Notes for the IP Summit: 3/24/12
Facilities Planning Committee
3 lines of requests, most come out of the needs addendums, then there are
operational requests (they typically come from Cabinet) things from Measure Q
came in too.
We were able to rank them and pass them on. Initially, there weren’t any
justifications for the requests.
The hand off didn’t go very well, and it didn’t come with the right information
and therefore the process should be streamlined.
Community Ed is not currently part of the process and should be. Last year, this
was a recommendation from the IP summit.
A website upgrade is needed: decide on a central location for information. The
FMP doesn’t do online committee work. “The FPC does not currently post to
“All.”
We should calendar a meeting every year to evaluate the successes/problems of
our annual process.
The onus should be put on the individuals/groups doing the requesting to “close
the loop.”
Standardized feedback mechanisms still need to be created.
Emergency requests were dealt with; but there is this unease about the criteria for
“emergency” situations.
It would be helpful to have a written process for emergency requests—currently
we do not have a formalized process for emergency requests. It’s just a matter of
getting better data to make the important decisions.
Enrollment Management Committee
There is a concern with evaluating Program Review data.
All the major functional committees should write a summative report that is read
by all planning committees.
The EMC shares data sets and will review the Master Executive Summary from
the PRC.
Is it the EMC’s role to determine percentages of on-line courses, courses at sites,
etc.? We seem to be maintaining the status quo at present.
Scheduling decisions currently start at the bottom, but the EMC should be able to
make some recommendations based on its analysis of the data.
The EMC will provide better TLU allocations.
Our planning agenda is on track.
We are working on a draft enrollment management plan for the next three years.
We reviewed the IEC’s recommendations, we look at the scorecard data, we look
at workload reductions, we look at what the state has told us to do.
We look at faculty reassigned time too, which we didn’t look at before.
We developed a rubric for evaluating our work at the end of the year.
We implemented a matriculation plan for one semester.
1
We will look at the institutional effectiveness indicators as the enrollment
management plan is developed and evaluated.
We decided on putting out a full year’s schedule next year.
Roadblocks for GE courses, dealing with declining funding from the state, has bee
identified.
The EMC needs to better coordinate with the basic skills committee and the
student equity planning committee.
Program Review
There have been problems in forwarding requests in the past.
The assessment component: “last year, we became just the check-off list for
assessment, and now we are getting concerns that we are now too far from the
assessment process. We will create a work page tab in the updated template with
narrative prompts like : “how has your assessment results informed your
decisions?”
We will be developing additional prompts for the template. The new template will
be rolled out to everyone next October/November.
There is still confusion about deadlines and how the authors are supposed to
interpret the basic skills data on the PR template.
We need to redefine how Administrative and Student Services do program
review, and they need to conduct assessment too.
The Community Ed program review needs to be done.
Annual reports don’t have comprehensive data, so the data that one needs to flag
programs happen only every 5 years—this is a problem. These are areas in
Program Review that we have concerns about, but there is no formalized process
yet. AP 4021 specifically states that 2 years of data is needed.
Furniture Committee
We needed more membership, and we need someone from Del Norte and Mendo.
The people who fill out these needs addendums should be looking at our rubric.
We couldn’t tell if requests came from a center.
If a request didn’t get funded, that request needs to be made again.
Cost needs to be included on the form, along with a specific description of the
item.
Technology Committee
The TCP has not done enough assessment and “closing the loop.”
We should be assessing the effectiveness of tutor.com with faculty and with
students.
Budget Planning Committee
Some of the requests had detailed justifications for their requests, and other
requests did not.
Hyperlinks on needs addendums didn’t always work, so the data could not be
found.
2
We are posting all of our data to the website.
Closing the loop: we are still in process here because we are not through the year.
We want to hear back: what did you do with the money? How did that help?
We have streamlined the reports. I really like that everyone has a chance to rank
1-50, and then we average them out.
Closing the loop to access BPC effectiveness: we will go over this process this
year.
The committees need very specific information about the requests: you can see
the people who understand the process and ones who don’t.
TCO review: we didn’t do this process this year, but it needs to happen.
No side deals: we get people coming in saying “I need this” and we don’t like
this. All information must be on the needs addendums: requesters should know
this.
The BPC will create the resource requester’s “report back closing the loop form”
for Program Review, then Program Review will include it in their new template
for next fall. (The details are still being worked out on this.)
Basic Skills Committee
We have been working with IR to make the data more accurate.
We don’t really have an ESOL program.
We need some history and information.
We are going to be part of the integrated planning process but we are not now
currently on the IP flow chart.
We need to have direct dialog with the PRC and with the EMC.
Final discussion
The EMC and the BSC are the two functional committees that do not deal
specifically with resource allocation, and they are very important.
The BSC should connect to the EMC directly, because we have information that
would be useful to the EMC.
The BSC is now providing recommendations to the PRC to make the Basic Skills
template data and prompts more meaningful and relevant to Program Review
authors.
The PRC identifies programs that need help—this can be useful to the EMC and
other functional committees.
The EMC is going to evaluate the PRC Master Executive Summary every May—
they will put it in their charge and do it this year.
When the PRC does the Master Executive Summary, it should be forwarded to all
the functional committees at a specific allocated time.”
We need to have a simpler planning model that everyone can understand.
We don’t yet have formalized channels of communication. We are still working in
our little silos.”
3
4