State Board Office
1300 Quince Street SE ● Olympia, WA 98504
Fourth Floor ● Cascade Rooms
Study Session:
Business Meeting:
February 6
1:30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
1:30 p.m. – 4:50 p.m.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
8:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m.
Study Session Agenda
Call to Order and Welcome
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
1:35 p.m.
SBCTC Case Study Report
Discuss
Tab 1
Discuss
Tab 2
Discuss
[Tab 5]
Discuss
Tab 3
Jan Yoshiwara
2:35 p.m.
Break
2:50 p.m.
Legislative Update
Deb Merle
3:35 p.m.
Capital Selection Criteria for 2013-15
Wayne Doty
4:10 p.m.
Aerospace Pipeline Committee Report
Jim Crabbe
4:50 p.m.
Adjournment
5:30 p.m.
Dinner Meeting with Guest Speaker Brian Baird, WSAC Chair
Mercato, Wine Room
111 Market Street NW, Olympia, WA 98501
February 7
Regular Business Meeting Agenda
7:30 a.m.
Continental Breakfast
8:00 a.m.
Call to Order and Adoption of Agenda
Action
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
8:05 a.m.
Approval of Consent Agenda
a. SBCTC Meeting Minutes, December 6, 2012
b. SBCTC Special Meeting Minutes, January 18, 2013
c. Centralia College Local Expenditure Authority, Acquisition of
808 and 814 Centralia College Blvd.
Resolution 13-02-02
d. Spokane Falls Local Expenditure Authority, ESCO Controls
Project
Resolution 13-02-03
e. South Seattle Local Expenditure Authority, Wine Program
Remodel
Resolution 13-02-04
f. Seattle Central Local Expenditure Authority, Broadway Phase II
Renovation
Resolution 13-02-05
g. Bellevue Local Expenditure Authority, Negotiated Price on
Previously Approved Acquisitions
Resolution 13-02-06
Action
Tab 4
SBCTC Meeting Agenda
February 6-7, 2013
Page 2
8:10 a.m.
Executive Director Report
Discuss
Marty Brown
8:40 a.m.
Approval of Capital Selection Criteria for 2013-15
Action
Tab 5
Discuss
Tab 6
Discuss
Tab 7
Discuss
Tab 8
Resolution 13-02-07
Wayne Doty
9:00 a.m.
ctcLink Update
Mike Scroggins
9:40 am.
IT Division Organization
Mike Scroggins
10:10 a.m.
Break
10:25 am.
New Applied Baccalaureate Approval Process
Resolution 13-02-08
Michelle Andreas
11:20 a.m.
Chair’s Report
Discuss
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
 Trustees’ Association Report
Tim Douglas, TACTC President
 Presidents’ Association Report
Tom Keegan, WACTC President
 Parking Lot
Marty Brown
11:50 a.m.
Adjournment
Next Meeting: March 27-28, 2013 ~ State Board Office, Olympia
1-23-13
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under RCW 42.30.110, an Executive Session may be held. Action from the Executive Session may be taken, if
necessary, as a result of items discussed in the Executive Session.
PLEASE NOTE: Times above are estimates only. The Board reserves the right to alter the order of the agenda. Reasonable
accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities if requests are made at least seven days in advance. Efforts will be made to
accommodate late requests. Please contact the Executive Director’s Office at (360) 704-4309.
Indoor Air Quality Policy: To promote a fragrance-free environment, the State Board requests that meeting participants refrain from wearing
perfume, cologne and other fragrances.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair ● Beth Willis, Vice Chair
Jim Bricker ● Erin Mundinger ● Shaunta Hyde
Elizabeth Chen ● Anne Fennessy ● Wayne Martin ● Larry Brown
Marty Brown, Executive Director ● Beth Gordon, Executive Assistant
(360) 704-4400 ● FAX (360) 704-4415 ● www.sbctc.edu ●1300 Quince Street SE ● PO Box 42495 ● Olympia, WA 98504-2495
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM
TAB 1
February 6, 2013
Topic
SBCTC Case Study report
Description
Last year, the Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy (IHELP) published a report,
“On Balance: Lessons in Effective Coordination from the Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges – An Organizational Perspective.” The report examines the
organizational and decision making structure of Washington’s Community and Technical
College System, and the importance of effective coordination of postsecondary education in
boosting educational attainment and economic competitiveness.
The report was published in August 2012 and distributed to Board members. Mary Kirlin, a
principle investigator for the study and co-author of the report, will present the study’s findings
and conclusions at the February Board meeting. A copy of the executive summary and full
report are attached.
Key Questions

What lessons can be learned from the SBCTC case study as the Board implements System
Direction goals to meet demands for a well educated and skilled workforce, increased
educational attainment for all residents across the state, and using technology, collaboration
and innovation to meet the demands of the economy and improve student success?
Analysis
The IHELP case study and report was sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as
part of its policy work on moving innovative change initiatives to scale. This report is a case
study of the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), and
analyzes the key strategies and conditions that have led to the effectiveness of the Board as a
coordinating agency over locally governed colleges. The Foundation was particularly interested
in understanding what organizational factors allowed the SBCTC to produce so many cutting
edge policies. The study found that three sets of factors – state political and economic context,
institutional design, and organization and leadership strategies – explain the success of the
Board.
The report includes a self-assessment tool intended for use by other states that seek to improve
the effectiveness of their own postsecondary education coordination to better serve students
and meet state needs. The self-assessment tool is available in a separate document as well as
at the end of the full report.
Mary Kirlin has held senior administrative positions in state and local government in California
including chief of staff for California’s state Superintendent of Public Instruction. Dr. Kirlin
Tab 1, Page 2
earned her doctorate in public policy from the University of Southern California, and is currently
an associate professor with the Department of Public Policy and Administration at California
State University, Sacramento, where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in
public administration.
Outcomes
Board members will have an opportunity to discuss success elements and challenges of various
governance and decision making structures with the co-author of the case study report.
Prepared by: Jan Yoshiwara, 360 704-4353, jyoshiwara@sbctc.edu
institute for higher education
leadership & policy
On Balance:
Lessons in Effective Coordination from the
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
– An Organizational Perspective
Mary Kirlin
Nancy Shulock
July 2012
California State University, Sacramento
6000 J Street, Tahoe Hall 3063 | Sacramento, CA 95819-6081
T (916) 278-3888 | F (916) 278-3907 | www.csus.edu/ihelp
Executive Summary
The challenge of producing the systemic changes that are needed to boost educational attainment and economic
competitiveness across the country falls heavily on entities that coordinate public postsecondary institutions.
Coordination of postsecondary education, whether of a single system of institutions or across an entire state, requires
strategic leadership that draws on formal and informal authority to influence the priorities and activities of locally
governed colleges and universities with strong traditions of autonomy. Many states are actively moving to improve
postsecondary coordination – including the redesign of formal governance structures. This project was undertaken to
help states improve the coordination function. It consists of a case study to tell the story of one coordinating board and
a self-assessment tool that draws on the case study findings and aims to help other states better understand their own
challenges and opportunities with respect to postsecondary coordination.
Dimensions of Effective Coordination
State political and economic context. The political
The Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (SBCTC) has a reputation as a coordinating entity
that works effectively. Its reputation rests on three key
accomplishments that can be viewed as three essential
functions of an effective coordinating body.1
culture of a state shapes expectations about the role of
government, the degree of centralization of power, the level
of legislative oversight and the function of interest groups
– expectations that affect how postsecondary education
operates. These cultural dimensions of state contexts
change slowly if at all. Economic aspects of a state’s context
may change more readily as industry sectors shrink and
grow, state fiscal circumstances improve or worsen, and
new economic arrangements are introduced.
1. Mission focus. It helps constituent institutions
stay focused on a mission of value which, as a
public organization, must be a mission that serves a
valuable public purpose.
2. Large-scale policy. It facilitates change at a
large enough scale across the set of constituent
institutions to make a difference in the
accomplishment of the mission.
3.Relationships. It balances the needs and interests
of a variety of state and local participants and
constituencies by mediating relationships effectively.
This case study explains, using a framework that can
be applied to other states, how SBCTC has managed to
accomplish these three essential functions of coordination.
Explanatory Factors in Effective
Coordination
We found the explanation of SBCTC’s effectiveness in
the relationship among three sets of factors that should
be considered by anyone looking to help a coordinating
entity perform the three essential functions noted earlier.
