Four breakout groups reviewed these reports and the concerns reflected in them. These breakouts then reported to the whole Futures Forum. Group I: Began with two questions and an observation. Is the countywide process driving the location processes? (E.g., MC and VC raised issues regarding their own internal scans in contrast to the districtwide internal scan called for in the Model.) How can we make the October 28/29 retreat meaningful to over 100 people? The group observed that there still seems to be a fair amount of confusion about the Model, especially at the locations. Reactions to concerns: · Different groups at different locations did different things (e.g., OC's video) · All can benefit from others' ideas · Persisting question: is the District driving things? · Need time to build trust and work through issues · Need both visibility and commitment from people responsible · Everyone needs to feel competent; make sure preplanning is done so that each group can contribute without fear · Recognize the strengths of each location planning process · Need to bring/keep Board of Trustees on board · FF needs to determine an identity and role · Should continue to invite students and student activities directors Group II: Reactions to concerns: · Need to deal with conflict (1) between locations, (2) within the planning process · Existence of healthy skepticism that planning process is a mask or cover for something else · Very few employees currently know about planning process · Distinction between recommendations and planning · Common reactions from the field include: complacency vs. militancy, big waste of money, "Why wasn't I told/involved?, too much time involved, "I don't have time for this" · Short term vs. long term needs · Difficulty in dealing with big picture when scrambling for chalk, etc. · Is there going to be a Planning Model statement? · Need for communication/continued presentations of planning information; email everyone · Identify essential committees · Demonstrate success through Fast Track process · Affect on allocation through planning process · Gaining consensus an ongoing process · Need to demonstrate partnership successes through Planning Model · Doing something that has never been done before · Create an expectation, then follow through with accomplishment · Send teams with charts and graphs to every department meeting · Small group presentations more effective than mass meetings at locations · Build into budget backfill for support staff involved in planning process · In current Planning Model diagram, the visual picture of unit operations is a little box, though it is a major concern · Continuing unresolved concern: how do we convince people that this time it's really different? Group III: Reactions to concerns: · Concern with location sovereignty · Big ongoing question: will this work? Will we stick with the Planning Model? · Issues of decision making vs. consensus building · How does the Planning Model complement shared governance (collaborative consultation)? · Issues of Governing Board buy in without end runs · Where does individual involvement come into the process · Will some emergency situation circumvent process? · Address reconciling and integrating parallel planning processes · D.O. integrate processes? · How are the various plans integrated? · Many concerns are with past history more than present structure of model Suggested solutions: · Planning teams put materials through governance processes (academic senate, etc.-broad bases) · Use multi-media methods to communicate-e.g., updated web pages, promulgating current activities, videos, tapes · Continuing FF meetings to provide ongoing support and solution sharing · Anticipate concerns, reach FF agreement, get same information to all · Mastering knowledge of the model for explaining model to others · Planning model process-FF participants need to know the model and the process, and share it · Define the boundaries in which a location can be unique · Need to know next steps in implementation of the model · Need consensus on all concerns before moving forward · Need to agree on next steps · Need Board buy-in: Board planning cannot overrun this process; comprehensive presentation to Board needed · Suggest Planning Model update at every Board meeting · Suggest regular updates at each campus; staff buy-in important · Keep momentum going · Staff newsletters should contain 2-part update: (1) updates from FF and (2) campus level reports; the latter could be a paragraph from each location liaison · Make someone responsible for posting FF information (Elton suggested) More discussion needed on the following: · All need to be concerned with future steps · More clarification on integration of plans (the box problem) · More on how the model will work: who will make the process work? How will these movers be chosen? · Will FF members rotate? Will others get involved? · Need to integrate in the formal FF process · How do we get needed resources? (Allocation Model issues) · Planning should drive Allocation Model: what is FF role in this? Group IV: Group IV identified their chief concerns/reactions, then added others: Chief concerns/reactions: · How are planning decisions made, and what personnel are involved? · Planning process must dovetail with location processes.
