SHARED GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
SELF EVALUATION FORM
Budget and Planning Committee
Evaluation for Academic Year 2012-2013
1) Please indicate the dates of each of your meetings in the past year. Are the minutes of these
meetings all posted on your website?
Meetings:
Minutes Posted
June 14, 2012
Yes
July 12, 2012
Yes
Sep 27, 2012
Yes
Oct 4, 2012
Yes
Nov 1, 2012
None taken
Nov 15, 2012
Yes
Feb 7, 2013
Yes
March 7, 2013
Submitted to Nick, recently approved
April 11, 2013
No quorum
May 10, 2013
No
2) What would you consider to be the main accomplishments/tasks that your committee
achieved this academic year?
The committee successfully completed our Overbase Request process. Using the program
review process which generated the overbase requests, we ranked those requests from the four
departments and successfully submitted them to College Council for approval.
The committee also made recommendations to the Vice President of Administrative Services
and to the College President regarding the number of administrative and faculty positions hired
in the current budget outlook for this year and next year.
3) What prioritized goals for this year were you unable to complete or are still in progress?
The committee has begun evaluating the success of our program review process and finding
ways to improve it and make it smoother. Improvements include training the VPs better to
develop a better system to organize and prioritize all the over base requests received from
Program Review. We also wanted improve how the results of the prioritization are
communicated back to Dept. Chairs and other members of the community so people
understand better what is going on. The committee has also begun considering the
recommendations of the accreditation team which visited in March which spoke to our
Program Review process and our ability to assess our planning systems.
4) Please list your prioritized goals for the next academic year.
A. Better Program Review Training
B. Redoing the Prioritization Rubric which has ambiguous and vague categories
C. Developing a longer budget overview (perhaps 36 months)
D. Develop a more concrete schedule of our process for next year.
5) Does your charter accurately reflect the committee’s focus? If not, please explain.
Yes. The charter is still a valid reflection of our focus.
6) Is membership tenure reflected accurately on the website?
We have had one issue that just came up. The Charter specifies a “Technology Dean”
as a member, but the school has never had a Technology Dean. We had assumed that
Hanh would take this place on the committee, especially since Maury had left, but we
will need to clarify that and decide which individual should serve.
7) Is your membership adequate to meet the work challenges of the committee?
Yes, though we are not sure about how to structure the terms of the co-chairs so that
there is ample time for
8) Please list the dates that one or both of the co-chairs of your committee attended the SGTF
monthly meetings.
Tobin Sparfeld has attended nearly all of the College Council meetings as well as
Daniel Villanueva.
9) Do you have any suggestions for the SGTF that could improve our Shared Governance
process or make it more efficient?
We need to standardize the length of terms for members on the committees and for the
Co-chairs. Perhaps there is a way so that Co-Chairs can serve and have a transition
period for other members to gain the experience necessary to step in when needed.
10) What progress have you made on the SGTF recommendations from your previous selfevaluation?
The recommendations from the SGTF last year were the following:
•
Conduct an annual review of prioritization processes
•
Include EPC, SSS, and Administrative Services when establishing Op plan timelines
•
Clarify role, responsibility, and membership of the Budget and Planning task force
(revenue enhancement task force)
•
Continue to explore ways to communicate to units the results of allocation requests
1) The committee did conduct an annual review of the prioritization processes.
2) The committee did get feedback from Administrative Services and Student Services when
establishing the Op plan timelines, but did not directly consult EPC.
3) The committee discussed its role, responsibility and membership, though there are
additional membership issues that need discussion. After the latest annual prioritization
review, the committee has been focused on better fulfilling its role on campus.
4) The committee has discussed ways to improve the communication of allocation requests,
but still has work to do in this area.