CCVC
FUTURES FORUM
February 23, 2001
Cowan Center,
Camarillo Airport
(Note: Special thanks to Char Arnold who took the notes for this meeting, and to Cheryl Shearer to captured the information on flipchart pages. Elton Hall had jury duty.)
Burt Peachy called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. Peachy referred to the agenda and mentioned the fact that we have much to cover during the meeting period today. He requested that all those in attendance wear nametags available at the entrance to the room.
Three things will be covered today. Marlene Imirzian will present information on the refined Facilities Master Plan. Then we will review the mission/vision/values statement provided by a sub-committee assigned the task of refining those items. Finally we’ll evaluate the goals/strategies we have been working on. Assignments will be made today also. An audit of our goals vis a vis the college plans and the scanning process will take place as part of these assignments. The final planning document will be “put to bed” by April. Burt reviewed the ground rules.
Burt then turned the floor over to Phil Westin. Phil indicated that he wanted to have a conversation rather than give a prepared statement. He observed that CCVC is at a critical time. The Chinese say, “May you live in interesting times,” and that can be rather like saying, “Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.” The most unpleasant part of his job, Phil said, is dealing with difficult personnel issues. With that in mind, Phil recounted to Futures Forum some recent experiences that have caused him to contemplate what is currently at issue.
A CQIN planning meeting recently took place in Sante Fe. [Note: ‘CQIN’ stands for ‘Continuous Quality Improvement Network,’ a national organization that the chancellor and the college presidents have joined. Its major project for last August was described in the CQIN Report distributed to Futures Forum and to all users last fall.] During that meeting there was one free afternoon, which Phil and his wife spent in Taos. The drive itself is quite beautiful. A sign along the drive said “Rio Grande Gorge.” As they drove through a flat area, this gorge became visible and was quite deep. Walking to the edge of the gorge was a “knee shaking” experience.
After returning from Sante Fe, Phil attended a faculty lecture at Moorpark College. James Song, the lecturer, had a full orchestra at the lecture since the subject dealt with directing an orchestra. James asked Phil to conduct a movement from Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony, which was written after the composer had become completely deaf. The second movement is sad, and the last movement is joyous. It is truly a work of art. As Phil was driving home from the event, he realized how much fun he had conducting the orchestra again, much more fun than leading the District. In thinking about the metaphor of the orchestra/district/conductor, he realized that as a conductor conducts, he/she makes no sound. The music is made by the players. The conductor’s job is to pace the music and define what it “says.” These thoughts made Phil evaluate his decision to go into administration. Some base-line issues came to his mind, things Parker Palmer reminded us of. The notion of formation work is that we choose our career direction based on deeply personal reasons. We don’t choose education for the money it earns us. Over time and with negative experiences we become “de-formed” in our careers and need to review what’s happening to us. Phil felt that when he made his career choice to become a manager, he could help more people by becoming an administrator than he could by conducting. The concepts implied in the name ‘CQIN’ also provided insight. Think about the excitement of students graduating and all those who helped the students reach those goals. We do good work. But we can also do better.
The confluence of these experiences brought Phil to the realization that we are coming to a crossroads in CCVC in the next few months. The CCVC Board of Trustees will soon receive the faculty union’s initial contract proposal and will reaffirm the Board’s own proposal. Remember how awful the last negotiations were. We got to the edge of the abyss—like the Rio Grande Gorge—and we turned away, avoiding a destructive strike. A strike always becomes faculty against faculty, managers against managers, community against community. A strike would tear us apart.
What we have done in Futures Forum is to build a rickety bridge across the abyss. We’ve learned to trust, to talk, to reason together. We’ve involved ourselves in the formation process as envisioned by Parker Palmer. Phil urged all of us to look at where we are going. We must continue to move forward positively, to seek a degree of self-actualization as a group and as individuals.
Phil then read portions of Parker Palmer’s The Courage to Teach, focusing on the need to avoid the abyss of fear.
Phil noted that we do not talk a lot about spirituality. And he added that we are not focusing on religion here but on the spirit inside each of us. We are at a place where we can face the future with hope and do better for our students. We can use the processes we have developed to do that. Or we can fall into the abyss. There are people who want to saw through the fragile bridge we have built across that abyss. Let us resolve to get across the bridge and serve our students better.
We all must answer the questions: Why are we doing this? And how can we do it better?
