SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
COLLEGE COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Page 6 of 6
S U M M A R Y
Present: John Backes, Dorothy Cirelli, Tony Costa, Rachel David, Paul Fernandez,
Matt Fitzsimmons, Bonnie Frunz, Katie King, Lee Lambert, Sayaka Maki, Ben Peterson,
Norm Rogers, Andrea Rye, Toby Salerno, Karen Toreson, Stuart Trippel, Bernice Vonnegut
Not in Attendance: Nikki Honey, Miyuki Yamane, Judy Yu
Guests: Norma Goldstein, Mary Kelemen
Co-Chairs: Rachel David and Matt Fitzsimmons Recorder: Lori Yonemitsu
STANDING ITEMS
1. REVIEW MEETING SUMMARY – DECEMBER 5, 2006
No changes were made to the December 5, 2006 meeting summary.
By a thumbs-up consensus, the Council approved the December 5, 2006 Meeting Summary as written.
2. CHANGES TO FEBRUARY 6 COUNCIL AGENDA
Katie requested an addition to the agenda under New Business: Information presented at the February 2, 2007 All Campus Meeting.
3. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
Karen talked about the CCN (Common Course Numbering) initiative sponsored by the SBCTC (State Board for Community and Technical Colleges) to renumber courses that are common to all of the community colleges in the State of Washington. The SBCTC believes that this is something that the Legislature wants and that theoretically, Common Course Numbering would benefit students when they transfer from one College to another. Karen mentioned that there are concerns about the impact on faculty and staff workloads as well as, “buy-in” from the 4-year institutions.
Rachel added that 4-5 Shoreline Community College faculty members have attended CCN meetings and Rachel noted that she was the only one from her discipline attending the statewide CCN meetings. She shared that several faculty members will be sending a letter to Lee regarding Common Course Numbering.
In relation to budget reductions, John wanted to have it on record, his appreciation to the Classified Staff for their work as the College goes through budget reductions. “When we thank people, it is important to thank all…”
OLD BUSINESS/STANDING ITEMS
4. ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE UPDATE
Andrea shared that the committee has been reviewing processes and areas as well as barriers that our students experience. The committee’s next meeting is to focus on advising, counseling and developing a plan for 2007 - 2008. Due to the potential for additional FTES in the ABE/ESL area, we will be seeing more meetings “in Olympia” related to I-BEST Programs.
Enrollment is holding steady and the committee is looking at factors that are keeping enrollment in this holding pattern.
5. BUDGET COMMITTEE UPDATE
Stuart mentioned that the Budget Committee has done a great job in providing guidance and criteria to the PLT (President’s Leadership Team) with respect to the budget. The Budget Committee and the PLT will meet in a joint session so that Budget Committee members can ask questions of the PLT about the criteria established by the committee and adopted by the PLT in order to ensure to the committee’s satisfaction, that the criteria has been met.
Items that the Budget Committee will be working on:
· Goods and Services budgets
· Carry Forwards – What happens to budgets not fully expended at the end of a fiscal year?
· 148 Funds (lab fees, for example) – How are monies accumulated and how are they spent?
Update: Budget Committee Chair – Bob Francis; Budget Committee Vice Chair – Gary Kalbfleisch.
6. GOVERNANCE STEERING COMMITTEE UPDATE
Bonnie distributed the latest version (14th revision) of Policy No. 2301 – College Governance and the original policy (Adopted by Board Of Trustees: June 20, 1997; Revision Adopted: March 19, 1999).
Ø TO DO: Review both the revised version and the original. Submit comments and feedback to John Backes by February 20th.
Bonnie mentioned that the feeling of the Governance Steering Committee is that the policy is ready to move forward and that once things are in place with regard to the policy, the Governance Steering Committee can “sunset,” allowing the College Council to take the helm.
John noted that in relation to policy items, the College Council collects information and comes to consensus. Item(s) then goes/go to the PLT as well as through a legal review (through the College’s Assistant Attorney General). Finally, the item(s) goes/go to the Board, with the Board’s role to approve the policy only.
7. PUB RENAMING PROPOSALS
Set Up Balloting Process (4 Proposals Related to the Naming of the 900 Building)
At the December 6, 2006 Board Of Trustees regular meeting, Matt brought forth a request [Exception to Procedures (Policy 3802)] from the College Council. The Board was asked to consider that balloting on four proposals for the naming of the 900 building, occur during the third full week of the Winter quarter (rather than during the Spring quarter (as identified in Step C of Procedural Guideline Number 3). The Board did not grant the exceptions, feeling that the process be left to the College Council. One of the concerns of the Board included the potential for each of the proposals to receive 25% of the vote and suggested that a run off occur between the top two if necessary. Matt requested that committee members determine a date for the balloting to take place.
Karen asked about the impact on signage for the 900 building with balloting set to happen later than the committee had initially planned. In response, Stuart shared that initial signage plans mentioned previously (interior signage and exterior signage—“the fabricated metal sign”) are not moving forth at this time. He added that the balloting for the naming of the facility process should drive signage rather than the signage for the facility, driving the balloting process.
By a thumbs-up consensus, the Council agreed to run an initial ballot containing the four proposals in conjunction with the Student Government elections in the Spring and if a run-off is necessitated (if no proposal receives 51% of the vote), that the run-off election transpire three weeks after the initial election. The Council also agreed to publicize information related to a run-off election during the initial election.
John requested that the proposal (to formally name the 2000 building to the Visual Arts Center) from Dean Norma Goldstein and the Visual Arts Faculty and Staff be brought back for discussion.
