August 28, 2015 Meeting

Agenda

---

Governance Council August 28, 2015

12:10 – 2:00 pm – Cougar Room

 Facilitator: Bruce Ferguson
Recorder: Mark Williams
Timekeeper: Bill Devine
Minutes: Melissa Blanco

 

• 1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 (Champion: Mark Williams)
• 2.1, 4.2.2 (Champion: Brock McMurray)
• 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 (Champion:  Vicki Jacobi)

 

 

 

 

Next Meeting: Friday, September 11 from 12:10 – 2:00pm Call for Facilitator, Recorder and Timekeeper

Minutes

---

August 28, 2015 

Members Present: Darcy Bogle, Kanoe Bandy, Sheri Black, Bill Devine, Geoffrey Dyer, Sharyn Eveland, Greg Golling, Vicki Jacobi, Laura L’Ecuyer, Velda Pena, Dena Maloney, Brock McMurray, Tony Thompson, Mark Williams, and Brandy Young

 

Members Absent:       Kamala Carlson and Bruce Ferguson,

Guest:                              Eric Bérubé, Tony Thompson, and Shoshanna Kukuliev (Student Rep.) Facilitator:                                            Greg Golling

Recorder:                        Mark Williams

Timekeeper:                  Bill Devine

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

• The minutes of the meeting held May 14, 2015 were approved by consensus with a correction to page 3, first bullet item, to read as “18-month process” rather than “two year process”.

INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE

• TC student, Shoshanna Kukuliev, was present at the meeting at the request of Myisha until the official ASB representative is determined. She is active with ASB and serves as an SSCCC

ACCREDITATION UPDATE & PREPARATION FOR SITE VISIT

(Led by Dr. Dena Maloney, Superintendent/President and Co-Chair and Dr. Eric Bérubé, Coordinator of Institutional Assessment, Research, & Planning)

• Eric stated the Accreditation Report was submitted to ACCJC on time and the site visit is scheduled for September 29 through October 1,
• Team members are currently writing up questions and creating a list of people to interview during their visit.
• The Cougar Room will be utilized by the Accreditation team members during their
• Team members have access to things like confidential information – have access to any and all information.
• A kick-off meeting will be held in the library the morning of September 29,
• An exit report will be given by the team member on October 1, 2015 at 1:00 in the library. They will give their findings at that time only. No videos and no questions/comments are
• The chairperson of the team is Dr. Kevin
• Dena asked the staff, faculty, and students to be available to the team member during their
• Annual report was submitted on time to the ACCJC and they responded with a letter dated August 13, 2015 (copy attached to official minutes) requesting additional information and flagged for enhanced monitoring concerning the two main concerns:
  • Student learning outcomes practices
  • Institution-set standards achievement

Governance Council August 28, 2015

• Geoffrey Dyer stated the letter from the ACCJC lets Taft College know that we are on enhanced monitoring with the possibility of a special report on the basis of information we provided in our 2015 annual report to the The three areas of concern are as follows: Institution Set Standard for CTE Licensure Exam Pass Rates: this affects Dental Hygiene and Court Reporting; ISS for CTE Program Job Placement Rates and the placement rates themselves; and percentage of courses with ongoing SLO assessment.
• His brief presentation linked to 14 other California Community College’s 2015 annual reports and indicated how they were addressing these same areas. He found that some schools had a fixed percentage for the ISS for exam pass rates and/or the ISS for CTE job placement. In other cases, the ISS for each CTE program in either category would Additional research revealed that some schools intentionally set these ISSs as the baseline of an average from a few years, the rationale being that the ISS should not be aspirational but a number not to fall below.
• He also found that Monterrey Peninsula College, Foothill, Merced and Pasadena received letters similar to the one we received alerting them of enhanced The basis of Foothill’s enhanced monitoring is that their ISSs for CTE are too low. All three other schools were flagged for CTE ISSs and for SLO assessment. Although other schools also had failed to set ISSs for CTE programs, no other college that he encountered in his research reported a lower percentage of ongoing SLO assessment than Taft College.
• Dena stated as a result of this outcome we will be creating processes that will help in the
• Eric has pulled data for CTE degrees and certificates and the District can also conduct direct surveys to assist with providing more
• Eric distributed a handout titled “ACCJC Additional Information Request Based on 2015 Annual Report” (copy attached to official minutes).
• This handout detailed the issues and requirements needed to address them by October 15,
• The hardest part will be setting the standards and gathering the
• Vicki reported on the issue of SLOs and stated the District reported 46% completion of SLOs and that some of the data is skewed because it includes courses that are not
• The District also has a big issue with short-term courses with WESTEC and with adjuncts completing and assessing
• The District has until Oct 15th to respond and a copy of the letter was given to the ACCJC team chairperson.

STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN – REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

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

• Eric distributed a copy of pages 8-22 of the Taft College Strategic Action Plan 2015-2016 to 2017- 2018 (copy attached to official minutes).
• The handout contains the District’s goals and objectives, due dates, and the

Governance Council August 28, 2015

• Eric also stated he and his staff created a calendar on the IAR&P web which list the important due dates and will send automatic emails to the champions to remind them of the item
• There will also be a calendar for the program review and accreditation process with events and emails to remind champions of certain tasks or special reports

REPORT ON SAP ACTION ITEMS

• 1.1, 2.1.2. 2.1.3 (Champion: Mark Williams): Marks stated in regards to 2.1.1, they are currently creating enrollment criterial for offering/cancelling class sections. Discussions involving Division Chairs and Division liaisons will continue to review timelines for review and decision- making. For 2.1.1, data has been developed at the unit-record student level, which provides the data outcomes described per discipline by subject code and per program by student’s stated major. For 2.1.3, a 1% growth targeted through individual course/section objective provided by division chair/liaison conversation. Mark stated that although they met the requirements stated, this is still an on-going process and a work in-progress. The Access Committee has Enrollment Management as a future agenda item.
• 2.1, 4.2.2 (Champion: Brock McMurray): Brock stated a Master Facilities Plan was completed and will go to the board September 9, 2015. The process involved understanding the Education Master Plan, analyzing space and current properties, and developing plan for future space needs and future sites. The plan extends many years (15-20 years) on expected demand of educational needs. Vicki stated currently there is no space to house additional counselors and advisors. She wanted to know how this need will be addressed. Brock stated the District will be building a new student center that may relieve pressure from other areas and provide some more space. It was also stated that space may be needed in the future for Veterans’ Program and food centers. It was also stated that program review is also a process for advancing needs such as the dedicated CTE facility but many other factors take into account such as available space and property.
• 2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 (Champion: Vicki Jacobi): Vicki state the SLO Committee did conduct a survey to the faculty regarding SLOs. Regarding 5.2.1, the SLO committee was not able to come up with a rubric but will continue to look into it. For 5.2.2, a dialog day never occurred but she has presented the agenda item to the Academic Senate to discuss SLOs and assessment. For 5.2.3, there are changes that will be finalized after the visit to improve visibility for constituents and students.

2015/2016 PROGRAM REVIEW TIMELINE

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

• Eric distributed a handout titled “Annual Program Review Timeline 2015-2016 Updated August 11, 2015” (copy attached to official minutes).

Governance Council August 28, 2015

• This timeline makes the annual program review a true 12-month
• This has been reviewed and approved by the Governance Council and the Academic
• On left side of the timeline is the faculty hiring timeline as it’s been and on the right hand side, brackets delineate timelines for APR process and prioritizing classified and non-personnel requests.
• It was suggested to include on the timeline a date for notifying every one of what requests have been funded and what requests have not been
• Darcy Bogle commented that in the prior version of the annual program review cycle, the lapse in time between data collection and prioritization of goals had created
• Velda Pena asked how departments might integrate budget requests into the annual program review cycle. Mark Williams responded that SPC had begun to explore this possibility, but hadn’t yet found a working solution. Dena Maloney reminded the group that the Budget Development Calendar is presented to the Governance Council in October, laying out key dates for budget development.
• Greg Golling asked if the past practice (during the eighteen-month program review cycle) of awarding unspent funds to lower-ranked items would still be feasible in the new twelve-month model. Brock McMurray responded that the same process would occur, but that the “requests will be fresher” because the APRs will be completed
• Vicki Jacobi reminded the groups that funding of items requested as an outcome of annual program reviews should be clearly linked to increased student success or increased student learning outcome Brandy Young mentioned that each Annual Program Review document includes an update on the prior year’s goals, allowing an opportunity to match the goal with related, targeted outcomes.

GOVERNANCE COUNCIL 2014/2015 EVALUATION REVIEW/DISCUSSION

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

• Eric distributed a handout titled “Governance Council Evaluation Results Fall 2014” and the Charter for the Governance Council (copy attached to official minutes).
• Eric reviewed the results of the evaluation and some of the
• Improving communication and disseminating information to our constituents is a big
• Also, leading by example and encouraging others to participate and attend
• IT is very close to having all the committee minutes and agendas on the
• Regarding the charter, Dena suggested we update the charter to include all the
• CONSENSUS: A motion was made to approve to update the charter to include new committees, and

Governance Council August 28, 2015

GOVERNANCE COUNCIL 2015/2016 MEETING SCHEDULE

(Led by Dr. Dena Maloney, Superintendent/President and Co-Chair)

• Dena distributed a 2015/2016 Proposed Meeting Schedule for the committee to
  • Oct 9 – civic luncheon for Oildorado is a possible conflict for some
  • March 18 – ASCCC conference is also possible conflict
• CONSENSUS: The committee approved the 2015/2016 Proposed Meeting

Next Meeting: September 11, 2015 Facilitator:                                Sharyn Eveland Recorder:         Greg Golling Timekeeper:    Brandy Young

Meeting Adjourned: 2 pm Respectfully submitted by: Melissa Blanco

Supporting Docs

---

• 08 28 15 Governance Council Agenda (PDF)
• 08 28 15 Governance Council Minutes (PDF)