1. Agenda Item: Check-In Team

Transcription

1 Members: Douglas Houston, Kayleigh Carabajal, Kuldeep Kaur, Jacques Whitfield, Judy Walters, Rod Beilby, Monica Chahal, Fatima Ruiz, Janelle Eichler, Pamela Bordisso, Art Pimentel, Dale Holder, Matt Clark, Donna McGill-Cameron, Greg Kemble, Eileen Schmidtbauer, Marisela Arce, Lisa Jensen-Martin, Karen Trimble, Molly Senecal, Robert Mathews, Martha Mills, Sonya Horn, Jim Schulte, Zulema Zermeno, Donna Veal-Spenser, Cathy Richter (Recorder) 1. Agenda Item: Check-In Team 2. Agenda Item: DC3 Teams Charge Background: As described in the Strategic Planning Process developed by DC3 Team 1 that was approved by DC3 in August 2013, DC3 will charge teams to set a Strategic Plan, an Annual Action Plan, a Resource Allocation Recommendation, and conduct an Institutional Effectiveness Review (assessment). Purpose: Charge Teams 1. Strategic Planning Team 2. Annual Action Planning Team 3. Budget Advisory Team (completed) 4. Institutional Effectiveness Review Team Carabajal DC3 charges the teams that conduct the work in the Strategic Planning Process and appoints membership for each. These teams are not constrained to DC3 membership, and can add individuals who will be value-added to the process. 1. Strategic Planning Team - Membership will be CHEX. Their charge is to compile the Colleges Educational Master Plans and the District Services Master Plan into the Comprehensive District Master Plan. 2. The Budget Advisory Team Membership is already charged and working actively on its purpose.

2 3. The Institutional Effectiveness Review Team and two Vitality Criteria Prioritization Work Groups need to be charged today (CHEX is the third Vitality Prioritization Work Group.) Two planning process diagrams were shared with the group. The first titled Spring 2014 is set in stone; the other diagram for is subject to change after the IER Team analyzes budgeting and planning processes and identifies process improvements from this year s processes to improve for the coming year. This process reflects a shift where planning drives budgeting which is different than what we used to do budgeting driving planning. Spring 2014 Process The two Colleges and District Services each submit five top ranked priorities to the Program and Services Vitality Review Teams (PSVR) who will prioritize those priorities and present to DC3 for review at the last meeting in March March 18, 2013, in Woodland. The protocol is a hybrid in 2014 in which the prioritization process will be piloted for onetime funds only. The context changed due to unanticipated enrollment decline and inability to meet growth targets. After learning the Governor s budget proposal, the only additional funding proposed was for SSSP deferred maintenance funding, instructional equipment funding and additional Perkins funds. Other than 3% restoration funding that will be used for restoration, these are the only funds that can be applied to the priorities for the Colleges. Shouldn t there be constraints included regarding where the funds come from? The three prioritized rankings will be compiled into one master list. The purpose of having three separate groups (CHEX is one) is to bring together the different scores and average them together, to minimize subjectivity. In sending forward priorities should they be within areas for which the District hopes to receive funding, as opposed to top priorities that would come out of our planning, but we know for which there will not be available funding?

3 The Budget Advisory Team will provide that information in November to the Colleges so priorities are forwarded in context of funding. This is intended to be a realistic achievable process. VCEPs will prepare the framework showing what the colleges are focusing on in the annual planning. The Colleges and District Services will look at that extraction and will clarify measureable objectives that the colleges and District Services will achieve over the next year. Two meetings in March and two in April and bring to DC3 for review on April 29 th. The Budget Advisory Team (BAT) was charged with allocating resources to the Annual Action Plan (AAP) in the fall when the protocol was initially discussed. The Annual Action Plan Team (AAPT) will forward the AAP to BAT, who will meet on April 30 th or May 1 st. During that meeting, they will review the AAP and allocate resources to the highest priorities. Then between April 30 th and May 2nd, staff will work with colleges on budget planning, and on May 26 the final draft will be reviewed by BAT and come to DC3 for review on June 3 and to the Board on June 12 th for approval. The Institutional Effectiveness Review Team (IERT) begins its work in April circulating instruments and gathering information from faculty before they leave for summer break. IERT will oversee the process that assesses how well the whole process worked. This team will provide input and filter back to Academic Senates to review planning and the budget process and make recommendations to the planning process for improvement. The IERT will look at the Annual Action Plan to see how well objectives in the plan were achieved. They will look at Key Predictive Indicators (KPIs) and assess to what level the District s five short-term strategic goals were achieved. Both Academic Senates approved the five KPIs for this year. This is a tremendous accomplishment on the part of DC3 to shepherd this process, stand behind it, implement in this year, and engage in dialogue on what components worked well and what components we will improve in the future.

