C C V C: Futures Forum

FUTURES FORUM
Minutes
Planning/Learning Day
October 22, 1999
Four Points Hotel, Sheraton, Ventura Harbortown

***
New Futures Forum Website: vcccd.cc.ca.us/Future
(This site will be continuously updated as rapidly as possible.)
***

The following record of Futures Forum activities contains only material generated by Futures Forum itself. It does not include general remarks made by various participants. This was the first meeting of the revised Futures Forum which now includes those who worked in Futures Forum over the summer and those who are members of the planning bodies of the four locations. Some of those location planning bodies have been operational for some time, and others have been organized recently. Their inclusion in the reconstituted Futures Forum required some review of past activity to assure everyone of an opportunity to full participation in the Forum's activities.

About 80 people attended. After welcomes from consultant Burt Peachy, Futures Forum chair Elton Hall, and Chancellor Phil Westin, the Process Facilitators reminded participants of the ground rules for our meeting. Judith Gerhart gave an opening presentation calling on participants to give the process full consideration, and Elton Hall briefly compared the learning-centered planning process to other models that have been invoked over the years. Phil Westin reviewed the history of the planning process and the creation and expansion of Futures Forum and reiterated the need for a consensus-based districtwide planning process.

The participants viewed a recent video by Dr. Joel Barker on Paradigm Pioneers, in which he outlined what he saw as the key elements in turning a new paradigm (i.e., a new set of rules for accomplishing a goal) into a functional success.

Among the points the Barker raised in the video is that the role of pioneer has changed in recent times. The pioneer blazes trails, then settlers come into the area. In such a plan, the pioneers are the risk-takers, and settlers face far lower risks. Today, however, the pioneers are the individuals with vision and that settlers are the individuals facing the risk of having the area already taken and used before they arise. Today's pioneers do not always create what they pioneer, but they have the foresight to see the opportunity and capitalize on it, while risk-avoiding settlers appear to late to garner major successes. (Barker gave a whole list of American inventions that were taken by other countries and pioneered into great successes-the Walkman and the transister are only two-only to be settled by Americans who were therefore not major players in the successful development of businesses or industries.) For Barker, pioneers have the foresight to act before all the numbers are in, to act in the face of paltry evidence, and the courage to forge ahead, letting others follow. But to stay ahead, pioneers must always change (as Sony, producer of the Walkman did with miniturization, wireless headphones, etc.) in order to maintain their successes.

After viewing the video, participants were asked to join their pre-assigned tables and develop reactions to Barker's message. Process Facilitators captured the discussion at tables; the results follow.

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4: Examples of Pioneering<

Table 5:

Table 6: Examples related to the Futures Forum process

Table 7: Three examples of how video relates to the Futures Forum planning process

Table 8:

Table 9: Three elements of pioneering

(Note: one sheet may have been misidentified and placed at the wrong table. If so, please accept the apologies of the typist.)

After lunch, participants reassembled to hear very brief reports on the summer learning projects of Futures Forum participants. Each of the summer Learning Teams gave an account of what each team learned and presented to the whole Futures Forum on several learning days. These teams were responsible for:

Future Trends in Higher Education

Students and their Learning in the 21st Century

21st Century Organizational Concepts

Institutional Effectiveness and Accountability Measures

Planning Process Models and Organizational Communications

Copies of the draft CCVC Strategic Planning Flowchart and proposed Timeline were distributed to every participant and projected on a screen. Elton Hall and Burt Peachy presented the draft flowchart and timeline, walking through each step. The flowchart and timeline are designed to implement the Strategic Planning Model as devised in August and reviewed in September. Questions of clarification were taken. Then participants were asked to group themselves by location (MC, OC, VC, DO) for an initial review and reaction to the flowchart and timeline. The results of location deliberations included reactions, concerns, and issues that Futures Forum needs to address. Those results were recorded on flipcharts and were as follows.

Location: Oxnard College

*Educational and Facilities master-planning process need to be centered at the location level

* State reporting deadlines and CCVC planning timelines need to be synchronized

* External scanning process needs to take in college view as well as district view

* For example, in areas of diversity, and partnerships with other educational entities

* Colleges to do own scanning in developing their plans

* Concerns about "quick response" processes, especially for grant opportunities

* Concern: is Futures Forum an approving body

* Concern that OC has not agreed on the model yet; needs to be done before flowchart and timeline are refined

Location: Ventura College

* A "needs step" should be identified that allows for prioritization of needs

* Identify items that cannot be funded through budget process (this is a weakness in the model)

* Strategic issues:

* A step needs to be inserted after strategic issues are identified

* Locate needs step to see where needs fit into the planning process (for example, research, campus technical support, and FastTrack issues)

* Identify where the flowchart issues are taken to shared governance bodies

* Acknowledge shared governance in flowchart (e.g., where issues go to Academic Senate)

* Need systems for rapid response to FastTrack issues; identify step 6 or 8 for process

* Create FastTrack Task Force to discuss process now Concerns raised by the Flowchart and Timeline:

* Who does the external scan(s)?

