Co-Chairs: Ann Beheler, Susan Lala-Bell, Tiffany Haynes s1

COLLEGE LEARNING COUNCIL 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM  Monday, March 7, 2011  AC-107

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

MINUTES

Present: Lorie Barker, Kim Behrens, Donna Berry, David Bezayiff, Craig Britton, Michael Carley, Chris Craig, Bret Davis, Antonia Ecung, James Entz, Richard Goode, Virginia Gurrola, Tiffany Haynes, Bill Henry, Susan Lala-Bell, Eric Mendoza, Andrew Messchaert, Susan Regier, Steve Schultz, Cynthia Smith, Ann Marie Wagstaff and John Word

Absent: Ann Beheler, Rosa Carlson, Terry Crewse, Russell Fletcher, Baldomero Garcia, Stewart Hathaway, Resa Hess, Maria Roman, Leif Syrdahl and Miles Vega

Guests:

I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Tiffany Haynes at 3:05 PM.

II. Adoption of Agenda Motioned: Bill Henry Seconded: David Bezayiff

Ayes: 22 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 0

Motion: Carried

III. Approval of Minutes Minutes dated January 31, 2011.

Motioned: David Bezayiff Seconded: Michael Carley

Motion: Carried College Learning Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Minutes dated February 7, 2011.

Motioned: David Bezayiff Seconded: John Word

Motion: Carried

IV. Information Items A. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Mr. Carley reviewed the ARCC report.  The report covers about five different areas; however, the focus is on Degree, Certificate and Transfer.  Comparing 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, the Student Progress and Achievement Rate for transfer was a little over 50%.  The persistence rate has increased over the past three years.  The success rates, for vocational courses, reflect a large drop from the 2007-2008 to 2008-2009 years. This can be attributed to a new definition of retention and success that was initiated in 2008. The students, who drop after the census date, but prior to the “W” date, are now counted in the denominator. Previously, these students were not counted.  The new student calculation definition caused same drop for Basic Skills.  The ESL rate can be ignored. Our courses do not meet the definition that they are using. This is something that they track over time and the changes that we have implemented are not yet reflected.  The Basic Skills Improvement Rate is the percentage of students who have improved from one level to the next. This has increased in the past several years.  The next section contains the campus demographics. There is a large change reflected in the “Unknown/Non-Resident” category. This is a data problem that is being taken care of at the District level. Several colleges have had this problem.  The College Peer Grouping indicates that under Peer Group Average we are above in some areas and about average in others.  The Self Assessment is fairly similar to past writings. This is the document that the State Chancellor’s office and Department of Finance looks at and is compiled for the entire system. This report replaces the Partnership for Excellence Program and is what legislators look at to see how we are doing.  Question: Do we know why there are so many students who are not responding? o Had to implement new categories that are now a two part questions due to the way the question is asked. These changes were turned in to the State College Learning Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Chancellor’s office late. All three colleges within our District, as well as some other colleges, have this issue with the “unknown” category. It does not reflect any real change among our students. B. Program Review Assessments a.1. Fine and Applied Arts a.2. Health Careers Mr. Schultz reported and reviewed the Program Review Assessment Reports for both Fine & Applied Arts and Health Careers.  The Strategic Planning Committee was recently charged with reviewing Program Reviews to ensure completeness. o The committee found that there is a need to further edit this document in order to better align the rubric with the Program Review document.  The committee is recommending that CLC approve. o Question: Do we need to have the full Program Reviews available for approval?  Yes, we should have all of the documentation available. o Question: What is the process?  The process is that the Program Reviews will first go to the Strategic Planning Committee for review. Once the Program Reviews are deemed complete, they will be sent to CLC for approval.  The Strategic Planning Committee will bring the Assessments, along with the full Program Reviews, back to the next CLC meeting for approval. Documents will be provided via email.  Also, when listing goals within the Program Reviews, make sure to refer to previous years’ goals and their status. Additionally, make sure that the goals are listed are program related (i.e. not personnel, equipment or budget requests). Specific requests will be mentioned in their respective areas within the Program Review and should reflect how they will assist in achieving the Program Goals.  Question: Is there a representative from the Division present during the Program Review assessment? o No. The Program Review is assessed against the rubric. Then comments are sent to the Division Chair, prior to submittal to CLC.

V. Action Items A. Instructional Equipment purchases Division Chairs prioritized their individual requests and submitted their lists. It was decided to purchase the top four ranked requests and use any remaining money to purchase classroom instructor stations. College Learning Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2011 Page 4 of 6  Question: Will there be enough money to purchase all of the instructor stations? o Not that we are aware of. Whatever money is remaining will be used to purchase as many as possible.  Question: Is there a list of the unfunded requests. o The list is included in previous documents.

