5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Committee Name: CPC
Date: 5/6/2015
Time: 2:00pm – 4:00pm
Facilitators/Location/Chair: SAC 225E
Attendees:
Guests:
Topic,
Info/Action
Approval of Agenda
Action
Approval of 4/29/15
Minutes
Action
Committee Survey
Results
Info
CPC Members
Click here to enter text.
Topic
Lead
Laurel
Laurel
Terrence
Time
on
topic
3 Min
Action Items and
Timeline
Discussion
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
 Approved.
 John Govsky proxy for Conrad Scott-Curtis.
 Approved
None
 Approved.
 Approved
None
Terrence presented preliminary summary data – not the final
report. Have not had responses from all members.
Strengths:
 Meetings start on time
 Action items clearly assigned
 Collegial discussions
Needs improvement:
 Regular attendance
o Several respondents are on multiple committees
o Issues likely vary by employee group
 Understanding committee charge
 Communicating with constituency
 Committee websites – consistency
Recommendations:
 Create master list of committees and committees
members and post on web
1

Institutional
Effectiveness
3 Min
10 Min
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Action Items and
Timeline
Discussion
Primary
Effectiveness
Link



Maintain list of members over time
Spell out acronyms and other governance manual updates
Websites should have consistent structure to aide users
looking for info
Questions/Comments:
 If we are members of multiple committees, can we fill out
one form for all?
No, need a separate survey for each committee.
 Need a 2nd deadline date for committee members to
respond to the survey; bring back results at another
meeting.
 Would be helpful if there was some consistent structure
and help finding info on the website – some are on google
sites – how do we deal with that?
The governance committees are linked from the CPC website –
should be able to get to all from there, even though they have
a different look and feel. We are looking into have a link on
the Cabrillo main page that will link to committee pages as
well. We need to be able to access this information easily.
More discussions need to happen about who maintains the
websites.
Think Thank names
from constituency
groups
Action
All
5 Min
Each constituency group to submit 3 names for the Think Tank
Faculty Senate:
 Ana Zagorska, Toni Alderson, Joseph Carter plus 2
alternates; Barbara Schultz-Perez and Mark DeSmet
Confidentials:
 Debra Barnett and Sue Torres
Classified:
 Sherida Lincoln and David Gilmore
Administrators:
 Ian Haslam
2

All
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Action Items and
Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
Students:
 Martin Vargas-Vega, Marcus Kelly-Cobos, Austin
Yungmeyer and 3 alternates: Essy Barroso-Ramirez,
Antonio Minnini and Melissa Jimenez
Participatory
Governance
Committees
Info
Laurel
Brown Act & Participating Governance Committees –
 Members to think
discussion.
about this and
We had received input from some groups about whether or
come back with
not our committees should all be Brown Act compliant.
ideas.
Brown Act committees are groups that are designated by the
Legislative Body and performs on behalf of the Legislative
Body.
Participatory Governance groups report to CPC, which advises
the President. They do not report to the Board. We do not
have Board Policy that states that our trustees are a part of
the participatory governance committee process.
If a committee is Brown Act compliant, they must do the
following things:
 Post agenda 72 hrs in advance
30 Min
 Have an agenda item for public comment
 Post minutes and other documents – make available to the
public
 Particulars that have to do with serial meetings
We need to decide if we want some/all of our committees to
be Brown Act compliant.
Operational committees are typically not legislative bodies.
This would prohibit adding agenda items at the last minute,
meetings would be more formal – would not have open
dialogue like we do now.
Questions/Comments:
 What was the intent of the original request? Seems like
this would be more restrictive – what are the positives of
being a brown act committee?
3
Institutional
Effectiveness
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion
Original request came mostly from the Student Senate. Some
students felt their voices weren’t heard and wanted additional
committee membership, but we have not seen anything in
writing stating this.
 Many members of last year’s student senate have left.
The main reason for the request was for students to have
enough time to review the documents. Very helpful to
have the materials 72 hours in advance.
 Meaningful representation from students on committees
is helpful – we should look at that. Feel that every
committee should have a public comment section.
 Should share information readily.
 Does it have to be all or nothing?
Good to follow best practices, but do not have to follow Brown
Act completely.
 We don’t have to have an info item first followed by
action. We have tried to be collegial with our action items.
 Some operational committees have emergency items that
need to be addressed immediately – we don’t always have
the time to follow best practice. Don’t want to put too
much restriction on ourselves. Committee members have
expertise, we should feel we follow their advice.
 How about posting action items with a recommendation?
That might speed up our meetings.
Don’t feel that that would be appropriate for this type of
meeting.
Summary:
 Look at the committee list and update.
 Gel on this topic for a while and come back.
4
Action Items and
Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Bond Discussion
Info
Topic
Lead
Laurel
Time
on
topic
30 Min
Discussion
Action Items and
Timeline
Need to inform the board regarding our facilities issues and
 Bring resolution to
ask for a response. Thought about asking for a bond in 2012 –
June Board
had a task force and was decided that it was not the right
meeting to initiate
time. Re-think this for 2016. Could be issues with
polling.
bargaining/negotiations. Would like to hear from the group if
there are those kinds of issues. Don’t want to go to the board
until we get buy in from CPC.
TCO:
 Many of our facilities are 30+ years old.
 State has not kept up with maintenance dollars.
 Square footage has increased dramatically.
 Will need to spend approx. $5M to keep our facilities
operating.
 Only have one item in the state que.
 Need to deal with the drought.
Questions/Comments:
 Will have a TCO study session in June.
 Not completely convinced that a bond is the right thing to
do.
 Feel that a bond wouldn’t pass? Or that there would be
down sides to that?
 Feel that this community is over-bonded. Bonds usually go
out every 10-12 years. We might have asked for too little
in the past. Could be a hard sell. Community might feel
that we’ve given them too much bad news and might not
be supportive.
 Cabrillo is one of the top employers in the county – we
help employ people. Would like to ask for just enough to
keep our buildings maintained and compliant.
 We have $5M per year in maintenance costs now. If we
don’t maintain, those costs will increase as we move
forward.
5
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
Institutional
Effectiveness
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Discussion


