District Education Committee
MINUTES of the Districtwide Meeting
February 19, 2010, 9:30am – 12:30pm
Committee:
Date:
Attendance:
Co-Chairs:
Facilitators:
Note Taker:
Guests:
Absent:
Educational Committee
February 19, 2010
Wise E. Allen, Betty Inclan, Donald Moore, Linda Berry, Krista Johns, Jenny Lowood, Bob Grill, Pieter de Haan, Karolyn van Putten, Inger Stark,
Anita Black, Carlos McLean, Donna Marie Ferro, Debbie Weintraub, Ayele Lemma, David Reed, Eric Gravenberg, Bonnie Schaffner, Pat
Jameson
Wise E. Allen, Jenny Lowood
Linda Berry, Kerry Compton [Krista Johns (alt.)]
Pat Jameson
Joseph Bielanski, Debbie Budd, Michael Orkin, Linda Sanford
Kerry Compton, Jannett Jackson, Elnora Webb, May Chen, Stacy Thompson, Trulie Thompson, Rona Young, Scott Albright, Brenda Lewis
Franklin
Agenda Item
Discussion
Meeting Called to Order
9:38 a.m. by Wise E. Allen
I.
No changes or additions mentioned.
II.
Review of Agenda
Review Minutes
Time for review of minutes of 12/4/09.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
MOTION: To approve
the minutes of the
December 4, 2009 DEC
Meeting.
VOTE: APPROVED.
Agenda Item
III.
Discussion
Discussion Items
A. Action Items from Other PBI
Committees
Jackson sits on Tech Comm., and Budd sits on the Finance
Comm., but we don’t have anyone who regularly attends the
Facilities Comm. And, the minutes of the other PBI Committees
have not been posted to the PBI website, as they should be.
B. Structuring communication
between/among PBIM
committees
It has been reported that the Tech Comm. is primarily concerned
with the vacant IT positions, and that they be filled ASAP.
C. Creating a systematic approach
to decision-making within the
Districtwide Education
Committee (DEC)
Comments were that even if you read the minutes of the other
Committees, it is difficult to see what really happened at the
meetings.
A member of one committee who sits on another committee is not
sitting as a reporter at the other committee, but as a committee
member.
We need a liaison person to serve as a reporter on each of the
other PBI committees for the Ed Committee.
We may also need a format for action items to flow, and where
they flow next.
Suggestion is that an Ed Comm. Facilitator call the Chair of
the other Committees and find out what happened and what to
report back to the Ed Committee.
If the Co-Chairs so instruct her, she would make those contacts.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
We need a liaison
person to serve as a
reporter on each of
the other PBI
committees for the
Ed Committee.
We may also need a
format for action
items to flow, and
where they flow
next.
Suggestion is that an
Ed Comm.
Facilitator call the
Chair of the other
Committees and
find out what
happened and what
to report back to the
Ed Committee.
What we should
focus on are the
action items of each
PBI Committee.
The example is cited that we still don’t have Smart Classrooms,
and we started the process to get them some six years ago. All our
new and improved structure hasn’t helped get this to happen.
What we should focus on are the action items of each PBI
2
Agenda Item
Discussion
Committee.
It is reported that the Co-chair of the Facilities Comm. has already
told members of that Committee that what goes on there should
not be reported to the Ed Committee.
The flow chart needs to be clarified.
Each time we make a decision, we could designate in our Minutes
who will be taking the item to the other Committees.
Proposal that we take it a step further; that all communication
be in writing – for ourselves and for accreditation; that we
meet with the Co-chairs of the other Committees to develop a
common plan and process between the Committees.
Some faculty feel that the problem is that the real decisions are
made in secret at the closed SMT meetings, no matter what
happens in the Committees.
Question is raised that what is the effectiveness of these
Committees if, in fact, everything goes to the SMT and is dealt
with or killed there; then we need to be realistic and talk about
that.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Proposal that we
take it a step
further; that all
communication be
in writing – for
ourselves and for
accreditation; that
we meet with the
Co-chairs of the
other Committees to
develop a common
plan and process
between the
Committees.
These Committees
were set up for all to
give input into the
shared government
process.
Allen doesn’t accept this statement as truth. This has not been his
experience. You have to have these bodies meeting, and they need
to be part of the process. These Committees were set up for all
to give input into the shared government process.
