Woodland Community CollegeAcademic SenateMinutes – August 30, 2013Matt Clark(President)ChristopherHowerton (At-Large)Greg Gassman(Social Sciences)Kevin Ferns(FaLaHum)Donna Bahneman(Adjunct, WCC)Cheryl Latimer(Student Services)Talwinder Chetra (Math andScience)Pat Wheeler (Adjunct, atlarge)Donna McGill-Cameron(Business and Vocational Ed.)Guests: J. Shah, A. KonuwaCall to Order at 1:04 pmI. Approval of Agenda (Wheeler/Chetra)II. Public CommentA. Wheeler reports that the current schedule is an inconvenience to single mothers who would like tohave their schedules coordinated with their children’s class dates.B. Latimer reports that the counseling secretary has left and the counseling phones may not always becovered. Administration is considering making the new hire a secretary to the dean as well as acounseling secretary. This could be problematic.C. Gassman reports that the program review process looks pretty damn scary. The overall picture looksdaunting and terrifying. He will pay someone 1,000 to do the history program review.D. Chetra reports that he held a conference call with Butte College to verify information given to him inthe District Calendar Committee regarding admissions timelines. Some of the committee’sinformation may have been inaccurate. This will be agendized in a future Senate meeting.E. Ferns reports that WCC still does not offer a comprehensive and easy approach for students to obtainpicture ID cards. Student ID cards would make it easier for students to use such services as theWAM, the ARC, the tutoring center, other student services, campus copiers, and library services.These cards would serve as ID in case of a campus emergency, could work as debit cards and beused to pay for parking or make copies and print from lab computers, and could allow students toreceive discounts at local businesses and on public transportation. In addition, ID cards would allowfaculty and staff to track student use of important student services on campus and gain accurate datafor program reviews and gain leverage in making future facilities and equipment requests.III. Approval of Minutes from 8/16/13 as amended (Howerton/Gassman)IV. President’s Report-Clark (Attached)A. Clark had a brief orientation with the new senators this morning and was impressed with the energyof the group. He recommends all committees hold orientations with new members and reviewpurpose statements. The Senate will review its purpose statement as well in a future meeting.1

V. Vice President’s Report-VacantA. Committee Appointments. The Senate appoints Ingrid Neumann to the SLO Committee as theadjunct representative. The Senate appoints D. Martin to the Flex Committee. The Senate appointsFerns to the Library Advisory Committee as the FALAHUM representative.B. Curriculum Update. Both N. Kirschner and B. Asmus will have 60% reassigned time next semester,which will put some strain on their departments. If the District had provided a more balanced 40%reassigned this semester, we would not be so far behind with the current backload of work and wewouldn’t have needed to resort to such an extreme measure for next semester.C. Senate Subcommittee Selections1. Ferns, Gassman, and Howerton will serve on the Senate Election Committee.2. Wheeler, Latimer, and McGill-Cameron will serve on the Academic Standards Committee.3. Bahneman will serve on the Academic Discipline Committee.VI. Election of Senate Vice President-Donna McGill-Cameron is elected Senate Vice President for the2013-2014 school year (M/S/C Wheeler/Howerton).VII. New BusinessA. Strategic Planning Protocol Feedback (Attached). Latimer expresses concern that the noninstructional program vitality criteria does not take into account a program that may be understaffed.Clark brought this up with administration in a past meeting. Clark also notes that much of thisinformation may be slightly intimidating due to the potential ramifications of the reports, but we willbe consistently monitoring the process to ensure that it is an effective and fair one. Any immediateeffects are unlikely. We must be cognizant of the details of the plan once they are integrated intofuture drafts of this plan.B. Blackboard and Technology Concerns. Ferns reports that the recent purchase of a new LearningManagement System is a positive step in addressing technology issues within the District, but he isworried this step may mask a more troubling problem, which is the process by which the Districtcame to this decision. The Board convened an emergency meeting to approve the funds only afterBlackboard crashed and became unusable for the first week of classes. Fortunately a fix was foundand we can use Blackboard again, but this is simply one technology problem in a long line ofproblems that we have had for years. The portal is an example of technology that we simply do notknow how to use effectively, and it’s riddled with problems that prevent most faculty from using it.Email access is another issue in that most faculty and staff are prevented from sending out messagesto large groups of district faculty and staff. The current email process uses a few gatekeepers whohave the permission to send messages to the campus community. This process has increased theworkload of the gatekeepers and delayed the timely transmission of important notices. On the topicof email lists, Clark asks who should be maintaining them? If anyone is capable of making a list,why don’t we take it upon ourselves to make up and maintain that list? Clark asks theCommunication Resource Committee to bring a list of technology concerns to the Senate for furtherconsideration.C. SLO Committee Report to Senate. Howerton reports that the SLO Committee meets the second andfourth Thursday during the noon hour in room 621. He reports that the current campaign, the “Roadto 100%,” is going well and we have gone from 54% compliance with course level assessments toalmost 90% this year. For the fall semester, we will be collecting SLO assessments for the 34 classeswe are offering this semester for which we are still missing assessments. Wheeler thanks Howertonfor the great adjunct form allowing adjunct faculty to report results. Clark expresses thanks to theSLO Committee for the work it has done, which has been exemplary, in response to the accreditationrecommendation.2

