home.portervillecollege.eduhome.portervillecollege.edu/bulletin_board/CLC/2011/01.… · Web viewWe will be able to make up the difference in the summer session. ... Word has been

COLLEGE LEARNING COUNCIL3:00 PM – 5:00 PM Monday, January 31, 2011 AC-107

Co-Chairs: Ann Beheler, Susan Lala-Bell, Tiffany Haynes

MINUTES

Present:Bill Henry, Tiffany Haynes, Russell Fletcher, Ann Beheler, Richard Goode, Bret Davis, Ann Marie Wagstaff, Miles Vega, Steve Schultz, Susan Regier, Donna Berry, Chris Craig, John Word, Michael Carley, Kim Behrens, David Bezayiff, James Entz, Maria Roman, Virginia Gurrola, Susan Lala-Bell, Lorie Barker, Cynthia Smith, and Craig Britton

Absent:Eric Mendoza, Leif Syrdahl, Stewart Hathaway, Terry Crewse, Andrew Messchaert, Baldomero Garcia, Resa Hess, Muriel Josten, and Rosa Carlson

Guests:Karen Ball

I. Call to OrderThe meeting was called to order by Tiffany Haynes at 3:02 PM.

II. Motion to Adopt the AgendaDr. Wagstaff asked that Section V. c. be postponed to next meeting.

Motioned: Russell Fletcher as modifiedSeconded: Miles Vega

Ayes: 23 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 0

Motion: Carried

III. Motion to Approve the Minutes of December 6, 2010Change “Mr. Russell” to “Mr. Fletcher.” Change to Dr. Wagstaff.

Motioned: Michael Carley as modified.Seconded: Russell Fletcher


Motion: Carried

IV. Information Items

Approved: 03/07/11

College Learning CouncilMeeting MinutesJanuary 31, 2011Page 2 of 11

a. Art Auction Thursday, 5-7, viewing 12-2 and 5-7 MTWTh Mr. Entz reported on the Art Auction (flyer attached).

o Bidding (silent) will be held this week. Winners will be announced at a Reception on Thursday from 5-7. Refreshments and live music will be provided.

o Money being raised is to revive the student gallery tours. Monies will be used to charter a bus.

o Artwork is donated by campus and area artists and students.o The event is being organized through the Porterville College Foundation.

Question: What amount are they hoping to raise and whether or not this would be used for the San Francisco trip?

o They are hoping to raise about $1,600 for the cost of a bus, which would accommodate 50-55 students. Students then would pay for their own lunches and admittance fees.

o Students will be taken on tours in the LA area. These trips expose students to art museums and galleries outside of the immediate area.

Some monies are already being held by the PC Foundation, due to faculty and public donations. Additionally, Mr. Entz will be judging the Springville Art show from which the money that would have paid for his time will, instead, be donated to the Fine Arts division.

These trips had traditionally been provided as a ½ unit course funded by GU; however, due to the budget cuts, they are no longer available. Unfortunately, the revenues earned by a ½ unit course are not enough to fund the trips. Therefore, this fundraiser is meant to help restore these opportunities.

a. Enrollment update spring 2011 Dr. Beheler reported on spring 2011 schedule. We are running a little bit behind,

compared to where we were last year. This is largely due to our strategy of offering a reduced schedule and then adding courses to address the wait list. With the exclusion of classified staff as a resource, a shortage of faculty occurred. We will be able to make up the difference in the summer session.

Divisions were encouraged to report to their Dean if they are able to offer additional core, basic skills, or CTE courses.

b. Summer 2011 Mr. Vega reported that COS will NOT be holding Summer School; therefore,

there may be an impact on our campus. PC students will have priority registration. COS faculty are being recruited for our session. It was suggested that students be reminded to register early and to complete the

matriculation process in order to obtain the highest priority dates (Assessment, Orientation, completed Educational Study Plan, and Counseling appointment).

c. SLO update including BRIC involvement


Discussions with the BRIC team took place in regards to the concerns about making SLOs public. An agreement was made to NOT make the specific data public, but to provide general information and results. Agreed that every faculty member would NOT have to complete an SLO for each section taught. Instead, a representative sample would be created.

Additionally, many of the SLOs have been received; however, reminders will be sent to those who have not submitted.

A request for a calendar change from the Curriculum Committee is forthcoming in order to align the courses updates with the SLOs. This would change the cycle to a four-year cycle.

d. SB1440 meeting February 4th at BC Dr. Beheler reported that the meeting is from 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. at BC.

Please RSVP with transportation information. Mr. Vega announced that a group will also be leaving from Visalia.

e. Curricunet update The good news is that entering a course took less than 15 minutes. However,

one of the reasons courses could not be updated was because there was a spelling error within the software. This problem has since been corrected. There are a few courses currently stuck within the process that cannot be retrieved. This problem has been corrected as well.