Faculty countered that the SMT exists outside of the shared
governance process; we don’t know what goes on there, or what
info gets discussed there. There is no transparency, and no
reporting out of what goes on there. Because it’s senior managers
and it is closed, we only hear what went on, if you choose to tell us
3
Agenda Item
Discussion
something. The SMT should be transparent as well. You make
decisions, not just recommendations. The Chancellor, working
behind closed doors with SMT, takes SMT decisions to the Board.
So, this Committee structure won’t really work while this private
decision-making body continues as it has.
Attempt is made to turn this discussion into an opportunity. The
Committees can advise SMT that there needs to be a flow of info
with it and the shared governance committee process. We don’t
need additional distrust that could hamper cooperation.
Things will change dramatically within the next year or two since
major players at PCCD will be changing, so we to make sure the
decision-making process is totally transparent and cooperative.
We are all supposed to be about teaching and learning.
When WASC comes here again, and folks say to them that, “yes,
we have these four committees, but the real decisions are made at
the SMT” – this won’t help our chances of accreditation.
The Ed Committee is really a successor of the DWEMPC; the
other areas’ committees weren’t meeting. This structure was to
get shared governance committees and actions in all areas, not just
Education.
Allen: Action Items:
1. We develop a template format for action items for all PBI
Committees to use, and distributed it to all Committees. [E.g.,
the PBI Council has a structure];
2. We need a liaison person from the Ed Comm. to the
Facilities Comm. who attends the meetings. The Facilities
Comm. has been operating sort of like a maverick without real
accountability and sharing of info.
3. We take to the Chancellor a recommendation that we have
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
MOVED and seconded,
with two Friendly
Amendments, that:
1. We develop a
template format for
action items for all PBI
Committees to use, and
distributed it to all
Committees. The
template for the action
should include a clear
flow path showing
where the decisions go;
2. We need a liaison
person from the Ed
Comm. to the Facilities
Comm. who attends the
meetings.
3. We take to the
Chancellor a
recommendation that
we have a system of
reporting out any
decisions made at the
SMT meetings. And,
decisions made at SMT
should be reported out
with the rationale for
making the decision.
VOTE: PASSED, with
one member opposed.
4
Agenda Item
Discussion
a system of reporting out any decisions made at the SMT
meetings.
Johns: SO MOVED.
Van Putten: SECONDED.
VOTE: PASSED, WITH ONE OPPOSED.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Friendly amendments:
The template for the
action should include a
clear flow path on
where the decisions go.
Friendly amendments:
The template for the action should include a clear flow path on
where the decisions go.
Decisions made at SMT should be reported out with the
rationale for having made the decision.
Decisions made at SMT
should be reported out
with the rationale for
having made the
decision.
The Chancellor needs the advice and input of his Executive Staff.
You can’t last at the top if you don’t rely on your top managers’
input and advice. So, the SMT is necessary, but there could be
some feedback to the community especially when the decisions
affect everyone.
The question is whether anyone else’s input or any other
Committee’s input has any impact on what goes on or what is
decided at SMT. If we got report backs as to the discussions and
decisions, this would really help.
The input is always considered, but it doesn’t mean that the
decision is always going to go the way the input recommended. If
I’m going to make a decision, it must be mine, not that of someone
else who persuaded me to make a decision. If I’m going to be
fired, I want it to be on my own accord.
We don’t know if a whole new set of priorities are developed at
SMT from priorities that we all come up with through shared
governance. When decisions are made in secret, and the
5
Agenda Item
Discussion
motivations are secret, and nothing is reported out, this is not
shared governance.
Getting back to our original topic, the Chancellor has his
Executive Team making recommendations, and we need to know
that he also has the recommendations of these districtwide shared
governance Committees and considers them, when he make his
decisions.
We don’t know what info goes to the SMT, or what they discuss,
or what decisions are made and or what they’re based on. We are
very wary of trusting decisions being made by the Chancellor,
based solely on SMT input.
It would be good to get some notification of action items and
decisions made at the SMT.
Once we make our template, we need to meet with the other
Committees to make sure we’re all on the same wavelength.
All the Co-Chairs should meet regularly so we’re working
together.
We need to make the template, decide who will be the liaison,
call a meeting of all Co-chairs, and say we need some
procedures for how we will all operate.
Concern expressed again about what’s happening with the colleges
getting Smart Classrooms. The head of Facilities stopped the
process for developing an RFP.
