Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
9:00– 9:30 Introduction, overview of the day, review of the planning process Guidelines:
Pat Girczyc reviewed the 2012 Planning Summit outcomes. We have met many of goals from last year.
Today, each committee will discuss the questions below with the whole group.
Angelina reported on the integrated planning survey. Responses indicated, overall, planning committees
are improving.
9:30 – 10:00 Budget Planning Committee “fishbowl” discussion / year in review
1. Overview of the committee charge and scope to answer the following questions:
a. Did the BPC get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to accomplish its tasks?
1. External information from CCCCO & state is always changing and late
2. Strategies to address this need to be developed
3. Survey responses in #12 based upon above
b. What information was helpful?
1. Ranked Lists
2. Which included many resource requests continue to come in
2. Frequent budget reports with updates
3. EMC projections
c. What else did you need to know?
1. Assessment information based upon planning not only outcomes
2. Operational vs. Planning requests – need to be separated; e.g. deferred maintenance
3. Establishing a built-in budget for emergencies; e.g. emergency discretionary funds
d. What process(es) informed and guided the committee’s decisions (output)
1. Charge with annual review
2. Information from other committees
3. Collective bargaining information
4. Board decisions and timing – other timelines
e. What suggestions do you have to improve BPC contributions to the planning process?
1. More linkage between assessment reporting and planning
2. “Dead body” example (people know there is a “dead body” in room, but ignore)
3. Look at BPC issues to address budget outside of collective bargaining
3. Look ahead at two-three year budgets and planning; set dates to cycle information (e.g.
program review due in Spring for BPC in Fall)
4. Need strategic hiring plan to inform BPC
5. Lead the district into strategic planning and away from crises
10:15-10:45 Program Review Committee “fishbowl” discussion/year in review
1. Overview of the committee charge and scope to answer the following questions
a. Did the PRC get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to accomplish its tasks?
Yes
b. What Information was helpful
1. IEC needs to be sure processes being followed per the Planning, Budgeting, & PR Manual
2. Made changes from 2011/12: a. planning summit recommendations; b. ACCJC committees; c. IEC
2. Scorecard, internal feedback, self-evaluation
3. EMC and student development assessment group
c. What else did you need to know?
1. More guidance and guidelines from assessment to document improvements in student achievements
are needed
2. Need clear link to assessment data in Program review templates (directions or hyperlinks?)
d. What process(es) informed and guided the PRC’s decisions (output)?
1. AP 4021 and various BPs
2. Evaluation (ongoing) of Program review process
3. Program review charge created “boundaries” for the PRC
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
e. What suggestions do you have to improve the PRC’s contributions to the planning process?
1. Provide strong examples for authors
2. Program reports are timed well for authors and institutional decision-making lags behind
3. Instructions/directions added to program review template for instructional template
4. Improve extraction of resource requests.
11:00-11:30 “Blue box” committees convene for discussion/year in review
1. Overview of Enrollment Management Committee charge and scope to answer the following questions
a. Did the EMC get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to accomplish its tasks?
Definitely and kudos to IR
b. What information was helpful?
1. IR projections
2. Scheduling model
3. Two-year scheduling process
4. Student Success Task Force mandate
5. Key performance indicators
6. ARCC and IPEDS reports
7. Multiple Measures
8. Scheduling timeline
c. What else did you need to know?
1. Needed more basic skills data
2. Student equity data
d. What process(es) informed and guided the committee’s decisions (output)?
1. External (chancellor’s office, state mandates) processes
2. Internal (scheduling; budget preparations, policies)
e. What suggestions do you have to improve EMC contributions to the planning process?
1. Be careful to not get into operational details
1. Overview of Basic Skills Committee charge and scope to answer the following questions
a. Did the BSC get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to accomplish its tasks?
Again, kudos to IR
b. What information was helpful?
1. Success, persistence and placement report
2. Student declared goals (SEP)
3. Student declared goals (program)
4. Student Success Task Force (First Year Experience)
c. What else did you need to know?
