Community Colleges of Ventura County

FUTURES FORUM

Minutes

Meeting of July 14, 2000

Cowan Center, Camarillo Airport

The meeting began at 9:10 a.m. Elton Hall briefly reviewed the agenda for the day. Eva Conrad introduced Nabil S. Abu-Ghazaleh, new Dean of Student Learning at Moorpark College. Cheryl Shearer updated Futures Forum on the activities of Process Facilitators, including campus-level work and recruitment. A few new process facilitators have undergone training the summer, and more have signed up for the fall. She invited anyone interested to contact her (x8316).

Burt Peachy announced that the book for Futures Forum 2000-2001 will be Peter Block’s Stewardship: Choosing Sevice over Self-Interest. Copies will be provided to Futures Forum members. He then reviewed upcoming strategic planning and Futures Forum activities. He indicated that the CCVC internal scan would require two intensive sets of meetings. Since this is the first substantial internal scan in the history of CCVC, it will require some time for organization and learning in addition to execution of the scan. He announced tentative plans to meet Friday-Sunday, October 13-15 (10/13 in the afternoon, all day 10/14 until 4:00 p.m., 10/14 morning), and again Friday-Sunday, December 1-3 (12/1 in the afternoon, all day 12/2 until 4:00 p.m., 12/3 morning).

Preceding these events, Futures Forum will meet for half a day (8:30 a.m.-12 noon) on Friday, September 29^th. This meeting will be conducted by Mike Gregoryk and will be devoted to facilities master planning. Facilities planning is crucial to all CCVC planning and an important element in Futures Forum strategic planning.

Burt also outlined activities that will lead up to and support these activities. Shortly after September 1, members of Futures Forum will receive the four location plans. Additionally, members will receive a report on key performance indicators (KPI’s). Burt is working on the external scan information obtained from the four locations and the Futures Forum external scan meeting. He is reducing these materials to a one-page Key Findings document that will assist in the internal scan. Burt has also developed materials for a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, essential to the internal scan. The Internal Scan Task Force will review and revise these materials for distribution.

In conducting a CCVC SWOT analysis,

ü Individuals will conduct a personal SWOT analysis before October 13

ü Futures Forum will conduct a CCVC-wide SWOT analysis, and location representatives to Futures Forum will bring location SWOT analyses to Futures Forum for that purpose

ü Futures Forum will produce a collective SWOT analysis for CCVC

Throughout this process, including the two internal scan meetings, Futures Forum will focus on collaborative strategies wherever possible. Collaboration begins with sharing location plans and reaches all the way to intensive collaboration in planning across CCVC.

Elton invited Phil Westin to facilitate a discussion with members of Futures Forum regarding budgeting in the CCVC. Phil noted that strategic planning implies putting money behind plans made. Since CCVC strategic planning is relative new at the level of the collective discussions and consensus found in Futures Forum, members need to begin thinking about how to allocate resources to planning and to plans developed through the strategic planning process.

In providing a bit of history to budget allocation processes within CCVC, Phil reminded members that state apportionment comes to the district as a whole, and not to the specific locations. CCVC has to decide how to allot the funds received to the locations, and the locations create budgets to use the funds allotted. Four years ago, CCVC had an expenditure-driven budget allocation model. That means that allocations were made largely on the basis of previous location expenditures. At that time, almost a year was spent on reviewing ways to move from an expenditure-driven model towards a revenue-driven model. A simple revenue-driven model would put the incoming money where it was earned. Deploying such a pure model is hardly possible, because it ignores demographics, relative costs of various programs, and relative needs of different locations. The year spent in producing the present budget allocation model dealt with those issues in light of principles the Board of Trustees established for any budget allocation model. Large meetings of over 80 people were held, smaller meetings were held by the District Council on Administrative Services (DCAS), the Presidents and Vice-Presidents met, and every constituency was involved.