D. PRVT Revised Purpose Statement (attached). Motion: The Senate approves the revised purpose statement with the removal of theroom number (MSC Gassman/Wheeler).E. Inadequate Administrative Support and Management Resources. Clark notes that we don’t havesufficient resources to accomplish the administrative tasks that need to get done. For example, AnaVillagrana worked long hours on the catalog updates, which prevented her from accomplishing otherimportant work. The Senate will take this up again in a future meeting and present a resolutionasking for additional support.VIII.Meeting Adjourned-3:01 pm (Gassman/Wheeler)3

President’s ReportAugust 30th, 20131. DC3 (8/20) – Suggested a further revision to AP 7151 (Evaluation of CollegePresidents). Reviewed and made recommendations regarding AP 7122 (CollegePresident Hiring Procedure). Received AP 4105 (Distance Education). Had along discussion about the possible realignment of Clearlake with WCC. Amongthe concerns voiced were: timing, cost, benefit to Clearlake students, benefit toWCC students, adequate resources, and curriculum issues. Many still don’t feelthat a list of reasons to consider this transition has been provided.2. Budget Summit (8/28) – CBO Kaur reviewed a number of documents looking atlast years (unaudited) budget, this year’s tentative budget and this years adoptedbudget. The adopted budget has a 2.12M structural deficit and a 5.35Mprojected ending fund balance (reserve). The reserve is projected to be 10.76%,but there are two contingencies (utilities and apportionment deficit) totaling 325K, which could lower the reserve. After the budget review, questions wereraised about resource allocation and the importance of program review as wemoved forward. A number of concerns were raised (educated faculty on properlywriting reviews, reviews for programs with no full-time faculty, programs beinghurt by poorly written reviews ). It was agreed that education will be adetermining factor in the success of the new planning protocol. [It sounds likeMolly has WCC a bit ahead of where YC is regarding program reviewexpectations.]3. Special Board Meeting (8/20) – The meeting’s single agenda item was thepurchasing of a new LMS. The purchase of Canvas was approved. However,before a vote was taken, board members ask many questions regarding what ledus to the situation with the former Blackboard. The Vice Chancellor haspromised a thorough review.4. Meeting with WCC Administration – Nothing to report. The combination of nosenate VP and scheduling issues with WCC administration has resulted in nomeetings this semester. Both sides are working to find a time to meet next week.Issues are collecting.VP Portion of President’s Report5. Committee Appointments – SLO Committee (1 Adjunct) FLEX (1FT) Scheduling Criteria (1FT) LAC (1 FT from FaLaHum)4

