March 02, 2018 Meeting
Agenda
Strategic Planning Committee Agenda
10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Counseling Center Conference Room
1. Annual Program Review trends
2. Peer feedback from Annual Committee Review
3. ACCJC Annual Report and Institution-Set Standards
4. Annual Program Review resource allocation timeline
Minutes
Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee
10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Friday, 3/02/2018
Counseling Center Conference Room
Members present: Primavera Arvizu, Severo Balason, Oleg Bespalov, Sharyn Eveland,
Greg Golling, Vicki Jacobi
Members absent: Amanda Bauer, Kayla Meyer
Guests: n/a
1. Annual Program Review trends
The committee discussed APR trends that members identified after reviewing all of
the submitted APRs. The following budget request trends were identified, and will
be reported at Governance Council:
• The need for Professional Development
• The need for more space
• The need for more personnel
The committee discussed whether there are other trends that should be captured regarding the quality of APRs, such as what percentage of APRs discussed SLO data. The committee discussed some ideas to capture this type of data, such as ensuring that all APRs are reviewed using a rubric, similar to the Annual Committee Review process. Data would then be captured by summarizing all of the rubric responses.
2. Peer feedback from Annual Committee Review
The committee reviewed the peer feedback we received from the Annual Committee Review
Process. Below are the recommendations and how the committee plans to address them:
“1. To improve its accountability and full representation, the committee should be
proactive in including student members.”—We asked Student Life to assign a student
rep, and now Kayla attends SPC meetings as a rep of ASB.
“2. To improve its effectiveness, the committee should align its charter with the
Strategic Action Plan.”—The new SAP has goals related to accreditation, which will
enable SPC to map its goals to the SAP.
“3. To improve its effectiveness, the committee should align its processes with Governance
Council regarding allocations.”—The committee discussed this feedback on agenda item
#4 below.
3. ACCJC Annual Report and Institution-Set Standards
The committee discussed the prior Annual Report, and was concerned about where the
numbers came from last time. For this time around, the IR office will provide documentation
as to what methodology was used to collect the data. The committee also is ok with
continuing the practice of setting institution-set standards using 95% of the three-year
average. Once the annual report draft is completed in the next few weeks, it will
be sent to the committee for review via email.
4. Annual Program Review resource allocation timeline
The committee discussed recommendation #3 from our Annual Committee Review peer evaluation:
“To improve its effectiveness, the committee should align its processes with Governance
Council regarding allocations.” The committee reviewed the APR timelines—both the
outdated timeline in the planning handbook, as well as the current 2017-2018 timeline
in the APR How to Guide. The committee confirmed that the activities of the timeline
are relatively accurate. However, to make the process more transparent, the committee
felt that the timeline should not stop at “President receives final rankings”. Rather,
the timeline should be extended to show the next steps—how and when the resources
are distributed. These changes will further be discussed by SPC in the next few months
when it reviews the overall APR process for continuous improvement. Furthermore, the
SPC discussed the following suggestions for Governance Council to improve the transparency
of the resource allocation process:
1. Increase communications of the funding process—for example create a website, or
send out emails when each step of the funding process is complete.
2. Add a column to the final ranked funding lists with rationale as to why certain
items were not funded, even if they received a high ranking.
3. Add a column to state how much was requested and how much was funded, as opposed
to stating that items were just funded to some level.