Process Evaluation and Review Team (PERT)

Sal,

I am grateful for your interest in the PERT group because it shows the importance of understanding the "new" planning processes that are in the works that will help Solano take steps toward resolving the deficiencies posed in ACCJC recommendations one on productive dialogue, two on improving institutional planning, and three on improving institutional effectiveness. I say "new" because in reality the PERT is not new and dates back to 2004, but more on that below. One thing is for sure, Sal, we all know the pitfalls and inadequacies of "hallway" politics, backdoor deals and personality driven decisions on campus. The need for change is almost tangible. What we are obligated to do is leave behind, as ACCJC so aptly pointed out, our "Culture of Conflict" and look forward to an open, transparent, planning cycle.

As you know, Sal, I've only been at the Solano five years, so I might not have all the history right but I'll do my best to lay it out for you. Coming off the Show Cause Report, I've got some time on my hands. With that said, I'll have to combine your questions in order to answer them:

1. What process was in place, and followed, which led to the formation of this group? In other words, from where does this group derive its authority?
   
2. Were these positions open to all faculty members? If so, who determined who would be the individuals that would comprise this group?
   
3. Were these individuals appointed? If so, who appointed them?
   

   
   

In reality there are several parts to my response because the Process Evaluation and Review Team (PERT) has evolved.

First there was the Strategic Plan Coordinating Council (SPCC) from 1996-97 (Armond Phillips, James Bracy, Sandra Dillon, Stan Arterberry, John Wagstaff, Willard Wright, José Ortiz and Rob Simas) that created the College's "Strategic Plan" and then the "Review and Validation of the Solano Community College District's Strategic Plan" in May of 2000. This is where our "Core Values, Vision & Mission, and Directions, Goals, & Performance Indicators" come from. The Mission Statement was last reaffirmed by the Board in June 2005. While there are no changes in any of these items to date, the College should recognize that they are due for reevaluation.

Then from 2003-05 there was the TASKFORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW, PLANNING, AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT: Gerry Fisher, VP Student Services — Willard Wright, VP Admin & Business Services — Jay Field, VP Tech & Learning Resources — Charles Shatzer, Assc. VP of Workforce & Community Development — Rob Simas, Director, Research & Planning — David Redfield, Dean, Math & Sciences — Shirley Lewis, Director, Student Development — Ruth Fuller, Mark Berrett, Nancy Konecny, Academic Senate Representatives — David Brannen, John Glidden, ASSC Representatives — Cynthia Simon, Janice Larsen, Classified Representatives. This group created the "Recommended Processes for Solano Community College's Integrated Evaluation, Planning, & Budgeting" in December of 2004. Inside of this recommendation is the first mention of the PERT.

Unfortunately, in the process of the 2005 comprehensive review and affirmation of accreditation by the Western Association of Schools & Colleges Accrediting Commission for Community & Junior Colleges (WASC/ACCJC) and in subsequent reports, Solano Community College was given recommendations to enhance its overall effectiveness as a regionally accredited postsecondary educational institution. Specifically concerning the College's program review, planning, and budget development processes, the Commission recommended:

General Recommendation 2: Improving Institutional Planning

In order to improve institutional planning, the College should clarify and simplify its terminology and processes used in planning so that the vocabulary is more easily understood and accepted institutionally, the planning processes are more integrated, and the plans actually get implemented. (I.A.4, I.B.3, ER 19)

General Recommendation 3: Improving Institutional Effectiveness

In order to improve institutional effectiveness the College should establish and implement a clear, systematic, consistent, and ongoing method of measuring and evaluating its effectiveness in achieving stated strategic planning goals and student learning outcomes. (I.B.2, I.B.3, I.B.6, I.B.7, ER 10, ER 19)

To begin the College's work on implementing these recommendations, the educational administrators attended several workshops beginning in the summer of 2006 during which various planning issues, models, and strategies were presented. In order to begin the process of implementing the Commission's recommendation, consensus was to adapt the goals from the College's existing Strategic Plan to follow the general format of the exemplary model developed and used by Cabrillo Community College (Aptos).

The College's original Strategic Plan specified seven "strategic directions," with two "strategic goals," each goal having at least two "performance indicators" specified. The current effort combines the original goals into one goal statement within each strategic direction, resulting in seven "strategic goals." Two new components have been added in order to provide more focus in our actions and feedback on their results: strategic objectives and annual targets to measure the achievement of these objectives.

