getting to yes! - community college facility coalition · 2014-09-15 · case study #1 –single...

9/9/2014

1

GETTING TO YES!Shared Governance During the Design Process

GETTING TO YES!: 9/9/2014 | PAGE 2

Introduction

Panel:

• Allyson Gipson, Esq., Assoc. AIAVice President/Market Leader – Education; Harris & Associates

• Deborah Shepley, AIA, LEED APDirector – Higher Education; Gensler

• José D. Nuñez, LEED APVice Chancellor, Facilities Planning, Maintenance and Operations; San Mateo Community College District

• Karen PinkhamProject Manager; San Mateo Community College District

9/9/2014

2

Planning + Design Process

3 LEVELS:• Master Plan• Bond Program

• Building Design

Shared Governance Defined

“Shared governance is both an ideal and an operational reality that pertains to ways in which policy decisions are made in colleges and universities”. Corson (1960)

9/9/2014

3


History of Shared Governance

• Education Code Section 70901(b) set minimum standards for community colleges “to ensure faculty, staff and students the right to participate effectively in district and college governance and the opportunity to express their opinions … and to ensure that their opinions are given every reasonable consideration …”

• AB1725 (1988) and Title 5 of the California Education Code codified the legal authority for higher education, increasing the governance activities and responsibilities of faculty through academic senates.

• Participatory Governance becoming the favored term.


Misconceptions of Shared Governance

• Only issues pertaining to academics are addressed through shared governance.

• A committee votes on a new plan, then it gets implemented automatically.

• Professors delegate the governance of the campus or district to administrators, whose role it is to provide a support network for faculty.

9/9/2014

4


Applications of Shared Governance

• Varies by district, usually driven by administration and district culture.

• Provides the committee an opportunity for input into decisions affecting the learning environment.

• Grounded in the belief that all groups should have a valued and respected voice in the decision‐making process.



• Building Design

9/9/2014

5

Deborah Shepley, AIA LEED APDirector, Higher Education

Master Plan Level


MASTER PLANNING

STARTS WITH WHY

• Develop a shared vision

• Time for an update

• Just finished the Educational Plan

• Accreditation visit coming up

• New leadership with a new vision

• Prepping for a local bond measure

9/9/2014

6


MASTER PLANNING

PLANNING TO PLAN

• Identify challenges

• Develop a plan to address

• Process + Timeline

• Committee Structure

• Communication


MASTER PLANNING

CHALLENGES

• Everyone wants to be involved

• Timelines / Calendars

• Personal agendas

• Limited institutional history

• Lack of understanding

9/9/2014

7


MASTER PLANNING

CASE STUDY #1• Single college district

• Multiple sites

• Comprehensive

• Long schedule

WHY?

• Time for an update

• Develop shared vision

• Link multiple planning efforts

• Support accreditation


District Leadership

Faculty

Administrators

Classified Staff

Students

CASE STUDY #1 – Single College District

APPROACH

• Large committee

9/9/2014

8


WHAT WE ARE

• Big picture, whole district perspective

• Clear, two‐way communication; no surprises

• Historical perspective, institutional memory

• Ensure right people are involved

• First readers of the plans

• Creating realistic plans based on data

WHAT WE ARE NOT

• Small

• Decision making


APPROACH

• Large committee

• Clear charge



3 tri-chairs

President

VP Instruction

VP Admin Services

VP Student Services

Board of Trustees

Deans

APPROACH

• Large committee

• Clear charge

• Leadership team

9/9/2014

9


APPROACH

• Large committee

• Clear charge

• Leadership team

• Community Engagement


EDUCATIONAL

FACILITIES

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT


WHY?

• Prep for a local bond measure

• Identify projects for bond list

• Build a shared vision

• Support accreditation

MASTER PLANNING

CASE STUDY #2

• Multi‐college district

• Focused on facilities

• Short schedule

• Limited funds

9/9/2014

10


CASE STUDY #2 – Multi College District

APPROACH

• Multi‐level committee

structure



Re‐create this

CHANCELLOR

VICE CHANCELLORPRESIDENTPRESIDENT

APPROACH


structure

• Champions at each level

9/9/2014

11


APPROACH


structure


• Broad participation


TechnologySustainability Infrastructure


APPROACH


structure


• Broad participation

• Phased approach


Phase 1 Phase 2

PLANNING DESIGN

9/9/2014

12



• Building Design

Allyson Gipson, Esq., Assoc. AIAVice President Market Leader ‐ Education

Bond Program Level

9/9/2014

13


Determining Parameters for your District

What are the levels of authority established by the district for the committee?

