Institutional Planning Council
March 22, 1999
Maggini Conference Room
1:00 - 3:00 pm
AGENDA
1. Petaluma Center: A continuation of the March 22nd discussion of planning documents relevant to the movement of the center to campus status. (All members are advised to bring Implications of a Multi-Campus Structure, Review of 1994 "Implications and Recommendations" and the Report to the President of the Multi-Site Task Force, Spring 1994).
2. Revised Institutional Planning Council Structure: A continuation of the review of the membership structure with an emphasis on clarifying the following matters:
a) Ex-officio status for Board President or designee
b) Identification, by position, of the six (6) administrators
c) Four (4) classified members
d) Six (6) faculty members.
3. Draft Budget Planning Parameters: Given IPC has identified the three institutional goals (#4 Student Retention, #6 Outreach and Recruitment and #9 Research) to be given special emphasis during 1999-00, IPC needs to develop the Budget Planning Parameters for 1999-00.
4. 1998-99 Cross-Component Administrators' Goal: An update, led by Ed Buckley and John Roberts on the status of the 1998-99 Cross- Component Administrators' Goal.
Institutional Planning Council
MARCH 22, 1999
MINUTES
PRESENT: Robert F. Agrella, Ed Buckley, Craig Butcher, April Chaney, Brenda Collins, Toni Eaton, Doug Garrison, Curt Groninga, Julie Muzzatti, Ricardo Navarrette, John Roberts, Ann Sampson, Deborah Sweitzer, Jack Wegman
ABSENT: Maria Angel, Marty Bennett, Carole Ellis, Greg Granderson, Nancy Ruud
1. PETALUMA CENTER TO CAMPUS STATUS: Doug Garrison concluded his remarks on the previously reviewed planning documents. Other IPC members added comments for consideration: 1). Deborah Sweitzer reminded that contract language, in some instances, may need to updated and clarified to reflect any new responsibilities of the Petaluma administration. 2). Julie Muzzatti suggested that as processes become better defined the new processes need to be publicized so that chairs and departments better understand new communication processes, etc. 3). Ann Sampson suggested that communication systems (posted mail, voice mail, email and web systems) will need to reflect changes in Petaluma status. Doug and Curt indicated the new upgraded email system as well as the current web based information system allows for documents to be attached, forwarded and linked in such a manner as to accelerate information flow between the Santa Rosa and Petaluma campuses. 4). Jack Wegman asked about how growth and service area determinations were made. Doug indicated previous SRJC population research provided basis of projections, enrollments were not duplicated between sites and that zip code analysis has been performed in the past. Curt indicated that once the college engages in educational planning and institutional research, much of the data necessary for making planning assumptions will be discovered, analyzed and projected. Curt indicated much of this work needs to be accomplished as part of the justification process for Phase II facilities. 5). Deborah Sweitzer suggested that the Department Chairs need to be involved in the refining of processes. Doug concurred.
Dr. Agrella asked Curt to report the information he discovered when researching Chancellor's and Post-Secondary Education Commission documents. Curt reported he had reviewed the California Post-Secondary Commission's (CPEC)
Guidelines For Review of Proposed University Campuses, Community Colleges, and Educational Centers and the Community College System's Facilities Planning Manual (Chapter Ten)in order to understand which processes, if required, would be followed to make the decision as to changing the Petaluma Center status to one of campus. Curt read the documents and spoke with the Chancellor's Office (Fred Harris) Administrator of Facilities Planning and Utilization and the Commission's Director of Policy Analysis (Bill Storey). The two documents and both gentlemen confirmed that the change to campus status was a local matter given Petaluma was not offering any separate degree programs nor being subjected to a separate accreditation process. Therefore, the college only needs to write a letter to Chancellor Nussbaum and the Board of Governors informing them of the change of name and designation.It was agreed that Doug Garrison will update IPC on continuing plan development on a periodic basis after the Board action changing the status of the Center to Campus at the April 13th meeting.
2. IPC Membership: Curt Groninga led the discussion by reiterating the agenda item was a housekeeping matter in that IPC merely wanted to have its current membership reported accurately. The long standing Institutional Planning Council membership (April 1991) is as follows:
6 administrators |
4 classified |
6 faculty |
2 students |
4 ex officio (College President, SEIU President, AFA and CFT Presidents or their designees).
There have been but four permanent memberships by positions (four component administrators: Vice-Presidents for Academic affairs, Business services and Student Services and the Dean for Administrative Services). The administration has under-filled its membership by two, classified staff is also currently under-filled by two and student has one vacancy.
The President appoints the administrators, the Academic Senate President appoints the faculty, the SEIU President appoints the classified members and the AS President appoints the student members.