* Why not start with internal scan(s)? When are they scheduled?

* Is the internal scan(s) districtwide or at the four locations?

* Where does the internal scan(s) occur?

* Who funds the scans and the whole planning process?

* When does the discussion of the budget allocation model and its possible replacement start?

* Does the discussion of the budget allocation model need to precede the whole planning process?

* Are there four separate scans? Are they later collaboratively brought together?

* What is the Board's role in this process, other than approval? The Board needs to be included for understanding

* Approval of the plan must be general. CCVC will have to go through the step to see how they work

* In respect to the timeline, are the times for each step too long or too short?

* Process requires buy in of staff and faculty: how do we get that buy in?

* How do we get this information out to everyone?

* Are we centralizing too much?

* Will the new model give equal financial support to all locations?

Location: Moorpark College

Main concerns:

* How will the Timeline interface with other location processes, nearly all of which are annual?

* How and in what way can planning begin sooner to capture current momentum? (The idea of multi-tasking was suggested in the formulation of this question.)

* In what way does the process guarantee shared governance?

* Need to review mission/vision of CCVC

* Need for integrity and trust

* Process seems very complicated

Additional concerns:

* How is this process connected to current funding timeline?

* Process is too lengthy; can we compress it?

* Should use current data and use professional expertise

* Prioritize tasks

* Why does Timeline begin with April 2000?

* What is the relationship to shared governance and state regulations?

* Who is setting research agenda, i.e. external scan(s)?

* What is the chancellor's commitment to the process?

* Need to review CCVC mission and vision now

* Can we do things in parallel rather than sequentially?

* Review composition of Futures Forum and FF Liaison Team

* Use smaller groups with specific expertise to make contributions

* Disseminate information to include all constituencies

* Focus on locations and demonstrate how they work with DO and each other

* Model will collapse if there is no trust (building trust is FF Liaison Planning Team role)

* Role of FF Liaison Planning Team is to preserve the integrity of the process (as interface between CCVC and the locations)

* Recommendation: condense/collapse timeline

Location: District Office

* Acknowledge uniqueness of DO

* DO planning in Timeline (e.g., Steps 5 and 16): should District office planning be after that of colleges?

* Perhaps initiate planning at DO level without waiting and use college inputs for responses

* Need to establish DO timelines and processes (refer to samples from other colleges/districts)

* Identify functional units

* Are DO internal/external scanning processes countywide or statewide (regarding Banner and other process)? Include private sector.

* Budget allocation model concerns:

* Timing

* Methodology

* Communicating values

While sharing the reactions of the locations, some questions could be answered on the spot, and others could not be answered at this time and without Futures Forum input. All questions and concerns were recorded for consideration and response. Many of the concerns raised will have to be addressed and resolved by Futures Forum itself.

Elton handed out a packet of materials besides the draft Flowchart and Timeline. Materials included the Model, a tentative agenda for the Futures Forum Retreat of October 28 and 29, a proposed Lexicon of common terms for planning, a draft of the CCVC Core Values, a draft of the proposed Key Performance Indicators (KPI's), and a draft of the Level 3 Narrative designed to explain each step in the Flowchart more fully. All of these are to be reviewed by location planning bodies and shared with constituents, so that final versions of each can be agreed to by consensus during the Retreat.

Burt Peachy reviewed the tentative agenda for the Retreat and indicated that it is already being adjusted to respond to the concerns that were raised during this meeting.

The day concluded with a +/delta review of the activities. Plus were given to items that one or more participants thought were good, and deltas given for what could be improved upon or need to be changed or added to activities.

+/delta on the day:

Pluses:

Stickers (for expressions of appreciation)

Bubbles (for expressions of insight)

Microphone (for easy hearing)

Expanded community (for greater inclusiveness)

Musical instruments (to indicate that presentation times were exhausted)

Video (inspiring)

People working together

Process Facilitators (and their work)

Futures Forum (for being more than soybean futures and pork barrels)

The food

�and the extra food

Joining with colleagues from all four locations

Deltas:

More small group work

Dancing

2nd microphone for questions

Some physical exercise during day

Day felt a little rushed

Futures Forum will have a two-day Retreat on October 28-29 at the Residence Inn by Marriott at River Ridge, Oxnard. If the whole Strategic Planning package, including Model, Flowchart, Timeline, CCVC Core Values, CCVC Key Performance Indicators, Lexicon and Level 3 Narrative is approved by the end of the Retreat, it will go to the Board of Trustees in November for a first reading. Approval will be sought upon second reading at the December Board meeting.