Motion: “To approve the list of Instructional Equipment to be purchased.”

Motioned: David Bezayiff Seconded: Craig Britton

Motion: Carried

VI. Subcommittee Reports A. Enrollment Management Committee Mr. Carley reported that Enrollment Management is currently reviewing goals for the Enrollment Management Plan. Have begun working on the Plan and are hoping to have a draft by this semester. B. Grant Oversight Committee/Grant Progress Reports Mr. Carley reported that they have not met. There is a webinar this week for the HSI Stem Grants that are going to be release. The Webinar is this Thursday. Dr. Ecung will attend for Dr. Beheler. The committee will be working with the Science and Mathematics faculty. Dr. Ecung will give Science and Mathematics faculty information from the training. C. Budget Committee Mrs. Berry reported that the committee forwarded the BAM II recommendations to Dr. Carlson, who added additional comments and forwarded to Tom Burke. Received Cero Coso’s recommendations and will discuss in Budget Committee tomorrow. Mr. Burke has been asked to put together three scenarios based on the State budget; Scenario 1 is based on the tax proposition, which we should have confirmation about by March 11

The committee is currently evaluating the process, forms, and calendar. Additionally, the Sustainability Reports have been received and are currently being evaluated. College Learning Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2011 Page 5 of 6  Question: What are the three scenarios being completed by Mr. Burke? o Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are as follows: 1. If the tax proposition makes the ballot and passes, temporarily extending taxes, there would be a $400 million reduction; approximately a $6.39 million reduction throughout the system; or a $5.3* million reduction to KCCD and $735,000 to PC. 2. If the tax extension fails or does not make it on the ballot and Prop 98 is funded at a minimum, KCCD would have a reduction of about $9.4 million and $1.6 million. 3. If the tax extensions fails or does not make it and Prop 98 is suspended, the result would be devastating. The reduction to KCCD would be $14.6 million and $2.5 million for PC.

* Numbers confirmed after the meeting.

 Question: What is the current amount of District Reserves? o They were at 29%; however, they have now been reduced to fund the COP debt, unfunded liability, and capital outlay for SHRID projects, bringing it down to a little more than 10%.  Question: How much is that at the 10% level? And how much originally? o The Board of Trustees approved $12 million to be moved from reserves.  And yet in Scenario 3, there is likely to be a $14 million shortfall?  Question: Are the monies spent or encumbered? o The monies are now encumbered. They could be spent and also, provide flexibility – it can be used for cash flow. o Also impacted are the scenarios for the “million dollar” match. The BOT does not want the reserves to dip below 10%; therefore, the monies are not available for any matches. Colleges will need to use campus carryover to sustain themselves.  That is absolutely obscene.  Question: Isn’t the legal requirement 5%? o There is a recommendation of 5%; however, our BOT has set the reserve threshold at 10%. o There will again be increasing reserves this year.  Question: What is the amount, in regard to the 10%? o The KCCD annual budget is about $115 million, PC’s is about $14.5 million. o PCs Board Member recently suggested that all salaries, District-wide, should be considered when looking at cuts; that there needs to be salary based reductions.  That’s for District’s with financial problems. That’s the whole reason we have this huge reserve, so that we don’t have financial problems. College Learning Council Meeting Agenda March 7, 2011 Page 6 of 6  KCCD is operating as a profit-based corporation. This is how decisions are being made.  Around the District, there is unhappiness about PC’s Trustee. D. Strategic Planning Committee Has not met since the last CLC meeting.

VII. Other Reports A. President B. Accreditation C. Academic Senate Dr. Bezayiff reported that the Academic Senate will begin the election process for the next President and Division Senators and will send an email asking faculty to step forward. There has been a policy change: BC Academic Senate has pushed for a 14 unit limit on students for priority registration, PC Academic Senate has pushed for a 15 unit limit. This would mean that students would only be able to register for up to 15 units and then, after open registration, students can add additional courses. A 15 unit limit would allow for students to finish in two years.  Question: Is this a good thing? o During high enrollments this works well.  Question: How will this be communicated to students? o Once AS approves, students will be notified via the webpage. o Students need to take advantage of priority registration. o More of them are checking their email now. Priority registration will begin April 13. o It was suggested that an email be sent to students, as well. D. Curriculum Committee E. Basic Skills Committee F. Student Learning Outcomes Committee G. Facility Planning Advisory Committee H. Marketing and Outreach Committee I. Information Technology Committee J. CCA K. CSEA L. ASPC M. Other

VIII. Future Agenda Items  Program Reviews for Fine & Applied Arts and Health Careers – Action Item (email both full Program Reviews and Assessment Report).

IX. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m. by Tiffany Haynes.