Agreement: Include the item on the 2000 building proposal on the ballot, as a separate voting item, in conjunction with the Student Government elections.
Ø TO DO: Ben will speak with Gavin Smith, Database/Web Applications Programmer – TSS (Technology Support Services) about adding staff to the voting system as College employees are eligible to vote on the naming of campus facilities.
8. ECONOMICS OF TEXTBOOKS
Stuart distributed a packet of information, including legislative items specific to course materials and cost savings, and provided an overview of each item. He added that while it is important to facilitate feedback to faculty regarding the cost of books, etc., that there be recognition of the academic freedom piece within the faculty contract.
Guest Mary Kelemen noted that the impact of bundling (text plus CD or DVD) on the used books market is a major issue.
Bonnie shared concern from a faculty standpoint and noted that oftentimes, faculty members are not aware that a new edition of a required text is in print, making the edition they list as a required text, unavailable.
Mary noted that there is movement in working toward bringing students, bookstore personnel, publishers and faculty together to discuss the costs of textbooks. She also stressed that publishers need to hear from students directly as well.
NEW BUSINESS
9. COLLEGE CLOSURE (DUE TO SNOW AND ICE) INCONSISTENCIES
Ben felt that there were inconsistencies related to the closures in January and that it seemed that conditions (especially on one of the days) were extreme and yet, there was no late start or closure.
Karen added that the those who have to make the decision about the College’s closure and class cancellations, have a very difficult task due to the variance in the weather forecasts. She noted that there are situations where students work very hard to get here on days with inclement weather and sometimes, the faculty might not be able to make it to the campus.
According to Rachel, there is no good answer and appreciated that there is a willingness on the part of the administration to listen to concerns. She inquired about a “Classes cancelled; College open for operations” option. Dorothy noted that in past years, that had been a decision—where the College was open for operations but classes, cancelled.
Lee reiterated that the College is always balancing personal safety against the need to provide the services and classes to our students. He added that when the College is closed and classes are cancelled, students do ask, “Why did you close?” As an individual, ask yourself, “Is it safe for me?” In the end, making sure that people are staff, is the priority.
Paul mentioned that during the first snow day in November, he came to campus and noticed that there were quite a few students on campus and asked about how students learn about closures and class cancellations. John responded that the information is available on the College’s website, on the radio and television (through information submitted to www.schoolreports.org) and on a message that incoming callers hear when calling the College’s main line—(206) 546-4101.
Toby expressed his concern about Classified Staff and the making up of time during the week in which leave occurred. It is difficult when the College is closed or when an employee cannot get to campus—Toby lives in Everett, could not get to the main streets and ended up taking 4 days of leave without pay. Lee added that he wants to look into online training (training modules) where confirmation (through an online certificate of participation, for example), can account for one’s work time.
Bonnie feels that when something is emergent, there should be alternatives to making up time that would stay within federal, state and contractual rules, regulations and agreements. Ben added that because making up leave is a negotiated item in the Classified contract, that individuals should contact union representatives regarding this.
10. REORGANIZATION
Lee stated that at the last two All Campus Meetings, he has talked about reorganization. Ideally, reorganization should precede budget reductions and he reiterated that reorganization does not mean that there will not be additional reductions. Up until this point, we have done things through a committee process and Lee asked committee members, “Under what circumstances do we depart from that process?” He added that part of the challenge is that the College’s organizational structure does not best support efforts around communication, collaboration and accountability.
Lee shared several possible models in which reorganization could emerge:
1. Establish a campus wide committee that would come up with 2- 3 models, the pros and cons of each model—then forward the models (and the pros and cons) to the PLT;
2. PLT to come up with models first and then, share with the campus;
3. Utilize the model employed for the reorganization of the (former) WED (Workforce and Economic Development) unit—determine which administrative position is to be reduced or eliminated and work from that point;
4. Utilize the model employed for the reorganization in Instruction.
Lee added that there are many variations in which to proceed but in all cases, there would need to be criteria and a timeline. It is his hope to have an idea of what the reorganization will look like beginning in the fall.
Tony has heard from numerous people and the sense is that they are favorable to the first model—a committee furnishing the models to the PLT. He added that it worked well with other things (when we have made budget cuts, for example) and stated, “Let’s do it the way we know how we do it best.”
In conversations with others, Rachel shared that many do have a lot of trust in the PLT and that reorganization feels like an administrative activity. The caveat: feedback from the campus be included and taken seriously.
Karen added that administration has an oversight piece and she would like to see some plans generated by the administration, allowing for feedback from the campus. She noted, “I trust that you would listen to that feedback so that we know our input is considered.”
Katie feels that the campus should know ahead of time what is non-negotiable and Karen concurred by stating that it is helpful to know this (the non-negotiable pieces), thereby removing guesswork from the equation.
Lee shared that one thought relates to the elimination of the Vice President for Student Services position and the elimination of the Confidential Assistant/Secretary to the Vice President for Student Services position (both are exempt positions) and reinvesting savings from the position eliminations into developing the Foundation. Matt expressed his concern about the impact on services to students if there was an elimination of the Vice President for Student Services position.
Both Bonnie and Tony shared that there are perceptions that administrative positions are “taken care of” and that the College is becoming top heavy.
Lee noted that there are imbalances and it is his hope to equalize the constituencies. He added that some exempt positions have been returned to the Classified bargaining unit
and that he has been examining the organizational structure of other Colleges. John added that each group is suffering and reminded the committee that there were 7 administrative cuts made in the College’s first round of reductions.