Fresno City College

Strategic Planning Council

November 21, 2013
3:00-5:00 p.m., OAB 126
MINUTES
(Draft)
Item / Outcomes
Call to Order
Approval of Minutes of October 17, 2013
Review Agenda /
  • Meeting called to order at 3:04p.m.
  • Members present: P. Demanett, J. Diebert, E. James, N. Martinez, M. McNiff, L. Mendez, V. Mosby, G. Ramirez, W. Stephenson, C. Sullivan, M.A. Valentino, C. Villa, T. Woods
  • Members absent: S. Alvardo, M. Bourbonnais,T. Cantu, K. Echols, P. Gilmore, S. Johnson
  • Strategic Planning Support Team: L. Gao, N. Gross, L. Zhai
  • October 17, 2013 minutes approved after minor changes.
  • Agenda accepted.

Open Forum (limited to 3 min. per topic) /
  • M. McNiff asked J. Diebert for an update on the bike rack and disabled accessibility at the library. J. Diebert informed the group that the racks should be installed in January as the contractor still has work to complete before the racks can be installed.
  • W. Stephenson noted that many students are still smoking near building entrances and wondered if anything was being done about that.
  • V. Mosby replied that Classified Senate is waiting final approval but hopes to have the designated smoking areas established by spring semester.
  • W. Stephenson brought up to the group that the Advisory Committees to SPC do not have consistent formats or operating agreements in Blackboard.
  • ASG is having their Ram Slam December 3rd, 4th and 7th please promote.
  • M. A. Valentino inquired how we are going to handle the SEP’s requirement (AB1456). L. Mendez stated that students received an email notifying them of the new requirement. The counselor’s appointments are only 30 minutes which isn’t enough time. C. Villa informed that R. Craig-Marius will be doing a presentation on how faculty can help with the SEP’s during opening day in spring 2014.

Consent Agenda
Facilities Space Allocation Recommendations
Extension of FCC Technology Plan
Consent Agenda
Facilities Space Allocation Recommendations
Extension of FCC Technology Plan /
  • P. Demanett inquired about the Extension of FCC Technology Plan.
  • L. Zhai and J. Diebert indicated that the Technology Advisory Committee asked SPC to approve the one year extension of the FCC Technology Plan to align with district technology plan cycle.
  • CONCENSUS: The council reviewed and approved the request from Technology Advisory Committee to extend FCC Technology Plan for one year.
  • J. Diebert presented the Facilities Space Allocation Recommendations by Facilities Committee.
  • W. Stephenson inquired about “Suiting Up For Success” and wondered if we supported the move from Manchester to the library basement.
  • C. Sullivan told the group to pull from consent now that we’re discussing it.
  • W. Stephenson pulled the item from consensus.
  • P. Demanett was concerned that the library basement floods and that there is not enough space in the basement for this program. She indicated that there is an access concern with students being able to access staff only areas as well as an issue with the elevator being used for this program. The elevator has to be unlocked each use and that takes the librarian away from his/her work. No one consultedthis with the librarians.
  • C. Sullivan explained that the program is being evicted from Manchester Center and they had nowhere else to go.
  • J. Diebert moved to consent on the other two items. Facilities Space Allocation Recommendations regarding OAB 137 assigned to Entrepreneurial Center and Building A Room 161 assigned to Veterans Center.
  • P. Demanett inquired if the only item we were removing was the library basement item.
  • T. Woods expressed his support of J. Diebert’s idea of closing out business on the items we have consensus for. Suggested that we move forward after striking item 3A.
  • P. Demanett asked for clarification of Building A Room 161 and she thought Graphics supposed to go there.
  • T. Woods informed the group that email was sent out for space allocation, departments applied, they presented their case and the Facilities Committee voted.
  • J. Diebert explained that the Graphics department didn’t have the money to move in.
  • C. Sullivan and M. A. Valentino indicated that there was also a shared air concern between DSP&S and the Graphics department.
  • J. Diebert asked for consent of the items (3a removed). Qualified consensus was reached at 3:40pm
  • QUALIFIED CENSUS: The council reviewed Facilities Space Allocation Recommendations and approved space allocation for OAB Room 137 (assigned to Entrepreneurial Center) and Building Room 161 (assigned to Veterans Center) with one member stood aside. The recommendation of using Library Basement for Suiting Up for Success (Item 3a) will be sent back to Facilities Committee to reconsider.
  • C. Sullivan asked the group regarding the item 3a. Timing is an issue because the program is being evicted.
  • L. Zhai asked if temporary space was available elsewhere.
  • M. McNiff wanted to know if we would just put them in a warehouse, pack them up.
  • T. Woods relayed that they need to be racked.
  • W. Stephenson asked if we could decide at a later date to allow them to use the library basement.
  • M. A. Valentino suggested that SPC sends item 3a back to the Facilities Committee.