1. Fix coding issues for basic skills math so ARCC data and basic skills cohort data can be used to
compare ourselves with the rest of the state and cohort schools
d. What process(es) informed and guided the committee’s decisions (output)?
1. Annual report to the Chancellor’s office
2. BSI internal funding cycle (fall and spring call for funding)
e. What suggestions do you have to improve BSC contributions to the planning process?
1. Stronger connection to EMC
2. All committees have standards and meeting days and times that correspond with course blocks
3. Basic skills committee kind of flies under the radar
1. Overview of Facilities Planning Committee charge and scope to answer the following questions
a. Did the FPC get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to accomplish its tasks?
1. Yes, program review data was helpful, but still some questions regarding program review data, existing
lists and emergent projects need answering
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
b. What information was helpful?
1. Assessment and program review data
2. Existing lists
c. What else did you need to know?
1. Relationship between projects, can one be done without the other
2. From the survey: Approved items don’t come back from the PRC
3. Committees should review what has been approved-like the minimum qualifications chart
d. What process(es) informed and guided the committee’s decisions (output)?
1. The list of deferred projects added to that
2. Measure Q list
3. Program review discussion
e. What suggestions do you have to improve FPC contributions to the planning process?
1. Revise/revitalize membership, including ensuring student representation
1. Overview of Technology Planning Committee charge and scope to answer the following questions
1. TPC currently has an elaborate Plan that doesn’t tie well to what the tech staff are doing
2. Regular operations are getting crowded out by capital projects (because there is Measure Q
money)
3. No funding for regular maintenance
4. There is a disconnect between TPC and operational matters
a. Did the TPC get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to accomplish its tasks?
1. IT staffing project list is excellent: Pre-requisite, Safety, Overall impact to district
b. What information was helpful?
1. How these items link to the TPC plan and then how to identify and manage gaps
2. Data owners group
c. What else did you need to know?
Handling operational-software side
a. Datatel
b. Right people are in the room to answer questions; route tickets here because crossrepresentation in this room
d. What process(es) informed and guided the committee’s decisions (output)?
1. How these items link to the TPC plan and then how to identify and manage gaps
2. Data owners group
e. What suggestions do you have to improve the TPC contributions to the planning process?
Hardware:
1. Feedback for TSS issues (currently a committee internal to IT)
2. IT staff are inviting in faculty and others as a taskforce for problem solving
1. Overview of the Assessment Committee charge and scope to answer the following questions
a. Did the assessment committee get sufficient information (input) through the planning process to
accomplish its tasks?
1. PRC informing assessment will occur at the end of spring and be acted upon in the fall.
b. What information was helpful?
1. Collaboration with curriculum and PRC was helpful
c. What else did you need to know?
1. More information on what types of assessment training and development would help faculty
and
staff complete assessment would be helpful
d. What process(es) informed and guided the committee’s decisions (output)?
1. Curriculum processes, particularly in how to do GE assessment, as well as program
assessments
and mapping
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
e. What suggestions do you have to improve the assessment committee contributions to the planning
process?
1. Formalization of assessment dialogue, particularly calendar dates and times built in
2. Reports, mapping, planning can be better integrated in the future
11:30-12:00 Working Lunch (CRC Report out-Tami Matsumoto and Survey Data Report Out (above)–
Dr. Hill)
Committee to Reduce Committees report out: The IEC formed a task group to look at non-senate
committees for possible reductions and consolidations. Tami Matsumoto headed the task force and was
joined by members of the IEC plus a few outside committee members. MyCR has a joinable site, for
those interested.
The task force discussed some broad-based suggestions:
1. Program Review Committee and Assessment: assessment committee develops standards and
informs the PRC. The PRC then informs the assessment committee how to make program review more
meaningful
2. Basic Skills, Distance Ed, Management Enrollment and First Year Experience: Basic skills will be a
subcommittee of enrollment management, and First Year Experience and Distance End will be revised
under the Enrollment Management committee.
