Community Colleges of Ventura County
FUTURES FORUM
December 3, 1999
12:00 noon-4:30
p.m.
Ventura Room,
Cowan Center
Camarillo Airport
The Futures Forum meeting began with a working lunch. Individuals were asked to find the four tables that had worked together to bring the model, values, key performance indicators (KPI’s) to consensus for the Board presentation of November 4.
Elton Hall called attention to the agenda, which consisted of three major tasks: (1) responding to the Board’s input on items to be approved by the Board on December 7, as well as advance the work on supporting materials; (2) receiving and condensing feedback on a white paper about the future of Futures Forum and its goals and activities, so that the white paper could be modified to include that feedback; and (3) reviewing the calendar for Spring 2000 Futures Forum meetings.
Burt Peachy reviewed the work done so far and reminded the tables of the tasks before them. Each table received relevant Board input for consideration. Process Facilitators were assigned to assist each table. Burt also distributed copies of an article from Syllabus magazine entitled “The Age of Transaction and the Scene of Digital Learning” and asked everyone to read it in preparation for future work. The article suggests that education is undergoing a fundamental paradigm shift to a transactive model in which the distinction between teacher and learner is blurred in positive ways. It also outlines five educational paradigms that still affect us and indicates why they are inadequate today. (Anyone wishing to see this article can email Elton Hall at ehall@vcccd.net.)
Phil Westin spoke to the Forum regarding the seriousness of its purpose, noting the transformational nature of the enterprise. He indicated that the Board’s response to the November 4 presentation was overwhelmingly positive and thanked everyone who attended for being there. He said that he anticipated Board approval at the second reading on December 7. Phil emphasized that Futures Forum had reached a turning point, where creation of a model and process had been completed and the daunting task of implementation is beginning. He encouraged everyone to stay the course and make every attempt to provide CCVC with an effective, fair and inclusive planning process. (Note: the Board approves the Strategic Planning Model, the Core Values, and the KPI’s. The Board will be provided the Level 3 Narrative, Flowchart, Timeline, and other completed documents as supporting materials, but since these deal with details of implementing the Model, the Board is not required to approve them.)
Planning Model,
Core Values, Key Performance Indicators
And Level 3
Narrative
Table 1 worked primarily on the Level 3 Narrative. Participating members were Char Arnold, Joan Beem (process facilitator), Shirley Baskin, Dennis Cabral, Eva Conrad, Carmen Guerrero-Calderon, Elton Hall, Kitty Merrill, Anthony Tricoli, Deborah Ventura, Jim Walker, and Phil Westin.
Table 2 refined the KPI’s. Participating members were Cynthia Barnett, Vic Belinski, Laura Brower, Carole Frick, Carolyn Inouye, Becky Lawson, Lyn MacConnaire, Diane Moore (process facilitator), Farzeen Nasri, Rene Rodriguez, Christine Tafoya, and Gary VanMeter.
Table 3 took Board feedback on Core Values and began to develop a lexicon of common terms for planning. Participating members were Marion Boenheim, Priscilla de Garcia (process facilitator), Karen de la Pena, Patty Earl, Cathy Garnica, Floyd Martin, Pattie Ridenour, Tom Roe, and Octavio Sifuentes.
Table 4 reviewed and developed the first Process Improvement Team (PIT) Charters. Participanting members were Dan Berney, Victoria Bortolussi, Terry Cobos, Ron Dyste, Helen Galindo, Ruth Hemming, Betty Hough, Cheryl Shearer (process facilitator), and Ana Marie Valle.
Table 1 report. After discussion, each table reported back on its discussions. Table 1 looked at the FastTrack (Rapid Response) issues associated with the Flowchart. Originally, Rapid Response (then also called FastTrack) had be built into the Flowchart to show where in the logical sequence of planning events emergent and emergency planning could take place. When a Timeline was attached to the Flowchart, the Rapid Response portion became problematic, since emergencies by definition do not occur just at certain predetermined times. The solution was to pull the Rapid Response boxes off the Flowchart entirely, to develop a separate flowchart for them, and to show how this new flowchart integrates with the Strategic Planning Flowchart.