Following the Cabrillo model, the College may focus its resources on one or more strategic objective in any planning year, but the data for all objectives will be collected and evaluated every year. For purposes of planning, the College has established AY2005-2006 as its baseline academic year. Where possible, data from prior years will be used in conjunction with the baseline data to establish annual targets for the College.

An integral piece of the 2006 model was the way in which strategies or action plans were to be proposed, considered in budget development, and evaluated for effectiveness. A form was drafted (again, based on the Cabrillo model) to effect this. The specifics of processes and timelines were put into practice for the AY2009-2010 planning/budgeting cycle. This was presented as the "Strategic Goals, Objectives, Measures, & Targets AY2006-07 through AY2008-09."

Even though the integrated planning process experienced a brief hiatus, the College has reevaluated this good work and recommitted itself to the integrated planning process. The PERT has updated the forms, process, and timelines to incorporate student learning outcomes (SLOs) and service area outcomes (SAOs), the Core Competencies for SCC's general education program, and our latest Educational Master Plan. This new "Integrated Planning Process" encompasses program review, planning and budgeting for both operational and strategic level proposals, feedback, and overall evaluation processes. (I've gleaned this information from several reports, primarily those mentioned above.)

However, Sal, you ask about authority. The timeline for this goes like this:

During the SHARED GOVERNANCE COUNCIL MEETING on January 28, 2004 from 1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. in the Board Room the minutes reflect that, "President Perfumo discussed the structure of FABPAC, Strategic Planning Coordinating Council and how it integrates with program review and the budget. President Perfumo added that the accreditation self-evaluation starts in fall 2004 with an accreditation site visit to take place fall of 2005. Gerry Fisher and Rob Simas will co-chair a planning committee to address the integration of planning, program review and the budget and will invite representatives from various constituencies to participate on the committee."

Then, at the SHARED GOVERNANCE COUNCIL MEETING of September 22, 2004 from 1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. in the Board Room, Academic Senate – Gail Kropp reported that, "three faculty members would serve on the steering committee for the Task Force on Integrated Planning, Program Review and Budget."

On October 20, 2004 the Financial & Budget Planning Advisory Council (FABPAC) discussed at length the Strategic Planning Flowchart: "Rob Simas explained that S/P Perfumo directed Rob Simas and Gerry Fisher to establish a task force entitled Program Review, Planning and Budget Development to establish a process flow to better integrate and unify all campus planning. He distributed a draft flowchart and timeline of the current planning process. The Task Force is now focused on Budget Development process flow and timeline. The Task Force needs to determine from FABPAC how the budget development process will integrate with the Program Review and Planning. Gerry Fisher explained the Task Force's mission is to clarify, simply, and integrate. It's attempting to merge the budget cycle into the plan.

Taken from the flowchart, the Budget Development cycle includes the following major components:

• Budget review of current-year allocations (Aug-Oct)
  
• Identification of possible external funding sources (Nov-Dec)
  
• Review information from 3-year & other plans for future budget considerations (Jan-Mar)
  
• Allocation recommendation for project funding (Apr-May)
  

Dorothy Hawkes expressed concerns that the flowchart seems to illustrate that Executive Council has a 'one-way street' to the Governing Board. Gerry Fisher commented that in FABPAC's roles & responsibilities, it's stated that recommendations are forwarded to the Supt-President. If S/P had revisions it would be returned to FABPAC with rationale why it was revised and/or rejected. Dorothy Hawkes asked how does 2004/05 priorities come in now that District has 2004/05 budget dollars. Gerry Fisher explained that District moves forward and establishes priorities, whether there's funding or not, during the spring for the next year. For example, the 2004/05 priorities now can be funded. Floyd Hogue noted there were Instructional Equipment dollars that were used to fund some of the 2004/05 priorities also. Current planning process: VP-Academic Affairs and VP-Student Services integrates its priorities, then get forwarded to the Academic Senate. Business Services & Human Resources plans come in. Along with way, FABPAC reviews the priorities, although no dollars are attached. District wants to revise the process so that budget development is integrated with establishing priorities from all areas at the same time. Jo Ann Smith expressed that FABPAC should get to see all priorities with projected dollars attached."

