3/4/15 CPC minutes
Committee Name: CPC
Date: 3/4/2015
Time: 2:00pm – 4:00pm
Facilitators/Location/Chair: SAC 225E
Attendees:
Guests:
Topic,
Info/Action
College
Restructure
Process
Info
CPC Members
Click here to enter text.
Topic
Lead
Kathie &
Cabinet
Time
on
topic
2Hrs
Discussion
Kathie provided an overview of the Restructure document.
Questions/Comments from council members:
Alta: Will area experts inform the think tank?
Kathie: Yes, think tank will do a deep dive into things the components
may miss.
Alta: Nothing is off the table?
Kathie: Yes, correct.
Barbara: Page 2, Goals, what does blended formula mean?
Victoria: Component for ftes, component for funding colleges that are
above 10000 and a component for the Watsonville center; must
maintain 1000. All that combined is approx $55M.
Barbara: Page 3, component councils? How does the check mark relate
to #3? Recommendations going to the business office? Are decisions
made in the councils? When will CPC review?
Kathie: CPC will review on a quarterly basis – there might be times when
there is nothing to review.
Dennis: Councils will submit recommendations to business office and
then to CPC.
Barbara: When does public comment happen?
Kathie: We haven’t decided that yet. We need to develop a timeline.
Probably toward the end of the process.
Action Items
and Timeline
 Cabinet
team to
review/edit
and
reframe
document.
Bring back
to next CPC
meeting.
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
Institutional
Effectiveness
1
3/4/15 CPC minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
Victoria: We don’t want to hold items if they can be brought forward,
we would like to do that timely. We also want to get broader feedback.
Once we start, we will keep going until we meet the target.
Barbara: Will the public forum take place before the reductions take
place or after?
Dennis: Yes, but may need to be flexible since it is a moving target.
Might be a small forum, just in counsels or college wide.
Conrad: Having disconnect with terminology. Should SME’s include
general pedagogical experts? Components sometimes feel that their
voices get lost. Disconnect between who is doing what work when the
wheels hit the road.
Kathie: SME are those that can provide information and answer
questions.
Sarah: When will think tank come into play? Are they informing areas or
just reviewing?
Kathie: When the process is approved Terrence will bring his team
together.
Dennis: Idea is to have others who can open our thinking and get us out
of the box.
Colton: is the think tank interacting with components or CPC?
Kathie: Happens in both places.
Alex: Approach - each component area provided targets? Where are
they coming from? Instruction is the biggest piece of the budget, do
they have the most to cut?
Victoria: In the past we have used a measurement tool to determine the
target. We will look at all ways to get to $2M.
Alex: Where are the targets coming from? What is the target for each
component? Student services receives a lot of funding – how will this
2
3/4/15 CPC minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
work? How about we get the process going before we determine
targets?
Ian: It’s too early to tell. Need to look at all areas.
Dennis: If we don’t give targets ahead of time, no one will come up with
any.
Victoria: We’ve used a few different approaches in the past. If we don’t
have a percentage what methodology do we use? We have to have a
basis to start.
Tatiana: Benefit from making a list of pros and cons for targets. Like the
idea that component areas come up with recommendations and counter
arguments. Also like the think tank review for efficiencies. Confidentials
have made great strides with some changes in technology in recent
years. Like the idea of a fresh look.
Michael: $2M – do we all agree that that is the appropriate number or
not? What about COLA at 1.56%? Like the think tank idea, but it’s a bit
fuzzy. Scary to have outside the box folks that may not know anything
about an area. Could be challenging to get everyone who can benefit
the college involved. Think tank topics – think we might need more.
Some might feel targeted. Open to finding efficiencies. We have a
board approved budget strategies for 2011-2014 – why is this plan
different? We had a process that was agreed to.
In the last process, classified were hit hard by SPRAC – this time it looks a
bit different.
Victoria: This is directly linked from the reduction in our base from
10887 to 10500 – approx 3.5% of budget, which is $2M. The COLA
number is preliminary. When the budget parameters were submitted
we didn’t have all the information we have today.
Laurel: We now have robust data. I have heard that there were some
negative reactions to the SPRAC process. Like the written pros and cons.
3
3/4/15 CPC minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
We are a different institution. Doesn’t preclude us from looking at
different processes. Levels the playing field.
Alex: Wild card about the growth formula?
Victoria: Yes, correct. No final decision on how this will be
implemented. May revise isn’t out yet. This is why we will have
quarterly reviews.
Kathie: Components will come up with ideas as well.
