2. 2000/01 Institutional Goals Development: IPC members are afforded the opportunity to make suggestions as to the 2000/01 Institutional Goals. Curt and Brenda will share any responses from the college community to date. Brenda Collins/Curt Groninga: 30 Minutes (Attachment)

Distribution: Adam, Agrella, Bohanec, Buckley, Butcher, Carpenter, Chaney, Chin, Collins, Drake, Eaton, Ellis, Friedman, Garrison, Granderson, Groninga, Navarrette, Mann, Roberts, Taylor, Samson, Sweitzer, Wegman

Present: Baba Adam, Robert F. Agrella, , Ed Buckley, Donata Bohanec, Craig Butcher, April Chaney, Brenda Collins, Alex Drake, Toni Eaton Joe Friedman, Greg Granderson, Curt Groninga, Jennifer Mann, Ricardo Navarrette, Genevieve Taylor, Jack Wegman

Absent: Marty Bennett, Janet Chin, Carole Ellis, Doug Garrison, John Roberts, Ann Sampson and Deborah Sweitzer

1. Partnership For Excellence: Draft Local Targets Report: A full ranging discussion was held on the working draft of the Partnership For Excellence Local Targets Report which is due to the Chancellor's Office by November 19th.

The component administrators, Baba Adam, and Marty Lee, have been working on this draft report, which is in response to the Chancellor's August 31st directive. It is clear from the Chancellor's assumptions and guidelines that the Partnership For Excellence performance goals will form the basis for system and individual college accountability.

The following represents the assumptions and guidelines that were driven by State guidelines which the component administrators utilized:

1. Assumption of real sustained FTES growth (3 1/2%) in instructional programs at SRJC.

2. Acceptance of the Chancellor's local target numbers for SRJC. Additionally, the Chancellor assumes the colleges will grow at a three and one-half percent increase (3 1/2%) per year and that a COLA will be received each year..

3. That Partnership For Excellence activities will be fully funded for a three year period (i.e. $100 million for each of three years) and then folded into the district revenue base annually thereafter.

IPC Minutes

October 25, 1999

Page Two

4. Cooperation from local high schools in respect to several action strategies.

5. Cooperation from transfer institutions. This assumes both CSU and UC will have the capacity and will accept SRJC transfer students at an acceptable rate in line with our tentative goal.

If one or more of the above do not occur, the accomplishment of the performance goals may be impeded, both locally and systemwide.

Ricardo Navarrette reviewed Performance Goal Targets #1 (Transfer)/Transfer Prepared) and #2 (Degrees & Certificates). IPC members asked a number of clarifying questions as to the College's rationale and speed of target attainment. As in Goals #3-5, the College has chosen a conservative approach given the difficulty of predicting the future (funding, economy, enrollment, transfer institution cooperation, etc).

Ed Buckley reviewed Performance Goal Targets #3 (Successful Course Completions), #4 (Workforce Development) and #5 (Basic Skills Improvement). Again a number of clarifying questions were raised regarding the College's attainment strategies. Considerable dialogue ensued. Members with further questions were encouraged to contact the component administrators directly.

It was stressed that the information presented to IPC was an internal working document from which State forms on Partnership For Excellence must be completed. This information was to provide IPC and the College community with internal benchmarks and documentation for reference and future planning purposes.

It was agreed the component administrators would provide a copy of the final November 19th report to the Institutional Planning Council as it is submitted to the Chancellor's Office.

2. 2000/2001 Institutional Goals Development: After a brief discussion, it was decided to appoint a sub-committee (Deborah Sweitzer, Joe Friedman, Alex Drake and Genevieve Taylor) to meet and come back with recommendations prior to the November 8th meeting. Curt will have Christine Nora coordinate the meeting.

1. Institutional Planning Council Membership: In response to a recent request by an adjunct faculty member, IPC will discuss the matter of IPC membership representation for the adjunct faculty. Collins/Groninga 15 minutes

2. Multi-Site Structure Philosophy and Operational Goals: As a follow-up to last meeting's discussion, Doug Garrison is to relate pertinent operational goals with the multi-site structure philosophy. Doug Garrison: 20 Minutes

Present: Robert F. Agrella, , Ed Buckley, Craig Butcher, April Chaney, Brenda Collins, Alex Drake, Toni Eastman, Joe Friedman, Curt Groninga, Doug Garrison, Jennifer Mann, Genevieve Taylor, Jack Wegman

Absent: Baba Adam, Donata Bohanec, Marty Bennett, Janet Chin, Carole Ellis, Greg Granderson, Ricardo Navarrette, John Roberts, Ann Sampson and Deborah Sweitzer

Guests Mike Ballou and Lamont Royer

1. Institutional Planning Council Membership: Considerable discussion was held in regard to Michael Ballou's suggestion that adjunct faculty should have a membership seat on the Institutional Planning Council. There was a strong consensus among IPC members on two points. First, IPC does not want a structural change in relation to IPC membership. Second, since the appointment of faculty representatives to IPC is an Academic Senate matter, Mr. Ballou's suggestion should be considered by the Senate. It is not IPC's role nor responsibility to recommend to the Senate or any other constituency group how and upon what basis it wishes to utilize its representative appointments.

2. Multi-Site Structure Philosophy and Operational Goals: Doug Garrison reviewed his December 9, 1996 memo on "Review of 1994 Implications and Recommendations of the Multi-Site Task Force". Doug, in referencing this document, addressed the departmental and administrative roles in regards to the selection, assignment and evaluation of instructors. He clarified the responsibilities of departments and site administrators. Department Chairs provide the selection and assignment of faculty. Any issues of load and expertise are reviewed by the Executive Dean of the Petaluma Campus though initial recommendations of the department are followed with few exceptions. IPC members were asked to review the December 9, 1996 memorandum and forward any further questions to the co-chairs.

IPC decided to request Jennifer for further information about the past three to five years uses of staff development funds for staff development as well as cost of operations training. Upon receipt of that information, IPC will discuss this item further. It was requested the IPC co-chairs (Collins/Groninga) write a memorandum to the Purchasing Department (Tim Bosma), requesting he closely monitor the contracts for new equipment and facilities and make certain staff training is included where appropriate and feasable.

6. Review and Discussion of Partnership For Excellence Performance Measure #3: IPC agreed to carry this item over until October 25th when the components will lead a discussion on the draft report to the state on P4E local targets.