Shoreline Community College District Number Seven

SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN COLLEGE COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2011

S U M M A R Y – REVISED (03/15/11)

Present: Paul Fernandez, Guy Hamilton, Jim Hills, Mariko Kakiuchi, Barbara Kristek, Ruby Kwong, Lee Lambert, Victoria Lauber, Xiaolin Mo, Gary Parks, Kevin Severud, Stephen Smith, Terry Taylor, Gwen Whiteford, Adam Witt, Holly Woodmansee

Not in Attendance: Tasleem Qaasim, Yu Ning Tsai, Shen-Ting Tung

Co-Chairs: Gary Parks and Adam Witt (March 1, 2011 Meeting: Facilitated by Gary Parks)

Recorder: Lori Yonemitsu

STANDING ITEMS

1. REVIEW MEETING SUMMARY – FEBRUARY 15, 2011

Corrections for the February 15, 2011 Meeting Summary were noted and revisions to the summary will be made.

By a thumbs-up consensus, the Council approved the February 15, 2011 Summary as amended.

2. CHANGES TO THE MARCH 1, 2011 COUNCIL AGENDA

ADD (Agenda item #3.9): Input on the Preliminary Budget Recommendations

By a thumbs-up consensus, the Council approved the March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda as amended.

3. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD

Adam asked if student evaluations are available electronically. Having attended several colleges, Adam noted that SCC is the only college that does not require evaluations for each class.

While new teachers are required to have student evaluations for a series of quarters, Gary mentioned that the evaluations are on a cycle and that each instructor has the option of invoking student evaluations. Barb added that as far as electronic options are concerned, she noted that for the online classes in the Humanities area, there is a very small return on student evaluations.

Guy inquired about the Virtual College Blueprint “due today” (March 1). Jim responded that the Blueprint was “just transmitted” to the President’s Senior Executive Team (P/SET) and that the P/SET will meet with the Virtual College Leadership Team (VCLT) to go over the document. “The P/SET will then select which of the recommendations make sense.” SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN COLLEGE COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Gary expressed concerns brought to him about the remodeling plans for the 1700 Building. Many ESL classes take place in the 1700 Building and the plans show classrooms designed to hold 48 students. As smaller classrooms are more conducive for ESL classes, there are questions about whether input from the ESL area was area taken into consideration during the planning process.

Barb added that essentially two classrooms would be lost in the remodel and shared that it is very difficult to find classroom space.

NEW BUSINESS

3.9. PRELIMINARY BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

Jim stated that the March 1 College Council meeting was announced as one venue to provide feedback on the Preliminary Budget Recommendations.

There were some differences in this plan compared to what was laid out in the All Campus Meeting in December—The campus was told that if the cuts did not happen in this fiscal year, they would happen July 2011 and that “All of these are going.” In this proposal, there are less Administrative cuts and more Faculty positions identified. What happened over the last two months? Faculty is taking more cuts then previously identified in December.

There is concern about the mix of cuts. It is noticeable that there are no cuts on Deans and above. There are plans for growth yet how we are going to do that when there are severe cuts? It is hard not to interpret this as a bit of power and privilege. As Faculty, we know what we do. Management makes the decisions and upper management is relatively unscathed.

Some of the cuts tie to strategic directions and revenue generation…reductions to ESL, for example. Who is going to do the program design?

I have heard feedback that there is a lack of vision for the College. The rationale listed (4 or more faculty in a unit) is arbitrary. What is the rationale for that decision? Every department is different. You talk about loads of Full-Time to Part-Time Faculty. What is the ratio the College is going for or using?

Do we have an adequate Part-Time pool? How is an adequate pool determined?

We will be losing FTEs from the loss of the Full-Time Faculty. Where is that going to be made-up?

It would be nice to see something in the plan that explains what the vision is for this College. Then, if you want feedback on the 5-6 questions, the affected Faculty can respond. With the current type of information, it will be hard to comment on how the changes will affect you.

