CCVC
FUTURES FORUM
Minutes
March 16, 2001
Freedom Center
Camarillo Airport
Elton Hall quickly reviewed the agenda for the day. He announced that Charles Giammona, retained to seek grants for planning and organizational transformation activities, had just filed an initial grant statement with the Pew Trust for a major grant. Since the Trust is particularly interested in inter-district co-operation in planning and transformation and since Kern Community College District is beginning a planning process similar to the Futures Forum process, Phil Westin, Walt Packard (Chancellor of KCCD) and Giammona are working together to expand the grant.
Cheryl Shearer reviewed the ground rules for Futures Forum meetings and undertook to facilitate the discussion on CCVC mission, vision and values.
Cheryl asked for input on the Vision, Mission and Values statement. (Note: the following account does not record all the many comments offered, but does give the flavor of the discussion.) Patti Ross referred to the Mission Statement and asked how economic development serves students. She thought the phrase is not sufficiently clear. Cheryl noted that ‘economic development’ and ‘workforce development’ are sometime interchangeable. Ellen Gaynor noted that the latter term does not cover all that is meant by the former. Economic development encompasses working with employers, community, and supply and demand. The group decided to retain the term ‘economic development’, recognized by the state.
Jim Walker suggested modifying the phrase “We are a learning-centered institution” to “We are learning-centered and committed”, and the Mission to “We are committed”. Concerns were expressed about the narrowness of the term ‘institution’. There was also concern that the term ‘student’ might itself be too narrow. Floyd Martin suggested adding ‘higher’ to the Vision statement. Elton distinguished between vision and mission. Carmen Guerrero-Calderón said that the vision should tell us what we want to be. Carolyn expressed dissatisfaction with the vision statement as too limiting. Karen Gorbech said that the vision should be: “to be a world-class leader in education.”
Consensus: Vision: To be a world-class leader in education and training.
There was considerable discussion of the statement following this lead. Who is the ‘we’? The people, CCVC, the institution? Others suggested rewording. Dennis suggested that the statement be dropped entirely as unnecessary. Consensus to drop remainder of vision statement.
Cheryl directed attention to the Mission Statement. She noted that there is a recommendation to drop “a learning institution” from the statement. Discussion centered over whether “student success” should be changed to “individual success” or “learner success.”
Discussion focused on whether to bring the abandoned vision statement into the mission statement. Larry Kennedy read a paragraph about what a mission statement is. Proposals centered around how much needed to be added to the basic one-sentence statement. The group agreed to leave the excised vision statement out. Burt suggested putting it under the “we are committed” passage, and secured agreement.
Consensus: CCVC dedicates its resources to student success.
We are committed to the continuous improvement of our programs, services, ourselves, colleagues and community. Diane proposed that this revised statement be moved to the bullets below. Consensus on the wording and location of the statement.
Consensus on moving the abandoned vision statement to the “we are committed statement”.
Elton proposed taking the five statements under “we are committed” and arranging them in appropriate order. The group agreed. These five statements are:
[Note: these statements have not been ordered.]
Elton divided the participants into the groups that were formed in February to audit the CCVC goals and strategies against the location plans to make sure that location goals were encompassed in the CCVC goals. A simple matrix was provided for analysis, allowing a listing of location goals under CCVC goals.
Burt called the groups together an explained that Futures Forum is moving toward finalization of the CCVC goals. To do that, we have to see that the location goals can be umbrelled under the CCVC goals: student success, institutional effectiveness, human resources, image, and community/government relations, resources, and facilities. Burt reminded participants of Carolyn’s work and noted that its findings need to be reflected in the CCVC goals.
Floyd Martin, speaking for his group, announced that the CCVC student success goal is reflected in all twelve MC goals. The same is true for institutional effectiveness. He noted that human resources is reflected in many goals, though only implied in others. There are three areas in the MC plan regarding the goals of image and resources, and the same is true of resources, though the CCVC goals are not explicitly detailed. There is nothing in the MC plan that is not covered by the CCVC goals.
Carmen Gurrero-Calderón explained the spreadsheet this group used to examine the DSC plan against the CCVC goals. The group thought that CCVC needed an additional goal: technology. Burt noted that the CCVC goals and objectives have been revised, due to comments made in the February Futures Forum meeting.
Cheryl handed out a revised list of goals and objectives from the group that worked on them. She walked Futures Forum through the revised list, indicating revisions where they were made. Facilities remains as a goal but is not filled in, because the development of this goal will depend on completion of the facilities discussion, anticipated in April.
Kitty Merrill suggested moving technology out of human resources and making it stand alone. Burt suggested that technology is not a goal but a means to achieving goals. Elton suggested that technology, like funding, is relevant to all goals.
Carmen continued her presentation, noting that if broad categories (rather than goals statements) are used, then location goals fit more readily under CCVC goals. She noted that DSC goal #14 seems to contain within it an objective, unlike the other goals. Burt suggested working that goal into goal #4 and separating out the objective.
Bill Norlund presented the review of the OC plan, showing how CCVC goals were reflected in OC goals. He noted that the college and CCVC goals are almost identical.
Sandra Avilos reported that it appears that the CCVC goals cover the VC goals. She drew attention to the need to connect district work with resources to location needs. Burt suggested that the CCVC goals should include reference to the budget allocation model and the purposes it serves.
