Left gradient
Students learning
announcements ANNOUNCEMENTS

Institutional Effectiveness

Feedback

Since developing our IEPI draft proposals this summer, the IEPI workgroup has been eager to gather feedback from our college community. To ensure that all stakeholders can share their feedback, the IEPI workgroup has organized the following feedback sharing opportunities:

  1. College Day IEPI Session  - 8/16/16
  2. Flex Day IEPI Session - 9/6/16
  3. Student Senate Meeting - 9/19/16   
  4. Academic Senate Meeting - 9/22/16
  5. Classified Senate Meeting - 9/23/16
  6. Dean's Council Meeting - 10/5/16
  7. PRBC Meeting - 10/19/16
  8. Online Survey - 10/12/16 to 10/23/16
  9. College Budget Committee Meeting - 12/13/16

Feedback We've Already Gathered

College Day IEPI Session  - 8/16/16

The IEPI workgroup presented all three focus area proposals during a College Day session. An online polling tool was used to collect the following feedback from the audience:

  1. Collectively, Chabot's Innovation & Effectiveness Plan could propel the college forward in best practices.
    (60 participants)
    • 55% of those participating responded:  Seems like a positive direction.
    • 13% of those participating responded:  When can we start?
    • 32% of those participating responded:  Where can I learn more?

  2. Resource allocation and planning should be interactive.
    (68 participants)
    • 46% of those participating responded:  Sounds good, let's keep talking.
    • 19% of those participating responded:  How can we move forward?
    • 35% of those participating responded:  Count me in, that is moving in the right direction.

  3. A central office with responsibility for coordinating planning, assessment, program review, research, and other processes would be beneficial.
    (81 participants)
    • 26% of those participating responded:  Where can I learn more?
    • 52% of those participating responded:  Could be a plan.
    • 22% of those participating responded:  Would like to facilitate this work.

Flex Day IEPI Session - 9/6/16

The IEPI workgroup presented the draft governance structure proposal and led a small group discussion during a Flex Day session on 9/6/16.  The following feedback and conversations were captured during the small group discussion: 

  1. In general, what do you think the terms “shared” and “participatory” mean? Then turning to our college context, describe what we actually do or what we want to be doing? Which of these terms do you feel best describes where we’re headed?
    • Multiple voices indicated that they thought that "participatory" was more active than "shared."
    • Consensus was that "active participation" is the vision. This is what we want to be doing.

  2. What might be some positive outcomes of combining planning and budget together in one committee?
    • Comment: The positive of this is that we actually get to planning (where is the college going, what programs do we have, how do we support students) and let administrators do their jobs about who gets what widgets. Also this helps reduce the number of committees.
    • Comment: Will we actually have the time to work on the budget and planning?
    • Comment: Yes, if we can get the process/forms out of the meeting. Again, what level of conversation do you want the committee to function at? Sometimes, the chair has an agenda (answer), but we have to let expertise and dialogue drive the work of the committee.
    • Comment: At my previous campus, we had a “budget 101” for all members of the committee.
    • Comment: We need continuity of knowledge/leadership—serve for two years and actually show up (there should never be a problem with a quorum).
    • Comment: We need to pick/elect members better—our loads often dictate when/who can serve (some people serve too much, others not at all).
      Comment: How do we not get tied up in minor stuff?

  3. What are the strengths of the proposed governance structure and what feedback do you have related to it?
    • Comment: I like where the Grants Committee is located in the structure. I also read multiple program reviews, so I got to see how different people completed the forms--not everyone fills out the forms the same way or completely. There’s a lot of information there.
    • Comment: We could think about new terms--just to get us out of thinking of the “old” way of doing things. New names will help us change our way of thinking about these things. I really like fewer committees.
    • Comment: I just really think that there has to be some kind of “line” between the Planning & Resources Allocation and the senates (clear communication!). How is the information communicated?
    • Comment: The chair does not have to be the communicator.

