Sunken Garden Fountain

Instructional Planning & Budget Team

Christina Espinosa-Pieb - Co-Chair

Coleen Lee-Wheat - Co-Chair

Present:

Administrative Reps: Anderson, Norte, Kandula, Schroeder, Tomaneng

Classified Reps: Bdzil, Monary, Qian

Faculty Reps: Bryant, Lee-Wheat, Mitchell, Roberts, Singh, Stockwell

Student Reps: Andrew Zhou

Absent: C. Espinosa-Pieb

Visitors: W. Lee

Lee-Wheat distributed the handout, IPBT Integrated Resource Planning and Budgeting Discussion as a follow-up to the conversation of March 13. A discussion about funding projects to stimulate the SLOAC, PLOAC, AUOC and SSLOAC processes concluded with the following suggestions and questions by the IPBT members:

  • All requests should be specific and clear; an itemized budget request should accompany the application. (Anderson shared a DARE application form.)
  • Who will prioritize and approve the funding? Do we want the division deans to prioritize?
  • Clear expectation on prioritization from the division and communication of the outcomes should be required. Should applications be made in conjunction with the APRU?
  • Lee-Wheat will return at the beginning of the quarter with a proposal.

 

SSPBT model – What can we take from this model?     SSPBT model - power point

Lee-Wheat displayed the SSPBT power point, Student Service Viability Review Process – Draft, explained and engaged the group in discussion. She asked the members to focus on three concepts based on the SSPBT model relative to resource allocation: grow, enhance and maintain. Wanda Lee explained that she has been attending the SSPBT meetings and defined the terms:

“growth” - referred to additional resources such as full-time positions, especially classified support persons to serve more students;

“enhance”- the program by making plans to reorganize or change may have an associated resource request to serve the same number of students;

“maintain” - keep processes and job tasks status quo, may have an associated resource request in order to maintain current service levels.

Key points that were highlighted in the model:

1)    In the APRU or comprehensive program review the SSPBT programs would state that they plan to grow, enhance or maintain either within their existing budget or with a request for resources;

2)    The SSPBT would then make a recommendation to college council based on their review of the program’s request and program review document.

The discussion then centered on the SSPBT model and whether the IPBT could ask programs to make resource allocation plans with either a goal of Growth, Enhance, or Maintain. And upon conclusion of the program review process, whether the IPBT should follow-up with recommendations to college council too?

Is this a reasonable task for the group to embark on?

The members commented:

  • In the past they prioritized only hiring and instructional equipment allocation requests.
  • Every program would ask to grow.
  • Web page could be used as feedback (email to people to point on the website) (short summary?)
  • Set up the sub groups who would then create a summary report that can go back to the divisions.
  • Concerned that the divisions didn’t currently get a feedback summary from the committee.
  • Send a memo to the requestor regarding the status of the request.
  • Ask a person who did last program review about his experience from the last year.
  • What is the rationale that underlies the decision of the IPBT’s recommendations?
  • A spreadsheet with the step-by-step process could to be posted on the website.
  • Keeping it direct communication is important.
  • Keep simple! How we can simplify?
  • Who will create these memos and explanations?
  • The process is transparent as it is. Adding one more step may lead to more confusion and questions that cannot be explained because decisions are determined on general concepts through an anonymous voting process.

The discussion will continue.



 



 

GOVERNANCE - IPBT
Building: Administration
Contact: Olga Evert
Phone: 408.864.8940

sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 4/18/12