October 14, 2010 Meeting Notes
Admin #109, 3:00 - 5:00 pm
Members: G. Anderson, N. Asar, C. Castillo, S. Cook, G. Durham, C. Espinosa-Pieb, R. Hansen, L. Jeanpierre, L. Jenkins, C. Kaufman, R. Kazempour, A. Khanna, C. Lee-Wheat, Z. Li, F. Milonas, B. Murphy, E. Norte, R. Schroeder, M. Spatafore, N. Tambe
I. Self-introductions – Handout #1
Newly-elected members of College Council were introduced.
II. The College Council minutes of June 10, 2010 were approved – Handout #2
III. Accreditation Updates - Handout #3 and #4
- The follow-up report has been completed and officially submitted to the ACCJC. This second report was developed in response to a January/February finding which outlined our progress in SLOs. At the submission of our annual report in June, the college had a 60% completion rate compared to the current rate of 75%. College Council will formally approve the report after it has gone through individual constituency groups, checked by the Academic and Classified Senates and the SLO coordinators.
Three years ago the ACCJC cited the college with inadequate progress on SLOs; by 2012 we expect to have the level of proficiency.
The report is posted on the accreditation website with links. Kudos to Lori and Lois for their contributions to the report.
The report has been received by College Council and reviewed by the Board of Trustees.
- College Council reviewed the Student and Faculty & Staff Accreditation Surveys and provided the following comments/suggestions.
Student Accreditation Survey:
- Why isn’t Asian ethnicity choice further delineated?
- Clearer introduction to Section 2 – i.e., “How did the College meet your educational goals?”
- What is the source of the 5 choices in Section 2 (ICC’s)
- Switch Sections 2 & 3 and move Section 2 to the end of the questionnaire
Faculty & Staff Accreditation Survey:
- Shorten the survey and allow it to be taken in segments
- Which questions apply to faculty and which ones for staff?
- Length of service after 11 years (Question #2)
- Standard IV: Combine some of the questions for the Board
- Drop questions 40, 41, 42 without diminishing content
The survey will be used to supplement evidence to address the standards and will help determine how we’re evaluating ourselves.
IV. DASB Updates
Measure E: Forms of fundraising efforts were discussed including phone banks, precinct walking, grants, and incentives for volunteers, ICCE interns
Student Body Fee: Z. Li delivered a powerpoint presentation created by Leo Nguyen with research by Joseph Nguyen proposing an increase in study body fees from $6.00 to $9.00 per quarter. This proposal was formally approved by DASB on October 13, 2010 and will be included on the agenda for the November 1 Board of Trustees meeting. Historical information was provided (last increase in 1993), in addition to a comparison to Foothill College, and student surveys. This proposed fee increase will result in additional revenues of $240,000/year which could benefit student programs.
College Council received the report and welcomed the initiative and supported the increase in fees.
Another proposal is being reviewed to raise the daily parking fee from $2 to $3 and will be discussed at Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on 10/15/10. This is due to the State of California raising citation fees and credit card handling fees.
Pepsi Refresh Project: N. Asar described the project which can raise up to $250,000 in grants to be used within a year. An idea needs to be submitted, promoted and voted on. DASB would like to submit an idea for November 1 for possible food vouchers, student mentors and tutors. Previous submittals have been related to the environment, education, and building sustainable structures. Students were encouraged to contact the Marketing/Communications department for assistance in developing their submittal. Students were commended for their creativity and imagination efforts at fundraising.
V. Burning Issues, Quick News, Wrap-up
- November 2 mid-term election and getting out the vote
- Tent City and Proposition 22, 23, 24, 25, & 26
- B. Stockwell’s class and digital Town Hall to review the mid-term propositions
Contact: Tina Woo