September 14, 2012 Meeting

Agenda

TAFT COLLEGE
GOVERNANCE COUNCIL AGENDA
September 14, 2012
12:10 pm – 2:00 pm
Cougar Room
Facilitator: Vicki Herder
Recorder: Sonja Swenson
Timekeeper: Patti Bench
Minutes: Melissa Blanco
1. Approval of Minutes of August 31, 2012 —5 minutes
2. Prioritization Rubric (led by Eric Bérubé) – 20 minutes
3. Comprehensive Program Review Model (led by Eric Bérubé) – 15minutes
4. Strategic Planning Committee Report (led by Val Garcia) – 15 minutes
5. Technology Master Plan Review and Approval (led by Adrian Agundez) – 15 minutes
6. Clarification of Meeting Schedule (discussion) – 10 minutes
Next Meetings:
September 28 at 12:00 pm in the Cougar Room (if needed)
October 12 at 12:00 pm in the Cougar Room
October 26 at 12:00 pm in the Cougar Room (if needed)

Minutes

TAFT COLLEGE GOVERNANCE COUNCIL MINUTES September 14, 2012 12:10 pm – 2:00 pm Cougar Room

Members Absent: Kanoe Bandy, Kamala Carlson, and Tony Thompson

Guests: Brandi Cramer, Eric Bérubé, and Val Garcia

Facilitator: Vicki Herder Recorder: Sonja Swenson Timekeeper: Patti Bench Minutes: Melissa Blanco

Members Present: Patti Bench, Debra Ekdahl, Ron Errea, Sharyn Eveland, Greg Golling, Sandi
Graham, Vicki Herder, Fernando Lara, Velda Long, Brock McMurray, Dena
Maloney, Jim Nicholas, and Sonja Swenson            

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held August 31, 2012 were approved by consensus.

 

PRIORITIZATION RUBRIC

(Led by Eric Bérubé, Coordinator of Institutional Assessment, Research, & Planning)

Discussion with two handouts (Annual Program Goal Resource Prioritization Rubric & Flowchart: Example Process for Annual Program Goal Resource Prioritization):

  • Eric made the changes suggested at previous meeting and those changes are reflected in the handouts
  • Sharyn questioned if these were the same goals as prioritized by the Board of Trustees, further discussion determines that they were separate Board goals, not the Institutional Goals. Dena clarified that the Governance Council led the effort to create the District Strategic Plan (which was then approved by the Board) and that the Strategic Plan goals are not in any “priority order” as they are all equally important to the District. The Board of Trustees also has its own goals which are linked to the Strategic Goals of the District.
  • Dena suggested that this process could be simplified, Brock echoed that feeling but stressed that it should be valid
  • Sharyn emphasized that we need a tool, but one which we can use
  • Vicki used example of Eric’s Sailing Program to explain how this would be used to rank priorities
  • Eric explained the types of requests listed in PR (faculty, staff, resources)

 

Governance Council September 14, 2012

Page 2

  • Patti pointed out that this committee should not be dealing with the details, and Dena concurred
  • Sharyn reiterated that this is a big change
  • Dena stated that this body should not be dealing with the minutia, or details, of the program reviews
  • Dena stated that the process seems to be cumbersome, and after thinking this through she now feels that we should put staffing requests and one-time requests into separate categories. The Governance Council would rank the one-time requests and the appropriate group (faculty or classified) would rank the staffing requests.
  • GC members need to take this back to the groups we represent for discussion or input (ACTION ITEM)
  • Velda asked how management would determine their staffing needs

CONSENSUS – GC members agreed to remove the 4th scoring area “Annual Program Goal Activities” for the Annual Program Goal Resource Prioritization Rubric.

CONSENSUS -GC members agreed to add 5 more minutes to the time of the first agenda item for further discussion.

