Yuba Community College District
District/College/Academic Senate Leadership Group
MINUTES
Date: March 19, 2015 Location: WCC Room 114 / YC Room 303 / CCC Confer (Details Below)
Time: 9:30-11:30 a.m. Sponsor/Chair: Vice Chancellor Kayleigh Carabajal
Members Present: Kayleigh Carabajal, Matt Clark, Douglas Houston (a portion of the meeting), GH Javaheripour, Brian Jukes, Greg Kemble, Al Konuwa, Michael White, Angela Willson
Recorder: Renee Hamilton
Guest: Tom McKay
No./ Est. Time Description Owner Outcome
ACTION
15.03.19.01. Meeting Commencement Committee Approval of the Agenda
Approval of the Minutes
Status Update on Responsibilities (attachment)
Due to technical issues, the meeting began at 9:43 a.m. The committee continued to experience technical issues throughout the meeting. It was agreed to have the presentation from McKay before approving the agenda and minutes.
The agenda was approved.
The minutes were approved with revisions.
15.03.19.02. Entrance Criteria for Allied Health Students Willson / McKay Review Multi-criteria process for Nursing Review equity data for Nursing
The intent is to see what the process is to carry out the multi-criteria process to other allied health programs, specifically Rad Tech.
Willson previously asked to investigate the multi-criteria selection process used by the nursing program and possibly use it for other allied health programs, such as Rad Tech. She invited McKay to explain how the multi-criteria selection process was arrive at and how it works. McKay explained that in 1999, the State Chancellor’s Office created a formula intended to increase the success rate of students in the nursing program. In 2008 legislation was changed to allow nursing programs throughout the state to use a multi-criteria selection process. The selection process awards points for such things as holding a degree, meeting the prerequisites, GPA, and score on the assessment tool. There are also negative criteria which take points away. The nursing program does not carry a waitlist, and applicants must reapply each time. This gives them a
opportunity to take more courses or achieve other activities that will increase their points. The purpose was to assure admission of students who have a higher chance of being successful. We have also received a grant that helps students improve/remediate. Students can take a practice test, and we then advise them on the kind of remediation they need to be successful on the criteria. We are in an active remediation process in order to identify and assist students who need remediation. This has been approved by the State Chancellor’s Office. Once we have attempted to remediate, we do not need to continue to remediate them.
Willson said Rad Tech had a waitlist. WCC does not have waitlisted programs. It was recommended that YC have the discussion with the YC Academic Senate. Clark said this is a larger discussion about when it is appropriate for a program to have entrance criteria. What regulations allow us to have multiple criteria? Is it only for nursing, or would it apply to allied health programs or programs that lead to licensure?
Javaheripour said that before McKay left, he said there was a great possibility that the State Chancellor’s Office may not adopt criteria for other programs because they have not had enough time to evaluate the effectiveness of the process for nursing. It is planned to go through 2020. Kemble said if this is a YC issue and is not legal for other programs, he preferred to let it go.
15.03.19.03. Emerging Issues Committee Identify issues to be addressed in future meetings
Houston requested that Carabajal and the others who attended the recent IEPI workshop give an update at the next meeting. Clark asked if it would it be better for the Vice Presidents to make a presentation to DCAS or to provide a report/debriefing for each Academic Senate.
15.03.19.04. Board Policies / Administrative Procedures Carabajal AP 4100, Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates AP 4231, Grade Change
AP 4260, Prerequisites and Co-requisites
AP 5055, Enrollment Priorities (Kemble) – Explore priority for Associated Student Leadership
AP 4100, Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates: WCC did not expect to have feedback until April. YC will discuss at Curriculum Committee on March 20.
AP 4231, Grade Change: Kemble brought up in email discussion that the Board is still included in the grade change process and Houston requested that DCAS review Ed Code § 76232 and Title 5 § 55025, Houston said these apply to other areas, not just grades. He sees them very narrowly applying to errors and students have the right to go to the Board in those cases. He does not read it as applying broadly to all grade disputes. On the Board’s behalf, the Board would not want to deliberate on a grade assigned by a faculty unless there was some error in the record that had not been resolved in the regular appeal process. Is there some way we can unpack this to route any allegations for records errors along another process? We would acknowledge that errors in grades would be shifted to that process. Kemble said Title 5 says “consistent with Education Code section 76232 or provide an alternative mechanism which will ensure that students receive a reasonable and objective review of the requested grade change.” He believed Title 5 supports what the Chancellor said. Clark reported that the grade appeals WCC received in the last two years have been a combination of instructors who have not kept track of things they should have and also errors in what the instructor did. He did not believe we would be able to separate the process. Houston said we could give some examples and determine if we can fashion a process. Clark expressed concern that we were spending a lot of time on something that has not gone to the Board. He asked if the Board had dealt with anything since Houston has been Chancellor. Houston said he only knew of anecdotes where we have allowed students to appeals things in a fashion he never experienced at other institutions. He heard statements and frustrations over the level to which we allow students to carry petitions. We have allowed students to appeal petitions in other areas that he never encountered at other institutions. If student appeals in other areas are a problem, then we should tackle it with this AP. Clark said he had not consider that. However, he has seen a small increase in the number of grade appeals coming to the Academic Senate. Willson believed it was better to be proactive rather than reactive. Clark agreed but asked that we put it lower on the AP list.
