Desert Community College District

DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT College of the Desert

Planning Council Meeting November 7, 2008 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. East Annex 2 Minutes

Members Present & Representation: Anthony Armenta, Student; Fergus Currie, Adjunct; Terri Fleck, Classified Staff; Ted Grofer, Adjunct; Bina Isaac, Information Systems Dean; John Jaramillo, ASBU Division Dean; William Kelly, Interim VP Instruction; Dan Kleinfelter, Math Academic Unit; Pam LiCalsi, CTD Division Dean; Juan Lujan, Off Campus Programs Dean; Dr. Doug MacIntire, Chair, Academic Senate President; Carlos Maldonado, Classified Supervisors; Chris Nelson, Student Services; Dr. Rey Ortiz, General Counseling Academic Unit; Jeff Place, ASBU Division; Dr. Diane Ramirez, VP Student Services; Dr. Victor Rios, Jr., Social Sciences Academic Unit; Anthony Tesch, Science Academic Unit; Lee Ann Weaver, Confidentials;

Members Not Present & Representation: Zerryl Becker, Academic Senate; David Buttles, PE & Athletics Academic Unit; Dr. Edwin Deas, VP Administrative Services; Adrian Gonzales, Student Services Dean; Dr. John Randall, Interim VP Human Resources; Rick Rawnsley, English Academic Unit; Wendy Sanders, HSEC Division; Ty Thomas, CTD Division; Vacant, Visual and Performing Arts Academic Unit; Vacant, Classified Staff; Vacant, Dean; Vacant, Student

In Attendance: Matthew Breindel, Director Institutional Research; Jerry Patton, College President;

Call Meeting to Order – D. MacIntire called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

Approval of Minutes from September 12 th and October 10 th Meeting

Corrections to September’s minutes: Change the location to East Annex 2 from South Annex 2 and remove Dr. Victor Rios’ name from the members not present section and add it to the members present section.

Motion to approve September 12, 2008 minutes with the corrections noted above from C. Nelson, seconded R. Ortiz. All in favor. No opposed.

October 10th meeting minutes were not available. Item tabled for the next meeting.

of 4 Continued Discussion of this Year’s Planning Process

 Point System o Received total of seven responses from people on their ideas regarding the point system o Reviewed Point System handout  Under Planning Emphasis Section - 3 suggestions were made 1. College Goals/Action Strategies o Breakout as goal 1, 2 and 9 with ranking for each goal. Consensus was reached not to do it this way and keep it as College Goals/Action Strategies.

2. Student Success Data, Student Learning Data, Program Development & Growth Data o Are we valuing in these things the quality of the data that is provided or are we valuing evidence of Student Success, Student Learning and Program Development? If this is a measure of how well people put together numbers, rather than how well they’re in fact addressing Student Success, Student Learning and Program Development, they are very different arguments. The suggestion was made that we take the word “data” off the end of Student Success Data, Student Learning Data, Program Development & Growth Data and add “Effective Use of Data.”

Consensus was reached to list Student Success Data as Student Success + Evidence, Student Learning Data as Student Learning + Evidence, keep Program Development & Growth Data the same and drop the “Effective Use of Data”. All in favor.

3. Mandates and Campus Safety o If someone has a real Mandate and Campus Safety issue, the weight multiplier should automatically be a 10.

Consensus was reached to automatically give Campus Safety a weight multiplier of 10.

Consensus was reached to automatically give Mandates a weight multiplier of 10.

 Weight Multiplier (will be evaluated every year) o College Goals/Action Strategies: Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 9. o Program Review Recommendations: Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 7. o Student Success + Evidence: Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 7. o Student Learning Data: Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 7. o Program Development & Growth Data: Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 5. o Service to Community: Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 5. o Innovation: Discussions about having another item called Cost Savings and list it on a separate line. C. Nelson asked if anyone objects to leaving the Cost Savings off the list. No objections. Costs Savings will not go on a separate line. It will go on the same line as Innovation. It was suggested to use the word Efficiency instead of Costs Savings. Consensus was reached to give this item a weight multiplier of 5.

 Intent to Apply Forms – Status in Each Area

Student Services is going to submit approximately 40 Intent to Apply Forms and the other areas are submitting approximately 1 or 2. The review of the forms will start next week.

College Values Discussion

P. LiCalsi said, “If you think of values from their fundamental place, having a clear understanding of our institutional values allows us to make good decisions about everything including the budget. Values are a very important part of who we are as an institution. The last time the Planning Council talked about values is when Dr. Voorhees was here. Webster’s Dictionary talks about values as principle standard or quality considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. The root for value is valor which means strength. Values are sources of strength because they give people the power to take action. If we clearly articulated our values, we would know where our planning emphasis was because it would be right up front. Values are the essence of an institutions philosophy for achieving success that combined a sense of common direction and guidelines for behavior. Strategic Planning is the method by which an institution consistently recreates itself. As the Planning Council, we have struggled for quite some time.” P. LiCalsi read a quote from Jerry Garcia, band member of Grateful Dead, “It is incredibly clear that something must be done. It is unfortunate that it must be done by us.” The Voorhees Group provided a list of proposed values (page 73 of the Strategic Education Master Plan, Version 2) for the institution. The committee reviewed the list of values and provided some general feedback. D. MacIntire will pull together a sub- committee to work on the values.

J. Patton gave a brief overview of the budget situation affecting California. He gave a preliminary projection of how mid-year budget cuts may affect College of the Desert. He then asked for some suggestions on how Planning Council would like to proceed with gathering and vetting information for campus action. Below are some notes regarding the discussion:

1. Need more information (i.e. TOPS code breakdown with an interpretive information/explanation of what each code means)

2. “Shaving” Spring Schedule

3. Enrollment Management

4. Take a look at Intersession and Summer schedules

5. Faculty should be looking at where they can re-evaluate courses (Schedule changes: Faculty (permanent and adjunct) should work with Deans to make these determinations)

6. Message from President Patton should go out to campus community “encouraging” all to start working on finding ways to responsibly and efficiently reduce college costs (i.e. course sections). This encouragement should include firm deadlines. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.