Ana Maria Valle mentioned that many people may have questions about personnel issues that they aren’t ready to articulate right now. Credibility is an issue. In 1998 we were at the abyss and avoided it. But we don’t know how to avoid this one. We’re scurrying around things like the fact that Ventura College doesn’t send many faculty to Futures Forum. How do we address that? Do we stop and not go on? We need to find a way to deal with the problems. People also come in and out of Forum activities. How do we deal with the abyss?
Phil asked what Ana Maria might suggest. She suggested discussion sessions. You are the conductor. You lead the direction the district is going. If negotiations go badly this time, are we prepared for it? How do we deal with negativity? Some of your decisions will be unpopular and may bring about that negativity. Phil summarized that Ana Maria seemed to be asking how we will cope with the negativity.
Larry Kennedy commented that things get out of hand emotionally, but if we stick to the core values we have developed in Futures Forum, we can be reasonable and not emotional.
Phil mentioned that he cannot talk about personnel issues or the negotiations themselves. He believes there is a sincere desire to come to a mutually beneficial faculty contract in as short a time as possible. Both negotiations teams are working hard to make that happen. As an individual, he does not feel negatively about that process. Yes, there seem to be a few who would destroy the bridge, but he expressed the hope he was wrong about that. He does not believe that people who might wish to destroy the bridge are on the negotiations teams. We all must cross the abyss together. We aren’t “everybody” in Futures Forum, but everyone who works in CCVC is welcome here.
Burt said he wanted to talk about what’s on the other side of the bridge. Fetzer is giving the Dallas County Community College District about $10 million over the next few years. We as a District are partners in that. We’ll have a regional center here. It’ll be exciting and faculty will be involved. Also the Western and North Central Accreditation Commissions may be doing a joint project to use Baldrige criteria as part of accreditation. The Kellogg Foundation is also funding a project that Burt will be heading here in Ventura County. It will be a holistic training program. Additionally, the VCCCD will be the host institution for CQIN in Seattle next year. Kern Community College District wants to partner with us in Futures Forum projects. We need to decide if we want to be known for these things or for acrimonious negotiations. That’s what waits for us across the bridge if we choose to avoid the negativity. Pricilla Partridge de Garcia concurred.
Gary Brinkman mentioned that when there is a death in the family, the family can pull together or have deep divisions. We must treat this situation like a death in the family and choose a positive response. The personnel issue is a little like a death in the family. It’s very important we have happy employees at peace with management.
Ron Dyste commented that many people fear that the personnel issue will impact the negotiations. Contending parties are the way of the world. All must be treated fairly. That is what matters, not the contention. Is everyone being treated fairly? That’s the important question.
Carmen Guerrero-Calderon said we get emotional about personnel issues. It’s important not to confuse personal behavior with negotiations. They are separate issues. As unfortunate as it is, the potential is that all of us can be drawn into the problem in unhelpful ways if we are not careful.
Ana Maria thanked Gary and Ron for their positive comments. She wanted us all to move forward fairly and positively.
Phil said he would wager everything he has on his belief that the rumors circulating around the District did not come from his office. He wants to be fair. Not talking about the problem openly is part of the fairness. It is difficult to ask people to trust him to deal with this situation in fairness. Elected Board members have delegated these issues to him. He said he can share that he does not know all the facts as of this moment. But he will ethically and legally seek the facts. He will consult Jim Walker and Judith Valles for their input on doing the right thing for everyone involved. Phil added that he must ask for the group’s trust in doing that. He also said that he’d give anything not be in this position. Having this happen as we get ready to cross the abyss is something he would prefer to avoid, but this problem must be faced honestly and ethically.
Burt called a short recess to the meeting which reconvened at 10:10 a.m.
Marlene Imirzian said it was a pleasure to be here to share the comprehensive work the District has been doing on a facilities master plan. Today will be used for the presentation of ideas. Decisions have not been made, and those decisions will be discussed by this body. There are rumors that decisions are being made in an arbitrary way. That isn’t true about the current process. Marlene said she was at OC yesterday. There is great frustration about the time that has passed since a particular building there was proposed. People feel somehow they are being slighted by this lagtime. There are good reasons the building couldn’t go forward, but those reasons hadn’t been shared with people on campus. Asking questions, she counseled, often clears things up. The prioritization process and reasons for funding or lack of it are public.
