2. ACCREDITATION UPDATE: A brief update on the status of the Self-Study 2nd Draft. Ed Buckley

3. SCHEDULING TEMPLATE: An update on the status and experience of the new scheduling template. Steve Olson

4. ASSOCIATED STUDENTS BUDGET BRIEFING: Laura Hunnemeder will give a brief update.

6. 2003-2004 BUDGET POSITION PAPER: A review and discussion of the attached (scroll down) 2003-2004 Budget Position Paper as presented at the Budget Advisory Committee. Ron Root.

7. DEVELOPMENT OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR PHYSICAL MASTER PLANNING SERVICES: An update on the development of request for physical master planning services. Curt Groninga

8. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH REPORT: A report on recent research activities. KC Boatsman.

Distribution: Agrella, Bergfelt, Boatsman, Buckley, Butcher, Drake, Eaton, Flyswithhawks, Friedman, Garrison, Granderson, Groninga, Hunnemeder, Johnson, Lindley, LaFollette, Lynch, Mann, Mercer, Navarrette, Root, Sweitzer, Wakefield

Present: Robert F. Agrella, Lily Bergfelt, KC Boatsman, Craig Butcher, Alex Drake, Brenda Flyswithhawks, Joe Friedman, Doug Garrison, Greg Granderson, Curt Groninga, Laura Hunnemeder, Jeanne Johnson, Molly Lynch, Ron Root, Leon Wakefield

Absent: Ed Buckley, Terry Lindley, Donna LaFollette, John Mercer, Ricardo Navarrette, Deborah Sweitzer

Guest: Mike Ceser and Ida Egli

1. PLANNING COMMITTEE COORDINATION: Brenda updated IPC on discussions regarding Senate representation (apportionment of seats by area), the current election, the review of the final examination policy statement and the worthiness of the discussion (at BFC) of the Governor’s Budget. Ron Root discussed BAC’s review of the Governor’s Budget and the impacts of potential budget reductions on categorical programs. The special BAC meeting had a purposeful and lively debate on budget response strategies in regards to public policy and the state’s reliance (during good economic times) on categorical funds. There were no EPCC and DFPC reports. STEP is focusing on the development of the Strategic Enrollment Plan with special emphasis on fiscal issues and marketing.

2. MID-YEAR REPORTS: Ron Root provided an extensive review of his six Business Services Component Goals. Highlights included the development of on-line bookstore software, the creation of payroll and position control software, compliance with GASBY accounting requirements, the development and implementation of a Workplace Violence Policy and Procedure and the review of the Graphic Services Operation.

3. TEACHER ACADEMY: Ida Egli presented the proposed Teacher Academy Program designed to assist in the early identification of future Sonoma County public school teachers and to provide them with an opportunity to develop teaching skills within a four year timeframe (as opposed to the current five year credential process). The Teacher Academy proposal is as attached (scroll down).

Institutional Planning Council

March 11, 2002 Minutes

Page Two

4. MULTI-SITE PLANNING: Dr. Agrella provided insight into the past development of the old Multi Site Taskforce and the current strategy that multi-site planning will be conducted per the component administrators’ planning efforts. Faculty and staff will be invited to comment on suggested multi-site plans.

5. INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ROLE IN ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION RESPONSES: It was decided that IPC will have an important informational role (responding to accreditation evaluation team requests during the accreditation visit) as well as seeing to it that the component areas develop accreditation responses and incorporate them in future SRJC institutional planning efforts after the evaluation visit next Fall.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY COMPLIANCE UPDATE: Michael Ceser outlined the roles and responsibilities of Environmental Health and Safety in regards to compliance issues. Brenda requested more effort be given in the development and communication of the emergency preparedness plan, evacuation plan and all other plans which require faculty and staff responses during major emergencies.

M I N U T E S
ACADEMIC SENATE
Santa Rosa Junior College
March 6, 2002

PRESENT: B. Flyswithhawks, M. Grossman, M. Bond, R. Ward L. McCauley, M. Connell,
D. Gooch, M. Pierce, A. LaRue, G. Granderson, B. Hinkle, D. Munton, B. Croteau, W. Neel,
K. Messina, M. Ludder, D. Campagna, Don Fischer, D. Tolks, P. LoCoco
ABSENT: P. Goebel, V. Bertsch, G. Allen, Doug Fisher
GUESTS: M. Lynch, J. Mann, K. Boatsman, Will Baty, R. Sapanaro, M. Thompson

OPEN FORUM:

1. Maryanne Michaels distributed a position statement by the EOPS/CARE Advisory Committee regarding the 2002-2003 budget proposals. The committee opposes cuts in the governor's proposed 2002- 2003 budget for CalWORKs, Matriculation, and Staff Development funding. They also oppose block funding for EOPS, Financial Aid, Disabled Students, Fund for Student Success and Matriculation. She urged the Senate to discuss and debate this topic and to take a similar position opposing the cuts.

