General Meeting Information
Date: June 9,
Time: 3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader 3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m Approve Notes from May 19, 2022 A Holmes 3:35 p.m. - 3:50 p.m Annual Governance Assessment Survey / Governance Handbook D Newell 3:50 p.m. - 4:00 p.m Educational Master Plan A Spatafore, Hearn, Newell 4:00 p.m. - 4:20 p.m Shared Governance Task Force D Holmes 4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m Report- outs from Governance Teams
Member Representatives 4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m Quick News I All
A = Action
D = Discussion
I = Information
May 19, 2022 Notes approved.
The College planning committee asks that governance groups do a short 3-question feedback survey at the end of the year. Newell guided the group on filling out the survey collaborative. Newell recommends that every member is aware of the shared governance handbook and to share it with their constituency groups, and if any changes were made to let her know of those changes to keep the governance handbook up to date. Holmes noted that with changes to shared governance, a review of the governance handbook will be needed.
Newell shared the updated draft of the educational master plan, which includes various metrics. Newell noted that new data shared today was not in the first read, as it was not available. All of the questions and responses of the survey will be available and widely distributed in the fall.
APASA representative noted that she shared the initial draft with APASA members, and received feedback regarding faculty, classified and administrators's demographics not reflecting these demographics. Noting that emphasis on equity work, hiring practices and diversity on the college’s systems lead to student’s success at higher rates. Newell noted that employee demographics data was an area that was looked at and has been part of the conversation. Noting that In the first workshop, groups were assigned to look at that information and is one of the potential areas that can be explored within the equity plan reimagined.
College Council members Approved recommendation.
11 Yes, 1 No, 2 Abstain
Shared Governance Task Force
Holmes continued discussion about shared governance task force, noting that the work that needs to be done in the new model requires more time. After having a conversation with Cheryl and Tracy, Holmes proposed an all-day July retreat to work through some of the details to implement in September. Noting that the plan is to have a PAC in place for the Fall, understand roles and responsibilities of PAC in relationship to roles and responsibility of College Council and changes in the governance handbook need to be addressed at the College Council retreat. Holmes asked members for feedback on the proposed idea.
Member agreed to the idea of having a retreat to dive deep into how the PAC would be composed, its outline and framework, processes, and procedures. Other members asked for clarification on the purpose of the retreat, agreement of composition of retreat and outcome for end of the retreat. Holmes noted that the purpose of the retreat- as a college council, is to discuss what to implemented in the fall, winter, and spring quarter. Highlighting that it might not be something that changes all at once. Also noting that some of the conversations that should happen outside of the retreat is representation- senate/ classified should be having those conversations outside of the retreat. Members discussed representation, PAC membership and initial proposal of creating the PAC.
The proposed date for the retreat is July 13, 2022 on campus.
Holmes noted that the next steps is to work to develop an agenda for the day and asked members to review the handbook prior to the retreat and to think about roles and responsibilities and how to create a PAC that is not composed of the same individuals seating on College Council.
J aegerBalm asked for more information on attendee list, moderator, and shared a note regarding concerns of affinity seats/representation at the retreat. Holmes, Jaeger Balm and Chung-Tabangcura will discuss attendee list more in detail. Invitation and more information to follow.
Holmes expressed the need to address how we approach equity at the institution.
Espinosa-Pieb referenced IPBT and the May meeting which approved a Dean and faculty positions. Noting that Holmes had asked for more information on the ESL position. Holmes highlighted that the ESL position was forwarded from the dean and denied the request, pending further information and data associated with ESL. Noting that the Dean had just shared the information that morning of but has not reviewed it yet. The additional information was to make a data informed decision, the three faculty postitions are still approved.