Another area is that the Librarians need to have software for
their system of cataloging. This has been vetted and supported,
but is waiting for a consultant to design the RFP. The Tech
Comm. has approved it, but the Facilities Comm. needs to provide
the cost so a decision can be made. The Librarians need this info
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Once we make our
template, we need to
meet with the other
Committees to make
sure we’re all on the
same wavelength.
All the Co-Chairs
should meet
regularly so we’re
working together.
We need to make
the template, decide
who will be the
liaison, call a
meeting of all Cochairs, and say we
need some
procedures for how
we will all operate.
The Librarians need
to have software for
their system of
cataloging.
Something needs to
come to the PBI
Council requesting
approval for the
Librarians’
cataloging software.
6
Agenda Item
Discussion
for it to go forward.
The Librarians have attempted to get the info, but the process has
been stalled in Dept. of GS and by its consultant.
Something needs to come to the PBI Council requesting
approval for the Librarians’ cataloging software.
Reminds folks that several meetings ago, it was suggested that we
decide on one or two projects and move them through the PBI
Committee process to see how it works.
The Librarians should come up with a ballpark figure and ask
for approval to move the purchasing of their Library Software
on to the next level. You need to have the whole system behind
you to move it forward.
Once you get it (library software) supported by Committee
approvals, the money needs to be set aside from Measure A
funds.
Once it gets approved, VCES Allen will personally walk this
through and make it happen.
Question about where the Smart Classrooms item is at.
There was a meeting at the D.O. with reps. from each college –
faculty and tech folks – who heard presentations by vendors where
they showed small, medium and large Smart Classrooms. We
were told these would be installed districtwide at all colleges, and
in all sizes. COA led the charge because they had requested
equipment, with other colleges following right behind. This was
then co-opted by DGS who stopped the process. They said they
needed an infrastructure, etc.
The crux of our issue with this model is that we have a planning
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
The Librarians
should come up with
a ballpark figure
and ask for
approval to move
the purchasing of
their Library
Software on to the
next level. You need
to have the whole
system behind you
to move it forward.
Once you get it
(library software)
supported by
Committee
approvals, the
money needs to be
set aside from
Measure A funds.
Once it gets
approved, VCES
Allen will personally
walk this through
and make it happen.
The Ed Comm.
needs to request
from the Facilities
or Finance Comm.
an update on what
funds are left from
Measure A; what
7
Agenda Item
Discussion
and budget model, but we never see nor talk about the budget end
of things.
The Ed Comm. needs to request from the Facilities or Finance
Comm. an update on what funds are left from Measure A;
what funds have already been earmarked for what; and what
remains that can be used for Smart Classrooms.
We also need to know how we can get an item placed on the
agenda for another committee’s meeting.
There should be a planning meeting with co-chairs and
facilitators to go over agenda items. Measure A funds were on
a prior agenda, and it should just be rolled over to a
subsequent agenda.
Once a major committee makes a decision that something like this
(Smart Classrooms) gets purchased, then it should happen; it
should not be stalled or co-opted by another process or dept.
VCES Allen confirms that the issue of a Measure A Rpt. will
be on the PBI Council agenda, and VCES Allen will make calls
to find out why things haven’t happened.
MOTION: THAT THE PBI COUNCIL EVALUATE AND
GIVE A STATUS REPORT ON THE ISSUE OF SMART
CLASSROOMS AND BRING IT BACK.
Ferro: SECONDED.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
funds have already
been earmarked for
what; and what
remains that can be
used for Smart
Classrooms.
There should be a
planning meeting
with co-chairs and
facilitators to go
over agenda items.
Measure A funds
were on a prior
agenda, and it
should just be rolled
over to a subsequent
agenda.
MOTION: THAT
THE PBI COUNCIL
EVALUATE AND
GIVE A STATUS
VCES Allen
REPORT ON THE
confirms that the
ISSUE OF SMART
issue of a Measure A CLASSROOMS AND
Rpt. will be on the
BRING IT BACK TO
PBI Council agenda, THE ED
and VCES Allen
COMMITTEE.
will make calls to
find out why things
SECONDED.
haven’t happened.
VOTE: APPROVED.
VOTE: APPROVED.
8
Agenda Item
D. Program Review
Discussion
Mike Orkin gives a demo/presentation on the BI tool. He Goes to
the PCCD website, District Service Centers, Institutional Research
or PBI Council. Under Institutional Research, you can access
Program Review documents, including handbooks, forms and
other documents.