2. L. McCauley announced that the Theatre Arts Department is opening Steel Magnolias this week.

3. Dr. Agrella announced that Measure A was approved and thanked the Senate and Brenda for all the support shown for Measure A.

4. Kimberlee Messina wanted the faculty members who asked about programs in Mexico and Latin America to send their feedback in writing to Steve Olson, Chair of the International Studies Program.

5. Brenda thanked senators for their hard work in getting Measure A passed. She announced that it is National Women's History Month and distributed some flyers. A conference on Undergraduate Teaching and Learning is scheduled for April 19 at El Camino College.

6. Marsha Connell announced the Arts & Lectures events for this month.

Friday, March 8, 2002

Oak Room, 10:00 a.m.

The meeting was called to order by Ron Root (Co- Chair).

Members present: Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Andrew Dolcini, Bob Flores, Ed Sikes, Deborah Sweitzer.

Also present: Bea Griffiths, Michael Ludder, Jennifer Mann, Maryanne Michaels, Ricardo Navarrette, Chuck Robbins, Bill Turner, Kari Vigeland.

Members/staff absent: Rich Abrahams, Kathleen Bradbury, Micca Gray, Xuan Ho, Ezbon Jen, Omar Medina, Joe Morello, Tatjana Omrcen, Jamey Ransford, Bonnie Pearson, Sandi Tassano.

Staff to the Committee: R. Kyle, Lamont Royer.

Prior to the beginning of the discussion agenda items, Ron Root distributed the annual Chancellor's invitation for the District's Review and Recommendations Regarding the System's 2003- 04 Budget Request. The difference from previous requests is that a template is included for simple yes or no responses with an opportunity to provide narrative comments as desired. A recommendation will be brought to the committee at the March 26 meeting.

The position paper draft authored by co-chair Barbara Croteau and distributed with the agenda was the focus for discussion at this meeting.

Maryanne Michaels explained that EOPS, developed in 1969, is the oldest categorical program in the state. It was noted that EOPS funding is in addition to, not at the expense of, District funding. Elements pointing to the long-standing success of the program include (1) clear legislative intent for needs broader than provided at the local level; (2) Chancellor's Office overview (Title 5 of the Ed Code); (3) local flexibility and (4); accurate data reporting and end of year fiscal reporting. Continued success for this and other categorical programs are dependent upon (1) guaranteed 95% of prior year funding; (2) COLA and growth funding; and (3) local overview.

Alternatively another reason offered for the development of categorical programs was due to a scarcity of resources that resulted in local needs going unmet. It was felt by some that if funding were adequate, those needs could be met locally.

The two key policy issues the committee discussed were (1) block grant funding, and (2) tuition.

Block grant funding was opposed by many on the committee who feel it pits programs against each other. Block grants have the effect of diffusing criticism from the legislature and passes on the problem to the local level. It was agreed that now is not the time to talk about block grants.

Those who feel it goes against the idea of an open door policy at community colleges did not support the tuition proposal. There was some support for the idea of an increase in student fees coupled with an increase in financial aid.

Common ground was found in support for the need of the legislature to meet its statutory obligation under Proposition 98. The position paper needs to assimilate the impact of the proposed budget reductions on people with the greatest needs. In addition, it was agreed that the next position paper draft incorporates a recommendation that COLA and growth funding is included for the categorical programs.

Ron Root and Barbara Croteau will integrate today's discussion into a second draft position paper for further review at the March 26 meeting.

Meeting adjourned 11:50 a.m.

DISTRICT FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE

1. NEW IDEAS, CONCERNS, ISSUES: Today’s discussion centered on the passage of the General Obligation Bond. Curt reported that several SRJC committees will have a key role in the General Obligation Bond planning process, including the DFPC. Curt and Julie suggested devoting time to defining the DFPC’s participation and determining a means to act as a communications conduit with the college community as well the Citizen Advisory Group.

