Central Planning Committee (CPC)
Minutes for Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Present: Keith Snow-Flamer, Martha Davis, Ron Cox, Jason Leppaluoto, Tim Flanagan, Joe
Hash, Dave Arnold, Tracey Thomas, Steve Stratton, Jose Ramirez, John Johnston, Sue Alton,
Roxanne Metz, Pam Kessler, Tony Sartori
Others Present: Burt Peachy, Consultant, Datatel
Focus of this meeting is to analyze CPC accomplishments to-date and lay a foundation for the
future of the CPC and the Integrated Planning Model revolving around the following agenda
questions:
A. How can we better link the outcomes of program review to institutional planning and
budget development?
B. How can we integrate other planning process (BSI and VTEA) into the college’s
integrated planning process?
C. How can we enhance the communication between committees, functional groups, and
governance bodies?
D. Should principles be developed that guide what information is made public and what
information remains “in house”?
E. What is the "report out" process for functional workgroups (i.e. Facilities, Technology,
etc)?
Committee responses to the question, what is the ultimate purpose or goal of program review?
 Allowing continued improvement of the process and use program review as a mechanism
for continuous program improvement and as an early warning for problems
 As a rational for initiatives and accountability
 So faculty can continuously analyze and assess accomplishments, and aid in revision of
individual and instructional programs
 From accreditation stand-point ~ program review drives budget
 Informed planning, systematic analysis
 Vehicle to allow a common vision between divisions, programs
 Vehicle to allow collaboration between all programs, divisions toward common goal(s)
Burt Peachy led the discussion around the Planning Model and committee members listed
strengths and weaknesses:
Planning Model
Strengths
 Model exists
 Aligns various functions
 Provides for data informed decisions
 Vehicle for communication
 Mechanism for collaboration
 All elements for a plan are identified
 Buy-in for campus community
 Facilitated thinking & actions
 Makes decision-making transparent
 Facilitates a culture of evidence, rigor & dialog
 Provides a planning framework
Planning Model
Weaknesses
 Need all elements in sync
 Connection between planning & budgeting (in progress)
 Equipment replacement issues need broader focus than just technology
 Program Review connections to HR/Staffing requests
 Online database entry needs improvement – functional planning
 Model cumbersome
o Loops, bottlenecks
o Difficult to extract information for action planning (revisions in progress)
 Budget allocation process (planning function in progress)
 Improve feedback to Program Review authors
 Improve functional reporting to CPC
 CPC needs to audit goals/objectives ~ pro-active commissions
 Cross functional alignments
 Action plan process improvements – communication and format (align functional planning
into integrated planning process)
 Need for decision-making calendar
 Need for prioritization process (sensitive to various funding requirements and timelines
i.e. VTEA)
 Improve inputs to functional teams process – from the unit level
 Intervention process
 CPC members more representative of campus
 Teaching functions inherent – teach the campus
 Alternate funding sources – how reconcile into integrated process?
 Leadership
 Budget allocation for action plans
 Does action plan criteria allow for implementation, regardless of CPC support
 Matrix development (Roxanne)
 Annual reports from committees, funding, i.e. Foundation
 Reconsider funding level, i.e. Instructional Block Grant funding 2 @ $25,000; rest at
$10,000
At this point Keith directed that discussion for the next meeting, Friday, May 9th, be directed
toward considering solutions to the weaknesses.
Further discussion points and questions:
What will be the future role of the CPC?
Expand the CPC to take on the whole integration and planning process?
The new president should chair the CPCE (back to leadership)
Budget should align with goals and key performance indicators
Should annual budgeting processes be changed? Review current base budgets and change over a
period of time? Look at where we want to be in 2011/2012; move to a zero based budget model?
Should budget strategy include “budget hearings”?
Burt Peachy recommended visiting the Florida Community College, Jacksonville for the budget
planning process: Planning priorities; budget/project allocations; projects/future funding
Where does TAG, web oversight and other groups fit into the model.
Charge of the CPC ~ when will we feel it is working successfully:
 When decisions are made based on process and applied to college goals and strategies
 When goals and objectives are completed
 When integrated is truly “integrated” and process works
 Full participation of groups with vested interest
 Broad understanding around campus of all programs/divisions
Keyword: Intervention Process
Next Meeting:
Friday, May 9, 9am – 11am, LRC 107