I.IntroductionThe strategic planning process guides the district in integrating planning, budgeting andevaluation processes that result in the district achieving its goals as set forth in the vision andmission. The overarching characteristic in the district planning framework is that these commoncomponents form a repetitive, continuous cycle of sustainable quality improvement grounded indata-informed decision-making.The strategic planning process: is inclusive of the planning at the colleges and district services drives allocation of district resources for the colleges, the off-campus sites and district services incorporates factors of external influence to account for and respond to emerging trends andcontingency events and includes a planning, budgeting and evaluation calendar and appropriately distributedresponsibilitiesII. Design Principles:We produced the Strategic Planning Process (SPP) using the following design principles:1. The strategic planning process has a clear cycle of activities, is learning-centered, and hasclearly assigned roles and responsibilities for individuals and groups, including students.2. The collaborative SPP process is incorporated within ongoing participatory decision-makingstructures rather than creating a separate set of activities and groups, and is inclusive byproviding multiple means for constituent groups to be heard and to influence the plan.3. The SPP is data-informed, using qualitative and quantitative data, and is routinely reviewedas the plan is implemented with the aim of continuous improvement.4. The process assures deliberate and equitable resource allocation supporting theachievement of the colleges, off-campus sites and district services goals as we strive to improvestudent learning through our programs and services.5. The process supports integrated planning of the educational master plans, district services,facilities, fiscal, human resources and technology with the comprehensive district masterplan through careful timing and by clearly connecting each of these plans to the District’sVision, Values, and Goals, both short- and long-term.6. The process is as simple as possible while yielding a viable planning process. The processvocabulary, its deliverables and the results of the plan’s implementation are widelydisseminated to all employees.III. General Process OverviewThe strategic planning process (diagram found on page 3) is an annual cycle within a six-yearcomprehensive review. Embedded within cycle are processes including planning andprioritization, budgeting and resource allocation, implementation and institutional effectivenessreview. The integration of these processes assures annual evaluation and improvement in ourongoing quest to support higher levels of student learning across the district.5Rev. 8-16-2013

Six-year Integrated Institutional Effectiveness Cycle:Strategic Plan: The District’s vision, focus and strategic intent are set by theGoverning Board in the Strategic Plan comprised of the Vision, Values,Institutional Student learning Outcomes (SLOs), College and District ServicesMission. The Governing Board works with the Chancellor to affirm Short- andLong-term Goals.Long-term Operational Plan: The Strategic Planning Team (SPT) compilesgoals and objectives from the: WCC Educational Master PlanYC Educational Master PlanDistrict Services Master Plan (which includes Human Resources, Facilities, Fiscaland Technology master planning)The SPT also incorporates emergent strategies into a Comprehensive DistrictMaster Plan (CDMP) that provides long-term operational planning for YCCD.Informed by the strategic intent found in the Strategic Plan, the CDMP alsocontains long-range performance targets articulated through a set of KeyPredictive Indicators. KPIs include past performance trends, current state, and ouraspirations for future performance as metrics to gauge institutional effectiveness.While major revisions occur on a six-year cycle, the process is uniquely anddeliberately designed to assure the district is nimble and responsive to regional,statewide, and national trends, needs and initiatives through prescribed andintegrated communication and prioritization components in the annual cycle (seepage 6).Annual Integrated Institutional Effectiveness Cycle:Operational Plan: The Annual Action Planning Team (AAPT), a DC3 sub-team,compiles the annual goals and objectives for the coming year from the CDMP.This team accounts for short-term emergent strategies as informed by contingencyevents and emerging program priorities. A component of this process includes thework of multiple Program Vitality Prioritization Teams (PVPT) who implementthe district’s Program Vitality Prioritization process. The results of this processinform the annual budget and resource allocation process.Resource Allocation Process: Budget Summit Team is charged with preparingresource allocation recommendations. These recommendations include the resultsof the program vitality prioritization process (see page 9 for more details) and arebased upon long-term fiscal planning and current budget status including theallocation of one-time funds.Institutional Effectiveness Review (IER) Process: The institutionaleffectiveness review process assures annual assessment and evaluation of thedistrict’ performance in relation to its stated purpose. The IER is comprised ofmultiple elements: Evaluation of last year’s goal achievement as stated in the district AAPEvaluation of the Key Predictive Indicators as stated in the CDMPEvaluation of the effectiveness of our participatory decision-makingprocesses6Rev. 8-16-2013