On the list of affected positions, the salaries (the numbers) are not consistent. Some appear to include benefits. Why is there a difference? (Jim responded, “Estimates of round numbers of savings to the College were used. Some included salary + benefits.”) SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN COLLEGE COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2011 Page 3 of 4

In some cases, it looks like a reorganization. (Jim responded, “The strategies from each area differed, hence the inconsistencies.”)

It would be helpful to spell out how the numbers were derived.

Keep in mind that the workload for Classified Staff increases with Part-Time Faculty. There is a labor intensiveness related to the work in paying Part-Time Faculty. In addition, there will be workload implications with the elimination of the travel position.

Who will take care of the Vice President for Student Success duties? To whom will the students report? (Gary responded, “It looks like the VPSS is staying and 50% of her salary will be shifted to non-state funding.”)

Some of the information shows Administrative/Exempt positions that are not exempt. There is a broad range of positions that need to be looked at—the Assistant to the V.P. position, for example. (Clarification: Confidential Assistant positions are exempt positions.)

4. WEB WORKGROUP UPDATE

Jim stated, “This came from Mariko’s question about accessing her area’s webpage.” He introduced Sean Duke from the Public Information Office (P.I.O) and Gary Kalbfleisch from Technology Support Services (T.S.S).

There are approximately 11,000 pages on the SCC website and work on “cleaning up the website” (namely content) has been taking place for approximately 18 months.

Adam stated, “Single sign-in would be great.”

In response to Guy’s inquiry about how feedback was obtained, Jim stated that there have been a few focus groups as well as having those who have never used the site, go through the site. The plan is for focus groups to start up during the Spring Quarter. Jim added, “We would like user feedback to be ongoing.”

Gary and Mariko spoke about conducting searches on the College’s site—searches that resulted in dated items coming to the “top of the list.” Gary K. mentioned that one should let Dave Holmes in TSS know about such situations.

Sean stated that input on the website can be sent to [email protected] He then provided an overview of a slide presentation containing flowcharts depicting how the website is structured. “We are trying to organize the website thematically.”

Jim, Gary K. and Sean spoke about the group’s next projects (Enrollment Services and Financial Aid sites) as well as the design standard generated over the course of the year. SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN COLLEGE COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Gary K. noted, “There is no one person in charge of the web—no webmaster. The P.I.O and T.S.S. currently divide the work. Content management is a manual process and we are looking at a Content Management System called Omni, a tool to tell you when the pages are fresh.”

5. FIVE STAR CONSORTIUM UPDATE February 24, 2011 ITV Meeting Plans for Constituent Input

Lee mentioned, “We know that students are picking and choosing amongst our colleges. This is the backdrop of how the Five Star Consortium came to be…before the efficiency legislation came out.” Lee added that the Presidents, with assistance from the Vice Presidents, have identified the “what.” “It is now the time to determine the “how” through engaging others from across campus.”

At the Five Star Consortium ITV Meeting, the Presidents discussed focusing on a common placement test score, the elimination of residency requirements, Human Resources functions (possibilities include background checks, investigations) and a “one time” application to all five colleges. Lee added that there was discussion about creating savings in meaningful ways as well as, how to bring in revenue as a region.

Gary noted, “Our College may have a higher threshold for getting into English 101” and mentioned the standards of quality at SCC.

Adam wondered about whether it would be beneficial to eliminate residency requirements. He believes that residency requirements encourage students to plan where to attend and where to complete a degree or program. Adam spoke of the emotional attachment to one’s school and implications for fundraising and donations from alumni. “I chose to go to Shoreline because of the excellent reputation the school has for academics and I think that it would hurt that reputation to just give away degrees or certificates to students who may not meet the standards that are required of the rest of us.”

6. GUIDELINES FOR YEAR-END REPORTS TO COLLEGE COUNCIL (DRAFT #1)

Revisions were made to Draft #1. Draft #2 will be sent to the Council via email for review and further input. If there are no objections to Draft #2 by the end of the day on Friday, March 4, the document will be put into final form and sent to Committee Chairs/Co-Chairs.

NEXT MEETING

Tuesday, March 15, 2011; 2:00 – 4:30 PM; Board Room