Institutional Planning and Budget Council
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Present: Melinda Matsuda, Laurie O'Connor, Sally Jahnke, Kathleen Schaefer, Ken Grace, Gene Groppetti,
Brenda Carr, Joe Kuwabara, Kari McAllister, Debbie Budd, Rachel LePell, Patricia Shannon, Tom DeWit,
Gerald Shimada, Steven Small, Ron Taylor, Denise Noldon, Chad Mark Glen, Marge Maloney, Norma Ambriz,
Tim Steele, Carolyn Arnold (note taker).
1. Review of September 22, 2004 Minutes
Melinda Matsuda called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. She asked IPBC representatives to review the minutes
from September 22, 2004. There were no revisions, and they were approved as written.
2. Agreement on IPBC Norms
Norma Ambriz passed out the revised list of IPBC norms developed at the previous meeting. There was some
discussion and clarification, and several more were added. Norma will bring the final list to the next meeting.
Chad Mark Glen noted that we had not followed the first norm, starting on time, and Melinda Matsuda said she
would do better at that. It was noted that we were all waiting for others to arrive, and it was agreed that the
meeting would start on time even if everyone was not here.
3. Community Input to Strategic Planning
Carolyn Arnold reported that she had progressed on the project to obtain community input for strategic
planning. She has been planning, in consultation with Tom DeWit, Dr. Carlson, and Melinda Matsuda, to invite
“key community leaders” to focus groups on campus in order to ask for their input on the strategic plan and on
college-wide learning goals. She has invited about 100 representatives from community-based organizations,
ethnic-cultural organizations, businesses, employers, faith-based organizations, local government, and local
educational institutions to provide a wide variety of perspectives. There will be three focus groups held during
the last week of October, and she may need IPBC members to help facilitate and take notes in the sessions,
depending upon how many community members attend. She passed around a list and got several volunteers.
She is also soliciting input via short surveys from the Chabot Community Advisory Groups, and from the
community advisors who cannot attend the focus groups.
4. Process for Development of College-wide Learning Goals
Denise Nolden discussed the project of college-wide development of college-wide learning goals, which will
consist of three college-hour brainstorming discussions—October 21, 26, and 28—and one college hour—Nov
9th—to discuss the draft. In between, the subcommittee will synthesize the input and bring it to IPBC and the
other councils and senates for review. She asked for volunteers to help facilitate the brainstorming sessions and
several people signed up. Discussion ensured about what the process will be for deciding on the college-wide
learning goals, how much it will determine curriculum, what the deadline is, and how it will be coordinated
with LPC. The process needs to be completed by November 17th (IPBC) and Nov 19th (College Council) in
order to work with LPC in the joint district curriculum committees to coordinate each college’s list by
December. After that, the Çhabot and LPC Curriculum Committees will be using them as one guide for the
discussion of the GE units. Ron Taylor reminded everyone that College-wide Learning Goals are much broader
than GE requirements, so they should be seen as synonymous with GE units or requirements. Rachel LePell
noted that CLGs would help drive the move toward being a learning-centered college, and was concerned that
we had a fair process for incorporating input that really was a consensus of many rather than a few. The process
for developing the vision/mission/values was used as an example of how consensus can be developed without
giving weight to any particular individuals. Tom DeWit stated that there needed to be some openness to
revisions once faculty could see how the CLG’s do affect the curriculum. Marge Maloney noted that the new
GE unit requirements will not go in to effect until Fall 2006.
5. AAHE/WASC Workshop October 22-24
Melinda Matsuda reminded the group that this workshop on Oct 22-24 in Glendale was on student learning
outcomes, from college-wide learning goals to course-level outcomes. She thought it would be good support for
all our efforts to become a learning-centered college, and that we could send a team with PFE funds. Carolyn
Arnold noted that it was happening a little too late in the semester, in that most of us were too well along and
busy with our various planning projects to attend. One person was interested in going, but since it is a workshop
that requires teams to attend, the group decided not to send anyone, and to prepare a team for a February
workshop put on by the same group.
6. February Flex Day Planning
There will be a flex day in February for all staff, on the Thursday before the four-day weekend. Dr. Carlson had
asked IPBC, program review, and staff development to plan a day that addresses the college planning priorities.