Orkin gives credit to AVC Budd for having the vision and
overview to make this all happen.
There is demographic data, grade data, persistence, success data,
etc., available on this site. There is Equity Fact Book Data from
2009; info on special populations; census data; there are charts and
tables; it is grouped by college; etc.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Everyone is
reminded that
Program Review
needs to be
happening on each
campus, especially
at Merritt. Then it
needs to be
institutionalized so
it happens
automatically each
year and every three
years, as necessary.
Ed Services is working on a handbook to show how to use all the
data we’ve put on the website and with the BI tool.
Everyone is reminded that Program Review needs to be
happening on each campus, especially at Merritt. Then it
needs to be institutionalized so it happens automatically each
year and every three years, as necessary.
Please send any questions or comments or requests directly to
M.Orkin at the Ed Services Office.
Allen thanks AVC Budd for building a new team and doing tons of
work to provide all this data for the colleges. It never existed
before. The BI Tool has all kinds of modules to be used.
E. SLO’s
Per VCES Allen, the District funded SLO’s well last year, and
again this year at all four colleges.
Per VCES Allen, the
District funded
SLO’s well last year,
9
Agenda Item
Discussion
Suggestion is to also put it in for next year.
F. Prioritization of classified
positions
G. Establish districtwide criteria
for ranking faculty and
classified position requests.
We have gone over the prioritization of faculty positions, and a
format for criteria with principles, etc., but need to update the
language for the prioritization of classified positions, with a
similar format for criteria adopted by this Ed Comm.
BCC doesn’t like the classified positions being lumped in with the
equipment and other needs. Suggestion is to have a similar
criteria document for classified staff, or for all H.R.
positions/needs, but separate from the tech needs and
equipment needs.
The big difference is that we have different obligations for faculty
than classified, especially now when we’re limited in the use of
part-time classified staff. We would need a different type of
criteria for classified hiring.
Volunteers are asked to develop a draft criteria statement for
classified positions. Sub-committee: Reed and Lemma.
The suggestion is that this sub-committee work on developing
a draft and then bring it back to the Committee and the
colleges.
H. VPI’s forwarding priorities
from Unit Plan and Program
Review summaries to
Districtwide Ed Committee
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
and again this year
at all four colleges.
Suggestion is to
have a similar
criteria document
for classified staff,
or for all H.R.
positions/needs, but
separate from the
tech needs and
equipment needs.
The sub-committee that
will meet to develop a
draft criteria for
classified positions is
Reed and Lemma.
Volunteers are
asked to develop a
draft criteria
statement for
classified positions.
Sub-Committee:
Reed and Lemma.
The suggestion is
that this subcommittee work on
developing a draft
and then bring it
back to the
Committee and the
colleges.
This is to help develop a process that is evident to everyone. We
want folks to know how their needs get approved and then things
happen, with adequate funding.
10
Agenda Item
Discussion
(DEC)
1.
Technology Requests
2.
Instructional Equipment
Money/Requests
3.
Other
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Everyone needs to be aware that the colleges need to send their
priorities to the other committees, i.e., for tech needs, and
instructional equipment needs.
BCC has adopted priorities for the 09-10 budget. Evidently, in
March, the colleges are to get their priorities lists on the agendas
of the other committees. Some colleges have developed priorities
on classified; they just haven’t brought them here.
BCC and Laney had their classified positions prioritized at the last
meeting; they need to be presented to this (Ed) Committee and
followed up on.
Some present felt it was difficult to analyze the various college
priorities, since they were brought in different formats. A similar
format would help us weight them out on the same basis.
Laney’s classified priorities list will go to their College Council in
March; then wherever else it needs to go.
We just need to keep things moving and keep on our timeline.
The Faculty Priorities list changed from Nov. to Dec. The others
were to come to the Ed Comm. in Feb., and now that’s March.
Question was asked whether the Ed Comm. would also like to hear
the colleges’ priorities for technology and facilities, besides their
recommendations going to the respective Tech and Facilities
Committees.
Yes, the info should be brought back to the Ed Committee, but just
when will be decided when the chairs of all committees meet to
come up with a process and template.
We need to make clear that the other priorities are brought back to
11
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
the Ed Comm.
I.
A presentation that entails an
overall structure for Peralta
Distance Education which
includes how each college will
interface with the District
Office of Education Services
including a budget both district
and college allocations.