At the next IPC meeting, it was agreed that IPC would recommend the addition of two new ex officio members (President of the Board of Trustees or her designee and the new Institutional Research Director). Also, the administration will reduce its membership from six (6) to (5) and designate five component administrators (Vice-Presidents for Academic Affairs, Business Services, Student Services and the Deans for Administrative Services and the Petaluma Campus).
The Academic Senate will discuss the above mentioned proposals and bring their position back to IPC along with a determination as to whether the Academic Senate will wish to continue to appoint five at-large representatives (in addition to the Senate President) as members or whether it chooses to designate one of those at large positions for staff development.
3. Draft Budget Planning Parameters: John Roberts, Deborah Sweitzer, April Chaney and Julie Muzzatti will meet prior to the next IPC meeting and draft the 1999-00 Budget Planning Parameters for IPC review and approval.
4. Cross-Component Goal on Adjunct Faculty: The component administrators stated they have not made as much progress on this goal as originally anticipated. After some discussion, it was decided to have IPC review the Final Report on the Component Area and Cross-Component Goals in order to achieve a status report on the goal before determining whether additional work needs to be done during 1998-99 and 1999-00.
INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
AGENDA
MAGGINI CONFERENCE ROOM
MARCH 8, 1999
1:00 - 3:00 P.M.
1. PETALUMA: STATUS REPORT ON THE CENTER TO CAMPUS PROPOSAL: An update by the Dean for the Petaluma Center on the development of the report to the Board changing Petaluma's status from that of an educational center to one of campus designation.
2. REVISED INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STRUCTURE: A review of proposed changes to the membership of IPC which acknowledges the ex-officio status of the Board of Trustees member and that of the Petaluma site administrator as one of the six administrative positions.
3. PARTNERSHIP FOR EXCELLENCE AND CLASSIFIED STAFFING: An update from the component administrators led by the Vice President for Business Services.
4 1999-00 INSTITUTIONAL GOALS EMPHASIS: A discussion leading to a decision by IPC as to which 1999-00 Institutional Goals deserve special emphasis.
5. 1999-00 COMPONENT ADMINISTRATORS' GOALS STATUS REPORT: A discussion, led by the component administrators, as to the development of the component area goals and the time-table for bringing them to IPC for discussion.
6. 1998-99 CROSS-COMPONENT ADMINISTRATORS' GOAL: A discussion, led by the component administrators, updating IPC on the status of the 1998/99 Cross Component Goal.
INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Minutes
MARCH 8, 1999
Present:
Robert F. Agrella, Maria Angel, Marty Bennett, Ed Buckley, Craig Butcher, April Chaney, Brenda Collins, Toni Eaton, Greg Granderson, Curt Groninga, Doug Garrison, Julie Muzzati, Ricardo Navarrette, John Roberts, Nancy Ruud, Anne Samson, Deborah Sweitzer, Jack WegmanGuest: Steve Olson
Absent: Carole Ellis, Jennifer Mann
1. PETALUMA: Status Report on the Center to Campus Proposal
Doug Garrison presented three (3) documents for IPC's information and review prior to discussing them in further detail at the March 22nd meeting. The three documents include his March 22, 1999 memorandum to Dr. Agrella entitled Implications of a Multi-Campus Structure, his December 1996 report to Dr. Agrella entitled Review of 1994 "Implications and Recommendations" and the Report to the President of the Multi-Site Task Force, Spring 1994. These three documents are "linked" to this set of minutes.
Doug reviewed briefly each of the three documents. In his March 22nd memorandum, he makes six (6) recommendations which should guide the transition from center to campus status for Petaluma. The six (6) recommendations are:
1. The "Basic Principles" and "Implications and Recommendations" of the Multi-Site Task Force should be endorsed as sound operational guidelines.
2. The coordination of the Petaluma Campus Academic Affairs and Student Services programs with the Santa Rosa counterparts must be clarified institutionally by:
a.) endorsement of the Petaluma administration's authority and accountability for all programs including adherence to the principles of one curriculum and one policy/procedures manual.
b.) recognition of the need for each campus to reflect the needs of its service area.
c.) establishment of discipline coordination roles in Petaluma to correspond to the departmental structure and enhance its effectiveness.
d.) review and clarification of administrative review and approval procedures for decentralized functions to enhance the effectiveness of the matrix management system.
e.) examination of the results of the Academic Affairs reorganization regarding the primary role of Petaluma's administration in local programmatic matters.
3. A review should be conducted of where site-specific representation is necessary and a strategy developed to achieve that representation including:
a.) the recommendation of the Multi-Site Task Force which called for Petaluma representation to the Institutional Planning Council and the District Facilities Planning Committee.
b.) provision of realistic means for faculty and staff participation in recognition of the distance between campuses (alternating meeting sites, extensive use of telecommunications, etc).
