College Planning Council
Retreat
November 10, 2011
Mary and Joseph Retreat Center
Present:
Ex-Officio:
Marvin Martinez, President
CPC Co-Chair:
Abbie Patterson, Vice President
Susan McMurray, Academic Senate President
Classified:
Ivan Clarke, Unrepresented
Claudette McClenney, SEIU 721 (Supervisors)
Lori Minor, AFT 1521A (Staff Guild)
Lakshman Desilva, AFT 1521A (Staff Guild)
Timothy Mariner, AFT 1521A (Staff Guild)
Administration:
Luis Rosas, Vice President
Ann Tomlinson, Vice President
Nina Malone, Dean
Dave Humphreys, Dean
Leige Doffoney, Dean
Sandra Sanchez, Dean
Faculty:
Rod Oakes, AFT 1521 (Faculty Guild)
Brad Young, AFT 1521 (Faculty Guild)
Lauren McKenzie (for Sally Fasteau), Academic
Senate
Jim Stanbery, Academic Senate
Mark Wood, Academic Senate
Associated Student Organization:
None
Resource:
Kristi Blackburn, Dean of Institutional
Effectiveness
Minutes:
1. Welcome & President's Overview
1. Abbie Patterson opened the retreat 9:10am.
2. Marvin Martinez gave his opening remarks and thanked the organizers of the event. He spoke about
participatory governance as the way to overcome and address the complex issues that we face. He
recognized the importance of working together in the planning process and expressed his wishes that this
event become an annual occurrence.
2. Planning Activity (Stanbery)
1. Jim Stanbery handed out an activity sheet (exam) describing several of the campus planning documents and
asked us to match each description with the appropriate document. Time was given for participants to
complete the activity.
2. The purpose of the activity was to show that we need to have our processes on paper, so that the purpose of
each committee is fully understood. The planning manual has been in place for over ten years, and has been
updated and improved every year. During the 2006 accreditation process, the accreditation team had a
favorable view of our governance structure but said that we greatly need to approve our planning structure.
3. Jim Stanbery reviewed the activity sheet and gave the correct answers for all 10 questions.
4. Susan McMurray explained the importance of sharing this information with everyone on campus. During the
accreditation team’s visit, they will be speaking with staff, students, faculty, and administration asking similar
1
questions. It is important to make sure that our campus community is aware of these issues.
3. Overview of Planning Process (Blackburn & Stanbery)
1. Kristi Blackburn and Jim Stanbery delivered a presentation outlining the current structure and process of
campus planning. They explained how the committees and planning process are designed to work.
2. Explanation of the structure and purpose of cluster planning committees, managers meetings. [The cluster is
everyone who works in that unit. The cluster planning committee is the body that makes decision for that
unit and has representation from the various constituencies.] Explanation of college-wide committees (CTE
Committee, Grants Committee). Description of how committees interact (CPC Committees, Senate
Committees, and their sub committees).
3. How does planning flow? Data is the key to prioritization & decision making. Assessments shape unit plans
which in turn shape cluster plans and the college annual plan. A method of bringing together proposals and
ideas.
4. Overview of the 2012-13 cluster planning process timeline. Review of upcoming accreditation dates.
5. Covered methods to make the meetings more inclusive and efficient, including better prioritization.
6. Relationship between planning and accreditation: Accreditation team wants to see that we are actually
planning and evaluating the outcomes, and that our documents are both current and accessible. We will
soon begin working on the Human Resources Master Plan. Discussion of where the foundation fits in to this
process.
7. Achieving the Dream’s relationship to planning: Embedded within the culture of the college, does not stand
on its own. All of our decisions need to be data-driven. ATD is not a project/program, but an effort to share
information. Goal is to understanding the campus culture and adapt.
8. Our budget should reflect our priorities and values: Make courageous decisions, everything should be open
for discussion.
9. Review of important dates in the accreditation process.
4. Discussion:
1. Role & Purpose of CPC (Patterson & McMurray)
1. Earlier in the morning, each person was given a page with the prompt: “What could we implement at
Harbor College that would make the planning process a more collaborative process?” People were
instructed to not write their names on the page. After being given time to write, a discussion followed at
each table. Several participants presented the ideas that were discussed. Recommendations included:
1. Be data-driven in decision making. Analyze the costs/benefits. Decisions should be made for
the greater good of the college, not just for your area. The planning process needs to be
made clearer to everyone on campus. There should be less overlap on what the various
committees handle.
