January 20, 2011 - Spokane Community College

SCC COLLEGE ALLIANCE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES – January 20, 2011
College Alliance members present: Shawn Beard, Eric Christensen, Susan Dimick, Jovonna Dunbar, Karen Johnson, Brenda Martinson-Smith,
Bill Rambo, and Scott Satake. Peter Williams, Chair. Debi Alley, Recorder. Absent: Virginia Tomlinson
Guests Present: Joe Dunlap, President; Marie Rustemeyer, Chair, Distance Learning Task Force
TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
Call to order and
review of agenda
Duplication Task
Force
The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Peter Williams, Chair.
As a follow-up to the last meeting, Peter invited Joe Dunlap back to discuss the
request made by the College Alliance with regard to dissolving and reconstituting
the Duplication Task Force.
Marie Rustemeyer was invited as Chair of the Distance Learning Task Force to
provide a progress report.
After working with President Dunlap on the language for the task force email, Peter
sent the following message to all members of the Duplication Task Force (DTF) on
January 3, 2011:
“Because the Duplication Task Force has endured longer than a normal task force
and in order to ensure that we are functioning in accordance with our contractual
obligations for faculty representation, we need to terminate the current Duplication
Task Force and reconstitute it in accordance with the Master Contract. We will be
soliciting volunteers in the near future through AHE. If you are still interested in
serving, please respond to the request from your faculty union representative.
Thank you for your service.”
Scott Satake immediately followed up with an AHE/SCC email request for faculty
volunteers to serve on the task force.
The effects of Peter’s email message were discussed at the January 6, 2011
College Alliance meeting. Some DTF members felt that the task force had been
disbanded and its previous work devalued. A few CA members held the hope that
this would have become a line in the sand which would force further Master
Contract interpretation. They asked Peter to see if Joe’s decision to ask AHE for
volunteers to serve on the Duplication Task Force could be rescinded to force a
grievance.
Joe was present to speak to the College Alliance’s request for him to rescind his
earlier decision. He explained that his decision was made in the interest of moving
the business of the college forward. Rather than putting the college in a no-win
situation that would create more divisiveness (e.g. forcing a grievance), he
determined that it was far more important to move on. Faculty who had been
1
The January 20, 2011 meeting
agenda was approved as
presented.

TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
serving on the task force and were interested in continuing their service were
encouraged to respond to the faculty union request. Scott has already obtained a
list of willing faculty volunteers to serve on the Duplication Task Force, which he
and Joe have not yet had the opportunity to discuss.
Susan doesn’t agree with Joe, and doesn’t agree with the AHE having to assign
faculty members to College Alliance task forces. After a year and a half of hard
work, she wonders what will happen if College Alliance and the Curriculum
Committee chair don’t volunteer to serve on the DTF again.
The CA will have to look at all committees on campus who don’t appoint faculty
members through the AHE (e.g. Curriculum Committee), or get an MOU for specific
levels of faculty service on college committees and task forces. Joe stated that this
would be a reasonable solution to the issue, but the requested action from the
College Alliance didn’t include the possibility of an MOU. MOUs were not
mentioned in the January 6, 2011 draft minutes. Susan stated that MOUs were
discussed, but that part of the discussion didn’t make it into the meeting record.
For clarification, Scott stated that task forces are short-term, and committees are
long-term. CA members asked if there was a time limit spelled out in months and
years to clearly define the difference between a task force and a committee. No
one at the table remembered reading anything about that.
Peter stated that in the interest of getting things done for the college this issue
should be seen as a procedural matter. Joe agreed that this discussion was
necessary in order to process the information – it is important work. There is an
issue which needs further attention, but in the meantime we have got to pick up
and move on. Grievance is not a cooperative effort. Scott stated that he would
rather not write contract language for this issue, but it can be done. He agreed that
the Alliance needs to move forward, because its business isn’t just about faculty.
Personnel Concerns At an earlier meeting, Classified Staff representatives brought up the subject of
staffing and program changes taking place throughout the campus. Administrators
are not clearly articulating these changes to other offices on campus which may be
directly affected. For example: evening cosmetology services were cancelled and
the Office of Campus Security was not notified. As a result, people looking for
services were roaming the halls, Security Officers were not aware that they needed
to change their routines, and things got seriously out of whack. It makes the entire
college appear unprofessional when employees who provide public services are
not aware of changes occurring on campus.
2
Question in need of an answer:
was it ALL faculty members who
must volunteer, or only the
division representatives? Would
the College Alliance and
Curriculum Committee chair
continue to serve due to their
expertise in college-wide issues?

TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
Distance Learning
Task Force Progress
Report
Joe agreed that restructuring and reorganization is happening throughout the
campus, and it is up to the deans to communicate with other departments and
divisions that will be affected by the changes. The President’s Office can’t be
responsible for sending out college-wide notices about divisional business. Bill
stated that this is one of the issues the Communications Task Force should be
addressing when new leadership is established.
Marie Rustemeyer, Chair of the Distance Learning Task Force (DLTF), was present
to provide a progress report on the group’s activities. She began by stating that
she has a great group of people to work with. The focus of the DLTF is to
determine how eLearning can best support student success. Three issues have
been identified as priorities:
� Student Success Rates: The group found that reports and data regarding
success rates of students in DL courses compared to students in on-ground
courses varied. Shawn Beard performed an initial analysis, coming up with a
five-year average student success rate for on-ground (78%), online (66-76%),
and hybrid (81%) courses. Rates varied widely by courses, and by instructor.
Some online courses have had better success rates than those taught onground.
There has been difficulty in gathering some necessary data, since CCS/
SCC doesn’t collect what is needed (for example: students not completing a
class due to life-altering circumstances). Further research is needed to compare
face-to-face and online courses (English 101 online vs. on-ground) and
comparing success rates within and between disciplines (online English and
online Math).
� Student Training & Development: The goal to improve student readiness and
retention in DL courses can best be met by assessment and training. While use
of technology is often the first hurdle faced by new online learners, it is rarely the
last or most difficult. In fact, technology literacy is an area that needs to be
addressed for all learners, not just online students. Other hurdles include
motivation, time management, problem-solving, and reading/writing skills. The
DLTF met with a representative from the WSU Distance Learning Division to
discuss their successes and challenges. WSU uses most of the same resources
and tools that we do at SCC, such as self-assessment questionnaires, online
and on-ground ANGEL tutorial/training, and help desk support. They do not use
or recommend a mandatory screening tool that prevents students from
registering for online courses. However, WSU recently added a required fivelesson
orientation for students who are completing their entire degree through
WSU Online. They also have a student virtual peer mentor program and early
alert system which triggers staff to call and/or email students who have not
3
Two or three recommendations
will be presented to the College
Alliance by the end of the
academic year.

TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
logged in or completed their first online assignment. SCC will be looking at
samples from these programs.
� Faculty Training & Development: Faculty training is very important – online
instruction is not the same as teaching on-ground. Instructor training includes
online course design, instructional strategies, online teaching tools, and social
interaction and feedback/engagement (very important to student success).
Another issue important to students is consistency in online course design. The
DL Help Desk receives numerous calls from online students having difficulty
finding where class information and study resources are hidden in the course
design. At present, there are no standards; the instructor has complete control
of their online courses, and ANGEL is very flexible. The DLTF is considering
implementation of an online course “template”, which would provide consistency
in organization for students. At WSU, 95% of courses “look the same” (this is
not required, but strongly encouraged). Other issues being considered are
finding incentives for online faculty to receive minimal training prior to teaching
online, encouraging them to take advantage of available training resources,
working with department liaisons to identify and remediate poor online courses
(deans/department chairs schedule faculty to teach), and developing a space for
online faculty to access resources and share experiences.
Some suggestions from the College Alliance are listed below:
� You could divert online students to orientation training before they are
allowed to access course content. This option already exists for faculty who
wish to take advantage of it.
� Open the online class a week before the quarter begins for completion of
the tutorial. This option also already exists for faculty who wish to take
advantage of it.
� EWU requires completion of a computer literacy course before a student
can register for an online class, and before graduation. SCC could provide
a CPL course for one credit which would make things a bit clearer and also
provide students incentive to complete the tutorial.
� “Quality Matters” is an excellent DL rubric to use for training instructors
before they design online and hybrid courses. Marie stated that SCC
participates in the state QM consortium and has the QM materials available.
There will be some free training available in this area, but trainers are
voluntary and it is difficult to find faculty who are able to volunteer their time
to be peer reviewers.
4

TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
Approval of Meeting
Minutes
December 2, 2010: Peter explained that at the request of the College Alliance, he
made some minor editorial changes to original draft of these minutes between the
January 6 th meeting and today. The edited version was sent to College Alliance
members last week for review prior to the meeting. It was moved and seconded
that the December 2, 2010 College Alliance meeting minutes be approved as
presented. Motion passed unanimously.
January 6, 2011: At the last minute, Debi was unable to attend the January 6 th
meeting. Peter thanked his assistant, Sandra Journey, for serving as recorder on
such short notice. Shawn Beard asked that he be listed as “present” at this
meeting. There were no other additions or corrections to the minutes. It was
moved and seconded that the January 6, 2011 minutes be approved as corrected.
Motion passed unanimously.
Budget Update Karen reported that the State Board for Community & Technical Colleges has
added a .5% budget cut for the current year to the original 4% cut taken earlier this
year. This results in an additional $110,666 spending reduction for SCC. This
additional .5% isn’t being taken at a divisional level. Karen is trying to do it with
personnel turnover dollars. Any cost savings from upcoming personnel changes
will be put toward this .5%. Hopefully that, along with some leftover benefit money,
will fully bridge the budget gap. If she begins to feel uncomfortable in March that
her plan can’t succeed, Karen will meet with Joe to discuss other options.
CA members asked if 4.5% is the final budget reduction number for 2010-2011.
There was some concern that the worst-case scenarios of 6% or 10% might rear
their ugly heads closer to the end of the fiscal year. Karen explained that the
college has those scenarios mapped out in case they are needed next year, but
they are all hoping that the 4.5% holds through June 30, 2011. The Legislature
started on January 10 th , and is scheduled to end on April 24 th . Hopefully we will
have word on final budget reductions sometime in March.
Lab and Course Fee discussions are beginning a bit earlier this year than in the
past. John Huffstutter is leading the discussions to identify any needed changes.
All new lab or course fees, or changes that exceed a 4.17% growth factor, will need
documentation in order to be approved by the Board. One change under
consideration is charging a fee for both consumables and lab support salaries.
Karen doesn’t know where it will go right now, but it is being discussed. The
District may need to rewrite some guidelines.
5
Minutes from the December 2,
2010 College Alliance meeting
were approved as presented.
Minutes from the January 6, 2011
College Alliance meeting were
approved as corrected.
The finalized minutes are posted
to the College Alliance website.
Karen offered to email the full
budget PowerPoint presentation
that was partially covered by
Greg Stevens and John
Huffstutter at the December 2010
All-College Meeting to College
Alliance members.

TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
Constituent Group
Updates
Chancellor Christine Johnson has put together several administrative committees
to discuss budget recommendations that are coming in from employees throughout
the District. An updated list of these recommendations can be found by accessing
the following link: http://ccsnet.ccs.spokane.edu/getdoc/40f5ead1-3afc-4832-
9113-e5513f2dbdf4/SurveyReport_120310post.aspx
Discussion of employee recommendations have been assigned to five specific
Budget Survey Action Teams:
� Reconsider Budgeting Models & Fiscal Management Tools – Christine
Johnson, Thought Leader
� Redesign, Re-engineer, Restructure – Joe Dunlap, Thought Leader
� Balance, Quality & Access – Pam Praeger, Thought Leader
� Develop New Revenue Sources – Scott Morgan, Thought Leader
� Reduce Service (do less with less) – Greg Stevens, Thought Leader
Karen distributed copies of a recent comparative analysis by the SBCTC, detailing
expenditures by program for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The chart represents some
interesting comparisons of expenditures across the state. The comparative chart
showed CCS’s primary support (040) percentages as quite a bit higher than most
other community colleges throughout the state, and its institutional support (080) as
quite a bit lower. This is because Dean’s salaries are listed in 040, whereas many
other state colleges list these salaries in the 011. A question was raised regarding
why our Deans are not classified as administrators. Karen responded that Deans
are contracted as administrative employees, but are accounted for as primary
instructional support along with information technology services staff.
Council of Chairs: The Council of Chairs has not met since the last CA meeting.
Their next scheduled meeting is on Monday, February 7. Eric will have an update
to present at the February 17, 2011 College Alliance meeting.
Deans Council: Deans have recently been discussing the lab and course fee
issue, as explained by Karen earlier. The Student Technology Fee process is
currently underway. Requests are due by February 11, and are being submitted
electronically.
Classified Staff Council: The first annual SCC Classified Staff Council Chili
Cook-off will be held on Friday, January 28. If you want to enter your chili in the
competition, it will cost you $5.00. If you just want to eat the chili and be one of the
judges, your donation will be $2.00. Proceeds will go toward staff memorials on
campus.
6

TOPIC DISCUSSION FOLLOW-UP
Enrollment Management Committee: Virginia is at home with Dennis on Family
Leave, and Doug Jones was unable to attend today’s meeting. Shawn Beard is a
member of the EMC, but he didn’t attend the last meeting so he had nothing to
report.
Other Business � Peter reported that a good faith management reorganization will occur in his
area, effective January 24, 2011. Alicia Staton, SESP Program Coordinator in
the Career Center, has agreed to move into the position of Lair Events
Coordinator to help schedule the facility and set up special events and
conferences.
� Susan announced that there is a signup sheet in the Faculty Lounge of Old Main
(Building 1) for folks who would like to provide or deliver food to Virginia and
Dennis’ home several times a week.
� Debi is planning to talk to Joe about adding one more communications project to
her annual goals. Until the Communications Task Force gets underway again,
she would like to try to set up a weekly calendar of all events on campus, and
work with Bob Nelson and Isaac Schlittenhart to post it on the front page of the
SCC Internet webpage so that employees can have a quick reference for
themselves and folks in the community who call wanting information on events
February 3, 2011
Meeting
that heretofore have not been well-publicized.
While the meeting was being adjourned, Bill asked Peter if the College Alliance
could revisit several of the issues that were not resolved last year, such as the BIR
chargeback process. Possible topics for the next meeting agenda include;
Recommendation for Chair of Communications Task Force.
Expansion of College Alliance to include representatives from every college
division.
College Alliance functioning as communications facilitator between college
governance groups and the College Cabinet.
Campus-wide furniture replacement processes and procedures
Improved cost models for BIRs, to include changes to labor charges billed back
to the departments
SCC Webpage redesign
7
Peter and Bill agreed to make a
list of issues that need further
discussion so the Alliance can
complete the loop. Since then,
Susan emailed a list of items she
would like the CA to re-address
this year.
The next meeting of the SCC
College Alliance will be held on
Thursday, February 3, 2011 in the
Lair Student Activities
Conference Room at 2:30 p.m.
Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at
4:00 p.m.
Minutes approved by the College Alliance on February 3, 2011