DCAS worked directly on the budget allocation model and became very knowledgeable regarding budget and budget allocation models. The budget allocation model that eventually emerged put money where students enrolled but also dealt with protecting institutions from undue influence and short-term demographic fluctuations. By the time everyone agreed to the budget allocation model currently in use, few were entirely happy with the results but most everyone could accept them. We all knew how the model would play out over time, and it has worked according to expectations. But the time has come to reconsider the budget allocation model in light of past performance and future projections.

As the working of the model has shown, DCAS knows what it is doing, but that expertise is on the technical side of budget analysis. The larger questions of where CCVC is going, where it wants to go, how soon it is possible to get there, and where we are now, are not questions for DCAS alone. These questions are exactly the ones that all employees of CCVC and the community at large are concerned with, and those concerns have been coming into Futures Forum. Given where CCVC is, either it can undertake some major institutional adjustments to meet its future, or it can make some minor adjustments to the present budget allocation model now in order to gain time to more deeply consider the big picture painted by those larger questions. Either way, Futures Forum needs to discuss the process CCVC should use in order to consider the big picture and to determine how allocations should be made to meet its requirements.

Mike Gregoryk reminded members of budget timelines and noted that any new model needs to be in place by sometime in October. That means that a process should be put in place now. He also said that CCVC needs to look at serious program review (in the large sense of ‘program’, including how CCVC purchases and how it delivers services).

Char Arnold drew attention to the need to meet shared governance constraints. DCAS is the shared governance (‘collegial consultation’ in official language) committee for making concrete budget decisions. Futures Forum can establish CCVC philosophy and broad directions and goals.

Phil urged Futures Forum to move toward establishing a process today. Mike suggested that DCAS could lead the discussion on the process. Char agreed that DCAS should take this lead and suggested that DCAS invite volunteers to join who wish to assist in the process. Dennis Cabral noted that volunteers can be very helpful if they are listened to.

After additional comments, Phil said that he had heard this much consensus: that DCAS develop a task force that includes volunteers to discuss process and perhaps tweak the present budget allocation model now and do a full review for the following year. He suggested that the task force might be facilitated by having non-technicians as co-chairs.

Ruth Hemming noted that as a shared governance body, DCAS should have full representation on any task force. The FY 2000-2001 budget needs to be approved by the Board of Trustees, and the FY 2001-2002 budget will have to be developed. Mike added that the process for the FY 2001-2002 budget should be discussed in early fall; program review cannot be ignored, though that discussion may belong in the District Council on Student Learning (DCSL). Burt thought that by looking outside ourselves, we will get a better handle on self-assessment.

Elton attempted to summarize the results of this conversation and suggested producing a written summary so that everyone would be clear by the time Futures Forum reached consensus. Priscilla Partridge de Garcia suggested that everyone should be provided invitations with meeting dates so that everyone is informed of and can choose to participate in discussions of the budget allocation model.

After a brief break, Elton read out for possible consensus a summary of the understanding reached regarding the budget allocation model. That summary follows immediately below.

Dealing with the Budget Allocation Model

ü DCAS will finish work on current (FY 2000-2001) budget and submit to Board for final approval

ü DCAS will work on any necessary tweaks to the current budget allocation model in order to develop proposed budget for FY 2001-2002

ü DCAS will convene a Budget Allocation Model Task Force of volunteers (open to anyone who wishes to join) to review the current budget allocation model, discuss requirements for new budget allocation model, and work out new budget allocation model to take effect in planning the budget for FY 2002-2003

Priscilla expressed concern that as the DCAS task force works out the budget allocation model, Futures Forum will be perceived as doing nothing. Phil suggested that Futures Forum members should be deeply involved in the DCAS task force. Char suggested that the DCAS task force hold forums at each location to receive input on budget allocation model issues, concerns and possibilities. Consensus was reached on the state above dealing with DCAS and the budget allocation model.

Phil announced that, as a result of the Futures Forum external scan meeting, each college president has put on a vice-chancellor hat, undertaking CCVC-wide duties without additional compensation. Walker will serve as vice chancellor for educational outreach, Larry Calderon for economic development, and Steve Arvizu for grants and contracts.