• Staff

• Faculty

• Students

• Administration

• Board of Trustees

• Community

• Other


Building Program Role for Shared Governance Committee

• How many members on the committee?

• Who determines the structure?

• What types of decisions will sit with the committee?

• What training may be needed to address complex building program issues?

• Who is the tie breaker on committee recommendations (if any)?

• What is the authority of the committee to make changes in the program?

9/9/2014

14


Managing the Committee Process

• Transparency

• Regular and predictable meeting times and places

• Follow up on action items

• On‐going teaching related to building program elements

• Collaborative environment

• Sharing celebrations as well as tough decisions

• Managing expectations


Conflict Resolution

What is the system for resolving conflicts between the shared governance committee and administrators?

Recognizing conflict styles on the committee:

• Competitive

• Collaborative

• Compromising

• Accommodating

• Avoiding

9/9/2014

15


Los Angeles Community College District

About the Program• Proposition A/AA/J $602 million

bond program

Dates

• 6/2006 ‐ Ongoing

Projects

• Student Union Building2011 Design‐ Build Award for the “Best Project – In Progress” from the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA)2013 Award for the “Best Project ‐ Building New Construction/$11 – 50 Million” from the CMAA Southern California Chapter

• Student Services Building

• Science and Technology Center

• Franklin and Jefferson Halls Remodel

Services• Overall program management

• Inter‐project coordination

• Third party (utility and others) coordination

• Constructability reviews

• Environmental oversight and coordination

• Data collection and reporting

• Program‐level claims support

• Project budget management

• Program‐level scheduling

• Cost controls


Shared Governance Case Study

30‐40 participants at the outset

No planned discussion topics

No set decision‐making process

In‐fighting and personal agendas among some participants

Lack of understanding of the design and construction process

Lack of trust

Solution: directed meetings, set agenda, transparency, established ground rules for the meetings

9/9/2014

16



• Building Design

José D. Nuñez, LEED APVice Chancellor Facilities Planning, Maintenance & Operations

Karen PinkhamProject ManagerFacilities Planning

Building Design Level

9/9/2014

17


San Mateo County Community College District

Three Campuses (1.6M GSF / 346 Acres)

• Cañada College – Redwood City ‐ 1968• Skyline College – San Bruno ‐ 1969• College of San Mateo – San Mateo – 1963

• District Office – San Mateo ‐ 1978

25,000 Students / 1,000 Staff / Adjuncts

Capital Improvement Program

• Multiple Funding Sources• Measure C $207 Million (2001)

• Measure A $468 Million (2006)

• State / Local Resources $83 Million*


Challenges with Shared (Participatory) Governance

• Interpersonal Dynamics

• Decision making

• Hard to get quick answers

• Everyone has an opinion

• Academic vs. Built Environment

• Faculty don’t understand construction dynamics

• Schedule impacts

• Managing Expectations

• Scope creep

9/9/2014

18


Case Study – CSM Campus

• CSM CIP2 Design Build Project ($200M)

• Building 5 – Health and Wellness

• Aquatic Center • Building 10 – College Center

• Chiller Plant

• Campus 12kV and Electrical Infrastructure Upgrade • Campus Site Improvements

• Landscape

• Parking and Roadways


CSM Building 10 – College Center End User Groups

• CSM Building 10 Project ‐ End User Groups

1) Integrated Learning Center2) Division Office – Language Arts3) Division Office – Creative Arts4) Senior Administrative Offices5) Student Services6) Bookstore7) Cafeteria8) Digital Media9) Disabled Students Programs & Services (DSPS)10)Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) 11)Public Relations and Marketing12)Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness (PRIE)