Student Senate Meeting - 9/19/16

The IEPI workgroup presented the draft governance structure proposal to Student Senate during their 9/19/16 meeting. Below is some of the feedback provided:

  • Poll of Student Senate members: Agreed unanimously that “this proposal puts us on the right track.”
  • Comment: I'm happy to see that Technology and Facilities committees are combined. I agree that they are related.
  • Comment: Will there still be a Student Equity student task force subcommittee. In the past, the Vice President of Student Services has called this subcommittee together to meet, but they haven't met recently. IEPI workgroup response: Students who are appointed to serve on the Student Success, Assess, & Equity Committee could bring this forward if that is their desire. Something to consider is whether students prefer to have separate dialogues or a stronger voice in a central committee. In general, the IEPI workgroup sees the benefit of fewer meetings.
  • Comment: Student availability should be considered when setting committee meeting times. This could increase student participation.
  • Supportive of the proposals to have "voting boards" with equal seats for Student, Academic, and Classified Senates and administrators.

Academic Senate Meeting - 9/22/16

The IEPI workgroup presented the draft governance structure proposal to Academic Senate during their 9/22/16 meeting. Below is some of the feedback provided:

  • Comment: I have trouble with joining of Facilities and Technology Committees. I see the connection of the topics but this committee would have too many topics and too many chances for important elements to drop off. There would be a need for task forces and/or subcommittees.
  • Comment: Agree that meetings are long and only so much can get done. Concern about makeup of task forces…are they regulated as to membership, tasks, etc? Could a task force be biased and prove to be counterproductive? There is a need to spell out the substructures as well.
  • Comment: In referencing voting members, does it work to have same number of students as are in other groups? Due to shorter time on campus, they may not have the depth of knowledge regarding subject matter.
  • Comment: I like this. I come from business where items move forward regularly after a 30 minute meeting. Members come prepared, discussions are focused, and decisions are made all within the time allotted for meeting. We can learn from that world.
  • Comment: That (see comment above) describes a “top-down” model. We have a history and need for deep and rich discussions. I don’t see it working when discussions and processes are rushed.
  • Comment: I love this model. I come from hospital management world. I'm not a fan of meetings with lots of discussions but no action. “Death by meeting.” We should start on time, end on time, and focus on outcomes.
  • Comment: Some groups separate exploration from decision making.
  • Comment: I feel strongly that Technology and Facilities Committees should not be together. Too big of a bite. As a committee member, I may not have interest in both areas. We can think of a way to keep the two committees while keeping the shared issues alive and discussed.
  • Comment: I agree. Technology Committee involves district IT input. It may not work to have this “supercommittee” without structured subcommittees. Technology connects with lots of areas on campus. The proposed Facilities and Technology Committee has lots of “bullets."
  • Comment: I don’t know that President’s Council should have a voting board. Its charge is to advise and guide – hard to have voting involved in that scenario. President seeks out advice from an advisory committee as needed, not as part of a structure of governance.
  • Comment: In the work of the Academic Senate last year, we had the College Council in an “inward” mode as opposed to this proposed structure showing more of an “outward” flow.

Classified Senate Meeting - 9/23/16

The IEPI workgroup presented the draft governance structure proposal to Classified Senate during their 9/23/16 meeting. Classified Senate members provided some preliminary feedback (see below) and stated they would be providing additional feedback in the future.

  • Poll of Classified Senate members: Agreed unanimously that “this proposal provides movement in the right direction.”
  • Comment: Combining Facilities and Technology could be difficult. Puts too much on both plates.
  • Comment: Regarding the proposed Participatory Governance structure, I do not think we can combine Facilities and Technology committees. At Facilities yesterday we were already discussing that there is not enough time to complete needed tasks. I do believe that there needs to be much more communication between the committees to coordinate how/what technology goes into our facilities.
  • Comment: Maybe technology and facilities could meet together once per month, or a couple times per semester as needed. Currently, there is not enough time to get through facilities issues during our one hour meetings twice per month.
  • Comment: I believe the proposed structure would assist with committee efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Comment: I attended yesterday’s Academic Senate meeting where they discussed the committee’s research, specifically the discussion of how time and growth of an institution can be a trigger for the need to revise governance structure to accommodate the larger structure’s needs in a participatory governance setting. This made a lot of sense to me.