Marlene explained that Strategic Planning and Master Planning are two very different things. Strategic Planning involves many factors including growth. On the master planning side of planning, a complete five-year facilities infrastructure plan is now required by the state. This is a new requirement that community colleges have to satisfy. This required plan must include both how money will be spent and the scope of facilities projects.
Strategic Planning occurs at the CCVC level, and Campus Master Plans occur at the college level. The District Master Plan is under development. We must ask: What are the unmet needs in the county? As we develop the plan, we must look at today and at the future. Anyone who has information that would help in this planning process should share it with the District, because it is needed. One question might be: Will each site have general education classes? The answer is yes. But that answer might not be true for specialized programs. We make agreements between college presidents on these things, but we need to evaluate and more fully develop that process at the districtwide level. Enrollment projections also play a part. We have those projections for 15 years. How does that relate to student growth and what is the impact of that growth on each campus? What will the state fund and how will those decisions be made? Partners in the community will be important in some of that funding.
Once we have a strategic facilities plan, we can look at individual locations. We also must look at the CCVC site at the airport. How will we make the decisions regarding location facilities development? Four different Master Plans (for the four locatoins) are being developed. Items such as parking and pedestrian traffic must play a part in our decision making. One issue on enrollment projections is the “draw” we have from areas outside the immediate locations of the colleges. “Draw” potentials could influence where we place satellite facilities.
VC and MC are both somewhat constrained in the ability to “build out” further on their main campuses, while OC still has room for further facilities growth. MC and OC may “top out” at 20,000 students with VC at 15,000. We must keep that in mind.
Marlene has been looking at the spread of programs. General education is spread between the campuses. The signature programs are also spread out, though not as evenly as general education programs are. We need input on unmet needs in the community that will impact growth and facilities. Distance Learning will also influence needs assessment and evaluation. So, we need to hear from you about these needs and projections. Burt asked if workforce development is being considered. Marlene said that she considers workforce development to be part of contract education and therefore it is being considered along with all contract education. Jaime Casillas commented that in CCVC workforce development and contract education are considered different areas. He explained their differences.
Marlene shared the projections on enrollment developed by a consultant for the District. The consultant used 1998 for his beginning numbers. She showed charts on various enrollment factors, beginning with changes in the Ventura County adult population. (Copies of these projections are available at each location.) Burt said that this information will be placed on the Futures Forum website. The second chart addressed “Internal Freeflow.” Several questions surfaced regarding process of determining what all this data means, and Burt indicated that the significance of such information would be clarified later. Another chart showed total raw enrollment growth. The indication is that within 15 years OC could grow 86% as compared with 15% for VC and 50% for MC. The impact of such growth is enormous. Based on the enrollment projections we have to decide what needs to be built and where. We have general consensus that there will be three colleges, each with one a separate off-campus center. Each college will have general education classes and some specialized programs. There are some guidelines for being an official off-campus center/site. CCVC must decide the order in which centers will be funded. Potential sites for centers, based on population growth, were also shown, but these possible locations are not set in concrete.
Marlene discussed the land available for development at the Camarillo Airport site. There could be a public service training center (including police/fire/etc.). A driving range is also a possible development choice. Her firm is asking the District to decide how it might want to use some of the land. Potential uses could be educational, perhaps a high tech contract education facility. Should the District site be used for educational purposes, FTES would be earned by a college and not by a District site per se. There are many programs that might be combined at the Camarillo Airport site and such combinations could make sense for college growth.
How much do we think the state might fund? How much might we seek through a bond issue? These are also questions we must address. Approval for state funding comes through the state chancellor’s office and is done by category. The District must prioritize its projects for such funding. Collaborative projects are being defined by the state chancellor’s office. These would involve private partners outside state funds. A 50/50 match is being suggested. Criteria for determination of need are also being developed/discussed. We must develop our own guidelines and plan.
Marlene concluded her presentation at 11:05 a.m. Burt and Phil asked her when she would like input from this group. She said that input within the next month and a half would be vital. Phil asked if the group as a whole would like to work on this or if it should be done as a sub-committee. Burt suggested that the latter approach was best, and Carmen agreed based on Futures Forum past practices. Diane Moore said the strategic planning groups on campuses must be involved and that their input is important. Burt suggested gathering information from those groups and then meeting as a sub-committee. When should we do that? At our next meeting? Ron Dyste said that the VC staff should see the charts we’ve seen today in order to understand what we face. After that review, we need to discuss the implications. Each college has its own process of dealing with planning.