The deadline was set for tomorrow. However, due to the problems encountered, this deadline has been postponed. Mr. Vega asked that they be submitted by Thursday.

o Question: When will the courses be reviewed. A date had not yet been set. The District deadline is 02/14/11, which is necessary in order to

have the courses presented for Board approval and available for priority registration on 04/13/11.

f. Accreditation Update Dr. Beheler reported that the process is moving along. Many of the

administrators are currently serving on Accreditation Teams and attending trainings. Information will be brought back and distributed to the campus.

g. Human Resources Mrs. Hess has opened the door between the Human Resources office and

Student Services. However, she has asked that it not be used as a pass-through.V. Discussion Items

a. MAA recommendation from the Budget Committee The Budget Committee had sent a recommendation as to how the funds should

be disbursed and that CLC had asked that it be refined. The recommendation, after further review, now reads as follows: “The net MAA proceeds would be split: 10% to the facilitator’s division, 45% to the participants’ divisions, and 45% towards the General Fund for a designated college project.”


Question: How will the monies be divided among the participants’ divisions? For example, the Child Development Center has eleven participants.

o First MBT comes in and compiles all of the time surveys. A review of the tools they have available is needed, to see what could be used to split the monies.

o It was also felt that it is fair to include those that participate, but aren’t involved in the time studies (i.e. Business Services completes the paperwork but does not participate in the time studies).

o We want to see what MBT has available so that this doesn’t become a cumbersome project.

o It is unclear what the percentages will be based on, as we need to see what information and/or tools are available.

Question: What is the definition of “designated college projects?” Please clarify that the funds are not to be put into the General Fund for general purposes.

o The Budget Committee had determined that by designating a specific project the MAA process would receive more college buy-in.

o The “designated college project” would be decided by the CLC or somewhere.

b. BAM II - PC Feedback Report – Ann Marie Wagstaff Dr. Wagstaff reported that at this point in the process is that the BAM II

Evaluation Report was presented to Consultation Council in December and will be reviewed again in February. The Chancellor has asked that it be sent out to the campuses for review. This was done at the prior CLC meeting. Since that time, the Budget Committee has had additional time to review and has compiled additional recommendations.

Dr. Wagstaff reviewed the nine (9) recommendations (copy attached) made by the BAM II Evaluation Committee.

o It was explained that ultimately, these recommendations will also need to be discussed in Academic Senate and reviewed by Dr. Carlson. All of the recommendations made by CLC (including sub-committees) will be presented to Consultation Council through the Academic Senate Chair, Dr. Bezayiff, and the President, Dr. Carlson. In the end, the Chancellor will take the information to the Board of Trustees; however, neither the recommendations by the BAM Committee nor Consultation Council are necessarily what will be done.

Dr. Wagstaff reviewed the Overall Response to BAM II Recommendations made by the Budget Committee (attached).

o Clarification was requested in regard to the statement that, “What % of the allocation goes to the district office and how this % compares with other districts?” Specifically asking for details as to what monies are included in order to ensure that the comparisons are consistent, as well


as determining the differences between “district office,” district-wide,” and “regulatory.”

Dr. Wagstaff believes that these items will ultimately be clarified by the outside consultant.

o Question: What is the difference between districts with multiple colleges versus single colleges?

There is a difference between the percentages allocated and that the comparisons should be between multi-college districts.

In response to question about there already being districts identified, it was explained that they will only look at multi-college districts.

o Question: Who will be choosing the outside consultant? BAM II had requested to have input on the description and that

there is a recommendation in the proposal that the consultant be an independent, outside consultant.

o A concern was raised that the consultant would be influenced by district office staff and whether or not we could request that Consultation Council approve the consultant; however, it was cautioned that this would be considered a part of the hiring process. Instead, it was suggested that we be able to approve the criteria by which the consultant will be chosen.

Question: Who will be approving the criteria? The feeling was that it would not be the BAM II

Committee, and would most likely be the Consultation Council.

Furthermore, it is generally agreed that an inequity exists in the current allocation model and that the only option is to have an outside consultant review the process. Either a consultant is hired or no consultant is hired and nothing changes.

o Question: Are we bound by the Consultant’s report? The District is NOT bound by the recommendations; however, it

would provide information and data that can be used to further the discussion.

o Question: Where will the funding for the consultant come from? It would be paid from the district-wide budget.

o Request for clarification on the difference between “Regulatory,” “District-Wide” and “District office” costs is needed in order to better understand the allocation.

Request for clarification on what types of things are included in each category.


It will take some real effort to do an accurate comparison; however, it is still worthwhile to look at the percentages, which is why there is a recommendation to hire a consultant.

o Question: Whether or not the consultant would be given the recommendations and concerns, prior to beginning their review.