At this point, RFP’s (Request for Proposal) will soon be announced & interviews will commence for a Planning Firm contractor. The designated firm will analyze overall college campus planning functionality & forecasting, including facility & space needs, physical lay-out, impact of new facilities, circulation flow of student & vehicle traffic, etc. The selected Planner also addresses Academics in accessing & reporting on program & department needs. The Integrated Master Plan plays a critical role in providing data to the Planners.

2. COMITTEE REPORTS:

Present: KC Boatsman, Ed Buckley, Ken Fiori, Doug Garrison, Kimberly Kalember, Renee LoPilato, Kimberlee Messina, Steve Morris & Eve Nighswonger.

• The minutes of February 4, 2001 were reviewed. No corrections were made.

• Schedule Development Sub-Committee
• The draft document for Schedule Development, submitted by Ed Buckley and Ken Fiori, was presented and read . Discussion followed. An established set of schedule-based data is required for annual review by the StEP Committee. (The previously agreed upon elements will be distributed for review.) Faculty should be encouraged to look beyond the chosen ‘set of data’ elements as a way of expanding their resources and assisting them in schedule development process.
• The Office of Institutional Research intends to use the "Fact Book" to provide information to the StEP Committee for this process.
• Discussion followed about the overlap between the data to be examined in the Schedule, Outcomes, Fiscal, and Marketing sections of the plan. We agreed to examine the duplication of data after each section has had an opportunity to be presented.
• Fiscal Data

• The draft document for Fiscal Data, submitted by Doug Garrison, Ron Root & Barbara Crouteau, was presented and read. Doug Garrison went to the Budget Advisory Committee and explained the planning document for StEP. With Ron and Barbara’s help the Fiscal Stability Report was perused to identify the most appropriate fiscal elements for annual tracking. Those findings were then brought back to the Budget Advisory Committee for discussion and feedback. The objective is to establish a set of fiscal data that is examined annually as part of the StEP Plan. This process will include the Budget Advisory Committee. Conclusions drawn from the annual review could influence the overall planning process for the college and provide an assessment of institutional effectiveness.
• K. Fiori requested that the category of ‘Unduplicated Credit Headcount/Avg. Units Enrolled (sems.)’ be reviewed to clarify what it will add to the report. The remaining categories were discussed and any suggestions for change should be submitted to D. Garrison for discussion with the Budget Advisory Committee.

Step

Continued

• Outcomes Data
• The Outcomes Data Sub-Committee is preparing an inventory of current outcomes reports collected and/or reported. An email requesting such information was sent to all managers and administrators and department chairs. KC Boatsman handed out a report that listed all the federal, state, regional, and local reporting requirements to get a sense of what kinds of reporting is being done at SRJC and other community colleges. Two other reports/handouts were distributed: a list of all the research projects that the Office of Institutional Research has done in the past eight months, and from our web site, all of the reports that Computing Services regularly generates. The inventory should be complete by the third week of March. IR is also proposing a "pipeline study" in order to see ‘who is coming to the college’. The StEP Plan will include a suggested list of outcomes that will be measured annually. The intent, again, is to choose a manageable amount of data that can inform the decision making of the component administrators, the departments and the operational units.
• Marketing
• A preliminary description of SRJC’s current public relations and marketing efforts was distributed for initial review. Discussion followed on current successes and perceived needs.
• PDA is an opportunity to present marketing best practices. Eve will research and identify marketing resources already available to us. Development of marketing for the college is timely with respect to the exposure and attention paid to the Bond. The institution needs to determine its commitment to marketing and the format for necessary support. More discussion is necessary before recommendations can be made.
• The next meeting of the StEP Committee will be March 18, 2002 at 3:30pm in the RACE building Room 4061.

Agenda: Continued discussion of the four elements of the Strategic Enrollment Plan.