The table also discussed
Ø developing a process immune to “end-runs”, attempts to declare something an emergency and thereby bypass the strategic planning process
Ø including considerations regarding who decides whether an item qualifies as a FastTrack/Rapid Response item
Ø setting criteria for FastTrack/Rapid Response items
o criteria might include whether the issue affects the entire CCVC
o criteria might include catastrophic events such as earthquakes
o process must be fully part of Strategic Planning Model
Ø developing processes for integrating FastTrack/Rapid Response issues into Flowchart without respect to general Flowchart Timeline
Ø Questioning the FastTrack/Rapid Response part of the Model
o whether FastTrack/Rapid Response candidates will always be with us
o whether FastTrack/Rapid Response projects that require CCVC money can be fast-tracked once the Model is in place
o whether funds should be earmarked for potential FastTrack/Rapid Response projects
o where currently existing districtwide committees fit into decision making
o should FastTrack/Rapid Response projects be limited to those projects that address the strategic directions of CCVC
The table decided that these questions and the need to develop a FastTrack/Rapid Response Flowchart required a FastTrack/Rapid Response Task Force. The table formed such a task force, consisting of
Char Arnold
Shirley Baskin
Dennis Cabral
Elton Hall
Kitty Merrill
Shelley Signor
Chad Ishkawa
Others wishing to be part of this task force can contact Elton Hall at ehall@vcccd.net.
The table also reviewed the Level 3 Narrative and pronounced it sound for the time being, with the understanding that as the Model is implemented, experience will dictate ongoing revisions in the Narrative.
Table 2 report. Table 2 had received input from the Board, in which stakeholder satisfaction was emphasized. In light of that input, the table reviewed the KPI’s and incorporated Board input. In the KPI’s (attached) , on page 2, ‘Goal Completion’ became ‘Goal Clarification/Completion.’ On page 4, detail was added to the CCVC Environment and Facilities bullets. And on page 6, detail was added to the bullet on Community/Community Organizations (including community awareness, community relations, and community linkages).
Table 3 report. Table 3 had received Board input, which included a specific request to include a value in the Core Values statement that addressed the environment. After much discussion, the table added “Environmental Responsibility” to the Core Values statement. After presenting this value to the whole Futures Forum, there was consensus agreement on adding the following value:
Environmental Responsibility. We value our living planet and accept responsibility for protecting the environment.
The table also drafted a lexicon of common terms to be used in planning. Since this is a draft for discussion, the table did not ask for consensus at this time. The lexicon will be distributed to Futures Forum participants for input and refinement.
Table 4 report. Table 4 refined the first Process Improvement Teams (PITs) that need to be formed. In the course of doing that, the table discussed
Ø Liaison with PITs and feedback
Ø Issues of “jumping” the calendar attached to the Flowchart
Ø Required reporting of PITs to full Futures Forum
Ø Need to build flexibility into PITs
Ø Participation of stakeholders in PIT activities
Ø Potential format changes
The table produced four PIT Charters, for Maintenance, Registration, Hiring, and Purchasing/Accounts Payable. Each charter specifies a team sponsor, defines the purpose of the team, provides areas of focus, suggests team members by function (not name), and anticipates specific outcomes of the team’s activities. Without specifying a timeline, each of these teams is to be initiated in January 2000 and is to have completed its work by June 2000. (Copies of these charters are included at the end of these minutes.)
Discussion and
Input on White Paper:
Draft
Study—Futures Forum: A Plan for Its Role Within
The Community
Colleges of Ventura County, 2000-2002
The four tables were asked to review input individuals had gathered regarding the white paper that projects the future of Futures Forum and its activities. After discussion, the tables were asked to report on their findings, including suggestions for modification of the white paper.
Table 1 report. Table 1 indicated that it would like to see an abstract or executive summary of the white paper (which is now 25 pages in length). Regarding planning activities, the table would like a more precise chronology for various activities. In addition the table thought the following items were essential:
Ø Action plans
Ø A web-based process
Ø Task Forces, including
o Environmental Scan
o Internal Scan/KPI’s
o Learning Design
o Summer Institutes
o Research and Development Think Tank
Regarding the most positive dimensions of the white paper, Table 1 drew attention to the learning involved, the idea of an academy, and the vision expressed in the paper.