Dean's Council Meeting - 10/5/16

An IEPI workgroup member presented the draft governance structure proposal to the Dean's Council during their 10/5/16 meeting. Below is some of the feedback provided:

  •  Assessment Committee:
    • Assessment, as related to SLOAC, PLOs and ILOs, should be with curriculum which reports to Academic Senate, part of 10+1 – should not be under planning and resource allocation
    • Question whether the assessment committee is related to 1) assessing planning processes (e.g. institutional effectiveness) or 2) curricular assessment? Or both?
    • Overall institutional effectiveness where is that happening, curriculum, programs and service area outcomes – concerned that SLO as relates to programs needs to be directly connected with Academic Senate – maybe this can be indicated on the organizational chart with an arrow; perhaps it’s a question of how it might look different on the chart to represent connection
  • Enrollment Management (CEMC) – how will we ensure the allocation and budget development based on programs and FTF and revenue (expense v. revenue); part is full time faculty, rest of schedule with part-time faculty – how to connect those two things to be in synch
  • Technology – it has been operating on an island so merging it somewhere is good, but maybe facilities not right place
    • Difference between instructional technology and infrastructure technology – infrastructure tech should be part of facilities and instructional technology should be part of COOL
    • Instructional technology not always speaking to needs of classroom, so this needs to be addressed
    • Perhaps merge technology with COOL committee
  • Current Budget Committee would currently be coded according to the legend on this new proposed governance structure as an orange box (it’s operation), but is now in with Planning & Resource Allocation which is a green box – question as to whether it will still be operational; the budget committee needs to be operational, not just dialogue; so need to address that in the proposed structure it appears as if losing an orange box that’s operational; planning piece tends to be more blue sky and budgeting more operational; whatever the marriage of planning and budget needs to ensure both are happening; how do we make sure budget is in place to allocate the resources and hasn’t gotten lost in dialogue; Suggestion that Planning & Resource be represented by a new color that incorporates both orange and blue to show dual roles of participatory and operational committee
  • Question regarding the voting board outlines on the Committee Charges document: Directors of SSSP and Equity are on multiple committees and wondering if that was intentional; Suggestion to look back at these charges and make sure there is appropriate allocation and distribution of representatives, not just repeating the same membership over and over if needs to be modified
  • Question as to why the Vice Presidents are listed as part of the membership of all the committees, but not given any voting rights, except for on President’s Council
  • Again, look at voting board of every committee and make sure not duplicating across all committees
  • Students are transitory, but do need voice; getting student there very important, however, would have concerns about equal representation because they are a transitory voice; would want a student voice that is a leadership voice; not realistic to ask for equal representation, but do want students; realistic voice from a student leadership group.
    • Suggestion that students who serve on committees have expertise/relationship to that particular committee (e.g. Student Senate member related to finance would be on the Planning & Resource Allocation Committee). It should be in the Student Senate By-laws for each student leader which particular appropriate shared governance committee they are required to participate on.
  • Reiterated the concern that VPs are expected to be at all the meetings, but not voting
    • Planning & Resource Allocation – need VP to have a vote
  • Committee Charges Document - if a committee is operational, needs to have operational language in the charge; sounds too similar across the docs
  • Conversation regarding “advisory” and “recommending” and how that is being determined.
  • President’s Council is seen as the vetting process with the leaders of all the committees/constituency bodies coming together; makes sure the other Senates are part of what’s coming from all, classified, students
  • Importance of the President’s Council - Information needs to be managed as it flows through the structure – if President defies what is decided, president must justify why doing that with the rationale; build into the process; if repeatedly rejecting recommendations then can be held accountable
    • This is the reason want to have some body like the President’s Council that coheres all recommendations, because want in the minutes what’s being recommended/advised and president’s actions
    • Effective leadership sitting on the council to hold accountable and speak for their constituent group
    • Hold CEOs feet to fire by having President’s Council body
  • Feedback from AHSS Division meeting:
    • Liked the colors distinction of operational and participatory
    • Recognized need to combine SSSP, Equity and Basic Skills
    • A few raised idea of tension between senates and planning and resource bodies that tends to occur and see how having a President’s Council resolves some tensions amongst bodies that are participatory and constituency
    • Concern around Planning and Resource Allocation not having division reps because the Division did not have the committee charge document when they reviewed the Proposed Governance Structure, but see it on the draft committee structure
  • Difference between advisory and recommending should be put somewhere and make sure there is an understanding of that and what’s the difference, make sure show what decision making process is, buy in from whole community regardless of what decision is made; one group cannot derail the final decision if has gone through entire process.
    • On chart put some information regarding advisory and recommending
  • Combination of access, success and equity – even CO not sure how to merge all the groups, so it is challenging for our campus as well.
    • Will still need to be work done by sub-group that are specific and know all the requirements (e.g. SSSP); maybe spell that out within the description of committees and structures
  • Make sure minority views are retained in minutes and through process that goes forward with recommendations

PRBC Meeting - 10/19/16

The IEPI workgroup presented the draft governance structure proposal to PRBC during their 10/19/16 meeting. Below is a summary of the feedback received.