· How to assure that D.O. keeps it place? · Need for ongoing rumor control and effective communications · Need for process of conflict resolution, both between locations and within them · Clarity and consensus on values is essential; behaviors are operational expressions that depict values · Need to preserve interest in FF activities; participation a problem because of time conflicts (especially faculty) dissemination of information and explanation impacts continuing daily routines (especially classified); lack of student input a related problem Other concerns: · Planning vs. autocratic decision making · Need for highly visible process · Consensus vs. other types of decision making · Need for efficient decision making · Who will be involved? · Need for commitment to operate within model · Need for common lexicon · Need for FF representatives to communicate with constituents Solutions/tools · Knowing future agendas and plans, and incorporating everyone (open invitation) · Individuals able to provide input and humor · Presence at FF has impact; mentoring of new members · Use of web as communication tool · Identify contact for input Just before the lunch break FF Consultant Burt Peachy invited anyone interested to join him and Hall at a working meeting on September 17 (9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., DO Conference Room). He outlined the development of the Model from this point on: 1. Level 1 of the development of the Model: the chart (already done and taken to locations) 2. Level 2: the chart, with brief narrative, and beginnings of lexicon (to be started at the Sept. 17 meeting and to be done by the Oct. 22 meeting) 3. Level 3: the chart, brief narrative, flow chart indicating how the model works in real time, the lexicon, and a timeline for implementation (to be completed by the end of the planning retreat on Oct. 28-29) III. Formation of a cross-district working group to begin developing a lexicon of terms. Hall asked for and got the following volunteers to work on the lexicon: Kitty Merrill, Mary Jones, Rita Martinez, Scott Corbett. Others who wish to be part of lexicon development are welcome to join. IV. Overview of October 28-29 Retreat (Peachy) Peachy set out some suggestions for preparation for the Oct. 28-29 Retreat. Who will attend? The Futures Forum participants, all members of location planning committees, all process facilitators, and the location liaisons. What is our purpose? The central purpose is to expand our understanding of the Model. Participants will face a variety of questions. E.g., what if we decided on Oct. 28-29 that the preplanning boxes for the four sites mean that each location has a full draft of their plans? This shows that we might need a working group during the Retreat to figure out what "preplanning" means. Is it a wish list, a progress report, a draft plan? In response to a question about dedicating time at the Retreat to train people coming to FF for the first time, Peachy suggested that such training should occur at the locations before the Retreat. In planning, the locations must be unfettered in what they choose to do, but the planning process can by consensus determine that certain "deliverables" come to the collective discussions. In addition to the location internal scans, for example, FF needs to decide what other scans are needed. The FF must also decide what is to happen at each point in the Model. We may need some small working groups think out items that are brought to the whole FF later. If these remarks capture the goal of the Retreat, then Oct. 22 will be used to flesh out the Model in a preliminary way-a few sentences on each bit of the Model. The two-day retreat can then be a learning time for the location planning committees, and they will participate in elaboration of the Model. (Cabral noted that the new insights contributed by the location planning committees to FF will help FF calibrate what its done, and these discussions will help locations recalibrate what they are doing.) The fact that people will get together in this collaborative mode is itself value-added. So working groups could include groups on scans, on assessment, on relation of scans to gap analysis-all this will help location planning-on the quick response piece of the Model, and on the issue of how budgeting follows planning. It is clear that locations will need to be prepared: FF participants need to go through the Model with planning groups and think together about how the Model should work. Participants can then come to the Retreat with the Model assimilated and with questions ready. In addition, the KPI's and values need to go to the locations for the same review, discussion and reaction that the Model is receiving. These responses should come to the Oct. 22 meeting for review. Since some strategic initiatives will be global in that all locations share in them, some will be specific to a single location. The distinction between local and collaborative will not be exclusive. Phil Westin noted that participants in FF and beyond at all the locations are trying to reach consensus on what our collective planning process will be. He urged FF to include the location