Among items the table did not think were adequately addressed or not addressed at all are:
Ø Shared governance components of all planning
Ø Funding for Futures Forum and for planning activities
Ø The need for a grant writing group and who might participate
Ø Budgeting for research components of planning processes
Ø Inclusion of Staff Development throughout planning processes
Ø Phasing in external funding and dealing with ongoing costs
In response to some of its own concerns, the table decided to form a grant writing committee that could constitute an initial core for seeking grants to fund Futures Forum activities, strategic planning and transformative processes. Volunteer members of that group are
Char Arnold
Patty Earl
Carole Frick
Carmen Guerrero-Calderon
Elton Hall
Anyone who would like to join in this effort can contact Elton Hall at ehall@vcccd.net.
Table 2 report. Table 2 undertook a detailed analysis and critique of the white paper by referring to page numbers. Rather than report each detailed comment to the whole Futures Forum, the table submitted its analysis for inclusion here. Those comments follow. (Anyone wishing an electronic copy of the white paper can contact Elton Hall.)
Page 24: these observations are good; success is based on the items identified.
Page 24: administrators need to be a part of Futures Forum (especially deans).
Page 9: there are three phases: planning to plan (present), planning to implement (beginning April 28, 2000), and implementation; critical factors include the need for participation of all CCVC employees. The barrier to success is difficulty in securing buy in and involvement of all staff. The barrier can be overcome through
Ø Location retreats
Ø Flex day workshops
Ø Department chair and dean leadership
Ø Newsletter
Ø Regularly updated web page
Ø Email
Page 5 re: 21st century faculty institute: it is important to integrate staff development, faculty, classified and management as appropriate
Page 5, last item: add “that incorporates KPI data to reflect needs”
Page 9, add to Barriers: additional stress as result of time needed for Futures Forum activities affects work, in particular in class and in Futures Forum performance
Page 9, add to Resources: extra assistant help, and reduce workload
Page 10, add to Resources: adequate support to produce KPI Report
Page 10, add to Barriers: lack of data availability and consistency
General note: budget and resources are needed for all activities
Page 4, Planning: delete ‘all’ from sixth item
Page 9, note: staff time of 24 additional process facilitators
General Barrier: training new and re-energizing “old” Futures Forum members
Page 25, along with Facilitator Training, add: process improvement training
Table 3 report. Table 3 provided a list of general concerns that will affect the success of the strategic planning process and the future of Futures Forum. The concerns include:
Ø Concern about cost of planning process (and appreciation for the idea of securing grant support)
Ø Concern about past plans having been filed without producing any changes or outcomes
Ø Concern about buy in from rest of CCVC community
Ø Need to show results of working together to solve problems, especially in areas of no cost:
o Hiring process: share MC hiring process with OC and VC
o Find similar strengths of OC and VC to share with MC
Ø Need to take advantage of self-assigned flex days to encourage people to work together; noble efforts in past were undermined by poor participation
Ø Need to train more process facilitators
Table 4 report. Table 4 also indicated a number of concerns and clarifications that should be built into the white paper. These were:
Ø FastTrack = Process Improvement (as distinct from FastTrack/Rapid Response, see above)
Ø Barrier is lack of enthusiasm and need for enthusiasm beyond Futures Forum members (see page 7)
Ø Budget implications
Ø KPI reports—what about data? (see page 10)
Ø Questions about three 2-day retreats in Fall 2000 (see page 12)
Ø Impact of Futures Forum commitment on all, including students
After the table reports on the white paper Burt Peachy provided a general overview of the activities of Futures Forum for Spring 2000. These activities include:
Ø Organize Task Forces for CCVC planning
Ø Environmental (external) Scan Findings and Base KPI Report due April 27-28 (this material starts the planning process)
Ø CCVC learning activities, including
o Parker Palmer (The Courage to Teach as resource)
o Baldrige criteria (introduction and application)
Ø PIT activity
Ø Grant Development
Peachy also addressed specific activities that will be initiated:
Ø Task Force/PIT Stucture:
o Organizational Kickoff Meeting
o Training on Lotus Notes 5.0
§ Team Room for each Task Force and PIT
§ Document sharing processes
Ø Process Facilitator Training
o New Process Facilitator recruitment and training
o Ongoing training for current Process Facilitators
o PIT methodology training
o Systems training
Burt then provided copies of the Futures Forum Calendar for 2000. Futures Forum will hold the following meetings through August 2000:
|
Date |
Location |
|
Friday,
January 21 (8:30-5) |
Thousand
Oaks Library (1401 Janss Road off Highway 23) |
|
Friday,
February 25 (8:30-5) |
Thou |