Burt asked about a time-line. Eva Conrad said efficiency would be enhanced if each group had the same set of specific talking points or questions. What are the key decisions that must be made by each group? Gary said we risk polarizing the District again if we get too self-involved at the campus level. Let’s deal with this more globally. Burt suggested that the executive vice-presidents meet at lunch and bring back questions. Marlene suggested that four hours of facilitated discussion would be enough to accomplish a great deal. Phil recommended that we might try such a discussion with the results going back to the locations for sunshining and further input. Burt crystallized the discussion by saying that the March 16th meeting will be devoted to the facilitated discussion.
A break was called with the Forum reconvening at 11:26 a.m.
Burt said a small task force went back this last month to look at our core values, vision and our mission. The people on that task force were: Dennis Cabral, Helen Galindo, Elton Hall (team leader), Judy Ramos and Ana Maria Valle. Burt explained that Futures Forum participants need to go through those documents and reconfirm our agreement with them. The test of these items is how we would operationalize them. If we can’t do that, then we need to adjust them. We are going to break into groups to discuss the operationalizing and any adjustments that must be made to language. Yesterday, Elton and Burt changed the vision statement slightly. Peachy felt we should not only talk about continued quality improvement, but also we must say how we are going to impact student success. Thus the vision statement was slightly adjusted. (See document attached.)
Burt showed the mission statement adapted by the sub-committee and read that statement to the group. He explained that the statement is the prelude to our values which he then read. The question is what must we adjust and change in order to “bring it alive” and make it part of all we do at the various sites. Let’s divide into small groups to discuss this. We’ll continue through lunch and discuss our findings at 12:45 p.m.
The Mision/Vision/Values Team suggestion was distributed to participants. It follows below. (The values statement was approved in December 1999 and is included for informational purposes.)
CCVC
FUTURES FORUM
MISSION/VISION/VALUES
TEAM
Dennis Cabral, DSC
Helen Galindo, VC
Elton Hall, Team Leader
Judy Ramos, MC
Ana Maria Valle, OC
Vision:
CCVC dedicates its resources
to student success. We are a learning
institution committed to continuous improvement of ourselves, our colleagues,
our programs, and our services. We
commit to the principle that every individual who comes to us for learning
leaves us better prepared to be a productive citizen and a self-directed and
lifelong learner.
Mission:
To
bring the CCVC vision to the four mandated missions of the institution—basic
skills, transfer, vocational/career, economic development
To
inaugurate, maintain, evaluate and justify all institutional programs and
activities in terms of student success in these four areas
To
work with the community to ensure appropriateness of programs to the CCVC
mission, to provide flexibility in programs to meet community needs, and to
assure the institution’s role in assisting the community educationally,
economically and socially
To
be the educational and training center of choice for Ventura County
To
use resources wisely to maximize their effectiveness in fulfilling the mission
of the CCVC
Values:
The values of CCVC center on
student success.
To
maintain a focus on student success, CCVC supports the values of
Excellence
Diversity and Commonality
Integrity
Positive Environment;
To
sustain continuous quality improvement in achieving student success, CCVC
supports the values of
Learning
Collaboration
Shared Decision Making
Innovation
Tradition and Change; and
To
provide an atmosphere in which these values may be nurtured, CCVC supports the
values of
Civility
Environmental Responsibility
The values statement was also
distributed for informational purposes.
Community Colleges of Ventura County
CORE VALUES
We, the members of the Community Colleges of Ventura County, are empowered by the following values to enrich our community and enhance our success:
We value kindness and respect
in all our interactions.
COLLABORATION
We value an inclusive team
approach based upon collegiality, commitment, and honest communication.
DIVERSITY AND COMMONALITY
We value others and ourselves
as unique individuals and embrace the commonalities and the differences that
promote the best of who we are.
EXCELLENCE
We value the commitment to
quality and continuous improvement.
INNOVATION
We value creativity,
risk-taking, and vision.
INTEGRITY
We value integrity, honesty,
and congruence in action and word.
LEARNING
We value learning as a
lifelong process in the pursuit of knowledge and personal growth.
POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT
We value an environment that
is welcoming, pleasing, and safe.
SHARED DECISION MAKING
We value shared decision
making (shared governance) as the process that provides each of us the
opportunity to build consensus.