It was explained that the recommendation does indicate that the consultant should spend equitable time at each campus.

Question: Prior to their campus visit, would the consultant be given an idea of the individual campus concerns?

Dr. Wagstaff stated that it would most likely be up to each campus to convey the information.

o Question: Which items will the consultant weigh in on? The consultant is for the Structural Cost Differences and the

chargebacks.o Correction to BAM Response: The “Consultation Cabinet” should be

changed to “Consultation Council” in the second paragraph, under “Overall response” and that the word “ee” should be “we” in the first paragraph under “Recommendation 6.”

o Question: Should there be a statement that the recommendations of the consultant be related back to BAM II?

It is already in the recommendations, although not to BAM II. BAM II’s work is completed once this report is completed. The process indicates that in another two years, another BAM Evaluation Committee would be created.

o Question: Could we have clarification that, once the consultant has completed the review, any action will be taken? Or not until two years later?

This is why there is a calendar issue – a desire to attach a calendar to the review process.

o Question: Could we have clarification on BAM II’s charge? It is to evaluate the allocation model and make recommendations

to Consultation Council and the Chancellor.o Question: What would be done if there was disagreement with the

consultant’s findings? It would be the campus responsibility to voice questions or

concerns. In order to address this issue, a recommendation was added that the consultant’s review be shared with the campuses prior to being submitted to the Board of Trustees.

Request that more time be spent on outlining the process on how the information would be disseminated. Amendment was made that “Recommendation 6” to read, “ . . . equitably among the


campuses and that outcome would be shared with the campus for discussion and comment before final decisions are made based on recommendations from the consultant.”

o Question: What overall timeframe is this process is expected to take? Again, this is why there is a recommendation that Consultation

Council create a calendar. o Question: Should we request that the consultant give a final presentation

of the findings to each campus? It was agreed that a Q&A session would be ineffectual.

Additional recommendations/feedback may be submitted by other groups on campus, including Academic Senate, CCA, CSEA, etc. Each of these groups can either bring their feedback to CLC in order to compile one recommendation or they may want to submit their own individual reports.

c. Room changes Postponed.

VI. Action Itemsa. Voting on MAA recommendation

Motion was made that: “The net proceeds from the MAA revenues, that we receive, would be split proportionally with 10% to the facilitator’s division, 45% to the participants’ divisions, and 45% into the General Fund toward a designated college project and the method of splitting the funds would be determined by the tools that we have available by MBT.”

Motioned: Donna BerrySeconded: Karen Ball


Motion: Carried

b. Voting on BAM II PC Feedback Corrections to the Overall Response to BAM II Recommendation by the Budget

Committee include:o Changing “Consultation Cabinet” to “Consultation Council” in the second

paragraph, under “Overall response”o Correcting the word “ee” to “we” in the first paragraph under

“Recommendation 6”o Changing “Recommendation 6” to read, “ . . . equitably among the

campuses and that outcome would be shared with the campus for discussion and comment before final decisions are made based on recommendations from the consultant.”

Motion was made to: Accept the recommendations with the additions.


Motioned: Susan RegierSeconded: Lori Barker


Motion: Carried

VII. Subcommittee Reportsa. Enrollment Management Committee

Dr. Beheler reported that the last meeting was one week ago. Are working on an Enrollment Management Plan, including a concerted effort to build up the Adjunct Faculty pool. This is partly due to the District decision to no longer allow Classified staff to teach as Adjunct Faculty. Originally, there was an ability to add sections by using the Adjunct; however, there were not enough available this semester.

Additionally, Division Chairs are completing the prioritization of the instructional equipment lists.

Mrs. Lala-Bell asked, due to staffing changes in the DRC, that Division Chairs discuss textbook order with their Divisions. Please let the DRC know if new textbooks are being ordered/adopted as soon as possible. The idea is to order alternative media as soon as the texts are known, in order to compensate for the decrease in staffing. Additionally, DRC may be purchasing textbooks in advance so as to chop and scan them in time for the semesters to begin. Ultimately, the plan is to have every textbook available in the DRC database so that texts can be downloaded immediately. Additionally, any handouts and flyers should be emailed as well.

o Question: Please clarify the number of books that are needed. Explanation: The State Chancellor’s office requires that if a book is

on campus it is accessible to DRC for access. However, not everyone is going to want DRC to chop and re-bind the book. Therefore, the ideal is for DRC to have its own copy.

Clarification: The request is for Faculty to acquire an extra copy if possible.

Mrs. Lala-Bell agreed and stated that if it is not possible DRC will purchase the book.

o Question: Will an e-text would be acceptable? Mrs. Lala-Bell indicated that this would be fine.

Mrs. Gurrola reported that Repeat and Prerequisite forms will be sent to Academic Senate in order to discuss the date at which forms are distributed.

b. Grant Oversight Committee/Grant Progress Reports Will meet tomorrow.