In addition, Phil also announced that he has been in discussions with district and Oxnard College leaders about the possibility of switching the roles of Dennis Cabral and Anthony Tricoli. Since the decision has yet to be made, feedback is now welcome.

The agenda was adjusted to accommodate reports before lunch.

Elton introduced Patti Ross for a report on Parker Palmer activities. Patti reminded Futures Forum that Parker Palmer focuses on the inner side of individuals to discover what makes us effective human beings and teachers. She asked Elton to describe the Taos experience, which was a leadership institute. The Dallas County Community College District sponsored a leadership formation retreat and invited a few people from outside that district to attend. Events included the application of Parker Palmer’s ideas, including participation in a clearness committee, frank discussions of the fears that distort interactions with others, and ways of nurturing mutual trust, collaboration, openness and creativity in work. An email support group has been established to keep participants in touch with one another and with the spirit of the Taos retreat.

Mary Jones described a day with Parker Palmer in Colorado. The Fetzer Institute sponsored a retreat in Colorado Springs, tied to a teaching for change program. The group consisted of new teachers, long-term teachers, and teaches who had moved into managerial positions and found that frustrating. She noted the ease with which it is possible to be open with strangers, and then experienced a movement to a level where people did not want to lose contact with one another, and have established a email group. What we learned are healing tools that guide as well as renew. This was a teacher-driven conference.

Patti reported on the Parker Palmer in Ventura County. This focused on formation work, the idea that we begin with a clean slate and let our fears and worries deform us; “formation” is the attempt to return to that earlier clearness within the context of community. The email groups share much that is personal, but also constitute a safe place to discuss ideas and issues.

The CCVC Futures Forum event focused on training individuals—Mary, Patti, Karen de la Pea, Elton—to serve in nurturing similar activities in CCVC. The event was open to anyone in the district and all locations were represented. Besides some training, the discussions of future activities, how to bring ideas to campus, etc., were energetic. Already some dates have been set to provide information and activities on the campuses. The event was held at Marion Boenheim’s house, and she was gracious and generous in letting the group use her home.

Phil recounted what he has been doing in District Cabinet, especially using music at the beginning of meetings go help bring focus and calmness to them.

Dan Berney reported on the College of the Community Summer Institute offered by Michael Dolence in Claremont. The interest came from the threat to community colleges of alternative modes of delivering education. Participants came from community colleges all over the county in order to share the latest information and implications. Themes included the need to keep good plans in draft form, the value of co-opetition, long-term anticipation, and the fact that community colleges across the nation share similar concerns.

Pat Kistler noted that we educate the whole student and not just train them. She wondered what Dolence’s solution was to the threat of proprietary schools that focus only on training. Dan replied that Dolence did not solve our problems; rather he tried to compel us to look at the problems. Burt noted that since curriculum drives enrollment, it should drive planning. This means that curriculum has to be thought of in larger terms than has been traditional to do.

Cheryl shared the books Dolence provided institute attendees. She noted that a key issue is enrollment management that includes identifying adult learners as well as tracking and measuring results at every step from recruitment to enrollment to semesters attended. Burt pointed to our need to increase the yield from our identifiable suspect population—which is what Dolence calls the population in a community that a college might recruit and service. Curriculum is the core around which everything else is centered (not just course content but its modularization, delivery, packaging, etc.)

Cheryl reported that other colleges commended CCVC on starting in the right direction by beginning with development of a community of learning-oriented people.