DRAFT 2

The California Community College System suffers from chronic underfunding:

• California community colleges rank 45^th in the nation in per student funding support.
• Since Prop 13 was enacted, the following changes in funding per student have occurred:

• State COLA has not kept pace with inflation. During the 1990’s, COLA increased by 17.4% while inflation increased by 31.3% [no COLA increase was allocated for 4 years].
• The state has failed for 11 years to allocate the 11% of Proposition 98 funds intended for the community college system. The current percentage share of funds going to community colleges is less than 10.2%. It should be noted that the LAO’s analysis indicates the Governor’s budget recommendation for next year understates total Proposition 98 funding requirements by over $800 million.
• Summary:

1. If community college appropriations had kept pace with the rest of education in the 1990s, Santa Rosa Junior College would have over $8 million more in its current funding base (each year).
2. If legislative intent had been maintained in allocating 11% of Prop 98 funds to community colleges, Santa Rosa Junior College would have over $7 million more in its current funding base (each year). Since 1991, SRJC has lost over $50 million because of the legislature’s failure to keep its promise.
3. If California community college appropriations matched the average funding per student across the nation, Santa Rosa Junior College would have more than $40 million more in its funding base (each year).

The Governor’s budget recommendation provides a 1.7% increase for next year, but also contains reductions and restructuring proposals that will eliminate or harm long-standing programs.

The LAO supports the $121.7 million in categorical reductions proposed by the Governor and adds to it a recommendation to consolidate 11 categorical programs into two block grants.

During the latter half of the 1990’s, as the state’s economy moved forward at an unprecedented rate, the legislature created 14 new categorical programs. At SRJC, the percentage of the college’s budget controlled by these categorical programs increased from 9% to 17%.

Now that the economy has weakened, the LAO proposes to consolidate programs into block grants. This recommendation is disguised as a positive opportunity for the local districts "to use these and other categorical funds effectively…by increasing their flexibility." It is curious that the state shows its strongest interest in protecting institutional budget flexibility only when the state budget is under seige.

The Governor has proposed a massive consolidation of almost $1.3 billion in adult and vocational programs from the State Department of Education and the Secretary for Education into the community college system. There is little detail to the Governor’s recommendation explaining the purpose of the consolidation and how the transition would occur. Similar proposals in the past have always been met with stiff resistance from the K-12 and Social Services sectors because of the critical role these resources play in supporting long-standing programs.

The following recommendations should be considered by the Governor and California legislature as the final budget for FY 2002-03 is developed:

The following responses represent Sonoma County Junior College District’s positions relative to the Chancellor’s draft budget proposals for fiscal year 2003-2004. These positions have been developed through the college’s participatory governance process, and were endorsed by the college’s Board of Trustees on April 9, 2002.

Sonoma County Junior College District supports the System’s goal of funding 4% growth, and recommends that it be placed in fourth priority for state funding consideration. Funding for growth should never receive priority over the necessity to maintain adequate funding for current enrollment levels. The State must be cautious about placing undue emphasis on funding growth at the expense of quality in existing programs.

Academic programs are being challenged by the new wave of science and technology, and by the increasingly diverse student populations who depend upon community college services for the life skills they need to ensure their success in California and the larger global environment. Therefore, it must be understood that funding for growth must always be preceded in importance by the necessity for adequate funding support for existing educational programs and services.

Growth in non-credit instruction is growing rapidly as employers seek to maintain a trained workforce by working with community colleges to structure skill-based training that is targeted specifically to their labor needs. These employers care about job competencies and communications skills, and they often display little interest in whether or not a course is expressed in terms of credit hours. Colleges can respond to these expressed needs of employers for "quick start" training, for ESL instruction, and for technical skill upgrading, by offering the instruction in a non-credit structure, thereby avoiding the time-intensive processes that often accompany efforts to develop new credit courses. In addition, these learning needs often cannot be met without a significant investment in equipment and faculty training, due to the specialized nature of the subject matter, which is not recognized by the low funding rate for non-credit instruction.

Therefore, the system proposal should establish as third priority the need to close the existing funding gap between credit and non-credit funding, recognizing that this problem is greater in importance than funding new growth. This difference is currently over $1,400 per FTES, and the gap should be closed over a three- or four-year period.

Sonoma County Junior College District affirms the Board of Governor’s position that state funding should be directed toward meeting the annual college budget needs impacted by inflation as a first priority.

It is important for the Chancellor’s Office to continue to remind the Governor and Legislature that the state failed to fund COLA for four straight years in the early 1990’s and has never rectified the problem. In addition, the statutory COLA calculation is deficient in recognizing the real costs of maintaining an educational enterprise in high cost areas of the state. In only two of the past ten years has the regional consumer price index (CPI) for the Bay Area been exceeded by the statutory COLA calculation. During the 1990’s, COLA revenue increased 17.4% while the CPI increased 31.3%, and this difference resulted in a revenue loss for the Sonoma County Junior College District of $7.4 million each year.