KCCD did apply for the Completion by Design Grant (Gates Foundation). Word has been received that we will NOT be receiving.

c. Budget Committee The Committee is finalizing the calendar as well as the forms required for tying

decisions back to Strategic Planning and Program Reviews. All of the sustainability reports have been compiled and will be reviewed at the

next meeting. Question: What is the status of the payment of ASL Interpreters?

o The Budget Committee had previously approved the payment; however, payment had still not been processed. Additionally, notification has been received that the Interpreting company will discontinue services if payment is not received within five (5) days.

o Explanation: CLC had approved the payment on an as needed basis. Furthermore, after review of the DRC budget, it was found that monies remained unspent and it was determined that transfers would be made (within the DRC budget) to pay the interpreter costs. If there was money needed for other costs, those needs would be addressed at that time.

Explanation: If the costs are paid by DRC, then the campus will not receive a full reimbursement for DHH funds. If the campus pays there would be an 80% reimbursement; however, if DRC pays, there would be a 62% reimbursement for college effort.

Suggestion that a meeting be set between Mrs. Berry, Mr. Schultz, Mrs. Roman and Mrs. Lala-Bell.

Reported that, at this time, there is still $16,000 budgeted in the Student Worker account and only $500 has been spent. There is still money available in the DRC budget that can be used to pay the interpreters and to use General Fund money, when there are still DRC funds available, is questionable.

Mrs. Haynes read the minutes from the previous meeting, “Sign Language Interpreters – Donna Berry established a budget of $39k for contracted services for Sign Language Interpreters for the fall 2010 semester and $15k for Sign Language Interpreter III for spring 2011 semester as compliance requirements for hearing impaired students. Voted in October 4, 2010 CLC meeting to add budget to DSPS for Sign Language Interpreters.”

Explanation: Thought it was “as needed” and as we still do not know what the allocation is for DRC, it was just received last week.

o Mrs. Lala-Bell stated that the allocation was $266k with another $11k for Access to Print. Additionally, it was re-explained that if DRC monies are used,


the reimbursement on DHH funds would be 62-70% rather than an 80% reimbursement.

o Question: Whether or not further discussion was necessary, as CLC had already voted on the issue.

A meeting will be scheduled tomorrow, for all involved.d. Strategic Planning Committee

Meeting next Wednesday. As a reminder, Strategic Planning had been charged with reviewing the Program Reviews for completeness and forwarding to CLC for approval. This next meeting will be the first attempt and the pilot programs will be Health Careers and Fine Arts. We will be able to see if the process works. The meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m.

VIII. Other Reportsa. Presidentb. Accreditationc. Academic Senate

Dr. Bezayiff reported that the State Academic Senate is releasing the Jonnah Laroche Scholarship. Can forward names for students that are transferring (1) or continuing (1). (Email attached.)

Jane Patton, State Academic President, will be at the KCCD office to discuss Participatory Governance issues on February 12 from 9-12.

The Senate has a very full agenda this year, including topics from last year, as well as new topics this year.

Accepted another Accreditation Team appointment for Deep Springs College, an all-male Community College located in the mountains outside of Bishop on a 25-acre ranch. Of the students who attend, 16% transfer to Harvard, 20% to the University of Chicago, and the remaining to Yale, Brown, etc.

Representatives for Faculty hiring committees have been finalized.d. Curriculum Committeee. Basic Skills Committeef. Student Learning Outcomes Committeeg. Facility Planning Advisory Committeeh. Marketing and Outreach Committeei. Information Technology Committeej. CCA

Dr. Wagstaff reported that the CCA President had attended the KCCD BOT Finance Committee meetings. She reported that KCCD has the highest reserve in the State and are fearful that the State will thus discount the allocation. The BOT is planning to move funds into other areas so that the Reserve does not appear to be as high. CCA has concerns as to whether or not this action is either legal or ethical.

Explanation: The idea is that the monies be allocated to actually fund liabilities. Certificates of Participation are loans received to fund construction projects.


Funding liabilities is not illegal - it pays down debt in areas where prepayments are not allowed by setting monies aside. For example, funding projects with carryover money in order to pay for projects over multiple years.

Concern was expressed that KCCD is paying down debts, while at the same time cutting classes and operating the campus at below sustainable levels.

k. CSEAl. ASPC

IX. Future Agenda Items Mr. Carley asked that the CCSSE be added back as an Informational Item. Mrs. Regier asked that “Room Changes” be moved to the next meeting under

Discussion Items.X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by Tiffany Haynes at 4:32 p.m.

Documents

home.portervillecollege.eduhome.portervillecollege.edu/bulletin_board/CLC/2011/01.… · Web viewWe will be able to make up the difference in the summer session. ... Word has been