TRADITION AND CHANGE
We value tradition and change
as each enriches our community.
We value our living planet and accept responsibility for protecting the environment.
Futures Forum divided itself into groups of three to five people each to work on the assigned task beginning at 11:35 a.m. Facilitators assisted each group. Anthony Tricoli said he wished to introduce a new dean at Oxnard College, Romero Sanchez. The group welcomed Romero.
Burt called Futures Forum back to order after lunch at 12:40 p.m. The groups reported that they were ready to present the results of their discussions.
Judy Ramos led off with the report from her group’s comments and suggestions (All groups provided their reports in their original form to the Forum chair via Cheryl Shearer). Dan Berney, Pat Kistler, Ron Dyste, Cheryl Shearer, and Carmen Guerrero-Calderon also reported for their groups.
What follows are the reports as captured on flipcharts.
Table 1 Report (Judy Ramos,
table leader)
1. Simplify the wording; drastically reduce focus.
2. Co-ordinate, integrate with missions developed at individual colleges.
3. Community/student success?
4. Return to old values list.
5. District mission: to support the missions of the three colleges.
6. Vision: integrate the three college visions into one statement.
7. Incorporate visions, mission, values into training, orientation, etc., to understand, discuss and “live” them.
8. Create simple slogan everyone can articulate. Visually articulate with logo that has significance.
Table 2 Report (Dan Berney, table leader)
1. Replace second sentence in vision statement with the following: CCVC commits to collaborate with other educational institutions, government and business to improve the quality of life in our community.
2. The table proposed a diagram:
T
E
L E A R N
C
H
and suggested that the four locations be named (Ventura, Oxnard, Moorpark, District Service Center in the spaces between the crossbars).
Table 3 Report (Pat Kistler, table leader)
Vision Statement: The Community Colleges of Ventura County (CCVC) are dedicated to student success through continuous improvement of programs and services.
The table also proposed a statement to be featured in each class schedule: The CCVC promises to each student who wishes to learn
ü Transfer opportunities
ü Basic skills/ESL support
ü Vocational/job training updates
ü Leadership for life-long learning
Table 4 (Ron Dyste, table leader) did not capture notes, though the table made a number of observations on the draft statement.
Table 5 Report (Cheryl Shearer, table leader)
The table was concerned that the vision statement is weak. They proposed the following statement: We are a learning-centered institution committed to the principle that every student who comes to us for learning leaves us better prepared to be a productive citizen and a self-directed and lifelong learner.
Table 6 Report (Carmen Guerrero-Calderón, table leader)
Restated vision: To be the educational and training choice for Ventura County.
Restated mission: CCVC dedicates its resources to student success. We are a learning institution committed to the continuous improvement of ourselves, our colleagues, our programs and our services. We commit to the principle that every student who comes to us for learning leaves better prepared to be a productive citizen and a self-directed and life-long learner.
CCVC is committed:
ü To bring the CCVC vision to the five missions of the institution—basic skills, transfer, vocational/career, economic development, and life-long learning
ü To inaugurate, maintain, evaluate and justify all institutional programs and activities in terms of student success in these five areas
ü To work with the community to ensure appropriateness of programs to the CCVC mission to provide flexibility in programs to support the educational, economic and social needs of the community through the creative, effective and efficient use of fiscal and human resources
Burt suggested we should “chew on” these suggestions at our next meeting, referring this input back to the mission/vision/values team for reflection. He explained that organizations which have a distilled statement for their mission and vision find it useful and functional. These become imbedded in the culture. If we had that kind of simplicity it would be powerful and motivational. He challenged the task force to try a simple, “to the point” approach. Pat Kistler asked who these statements were aimed at. The community? Ourselves? Burt answered that such statements are meant for both. The concept is to make the words that define us “come alive.” Ana Maria wondered how college “slogans” would get in the way of competing “slogans.” Others concurred that such a problem might occur. Burt encouraged others to get involved with the task force.
Burt suggested that we begin a new process now. Last month we wrote goal statements and strategies. They are in “wet cement.” What they are is a reflection of a kind of logic. They helped clarify our thinking and get us on the right track. What we need to do now is to test those goals by looking at the work that’s been done before. We’re going to take the goal statements, divide into small teams, take the goal statements and audit them against the site plans. If they don’t align then we need to look at them closely. We also need to make sure we are addressing the key findings and key performance indicators with the goals we’ve set. Only when everything is aligned can we allow the cement to harden. There should be six mixed teams from various sites in order to do this with fresh eyes. If elements are missing, we need to create adjustments.