  • Like the idea of Student Access, Success and Equity as a large group. Possibly ask for representatives for a smaller meeting. Need to think about structure, membership, and frequency of meetings.
  • There's a lot overlap between Facilities and Technology. Need to think about how to have a larger group and smaller group structure.
  • When it comes to technology, we must consider the funding source. Is this college money or district money? District influences 95% of spending on technology. Need to go back to the old District Budget Study Group (DBSG) model of tying college committees to district committees as often as possible.
  • Need facilities and technology to communicate.
  • Suggestion and agreement that the following responsibility should be stated in all committee charges: Coordinate with Planning & Resource Allocation Committee to recommend new or revised Chabot Facilities Master Plan.
  • Unclear with relationship between Professional Development Committee and other sources of professional development funds (e.g., Equity and BSI). Should there be dialogue/reporting between these groups?
  • The changing of financial dynamics makes for an interesting changing world. What we need is the ongoing conversation. Cross committee representation is a great idea.
  • Equity, Student Success and BSI would benefit from college-wide time. The challenge is how to coordinate what is going to be presented to the whole college on a flex day as part of a college-wide staff development. There's a need for creative dialogue between the various committees.
  • Conceptually, the Program Area & Review, Grants and Assessment committees are all pieces that support Student Access, Success & Equity; Facilities & Technology; and Professional Development so Program Area & Review, Grants and Assessment should be imbedded under these committees.

College Budget Committee Meeting - 12/13/16

The IEPI workgroup discussed the third draft of the governance structure proposal with the College Budget Committee on 12/13/16. Below is a summary of the discussion and feedback received.

  • In the third draft, the Grants Committee has been changed to the Grants and New Categoricals Committee. This revised committee will be an initial landing space for any new categorical that we find out about and are scrambling to ramp up quickly. This committee can help to assess these categoricals and help determine where they come in to see where they fit in our existing structure and processes. The categorical would not "live" in this committee, but the committee can help determine where it fits best.
  • Carla reminded the group of the recent work on Strong Workforce. There is an allocation of $200 million for the state, but in order to access the funds, many things need to happen first. The timeline was extremely truncated, and we figured out how to complete the work, but there could be a committee to help address those needs.
  • Categoricals are very scripted in all regards, it would be hard to add another layer to them, but this Grants and New Categoricals Committe could help in an operational sense to get things started. This would provide a level of transparency and analysis so when people are talking about pursuing particular things that may not make sense and we want to make a recommendation, we have an avenue to do so.
  • The college aleardy has a grants approval process. This committee could provide a forum to discuss current grant activities; coordination of these activities with other grants/categoricals; and institutionalization of these activities, etcetera.
  • It will be helpful to talk about where things originate. If all committees operated on a common timeline where each semester their task is to develop recommendations. Then those should go to Planning Resource and Allocation.
  • There was a lot of discussion regarding Instructional and Services Technology Committee reporting to Academic Senate and nowhere else. There was concern expressed regarding losing prioritization once a recommendation is submitted to Academic Senate, since it’s only comprised of Faculty. The perception held by some is that Academic Senate would have the most advocacy, and they did not want the committee to report to too many other bodies. The consensus of the Budget Committee was that the Instructional and Services Technology committee should report to both Academic and Classified Senate in order to be all inclusive of expertise and necessary feedback regarding campus wide technology.
  • It was suggested that the Classified Prioritization box have a shorter line from Classified Senate and a connecting line to Administrators. Carla replied that prioritization for Classified Professionals comes through Classified Senate, the same way that Faculty Prioritization comes from Faculty Senate, and Administrator prioritization will come from Administrators. Maybe we should have a discussion about how those three are integrated.

 


Gradient right  
    Phone: (510) 723-6600 | Last updated on 1/25/2017