Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee
\n10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
\nFriday, 3\/02\/2018
\nCounseling Center Conference Room<\/p>\n
Members present: Primavera Arvizu, Severo Balason, Oleg Bespalov, Sharyn Eveland, Greg Golling, Vicki Jacobi
\nMembers absent: Amanda Bauer, Kayla Meyer
\nGuests: n\/a<\/p>\n
1. Annual Program Review trends
\nThe 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:
\n\u2022\tThe need for Professional Development
\n\u2022\tThe need for more space
\n\u2022\tThe need for more personnel<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
2. Peer feedback from Annual Committee Review
\nThe 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:
\n\u201c1. To improve its accountability and full representation, the committee should be proactive in including student members.\u201d\u2014We asked Student Life to assign a student rep, and now Kayla attends SPC meetings as a rep of ASB.
\n\u201c2. To improve its effectiveness, the committee should align its charter with the Strategic Action Plan.\u201d\u2014The new SAP has goals related to accreditation, which will enable SPC to map its goals to the SAP.
\n\u201c3. To improve its effectiveness, the committee should align its processes with Governance Council regarding allocations.\u201d\u2014The committee discussed this feedback on agenda item #4 below.<\/p>\n
3. ACCJC Annual Report and Institution-Set Standards
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n
4. Annual Program Review resource allocation timeline
\nThe committee discussed recommendation #3 from our Annual Committee Review peer evaluation: \u201cTo improve its effectiveness, the committee should align its processes with Governance Council regarding allocations.\u201d The committee reviewed the APR timelines\u2014both 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 \u201cPresident receives final rankings\u201d. Rather, the timeline should be extended to show the next steps\u2014how 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:
\n1.\tIncrease communications of the funding process\u2014for example create a website, or send out emails when each step of the funding process is complete.
\n2.\tAdd 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.
\n3.\tAdd 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.<\/p>\n