Institutional design. Coordinating entities have
certain formal powers by design – and the design of
institutions reflects the state’s culture. Design elements,
or formal governance structures and rules, can be
changed, given sufficient time and political will. Many
states are making or considering such changes.
Organization and leadership strategies. The leaders of
coordinating entities are constrained by culture and structure
and must devise strategies accordingly. Organizational
strategies are more or less effective depending on their
conformance to the expectations for performance inherent
in the culture and the governance structures. The best
formal structures can be wasted, or undermined, by poor
leadership and poor choice of strategies. Conversely,
gifted leadership can overcome serious deficits in formal
power. Unless the formal design is so flawed that even gifted
leaders can’t make it work, attending to organizational
leadership offers more and shorter-term opportunities to
increase effectiveness of the coordinating function.
1 For concise statements of the critical capacities for postsecondary coordination, see the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
(2005, July). The Need for State Policy Leadership. State Capacity for Higher Education Policy: A Special Supplement to National Crosstalk. San Jose,
CA: Author; and Davies, G. (2011, July/August). Changing Roles. Change Magazine, p. 46.
I | institut E f or highe r education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Summarizing Success Factors for
Washington’s State Board
Here we summarize the full case study findings by noting
how the three sets of explanatory factors help account
for SBCTC’s success in achieving the three essential
functions. We emphasize that it is the way that SBCTC
worked strategically to align these three sets of factors,
not the specific details of the Washington situation, that
offers lessons for other states.
State Context
Populist state culture. The Washington state culture
values local autonomy with collaboration. People generally
expect the colleges to work together for the common
good of the state. People within the college system
appreciate the benefits of working together, even knowing
they don’t always get the outcomes they want.
Part-time legislature. The legislature has generally been
comfortable letting the college system drive the policy
agenda. The legislature is part-time and is not subject
to term limits. This may help explain why local boards
of trustees have not become politicized as happens in
some states where they are used as stepping stones to
public office.
Economic dependency on two-year colleges. The public
two-year sector is large relative to the university sector.
When the severe economic downturn struck in the
1980s, the system was convincingly able to position itself
as the solution to the jobs crisis.
Continuity of political party of governor. The state has
had a series of democratic governors since 1985, which
may have helped foster a clear and consistent SBCTC
mission, given the governor’s authority to appoint
members of the State Board and the local boards of
trustees.
Institutional Design
Broad fiscal powers. SBCTC has significant control over
resources. There is a single budget allocation to the
college system. SBCTC has authority to decide on its
own share for coordination, to determine the basis for
allocations to colleges, and to use resources to shape
college priorities. It is not simply a vehicle for passing
state allocations on to colleges.
Broad policy-setting authority. SBCTC has been
assigned broad authority to develop policy with minimal
regulatory constraints.
Unified political appointing power. The governor
appoints all members of the State Board and of the
30 local boards of trustees, reducing the likelihood of
competing local agendas that would impede systemwide
policy adoption.
SBCTC is not a “state agency.” The legislature designed
SBCTC more as part of the college system than as a state
agency. This has helped position it as a facilitator (rather
than a regulator) to help the colleges do what they cannot
do alone. SBCTC has broad authority to determine the size,
composition, duties, and salaries of its staff and uses that
authority to assemble the expertise it needs to facilitate a
policy agenda.
Encompassing mission to serve adults. Adult basic
education, General Educational Development (GED),
developmental education, transfer, and workforce
development missions are all assigned to SBCTC, making
it easier for the college system to set a clear mission to
improve educational attainment for Washingtonians.
On B a l ance: Lessons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State B oard fo r Co mmunit y an d Technical Co l l e ges | I I
Executive Summary
Organizational Leadership
Relentless focus on a mission of public value. Since the
late 1980s, when the then-executive director mobilized
the college system to present itself as the solution to the
recession, the SBCTC has been clear and consistent about
its singular mission to educate Washingtonians for good
jobs. They have bolstered their case with strategic use of
data and communications. SBCTC takes full advantage
of the collective power of the colleges and their
connections with legislators in every district. Emphasis is
placed on local trustees and college presidents localizing
the system message in their own contexts.
Continual cultivation of support from key
constituencies. SBCTC has evolved myriad routines to
keep external stakeholders well informed about the work
of the system and the priorities of lawmakers. Prior to
the recent dissolution of the statewide Higher Education
Coordinating Board (HECB), SBCTC cultivated a three-way
partnership on state-level issues to include the heads of
the Council of Presidents (representing the universities)
and the HECB. The SBCTC gained the support of the
business community in the 1990s when the system
committed to demonstrate the outcomes of its workforce
training programs as a condition of receiving a portion of
unemployment insurance tax receipts.
Policy strategists more than program implementers.
SBCTC has used its hiring authority to emphasize
professional staff with expertise in policy and strategy.
Policy associates are paid more than program
administrators and are expected to think “outside the
box” to anticipate challenges and opportunities and the
appropriate policy responses. SBCTC leadership sets
aside time to think about policy and strategy in most
meetings, taking care not to have its agenda dominated
by crises and short-term problem solving.
Extensive collaborative and shared decision making.
Despite significant formal powers granted to SBCTC over
resources and policy, an elaborate structure of shared
decision making has evolved under which substantive
decision-making power is shared with the colleges,
who exercise them through a nonprofit organization.
This organization has an elaborate and highly efficient
structure of committees, commissions, and councils that
actively engage broad sectors of college administration
in decision making for the college system. SBCTC staffs all
of the committees, commissions, and councils to ensure
that everyone has the same information and is working
toward common purposes. SBCTC leadership stresses the
collaborative culture to the point where presidents and
others who find they don’t match the culture typically
leave of their own accord.
Strategic use of data. A strong data capacity, developed
in the 1980s, has helped the SBCTC define and
communicate its priorities to policymakers. By framing
performance shortfalls as issues needing attention, the
Board was able to acquire and direct resources to address
important state priorities. It has also used data strategically
to build internal consensus around its mission and to set
priorities. The strong data capacity supports the strong
orientation toward policy and strategy.
III | institut E f o r higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Strategic Alignment
Self-Assessment
SBCTC has excelled in achieving alignment across
these three categories. Its leadership has been strategic
in understanding the state context and the Board’s
formal powers, and in knowing what can and cannot
be changed and what can be adapted in order to best
fulfill the mission. Balancing state and local needs and
interests has been an equally important and impressive
part of the success story. Achieving alignment and
balancing interests are highly state-specific and are
moving targets – as circumstances change, it may be
necessary to realign and rebalance. In Washington,
changes are indeed threatening the prevailing balance
and a new equilibrium has not taken hold.
The self-assessment instrument at the end of this report
is designed to get users to think about the relative
strengths and weaknesses, or the assets and deficits,
that are facing a state with regard to postsecondary
coordination. It is akin to an environmental scan in
traditional strategic planning. It is not designed to
produce a quantifiable score but to facilitate honest
assessment about a state’s political and economic
context, the prevailing governance structures, and the
capacities within the coordinating organization. Users are
encouraged to think in terms of assets and deficits both
within and across the three “buckets” of state context,
institutional design, and organizational leadership.
Changes in some areas may be more attainable than in
others and improvements in one area might be able to
compensate for deficits in others. The findings are highly
state-specific and there are no right answers.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | I V
Setting the Stage for the Case Study
Global economic competiveness requires successful higher education. A national focus on college completion has
generated research, experimentation, and knowledge about what kinds of programs and services can improve student
success for the populations served in broad access institutions, including community and technical colleges. But
generating knowledge about effective practices may be the easier part of this national agenda. A bigger challenge
lies in implementing change at a large enough scale to make a difference. Colleges have piloted numerous “boutique”
programs that are demonstrating results locally for small numbers of students. It is far rarer to find systemic changes
implemented across a state system of higher education.
The Important but Difficult
Coordinating Function in Higher
Education
States play a large role in achieving systemic changes as
they variously design, fund, and regulate higher education
enterprises including community and technical colleges,
state colleges and universities, and mechanisms to
coordinate them. The challenge of producing systemic
change falls heavily on entities responsible for coordinating
postsecondary institutions. In many cases, a state-level
body is charged with coordinating multiple institutions
or even multiple systems of institutions, each with its own
governing body. Leaders of coordinating bodies must find
ways to motivate and influence the direction of institutions
they do not directly or completely govern and that have
strong traditions of autonomy.