Houston said the discussion should take place through the senate and then DCAS. We have not formally commissioned anyone to do this. Kemble reported that YC looked at the appeal process through the Academic Standards Committee, but they ran into a lot of problems. They had trouble placing things into different categories. Also a lot of counselors are student centered and are reluctant to remove students’ ability to petition a lot of things. Houston explained that the issue for us would be to ensure it is tempered by the legal requirements. He recommended that the senate include counselors, financial aid officers, and those who approve petitions at the college and disqualification process. Both colleges would tackle this through their senate and keep each other up to date so they don’t’ have to duplicate the work of the other senate. It would be coordinated through DCAS. Kemble said another component is automating as many of these things as possible. Carabajal said that last year both colleges engaged in an exploration of the student petition process. The critical people at both colleges gathered the data and categorized the petitions. There were representatives from both colleges and they began to work with Craig Smith to automate the petitions. Then we had attendance problems at the meeting and were unable to continue our work. A lot of work was done and Smith identified solutions. She suggested we bring that data forward. Clark requested information for the next or a future meeting. Hamilton will email the information. Houston requested that when the senates do the work that it be reframed by what is required by law as a floor. He added that if we want to contemplate adding rights to students above what is required by law and regulation that it be done based on the human resources required to do so. He also acknowledged
AP 5055, Enrollment Priorities: Carabajal said we were asked to provide Day 2 priority for Associated Student Leadership. Who would keep the system current? With athletes we do it by the courses in which they are enrolled so it is managed through system. With EOP&S and TRiO, we do it by their being flagged in system. To do the Associated Students it would need to occur manually and then be removed manually. Who would be responsible to maintain this? Kemble said this was bought forward by Eric Burns who is in charge of YC ASYC. At one time we had a course that leadership enrolled in. If there were a course, they could take it. This would be after the statutory groups who have Day 1 priority. White asked what proportion of students are counted in the statutory groups. Carabajal said she would send the enrollment priority data after it has been shared with the Enrollment Priority Task Force. The data was pulled as a snapshot of January. At that time we had 6,989 students enrolled. Of those, 1,385 were in the statutory groups;
Would this be the entire student senate or just the leadership? Javaheripour said it would probably be the entire senate. Kemble believed it would be a small number. When we last discussed this, Clark thought students might join government to game the system. Clark asked if anyone could enroll in athletic courses. No, athletics is exempt and students get in the class through approval of instructor. Carabajal clarified that she was asking for someone who does something in system to identify the students for priority enrollment. It could be they provide a list to A&R to update students. Kemble suggested that the advisor be the one to maintain the list. Teresa Aronson was invited to join the meeting. She explained that YC has four elected positons and senators are volunteers. The number is determined by need and if they and can find people who are interested. ASYC has a set number of senators, but has never been able to achieve the maximum. WCC is similar. They tried to hold elections but at most had one person running. The officers are elected and others are appointed. The premise in granting prior registration would be the time
commitment and service on other governance bodies. Clark said it seems that, at the max, we would not exceed 30 students between the three student governments. White said WCC is intentionally trying to recruit students to our governance structure. Aronson said ASYC said it would be beneficial to have more students on the council.
Would this set up a false expectation for students? Priority registration occurs in April and November. Would we know by then who will be in the organization in the following semester? Clark suggested that if we establish this, then it would be for the student government to put a cycle in place that would have elections prior to priority registration. The officers would be identified in April. Anyone not graduation or transferring would likely go forward. White suggested that we would also be rewarding service on student government by giving priority for the following semester even if they do not continue in government. Carabajal said we would need to codify the process to make it meaningful. Javaheripour said in looking at the ASYC constitution, they identify the officers, but do not give a total number of senators. They have voting and nonvoting members. Perhaps we could ask the three associated student groups to identify what the maximum number of the body will be. Clark said that would be part of codifying the process. Clark and Kemble agreed take it to senate to see if there are any concerns so we don’t get too far ahead.
AP 4050, Articulation: One piece is articulation with high schools and the other is with the four-year institutions. She is waiting for one college to send its process and will then share the AP with DCAS.
15.03.19.05. Institutional Rhythm (Board Calendar) Houston Explore DCAS items that feed into the Board Calendar
Although the Governing Board does not approve APs, the Chancellor does take them to the Board’s Policy Committee for information. Believe Policy Committee meets monthly so we could pick a date to submit APs to board. It is unlikely other DCAS items would go to the Board since most college level 10+1 items. We have other bodies that have work that goes to board (DE Report, sabbatical leaves). However, they are not part of our rhythm. Everyone was asked to think about this, and the topic would be carried forward to next meeting when the Chancellor could be present.
