Meeting Notes - November 8, 2011
1) Approve Notes from October 25, 2011
The Notes were approved with minor typographical corrections.
2) Timelines for Budget & Measure C FF&E Requests
Jeanpierre distributed an updated calendar/timeline document that reflected the change to the Measure C FF&E request deadline to December 1, 2011 as well as other minor date changes. She asked the group for their input on the document.
Jeanpierre reminded the team that purchasing deadlines/bid requirements/Board approval processes were driving the tight deadlines. However, after discussions at both the district and college level it became apparent that the February 2012 deadline was not a realistic goal. In light of this new information, Jeanpierre suggested that the timing be delayed so requestors and governance groups have time to carefully review and prioritize the requests. The team discussed how to facilitate working with the shared governance teams to ensure a collaborative process. The proposal was for the Campus Budget & Technology Task Force groups to work together on the matrix & prioritization project. The following schedule was suggested:
This updated timeline would be taken to the PBTs and Technology Task Force.
3) Measure C FF&E Request Process Evaluation Tool
Jeanpierre opened the discussion by distributing the request for Measure C FF&E dollars and Measure C Quarterly Summary Report by Project. The total Measure C drawdown is approx. $12M, half of which is allocated to the refresh of desktops/multimedia equipment/labs/printers etc. The other half is for FF&E requests. If a request comes in for items that are covered by other Measure C funds these requests may be moved to these other funding sources. Jeanpierre will send out a list of the allocations from phase 1 to the team.
Chow suggested that the matrix/rubric for evaluating requests would have a row for each question and that each row would have three columns. The matrix would also be split into three areas as per the narrative. The rating would be 0 thru 3.
The team worked on Part 1 and came up with the following ideas:
Part 1 – Division Process
Variety/frequency of use.
Higher than maintainable by division
The team worked on the matrix until the end of the meeting. It was agreed that the co-chairs would keep working on the matrix.
4) Quick News
Present: Bloom, Chow, Gerard, Jeanpierre, Jenkins, Lee-Wheat, Mieso, Patlan, Reza, Schroeder. DASB Stevens, Zamorano. Notes: Gibson
Contact: Pippa Gibson