We’ve had 5 bonds since 1962.
Having a business plan that will help generate revenue
could help sell the bond.
 We could decide to do a polling. This would give us a
sense of what is feasible.
 Put our facilities into our long term planning.
 Throw in water conservation/solar to sell the plan?
 Economy is booming, timing is right for this conversation.
 Difficult to plan when you don’t know what’s going to
happen.
 Message to the community needs to be very clear.
 Would like to have a better center for students.
 Feel that community members that have paid for this
previously might not support this. Might not be a popular
vote right now – especially in Scotts Valley/San Lorenzo
Valley.
 Ball park costs for polling is approx. $35K.
 Foundation could pick up this cost – has in the past.
Polling is very accurate and gives a lot of good
information.
 It will take a lot of time and energy from the college if we
decide to move forward.
 Would be good to survey the faculty first - good to know
what they feel before we go down that road.
 We don’t have a funding source for maintenance – we get
scheduled maintenance money every 5 years. We have
limited choices.
Our updated FMP draft plan will be received next week – will
provide feedback to CPC and bring to the board in June.
6
Action Items and
Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Strategic Plan
Goal 3.4
Info/Brainstorming
14-15 Ending
Balance
Info
Topic
Lead
Laurel
Victoria
Time
on
topic
15 Min
15 Min
Discussion
Integrate student equity and basic skills planning to create
opportunities for marginalized populations
Currently have 3 groups that are working slightly differently
along these lines. Hope that there is a way to integrate the
planning on a more structured basis.
Thoughts:
 Value in combining the efforts and minds in one place –
but who will own it? Some of the needs in equity are not
basic skills needs, etc.
 Does SSSP belong in the integration conversation?
Yes.
 Big picture: Basic skills is part of equity. Some structure
would be good as far as integration, as well as professional
development. Some of these are new initiatives and are
just getting off the ground. We’ve been doing a good job
getting people focused on goals.
 Those of us who are not involved in either committee
could use more information on what is happening.
Suggestion:
 Have the chairs of these groups review the CCSF model to
see if it would be feasible for us to model. Helpful to have
a response to the board as well.
 Dennis will bring this group together.
Hopeful that all of our energy and passion will continue to be
centered around our efforts to students.
Good idea to look at alternative funding sources.
Presented Ending Fund balance slides. Includes restricted and
unrestricted funds.
 Projecting an ending balance in 14-15 with approx $16.4M
– a bit of an increase over 13-14.
 CTE Enhancement funds are a part of this, $4M; we will
start to disperse this money shortly; we will receive
another $6M from this grant.
7
Action Items and
Timeline
Primary
Effectiveness
Link
 Dennis will get a
group of
committee chairs
and others
together to review
the CCSF model.
Strategic Plan
 Additional
information to be
provided
regarding onetime monies at or
before next
meeting date.
Institutional
Effectiveness
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Topic,
Info/Action
Topic
Lead
Time
on
topic
Action Items and
Timeline
Discussion
Primary
Effectiveness
Link

Why do we need to include the CTE enhancement fund in
our budget?
We are the fiscal agent, so it flows through our books. It is a
pass through, our allocation is very small. We receive some
indirect money for staff time to monitor the funds.
 Question about the balance in carry over one-time money:
Is it because people are not spending it? Holding it for one
large project?
Combination of all. Some are from program plans that haven’t
been spent. Also have the operating reserves that reside in
that category. Could see some one-time funds coming in from
the state to backfill some of the deficit factor.
 Unrestricted general fund undesignated: Is this the only
“free” money to use however we want?
It is one time money that hasn’t been allocated.
Weren’t able to finish this item as we ran out of time.
Alex asked for the following information to be provided at
another meeting:
1) Additional slide that breaks down the major categories
of the One Time/Carryover fund?
2) To the original slide could we add the projection from
each year (historical) matched against the actual?
Agenda Building &
Summary Takeaway
Info
Laurel
15 Min
Victoria/Graciano to provide additional information to
members at or before next meeting.
Items for 5/20 meeting:
 Technology Plan
 Facilities Plan
 EMP & FMP update
 Committee goal updates
 CPC & Strategic Plan 14-15 accomplishments
8

None
5.06.15 CPC Minutes
Parking Lot:
Information Requested
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.
5.
Student Success
Enhance Institutional Effectiveness
Board Goals
Education Master Plan
6.
Facilities Plan
7.
Technology Plan
Program Plans
Student Equity Plan
3.
4.
8.
9.
9