September 01, 2017 Meeting

Agenda

Strategic Planning Committee Agenda

10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Counseling Center Conference Room

                                   

  1. Welcome Back – Introductions             5 min

                                               

  1. Strategic Action Plan Timeline (Oleg)             25 min

 

  1. Discussion on APR Cycle – Budget Allocation (Oleg)             20 min
  2. ACCJC Mid-Term Report Timeline (Oleg)                         10 min

 

  1. 80% Rule vs. Proportionality Index (Sharyn)             10 min

 

  1. Reschedule Meetings due to Admin Leadership Conference 10 min

* October 6, November 3, and December 1

Minutes

Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee

10:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Counseling Center Conference Room

 Members Present: Severo Balason, Oleg Bespalov, Sarai Carrillo, Geoffrey Dyer, Sharyn Eveland,

                                Greg Golling, Vicki Jacobi, and Mark Williams

 Members Absent: Primavera Arvizu and Anthony Cordova

Secretary: Brandy Young

Welcome Back – Introductions
Sarai Carrillo introduced herself to the committee. She is taking a Government class taught by Mike Jiles. Mike has asked his students to participate in committee meetings throughout the semester. Sarai will attend SPC through December. The committee members introduced themselves as well.

 

Strategic Action Plan (SAP) Timeline

The committee began discussion on the development of the new SAP. A brief overview of past practices was shared. It was agreed that the last SAP development timeline was too short. There was not enough time for people to write their SAP objectives specific to their areas and share them out broadly and reach consensus for January. The committee agreed to expand the timeline out to March instead of January. The committee will have special ad hoc meetings to develop the SAP. It was also agreed that a consultant will not be needed.

 

Discussion on APR Cycle – Budget Allocation

After reviewing the survey data from the 2016/17 Governance Council Evaluation, one item was brought to the attention of the SPC. There is still a question of the budget allocation funding process and the APR cycle. The long term goal is evaluate the entire process. For now, the committee would like to identify “low hanging fruit”- items that can be addressed short term. Discussion and suggestions:

 

  • VPs can communicate to APR leads what goals have been funded
  • 5 year vs. 1 year allocation – needs longer discussion
  • Bring ranked list back to GC for review
  • VPs do not always know which APR goals have been funded. This needs to be a Cabinet discussion
  • The Budget Committee informs the Governance Council prior to the VPs on which goals have been funded
  • Not necessarily something the Budget Committee and Governance Council in isolation can fix
  • Integrated planning issue – funding is being drawn from multiple sources that are managed by different people – not a process that can be easily automated
  • Set clear expectations about the outcome of what the APR budget process is
  • When things are funded, group them together by what goals they are supporting. Provide this feedback report to Governance Council. If the funds are coming from grants or categoricals they need to be reported anyway
  • Business Office may be able to run queries on what has been funded – they have never been asked to do this

 

The committee decided that the process will need more evaluation and further discussion. The discussion will be brought to the Governance Council on Friday, September 8th.

 

ACCJC Mid-Term Report Timeline – Due Fall 2015

The committee briefly discussed the history of the last self-evaluation cycle. A true timeline has not been established for the upcoming mid-term report. At the next SPC meeting the committee will review materials to finalize the contents of the mid-term report as well as establish a timeline. The committee agreed to add this item of discussion to the next meeting agenda.

 

80% Rule vs. Proportionality Index

Sharyn gave an overview of the 80% rule and how it is used at Taft College. She also explained the Proportionality Index. She stated that the Proportionality Index works much better when measuring smaller groups. She would like to try using the Proportionality Index where appropriate. Mark stated that in using either of these standards we are looking for a decision function. In the end it goes “either green or red” – not looking for arbitrary precision in percentages. Both standards serve the function. Using the 80% rule to identify disproportionately impacted groups within Student Achievement data may not be appropriate. The 80% is strictly an indicator. Oleg stated that the Chancellor’s office strongly suggests that one standard is selected. Sharyn is going to provide examples in a future meeting for further discussion.

 

Reschedule Meetings

No meeting dates will be changed at this time.

 

 

Next Meeting Date: Friday, October 6th at 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted by Brandy Young

Supporting Docs

©