Also, Sonoma County Junior College District encourages the Board of Governors to continue its efforts to remind the Governor and the State Legislature of their constitutional and statutory obligations under Proposition 98, which amended Article XVI of the State Constitution in 1988. Proposition 98 was passed with the specific intent of ensuring a minimum annual funding level for K-14 education, and original legislative intent was to ensure a balanced funding split between K-12 and the community colleges. In 1992-93, however, the statutory split between educational sectors was suspended for community colleges, resulting in a reduction of the 11% of total educational funding dedicated to the community college system. The community colleges have never been restored to this statutory funding level.

It is imperative that the Board of Governors continually remind the Governor and the Legislature of the serious underfunding of the CCC System compared to national funding norms per student. The CCC System continues to operate on annual revenues that are more than $2,000 per full time equivalent student below the national average for community colleges. In addition, the university systems in California receive much larger revenue support per student for comparable levels of instruction.

Attempts to pigeonhole COLA into subparts such as compensation, goods and services is often viewed suspiciously by those who are involved in local collective bargaining. It is far more important to design and fully fund a COLA formula that truly reflects the costs of doing business in a community college than it is to create more categorical subparts that are accompanied by restrictive spending policies.

It is recommended that the BOG continue its efforts to educate the Governor and Legislature on the importance of acting upon their constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure proportionate funding for community colleges under the provisions of Proposition 98.

Policymakers must find a means to rectify the baseline funding imbalance that has existed since the approval of Proposition 13 over 24 years ago. Arguments about programmatic differences should be held in abeyance until the State has achieved equal revenue support behind each student in the system, up to an agreed-upon baseline revenue level that is equal for all colleges. When Proposition 13 passed, the obligation to ensure equitable funding of the community college system fell squarely on the shoulders of the State. Attempts to distribute dollars on a program basis only give rise to arguments that allow the State to avoid fully equalizing the districts.

It is recommended that the BOG continue its recent efforts to establish a simple equalization process by defining a minimum baseline of revenue support per student (FTES) rather than to use a program-based funding formula.

The Chancellor’s Office has accompanied the argument for additional PFE funding with information citing the huge gap in funding support per student between California’s system of community colleges and the national average. Unfortunately, this argument has been tied to a performance-based categorical program rather than to General Apportionment support (see COLA restoration, item #2 above). Is it possible that the State has lost sight of the fact that many of the identified needs in the system, such as low pay for part-time faculty and over-reliance on part-time faculty and temporary staff, have been caused by the failure of the State to maintain adequate support for what was once the best-funded system of higher education in the nation?

The BOG should maintain its support for continuation of the PFE framework that allows districts complete discretion in the use of these funds toward achieving broad system goals. There should be strong resistance toward any effort aimed at setting aside a portion of the PFE funds for the Chancellor’s Office to use as a "carrot" to reward or punish college districts according to their PFE performance results. Such a private industry model has no proven value in the public sector.

In 1994-95, Sonoma County Junior College District administered 17 state-funded categorical programs; today, it administers 31 such programs as well as a number of designated fund programs such as the Partnership For Excellence Program. The Chancellor’s Office has often advocated for specific funding to address legitimate concerns expressed about such matters as hiring more full-time faculty, rectifying salary imbalances between full-time and part-time faculty, and providing faculty and staff development funds. However, as noted in section 4 above, many categorical programs are borne out of pressure from community college special interest groups who have become tired with the steady decline in the system caused by chronic shortages in funding.

Sonoma County Community College District supports the state’s efforts to improve the quality of institutions through the infusion of new funds for human resources. However, any funding proposal that, by its construction, places the state in a position of deciding what is best for each local community college must be challenged on its merits. While it is important to ensure continuity of service by maintaining the current level of funding support for existing categorical programs, the BOG should not place a high priority on creating new programs until the other priorities in baseline funding are fully addressed.

It is recommended that the BOG avoid creating additional categorical programs, even if they purport to strengthen human resources, and instead focus on obtaining adequate General Apportionment funding to address the well-documented problem of chronic system underfunding..

Sonoma County Junior College District supports the continuation of funding for student outreach and access through a combined request. Highest priority, however, should be to maintain the level of services provided in FY 2001-02.