Priscilla Partridge de Garcia indicated items missing from the CCVC goals and objectives on the basis of a review of key findings include an emphasis on community and diversity in the goals statements and proposed adding some objectives and modifying wording in others. Specific changes include:
The group suggested that these items be considered in redrafting the CCVC goals. [Notes: objectives that were not changed are not listed here. This response was based on the February 5, 2001 draft of CCVC goals and objectives. A subsequent draft was produced on March 5, 2001, and these suggestions will be integrated with that later draft.]
Jeannie Bailey thought some of the items looked more like strategies than objectives. Burt noted that in our discussions, the distinction has been fuzzy, but in drafting a final plan, the distinction will be refined to the point that it is useful. The concern should be the direction given, not the semantic ambiguities inherent in the distinction between strategies and objectives—an ambiguity that pervades all strategic planning discussions.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Carolyn Inouye reported that this group did not use the matrix for analysis provided because of the nature of KPIs, which focuses on institutional effectiveness. She noted that while the group found that the CCVC goals fit the KPI’s, it might be useful to deal more directly with technology. The goals cover the KPI’s as a whole, though the group would like to see some aspects of goals broken out in the final product.
She also noted that the CCVC goals will help focus on the KPI’s that are most important. As the KPI’s are operationalized in light of the CCVC goals, the essential KPI’s will surface.
Burt asked for five groups to use lunch to review the CCVC Goals and Objectives to propose adjustments. The aim is to discuss these after lunch and try to reach consensus. After lunch, each group reported to the participants.
This group suggested adding language to one objective under the Student Success goal (change in italics)
· Use traditional and innovative teaching/learning/service modalities including effective deployment and use of technology
Burt suggested that “training” be changed to “development”. Change “create success” to “improve success”. Bill wondered whether we are saying that we are not terribly successful. Elton suggested that ‘improve success’ does not imply lack of present success. Burt reminded everyone of the external scan meeting, where we were given input on areas of education and skills development that need improvement. Priscilla de Garcia pointed to the KPI’s as tools for continuous improvement.
Change title to “Institutional Effectiveness and Productivity”. Add to objectives: technology, allocation model, reward strategies to enhance buy-in, ensure cost effectiveness.
· Continually assess the impact of the budget allocation model on institutional effectiveness and revise as necessary.
· Continually review budget allocation model to ensure continuous institutional effectiveness.
· Use technology to monitor and enhance institutional effectiveness.
· Evaluate productivity systematically and continually to ensure cost-effective delivery of instruction and services
· Continually assess the impact of the budget allocation model on institutional effectiveness and revise the model as necessary
Goal 3 (Human Resources) Report
This group suggested reworking the objectives
· Recruit, hire and retain quality employees and strive for diversity
· Drop “provide compensation and benefits”
· Provide staff development opportunities to meet the needs of employees
· Develop collegial climate
· Provide technology resources and training for staff
· Honor core values
Discussion considered the objective of meeting employee needs and just what that might mean. Although CCVC should not be trying to meet every conceivable employee personal need, institutions find themselves having to meet professional needs in a larger sense of the term ‘professional’. For example, depression counseling and child care might be programs a company offers in order to develop and retain employees.
Goal 4 (Image, Community and Government Relations) Report
Revisions took into account the day’s discussions and tried to give clarity and focus to the idea of image.
· Promote a consistent CCVC positive image
· Improve federal/state/local government relations
· Expand and enhance cooperative interactions with K-12 and other postsecondary institutions
· Encourage CCVC faculty and staff visibility and involvement in the community
· Develop a comprehensive public relations/marketing plan for CCVC that reaches all stakeholders
Goal 5 (Resources) Report
This group offered some revisions to objectives
· Provide access to technology needed to allow programs/services to operate at most effective levels
· Continually evaluate resource use and productivity
· Implement entrepreneurial strategies for enrollment and resource development
· Develop budget allocation model
Burt asked if the budget allocation model should be distinctively identified or subsumed under broader objectives. Jim Walker pointed out that the model was currently being revised. The objective was reworded to account for present work and indicate the direction such work should take. The objective would serve as a benchmark against which the effectiveness of the budget allocation model would be measured. The last suggested objective was changed to read
· Revise budget allocation model to distribute to locations equitably
o Secure external funding
Consensus on all Goals
Carolyn Inouye presented a synthesis of written comments from the student satisfaction survey. The results were presented by college, and they were divided into three categories: issues and problems, suggestions, experiences with discrimination. She gave each participant a report for his or her location. In addition to the synthesis, each report contained the actual comments as an appendix. These reports are available at each location (check with the location executive vice president or vice chancellor).
Elton and Cheryl conducted a plus/delta on the day. (A plus indicates something particularly useful or valuable; a delta indicates something that should have been added or omitted or something that could have been done better.)
Deltas included the suggestion that revisions captured on computer be simultaneously displayed on a screen for all to see. The Freedom Center acoustics were criticized [it appears a solution has been found]. There were suggestions that we need to review prior work at the beginning of each Futures Forum meeting, and that we should develop a traveling library of documents so that they can be referred to as necessary at each meeting. There was the broad suggestion that we need to follow up on research results, including task forces, discussion groups, and campus forums. There could be collaboration on survey results and sharing of best practices. Better use of facilitators was recommended, along with more pre-planning of the meetings.
Pluses included reaching consensus of mission, vision and CCVC goals and objectives. The importance of research and interpretive comments was acknowledged. Several people expressed their appreciation of the morning discussions.