Across states there are substantial differences in
institutional arrangements among higher education
systems. Understanding the possibilities and levers
for achieving systemic change from a state's higher
education enterprise requires attention to three
dimensions, as laid out in Figure 1.
A state higher education coordinating body exists
within a specific state political and economic context,
operates as allowed by specific institutional designs,
and will select specific organizational and leadership
strategies. We list these dimensions in order of
malleability by those seeking improvements in the
performance of higher education. Underlying statelevel political and economic factors are not easily
changed. Institutional designs are somewhat more
changeable, and many states are redesigning their
postsecondary systems and rethinking the coordination
function. Organizational and leadership strategies
are the most easily changed and can be selected to
take best advantage of state context and the powers
afforded by institutional design.
This case study uses the three-part framework, shown
in Figure 1, to explain how the coordination function
has been exercised effectively by the Washington State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC).
Before turning to the factors that explain SBCTC’s
effectiveness, we describe why SBCTC was chosen as
the subject for a case study of effective coordination.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Postsecondary Coordination Effectiveness
State Political and Economic Context
Core Institutional Design Elements
Organization and Leadership Strategies
1 | institut E f o r highe r education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Why Study Washington?
Washington’s higher education system evolved with two
distinct structures. The six public universities are each
independently governed and work together only informally.
The 34 community and technical colleges are organized
into 30 districts and are collectively governed by a hybrid
structure of 30 local boards of trustees and the SBCTC.
increase baccalaureate production in high-need fields.3
The SBCTC has succeeded in implementing change
across the community and technical college system.
Balancing and mediating relationships among multiple
participants. SBCTC has skillfully managed external
relationships to allow college presidents and trustees to
exercise strong leadership of their colleges even as the
governor and legislature find the system to be highly
SBCTC has an envious national reputation as a
responsive to state lawmaker concerns. The legislature
coordinating entity that works effectively. This reputation
has largely been content to express its priorities for the
is justified by three sets of accomplishments that mirror
system in broad terms while delegating specific policythe essential functions of effective coordination and state
setting and implementation to the college system. SBCTC
policy governance, as articulated by national experts.2
has managed and mediated
internal relationships such
Establishing a cohesive
that the colleges view SBCTC
Whereas most states have been
system mission of public
as advocates with whom they
stymied by the inability to replicate
value. SBCTC has excelled
can collectively work out
at instilling and maintaining
successes of pilot programs broadly
divisions and present unified
a mission for the system
across their institutions, SBCTC has
messages to state lawmakers.
defined clearly around public
been able to recognize programs
purposes – around educating
These three sets of
with potential for broad-scale impact
Washingtonians for the
accomplishments could not
and help bring them to scale.
betterment of the state's
have been achieved without
economy. From state board
an effective coordinating
members to college presidents and faculty, to local trustees,
body. Whereas autonomous colleges can pursue their
to legislators, the mission of the system is well understood
own interests in ways that don't satisfy state purposes,
and commonly articulated to be that of preparing
SBCTC has managed to strike an equivalency between
Washingtonians for jobs in the state's economy. Policy
the two such that colleges define local goals in ways
accomplishments are noteworthy for having been pursued
that collectively demonstrate to state politicians a
in response to identified state needs. Colleges work to meet
commitment to achieve state goals. Whereas most states
the needs of their local students and communities within
have been stymied by the inability to replicate successes
the larger context of state needs.
of pilot programs broadly across their institutions,
SBCTC has been able to recognize programs with
Facilitating policy changes at scale. Over the past twenty
potential for broad-scale impact and help bring them
years or so, the SBCTC has facilitated large-scale change
to scale. Whereas it is not uncommon for postsecondary
through innovative policies to, among other things,
systems to contend with what they believe to be
increase the college-going rate, smooth and speed the
intrusive legislative or gubernatorial oversight, SBCTC
transition of underprepared adults into credit-bearing
has averted intrusion by mediating effectively between
programs, systematically measure student progress,
lawmakers and the colleges.
reward colleges for increasing student achievement, and
2 For concise statements of the critical capacities for postsecondary coordination, see the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
(2005, July). The Need for State Policy Leadership. State Capacity for Higher Education Policy: A Special Supplement to National Crosstalk. San Jose,
CA: Author; and Davies, G. (2011, July/August). Changing Roles. Change Magazine, p. 46.
3 See Appendix A for a brief description of notable policy innovations.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dinatio n fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technical Co l l e ges | 2
Setting the Stage for the Case Study
Understanding the Organizational
Perspective
Despite the advantages that a coordinating entity can
bring, convincing postsecondary institutions to forgo
some autonomy for collective benefits can be hard,
especially if institutional circumstances are so varied
that their interests diverge. In those cases, coordination
may be perceived as interference, or worse, as a hostile
takeover. In deference to values of local autonomy, most
coordinating bodies have been granted only limited
powers by their designers. Few have real authority to
mandate change and must rely on forms of influence
including selective use of limited resources to provide
incentives for change. Even where powers to compel
action do exist, forcing change on unwilling recipients
rarely results in long-lasting improvement.
In view of all the challenges facing coordinating entities,
what has made this coordinating organization able to
effectively marshal the collective energies and resources
of the community and technical college system toward a
cohesive mission defined around public purposes? From
our case study research, we find the explanations of the
State Board's effectiveness in the three sets of factors
introduced earlier in Figure 1 and elaborated in Figure 2.
Third, a series of exemplary leaders has used effective
organization and leadership strategies to propel the
organization forward. Reflecting the state’s political and
economic context and exercising the powers granted to
SBCTC, its leaders model strategies and behaviors that
are widely applicable to leaders of public organizations,
providing perhaps the most useful part of this case study.
Like any public entity that operates with a part-time lay
board, SBCTC staff play a critical role in the dimensions
of leadership we have discussed. We wish to clarify at
the outset that when we reference SBCTC, or the State
Board, throughout this paper, we are speaking of the
board and its staff as a unit, in full knowledge that board
members hold the formal powers and ultimately make
the decisions. The highly professionalized staff members
provide the day-to-day expertise and capacity to help
the Board exercise those powers.
Figure 2
Explanatory Factors in SBCTC Effective Coordination
State Political and Economic Context
■■
■■
■■
First, SBCTC's successes evolved within a distinct cultural
context. While this does not preclude other states
drawing important lessons from Washington's policy
successes, it does mean that attention to the particulars
of a given political and economic context will be
important in determining how best to proceed.
■■
Core Institutional Design Elements
■■
■■
■■
■■
Second, SBCTC has several institutional design
characteristics that have proved critical to its ability to
provide effective coordination around difficult policy
choices. As more and more states are considering
changes to their coordination structures, designers
would be wise to consider which elements are most
likely to foster effective coordination.
Populist state culture
Part-time legislature
Economic dependency on two-year colleges
Continuity of political party of governor
■■
Broad fiscal powers
Broad policy-setting authority
Unified political appointing power
SBCTC is not a "state agency"
Encompassing mission to serve adults
Organization and Leadership Strategies
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
Relentless focus on a mission of public value
Continual cultivation of support from key constituencies
Policy strategists more than program implementers
Extensive collaboration and shared decision making
Strategic use of data
3 | institut E f o r highe r education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Drawing Lessons from the Case Study
While the critical message of this case analysis is the need
for all the pieces to work together – to build effective
institutional designs that fit a specific context, and to use
organization and leadership strategies effectively – the
case suggests attention to specific issues for those in
different roles, as suggested in the following list:
■■
Governors and their staff – how to use formal
structures and appointing powers to design and
make effective use of coordinating entities
■■
Legislators and their staff – how to design and use
coordinating entities effectively and define clear roles
and responsibilities for lawmakers and college leaders
to maximize the effectiveness of a college system
■■
Coordinating boards and their staff – how to
maintain a vision around public purposes for all
constituent institutions, delegate authority to
maximize local flexibility consistent with system vision,
bring reforms to scale, orchestrate effective system
communication with state lawmakers, and facilitate
strategic thinking and effective decision making
■■
College presidents – how to engage in effective
self-governing within a multi-institutional system,
maximize the advocacy role of local trustees,
and achieve a workable balance of roles among
presidents, system heads, and politicians
■■
College trustees – how and when a local board can
maximize its effectiveness through cooperation with
other colleges in the system, in order to make the
whole greater than the sum of the parts
■■
Intermediaries who advise and support any of the
above parties – how effective coordination can
best be designed to match state circumstances,
what formal governance design elements are more/
less critical in various settings, what leadership
qualities and strategies should be encouraged at
coordinating boards.