FCC Educational Master Plan - outline
FCC Educational Master Plan - outline /
  • C. Sullivan opened discussion of the FCC Educational Master Plan outline and introduced L. Zhai (who is presenting on behalf of T. Cantu).
  • L. Zhai informed the group that several people reviewed approximately 50 California Community College Plans and really liked Skyline College’s. Sections in the outline will be assignedto various departments/offices to begin the write up.
  • W. Stephenson inquired if the goal was to revise the Educational Master Plan and L. Zhai indicated that it will be re-writing as the old plan has expired.
  • C. Sullivan explained that no one liked the old plan sowe’re beginning a new one.
  • P. Demanett mentioned that she found the facilities analysis in the old plan very helpful.
  • T. Woods mentioned that we are looking at content at this time andthis is just the start point of developing the new educational master plan.
  • W. Stephenson noted that based on the old plan, by 2025 we would have an additional 125,000 assignable space and asked if this is why we are revising this document.
  • L. Zhai stated that our projected local high school graduates are flat so our enrollment numbers may not be increasing and we may not even need the additional space.
  • M. McNiff mentioned that the old educational master plan was the result of a lot of cutting and pasting. It was so bad that it had to be re-written at the last minute and submitted to the board for approval.
  • It was noted that last time we used an outside consultant and this time it will be created in-house.
  • P. Demanett asked if the Environmental Scan would be conducted by the Institutional Research Office. L. Zhai confirmed yes. This educational master plan will cover for the next 10 years.

FCC 2013-2017 Strategic Plan Matrix
FCC 2013-2017 Strategic Plan Matrix /
  • L. Zhai opened the discussion by presenting strategic planmatrix which assigned all objectives to responsible parties.
  • C. Sullivan inquiredhow we can check on the progress of implementing the strategic plan.
  • L. Zhai suggested that the council can decide that, perhaps we should have the people responsible for each item come and report to us.
  • M. A. Valentino added that the District SPC committee and they are also using similar matrix. They have added 3 small columns labeled; “Substantially Achieved, Progress Made and Little Progress Made”.
  • T. Woods asked if the committee made the definitions for these terms. These definitions are relative and can have different meanings to different people. It’s important for us to clearly see what the goals are and how we are doing towards accomplishing them.
  • J. Diebert asked if the individuals are aware that they’ve been assigned to this matrix.
  • L. Zhai responded that they will communicate with various groups or people.
  • C. Sullivan suggested that the responsible parties report to SPC both in February and in May of 2014.
  • T. Woods reminded the group to add the “completed” column before we send it on.
  • M. A. Valentino inquired that if DE Committee is aware of objective 3.6 and if they are going develop student success benchmarks for DE.
  • P. Demanett mentioned that the IRE committee is working on benchmarks and baselines data and datawould be communicated to the group.
  • M. A. Valentino wondered if the Distance Education committee knew that IRE was working on benchmarks and baselines data. She suggested that IRE committee should be added to this objective (3.6).