Burt indicated that there would one group for each of the following: VC, MC, OC, DSC, KPIs, and Key Findings. People volunteered for the group they wished to be part of. Eileen Welser facilitated the listing of the members of the groups and adjustments were made to “balance” representations. Once the groups were organized, Burt distributed the materials that each group needed to complete the task assigned. Cheryl Shearer explained that a group had met in February, working about two hours, to distill the reports from our last meeting. The items edited out were too specific to work as goals. The ones kept were emblematic of the broadness of approach and the focus we had discussed at our last meeting. We’ve crystallized goals/objectives on: 1) student success; 2) institutional effectiveness; 3) human resources; 4) image, community and government relations; 5) resources; and 6) facilities. The final item, facilities, has not been “fleshed out” because we will be dealing more with that topic at our next meeting. Shearer asked for comments and reaction.
Burt reminded participants that this was a work in progress. We want extraordinarily “high order” statements. Various suggestions were made and questions were asked. Burt said that we may need to live with some ambiguity now and clarify it later. Char noted that wordsmithing by large committee can be arduous and fraught with difficulties. It became clear that in trying to crystallize items, some important elements might be left out of the “leading” statements. Burt suggested that the group which met in February should now get together to reiterate this document. Out of chaos will come order and a good product. Burt then distributed the goal work sheets which will be individually completed with introspection. We each need to go over the site plan we have been assigned to. The district goals “go” into the left column of the work sheets. The top column on the work sheet lists the site goals. Do these goals “match up?” The work groups will champion the location goals they have been assigned to as we meet over the next two months. The lobbying should be done to get the district goals to “match up” with site goals. The locations’ goals will not change. If a goal is out of alignment and cannot be reconciled, we may need to ask the appropriate location planning committee to reconsider it.
The groups as currently constituted are:
MC—Jeannie Bailey, Diane Moore, Floyd Martin, Kitty Merrill, Judy Ramos; OC—Marion Boenheim, Mary Jones, Cathy Garnica, Bill Norland, Eva Conrad; VC—Eileen Welser, Karen de la Pena, Dan Berney, Jaime Casillas, Char Arnold, Dennis Cabral;
DSC—Carmen Guerrero-Calderdon, Shelley Signor, Betty Hough, Elton Hall, Larry Calderon, Ana Maria Valle;
KPIs—Carole Frick, Romero Sanchez, Carolyn Inouye, Steve Hall, Ron Dyste, Jim Walker;
Key Findings—Lynn MacConnaire; Pricilla Partridge de Garcia, Pat Kistler, Steve Pollock, Helen Galindo, Ruth Hemming.
These groups met to determine if they understood their assignment which will involve work outside of regular forum meeting times. Steve Pollock commented that, as we do our work, we need to remember that the locations are individual units with their own governing bodies, not simply satellites under the direction of the District.
Burt brought the meeting to close with a plus/delta on the day. (A plus is some feature of the day that someone found especially useful; a delta is something that was not useful, that needed to be added, or that could have been done better.)
A plus was his new Beemer purchased via eBay. The group volunteered to accompany Burt on a drive to San Francisco. The group felt other pluses were: productivity, fun, Phil’s imagery, and positive input via Q and A, especially in regard to Marlene’s presentation. The only delta was a wish that Marlene’s presentation had been captured on video.
The location of the next meeting is pending. We’ll need a larger venue. A presentation to the Board will be made on March 6th by Burt, Cheryl and Elton. It will inform the Board regarding activities of Futures Forum over the last year and what can be expected in the next few months. Burt clarified duties that participants need to perform before our next meeting with Marlene and things we will discuss with her next time. Several people mentioned that people from the locations need to see some of the information we saw today. Burt said we can get people up to speed at our next meeting. Video taping of meetings was suggested. Suggestions on the next meeting can be forwarded to Cheryl via email.
Burt asked the group what it learned today. Various responses were given, particularly relating to Marlene’s presentation. They included details regarding the site at Camarillo Airport, and the expected future growth of OC.
The Futures Forum was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. with Burt reading a quote from The Once and Future King.
Next Meeting:
March 16, 2001
Freedom Center,
Camarillo Airport