At the end of the document is a self-assessment
instrument designed to get users to think about
the relative strengths and weaknesses, or the assets
and deficits, that are facing a state with regard to
postsecondary coordination. It is intended to facilitate
honest assessment about a state’s political and economic
context, the prevailing governance structures, and the
capacities within the coordinating organization as a
basis to consider what improvements in postsecondary
coordination might be attainable.
Applying lessons from one state to others is always tricky
because states are unique. Nevertheless, we believe
that Washington shares enough in common with other
states to make its lessons worth considering. Appendix
B compares ten states on aspects of community college
governance, funding, and size including eight states
of particular interest to The Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, the funder of this study. Of the ten, only two
lack local governing boards for their community colleges
and those two states have state-level coordinating
boards. Of the eight states that have local community
college governing boards, five (including Washington)
have appointed local boards and three have elected
boards. Most boards are larger than those in Washington
and appointing authority is not always only with the
governor, as in Washington. Washington is near the
middle rank of the ten states on the number of colleges,
the size of college enrollment, and the state’s population.
Washington is not unlike other state systems in its heavy
reliance on state funding sources.
We now turn to the three dimensions, identified in
Figure 2, that collectively explain the evolution and
performance of the SBCTC as an effective coordinating
agency. Within each dimension, we describe each
relevant factor in turn.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dinatio n fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technical Co l l e ges | 4
State Political and Economic Context
SBCTC, like any public organization, operates within a larger political and cultural context. It has a particular mission,
purpose, and structure but those elements could be transported to another state with quite different results if that
state had materially different political and economic characteristics. Before delving too deeply into the specifics of
the State Board, it is useful to discuss the broader context of Washington as we believe it pertains to the story of the
Board’s effectiveness.
Populism
All localities have their own tolerance for centralization or
de-centralization of political power and decision making.
While some states have centralized power at the state
level, others, like Washington, defer to locals whenever
possible. Both systems can work, but it is difficult to
understand the political power dynamics without
knowing what the community will accept.
itself has explicitly balanced its statewide role with a deep
commitment to local control. One interviewee went so far
as to say, “What makes us strong politically is not the State
Board but the effectiveness of the local boards working
in concert with the State Board.” This theme of continual
balance between statewide efforts and deep respect for
local autonomy permeates this report.
Achieving strength as a collective will be a strong theme
in our later discussion of organization and management
Washington sits squarely in the populist category. Virtually
strategies, because State Board staff have worked hard
every discussion we had began with a variation on the
to sustain that collaborative
theme that Washington is a
culture. But we have to
“populist state” that cherishes
believe that Washingtonians
The dominant perspective seems
local control and decentralized
have a certain predisposition
governance. “Populism” seems
to be that when colleges work
to collaboration that is part
to be code for a deeply-held
together they help not only the
of what interviewees meant
belief that decision making is
state but themselves. The State
by the culture of populism.
most effective if it begins at
Board itself has explicitly balanced
the local level. To the extent
Populism plays out as well
its statewide role with a deep
that statewide needs are to be
in the legislature’s relations
overlaid on locals, extensive
commitment to local control.
with SBCTC as compared to
consultation with affected local
the four-year sector. Members
entities is expected. A second
have
refrained
from
micromanagement
of community
meaning we gleaned from the reference to populism is
college decisions, delegating nearly all authority on
that local entities, collectively, have a responsibility and a
statewide matters to the State Board. Reflecting the
motivation to work together for the greater good. Local
populist preference for decentralized governance, the six
entities should be consulted not only to articulate individual,
universities are not organized as a system but have formed
possibly competing, local interests to be adjudicated at the
a voluntary association called the Council of Presidents.
state level, but to help forge consensus among individual
Under this arrangement, the universities have been less
local interests to produce better outcomes than those
successful than the colleges in presenting unified policy
otherwise imposed by the state.
positions to the legislature and are generally considered
less effective in gaining legislative support.
Such populism plays out for SBCTC in its reliance on local
colleges, through mediating structures, to have a significant
role in decisions about systemwide issues. The dominant
perspective seems to be that when colleges work together
they help not only the state but themselves. The State Board
A final contextual note about Washington and populism
is the relatively smooth relationship between faculty
unions and the State Board and colleges. Faculty unions
5 | institut E f o r highe r education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
bargain at the college level and the state organizations
have not been an antagonistic stakeholder group as is
the case in some states. Faculty members and unions
participate in task forces and other activities but are
not a dominant political force in the governing of the
colleges. There is no statewide academic senate; faculty
unions represent faculty in systemwide issues.
This deeply rooted idea of populism is complementary
to the coordinating function undertaken by the State
Board. True coordination requires understanding all the
moving parts in a process and respecting what each
component can add to achieve the desired outcomes.
Coordination of efforts does not presume that any one
party has all the answers. Populism, with its respect for
local control, likely provided fertile ground for a true
coordinating body to emerge.
Part-time Legislature
The structure of a legislative body can have significant
impact on the scope of the legislation it produces. The
extent to which it engages in policy setting via statute
varies greatly and is at least partially related to whether
members are full-time or part-time legislators. Full-time
legislatures appear to generate considerably more
“law” in any given year and tend to reach further into
the details than do those that are part-time. Similarly,
term-limited legislators appear to take a shorter-term
view of policy issues. Some attribute this to the difficulty
in “getting up to speed” on complex issues while others
observe that term-limited legislators focus on those
issues that will play out during their tenure. Regardless
of the explanation, term-limited legislatures often find it
difficult to take the long view.
Washington’s legislature is part-time without term limits.
Legislators are deeply rooted in their communities, living
and working there most of the time. Lacking term limits,
legislators are more likely to stay in a seat long enough
to learn the complexities of government policies and to
learn to know, and trust, leaders of the college system.
Several members of the Washington legislature previously
served as local college trustees and the body includes a
former State Board member and a current State Board staff
member. The state legislature has avoided micromanaging
the community college system, leaving most substantive
policy and financial choices to the State Board.
Economic Dependency on Two-year
Colleges
A state’s education system has obvious linkages to its
workforce and economy. Ideally, the K-20 system produces
the necessary quantity and quality of workers to meet
the state’s needs. Because of the lead times necessary
to educate individuals, matching the outcomes of an
education system to state workforce needs is a challenging
and dynamic process. Historically, and certainly well into
the latter decades of the 20th Century, Washington’s
economy was resource-driven with mainstays in
agriculture, lumber and wood products, shipbuilding, and
tourism. In such an economy, jobs were in large part driven
by local industries. The economy suffered a near collapse
in the late 1980s-early1990s, brought on by many factors
including the national recession and the related downturn
in housing construction, increased environmental
regulation that curtailed logging, and the lingering fallout
of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.
This economic dislocation proved to be an historic
turning point for the college system. It afforded the
opportunity for the system, under astute leadership, to
position itself as the solution to the economic crisis by
being the chief job training entity in the state. After a
particularly hard-fought legislative battle in 1993, SBCTC
became eligible to receive unemployment insurance
trust funds to train displaced workers. Building on that
victory, the system established itself as the primary
provider of job training geared to the new directions of
the state’s economy. This was a turning point not only
in the public view of the college system but also in the
SBCTC’s state-local balancing act. Job training, always
a locally-based mission, now required more state-level
policy direction and funding in order to meet emerging
state needs. Colleges retained control over the selection
and design of “professional technical” job training
programs but were held accountable for outcomes
to demonstrate to employers that they were worthy
recipients of unemployment insurance trust funds.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dinatio n fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technical Co l l e ges | 6
State Political and Economic Context
Continuity of Political Party of
Governor
Washington has had a Democratic governor since 1985.
Prior to that, Democrats and Republicans generally saw
the control of the office go back and forth. Because the
governor appoints state and local board members of the
college system, there has been continuity of direction
spanning the period of the system’s emergence as a
national leader in policy innovation. However, we have
learned that the most important qualifications for a
trustee are his or her devotion to the mission and ability
to advocate locally and statewide on behalf of the
system. Trustees come from both political parties and
may not even be particularly identifiable as partisan.
Furthermore, the community college mission is not a
particularly partisan one. The Democratic governors have
had different degrees of identity as “education Governor”
as well. Nevertheless, the continuity has likely benefited
the State Board staff as it has worked to harness the
collective energies and resources of the college system
to fulfill its mission.