3. Expand cabinet, IEC, College Council, Student Equity and AOC: Suggested IEC is expanded
cabinet, while College Council remains separate. Roll the administrative side of student equity into
IEC/Expanded Cabinet with the AOC becoming a subcommittee of IEC/Expanded Cabinet
4. BPC, FPC, TPC all subsumed under BPC
5. Flex and Professional Development merged under Professional Development
6. Faculty Development is a senate committee
7. Emergency Preparedness and Safety (EPSCO) will continue as a stand-alone committee; however, it
needs more support for coordination for district as a whole. CRC recommends working with flex
committee.
Summit discussion on these suggestions included asking if these recommendations reduced the number
of people in the committees. The response is that part of the logic of putting smaller committees under
larger ones is to reduce the number of meeting times. The CRC did not address committee membership.
There is an assumption that committee members of the larger groups will also be part of the smaller
committees.
*12:00-12:20 IEC Report Out
Committee chairs will be called on to submit information to the IEC. IR (Angelina) will gather these
reports and compile them into the annual IEC report, which will include whether, overall, processes
have been followed as understood. The college still requires some areas of training and guidance –
quality improvement - which is part of the evaluative process.
Discussed that some committees are not clear on all information/processes, but generally it is felt that
College Council and the IEC are clear. Also noted not everyone in the district is clear on why or where
decisions have been/are being made.
One suggestion is to change a question on the survey to read: do you understand how the blue box
model affects planning? (Suggested using the term “blue box” model, instead of integrated planning
model, since we refer to the planning committees of the integrated planning model as the ‘blue box’
committees.)
It should be understood that information is perceived by individuals differently but this should not slow
down the decision making process.
12:20-1:00 Discussion about meaningful connection of planning process and next steps
Suggestions: Prioritize how we can use our technology to increase communications, or provide training
for committee members.
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
Have a central recipient of all meeting notices who will inform all and will notify all when web sites are
updated; send out a “tickler.”
Be sure all meetings are posted on inside.redwoods Google calendar.
Communication: What is stated in the governance document is to have constituent representation in
committees who are expected to relay information down through/to their constituents. Because we have
these constituent representative(s) at the meetings, we are meeting the intent of the document. This
must be reinforced and accepted.
It is not the function of shared governance to have everyone be happy with decisions. What is important
is the process has been followed.
Adjourned
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
Cindy’s Notes for the Integrated Planning Summit (4/6/13)
BPC discussion: We are ranking the requests right now. Lee: they (the state) sent the “P1” out—it has already
changed twice, says Lee. The timelines are very tight to get our budget stuff done. It’s about external factors this
year, says Mary Grace. Mike: unpredictable and untimely information from the state is endemic to all CCs in the
state right now. The reports from the state were more consistent last year, says Lee. Mary Grace: we don’t have
any reserve account to plan for these changes. We should have our own plan for how to deal with budget
contingencies. Mike: We are not dissatisfied with our own internal processes—we are dissatisfied with the state.
Lee: We got a lot of requests this year. Information from the EMC was helpful to the BPC—particularly the
TLU projections they gave us.
Bob: We made strides in how we are using assessment information, but we have a ways to go. The culture is
there, but we are still really new with the process. I see a connection between assessment and resource allocation
that still needs to get stronger. Erik: outcomes-based resource requests are still much more common than
assessment-based resource requests—the latter is what we need for planning. Utpal: There is a need for more
guidance on how to link resource requests to assessment results in the Program Review template narrative.
My (Cindy’s) question: What happened to the concept of dedicated operational budgets for the Deans and
Directors this year? Utpal: it’s very dangerous to operate without a discretionary budget for regular maintenance
and emergencies. We never made this happen this year—this money was taken away. The BPC now knows that
this is an unresolved issue—how to deal with deferred maintenance and emergencies.