Tom DeWit reported that he had asked for 3 hours for faculty to work on program review. Rachel LePell noted
that program review was so important to becoming a learning-centered college, that maybe we should spend the
whole day on program review. Discussion ensued about classified staff’s role in program review, and Tom
clarified that at this point, program review is just a faculty project. The group noted that there were really three
big umbrellas that could be developed for the day – program review, student learning (and how everyone’s job
affects it), and facilities planning. Since there was not time to develop these ideas further, a subgroup of Tom,
Marge, and Carolyn was formed to develop the ideas further, and to consult with Staff Development.
7. Facilities Committee Report
Tim Steele, Chair of the Facilities Committee, provided an overview of the role of the Facilities Committee, and
what they were doing now to begin the 10-15 year project to implement the bond-funded facilities plan (see
handout). The purpose of his visit was to discuss how best IPBC and the Facilities Committee could inform
each other about how the new facilities will best express the visions and goals of the strategic plan. There were
many questions for Tim, and a discussion ensued about how to avoid duplicating the current educational
assumptions in new buildings, whether the consultants will be informed about our current thinking about being
a learning-centered college with learning communities and cross-disciplinary programs, how much the
consultants are being monitored and directed by people on campus rather than the district, and whether the
current timeline will allow for much input at this crucial stage. There was also confusion between the
“Educational Master Plan” required by the state to justify new facilities, and the “Educational Master Plan” now
in use as a guide by IPBC for the Strategic Plan. Melinda Matsuda said she would provide clarification of these
terms for the next meeting. The discussion brought a greater awareness on the part of Tim and of the IPBC
members on the Facilities Committee to work for more input at this stage. Tim said that he would work to find
answers to all the questions. Melinda thanked Tim for attending and said that we would keep IPBC and the
Facilities Committee in contact.
8. Technology Committee Status Report
Carolyn Arnold passed out a report from Scott Hildreth, Chair of the Technology Committee, who could not be
at the meeting. 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
outlines various solutions. In the interests of time, Melinda Matsuda asked that we postpone a discussion until
IPBC representatives have reviewed the report, so we can discuss the options at the next IPBC meeting on Oct
27th.
9. IPBC’s Role in Faculty Hiring Prioritization
Melinda Matsuda and Ron Taylor reported that the timeline of the New Faculty Prioritization Committee for
prioritizing positions requires them to move ahead now with this process, and they asked how much guidance
that committee can obtain from IPBC at this stage of the Strategic Plan. It was noted that our goals and
objectives are not prioritized in a way that would give this committee much guidance, and it was recognized
that it might take another year to get the strategic plan done early enough for this process. In addition, Chad
Mark Glen noted that program review and community input results should also be taken into account, and these
results were not ready yet either. Reluctantly, it was decided that it would take another year to get all these
inputs ready to provide guidance for this process. Rachel LePell noted sadly that new faculty positions were one
of the few resource allocations that IPBC could have had some influence on, and urged the IPBC to work
towards developing a plan that could provide this guidance.
10. Status of Strategic Plan Draft 2005-08
Carolyn Arnold reported that although the 2005-08 Strategic Plan Goals had been sent out to the campus, the
objectives within many of the themes were too uneven to send out to everyone. In some cases, noone on IPBC
had reviewed them at the retreat, and Carolyn and Melinda felt that they should be worked on more. They had
hoped to save 45 minutes at this meeting for that work, but there were only a few minutes left. Carolyn asked
for suggestions on how to stay on the schedule of providing first and second drafts for the college to review
before finalizing the plan in November. Given that college forums had already been called for this week and
next, Kathleen Schaefer suggested that just the goals be reviewed for the first draft, and the goals and objectives
be reviewed in the second set of forums. Carolyn Arnold asked if the theme teams would review all their
objectives by next Tuesday, so that we could work on finalizing them on Wednesday, October 20th, and they
agreed to send them to her by Tuesday at noon. {time correct?]
11. Extra Meeting on Wed, Oct 20th
Melinda Matsuda had suggested that we hold an extra IPBC meeting in a week to finalize the objectives and to
discuss the strategic plan objectives and ___________?and the group agreed to an optional meeting
12. Other: The administration thing by Chad?
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Arnold.