The combination of populism, a part-time legislature
without term limits, the severe economic downturns,
and the continuity in political party leadership, together
provide a political and economic context that facilitates
the work of SBCTC. Contexts are not easily changeable.
Effective public managers understand that and work with
and around the context that exists in their environments.
SBCTC has done that effectively for several decades.
7 | institut E f o r highe r education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Core Institutional Design Elements
The design of public institutions is crucial for their ultimate success. Good design does not ensure good policy
outcomes, but poor design can severely blunt effectiveness. SBCTC has key elements of institutional design that
facilitate success – Washington law vests ultimate fiscal and policy control in the State Board and consolidates
control over the appointments at the state and local levels in the hands of the Governor. Accompanying that
authority is a clear mission that encompasses not only transfer and workforce elements but also the General
Educational Development (GED) and Adult Basic Education (ABE). The Board itself does not function like a state
agency, but looks and feels more independent. Each of these elements contributes to the ability of the State Board
to be successful in its coordination role as detailed below, following a brief overview of the SBCTC structure.
SBCTC: The Basics
Broad Fiscal Powers
As shown in Figure 3, the State Board consists of nine
members appointed by the governor for terms of four years.
The Board is served by a staff that has ranged in size from
85-100 over the past dozen years. The Board and its staff
serve the 34 community colleges throughout the state,
which include five technical colleges. Each district has a fivemember local board of trustees as its governing body. Like
the State Board members, the trustees are appointed by the
governor, with the consent of the senate, and serve terms
of five years. The trustees are responsible for hiring college
presidents; in the case of multi-college districts, trustees also
hire a chancellor to lead the district office.
The ultimate authority in any organization is held by
those who control the purse strings. Higher education
coordinating bodies typically suffer from one or more
limitations of fiscal authority. They may merely be
"pass throughs" for allocating state funds to colleges,
having no role in resource allocation decisions. The
funds they pass along may be just one piece of the
funding pie with other money generated locally.
They may lack sufficient funds to support their own
coordinating function. The funding they do receive
may come with multiple constraints, limiting flexibility
in executing policy decisions. Lacking fiscal authority,
many coordinating bodies are quickly relegated to the
sidelines. Indeed the recent demise of Washington’s
higher education coordinating board (HECB) and
California’s Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)
are examples of state coordinating entities without
fiscal authority. The California Community College
Chancellor's Office typifies the struggles to exercise
strong coordination over local colleges when subject
to a predetermined formula to allocate resources to
colleges and countless state regulations that control the
use of agency resources.
A distinguishing feature of the organization is that
two non-profit associations play critical roles in the
execution of SBCTC and college work. One is the
Washington Association of Community and Technical
Colleges (WACTC). This non-profit association is the
organization of college presidents that develops policy
recommendations to present to the State Board. Formed
as a vehicle for the colleges to work together, college
presidents serve rotating terms as president of WACTC
and an extensive network of committees, councils, and
commissions (essentially subcommittees) facilitates the
work. The trustees also have an independent association,
the Trustees Association of Community and Technical
Colleges (TACTC). WACTC and TACTC work very closely
with the State Board and many of the core system
management functions are, in practice, heavily integrated
across WACTC, TACTC, and SBCTC, with the State Board
staff bridging the three groups, as shown in Figure 4.
The Washington legislature has delegated considerable
authority to the SBCTC, appropriating operating
and capital funds directly to the State Board with no
predetermined rules for distribution to individual colleges.
The Board determines how much to hold off the top for its
coordinating function and is authorized to determine the
basis for college allocations. The Board also has authority
to set tuition levels for the college system each year, up to
a legislatively-established limit for year-to-year increases.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dinatio n fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technical Co l l e ges | 8
Core Institutional Design Elements
Figure 3
Basic Structure of College System
Governor
State Board of
Community and
Technical Colleges
College
9 Members
5 Trustees
SBCTC
Staff
President
Figure 4
Integrated Management: SBCTC, WACTC, TACTC
Governor
State Board of
Community and
Technical Colleges
College
9 Members
SBCTC
Staff
TACTC
5 Trustees
WACTC
President
9 | institut E f o r highe r education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
With no local taxes supporting the system, the Board
oversees the vast majority of system resources.
requested that the State Board propose ways to increase
efficiency, including the possibility of district and college
consolidation. The details of the consolidation were not
defined in statute; rather, the legislature outlined its goal
of increased efficiency and requested that the Board
report back with procedures that would be followed in
any forthcoming decisions about consolidation.
In practice, decisions about funding allocations for
both operations and capital projects is shared broadly
with WACTC but this is a collaborative strategy that
has evolved over time. The ultimate funding authority
remains with the State Board and it can choose to assert
As with its fiscal authority, the State Board has shared
that authority in the form of funding decisions at any
policy setting authority extensively with WACTC. This
time. The decision to share power reflects a purposeful
is perhaps most notable in the recent policy efforts for
choice that has proven effective, rather than something
which SBCTC is admired. With
embedded in institutional
the exception of the Student
design. However, because it
Achievement Initiative,
does ultimately control the
Broad policymaking authority,
these policies, including
purse strings, the Board has
even
if
part
of
the
core
design
of
Integrated Basic Education
levers with which to compel
a coordinating entity, must be
and Skills Training (I-BEST),
cooperative behaviors. As
nurtured
and
protected.
and Opportunity Grants, were
we discuss in the strategies
initiated by the collaborative
section below, the Board has
efforts of WACTC and the
rarely exercised unilateral
State Board staff and taken to the Board for approval.
fiscal authority.
Even the exception proves the rule: the State Board itself
pushed the system to develop a form of performance
Broad Policy-Setting Authority
funding, but all of the details were assigned to, and
Authority over policy development is also critical to
worked out by, the staff and WACTC.
organizational success. If policy direction comes from
above with multiple constraints, the organization
The discussion of balance of power between the
becomes little more than a program implementer or a
legislature and the State Board highlights an important
fiscal pass through entity.
issue. Broad policymaking authority, even if part of the
core design of a coordinating entity, must be nurtured
The state legislature granted SBCTC broad policy
and protected. The State Board has earned the right
authority along with broad fiscal authority. In addition
to retain this authority by using it to the satisfaction
to the authority to submit a single system budget to the
of both the colleges that it coordinates and the state
legislature and disburse funds, state law concentrates
legislature from whom it receives authority. This
in the SBCTC authority to ensure that each region offers
balancing act requires near constant attention, which
necessary programs, and to establish qualifications
we address in the discussion about specific leadership
for instructors, financial procedures, and admissions
strategies. The State Board and its staff have been
policies. This policy authority has remained in place
particularly attentive to the importance of both serving
over the 45 years of operation, with few, if any, instances
multiple constituencies and sharing power. Thus, while
of the state legislature overriding this delegated
institutional design matters greatly, the powers assigned
authority by establishing detailed laws relative to the
to the State Board for policy and fiscal matters are only
governing of the college system. Even as the legislature
a necessary, but surely not a sufficient, component of its
has weighed in with more policy direction, lawmakers
ultimate success.
have largely left it to the State Board to define specific
elements of policy. For example, in 2011, the legislature
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 10
Core Institutional Design Elements
Unified Political Appointing Power
Boards and commissions often receive appointments
from multiple entities. It is not uncommon to see a
statewide body with representatives formally nominated,
if not formally approved, by legislative leadership, the
governor, and perhaps specific interest groups. While a
plausible argument could be made that this increases
representation, it also signals appointees that they
are there as representatives of a specific perspective,
potentially reducing collaboration.
At the state level, board member appointments,
for whatever reason, have not become the political
"plum" appointment reserved for close political allies
of the governor. Local board members include a broad
range of individuals with extensive experience in state
government, business, and higher education. Four of
the current nine members have served formerly as a
trustee of a Washington community college, indicating
that experience and knowledge of the mission of
the college system is an important factor in the
composition of the State Board.
Local governing bodies can be appointed or elected.
SBCTC is Not a “State Agency”
Elected bodies have the same benefits and constraints
Coordinating bodies created as an arm of the state
as listed above – representatives may arrive believing
can quickly become viewed by colleges as a control
they have a mandate from a particular constituency. In
agency with interests quite
higher education, locally
distinct from, and often
elected bodies can become
at odds with, those of the
embroiled with labor issues,
Local board members include
colleges. Frequently viewed
resulting in a board focused
a broad range of individuals
as a regulatory body, these
more on working conditions
with
extensive
experience
in
state agencies can become
for faculty than on learning
state government, business, and
something for colleges to
conditions for students.
resist or work around.
higher education.