This is one of the rare special purpose programs wherein the State holds a unique and vital role in ensuring that resources are directed toward a highly complex systemic need. Because of the rapidly evolving nature of the technological needs in the CCC System, a strong, state-coordinated initiative is necessary to ensure that these needs are met in the most efficient, effective manner possible. The Business and Industry community is demanding much higher technical skills in the workplace, and community colleges are uniquely positioned to respond to these training needs. The rapidly changing environment in the technologies necessitates that community colleges constantly invest in the training of faculty, acquisition of new equipment, and the addition of new faculty and staff who can successfully integrate these technologies into the college's instructional programs and courses. Since these investments are substantial and constantly changing, Sonoma County Junior College District supports the Tech II Plan as an appropriate plan to assist the state in maximizing its resources in this area.

It is recommended that the BOG continue to aggressively seek full State funding support for the Technology II Plan, and adopt a position allowing maximum local flexibility in the utilization of these resources.

Economic Development and Workforce Preparation are increasingly vital functions of the community college system. Community colleges are well positioned to respond to industry needs for rapid, effective training and provide the skills, competency training, and workforce preparation required of today’s employees.

The present system of assigning funding for targeted economic development programs impedes cooperation among various campus instructional programs. It also obstructs programs designed to integrate faculty into economic development and workforce preparation programs. Additionally, emphasis upon regional economic development initiatives often compromises efforts to assist businesses at the local level.

The system should definitely seek to expand economic development and workforce preparation efforts, but it should consider funding these programs through an allocation mechanism requiring quantifiable outcomes.

Present: Lily Bergfelt, KC Boatsman, Craig Butcher, Alex Drake, Joe Friedman, Doug Garrison, Greg Granderson, Curt Groninga, Laura Hunnemeder, Jeanne Johnson, Donna LaFollette, Molly Lynch, Ricardo Navarrette, Ron Root, Deborah Sweitzer, Leon Wakefield

Absent: Robert Agrella, Ed Buckley, Toni Eaton, Brenda Flyswithhawks, Terry Lindley, Jennifer Mann and John Mercer

Guest: Steve Olson

2. ACCREDITATION UPDATE: A brief update on the status of the Self-Study 1^st Draft. Ed Buckley

3. MID-YEAR REPORTS: A continuation of the mid-year component goals reports update provided, this week, by Business Services (Ron Root), Student Services (Ricardo Navarrette) and the cross-component goals (various).

4. TEACHER ACADEMY: A presentation of the proposed Teacher Academy program by Ida Egli.

5. MULTI-SITE PLANNING: A brief update on multi-site planning. (Robert Agrella)

6. INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ROLE: A proposed review of the Institutional Planning Council role viz-a-viz accreditation reports. (Brenda Flyswithhawks)

7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY COMPLIANCE UPDATE: A discussion of the EHS function and review of its compliance responsibilities. (Groninga/Ceser)

Distribution: Agrella, Bergfelt, Boatsman, Buckley, Butcher, Drake, Eaton, Flyswithhawks, Friedman, Garrison, Granderson, Groninga, Hunnemeder, Johnson, Lindley, LaFollette, Lynch, Mann, Mercer, Navarrette, Root, Sweitzer, Wakefield

PRESENT: B. Flyswithhawks, M. Grossman, M. Bond, R. Ward L. McCauley, M. Connell,

D. Gooch, M. Pierce, A. LaRue, G. Granderson, P. Goebel, B. Hinkle, D. Munton, B. Croteau,

K. Messina, M. Ludder, D. Campagna, W. Neel, Don Fischer, V. Bertsch

ABSENT: G. Allen, Doug Fisher, D. Tolks, P. LoCoco,

GUESTS: S. Olson, D. Smith, C. Bennett, B. McClure, R. Root

1. D. Smith said there is an organized effort to get out the vote on Measure A. She passed out sign up sheets for faculty volunteers to work the phone banks.
2. M. Connell announced some upcoming Arts & Lectures events.

The Minutes of February 6, 2002 was approved with the following revisions:

• Marsha Connell's name was misspelled.
• Open Forum #1: Michael Eurgubian said the problem is that faculty are giving their finals early, the week before final exams are scheduled.