Phil reported on the plans for attending CQIN. CQIN—the Continuous Quality Improvement Network—is a CEO organization that meets to look at good practices in the world of business and industry that might be applicable to institutions of higher education. Ventura College has been a member for several years, and Phil joined this year. Jim has submitted an application for membership and Steve is working on one. The CEO’s met in February to develop CQIN plans. In March facilitators from the four locations—Cheryl, Diane Moore, Elton and Carmen Guerrero-Calderon—met in Orlando to learn about this year’s learning experience. Each location will send a small team to Orlando from Aug 5 to 9 to observe and learn how Disneyworld handles human resources. Disneyworld in Orlando maintains 90+ square miles of land and employs 58,000 people. Though the entertainment industry has a turnover rate in employees of about 70% annually, Disneyworld’s rate is 17%. All aspects of human resources, including recruitment, training, cross-training, job shadowing, support and various kinds of learning, will be examined. The teams that are part of this learning experience are meeting together and at their locations during the summer in preparation for the visitation.

Elton announced that the services of Charles Giammona have been secured for the first phases of grant seeking and application to support the work of Futures Forum. Charles has been retained for 28 days of work for $10,000, and he will attempt to secure one or two modest grants in that time. A former teacher at Texas A & M, he was until recently a dean at Spokane Community College, in charge of the second largest health sciences program in the nation. He has just been appointed a vice-chancellor there. His largest successful grant was for $50,000,000 to assist in organizing clean up of nuclear waste dumped in the Arctic by the former Soviet Union. He experience includes extensive work in developing stair-stepped grants—beginning with modest grants and using the results to secure larger grants—that include reaching out and working with multiple districts and institutions. He is quite excited about the work of Futures Forum and the promise of CCVC.

During the lunch hour, process facilitators met with Futures Forum members in small groups and conducted an evaluative plus/delta for the past year of Futures Forum. Multiple comments were collected.

The following lists the evaluative comments recorded at each table. (‘Plus’ includes features of Futures Forum that members appreciated and would like to see continued; ‘delta’ includes features that need improvement or should be added or eliminated.)

Table 1 Plus/Delta:

Pluses included:

ü Teams included faculty and staff, were coordinated and open

ü Camaraderie

ü External Scan Task Force was successful in its work through using the tools of Futures Forum

ü Community input

ü Knowledge of the entire District

ü Realization that all have the same problems

ü Titles left outside the door; the positive way classified employees are viewed; blurring of classified-academic distinction

ü Planning model developed on paper

ü Location draft plans

ü Base of common knowledge

ü Level of comfort

Deltas included:

ü High dropout rate of Futures Forum members

ü Work pressures, internally and from superiors

ü High level of commitment difficult to maintain—individuals who need to be here are sometimes not here

ü Some individuals were told they could not participate in Futures Forum

ü Cost/benefit concerns—what benefits is one getting from Futures Forum?

ü Futures Forum process not sufficiently defined—where are we going?

ü Lost momentum in Futures Forum

ü Lack of support at location work site

ü What is the product of Futures Forum?

ü Lessening of enthusiasm—stickers and bubbles

ü Icebreakers, games, etc.

ü Not all task force members are active

ü Open-ended timeline

ü Product vs. process issues

ü How will Futures Forum impact others?

ü How to get information out to the locations’ rank and file?

Table 2 Plus/Delta:

Pluses included:

ü Energy level, interest, participation

ü Cooperation and teamwork

ü Focus on task

ü Consensus building that led to foundation, practices and values

ü Some people picked up slack when others let things slip

ü Now there’s a better perception of Futures Forum

ü Leadership: well-organized and effective

ü Buy-in from top will lead to success

ü Learning what today’s issues are in education (emerging from the Dark Ages)

ü Banner 2000

ü Making worthwhile changes

Deltas included:

ü Some people didn’t come through

ü Didn’t market Futures Forum well (except at OC)

ü Still some skepticism

ü Detrimental when top management isn’t visible, physically present

ü For some, Futures Forum is not a top priority

ü How to explain the results to others?

ü How to change our expectations?