Utpal re. the BPC: “We had a charge and we pretty much stuck to it.” “Board approval is not a bottle-neck for
this process,” says Utpal. The BPC is spinning its wheels—in Utpal’s opinion—discussing the same items over
and over. We are spending too much time talking about trivial stuff, instead of the “dead body” in the room (e.g.
the 2-3 million dollar deficit). Bob: “The tension of the collective bargaining issue is really important and has to
come first.” Bob: “If we get too prescriptive on how to manage the budget—problems will arise.” The BPC can
make a prediction, create a number, but you don’t want to tie those numbers to particular groups—so you will
not cross the collective bargaining line, says Mike. Lee wants specific examples of budget cuts to “make it real”
for the campus community, though. Leave out the word “concessions—just talk about payroll. Assigning
specific amounts to broad categories or creating general recommendations might work more effectively. When it
comes to the 15% that is operational, then we can talk specifics, says Bob. These discussions need to be made
within the context of negotiations, says Bob. Utpal: the board will ask Lee about fiscal options—they will not
ask the BPC. The BPC will receive the information, but not act on it, because it is not the role of the BPC to act.
This is the purview of the administration, says Utpal. Lee: The BPC needs to start looking at longer-term
projections. Bob: Sufficient time is important for a thoughtful process and review of these documents. “If the
Program Reviews were due in May,” says Bob, “then they could be processed the following fall with more time
for deliberation.” Tami: “I would like to see more broad constituency input for long-term goals for the budget.”
Examining how the BPC deals with negotiable items is an important issue, says Mike. How to deal with
negotiable matters is an issue the BPC must continue to grapple with. Anita: The “Strategic Staffing plan” (or
strategic hiring plan)—this must be included in the calculations of the BPC (currently it is not). Jeff Cummings:
“We need to structure our planning so that we can be ready for when budget contingencies arise. Tactics need to
be put into place in advance of crises.”
PRC discussion: Jeff Cummings: This process was improved from last year. Rachel: The template was more
efficient this year. We brought back the assessment component too. Utpal: the “report out” of last year’s plans
was the only place where there was less information in this year’s template, because there was no “planning”
section last year’s template. We got a lot of recommendations from the IP Summit and the IEC from last year.
Angelina: “I liked the information from the EMC—that was helpful for me in revising the data sets.” Utpal:
“The scorecard was helpful too.” We integrated the Student Equity Data into the program review template too.
The Student Development assessment group did a good job on the non-instructional side, says Cheryl Tucker.
Internal feedback on our own PRC process went well, says Jeff Cummings. Angelina: “We could’ve used more
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
guidelines for interpretation of the assessment components of the template. There was not a lot of
standardization about assessment analysis within the PRC group,” says Angelina. Utpal: “Are we documenting
improvements on account of assessment? This is what we need to demonstrate to the ACCJC.” Bob:
“Hyperlinks in the program review templates are needed.” I (Cindy) suggest that the PR template include a onesentence summary of assessment results, with an adjacent hyperlink to the cited assessment report imbedded in
the template. Utpal: We could use a “Track-dat” system for this. (?) (I—Cindy—am not sure what this is.) Erik:
better yet would be a set of clear directions on how to link assessment results and resource requests right on the
PR template. (Like one would find on a tax return, for example.) Lee: I would like to make the resource request
file self-contained on the PR template for easy access—maybe in an excel spreadsheet or at the end of a Wordformatted template. I (Cindy) ask about the Integrated Planning Narrative and quick guide—whether the process
we refined last summer and delivered to the ACCJC last fall was actually followed. Utpal says that everything in
these documents was followed with the exception of the passing the assessment information to the Assessment
Committee, but that will be done by the end of the semester, says Utpal. Jeff Cummings: we need to think about
the best possible timing for the planning cycle. Bob: That’s why May might be the best time for submission of
the Program Reviews. Rachel: The beginning of spring semester seems to be the best timing for the PRC’s
processing and workflow. Bob: We are way behind in the hiring process, though—advertising in April puts us at
a disadvantage in finding the best candidates. Erin: Having the annual plan completed in the fall was really
helpful to inform Program Review plans in the spring, but the early spring deadline is really hard for faculty.