2. People are disinterested. They should be valued so they know that they are welcome to be a
part of decision-making. Student Services has off-campus retreats. Other clusters should
also try this. Utilize the college hour.
3. Increase communication between various groups. Make all decisions based on planning.
Assess ourselves regularly.
2. “We are all in this together.” Susan McMurray discussed the need to have effective dialogue and make
decisions for the greater good of the campus. Abbie Patterson talked about the importance of a
cooperative atmosphere at CPC, without picking at one another. Supporting each other fosters trust and
dialogue. Lori Minor added that these issues can affect other employees, and create an uncomfortable
environment. A few minutes were given to write positive affirmations. The affirmations were meant to
reflect our values and mission as a campus.
1. Affirmations Included:
 Realistic can be positive.
2
 Working together to assure the success of our future.
 Service is our purpose to our students.
 Strive to be on top with pride and the ability to inspire others.
 We don't stop when we’re tired; we stop when we’re done.
 We are experiencing tough times—Pressure is a privilege... Champions adjust.
 When times get tough, the tough get going.
 We support each other.
 Making a decision is a start; following through on the decision is an achievement.
3. Session ended for a lunch break.
2. Agenda & Minutes
1. Susan McMurray explained the importance of including tracking dates on the bottom of our minutes,
agendas, sign-in sheets, et al. so that we can track changes.
2. Discussion of the importance of having minutes/agendas emailed prior to meetings.
3. Some committees are still lacking appointments from all of their constituencies. We need a master list
of all of the committee memberships.
3. Use of Parliamentary Procedures
1. Marvin Martinez suggested that we may want to move to a voting system rather than using consensus.
A voting system may make the committees more efficient and more able to make difficult decisions. A
robust discussion followed about the pros and cons of the consensus and parliamentary models. It was
noted that the ASO uses parliamentary procedures with great success.
2. Motion made by Lauren McKenzie:
Recommend that the CPC to move to parliamentary procedures, rather than the current consensus
model.
Sandra Sanchez requested to modify the motion as follows:
Recommend that the CPC to move to parliamentary procedures, rather than the current consensus
model. We should adopt it for all committees, and training should be provided to each committee to
ensure a successful transition.
Modified motion was seconded by Ann Tomlinson. The modified motion was read aloud, and approved
by consensus.
Several suggestions were made regarding the training: We can have training during the scheduled CPC
meeting time. We should hold training as early as possible in Spring semester, after the accreditation
visit.
5. Review of Committees/Clusters and Their Purpose
1. Budget Committee – A brief discussion regarding the budget committee took place.
2. Work Environment/Facilities Committee
1. Brad Young explained the history of the committee, saying that WEC and Facilities were originally
combined because there were already so many committees. It was mentioned that several constituency
contracts mention the WEC, and we need to review whether the composition of the committee is in line
with the contracts.
2. Motion made:
Recommendation made to remove “Facilities” from the title of the Work Environment Committee and
modify the composition of the committee to align with the various contracts. Request that the
Academic Senate remove the Facilities committee from their constitution.
Motion carried with consensus.
3. Staffing Committee
1. Mark Wood explained that it was originally intended to be an ad hoc committee, although it lasted many
years.
3
2. Susan McMurray discussed policies for hiring faculty, administration, and classified. Ann Tomlinson
explained that classified positions generally need to be filled quickly.
3. Claudette McClenney presented a classified hiring request form used by a different campus, and
suggested that we might adopt it.
4. A discussion followed regarding classified hiring, planning procedures, and the hiring priority list. Abbie
Patterson explained that filled positions aren’t often placed on priority lists. Later when there is a
classified opening, it often needs to be replaced quickly.
5. A discussion took place regarding what the Budget Committee’s role would be for new hiring.
6. Other topics discussed included: the role of the committee, specially funded positions, data-driven
hiring, replacement of faculty retirees, and who should be able to bring requests to the committee.