Evaluation of the budgeting and planning processesAnalysis of Program Reviews and Administrative Services Reviews as amethod for informing planning and resource allocation for the coming yearThe IER also supports reporting on contingency events (i.e., unplanned events orcircumstances that impacted goal and objective achievement during the preceding year)if applicable.The Institutional Effectiveness Review Team (IERT), a sub-team of DC3,oversees this comprehensive assessment and evaluation process designed toassure the district’s active engagement in ongoing improvement and institutionalrenewal.Annual Communication Cycle: To support an inclusive and transparentintegrated planning, resource allocation, and institutional effectiveness process,the results of each of the annual cycle components will be widely communicatedusing multiple communication venues. The Communication Team is charged byDC3 to: Assure broad dissemination of SPP deliverablesServe as a formal conduit for constituent input into the Annual Action Plan, theResource Allocation Recommendations, and the Institutional EffectivenessReview, andTo evaluate the effectiveness of the communication processes used for thepurpose of improving communication in the future.7Rev. 8-16-2013

8Rev. 8-16-2013

9Rev. 8-16-2013

10Rev. 8-16-2013

IV. Annual Integrated Institutional Effectiveness Rhythm for 2013-14 and 2014-15:Time Period: AnnuallyA.District Strategic PlanWhat: With a six-year planning horizon, the District Strategic Plan consists ofthe following: VisionValues StatementShort- and Long-term Goals (formerly the Strategic Directions)Institutional Student Learning OutcomesColleges’ and District Services’ MissionsWho: Board of TrusteesWhen: Annually; dialog to occur and update as appropriateExplanation: Considerations include external factors of influence (e.g., statefunding, labor market research, etc.) emerging trends at the regional and statelevel, and colleges’ Educational Master Plans.B.YCCD Short-term Goals (two-three year): With a two-three year planning horizon,the Governing Board influences the district’s Short-term Goals through the Chancellor’sannual goals.C.Long-term Goals will emerge from the 2014-15 Strategic Planning Process.Time Period: October-MarchA. Educational Master Plans and District Services Master Plan:Woodland Community College Educational Master PlanWhat: Embedded within the six-year Educational Master Plan are annualpriorities that drive budgeting, resource allocation, and decision-making inaccordance with established goals, objectives, and anticipated learningoutcomes. Required elements of the master plans are goals and objectivesinformed by internal and external data, means of assessment, budgetimpact, evaluation plan, responsible parties, and timeline.Who: Educational Master Plan CommitteeWhen: Annually; dialogue to occur to update the Comprehensive PlanExplanation: This is a unique product containing similar components such asfacilities,staffing, educational programs and services to include curriculum, studentsupport and services, technology, fiscal planning, professionaldevelopment, etc.Yuba College Educational Master PlanWhat: Embedded within the six-year Educational Master Plan (EMP) are annualpriorities that drive budgeting, resource allocation, and decision-making inaccordance with established goals, objectives, and anticipated learning11Rev. 8-16-2013

outcomes. Required elements of the master plans are goals and objectivesinformed by internal and external data, means of assessment, budgetimpact, evaluation plan, responsible parties, and timeline.Who: College CouncilWhen: Annually; dialogue to occur to update the EMPExplanation: This is a unique product containing similar components such asfacilities,staffing, educational programs and services to include curriculum, studentsupport and services, technology, fiscal planning, professionaldevelopment, etc.District Services Master PlanWhat: Embedded within the six-year District Services’ Master Plan are annualpriorities that drive budgeting, resource allocation, and decision-making inaccordance with established goals, objectives, and anticipated learningoutcomes. Required elements of the master plans are goals and objectivesinformed by internal and external data, means of assessment, budgetimpact, evaluation plan, responsible parties, and timeline.Who: District Services Executive TeamWhen: Annually; dialogue to occur to update the Comprehensive PlanExplanation: Unique product containing similar components (facilities,staffing,Educational programs and services to include curriculum, student supportand services, technology, fiscal planning, professional development, etc.)Time Period: March-MayComprehensive District Master Plan (CDMP): The CDMP represents the longterm operational plan for the district. The plan includes elements from each of thethree master plans as well as emerging trends and strategic initiatives. The CDMPserves as a coordinating mechanism to further support the achievement of goalsacross the district.What: CDMP; information needs to be vetted by DC3.Who: CHEXWhen: April-May Annual dialog/updating as appropriateComprehensive Plan every 6 yearsExplanation: The CMDP will be initially vetted through DC3 in April.Time Period: March-MayProgram and Service Vitality Review (PSRV): The PSVR is a review of thepriorities of both colleges (YC and WCC) and District Services, with the objective ofdeveloping a master list of priorities, district-wide for all programs and services. Theanalysis, review and formulation of a master priority list is conduct by three teams –1) CHEX, 2) and 3) Sub-teams of DC3. CHEX is comprised of the leadership fromboth colleges, as well as district leadership and the Chancellor. The two sub teams12Rev. 8-16-2013