Action Plan Taskforce – update
Action Plan Taskforce - update /
  • J. Diebert opened discussion and C. Sullivan introduced M. A. Valentino to present.
  • M. A. Valentino reported that the group that she, C. Sullivan, S. Johnson and E. James worked on trying to make the Action Plan process easier to understand. They added Appendix’s linking forms that you would need if you wanted to develop an action plan. Appendix Dwhich will be the Facilities Modification Form will be added.
  • L. Zhai noted that the Action Plan form had the term “Funding” request in it. She wondered if that should be changed because not all Action Plan requests involve money.
  • C. Sullivan mentioned that she’s only seen one Action Plan request that did not require money being spent so she suggested that we continue to use the Action Plan Funding Request form for now.
  • M. A. Valentino asked everyone to send suggestions, complaints, etc. to Susan Johnson. She moved on to “Developing an Action Plan” (page 7 of document) and asked if it was clear to the group.
  • J. Diebert pointed out that the KPI verbiage may not always be needed or relevant.
  • M. A. Valentino suggested that if units cannot identify an appropriate KPI that a performance measure would be acceptable.
  • P. Demanett said that she thought the document sounded a bit unprofessional almost like the writer was trying to be her friend. She suggested the document be written using a professional third person dialog. Use technical report writing.
  • C. Sullivan mentioned that she would be adding Appendix C (TSS form) and Appendix D (Facilities Modification form).
  • J. Diebert asked if the form could be revised to include all costs of the items requested. For example, departments will Google “how much does a computer cost?” and think that’s the actual cost. There are costs associated with equipment that are not being included. Perhaps we could add “testing, maintenance, calibration and permitting” somewhere on the form.
  • M. Valentino thanked him for his input and added the verbiage.
  • T. Woods explained TCO or Total Cost of Ownership. Equipment items need formal bids and/or quotes.
  • M. Valentino wondered if faculty will understand TCO. She suggested adding a sentence along the lines of “go to your area manager for assistance”(if you don’t understand process).
  • M. Valentino asked if the timeline made sense. C. Villa mentioned that spring is when we should begin action plan requests.
  • M. Valentino asked about the flowchart. There were no questions.
  • M. A. Valentino then moved to “Written Description of Action Plan Flow Chart”. Number 1 will be accomplished in February of 2014.
  • C. Villa indicated that the faculty needs time to develop their Action Plans. It’s already done for 2014-2015 but should we adjust the timeline for 2015-2016?
  • C. Sullivan asked if we should send out call for Action Plans in March?
  • C. Villa felt that we need faculty input.
  • P. Demanett mentioned that we know in March what the Board has decided to fund and faculty should begin describing what they want at that time.
  • C. Villa noted that the Board of Trustee’s approves Action Plans in March or April.
  • P. Demanett stated that discussion can start in late January.
  • T. Woods said we should begin the developmental stage now, so that we’re ready for fall.
  • P. Demanett suggested that we change number 1 to February.
  • T. Woods explained that we should give them an example; i.e. Requests for funding for 2015-16 should begin in spring of 2014.
  • J. Diebert suggested we carry this document forward to next meeting.

Budget Update /
  • C. Sullivan stated that she would have the budget information the first or second week of December. The approved Action Plans will be brought back in February and then they will go to the Board.

Announcements /
  • T. Woods mentioned that the music department is having a free guitar performance tonight at the OAB.
  • Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm

Agenda Development/Preparation for Next Meeting /
  • n/a

Future Agenda Items /
  • Update FCC Educational Master Plan
  • HR data – personnel needs/projections
  • Safety issue
  • Student Success Act – SB1456
  • Student Success benchmarks/ACCJC annual report
  • District planning data (presented to Board in Oct.)
  • Standardize operating agreement review process
  • Annual Unit Planning
  • Outcome and Assessment Committee request
  • District planning data (presented to the Board)
  • SPC handbook taskforce update

1