Cheryl: Student development Program Reviews were done in the fall and that time-line works better for us.
Student Development PR submission in the fall and Instructional PR submission in the spring seems to work
well with the work-flow of the PRC. Utpal: A January deadline makes the flow of budget planning more
appropriate for the requirements of the ACCJC. Bob: Maybe the faculty priority process should take place in the
fall? Utpal: It can be in the early spring, but we have to really fast-track the process—this is an identified
problem this year. We need to set a specific date for advertising Tenure-track positions, and work backwards
from that date. Angelina: the PRC should review the PR template prior to the end of the academic year, so that
faculty can participate in the process before the end of the semester. Cheryl: we can work on improving the
instructions for the PR template in a smaller group over the summer. Utpal follow ups with Lee’s comment: it
was really hard to extract the resource request data from the Program Review template—this is something we
need to work on for next year.
Tami’s PowerPoint presentation about the “Committee to Reduce Committees”: Mary Grace: Have you
considered the specific skill sets of individual members of these committees? Utpal: Does this reduce the
number of people on the committees? Julia: Will this new structure reduce the overall workload? Bob: This does
reduce the redundancy of some of the workload. Angelina agrees here. “There needs to be a core group of
people to keep all of this information together,” asserts Angelina. Erin: “The Basic Skills committee kind of
flies under the radar. By putting us under Enrollment Management, we can respond to their information more
efficiently.” Mary Grace: “Could the umbrella committees communicate with the subcommittees about when
would be the most important days to participate? This could make the meeting times more efficient.” Tami: “We
were hoping that the president would oversee the new IEC structure.” “Who will do the work? Who will oversee
the production of the plans?” asks Utpal, “Are you buying off on Cabinet members writing the plans?” “The
Cabinet is different from the Expanded Cabinet,” says Tami. Keith: “We need to trust each committee to selforganize.” “The Annual Institutional Effectiveness Report—who is going to write that?” asks Dan. Angelina
says that she will be the lead author on this critical report in place of Roxanne, who authored it last year. “This is
a critical document for the ACCJC,” asserts Dan.
IEC Report (Utpal): “We do not need to make major changes to our current process.” My (Cindy’s) question:
“Did the PRC analyze the program-level annual plans within the Program Review templates to determine to
what extent they are aligned with institutional plans?” (This is still in the development mode, suggests Utpal.)
Angelina: “We should think about imbedding a few institutional themes right into the Program Review
templates and ask authors to respond to these themes as a part of their own planning processes.” Utpal: “We
should incorporate planning more heavily into the Program Review process in the future.”
Integrated Planning Summit III
Saturday April 6, 2013 9 am – 1 pm AT 103-104
Summary Notes
Rachel: Are all these committee meetings being calendarized in advance? Is there a central place and schedule
for all the committees so that people will know in advance whether they can serve on a particular committee?”
Bob: I agree that this needs to be standardized district-wide—the Senate will work on this.
Erin: “Because of all of the emergency decisions of late, to some people the planning process might not seem
very deliberative or clear.”
Julia: “Some people are still unclear about the Integrated Planning process.”
Bob: Massive amounts of transparency and information can bog down the process—especially when decisions
have to be made quickly.
Utpal: Each committee chair has the responsibility to communicate to the whole college the outcome of that
committee’s decisions—this has been a continuing problem at the college. The BPC cannot communicate to
everyone exactly what they did on a given day. Minutes are made available on the inside.redwoods website and
people need to look up this information.
Jeff Cummings: Someone from each committee should be designated to be the communication point person.
How do we make communication more consistent thought the district and use technology to do so? asks Jeff.
Paul: HSU sends out one big document with all of the committee information once a week on Mondays—this is
a terrific model and should be done from Paul’s office, says Paul. Paul indicated that he will start doing this.