from DC3 will include a balanced representation from both colleges and staffingpositions (i.e. classified, faculty, management and district staff.) Teams 1), 2) and 3)will forward their recommended master priority lists to the Vice Chancellor ofEducation Planning Services, who will aggregate the three recommended lists into asingle master list, which will be sent to DC3 and finally to the YCCD Chancellor forreview, approval and action,What: PSVRWho: CHEX, Sub teams of DC3When: January-February AnnuallyExplanation: The final recommended master priority list will be vetted throughDC3Resource Allocation Model (RAM): A majority of the District’s revenuecomes from State apportionments for student enrollment (Full-timeEquivalent Students or “FTES”); Cost of Living Allowances (COLA), ifany; Enrollment Growth/Restoration funds; Local Property Taxes; Lotteryand, Enrollment fees.The General Fund is the district’s largest source of revenue. The GeneralFunds that are allocated to the college are based on the strategic planningpriorities for the district. The process for determining resource allocationbegins with the Governing Board as well as the Chancellor setting strategicdirections including long-term and short-term goals at its July PlanningSession. The colleges and the district services work on its respectiveeducational and district services master plans that are incorporated into theComprehensive District Master Plan by the Strategic Planning Team (SubTeam of DC3). All of the plans as well as emerging strategies areincorporated into the Annual Action Plan. At the same time, district-wideteams utilize the strategic planning criteria in prioritizing programs andservices that are incorporated into the Annual Action Plan by the StrategicPlanning Team. The Budget Advisory Team (Budget Summit) preparesresource allocations for the prioritized programs and services.What: Budget Summit prepares resource allocation recommendations to informthe District Budget.Who: Budget Summit, a DC3 sub-teamWhen: Begin process in January to approve Tentative Budget by July 1 andcontinue this process until Final Adoption of the Budget by September 15.Explanation: The RAM and subsequent final budget funds programs and servicesfor the following academic year.The State of California’s Budget Process: Timeline of EventsThe States’ budget process and timelines dictate the timing of events anddistribution of monetary resources to the District that are then allocated tothe two colleges within the District, Yuba College and WoodlandCommunity College.13Rev. 8-16-2013

Timeline: January: Governor’s Budget Proposal – includes proposed estimates ofstate revenues. February: Final calculation of state revenues of previous fiscal year’sbudget February – March: P1(First Principal Apportionment) – the firstcalculation projecting apportionment revenues for the district (includingproperty tax and enrollment fees, projected deficit factor) May: Governor’s Revised Budget – revised estimates of state revenues June: P2 (Second Principal Apportionment) – revised estimates ofstatewide budget shortfalls in property tax and enrollment fees; deficitfactor to growth funding; may allocate special funding July: Final State Budget – final State revenuesTime Period: October-FebruaryAnnual Action Planning: The District Annual Action Plan (DAAP) is drafted annuallyby the Annual Action Planning Team (AAPT), a sub team of DC3. The DAAP compilesthe annual goals and objectives included in the CDMP. In addition the plan is informedby the summary of goal achievement from the annual Institutional Effectiveness Review,emerging direction trends and contingency events. Required elements of the annual planincludes goals and objectives, means of assessment, budget impact, evaluation plan,14Rev. 8-16-2013