1. Schedule Template - Steve Olson reported on the Scheduling Office's report that reflects the changes over the past three semesters as a result of the new schedule template.
2. Strategic Enrollment Planning Committee - K. Messina reported that the focus this semester is to look at the overall enrollment planning process and how to improve upon the actual plan. They are looking at the areas of marketing, physical data, outcome data and scheduling data. They hope to have a report completed by the end of the semester to bring back to the Senate and IPC.
3. Budget Advisory Committee - B. Croteau reported that the BAC would like to develop a position paper on the budget recommendations of the Governor for the next fiscal year, specifically, the proposed budget reductions in five major program areas. There is a necessity to review the impact of these cuts in a more systematic manner in order to develop a position paper for the consideration of the college community.
4. New Course Curriculum Area I - Carol Bennett reported that the Curriculum Committee approved the following courses to meet the Area I Information Literacy requirement for the Associate Degree: LIR 10 (Formerly 59), LIR 22, LIR 50, LIR 110.
5. President's Report - B. Flyswithhawks reported:

• The Staff Diversity Committee will meet February 28, 2-3pm in the Button Building Conference Room to discuss perfecting the hiring process.
• The March 20 Senate meeting will be in Petaluma.

1. Proposed English Pathway - B. McClure said the revision of English 100B and English 100A (now English 302) have been approved by the Curriculum Committee. English 355 may be revised to English 305 to become effective in the fall semester. They are working on ways that students can challenge their placement. If you have concerns about how English classes will effect your department to contact B. McClure.
2. The Governor's Proposed 2002-2003 State Budget - R. Root expressed his appreciation to B. Croteau as co-chair and thanked the Senate for moving Measure A forward. This fiscal year we had the largest swing downward of revenue at the state level since World War II. The only good news this year is that our institution was virtually untouched in the initial round of cuts that the legislature made at the end of January. The BAC will study these cuts and make a proposal to the Senate and IPC for consideration that addresses the priorities that this institution thinks should be focused on by our legislature and the governor's office. We fall substantially below anyone else in funding. People around the state are saying that Prop 98 is a noose around our neck and why don't we strike out on our own, advocate to be a higher education institution. We educate two-thirds of the higher education students in the state. Root suggested the college community discuss this further.
3. Review & Apportionment of Senate Seats - Brenda said there will not be time to add any new senate seats before this year's election. Any changes will be made before the 2003 election. It was recommended that the two senators representing adjunct faculty be assigned specific departments or areas. There was some discussion regarding the number of seats versus the number of faculty in an area. The executive committee will look into this and bring this back to the senate later.
4. Final Exam Policy 3.15 - D. Smith reviewed the details and procedures of the Final Exam Policy. At the Department Chair Council it was suggested that Ed Buckley send a memo to faculty reminding them of the policy and procedures for changing a final exam.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Oak Room, 2:30 p.m.

The meeting was called to order by Ron Root (Co- Chair).

Members present: Rich Abrahams, Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Andrew Dolcini, Bob Flores, Micca Gray, Joe Morello, Tatjana Omrcen, , Jamey Ransford.

Also present: Will Baty, Doug Garrison, Bea Griffiths, Jennifer Mann.

Members/staff absent: Kathleen Bradbury, Xuan Ho, Ezbon Jen, Omar Medina, Bonnie Pearson, Ed Sikes, Deborah Sweitzer, Sandi Tassano.

Staff to the Committee: R. Kyle, Lamont Royer.

The Agenda was re-ordered to accommodate guests present for continuation of discussion of FY 2002/03 proposed Governor's budget reductions and position statement on same.

1. Approval of Minutes: February 8, 2002

The February 8, 2002 minutes were approved as presented.

2. Position Statement on Governor's FY 02-03 Budget

Program managers affected by reductions to their areas were present at the committee's request to provide added input on the effects to their programs as the committee prepares to draft a position paper on the Governor's budget recommendations for the next fiscal year.

Jamey Ransford presented a summary of the initial fiscal impacts of the proposed reductions on the CalWorks program followed by a listing of reductions in services to students in the program and graphs illustrating both the current and proposed budget reductions for comparison. Additional data is available and will be provided that supports the success of the students who have access to these services.

Will Baty explained that TTIP funding addresses and supports the college's full cost of technology in five broad areas including 4Cnet (internet access), Videoconferencing, Library automatic and Electronic Resources, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and Technology Training. The two areas most impacted by the proposed budget reductions are TCO and Technology Training. It is difficult to determine the severity and depth of the program impacts until it is known how much the cuts will be within these two categories.