Beyond labor concerns,
elected local boards could
promote local needs, as they
should, but without much consideration of how the local
mission connects to state-level concerns.
Appointing power for Washington’s local trustees as well
as for State Board members rests with the Governor.
This eliminates local board elections, which can become
partisan political battles or an opportunity for unions
to assert control over college administrative policies,
including the hiring and firing of presidents. While
local trustee appointments could become politicized
by governors, that does not appear to be the case
in Washington. Local trustees are active community
members and leaders, appointed less for party affiliation
than for commitment to the cause. Compared to other
states with elected local trustees, Washington's trustees
bring fewer "agendas" to the table other than to advocate
for their local college and the state college system.
In contrast to this image,
the legislature designed SBCTC more as a part of the
community college system than as a state agency. This
is evident most clearly in the human resources area.
State Board staff members enroll in the community
college retirement system rather than the state system.
The Board has significant discretion over internal
hiring. Only about one-third of the State Board staff
positions are subject to civil service, with the remainder
exempt. Even the civil service positions are structured
as internal to the State Board, so that classifications
can be developed appropriate to the system’s mission
and duties and vacant positions are not subject
to transfers in from state agencies with unrelated
missions. The scope of authority of the exempt
positions is even greater. The state has no position
control over the State Board, leaving the Board free
to define the number and duties of positions it needs
11 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
and can afford from the share of the budget allocation
that it reserves for the State Board staff. This flexibility
across the human resources function allows for ease
of movement between college and State Board staff
positions, something the State Board takes advantage of
frequently. The Board always looks first to the colleges to
fill staff positions in academic and student affairs arenas,
which sustains the character of the State Board as part
of the college system.
Encompassing Mission to Serve Adults
In order for coordinating bodies to use their fiscal and
policy authority effectively, they must have appropriate
jurisdiction. The complexities of education and
workforce training, the multiple dimensions of an open
enrollment mission, and the historical connection of
most community colleges to K-12, have compounded
the jurisdiction problem for many community college
coordinating entities. When accountability for actions
and outcomes is not accompanied by authority over the
appropriate policy or program areas, frustration ensues.
The State Board has a broad mission encompassing GED,
ABE, developmental education, workforce development,
and transfer. Bundling all of these elements, which are
sometimes split with K-12 and other entities, into a
single functional area allows for clear boundaries for
community colleges and relatively little dispute over turf.
Uncontested jurisdiction over these areas has allowed
the State Board to move forward in devising its policy
and programmatic priorities broadly around the needs of
Washingtonians.
age population, the system saw a clear role and moved
aggressively and innovatively to redesign its approach
to educating adults. The State Board staff commissioned
research to show that the future educational attainment
of the state depended even more on educating adults
in the workforce than on shoring up the high school-tocollege pipeline. This drove creation of the nationally
renowned I-BEST program and other efforts to build
career pathways from GED and ABE into college
credential programs. The achievement point system
devised for the Student Achievement Initiative illustrates
how the SBCTC built on its encompassing mission to
underscore both the responsibility and the opportunity
for colleges to help even the most under-prepared
students move through a series of "momentum points"
into and through credential programs.
These institutional design elements – broad fiscal and
policy authority, cohesive governing boards, identity as
part of the college system, and a clear encompassing
mission – have provided Washington with an effective
institutional structure for its community college
coordinating entity. This allowed a series of excellent
leaders to use time-tested strategies to facilitate difficult
but necessary policy choices that have consistently
moved Washington's community colleges into the
forefront of American postsecondary education.
When the state experienced severe economic dislocation
in the late 1980s to early 1990s, it was not a stretch
for the community college system to envision itself as
the chief provider of job training. The incorporation of
the five remaining public vocational institutes into the
system in 1991 was perhaps the obvious move, with the
mission of workforce training well established for SBCTC.
When demographic and economic forces combined
to produce a severely under-educated adult working-
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 12
Organizational and Management Strategies
Even the most well-designed institution can fail if its leaders are not strategic and skillful at managing the
organization’s people and processes. In coordinating entities governed by lay boards with large staffs, it is incumbent
upon leaders to facilitate the work of their board, their staff, and the colleges. To understand what we observed
in Washington, we found guidance from a conceptual framework that explains how public leaders make their
organizations most valuable.4 There are three dimensions to which effective leaders of public entities must attend.
First, they must constantly seek to make the mission of the organization valuable to the public it serves. Second,
they must work to achieve support for the organization and its mission from the external stakeholders, particularly
those with the authority to grant viability and legitimacy to the organization. Third, having found a mission and
stakeholder support for it, they must ensure that the organization has the people, resources, and relationships to
fulfill the mission. With the help of this framework we can identify the strategies that SBCTC leadership has used in
creating a college system valued for its service to Washingtonians.
Relentless Focus on a Mission of
Public Value
The idea of a mission-driven organization is much
celebrated by observers of organizations today. Simply put,
if all members of an organization are clearly focused on the
ultimate purpose of the organization, then individuals and
units will be better able to work collaboratively towards
desired outcomes. A mission focus helps an organization
avoid diffusing its energies across too many priorities. It
helps remove barriers to change, allowing organizations
to be more adaptable and innovative about how they
do business, as new ways to achieve goals are identified.
Mission-driven leaders understand that the ultimate goal
is to achieve a purpose and that the processes and policies
it uses are simply means to achieve desired ends. SBCTC
epitomizes a mission-driven organization.
We were struck, in our many interviews, by the consistent
focus on student achievement and meeting the
workforce needs of Washington State. Trustees, college
presidents, state board members, and staff all articulated
a common view of exactly what their core work was to
accomplish. Policies and processes were described but
consistently prefaced with a thoughtful description of
the desired outcome. Nearly everyone with whom we
spoke understood that student success and preparing
the state's workforce were driving policy and that
policies and processes are simply a means to an end. Two
examples demonstrate the power that a real missionfocused organization can harness.
For those outside the academy, common course
numbering for the same course taught by different
colleges in a single college system may seem like an
obvious step to address problems students face in
moving among institutions and problems colleges face
in documenting student learning outcomes. For those
on the inside, however, it can seem to be a bureaucratic
imposition of rigidity that dishonors faculty control
of the curriculum. In the absence of a clear rationale,
common course numbering is frequently resisted by
faculty. When the idea was initially proposed, many in
Washington’s colleges reacted with reluctance. However,
enough skeptical faculty were ultimately convinced by
continual discussions of how the change would serve
students better. Much of this dialogue occurred among
the colleges, perhaps with the knowledge that the
Board ultimately could compel compliance. Without
an overriding focus on mission – on what is best for
students – this effort may well have failed.
A second example is found in the nationally known
Student Achievement Initiative. This performance
incentive initiative came from the State Board as a
means to help implement the 2006 System Direction
goal to improve academic achievement for all students.
Performance funding is highly controversial within the
academy, so with the added provocation of a Board
initiative proposed to colleges used to initiating, not
reacting to, policy, colleges were naturally on guard.
Following considerable collaborative effort (described
4 Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
later), the innovative policy was adopted. It strikes us as
significant that unlike other states' unnamed efforts to
introduce performance funding, in Washington the effort
carried a name that underscored the mission of the
system. Attending to the complexities of performance
funding firmly within the context of improving student
achievement and education levels of the state's
workforce allowed the system to proceed, in spite of
some misgivings among presidents and others. As one
interviewee said, "I'm not completely happy with it yet
but I know that it's the right thing to do for students." As
of this writing, the system is reviewing the initiative for
possible modification – something that was envisioned
in the initial design principles and that helped gain early
support from the presidents.
Continual Cultivation of Support from
Key External Constituencies
Gaining and keeping the support of key constituencies
is critical to the success of any public organization.
In higher education there is a wide range of
constituencies that can threaten stability and
legitimacy if not on board. Legislatures and governors
are key external stakeholders whose support is needed
to acquire resources and the delegated authority to
use them. But legislators and the governor will look to
other constituencies for validation of an organization's
worth. Important external constituencies in
postsecondary education include statewide business
and labor groups, other postsecondary institutions,
and potential external funders.
SBCTC has been successful in this endeavor on multiple
counts. Its reputation with lawmakers is that of a
competent and professional system that is striving to
meet state needs, reports honestly about its challenges
as well as its accomplishments, and brings issues into the
state policy arena only after considerable thought and
internal work. Lawmakers find their oversight role made
easier by the system's penchant for reaching consensus
on issues before bringing them into the state political
arena. It does so by means of an elaborate collaborative
decision-making structure that we describe in a
subsequent section.
