PFE Committee
Approved minutes
Oct. 12, 2001
Attendance:
Members: Kathy Keller
(Math/Phy Sci), Sally Fasteau (SPS), Mark Wood (Humanities), Marge Edelen
(LAC), Kay Golub (Admissions), Joyce Ricci (Student Services), Jonathon Lee
(Library), Elliott Mason (Counseling), Julie Holt (Physical Education), Livier
Jimenez (ASO), Mary Ramos (ASO), Luis Rosas (Administration)
Guests: Joan Thomas-Spiegel
(Research), Ann Tomlinson (Planning, Research, & Special Projects), Nina
Malone, Bobby McNeel
1. Call to Order: 1:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Agenda (M.Edelen/S.Fasteau)
3. Approval of minutes (M. Wood/M. Edelen)
4. Analysis of PFE Research
J. Thomas-Spiegel
distributes the 9/2001 PFE LAHC
Progress Report. She points out that in interpreting the report, committee should
note that base years have changed.
Also, the committee should
be aware that the statistics don't look at total number of students, but only
at 1st time freshmen who started at Harbor. Ms. Thomas-Spiegel points out the
difficulty in using the progress report to try to compare one year to the next
and use that comparison as a decision-making factor.
L. Rosas - the real numbers
we need to look at have yet to be developed; a more realistic picture is
needed.
J. Thomas-Spiegel explains
that the campus needs to make a greater improvement in those areas where there
has been minus in order to move to the positive.
5. Review of Upcoming PFE
Assessment
J. Thomas-Spiegel explains
that, unlike previous assessments, this one will be in narrative form and that
it is not too soon to start. The assessment should, in part, use the data
contained within the progress report. The District will have no involvement
with this year's report.
Ann Tomlinson agreed to
sort out who needs to supply which information and to bring her findings back
to the committee. She and J. Thomas-Spiegel will prepare a preliminary report
template for the next PFE meeting.
K. Keller suggests that
committee-wide participation in writing the assessment is preferable to having
one or two people write it.
M. Wood stresses that the
assessement would need to go to the Senate for ratification, and that it would
be preferable to send this to the Senate prior to the Winter recess.
6. Review of 2000-01
project reports
J. Ricci states that the
committee chairs have so far received 11 reports out of 21 funded proposals
from last year. One report (Math 116) stated that money was used for a purpose
other than outlined in the RFP. Money was instead used to cover expenses for
tutors for 112, 115, & 125, since the class formats were restructured,
negating the original intent. The committee agrees that, while functionally,
the money was spent appropriately, that future RFP's should include a notice
that the committee must approve any changes in encumbrances and spending
appropriations.
K. Keller suggests that the
committee be informed of those reports that have come in, and that a second
notice be sent out to those that haven't. The committee is informed, and 2nd
notices will go out next week.
J Holt raises the question
of how do the reports truly measure success. Perhaps a standard form to assist
proposal makers in tracking success would be a good thing. Ann Tomlinson will
work on creating the form.
7. Future funding
J. Lee announces that the
motion made during the last PFE meeting was unanimously approved by the Senate,
and that the president is holding off funding the Life Skills Center.
M. Wood states that the
Senate is allowing the president time to see whether more instructional
equipment money is restored (governor's signature).
K. Keller requests that the
committee should be apprised of any future changes to funding of the ranked
list at the time or soon after the decision is made.
Regarding the Life Skills Center, M. Wood raises the
question of last year's $63,000 allocation. Has that money been spent, and can
some of it be used to augment funding through Spring 2002.
E. Mason reads the draft of
the Counseling Division's response to the president's decision regarding the
Life Skills Center, the final draft of which will be presented to the Senate.
S. Fasteau suggests that
the funding for the Life Skills Center should be institutionalized.
L. Rosas presents the
president's perspective, driven by the concern that the college might get 10%
less funding for the next fiscal year. In a financial squeeze, the college
would have to justify that this program (Life Skills) is valued more than some
of the "meat and potatoes" classes. It's a matter of making choices.
State revenues are dropping, regardless of increased enrollment.
J. Holt suggests that the
Life Skills Center might show that it is a revenue making concern.
N. Malone offers the
perspective that loss of the Life Skills Center would mean a direct hit at
retention is Learning Disabilities testing is cut back. This testing is a cost
effective way to get these students tested.
M. Wood mentions that the
Life Skills Center has broad campus support.
7. Items from the floor
S. Fasteau suggests that
future RFP's should ask the applicant to think about how the project might be
funded if PFE money were to diminish.
B. McNeel offers that
proposals that do not receive PFE funding should sent to Mr. McNeel and John
Sparks, who will help the applicant find alternate sources of funding.
S. Fasteau raises the
concern that all campus projects fit into the unit plan appropriate to the
project. PFE funding ought not become the place where projects that don't fit
in with a larger plan get funded.
K. Keller suggests that
this issue should be worked into future RFP's, namely, how does this proposal
fit into your area's unit plan?
K. Keller asks that PFE
members notify the chairs if they cannot attend a meeting. Also, will this
committee composition change in the Spring Semester? Is this still a senate
committee?
M. Wood answers that the
senate will hold on to this committee.
Adjourn (SF/JL) 2:30
Next meeting: October 26