OHLONE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Video Conference Room / Fremont Campus

43600 Mission Boulevard, Fremont, CA94539

 

 

 

College Council Meeting Minutes

November 27, 2006                                                                                                               ADOPTED

                                                                                                                                                                     

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:          Doug Treadway                    Sheldon Helms

                                                Elizabeth Silva                      Cheryl Lambert

                                                Deanna Walston                   Joanne Schultz

                                                Leta Stagnaro                       Susan Myers

                                                  Jill Rojas                                Carrie Dameron

                                                Dave Schurtz                        Tim Roberts

                                                Isidore Niyongabo                 Tom Holcomb

                                                Alex Hilke                               Jim Wright

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:             Linda Evers

                                                Jimmy Dempsey

 

OPEN MEETING:

 

1. Approval of Council Minutes (10/23/06)
   
   

Motion:  Moved/Schultz; Seconded/Schurtz; Passed to approve the October 23, 2006 College Council minutes.

2. Dialogue on Accreditation Theme:  Planning, Evaluation, and Improvement

 

·         Reminder that during August Council retreat, we went over accreditation standards.  Review of formal accreditation standards w/teams for each.  Creating responses in the coming months.  WASC emphasizing six themes they would like colleges to address throughout the standards.

·         Will collect "Ohlone stories" to demonstrate values, goals and standards. 

·         "Evaluation, Planning, and Improvement".  Various teams will bring reports to Council.  WASC wants Ohlone to show how the work we do folds into cycles of planning and evaluation.

·         As strategic planning & budget committee, Council will consider answers to certain questions.  Dr. Wright reviewed planning cycle questions via projector.

·         Dr. Wright has been sending out questions in advance, but not receiving responses on-line.  Dialogue seems richer when people dialogue during the meeting and there is enough time.  For this kind of dialogue, blog isn't proving effective.

·         Team work will be more specific.  Don't be discouraged at this point.  Not knowing what our role is makes input difficult this early and self-study intended as a learning process.

·         Student comment:  Engagement for remedial education and addressing challenges high school students face when entering community college.  Partnerships between faculty at high schools, CSUEB, Ohlone, to develop programs to assist.  Each system has its own rules & procedures.  Students go from one institution to another.  Orchestrate challenge to raise high school standards to meet needs of diverse student body.  Response:  Will assess areas for improvement, create action plan(s) to fill gaps.  Could become new goal in strategic plan.

·         Special education students 3-4 years behind regular class work.  Take basic skills at high school and have to take them over again at Ohlone.

·         Work with learning communities would be great Ohlone "story".

 

3. Report from "One-Time Money" sub-committee.  "Working document" distributed and reviewed.

 

• 3-year plan / 5 initiatives presented to Council for further comment.
• Sheldon: Discussion as to % or caps?  Open to people "applying"?  Response:  no allotments as of yet.  Presenting to Council and campus at large will have input as well.
• Do we really have a comprehensive list of all needs?  Survey of program reviews.  How will we identify needs of programs and various services?
• If we divide the $1.6 million over three year period, $500K available each year.  Waste of time to make large list for what is actually a small amount of money.
• As money is divided over three years, maybe different groups get pots of money
• Refresh memory: where did money come from?  Money from State ($600K); $1 million came from last fiscal year's budget (savings).
• Student: Will we still continue to save or is the plan to spend what’s available?  Response:  Not a savings plan -- some expenditures deferred.  An abnormal year, in that respect.  Cannot assume we will have this level of savings in future years.  More typically $100 - $150K.
• Most on campus not aware that this one-time money is available.
• One-time funds reminder.  Need to take a longer-term view.  This is a chance for Council to work on planning process to demonstrate strategic plan.  Group like ours to determine amounts and then constituents form plan to bring forward.  May end up being a two-year activity, to do it right, to spend this money responsibly.
• LCTF / Innovation & TechnologyCenter in 1407 A&B for faculty & staff development.  Looking to purchase furniture and need funds. Requesting Council approval for $30-40K of one-time funds.
• How to proceed re: allocations?
• Custodial expense is ongoing, how would one-time money work?  Response:  $30K would be transitional funding for two years until position put on permanent Newark Campus budget. 
• $533K over 3-year period.  We can reassess year by year as programs and services make their needs known.  Need to hone process.  First cycle will take longest.  Funds will not go away.
• Informal learning spaces throughout campus.  Improved lighting, etc.  Have to also consider classroom improvements.  Needs must be assessed.  Proposals for use of money.
• Agreement with numbers Treadway proposed?  Okay with numbers for this 6-month period.  We can review again.
  
  
• Motion:  Moved/Stagnaro; Seconded/Helms; Passed to allocate $533,000 one-time funding as follows:

Program Improvement Initiative @ $200K

LearningCollege Model Initiative @ $40K

Environmental & Sustainability Initiative @ $30K

International Education Initiative @ $30K

Capital Needs @ $200K

Custodial Position @ 30K

• Next step in process:  Need to recommend to Board to appropriate $533K along these lines.  Board must approve before money can be spent.   Will present first phase recommendations to Board at 12/13 meeting.
• Motion to accept distribution process as presented:  does Council agree?  The way it works now, Deans take input and make decisions which may not reflect faculty requests.  Some departments have no full-time faculty.  Could faculty submit proposals to sub-committee of Council?  Some different approach?  Create feeling of innovation & creativity.
• Treadway re: process:  Program review provides for recommendations.  Would be nice to implement some of program review initiatives rather than something that feels random.  First threshold to honor the system that we have.  This is opportunity to make real the institutional process we have.  Get something of substance back as outcome of program review.
• Proposals should come to entire Council, not just sub-committee since we are budget committee body.  Council can make recommendations to Board as we did with seed money.
• Many departments have not indicated budget requests in their program review and it would be important to allow everyone to provide input.
• Tying expenditures to program review makes sense, but program review is on 4-year cycle.  Consider program review money over 4-year cycle and allocate evenly so that every program gets a shot knowing that there is money on the table.
• This should be our regular budget model, not just one-time.  This could be our model, in terms of process.  A valuable exercise in terms of our overall budget, leverage this process in terms of budget in general.
• Start the integration process and model it.  Start with programs that did their program reviews last year, and areas can re-look at their program review with this one-time money in mind.  Allow for "program review update" that could be submitted for programs with more immediate needs.
• SLOPE guidelines could be restated.  Faculty Senate president and curriculum chair proposed program review guidelines.
• 1st column funding via program review over 4-year period.  Proposals brought forward based on timeline to be established.  We may be able to institutionalize and build in to budget.  Code budget as "program budget", tie into process.
• Proposal:  Program improvement initiative funding proposals based on program reviews that are current or compelling argument for funding.  Programs already submitted last year taken first.
• Other departments encouraged to write proposals.  Over next 3-4 years, program reviews would be considered as they come.
• One of goals is to make this part of the budget process.
• Make institutional commitment of $200K for all programs (divided by four programs), pressing needs should come out.  Connect program review with Fund 10.
• Some way to flag urgent items in the process (emergency needs, LC priority, etc.).
• Informing campus?  How to implement?  Jim Wright will work with faculty who completed prog review '05/'06, talk to Deans to promote approach with regard to special needs in addition to general awareness.  Proposals come to Council, as budget committee.
• Two steps:

1) Get info out to program review

2) Get sense of needs, by department

• Address suppressed culture, which has evolved for good reason.  Let's open that up.  Overall inventory of needs.

 

 

Adjournment:  Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

 

·       Next Council Meeting (3:00 – 4:30 p.m.):

o        12/11 / Video Conference Room