The business community has been vital in supporting
SBCTC’s legislative efforts. Some trace that support back to
the partnership that evolved following the authorization
of unemployment insurance trust funds to be used by
SBCTC for workforce training. The colleges recognized
they needed the support of employers to continue that
funding stream. Because the colleges were able to produce
and document results, employers were willing to support
continued efforts. The legacy of that early partnership is
strong today as the business community views SBCTC as
first and foremost about producing educated and skilled
workers for the Washington economy and as SBCTC
continues its outcomes orientation.
SBCTC has also maintained cooperative relationships with
the four-year postsecondary sector through the Council of
Presidents, the organization that represents the six public
universities. Lacking the local connections to all legislative
districts that the two-year sector enjoys, the universities,
through their Council, have found it advantageous to
work together with the colleges. SBCTC has complied,
working closely with the Council on priorities like the
applied baccalaureate and the improvement of transfer
pathways to address the documented shortage of upper
division capacity in the state. Until the recent dissolution of
the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB), SBCTC
leaders cultivated a three-way partnership on state-level
issues, including the heads of the Council of Presidents and
the coordinating board.
SBCTC has enjoyed strong support from another set of
external constituents – the philanthropic and research
communities. There is hardly a national community college
reform effort that doesn't include SBCTC, although board
staff have learned to limit their participation to initiatives
that align with their own strategic directions. Foundations
have been key players in community college reform over at
least the past decade and their financial support has been
significant in these times of severely constrained public
resources. SBCTC’s commitment to innovation (one of the
three themes of its 2006 System Direction document), its
commitment to using data in decision making, and its
competence and mission focus, have attracted investment
of external resources and external partners to support
continued research and innovation.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 14
Organizational and Management Strategies
The State Board was an early adopter of two tools for
the intellectual capacity to think long-term about
cultivating stakeholder support: data and strategic
policy issues can be difficult in a resource-constrained
communications. It used these tools to help define and
environment replete with short-term problems. However,
communicate its mission, share its accomplishments, and
successful organizations understand the central role of
cultivate support from a variety of internal and external
systematically thinking through policy choices.
audiences. Through its participation in the Bridges
to Opportunity initiative of the Ford Foundation, for
In our case study research we were struck by the keen
understanding of policy, as distinct from programs, by
example, the Board partnered with external researchers
SBCTC and college leaders and of the value placed on
and a communications firm, and staff believe these
policy professionals. More
efforts have contributed
than a few current and retired
to their effectiveness in
leaders with whom we met
building support from key
Different disciplines provide
had academic backgrounds
constituencies.
different training for encountering
in public policy, public
administration, and/or
Having described the
the world, and those original tools
educational leadership. We
organization’s success in
retain a powerful pull as one moves
noticed that "policy associate"
maintaining a valuable
through one's career.
is a common staff job title
mission and gaining
in core units of SBCTC and
stakeholder support for the
learned that these positions
mission, we turn now to the
are more highly paid than "program administrators."
organization’s success at ensuring it has the internal
capacity, i.e., the people, relationships, and resources to
Policy associates are expected to think broadly about
fulfill its mission.
how the State Board should position itself to achieve a
strategic direction. We learned of a new WACTC task force
created to envision future possibilities for the system,
Policy Strategists More Than Program
unrelated to specific current programs or policies. We
Implementers
learned that State Board leadership staff set aside time
Different disciplines provide different training for
in most staff meetings just to think ahead. This may
encountering the world, and those original tools retain
seem like an unaffordable luxury in a time beset by daily
a powerful pull as one moves through one's career. In
challenges, but in our view, it is an important factor in
the world of public sector organizations, training at the
the State Board’s effectiveness.
program level is often confused with experience with
policy. An excellent engineer does not automatically
State Board meetings allow significant time for learning
make an excellent public works director. Organizations
about and discussing emerging issues. Conversely, the
certainly need staff who understand how to implement
Board tries to minimize the time it devotes to adopting
programs – to acquire necessary resources, deliver the
regulations and chooses to place as many rules as
program as designed, and assess the results. But effective
possible into an informal policy manual as opposed to
organizations also value individuals who are policy
the official regulatory code, freeing up its time to devote
strategists. Policy strategists monitor the environment in
to broader policy issues.
order to better anticipate and understand problems, use
data habitually to understand trends inside and outside
The Student Achievement Initiative is an example of
their organization, and consider the multiple tools
how the talent to think ahead positioned the college
available to achieve policy outcomes. They often propose
system favorably. Performance funding has a history of
criteria and principles as first steps in seeking solutions, a
pitting postsecondary institutions against lawmakers,
tool for working through contentious decisions. Building
15 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
as increased attention to public sector accountability
in the 1980s and 1990s led lawmakers to sometimes
impose funding rules on colleges and universities that
seemed invalid to educators. As performance funding
was getting renewed attention in the 21st Century, the
State Board got “just enough ahead” of the game (to
quote a State Board staffer) to influence the national
conversation, allowing the system to design an approach
that would be accepted by the college presidents. Not
surprisingly, the initiative has become widely influential
across the country due to its use of intermediate
measures of student progression.
The Student Achievement Initiative also illustrates the
SBCTC’s strategic approach to using its fiscal authority
to advance policy. We have previously described how
the State Board has chosen to delegate or share its fiscal
authority with WACTC, taking care not to make fiscal
decisions by fiat. But an important part of the Board’s
policy orientation involves bringing resources to the
table in the form of incentives to influence the work
and priorities of the colleges. The Student Achievement
Initiative illustrates this selective, and strategic, use
of fiscal authority in a way that is both powerful yet
respectful of the shared decision making that has served
the system well.
Extensive Collaboration and Shared
Decision Making
Mission-focused organizations require a shared
understanding of the desired outcomes if everyone is
to move in the same direction. Doing this effectively
in a shared power arena is most effective if there is a
culture of collaboration and shared decision making.
In its simplest form, an organization’s culture is a
shared set of beliefs and norms that get translated
into behaviors. Those new to an organization learn
quickly about its culture, understanding “how things are
done around here.” Culture can be transmitted directly
and self-consciously or indirectly. Decision making in
higher education is shared by tradition and often by
policy, but whether it is truly collaborative is a matter of
culture. Effective shared decision making in complex
organizations can slow things down but the payoffs
are significant when decisions are implemented, as
participants understand the rationale for heading in a
particular direction. Participating in shaping a decision
also results in stronger commitment to the decision.
SBCTC has a highly developed collaborative
organizational culture that it has worked very
deliberately to develop and sustain. We found several
aspects of this collaborative culture to be worthy of
explication: (1) the shared understanding of what
collaboration means; (2) the degree of formalization to
which shared decision making has been taken; and (3)
the methods used to sustain it.
(1) The Meaning of Collaboration
We consistently heard the core value expressed by
college presidents and trustees that they are better
off together than separate, even if collaboration does
not always meet an individual college's needs. This
understanding of collaboration as interdependence
results in a set of expectations about behaviors. For
example, presidents are expected to participate in
decision making and publicly support a collective
decision, once final, even if they did not agree with the
decision. Those who do not collaborate do not survive
well in the system, generally leaving of their own
volition. This has been true for staff members of the
State Board as well as presidents who have come in and
served relatively short tenures.
A sophisticated dimension of the collaborative culture
is tolerance for the occasional slip-up. Interviewees,
nearly universally, viewed this as part of the normal
give and take and not a signal of any weakness of the
culture. The consistent focus on mission, combined
with a sophisticated understanding of what it means
to work with other people, produces a more nuanced
understanding of the “problem of the moment” as
distinct from, and not worth derailing, the long-term
goals and working relationships.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 16
Organizational and Management Strategies
(2) Formalized structure for shared decision making
A critical aspect of the shared decision making in
the college system is the extent to which it has been
formalized through the relationship between the
State Board and WACTC, the presidents' organization.
Among the stated purposes of WACTC are to “increase
the effectiveness of community and technical college
education in the state of Washington through
appropriate joint action and coordination of member
institutions” and “to review with and recommend
policies and procedures to the Executive Director of the
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges.” 5
Under statute, SBCTC has considerable authority to
make fiscal and policy decisions on behalf of the system
and could impose those decisions on the colleges.
