EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes – December 16, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT
David Vakil, Chair
Miriam Alario
Thomas Jackson
Dawn Reid
Susan Taylor
OTHERS ATTENDING
Carolee Casper – Alternate
Susan Dever – Staff Support
Cheryl Shenefield
Harold Tyler
Lance Widman
Victor Hanson – Staff Support
Arvid Spor – Staff Support
Guests – Donna Grogan (on behalf of Academic Senate)
Tom Lew, Donna Manno, Barbara Perez
Handouts:
1. Draft SCA Program Review
2. Administrative Services – Program Review Timeline
David Vakil called the meeting to order at 1:02 pm.
Program Review Models – Barbara Perez, Donna Manno, Arvid Spor
Arvid Spor stated that the SCA Program Review Model is based on the Academic Affairs
Program Review Model. Program review is set up as a 3 year cycle. It may be beneficial for
someone who is not familiar with a particular program to be included in the program review for
each department/division so that the new person can provide a different point of view. A
question was raised as to what constitutes a program? The answers were: 1. if the activity is
service-based or has program in the name, 2. A unit within a division would be considered a
program, and 3. It depends on how the department functions. For the initial planning of program
review, workshops will be provided on how to use a Q-Builder document and collect information
to build a document.
For this 2004-2005 year, the CASA Program will be the pilot program for SCA starting in
January. Year 1 will start Fall 2005. Every year, 1/3 of a division will be evaluated for the
program review in order to lessen the load for each division. This will continue for 3 years.
Administrative Services will start Year 1 either this year or Fall 2005. A suggestion was made to
have each division look at how they interact with other divisions, and then focus on how
divisions may be linked to determine how the program review for a certain division is handled.
For the Program Review Outline, individuals are asked to provide recommendations after each
roman numeral listed. Arvid reviewed the outline in detail. A question was raised: Is the
Program Review Model more research intensive? The answer was that for SCA, the key is
-1-
putting together performance indicators and reviewing data. This does not require a researcher.
The director or assistant director reviewing the data would have to ask themselves what is going
to make their program better. It should be the manager’s responsibility to review the data.
When analyzing internal and external information, it was asked whether this is similar to
scanning. It is different because this analysis focuses on a department’s or division’s specific
program. EOPS already does this type of data collection and analysis. Most of the categorical
programs already collect information in this manner. An on-line survey instrument has been
used, but we need one specifically for El Camino College. For COGNOS, it is not how the data
is collected in a functional area, but how the data is used. In this case, a research person is
needed to determine what is necessary. El Camino College is not as proficient in COGNOS as
other districts. The information found in COGNOS is not necessarily found in Q-Builder. We
can use Q-Builder as historical information for internal data. The data in Q-Builder is used for 13 year planning.
Suggestions:
1. Ask everyone the type of data they need collected.
2. Look closely at Q-Builder and see if we could make it user friendly and geared
toward El Camino College usage.
Arvid continued to review the remainder of the document with everyone. A question was raised
regarding the chart on page 9. The chart focuses on faculty, but it was suggested that every
position should be reviewed, not just faculty positions.
In order to make recommendations, we need to know what the cost is for each recommendation.
Comprehensive reviews of programs and recommendations should be reflected in Q-Builder. It
was suggested that reports that are entered into Q-Builder should be compiled into one report out
of Q-Builder so that it can be critiqued.
To help find budgeting for program review suggestions, PBC members should rank who should
receive funding and why. PBC will be reviewing as a committee and prioritizing for the Vice
Presidents. The best thing to do would be to find out what the priorities are for managers and
have the managers come to the PBC meetings to make presentations after PBC has reviewed
their Q-Builder information.
Accreditation Report – Tom Lew, PBC Participants
All four recommendations of the Accreditation Report were discussed. In Recommendation #1,
members of PBC stated that the response to the Accreditation Committee’s Recommendation #1
was not addressed. Academic Affairs will revisit the planning section of program review. The
program review models for SCA, Academic Affairs, and Administrative Services will be referred
to College Council. It was suggested that the recommendations for each area should be placed
on a wish list and then someone else decides on the budget. We do not see the budgeting process
of each area, only the planning process. The linkage between planning and budgeting is found in
Recommendation #3, not in Recommendation #1. This linkage should be clearer in
Recommendation #1.
-2-
Recommendation #2 - Question: Is there any mention of an enormous amount of money that
hasn’t been used for classified? Answer: State money used for staff development was not there.
The process needs to be streamlined in a timely manner.
Recommendation #3 – Linking Planning to Budgeting – The wording is a little misleading. PBC
has not been reviewing or recommending; only the Vice Presidents have been doing this. The
planning summit’s goals were to determine the college’s objectives and action items for the next
3 years. PBC should look at the non-monetary items in program review, and then review the
monetary items that are needed. Goals that have been set within the program review should be a
part of the objective. It is suggested that since the role of PBC has not been as prevalent as
stated in the recommendation, it should be restated to read “PBC has not been as involved as it
could be.”
Recommendation #4 – PBC responded to the idea that the dissemination of minutes will be the
best way to communicate with college constituents. Many collegial council committees want
their minutes distributed. Some people have a problem with the dissemination of minutes
because not all committees have minutes that are detailed enough for people who did not attend
the meetings to be able to understand what occurred during those meetings. There seems to be a
sense, by the president, that the dissemination of minutes is not a problem. All minutes are not
created equal. Some minutes have very little information. Minutes are not a community report.
The differences in opinion seem to be a problem that must be corrected.
Shared governance in Recommendation #4 is mentioned but in reality any problems that occur
do not usually get addressed. A draft of the minutes from Academic Senate will be sent to Tom
Lew for examples of complaints regarding shared governance. Academic Senate is supposed to
send recommendations to the Board, but according to Recommendation #1, there is a filter
through the College Council in which the College Council makes recommendations to the Board,
and not other committees. The channel of communications is flawed, and we should refer to
Collegial Consultation.
The following are the 4 items that should be added to the 4 Recommendations:
Recommendation #1 – Add Q-Builder usage
Recommendation #2 – Mention 100% usage of Q-Builder
Recommendation #3 – Assure all major decisions are made according to the Comprehensive
Master Plan and the Mission Statement. In all communications, the
institutional mission should be addressed.
Recommendation #4 – All should use the Comprehensive Master Plan for planning and
budgeting activities.
Agenda Development – All PBC Participants
This has been tabled until the next meeting in January.
-3-
Approval of Minutes – All PBC Participants
This has been tabled until the next meeting in January.
Non-Agenda Items – All PBC Participants
This has been tabled until the next meeting in January.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Note Taker: Renee Dorn
-4-