4 Questions followed on how it will work at the micro level. It was suggested that more examples of how that will be provided through the resource allocation model. This will be a thoughtful careful prudent process that will look at priorities, plans and core functions. This will not be zero-based budgeting. The micro level will be primarily rolling over the existing budgets with some cutting to address the structural budget and there is also some one time funding that can be used for some priorities. The teams are not involved in restructuring something to free up resources. Resolving the structural deficit will not come out of the planning or prioritization process; it will come out of resource allocation. The CBO confirmed that the District will not be able to attain restoration in this year. This is important for the college to know so they can be sure the priorities that they rank are aligned with the funding the District will receive, i.e. SSSP or Perkins. Thinking a little more broadly, we are identifying those things that are important to us and matching those to some of the funding sources we have available, but we also need the prioritization lists so that as other funds come available we can apply new one-time funding to those other priorities. Make the five top priorities realistic and align with one-time funds that are available, but that does not preclude the responsibility of the colleges to identify the priorities of the colleges so whatever funding we have available we are always using planning to drive those funds. The other things that aren t going to be funded by SSSP, etc. will go into planning for next year, for example to strengthen CTE programs, to be prioritized in the planning. We told ACCJC we were creating a planning protocol based on prioritization where planning drives budget. That s where we need to focus. The reorganization process was discussed. Phase 1 cut administrative positions which reduced the impact to the general fund by reducing services that were administrative and furthest away from serving students. Phase 2 looked at administrative functions that could be combined and then shift personnel freed up from that into those services that have more direct impact on student success.

5 Because Phase 2 was so broad it broke into two parts. Part 1 was intended to implement technology and streamline processes, and we are on our way to implementing Part 1 of Phase 2 Academic Works, Ed Plan, Degree Audit, Electronic FAQs, etc. Phase 1 and 2 were used at the District, because there wasn t a strategic planning process in place. The technological solutions will free up some staff positions to redeploy those positions and perhaps not rehire some vacant positions. A number of unpopular questions will be asked in this and they have to be answered. Doing this through a strong planning process that is transparent will make it less challenging, but we have challenges in front of us. Annual Action Planning Team (AAPT) Membership Positions: College Vice Presidents or designee Senate Presidents or designee Student Representative (later assess how important it is to have student on this team or just have student rep on DC3 serve) District Services Representative Classified Representative Eileen will request someone through Joseph Stottman. Mid-level Managers Representative - Art Pimentel or designee Institutional Effectiveness Review Team 8 Molly Senecal Kayleigh Carabajal College Presidents Appointed Representative from WCC Academic Senate Appointed Representative from YC Academic Senate Appointed Representative from CSEA And then query to see if it s the broader membership to see if that is adequate. Allow each committee membership provide a member to participate and provide feedback on the process. Come back after the two teams are formed and then get membership from that. PSV Teams this is a one year request (one PSV Team is CHEX) Judy Smart

6 Leslie Deniz WCC Counselor YC Counselor WCC Faculty YC Faculty WCC Maintenance YC Faculty Irma Guzman Arce Counselor appointed by senate CTE Faculty appointed by senate M&O Classified appointed by CSEA Offsite Sutter or CLC Student Finished a tremendous amount of work in a very short time process We are already two months behind where we should be and we will still make it happen in a meaningful manner so we can assess and improve. 3. Agenda Item: Communication Purpose: Follow-up to DC3 discussion at the January 21, 2014, meeting. Update on work of Team 2 and the charge to identify purposes and modes for communication and make recommendations on communication protocols. Carabajal 4. Agenda Item: AP 5055 Enrollment Priorities Purpose: Information Carabajal

7 AP 5055 Enrollment Priorities is within the 10 plus 1 and the final recommendation comes from DCAS and goes to the Chancellor who will weigh in on it. The Chancellor was in the room when it was approved in DCAS, and at that moment it went into effect. Since then, there have been questions from the WCC Senate. The one in front of you today is currently in effect. Should we choose to change it, this is information to you that you may see it again with a change in language, and it is asked that DC3 be open to receiving that information. As we see how our procedures affect the student experience we will be prudent to change that procedure. The one approved in DCAS on Friday is in effect and this is fair notice that you may see another one back. 5. Future Agenda Topics: Bookstore Advisory Team Presentation to DC3 6. Adjourn Next Meeting Date: March 4, 2014 WCC Room 852