planning committees in as much of its work as possible, creating an umbrella group that could proceed. When will we know that we have in fact reached consensus? It would seem that we have reach consensus when this larger umbrella group has reached consensus. What of other stakeholders? Their feedback needs to be brought into the process now, so that it is part of deliberations. An external scan will help fill in gaps in feedback. Given discussions so far, the primary advisory group for the entire district will be the umbrella group, so it seems reasonable to expect meetings beyond the Retreat of Oct. 28-29. V. Immediate Future Forum Plans and Expanded Membership By consensus the FF agreed that its membership should immediately expand to include the planning committees of the four locations, thereby becoming the umbrella group and retaining the name "Futures Forum". Hall will broadcast minutes of all future FF meetings and other relevant material to all employees in the District via attachments to Lotus Notes. The expanded FF will meet on the following schedule: Oct. 22 Brainstorming, and rethinking Model, KPI's and values Oct. 28-29 Working session to produce final draft of Model/group discussions Dec. 3 Finalize and ratify the Model, KPI's and values VI. Concern with Board of Trustees Buy-in Westin asked for and was granted by consensus a few moments to address as chancellor concens about the Board of Trustees. He noted that the Board members are known, and that the offices are political in the sense of being elective. It is the chancellor's task to convince the Board to accept the Planning Model. But individual Board members and the Board as a whole already want to have a coherent countywide planning process. In the current Model under discussion there is a clear role for the Board in the scanning process. Given the commitment of each individual on the Board to serving students of the county in the best possible way, the Board is predisposed to accept the kind of planning process under discussion. Westin then addressed concerns about the District's willingness to go along with a planning process at every step of the way. "Please quote me," Westin said, "Once we've agreed on how to proceed, I'm willing to commit to using this process for planning." He noted that FF itself will set some delimiters on what it wants to discuss, what role to take, and what to leave to the colleges. When those are established, Westin said that he would use FF only for the purposes it had established for itself. VII. An explanation of the deployment model developed by facilitators for their important work. Cheryl Shearer gave an overview of the training process facilitators have received, what they can do for committees and groups at the various locations, and how they can be reached. Facilitators are offering group facilitation services and have developed a handout detailing their services and a form for requesting such services. Facilitators will work with the individual make a request to determine how best to facilitate. There is no cost to those using facilitator services. To get the handout and a form, contact Cheryl by Lotus Notes email. A form can be filled out and emailed as well. VIII. Identification of "fast track" projects, i.e. projects that address pressing needs that can be solved by collaborative work across the four locations. These will then go to the campuses for consideration and prioritization. The Fast Track Projects list, developed at the August retreat was reviewed and added to. That list is: Hiring process College within the college/staff development Purchasing/accounts payable Digital delivery of IGETC Administrative process (handbook/practices) Registration Management training Banner 2000 training Grants/contracts Financial aid awards/processes Management/union relations Teaching techniques One-step student welcome center Counseling process Marketing of existing student resources ID resources needed by students Multicultural center/international students Part-time faculty "hotel" (work places) Campus security Student payroll FF agreed to take these potential projects to the locations for reaction and prioritization. Rather than prioritize by assigning each project a number, prioritization should be by level of importance: Level 1: Have to do right now Level 2: Needs to be done Level 3: Would be of value to do These need to be prioritized at the locations by the Oct. 22 meeting. Without such prioritization, FF cannot charter any project. Locations should feel free to add to the Fast Track Projects. IX. Conclusion Peachy noted that, compared with other institutions with which he has worked in developing processes, CCVC's progress to date is phenomenal. The facilitators conducted a plus/delta review of the day. Pluses are items and activities that were particularly appreciated, and deltas are items and activities that could be improved. Pluses included: the facilitators' work, the food and water, the company, the OC video (seen at lunch), the level of participation, agreement on content of the upcoming meetings, the humor, and finishing early (3:00+ p.m. rather than 4:30). Delta items included the cramped facilities and the absence of playthings-stickers, balloons, etc.