Jennifer Mann provided a summary of current budget and funding sources and the governor's proposed 02-03 budget that entirely eliminates state funds for staff development. She also included a breakdown of the program budget, a listing of program activities and the resulting impact to the program in the areas of currency and retention.

A handout from Chuck Robbins, who made a presentation at the January 22 meeting, was distributed outlining the proposed reductions and impacts to the college's Economic Development programs.

Ron Root and Barbara Croteau will review the material provided by the program managers, draft a position paper and distribute it prior to the March 8th BAC meeting for further discussion. In addition to prioritizing college needs programmatically, the draft will address the need for legislators to allow more local control of district spending and the need of the population for specific services. The position paper in its final form will help frame the way the college as an organization messages the decision-makers on budget matters.

3. Strategic Enrollment Planning

Doug Garrison, who requested BAC's recommendations to enhance the overall analysis and planning process for strategic enrollment planning, suggested ten possible data elements from the Fiscal Solvency Report for this discussion. External factors measuring the county's population age trends and unemployment rates were considered relevant since they are tied to the Chancellor's Office projections. Several items in the Enrollment Trends section, State Cola and CPI comparisons, classroom patterns reflected by WSCH per FTEF and the General Fund Balance historical data were discussed. Capital outlay issues need to be included in the report. There is a need to measure institutional capacity in some way over time, including a measure to respond to student demand to offer courses when students want them. Doug Garrison invited everyone to attend the StEP meeting on March 4, 2002 in the Health Sciences Conference Room at 3:30 p.m. for a progress report on the four identified planning elements: Schedule Development Data; Fiscal Data; Outcomes Data, and Marketing. He will return to the BAC at a later date when the plan is finalized.

Meeting adjourned 4:15 p.m.

Committee Membership for 2001- 02: Ed Buckley, Terri Frongia, Kris Futrell, Reneé LoPilato, Jim Rose, Noel Adams, Karen Kellam, Peg Ellingson, Joan Scarborough, Rosemary Ward, Hyemin Ro, Greg Granderson

Present: Robert F. Agrella, Lily Bergfelt, KC Boatsman, Craig Butcher, Alex Drake, Brenda Flyswithhawks, Joe Friedman, Doug Garrison, Greg Granderson, Curt Groninga, Laura Hunnemeder, Jeanne Johnson, Molly Lynch, Ron Root, Leon Wakefield

Absent: Ed Buckley, Terry Lindley, Donna LaFollette, John Mercer, Ricardo Navarrette, Deborah Sweitzer

Guest: Mike Ceser and Ida Egli

1. PLANNING COMMITTEE COORDINATION: Brenda updated IPC on discussions regarding Senate representation (apportionment of seats by area), the current election, the review of the final examination policy statement and the worthiness of the discussion (at BFC) of the Governor's Budget. Ron Root discussed BAC's review of the Governor's Budget and the impacts of potential budget reductions on categorical programs. The special BAC meeting had a purposeful and lively debate on budget response strategies in regards to public policy and the state's reliance (during good economic times) on categorical funds. There were no EPCC and DFPC reports. STEP is focusing on the development of the Strategic Enrollment Plan with special emphasis on fiscal issues and marketing.

2. MID-YEAR REPORTS: Ron Root provided an extensive review of his six Business Services Component Goals. Highlights included the development of on-line bookstore software, the creation of payroll and position control software, compliance with GASBY accounting requirements, the development and implementation of a Workplace Violence Policy and Procedure and the review of the Graphic Services Operation.

Institutional Planning Council

March 11, 2002 Minutes

Page Two

4. MULTI-SITE PLANNING: Dr. Agrella provided insight into the past development of the old Multi Site Taskforce and the current strategy that multi-site planning will be conducted per the component administrators' planning efforts. Faculty and staff will be invited to comment on suggested multi-site plans.

5. INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ROLE IN ACCREDITATION RECOMMENDATION RESPONSES: It was decided that IPC will have an important informational role (responding to accreditation evaluation team requests during the accreditation visit) as well as seeing to it that the component areas develop accreditation responses and incorporate them in future SRJC institutional planning efforts after the evaluation visit next Fall.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SAFETY COMPLIANCE UPDATE: Michael Ceser outlined the roles and responsibilities of Environmental Health and Safety in regards to compliance issues. Brenda requested more effort be given in the development and communication of the emergency preparedness plan, evacuation plan and all other plans which require faculty and staff responses during major emergencies.