ü Faculty struggling to meet classes and Futures Forum schedules

ü Need to nurture one another more and be less negative

ü Haven’t made progress with process improvement and fast track issues and need good explanation why

ü Need improved process for picking up fast track projects

ü Volunteering people for tasks who are not in the room

ü Overextending ourselves

ü Don’t have enough training available to all staff

ü Insufficient recognition of our strengths

Table 3 Plus/Delta:

Pluses included:

ü Growing collegiality

ü Getting to know each other

ü Improved climate/sense of being a team

ü Learning experiences

ü Exposure to new ideas,

ü Active engagement in being both a teacher and a learner

ü Elton’s white paper response “Paradigm Shuffle”

ü Changed vocabulary

ü Getting to know people from other locations

ü Cultural transformation

ü Initial learning teams experiences

ü Training of process facilitators

ü Spirituality is ok now (focus)

ü Cultural caring

ü Wellness

ü Consensus techniques learned and used

ü Student and part-time faculty involvement

ü Exposure to new ideas and new ways of thinking

ü Innovation

ü Dedication of people

ü Time to think and reflect

ü Books and conversations have helped

ü Outreach to other districts and K-12

ü Productive sessions

ü Level playing field

ü Synergy

ü Increased awareness

ü Expanded vision

ü Value of ground rules

ü Accountable to and for each other

ü More trusting environment

ü Willingness of District Office to support Futures Forum work

ü Long-term vision

ü Individual and group transformation (an opportunity created by the District)

ü Succinct/comprehensive reports

ü Email minutes and reports

Deltas included:

ü Transfer of learning from Futures Forum to locations

ü Frustrations

ü Participation level

ü Time crunch, scheduling, insufficient time

ü Priorities: Futures Forum, location plans, classroom

ü Balance in life/prioritization

ü Need more buy-in

ü Discern core values and key performance indicators (kpi’s)

ü Underutilized web site

ü More student and part-time faculty involvement

ü Suspicions from the skeptical

ü Spending money on Futures Forum

ü Short-term vision

[Editorial note: some readers of Futures Forum minutes have noted that there seem to be contradictions in some plus/delta lists. Since individuals share their perceptions openly and not everyone has the same perceptions, differences will appear. Rather than trying to produce a summary for the minutes, the contents of each table’s observations are simply recorded here for all to see.—Elton Hall]

Burt then shared with the group the plans for conducting the Internal Scan SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis. The goal is to conduct an extensive CCVC-wide analysis in September/October prior to the planning retreats. Each location will be asked to arrange a forum or similar process with the goal of maximum participation and dialogue based on the external scan findings and the individual site planning documents. Location plans are due September 1. It was suggested that electronic input on the SWOT analysis be made available to those who find difficulty attending a site forum.

Carolyn Inouye shared the status and response to date on the Student and Staff Satisfaction surveys. During the discussion it was decided that the site SWOT analysis would focus on three questions:

1. What do you value about working here?

2. What would you improve?

3. Where do we need to be headed or moving toward?

A four-part quadrant approach will be used at the later planning retreats. Each location process will have access to survey summaries from Carolyn as well as the key findings for the external scan.

Futures Forum Liaisons were asked to contact Cheryl Shearer for deployment of process facilitators to support the location analyses sessions. They were also encouraged to reach out to everyone on the site to ensure an inclusive process.

A plus/delta process was held for the day’s meeting.

Pluses included:

ü Great lunch

ü Productive although smaller group

ü Flexibility in agenda, specifically to address the budget allocation model

ü Good reports on the summer experiences

ü Taking initiative and stepping up to the plate (leadership)

ü New blood, new perspectives

ü Budget allocation model discussion went well and quickly

ü Lyn’s graciousness regarding VC attendance

ü Phil’s handling of budget allocation model discussion

ü Dennis’ ‘touchstones’

Deltas included:

ü No more working lunches

ü Allow open time for new topics

ü Need more VC people

At the end of the day, the opportunity was made available for Task Forces to meet. The Internal Scan Task Force met at that time and reviewed the plans for the CCVC-wide Internal Scan Retreats.

(Special thanks to Cheryl Shearer for gathering flip chart materials and taking notes for these minutes during and after lunch.)