9/9/2014

19


CSM Building 10 – College Center End User Groups

College of San Mateo CIP2 Design Build Project

College Committee Members

PROJECT TEAM Members Name Company or Department Position

B10NIntergrated Learning CenterJean Mach English Professor

Jeremy Ball Philosophy Professor

Michael Burke Math Professor

Diana Bennett Multimedia Professor

David Danielson Philosophy Professor

Amy Sobel English Professor

Charlene Frontiera Math/Science Dean

Kevin Henson Creative Art/Social Science Dean

Susan Estes President's Office VP Instruction

Danita Scott ‐ Taylor EOPS Director

Carole Wills Reading Professor

Susan Petit Foreign Language Professor

Marsha Ramezane Student Services Dean

Kathy Ross Business/Technology Dean

Kristi Ridgway Language Arts Associate Professor

Jennifer Hughes President's Office VP Student Services

Kate Motoyama Language Arts Professor

Yaping Li Language Arts Professor

Sandra Comerford Language Arts Dean

Juanita Alunan Language Arts Professor

Annie Theodos Language Arts Division Assistant

Kathleen Steele English Professor

Brandon Smith Language Arts Associate Professor

Jon Kitamura Language Arts Instructor

Cheryl Gregory Math/Science Professor

Robert Hasson Math/Science Professor

John Saenz Language Arts Instructional Aide

College of San Mateo CIP2 Design Build Project

College Committee Members

PROJECT TEAM Members Name

Company or Department Position

B10NDigital MediaMarilyn Lawrence KCSM General Manager

Kathy Ross Business/Technology Dean

Kevin Henson Creative Art/Social Science Dean

Diana Bennett Business/Technology Professor

Patty Appel Business/Technology Professor

Christine BobrowskiCreative Arts & Social Science Associate Professor

Michelle Brown Business/Technology Professor

Edward Remitz Business/Technology Professor

Sam Sanchez Business/Technology Associate Professor

Edwin Seubert Business/Technology Professor

Integrated Learning Center ‐ ~9,000 sf


Schematic Design

DesignDevelopment

Construction Documents

Construction Move-in

•User Group Meetings √

•Surveys √

•Field Investigations √

•Building system analysis √

•Cost Estimating √

•Program reconciliation (if

required) √•Final Program Approval √

•User Group Input/Review

•Plan layouts

•Engineering design

•Furnishing layouts

•Cost Estimating

•All Bldg User Group Reviews (if required)

•Oversight reviews

•Project approval

•Architectural documents and specifications

•Engineering documents (structural, mechanical, electrical, data, acoustical)

•Cost Estimating

•User Group Reviews –specialty spaces

•State approvals

•Oversight reviews

•Project prepared for bidding

•Contractor prequalification

•Bidding

•Award

•Construction

•Inspection

•Commissioning

•Acceptance of project

•Furnishings and Equipment ordering

•Furnishings

•Equipment setup

•Completion of data system

•Startup

•Move-in

Project Process – End User Meetings

9/9/2014

20


Drawings Sign Off – End User


End User Furniture and Equipment Sign Off Sheets

9/9/2014

21


Submittal Review – Input Matrix

Submittal Title Sub Section Submittal TypeReceived by SMC from

McC

AoR SMCCD Internal Review T&I Review

. . . . CPD PM CPD LdSCPD MAD

FPO FM/CE PS Dhartney ITSCollege folks(via CPD)

Cx GRD IORTesting Agency

Special Inspector

Cast‐In‐Place Concrete Mix Design 1.4 Product Data 4/11/2010x x x x

General Plumbing 1.3 Product Data 3/30/2010x x x

Interior Elevator Pit Rebar 1.4 Shop Drawing 4/10/2010x x x

Air Handling Units 1.3 Shop Drawing 4/12/2010x x x x

Cast‐In‐Place Concrete Mix Design (Revised) 1.4 Product Data 4/27/2010x x x x

Aluminum‐Framed Entrances and Storefronts Deferred Approval

1.5 Shop Drawing 4/13/2010x x x

Low Voltage Electrical Distribution and Electricity Metering and Monitoring

1.3 Product Data 4/13/2010x x x x x x

Structural Steel and Metal Fabrications 1.61.3

Shop Drawing 4/21/2010x x x

Fire Suppression 1.3 Shop Drawing 4/14/2010x x x x x

Exterior Elevator, Stairs and Retaining Wall Rebar 1.4 Shop Drawing 4/17/2010x x x

New Hydraulic Elevators 1.4 Shop Drawing 4/21/2010x x x x

Cold Formed and Non‐structural Metal Framing 1.4 Product Data 4/28/2010x x x

Acoustical Sealant 1.3 Product Data 4/28/2010x x

Gypsum Board Assemblies 1.5 Product Data 4/28/2010x x

Basic Electrical Materials 1.03 Product Data 4/29/2010x x x x x

Elevators Structural Details and CalcsDeferred Approval

1.4 Shop Drawing 5/3/2010x x x

Basic HVAC Commodities 1.3 Product Data 5/10/2010x x x

Lighting 1.2 Product Data 5/10/2010

x x x x


CSM Decision Matrix – Meetings with College Cabinet

9/9/2014

22



• Building Design


Discussion

Questions?