SHARED GOVERNANCE COUNCIL follows on November 10, 2004, 1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m., Board Room, "Vice President Fisher distributed a document entitled, 'Institutional Initiatives for 2005-2006.' Vice President Fisher explained that the document was drafted last summer at an Educational Administrators' summer workshop and jointly reviewed by the Educational Administrators' and the Academic Senate. The Task Force on Program Review, Planning, and Budget Development is looking at the program review cycle. A recommendation coming out of this task force is to align our terminology more with what other community colleges use. The task force also recommended that the initiatives be called goals. The Council discussed initiative number five and the lack of soft skills for employees in the workforce. Employer readiness courses focusing on soft skills, as well as writing and math skills were discussed. President Perfumo added that this topic will be discussed at the upcoming Solano County Office of Education Superintendents' Meeting. Initiative number three, 'Provide competitive compensation and funding to recruit, hire, and retain quality administrators' was discussed. The Council agreed to amend initiative number three to: 'Provide competitive compensation and funding to recruit, hire, and retain quality administrators, faculty, and staff.' Vice President Fisher will take this recommendation back to the task force and report back to the Council.

The next week on November 17, 2004 FABPAC took a look at: "FABPAC Roles & Responsibilities:

• Item was reviewed as it relates to the Strategic Planning Flowchart. Gerry Fisher explained how the District needs to integrate the flowchart with budget development.
  
• Gerry Fisher stated that after the task force has finalized the flowchart process, it will return to FABPAC for final support to the process.
  
• The Chair noted this also means the Roles & Responsibilities will get reviewed to make it work for the planning process. The Chair indicated we will form a subcommittee to look at this in closer detail after the strategic planning process is complete."
  

The Taskforce and its document then went back to SHARED GOVERNANCE COUNCIL MEETING on January 26, 2005 during which time "Recommendations from the Taskforce on Program Review, Planning and Budget Development –

• Gerry Fisher explained there are three main strands or areas that interact and merge: budget, evaluation and planning. He emphasized page 9 of the handout, the flowchart visually displaying the three areas and the timeline and process. The entire planning process is delayed if the State budget is not passed on time. President Perfumo asked that everyone take the document to their respective groups and have dialogue about it. She added that workshops and forums will be held to help the whole campus understand the process. She requested that everyone critically review the document and ask themselves—how would we explain the process to, for example, an accrediting team member, as well as the public.
  
• President Perfumo thanked the taskforce for their work on the draft, and particularly Gerry Fisher for his leadership on the taskforce."
  

Then back it went to FABPAC on February 16, 2005 for a brief moment, "Task Force on Program Review Draft:
VP Gerry Fisher continued discussion on the Program Review Task Force's draft." But on March 16, 2005 there is a more detailed account of the draft:

• "Gerry Fisher reviewed the Program Review's timeline and explained that priorities for Administrative & Business Services and Human Resources will be eventually integrated with Academic Affairs and Student Services.
  
• Floyd Hogue commented the 2003/04 Program Review was recently completed and believes there's a "missing step." The Review has a list of recommended initiatives, but it's not specific enough. He added that more discussion is needed on whether items on Three Year Plans get accomplished and not rely on Program Review to measure the District's effectiveness.
  
• Bob Myers noted the Three Year Plans are very important to his area. Most, if not all, require funding and many priorities stay on year after year. However, it's a good way for him to visually see where he's at.
  
• Fran Brown explained that from her perspective all of the District's plans are disjointed: program review, three-year plans, and the educational master plan. Much repetition takes place. She feels the "tools" she's given do not work.
  
• Dorothy Hawkes echoed Fran's comments and further added that FABPAC, according to the Roles & Responsibilities, is included in making recommendations on priorities.
  
• Gerry Fisher added that when he did his plans in OAR, he can tell what has been accomplished—it was clear to his area.
  
• Bob Myers commented due dates for the plans are "staggered," and feels the three-year plans should be the "base."
  
• Floyd Hogue noted that the three-year plan could be incorporated into the educational master plan to reduce redundancy.
  
• Gerry Fisher responded that he will reconvene the task force and share the comments with them."
  

Finally, our 2005 Self-Study for Accreditation states, "[The] Task Force [on Program Review, Planning, & Budget Development] representatives reported regularly to the members of their constituent groups (Academic Senate, unions, educational administrators, Executive Council, ASSC) during the life of the Task Force. The Task Force proposed final recommendations to the Superintendent-President which were shared with and accepted by the groups' leadership. The document prepared by the Task Force is the basis for ongoing staff training."