responsible parties, and timeline.What: DAAPWho: Annual Action Planning Team (AAPT), a DC3 sub-teamWhen: October-FebruaryExplanation: The District Annual Action Plan includes the goals and objectivesfor the current year and incorporates emerging trends already determinedthrough previous year’s work. The DAAP will initially be vetted by DC3in January, and confirmed in February.Academic Program and Services Vitality Prioritization process: This process isdesigned to link college and district planning processes to college and district allocationprocesses, using criteria and evidence in support of district and college priorities.What: Program and Services Vitality PrioritizationWho: PSV Teams (CHEX and two DC3 appointed ad hoc teams)When: October-FebruaryExplanation: The prioritization teams complete the prioritization process usingthe Academic program and Services Vitality Criteria (See Appendix,page?). The priorities are forwarded to Budget Summit forincorporation into the tentative budget. For 2014-15 the District will pilotthe process for one-time funds. Following a comprehensive evaluation,analysis and process improvement as appropriate, this process, weanticipate full implementation for the 2015-16 budget year.Time Period: March-MayWhat: Budget Summit prepares resource allocation recommendations to informthe District Budget.Who: Budget Summit TeamWhen: Begin process behind the scenes in February and finalized - March – MayExplanation: The RAM and subsequent final budget funds programs and servicesfor the following academic year.Time Period: July-SeptemberInstitutional Effectiveness Review (IER). The institutional effectiveness review is an annual process thatincludes the following: Evaluation of last year’s goal achievement as stated in the district AAP Evaluation of the Key Predictive Indicators as stated in the CDMP Evaluation of the effectiveness of our participatory decision-making processes Evaluation of the budgeting and planning processes Analysis of Program Reviews and Administrative Services Reviews as a method forinforming planning and resource allocation for the coming yearWhat: IER: A multi-component institutional effectiveness review directed atdetermining the level of achievement of specific outcomes including Board15Rev. 8-16-2013

adopted institutional Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), academic programSLOs, non-instructional program and service units and administrative serviceunit outcomes. This review is designed to include and make use of theseoutcomes in a yearly cycle that reports on the progress made toward outcomeachievement and overall effectiveness of programs, services, and institutionalprocesses and leads to institutional improvement in programs, practices, andprocedures as they support improved student learning and student success.Who: Institutional Effectiveness Review Team (IERT), a DC3 sub-teamWhen: Begin the review in July with a report in December.Explanation: IERT is responsible for compiling the results from the five areas listedabove and to present this information the Communication Team for broaddissemination.16Rev. 8-16-2013

17Rev. 8-16-2013

18Rev. 8-16-2013

APPENDICES: Team Timelines (Forthcoming)YCCD Academic Program Vitality CriteriaYCCD Services and Non-Instructional Program Vitality CriteriaAnnual Committee Effectiveness ReviewPlanning and Budget Process Improvement (Forthcoming)19Rev. 8-16-2013

6.YCCD ACADEMIC PROGRAM VITALITY CRITERIAI.Vision (Maximum 10 points)a. How does the program support the District vision statement? (5 points) Specifically, how doesthe program meets the needs of our students and communities?b. How does the program support the District goals and future directions? (5 points) YCCD Short Term Goals YCCD Long Term GoalsII. Demand (Maximum 35 points)a. 2 year enrollment trend (5 points)b. Course fill rate [enrollment/capacity] (5 points)c. Awards (degrees and certificates) (5 points)d. #/% Degree/Certificate Applicable Courses (5 points)e. #/% Transferable Courses (CSU and/or UC) (5 points)f. #/% Courses that are required for, or support other programs (5 points)g. Occupational Outlook (labor market projections), including indicators if the programs supports ahigh demand occupation (i.e. Next Economy Clusters, etc.) (5 points)h. Other (any other data not listed that would be important to demonstrate demand for theprogram, such as students served, services provided, etc.) (5 points)III. Program Quality (Maximum 35 points)a. Established and implemented learning outcomes, evaluation plan and improvement plan (10points)b. Faculty/staff affiliations/connections/collaborations with regional partners (5 points)c. Articulation agreements with high schools (5 points)d. Transfers to 4-year universities (10 points)e. Other (any other data not listed that would be important to demonstrate quality of the program,such as job placements, surveys, student outcomes, community connections, etc.) (5 points)IV. Revenues (Maximum 30 points)a. FTES, FTEF, Productivity (2 years) (15 points)b. Any other revenue data available to the program (15 points)V. Potential (Maximum 35 points)a. Investment will enhance student success/ retention (10 points)b. Program/discipline can grow with no new resources (other than increased allocation of FTEF) (5points)c. High quality facilities/equipment central to courses and learning within this program/discipline (5points)d. Investment will create new and innovative ways to support the District’s vision statement (5points)e. In

Aug 30, 2013 · Woodland Community College . D. Chetra reports that he held a conference call with Butte College to verify information given to him in the District Calendar Committee regarding admissions timelines. Some of the committee’s . B. Blackboard and Technology Concerns.