Ian: Keep in mind that we need to continue with the strategic plan even
while making reductions. We’re doing great work and moving forward,
would hate to see this halted.
Robin: Process needs to be clear and transparent. Keep our strategic
goals in mind. People will take it personally. Important to know where
the $2M comes from. Need to have a clear timeline.
Alta: Scheduled for 16-17? Thinking will start now. How will we align
the initiative and mandates that we are working on now? When do we
refocus our energy? When do we stop what we’re doing now and
refocus on this? This isn’t the forum for negotiations. Need open,
honest and transparent communication. Sometimes this happens at the
top, not the middle.
Laurel: Can’t just focus on the reductions, need to keep going. We do
have some areas of growth. If we end up doing reductions, we need to
be clear that some services will be reduced.
Barbara: If we get smaller, how do we plan for growth?
Georg: A good restructure plan is one that builds in flexibility. Allow for
a more nimble operation.
Elephants in the room:
First congratulations to the group.
1) $2M
4
3/4/15 CPC minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
2) What are the component targets?
3) Component council communication – up to the council reps to
communicate out – invite SME’s to council meetings
4) Timelines & forums
5) Think tank participation
6) Do we want to use the old process? What was wrong with the
old process?
7) Commitments section? (add section C from budget strategies
document to the ground rules)
8) 86% of our budget is people – communications can become
tricky when talking about people versus positions.
9) If a position is vacant it’s easy to cut
SPRAC process was responsive to what was already happening.
If we have too many rules, we take the thought process away. Hope we
are at a place where components can look at the broad picture. Rather
not base this on fear. Need to be transparent, open to data, and have
CPC take that leadership.
Georg: Like the idea of a new approach. Participated in SPRAC – good
concept that we wrestled into shape.
Alta: Want to believe that what we do will be appropriate to all. Don’t
want to have another SPRAC – very painful.
Laurel: Perhaps we don’t have quarterly reviews – maybe look at every
month. Decide how we will manage issues. Ways to level the playing
field emotionally? All in this together and nobody is immune.
Karen: General fund versus categorical funding: certain categorical
programs are funded differently – need to explain this.
5
3/4/15 CPC minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
Laurel: Use restructure instead of reduce. This is why the think tanks will
be helpful.
Victoria: There are ways to leverage categoricals with gen fund – this
applies to all programs and services in the college. Example is the
counseling positions that were funded out of SSSP.
Targets:
Going with an amount that’s based on what we think we won’t be able
to earn – an fte apportionment amount.
If we start early on we can take advantage of:
1) Natural attrition
2) Already completed restructures and positions going from gen
fund to categorical counting towards reductions
3) Give people some kind of target
4) Look at this on a continual basis
5) No idea what’s coming in or out money wise from the state
Go back to cabinet and bring this info back.
Margery: Recommendations given to the BSO – could this be a
bottleneck?
Graciano: Want to structure this so it’s not a shot gun approach.
Components need to come up with lists with ballpark amounts – this
comes forward to the BSO who clarifies the info. Also something that
Terrence and HR will help with. Document the request first and then
move forward.
Laurel: Don’t want to piecemeal. Look at big ticket items.
Alta: Organizational question: This is a college wide need – how come
we’re charging components to do the work?
Kathie: Simultaneous work – look at big picture as well as component
councils – more informative. Think tank questions will help as well.
6
3/4/15 CPC minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Approval of
12/17/14,
2/11/15 &
2/18/15
Minutes
Action
Agenda
Building &
Summary
Take-away
Info
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Michael: Need innovative ways to get students to stay here; need to
have cross conversations.
Laurel: Should those discussions come to CPC?
Alex: Process? Go to constituencies?
Laurel: No not yet. Cabinet will massage this document.
1) Component discussion or different format
2) Targets
3) Commitments piece
4) Where we have the big discussion
 Bring to next meeting.
Laurel
3 Min

Laurel
Action Items
and Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
 Approval as
presented
unless
there are
changes
None

None
5 Min
Parking Lot:
When is public forum?
How are targets determined?
Information Requested
7
3/4/15 CPC minutes
1.
To be added during the meeting
2.
3.
4.
Meeting Summary or Take Away:
1.
To be added during the meeting
2.
3.
4.
Effectiveness Links
1.
Mission Statement and Core 4 Competencies (Communication, Critical Thinking, Global Awareness, Personal and Professional Responsibility)
2.
8.
Student Success
Enhance Institutional Effectiveness
Board Goals
Education Master Plan
Facilities Plan
Technology Plan
Program Plans
9.
Student Equity Plan
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8