It wasn't until this last year that the Strategic Goals, Objectives, Measures, & Targets AY2006-07 through AY2008-09 has actual been implemented. Our Show Cause Report 2009 mentions this process and the role of the PERT in the following way, "[I]n order to react and adjust to any issues or problems that came up as the College put its Strategic Proposal Process to the test, PERT solicited input from Review Groups (such as Basic Skills Initiative Committee and the Enrollment Management and Student Retention Committee), Shared Governance Council, and the Financial and Budgeting Planning Council (FABPAC) on the Strategic Proposal Process. For instance, when it became apparent that the Shared Governance Council needed better guidelines on how to proceed and a rubric to evaluate and prioritize proposals, PERT developed those documents [Evidence 1.26 Minutes SGC 10-08-08, Evidence, 1.26a Minutes SGC 10-22-08, Evidence 1.26b Minutes SGC 11-12-08, Evidence 1.26c Minutes SGC 01-28-09, Evidence 1.26d Minutes SGC 02-11-09, Evidence 1.26e Minutes SGC 02-11-09 Tally Sheet, & Evidence 1.26f Strategic Proposal Process & Ranking]." The great news is that the process is working and on February 25, 2009, FABPAC has evaluated, ranked, and moved forward to the Superintendent/President recommendations for funding.

So that's the first part of the history and timeline for the PERT group but there is another part of the story. It starts with the 2009 ASCCC Accreditation Institute that took place from January 23-25. Tracy Schneider (LOAC), Robin Steinback (VPAA) and I went to prepare for the accreditation report but came back with a clear understanding that while the Board and Mr. Henry would have to be the ones to solve Recommendations 7 and 8, the faculty had something to contribute for Recommendations 1, 2 and 3.As a matter of fact, the Academic Senate early on set as one of its goals for this year to better understand the relationship between it and budget processes. Aside from the "Strategic Proposal Process" there was no clear connection between planning and budget on campus. As a matter of fact, Sal, the connection between SLOs, Program Review, and Budget is barely negligible. As Senate President, one of my areas of concern is "processes for institutional planning and budget development". As I dug on the Intranet,I found the "Recommended Processes for Solano Community College's Integrated Evaluation, Planning & Budgeting" document. From our discussions in late January 2009, Robin, Tracy and I realized that we needed more participation so we spoke to Rob Simas, then a little later Ruth Fuller (an original member of the TASKFORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW, PLANNING, AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT) and then Dave Redfield also joined the group. As our Show Cause Report 2009 mentions, "To encourage broad-participation in evaluating the process [the integrated planning process], PERT presented the process to Shared Governance Council, FABPAC, the Academic Senate, and at an open campus forum. [Evidence 1.27
Minutes SGC 02-11-09, Evidence 1.27a Minutes FABPAC 02-25-09, & Evidence 1.27b Minutes Aca Sen 02-23-09]. (The Show Cause Report doesn't reflect the Joint Senate and SCFA meeting where the Integrated Planning Process was also discussed!)
The comments and insights gained by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the College's planning, evaluation and budgeting processes greatly informed the final new 'Integrated Planning Process.'" While the PERT has not met during the madness of the writing of the Show Cause Report 2009, we do plan on continuing to meet. What we've realized is that we need a classified staff representative on the committee to help us out. I'll be talking to Cynthia Simon about this soon.

Also, Sal, please know that the PERT's current membership is really only more of an ad hoc group than anything else. There was such urgency to move forward that this was the best we could do. Additionally, the end goal is to finish this first draft of the Integrated Planning Process and then send it back through Shared Governance Council, FABPAC, the Academic Senate, and any other necessary body. After that the idea is to familiarize the campus community with the document and the process. This will mean training and a real openness to change.

I feel like I've presented so much, Sal, that I need to return to your original questions.

1. What process was in place, and followed, which led to the formation of this group? In other words, from where does this group derive its authority?
   

• I've outlined the process above. I think it speaks to authority because in all instances, a Superintendent/ President or a Vice President has charged faculty, staff, and administrators to solve a problem. In all instances these dedicated people have reported out to the various shared governance groups on campus to gain further insights into their charge and to refine their products. I would also say that on the surface they "derive" authority from the Superintendent/ President, but in reality the ACCJC standards and most recently the Show Cause status of the College requires action. At the end of the day, we change or we close.
  

1. Were these positions open to all faculty members? If so, who determined who would be the individuals that would comprise this group?
   

• I think the above documentation clearly shows that these positions were open to all faculty members and that Academic Senate Presidents were the ones who determined who would comprise these groups.
  

1. Were these individuals appointed? If so, who appointed them?
   

• I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean here. As you well know, Sal, because these committees, taskforces and the like take up a great deal of time those who participate are "appointed" but more realistically begged to contribute. The 2009 PERT group has met at least a dozen times and spent hours and hours on this project.