 

CONTINUED DISCUSSION-PRIORITIZATION RUBRIC

  • Dena suggested we follow the flow chart option as presented by Eric and the Strategic Planning Committee
  • Sharyn request separate topics/issues for discussion by this body, we need input from our constituents before deciding
  • Ron announced that the Budget Committee, which meets next week, will be addressing that list of goals
  • Brock asked if we had consensus about a part of the process

v• Items will be dealt with at the sub-committee level which will then refer/recommend items to GC and to President

v• Ron clarified Budget cycle, which will begin in 2 months

v• Ron asked that all of the cost estimates be thoroughly investigated so that all costs are considered in the request phase

v• Further discussion by Patti and Brock about the process and lack of direction they received. Both pointed out that they received some goals for things which had already been accomplished or items which could come out of travel funds.

 

Governance Council September 14, 2012

Page 3

  • There was agreement that after this first year we will have many recommendations to make about how the process could be improved.
  • Much discussion about the types of request, how the ranking would be done, what the Budget Committee will do, inherent problems of ways suggested
  • Velda suggested the classified rank the classified proposals, faculty rank their own, and admin rank the other needs.
  • Val made the comment that theoretically the rubric would take out the bias.
  • Dena asked Sharyn for clarification – did she believe that the rankings from Governance Council should be by consensus. Sharyn felt it should. Dena expressed concerns about achieving consensus given the large number of requests.
  • Brock suggested 3 categories of ranking (staff, faculty, resources) be dealt with separately, not as a whole
  • This discussion will continue at our next meeting on September 28 (AGENDA ITEM)

COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW MODEL

(Led by Eric Bérubé, Coordinator of Institutional Assessment, Research, & Planning)

Discussion:

  • Comprehensive program reviews were suspended for all instructional programs except CTE
  • There is still a gap in the process because the annual PRs are more like an update
  • This has been discussed in SPC
  • Eric has looked at Federal Dept. of Ed and state level requirements, and has a concern regarding the following missing components in annual program reviews at this time:
    • Term or annual persistence rates
    • Disagreed demo to lower levels
    • Employment trends, labor market info
    • Enrollment projections
    • Cost to run a program
    • No planning for future, long-term goals and plans
  • Eric suggested using the “Student Score” and he has a target date of Fall 2013, and do it by Division
  • Vicki reminded us of the next cycle of accreditation self-study which will also begin at that time.

 

Strategic Planning Committee

(Led by Val Garcia, Associate Dean of Instruction)

Committee Report Update:

  • Completion of reviewing submitted annual programs goals and forwarded the information to the Budget Committee to provide cost information

Governance Council September 14, 2012

Page 4

  • Reviewing and revising the process for annual programs goals
  • Discussed comprehensive program review process and how to incorporate important missing elements into annual programs reviews
  • They will also be electing a chair-person soon to lead and guide discussions and meetings
  • Budget Committee is scheduled to meet, Thursday, Sept. 20th to review the annual program goals

TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL

(Led by Adrian Agundez, Director of Information Services)

Discussion:

  • Members had received a copy of the master plan earlier in the week and were asked to review it
  • Sonja commented that the plan is very comprehensive, but it does not address future on-campus classroom needs as we expand
  • Discussion followed about the need to take future devices, the student’s possession of those, and how to accommodate their needs for recharging, etc.
  • Dena pointed out that this is the first Technology Master Plan, and acknowledge that we might want to amend this plan before 5 years

CONSENSUS – A motion was made by Brock McMurray, seconded by Sonja Swenson and carried unanimously to approve the Taft College Technology Master Plan 2012-2017 as presented.

 

CLARIFICATION OF MEETING SCHEDULE

(Led by Dena Maloney, Superintendent/President & Co-Chair)

  • The standing meeting for Governance Council will be the 2nd Friday, and the 4th Friday will be the optional/alternate meeting.

Facilitator: Velda Long Recorder: Dena Maloney Timekeeper: Debra Ekdahl

*Agenda Items*

  • Prioritization Rubric (Continued Discussion)
  • SPC & BC Reports

 

Governance Council September 14, 2012

Page 5

Next Meeting: September 28 at 12:10 pm in the Cougar Room Meeting Adjourned: 2 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by:
Melissa Blanco

Supporting Docs

©