This item was an email that flowed from the Tech Comm. when
they had to deal with the structure and budget for Distance Ed.
This keeps changing, so we need more clarity. Each year, there
seems to be a change on how Distance Ed is dealt with. It needs to
have a line item budget each year, so we don’t have to scramble
for funds to do what we need to do.
Part of the confusion is that Global Ed has its own agenda, and we
have not been able to get clarity on how we address the serious
gap in Student Services with Global Ed.
This has serious implications for accreditation. It is clear that we
are seriously lacking in support services; we should have online
links for services for students in all areas, counseling, tutoring, etc.
You can Google other top colleges and see where we need to go.
This has come up at many meetings of student services folks. We
know what we need, but don’t have the capacity to concretize the
budget for what we need. We do have a plan for responding to
future student needs. We have institutionalized some online
services: A&R, etc.
Distance Ed started at COA, then the expansion of it went to
BCC, then at the D.O., and it has grown to what we now have of
about 6,000 online students. At BCC, we got approval for online
classes.
We do need a structure, and a line item budget for D.E. It has
grown to where we need this in place.
VCES Allen suggests ABlack and maybe a small committee
VCES Allen
suggests ABlack and
a small committee
develop a draft
structure and
proposed budget for
Distance Ed for next
year; we can take
that and work with
JNg to get this in
place for 2010-11.
As we restructure
and build a new
budget/finances
structure, we can
build this into that.
12
Agenda Item
Discussion
develop a draft structure and proposed budget for next year;
we can take that and work with JNg to get this in place for
next year. As we restructure a new budget/finances structure,
we can build this into that. We need to do this before ACCJC
gets here in March.
The Feb/March timelines are in your binders.
Confirmation from each college is given that they will be ready
to bring their other priorities (classified, tech, and facilities) to
the Ed Comm. and the Tech and Facilities Committees in
March.
Suggestion is made for folks check out the e-Peralta.org website in
terms of support services and the user-friendliness of it for
students. There are links there to ETUDES and MOODLE, but
need to be other links there as well. Black will work on a draft
from other colleges.
Counselors are concerned about being left out of the Distance Ed
support services conversation and process. We wants to make sure
that counselors, matric.folks, etc., are included in this process.
VCES Allen asks for a small sub-committee of folks –
Gravenberg, Jackson, Black, and Jacob Ng and 1-2 College
D.E. Coords. – to work together and come back with some
recommendations. We needs to have some concrete vision of
what needs to be done so this can be built into the restructuring
process at PCCD. Look at Santa Monica as an example for this.
We need to see how we can fund this in a tight budget situation.
We also need a rep. or two from the D.E. Coordinators to be
on this sub-committee.
Allen: The purpose of this sub-committee is: we have concerns
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
We need to do this
before ACCJC gets
here in March.
Confirmation from
each college is given
that they will be
ready to bring their
other priorities
(classified, tech, and
facilities) to the Ed,
Tech and Facilities
Comms. in March.
VCES Allen: Asks
for a small subcomm. to work
together and come
back with
recommendations.
– Gravenberg,
Black, Jackson, Ng
and 1-2 College
Distance Ed
Coords. = the subcomm.
A sub-committee was
formed that will meet to
develop a draft
structure and proposed
budget for Distance Ed
for next year that we
can get in place as we
restructure Peralta’s
budget & finances
structure, and build this
into that. The subcommittee will be:
Gravenberg, Black,
Jackson, Ng and 1-2
College D.E. Coords.
with Gravenberg taking
the lead to pull the subcomm. together.
VCES Allen
reiterates that there
should be no link
between Distance
Ed and Int’l. Ed
funding, and any
reference to it
13
Agenda Item
Discussion
about student support services to the Distance Ed program. We
need to create a structure districtwide for student support services
to be in place. We need to have a definite budget in place for this.
The recommendation is that we don’t use Int’l. Ed. Funds to do
this.
VCES Allen reiterates that there should be no link between
Distance Ed and Int’l. Ed funding, and any reference to it
should be deleted.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
should be deleted.
VCES Allen: Asks
Gravenberg to take
the lead on getting
this sub-committee
to meet.
VCES Allen: asks Gravenberg to take the lead on getting this
sub-committee to meet.
A contact at the State Chancellor’s Office is needed to get the top
10 list of colleges re Distance Ed.