15.03.19.06. Flex AP Retreat Carabajal
Possible date: Friday, 5/8/2015 at 9 a.m.-2:30 p.m. would include lunch. Will go into work with clear objectives of retreat. Clark said both senate and cc meet that day and it is also the week before finals. He suggested the retreat might be outside of the teaching year, on a Saturday, or after finals. However, we might not get good participation.
Proposed Location: The District Office was recommended because WCC faculty typically do not teach on Fridays. However many YC faculty do. Identify Attendees from Colleges: Carabajal asked that the colleges identify the attendees. Kemble said he wanted the people who have been
discontented. He was not sure he would include only coordinators.
Identify Attendees from District: Carabajal recommended herself, Hamilton, Eileen Schmidtbauer who still has one portion of flex work that she accomplishes, and Denise Daniel because she is intimately involved in ensuring faculty are paid.
We can begin working on the structure and objectives. We will identify faculty first, then send a meeting poll for their availability.
Kemble asked if we need a 6 hour retreat since we are just clarifying the guidelines and looking at the process. Cara said we are also entertaining the idea of going from 8 days to 7. We also need to look at AP 7161 since we regulate Flex through the AP. It is not in the contract. This is our opportunity to look at the Flex system and to determine if flex would be held at beginning of term. We are also entertaining the notion of
mandatory flex days. Another option is if our homegrown solution of the flex maintenance system is not working, then we need to explore another way to capture those flex hours. There are a number of issues. Putting together a series of short meetings as we are doing with the Enrollment Priority Task Force is also extremely challenging. The longer sessions seem to work well to explore objectives and gather feedback at the same time. This is not something Carabajal will be directing. She will provide a list of objective.
Kemble asked for the list of objectives to see who he would involve. The discussion on the guidelines is floating around campus. Carabajal suggested it be like our distance ed retreat. It was a very productive meeting. She suggested approaching individuals and letting them know it will likely occur on a Saturday during semester or shortly after semester ends.
Kemble agreed that the AP needs to be discussed. The YC Academic Senate did a lot of work on the AP. He requested everyone review the YC changes.
15.03.19.07. Lecture / Lab Classes in Which the Lecture and Lab have Different Drop Dates
Clark
Clark asked if the drop date is mandated by the state. Carabajal said the drop date is based on the way the class is scheduled. Clark explained that the problem is that students register for a lecture and then register for a separate lecture. The classes are not linked in the system. The classes are listed as co-requisites. When a student drops the lecture, they do not remember that they also have to drop the lab. There are also optional labs that are not co-requisites. Javaheripour suggested that something be arranged in the system to link the optional classes as well. Clark will clarify what the issue is. Kemble said he makes it very clear in his syllabus that if a student drops the lecture, they also need to drop the lab. Clark believed it is possible the students believe when they drop one, they have longer to drop form the other class. Carabajal will check with IT to see what the issue is with linking the courses and bring it back.
15.03.19.08. Set Agenda for Next Meeting Committee Next Meeting: April 16, 2015, at 9:30-11:30 a.m.
11:20 a.m. APs:
AP 4050, Articulation
CALL CONFER PARTICIPANT DETAILS:
> Dial your telephone conference line: 913-312-3202 or (888) 886-3951 > Cell phone users dial: 913-312-3202
> Enter your passcode: 786563 > Go to www.cccconfer.org
> Click the Participant Log In button under the Meet & Confer logo > Locate your meeting and click Go
> Fill out the form and enter the passcode: 786563
2014-2015 Meeting Dates: 1st and 3rd Thursday at 9:30-11:30 a.m.
Spring 2015:
April 16 May 7, 21
APs/BPs:
4000 Series – Short List
AP 2510, YCCD Shared Decision Making Model AP 4050, Articulation
AP 4100, Graduation Requirements for Degrees and Certificates AP 4105, Distance Education
AP 4231, Grade Change
AP 4260, Prerequisites and Co-requisites AP 5020, Nonresident Tuition
AP 5030, Fees
AP 5055, Enrollment Priorities (Kemble) – Explore priority for Associated Student Leadership
AP 7161, Flex
AP on Grading Policy – grades due date
New AP on Service Learning (Clark) (Create or add to an existing AP)
Future Agenda Items: Bookstore
Cross College Communication for any program that would impact a program at the other college
Current practice on stacking classes – develop a shared understanding DC3, DCAS, Budget Summit –Definition of Roles
Flex – AP and Online Approval Process Planning and Budgeting Process (Carabajal)
Prerequisites/Corequisites – Resolving errors between CurricUNET and Colleague
Task Force Status Updates (CHRO):
o Faculty Evaluation & Tenure Review Task Force
o Faculty Minimum Qualifications (MQs) Task Force
o Sabbatical Leave Task Force
