SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
COLLEGE COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 21, 2006

Page 4 of 4

S U M M A R Y

Present: John Backes, Beverly Brandt, Dorothy Cirelli, Rachel David, Libby Fiene, Loretta Fisher-Niang, Bonnie Frunz, Barb Kristek, Linda Kuehnert, Lee Lambert, Elliot Newlin, Toby Salerno, Karen Toreson

Not in attendance: Marianne Baker, Mark Durfee, Peggy Lytle

Recorder: Michele Foley

1. REVIEW MEETING SUMMARIES FROM JANUARY 17 AND FEBRUARY 7, 2006

Because there was no quorum, Co-Chairs Karen and Libby postponed approval of the Meeting Summaries from January 17 and February 7 to the next Council meeting, scheduled for March 7.

2. CHANGES TO THE FEBRUARY 21 COUNCIL AGENDA

There were no changes to the agenda.

3. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD

No one asked to speak during the Open Comment Period.

4. UPDATE: PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH

Council guest, Dean Susan Hoyne, who is serving as Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, began her report by saying the Committee feels that things are proceeding according to plan. She displayed a copy of the Search Brochure, asking that staff members who are planning on attending upcoming conferences and meetings take several to distribute. The Search Committee is planning the interview process, which will likely include interviews, a public presentation and a writing exercise. Though the consultants, Gold Hill Associates, advised not to have a writing sample, the committee felt strongly that the candidates should do a presentation. The view of the Search Committee is to give each candidate a question they are not expecting to see how each thinks on his or her feet. The Search Committee wants the candidates to experience as many tests as possible so it can be ascertained how they cope. Candidates will meet with each campus constituency and with individuals. Susan said the Search Committee is hoping to interview up to eight candidates and recommend a final number to the Trustees, which the Trustees have yet to determine. Everyone on the Search Committee will read every application. Jamie Smith will remove applications which do not meet minimum requirement beforehand. The consultants will return in April to meet with the Search Committee. Both the consultants and the committee will have choices of which applicants to interview and will work together to come to an agreement on whom to interview.

Susan said if Council members have questions or wish further explanation, they can contact their individual representatives who serve on the Search Committee.

Susan continued that all candidates must go through the application process. Because two members of the Board of Trustees serve on the Presidential Search Committee, Susan expects, at the February 22 Board meeting, they may urge the Board to set a number of finalists for Board interview. She said it is very clear that the Search Committee will make the recommendation to the Board of which candidates will be interviewed by the Board. Neither Gold Hill Associates nor the Board will be bringing in an additional candidate not seen by the Search Committee beforehand.

Lee suggested that the Presidential Search Committee compile an alternate list of candidate finalists which could be used in lieu of asking the Board to reconvene all over again if the first set is not satisfactory, which could add up to two weeks to the process.

If the search fails, the Search Committee would return to the existing pool, but the Board would not be bringing any other new candidates forward. Susan reiterated it is only through the Search Committee that candidates will come before the Board.

5. UPDATE: BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA – FEBRUARY 22, 2006

Lee reviewed the agenda for the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2006. Referring to the “Trends and Updates” section, he said that Beverly will provide an update on the PUB transition. Beverly added that the architects assigned to the PUB’s design phase will be present at the Board meeting to make a full story-board presentation. Lee also referred to the presentation on the National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC), an initiative he wants to bring to the Board’s attention. He and the Board met with Congressman Jay Inslee this morning and the Congressman is also very interested in NAFTC’s potential for training opportunities at Shoreline.

Noting the single Action Item is Board consideration of faculty sabbatical proposals, Lee said the administration is recommending that the Board approve all sabbatical proposals as presented and it is then up to the Board to make the final decision.

There will also be a Special Board Meeting on Tuesday, February 28, to allow the Board the opportunity to review third-year tenure-track candidates’ packets with the chairs of each candidate’s Appointment Review Committee.

6. DRAFT #13 COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES

Libby reported that, based on discussion about membership at the last Council meeting, she had adjusted and consolidated procedural information but had not changed anything substantively.

TO DO: Nancy Lamus offered to check the Governance Steering Committee notes to look for guidelines regarding Council membership.

Bonnie Frunz said the Council Procedures do not address how to conduct business when there is no quorum. She asked if that meant that the Council can’t do any business? Or, she asked, does it mean, depending on the time of year, that the Council can take care of business without a quorum?

TO DO: The Council will review the viability of holding meetings during the summer.

By a thumbs-up consensus, the Council members agreed that they will wait until there is a quorum of Council members in attendance before further discussion can be held regarding what to do about the quorum situation and whether or not the Council will meet during the summer.

7. POLICY 6291, “EYE PROTECTION”

Rachel David reported that the Faculty Senate Council did not feel comfortable voting approval on Policy 6291 until it had circulated to the divisions one more time. She said the Senate Council meets tomorrow and it is her hope that they will cast a final vote to accept it at that time.

TO DO: The proposed draft of Eye Protection Policy 6291 will return for final review by College Council once it has been approved by Faculty Senate Council.

TO DO: The revised Cover Template for Policy 6291 will be forwarded to all Council members.

8. FUTURE BUSINESS

Chair Karen asked that the Council review the “Future Business Items.”

·  FERPA

Lee said the Council needs to review the FERPA laws within the context of the Washington Administrative Code.

·  Appendices to Policy 4111

TO DO: Clarification is needed on which wording should remain in the policy and which can be removed. This may be guided by the Assistant Attorney General’s ruling.

·  New Community College Baccalaureate Degrees in Washington

The Senate budget does not include funding for baccalaureate degrees at community colleges. If the House budget is similar, the question becomes, “What will the system do?” The college presidents must decide then.

TO DO: John Backes has substantial background information on this topic which he offered to bring to the Council.

Co-location sites (a community college and a four-year university such as Cascadia and UW-Bothell sharing resources, locales and students) are a different concept than community colleges offering baccalaureate degrees. Lee and John have discussed the co-location concept, but would need to have a conversation with the Faculty Senate to see if it would be worth proceeding on the idea. Just like applied baccalaureates, co-located university centers offer a limited range of degrees, but are meant to build on the strengths of the host community colleges.

·  Governance Policy 2301

John said the policy, as it now exists, is not reflective of what the college now wants to do. He is working with PLT to advocate for a framework to be used by the college at least for the rest of the year.

The governance policy, John explained, has less to do with the College Council and more to do with how college committees, especially college-wide committees, are formed. The policy also addressed issues around shared governance and what that means. He suggested members of PLT meet with Governance Steering and then move forward to take the policy concepts to different campus groups. He said what’s missing from the policy is that, as SCC goes through a reorganization, to recognize that new groups which are created are communicating with one another.

·  Council Review and Assessment

Eventually, John proposed, the Council will need some assessment, but perhaps not this year. He asked that this item be removed from Future Business until he brings it up again.

·  Other Topics:

o  Discuss how Council alternates are designated

o  Revisit whether or not proxies or substitutes would be recognized by the Council.

9. TOPICS FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING

The Co-Chairs asked Council members to come to the March 7 Council meeting prepared to discuss quorum and the other items listed above.

Karen wants to confirm the number of members from each campus constituency.

TO DO: Members will review the Council Operating Procedures and return to the March 7 Council meeting prepared to discuss ideas about quorum, membership, representation, proxies, substitutes, and alternates.

10. ADJOURNMENT

With no further business, meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.

11. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the College Council will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2006.