4. The classified staffing and faculty levels at the Petaluma Campus should be reviewed with regard to the following principles:
a.) the originally recommended classified staffing levels should be reviewed for currency and priority established for filling those positions and other, additional positions as indicated by this review as soon as possible.
b.) the Petaluma Campus requires an anchor faculty which includes at least one full-time, regular contract faculty member in each primary discipline who can provide on-site program guidance and coordination with the overall academic department. Priority should be given to full funding of the Petaluma anchor faculty as soon as possible.
c.) support of the classified staff and faculty requires adequate administrative presence during all hours of operation. At present, this level of support is not provided. The level of administrative support at the Petaluma Campus should be reviewed for long term planning purposes.
5. All financial and program planning should include consideration of the Petaluma Campus. Such consideration by the component administrators and the department managers will ensure that a district-wide perspective is achieved.
6. The reporting relationship between the Petaluma administration and the component administrators and the President's office should be reviewed as part of the overall examination of the Academic Affairs organizational review with recommendations for change as appropriate.
Doug's conclusion: The basis for a transition plan from center to campus for Petaluma has already been established through the substantial work of the previous Multi-Site Task Force. The body of comments from that group and subsequent review bodies provide a sound basis for planning and establish the majority of the responses to operational questions. The remaining areas will require a careful review and a continued endorsement of the commitment to evolutionary change achieved over time. As a result, the transition plan for Petaluma must be a living document reflecting the on-going organizational change of Santa Rosa Junior College.
Several good questions centering on the need for a bit more clarification were raised. It was affirmed that the change from center to campus status is a local district decision even though the Chancellor's Office, in previous system-wide planning efforts had already endorsed the concept for Petaluma. The "evolutionary" transition in terms of procedures and programmatic change was endorsed and emphasized through several comments. IPC agreed to review the documents and to conclude its discussions at the March 22nd meeting. The plan remains for the proposal to move the Petaluma Center to campus status to be brought before the Board of Trustees at their April meeting.
2. REVISED INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STRUCTURE:
Curt Groninga introduced the topic and led a discussion on this matter. He indicated the proposed revisions were to update and correct documents which were contained in the College Council's college committee structure (Procedure 2.2.1?). It is proposed that a) ex officio status be granted to the Board of Trustees member attending IPC meetings and b) the original administrative membership of six (6) be restored and that one of the permanent administrative positions be designated for the Dean for the Petaluma Center. It was clarified that the proposed Staff Development designation is an Academic Senate matter.
A motion was made and seconded asking the Classified Senate to make a recommendation regarding having one of the four (4) classified positions on IPC be "permanent by position". A lengthy discussion ensued where members doubted IPC could make that decision and it was for the classified staff, through SEIU and the Classified Senate, to make. A subsequent motion was made and carried which tabled the first motion.
It was decided that IPC would return to the proposed revisions at its March 22nd meeting.
3. PARTNERSHIP FOR EXCELLENCE AND CLASSIFIED STAFFING:
In response to IPC's previous charge, the component administrators updated IPC on the status of P4E and Classified Staffing. John Roberts presented the view of the component administrators which is the component administrators will send P4E related positions to the Classified Staffing Committee for information. (The same process as is used for categorical positions). Though not categorical funds, it is felt that the classified positions funded by P4E monies need to be treated somewhat similar as categorical based positions and they should demonstrate a relationship to the principles of access, success and accountability. SEIU was assured that the P4E funds are permanent in that they are placed into the general fund and hence the positions funded by such funds are permanent in nature.
4. 1999-00 Institutional Goals Emphasis:
The component administrators, per IPC's previous charge, made
Two recommendations in giving specific emphasis for planning and budgetary purposes during 1999-00: #6 Outreach and Recruitment and #9 Research. A motion was made and carried which designated three 1999-00 Institutional Goals for special emphasis: #4 Student Retention, #6 Outreach and Recruitment and #9 Research. The co-chairs, with assistance from Deborah Sweitzer, will develop proposed budget planning parameters based upon IPC's decision.
5. 1999-00 Component Administrators' Goals Status Report:
Curt Groninga gave a very brief update on the status of the 1999-00 Component Administrator Goals. He indicated the first drafts are due to the President on Monday, March 15th and the final draft to the President on Wednesday, March 31st. The 1999-00 Component Administrator Goals and Objectives will be reviewed by IPC at their first April meeting.
6. 1998-99 Cross-Component Administrators' Goal:
This discussion, to be led by component administrators Buckley and Roberts was held over until the March 22nd meeting.