7. Motion made:
Recommend that the CPC form a taskforce to review the sampled classified hiring request form and
the hiring process, and tailor them to fit our needs. Besides looking at the form, the taskforce should
examine whether we need a staffing committee and what its function and composition would be.
Consensus reached, motion approved.
4. Academic Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC)
1. Reviewed the composition of the committee. Suggested changes included:
 Add a staff member to the composition.
 Change the title of the IT Director to the appropriate title.
 Co-chairs of the committee should be from different constituencies.
 Add someone from the student services area.
2. The committee addresses hardware, equipment, and software issues. Suggested that we explicitly say
that this is part of the purview of the committee.
3. The committee looks at the IT needs of the college, but does not oversee the IT Department.
4. Discussion concerning the name of the committee. Several felt that the name was confusing because
the committee is campus-wide. Motion made by Kristi Blackburn:
Recommend that the CPC change the name of the Academic Technical Advisory Committee to the
Technical Advisory Committee.
Motion seconded by Ivan Clarke. Consensus reached, motion approved.
5. Academic Senate
1. Lori Minor asked for clarification about classified staff attending Academic Senate meetings and having a
voice. Susan McMurray stated that the meetings are open to public comment. If there is a need for
increased classified involvement, she will talk to the senate about adding a classified seat. Marvin
Martinez followed that some grants will require increased classified involvement.
6. Composition of the College Planning Council (CPC)
1. All constituencies are welcome to the CPC.
2. Composition:
1. Six faculty members.
2. Four classified staff (from bargaining units).
3. One classified manager.
4. One unrepresented classified.
5. Six student representatives (appointed by the student body president).
6. Six administrators (five appointed by the president, one selected by the Teamsters).
7. Ex-officio: College president, Academic Senate president, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, one
representative from each bargaining unit without a voting member, and employees with special
skills.
8. Removing: Foundation Director and Public Information Officer from ex-officio membership, because
we don’t currently have those positions. Abbie Patterson also suggested removing several more exofficio positions, leaving just the college president, Academic Senate president, and Dean of
Institutional Effectiveness as ex-officio members.
4
3. Co-chairs:
1. Discussion concerning whether one co-chair should always have to be full time faculty.
2. Motion made by Leige Doffoney:
1. Recommend that the two co-chairs belong to two separate constituencies. They should be
elected by parliamentary procedures, and may be from any of the three constituency groups
(Classified, Administration, and Faculty).
2. Discussion followed. Nina Malone felt that students should also be allowed to be co-chairs.
Susan McMurray disagreed. S. McMurray amended the motion and added that the election
should take place during the first meeting in May.
3. Amended motion:
Recommend that the two co-chairs belong to two separate constituencies. They should be
elected by parliamentary procedures during the first meeting in May, and may be from any of
the three constituency groups (Classified, Administration, and Faculty).
Amended motion seconded by Nina Malone. Consensus reached.
4. Revision/Updates to Participatory Governance Agreement (Patterson & McMurray)
5. Review of Recommendations & Closing Remarks
1. Brian Henderson read the recommendations that had been made throughout the day.
 Recommend that the CPC to move to parliamentary procedures, rather than the current consensus
model. We should adopt it for all committees, and training should be provided to each committee to
ensure a successful transition.
 Recommendation made to remove “Facilities” from the title of the Work Environment Committee and
modify the composition of the committee to align with the various contracts. Request that the
Academic Senate remove the Facilities committee from their constitution.
 Recommend that the CPC form a taskforce to review the sampled classified hiring request form and the
hiring process, and tailor them to fit our needs. Besides looking at the form, the taskforce should
examine whether we need a staffing committee and what its function and composition would be.
 Recommend that the CPC change the name of the Academic Technical Advisory Committee to the
Technical Advisory Committee.
 Recommend that the two co-chairs belong to two separate constituencies. They should be elected by
parliamentary procedures during the first meeting in May, and may be from any of the three
constituency groups (Classified, Administration, and Faculty).
 Confirmed the composition of the CPC committee and all of the standing committees.
2. Retreat adjourned at 3:05 PM.
5