committee with new faculty leadership,
possibly with reassigned time; 2) review and amend the charge of the committee to take into account other
relevant governing bodies such as IPBC, the Facilities committee and its bond-funded projects, and District ITS,
and 3) to retire the committee. The IPBC representatives agreed that they did not want to consider disbanding
the committee. The discussion then focused on the issue of planning for technology for the new facilities.
During the summer of 2004, in the absence of faculty, the District IT had taken the lead in providing input about
upgrades and new technology for the Facilities Committee. However, Melinda reported that Dr. Carlson had
assured her that Jeanne Methe was willing to turn this charge over to the Technology Committee, and he urged
the Technology Committee to start anew and take over this charge.
Discussion ensued about how technology issues were now tied to facilities and bond-funded projects, and that a
consultant was already being hired to address these issues. [Someone] suggested that the Committee be
reconstituted in Spring 2005, after the new Dean of applied Technology and Business was hired, in order to let
this person help pull things together. [Someone] noted that ITS, DE, and other technology areas such as the
Library had to be brought together within a reconstituted committee so that technology discussions were driven
by what was needed educationally. A structural change was needed to include all these groups together,
including ITS. Carolyn Arnold state that the new dean might not know the issues or have time to focus on this,
and that it would be more productive and proactive for that person to have a committee already ready to go
when they were hired. [Someone] suggested a small committee work on a proposal for a new structure, and look
into whether bond funds can be used to provide release time. In addition, the committee would look into how to
reorganize and redefine what the Technology committee does and defines what its functions are and who should
be on it. This was about to be resolved by consensus, when Rachel LePell suggested taking a more definite
action at this meeting. She suggested this action which the group agreed to by consensus: IPBC recommends to
College Council and Dr. Carlson that a person, separate from the new Applied Tech and Business Dean, be
hired to bring together and lead the articulation of the technology needs for IT, DE, and the Library, and that
funds be allocated to make this happen, including using bond funds that are now being used for consultants who
are planning about technology. It was decided to review this proposal with Scott Hildreth before finalizing the
recommendation, and Carolyn Arnold agreed to contact him.
5. Strategic Plan 2005-08: Finalization of First Draft for College-wide Input and Comment
Carolyn Arnold passed out the current draft of the 2005-08 Strategic Plan goals and objectives, which had been
worked on during an optional meeting on Oct 20th attended by 11 IPBC members and at various extra themeteam meetings. She had sent this draft out on Monday to IPBC. She reviewed the newest changes based on
college and IPBC input, and obtained approval for some of them, but not all. It was suggested in some cases to
wait for college input. Debbie Budd asked why input about a Theme B goal from a Health Sciences faculty
member had not been taken into account, and it was explained that the group had accepted only some of that
input. A quick rewrite of the workplace safety goal in Theme B was able to capture the ‘workplace health’
intent of that input, and the group agreed to that change.
After approval, it was decided to send out the 3-year objectives to the college for feedback and in addition, to
ask the college staff to select their top 10-15 objectives for 2005-06 at the same time. In the meantime, IPBC
representatives agreed to come to the next IPBC meeting, on November 10th, ready to discuss their top 10
priority objectives, based on input/discussion with their colleagues between now and then. We will then
continue to collect input from the college until November 15th, and finalize both the 3-year plan and the 200506 priority objectives on November 17th as planned.
6. College-wide Learning Goals project
Denise Nolden reported that two of the three college forums on college-wide learning goals had taken place,
and the last one was scheduled for the following day, Thursday October 28th. She said that a total of 11 people
had come to the forums, and that they had generated good discussions.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Arnold.