Suggestion is to start with LeBaron.
J.
Priorities/goals/responses for
next year as budget cuts
continue
1.
Avocational,
recreational, and
personal development
courses (w/balance of
these courses next year,
2010-2011)
2.
Fee-based courses and
Contract Ed next year,
2010-2011
3.
Managing student
services/categorical
program funding
reductions
Suggests including SLO’s in our priorities for consideration for
next year.
The real question is how we continue to serve our communities in
an era of shrinking budgets/funding. This originally came from a
conversation with DAS Pres. van Putten.
In terms of fee-based classes; you can’t make a profit. It’s just to
cover the cost of the class. Contract Ed is addressed in the PFT
Contract, in that the faculty need to be paid at the same scale. The
vocational area is a good place to focus on Contract Ed classes.
We have Contract Ed and Fee-based classes already in Peralta.
We need someone who knows how to develop these, and does it
well. We may be able to get into the community and get private
industry to pay for some of these classes. There are places where
14
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
fee-based classes could supplant our regular classes – i.e., where
the classes are more recreational.
The question some have about fee-based classes is the process and
who collects the fees.
COA has been running these fee-based classes for years; the VPI
and the Bursars’ Office collects the funds; they agree on the
payment and collect it; they pay the faculty; any extra funds goes
back to the dept., e.g., auto body, auto mechanics. Suggestion is
that BCC, who wants to start some fee-based classes, talk to folks
at COA about this.
There are some areas that have a clear need; there are other areas
where you need a more structured environment. You need some
faculty to assist with this. The actual beating of the bushes and
how to address it, needs a structure. If we could divvy up the
profits to -- e.g., the D.O., the College, the Dept., the faculty – then
we could capture more need and bring in more money.
VCES Allen agrees with this, and that a lot more can be done.
We could do these classes better, and cheaper, but we need to have
a person who’s good at this to center it.
The folks we had before who were good at this are now gone.
PCCD had much more of a commitment to vocational programs at
that time. Ed Services even had a Dean level person on staff in
charge of Contract Ed and fee-based courses.
Some classes work as fee-based, and some won’t, e.g., biology.
At another college, the hospitals did fund some Contract Ed
classes to get more nurses.
15
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
At COA, we have students who have been attending year after
year in e.g., Music, and want to continue, have now gone into
taking fee-based classes so they can keep taking them. This can be
duplicated at other classes. We should take things like this that we
know will work, and spread it out throughout the District.
There are areas that have folks that are willing to pay, do pay, and
will continue to pay for fee-based classes.
Those present are reminded that we may need to transition back
into regular FTES-based classes in the future, when the State once
again begins to fund community college education adequately in
the future.
These are good ideas in a time of budget crisis, but we don’t want
to move away from our traditional mission or to work to privatize
public education by going to more and more Contract Ed or feebased courses.
Everyone agrees philosophically, but we’re now trying to survive,
as we’re a little duck in the ocean. The big ship passing by is
pushing all this water over us, and we’re just trying to stay afloat
and survive. When Allen attended UCB, the tuition was $50, and
at SFSU it was $25.
If we anchor our temporary endeavors in our mission, this will
guide others at Peralta in the future.
III.
Future Agenda Items
Lowood wants to make a statement to go to the Finance
Committee that funding SLOs is an ongoing priority. If there are
additional resources for the District to supplement what the
Colleges spend, we need this. BCC has no other resources to
augment the college’s SLO’s budget of $22,000, which may not be
able to cover this. If there are additional resources at the District
to supplement what the Colleges spend, we need this. BCC has no
16
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
other resources to augment the SLO’s budget.
The District budgeted for this, as it is a priority. These are
decisions that need to be made at the college level; this is a priority
for the District, but the College may need to look at alternative
ways to supplement this. You have to have some discretionary
funds; you can’t earmark all funds, or you won’t be able to
function. You can reassign faculty, give release time, fill behind
w/1351 funds, etc. The District put out $130,000 to show this is a
priority; the colleges need to do their part. For the next four years,
the budget reductions are in place, and the State is cutting even
more. We will have to live with this for the next four years. We’ll
have to do more with less, and that’s just our reality.
IV.
Adjournment
Next meeting:
Other upcoming meetings:
Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. by Wise E. Allen.
March 19, 2010, 9:30am - 12:30pm; District Office Board
Room;
April 16, 2010
Minutes taken by Pat Jameson
17