Data Governance Committee (DGC)
Meeting Notes
date 05_07_2015
Phone Conference: 10:30am
*Highlighted = attended
Co-chairs
*Susan Maxwell
Clark College
*Carmen McKenzie
SBCTC
Business Affairs Commission (BAC)
*Terence Hsiao
Cascadia Community College
*Linda Schoonmaker
Clover Park Technical College
Human Resources & Management Commission (HRMC)
Kim Garza
Big Bend
Information Technology Commission (ITC)
*Brandon Ray
Lower Columbia College
Sue Williamson
Highline Community College
Eva Smith
Edmonds Community College
Instruction Commission (IC)
*Tom Nielsen
Bellevue College
Tod Treat
Tacoma
Public Information Commission (PIC)
*Katie Rose
SBCTC
*Janelle Runyon
SBCTC
Research and Planning Commission (RPC)
*Cynthia Requa
Green River
*Hal Royaltey
Peninsula
Student Services Commission (WSSSC)
Ata Karim
Bellevue College
*Dave Paul
Skagit Valley College
Next Meeting:
June 11, 2015 at 10:30am – Carmen will be sending a meeting request
This meeting will be WebX. As you sign in it may help others if you put your commission in parentheses
so everyone knows which commission we represent. Once you enter your name and email you can
enter your phone number and then you receive a phone call (instead of you having to dial in). If you are
not at a computer there is a number to call in.
1
DGC Meeting 5/7/2015
Meeting Notes:
Agenda:






Update on INTENT workgroup, review draft proposal
Discuss Data Classification feedback
Quick update on Golden Gate
Building Bridges II track on data governance?
Next meeting
Non-commission folks to participate in DGC meeting
Notes:
Update on INTENT workgroup, review parts of draft proposal









System group is meeting
Updating the titles
Adding in more definitions so that colleges have a better understanding and can use in a
standard way
Will have a final proposal in June for our June 11th meeting
M intent questions – college fin aid staff asked for M intent so that G intent students could be
coded as M and take prereqs and receive fin aid. M intent has been used for different reasons,
not consistently. When in a program students need to be coded as F or B. Discussed the idea
that G intent can be “program applicant” not just prof tech specific.
o Some Fin aid offices seem to believe that G intent can’t be given fin aid
o Discussed how financial aid should be consistent across the system, not open to
different interpretations that then require unique coding.
o Will propose retiring M intent – this will allow for discussion
X intent – allows colleges to say they know a student is “undecided” when Y can be entered or
left blank to default to Y. Hal is now in favor of eliminating the X code. Y is bad coding and
should not be encouraged.
So what about actual multiple degree seekers? In legacy we list the primary. We need to make
sure students can still get financial aid.
After discussion Carmen decided G intent will remain as prof tech program applicant
Select admissions programs which are academic could use B intent with a program code (if the
college uses the program codes) and use a separate program code for those students still
working on prerequisites.
Discuss Data Classification feedback

Category 2 is directory information which is NA for SBCTC as they don’t publish directory
information. However, they are required to respond to public record requests with directory
information. SBCTC plans to only consider the common elements that all colleges would
consider as directory information. Carmen will work with ARC on college lists of directory
information.
2
DGC Meeting 5/7/2015





HIPPA and credit card info should be in Cat 4. SBCTC does not get credit card info in DW.
However, there was discussion about information which has been provided to colleges by
students should not be considered HIPPA, the record originates at a health office and we are
just provided a copy. There is uncertainty here.
UW web site has a good categorization. https://passcouncil.washington.edu/uw-dataclassification/
Susan expressed concern that SBCTC is putting together a document – for a specific purpose of
Data warehouse data – which leave the colleges to make their own decisions about data not in
the DW. It would be great if SBCTC could provide guidance and not leave it up to colleges to
have to interpret rules and laws.
Carmen agreed to have some broader examples in the categories of common data, and then
specific to DW.
SBCTC strives to be more secure than OCIO
Quick update on Golden Gate

June 1st deadline, working towards this deadline
Building Bridges II track on data governance?



Carmen says people have expressed interest
Still working on planning
We will discuss more at our next meeting, but would like to have some focus on data
governance at the colleges, not so much system level
Next meetings


June 11th – does this work for everyone? This is instead of June 4th which is a BAC meeting.
Summer – will schedule tentatively
Non-commission folks to participate in DGC meeting





Council members who have asked to join the committee. Fin Aid and ARC have asked.
Hal & Linda– too many people makes the group too big to function
Why allow them to listen but not speak? If that’s the option then don’t allow them.
Janelle – why do people want to be allowed to attend?
o Carmen says they want to be part of the discussions – which is how the process is
already set up.
Determined that we already have representation from all areas, and communication in place.
We would not be able to function well with a larger group.
Data Governors to do:
No tasks.
3
DGC Meeting 5/7/2015