Institutional Planning Council
October 12, 1998
PRESENT: E. Buckley, A. Cotton, G. Granderson, C. Groninga, R. Navarrette, N. Ruud, K. Stuber, D. Sweitzer, R. Agrella, Julie Muzzatti
ABSENT: A. Chaney, B. Collins, C. Ellis, J. Roberts, J. Wegman, A. Samson, M. Bennett, A. Herbst, Ann Samson, Marty Bennett
GUESTS: B. Croteau, M. Ludder, L. Royer
1. Ken Fiori demonstrated how to access the IPC agenda and minutes on the college's web page. This is part of a pilot committee project which Dr. Agrella proposed to provide improved accessibility to key college-wide committees' agendas and minutes and support documents.
2. Curt Groninga reviewed the second draft of the Educational Plan RFP with IPC. It was agreed, with minor grammatical changes, that the document is ready to be sent to potential educational master planning consultants.
3. IPC held a rather long, yet meaningful discussion about the development of P4E review criteria and processes. IPC decided to do the following:
a. A sub-committee consisting of Brenda Collins, Curt Groninga, Deborah Sweitzer, Ed Buckley, Kendra Stuber and April Chaney was assigned the task of developing a criteria statement which will help guide the component administrators in their review and prioritization of all P4E proposals received. Included in the criteria statement will be : references to state mandates, institutional goals (at a minimum, those which address college governance, research, institutional quality AND instructional quality and student success). As part of this statement, proposals may be categorized and processed in a manner which looks at new innovations, enhancements to existing programs, access, accountability and success infrastructure support, as well as those which address outcome measures. (Click here to get a summary of proposals submitted).
b. The component administrators will be given this statement to work with as they develop their review and recommendation processes.
c. The component administrators will bring their proposed P4E priorities and recommendations to IPC for clarification and explanation. IPC will not assume the role of reviewing individual proposals and the intent is to have P4E proposals reviewed within existing institutional processes. IPC will use the same or quite similar processes to respond to component P4E (including cross-components) programs and activities as it does when reviewing component administrative goals.
4. IPC Communications: Deborah Sweitzer outlined her role in developing IPC communication correspondence with the college community. Deborah is thinking about an IPC newsletter in addition to the hard copy and web agendas and minutes. IPC members were encouraged to think about and suggest additional IPC communication modes. IPC members were further encouraged to propose a name for the IPC newsletter.
5 Pocket Planning Guide: Deborah Sweitzer handed out and lead a brief review of the proposed 1998/99 Pocket Planning Guide. IPC members were encouraged to provide Deborah with their suggested edits by no later than Friday, October 16, 1998 at 5:00 p.m.
6. 1998/99 Institutional Planning Issues held over to the next meeting on October 26.