In practice, SBCTC has chosen to share several core
decision making tasks with WACTC. Most notably,
WACTC annually develops and recommends to the State
Board the specific allocation of operating and capital
budgets for colleges.
As one example of the extensive consultation role
played by WACTC, the legislature recently asked
SBCTC to report on how the community colleges
might become more efficient. Behind the request is a
message that the legislature might want to consider
some consolidation of colleges and districts. The State
Board turned to WACTC for counsel on this potentially
contentious effort. The presidents, with staff assistance
from SBCTC, have taken the first steps in determining
how efficiency might be improved and their work
continues as of this writing.
The WACTC structure demonstrates multiple dimensions
of effective shared communication and decision making.
Rather than an association designed by presidents to
lobby the State Board, WACTC has become a critical
part of the decision structure through the participation
of college presidents, vice presidents, and directors on
committees, commissions, and councils, respectively.
SBCTC provides staff support to each of the
commissions and councils, a time-intensive task but
one that ensures continuity of information. Depending
on the nature of the topics under discussion, State
Board members themselves may serve as liaisons to
the commissions. In this way, the colleges become
fully engaged in decision making on consequential
activities such that when it comes time to lobby the
legislature, college representatives understand the
rationale for a given outcome. Struck by the number of
meetings that the WACTC structure alone requires, we
inquired often about their value and were assured that
the meetings are effective and well attended because
members understand that important decisions are
made at the meetings.
Managing with a large dose of shared culture and
collaboration, rather than relying on formulas or rules,
requires constant attention and buy-in from all parties.
An example of this self-governance is found in the
system’s approach to the capital outlay budget. Working
through WACTC, the presidents compile a rank-ordered
list of capital budget projects to be submitted for
funding consideration each biennium. As the legislature
considers the budget, presidents might be tempted to
use local legislators or other powerful connections to
help move a project up on the list. In fact, legislators
may think they are doing their jobs by helping increase
the priority of a local capital project. To protect system
cohesion, the presidents have created an “end run”
policy, spelling out the expectation that the list will be
honored once approved by WACTC, and the financial
penalty to be imposed on a college that knowingly
works to advance its project at the expense of others.
The policy has created an interesting incentive that
benefits the system: presidents and trustees lobby their
legislators to provide funding to go as far down the list
as needed to reach their own projects, clearly benefiting
those above them on the list.
5 Constitution, Washington Association of Community and Technical Colleges, Approved November 4, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2012:
http://sbctc.edu/college/documents/WACTC_Constitution_Approved_11_4_2011.pdf.
17 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
they developed the point system by which colleges
Two stories illustrate the depth of commitment to the
are rewarded for increasing student achievement. They
collective list and the expectation that lawmakers will
chose colleges to pilot the applied baccalaureate degree.
adhere to it. A college president reported calling his
While not free of conflict, this collaborative approach
local legislator in a panic because the legislator had
to governing has reduced the likelihood of having the
independently sought to move a project up on the list.
decisions become heavily politicized.
The president implored the legislator to leave it where it
was so that the college did not get penalized or appear
The trustees organization, TACTC, is part of the
to be breaking the self-imposed rules. In a recent budget
collaborative decision structure as well. It contributes
cycle, the governor altered the priorities, arguing that
members to system task
athletic facilities should
forces and funds a State
not be funded in this fiscal
Board staff member to serve
climate, even though those
as a liaison between TACTC
projects were high enough on
State Board staff have
and the State Board. TACTC
the list to make the funding
institutionalized a variety of
formed a legislative action
cut. The college presidents
means to sustain the collaborative
committee consisting of one
and the SBCTC together
culture, none more vital than the
trustee from each college
lobbied hard to leave the list
hiring
process.
that meets weekly during
as it was and were ultimately
the legislative session to help
successful. They argued that
engage all trustees in the
violating the priority order
system's legislative agenda.
would threaten much more
than the projects in question – it would threaten the
Over time, the coordinating structure designed by
entire cooperative basis the system has developed over
statute has been augmented by a sophisticated shared
the years.
decision-making relationship with WACTC and TACTC.
Thus, presidents, trustees and the State Board have
Adoption of the end-run policy signals increasing
myriad opportunities to shape and understand decisions
sophistication in the presidents’ collaborative efforts,
and move the system toward a shared goal.
moving beyond simple cooperation into the realm
of self government. Self-governing groups cannot
(3) Sustaining Collaborative Culture
function on good will and good intentions alone. For
State Board staff have institutionalized a variety of means
collaboration to be successful, parties must be willing
to sustain the collaborative culture, none more vital than
to engage in the decision-making processes and some
the hiring process. SBCTC capitalizes on the flexibility
sort of consequence must be imposed on those who
designed into human resource processes by being
do not collaborate. The end-run policy provides for this.
very purposeful in its hiring. Throughout the college
To our knowledge only one college has been penalized
system there is recognition that ideas from outside the
under the system. The mere threat of penalty seems
system and the state are valuable but that excessive
to be enough to reveal potential offenders and largely
recruitment from outside can destabilize the culture
maintain compliance.
that has proven so effective. Board staff positions in
academic and student affairs units are usually recruited
Washington's capital project list is perhaps the best,
from the colleges (where the culture is similar) while
but not the only, example of the willingness to work
staff for government relations and finance posts who can
together even when it may cost a particular campus.
represent SBCTC to lawmakers are sought from "the hill."
The presidents jointly develop allocation methods
Vacancy announcements include a standard statement
for the operating budget and, with a larger task force,
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 18
Organizational and Management Strategies
describing the nature of the SBCTC work environment,
stressing the collaborative culture. Board staff proactively
seek out applicants they know from across the system.
Applicants often self-select because the culture and
reputation of SBCTC are well known.
Strategic Use of Data
In this era of accountability, “data-driven decision making”
has become the mantra of organizations seeking to be
more accountable to the public and to improve their
own effectiveness. Yet it is far easier to talk the talk than
to walk the walk. For starters, public organizations often
New staff members are integrated into the collaborative
fear that data that expose performance shortfalls will
culture through extensive briefings and a staff
be used against them by
manual that contains a
lawmakers. Moreover, using
comprehensive review
data for internal improvement
In this era of accountability, “dataof the mission, function,
requires moving beyond
and expectations of staff
driven decision making” has become
a compliance mode of
members. Orienting new
the mantra of organizations seeking
reporting easily available
staff members is common
to be more accountable to the
data. Data that can help
across organizations. More
those inside the organization
public and to improve their own
unusual, but every bit as
understand strengths
effectiveness. Yet it is far easier to talk
valuable, is the SBCTC
and weaknesses must be
effort to orient new local
the talk than to walk the walk.
generated and examined
trustees, who, as governor
across the organization. Many
appointees, might expect to
organizations lack the data systems and the internal
act independently. Here again, the state board and its
capacity to use data in this manner.
staff have been proactive about "on-boarding." Through
new member training, trustees are instructed about the
The State Board is highly regarded for its extensive use of
way the system works, including the expectation that
data for both internal and external purposes and has been
trustees will “localize” the system message to their local
strategic in its use of data since before data-driven decision
policymakers rather than advocate on behalf of their
making became fashionable. We learned from previous
own colleges as self-interested actors. Similarly, new
SBCTC staffers that the data capacity was developed in the
presidents receive extensive training and are inculcated
1980s in order to better answer tough questions from the
into the collaborative culture of the Washington SBCTC.
legislature about the system's performance in relation to
state needs. By the late 1980s the system possessed a strong
Another means to maintain the culture is the regularly
research capacity which it has used not only to satisfy its
scheduled and well-run meetings that provide an
legislative overseers but also to communicate within the
opportunity for newer members to learn, and for more
system, building a common understanding of mission, needs,
seasoned individuals to demonstrate, the culture of
and priorities. SBCTC made an early decision to automate
collaboration. Not only new presidents, but all presidents
compliance reporting in order to devote less time to that
regularly attend briefings and legislative strategy
and more of its research capacity to long-term and strategic
sessions and are expected to be “on message” when
planning. Using this capacity, they have looked for systemic
called to testify to the state legislature. The cohesion of
weaknesses and advocated for policies and resources to
that message ultimately rests in the hands of the colleges
strengthen performance. In so doing they avoided the poor
because there is a college in every legislative district. If
publicity and criticism that can accompany poor performance
college presidents and trustees are expected to deliver
and instead gained support for their mission along with a
messages that benefit the entire group, the strong
reputation in the state policy community for transparency
collective culture must prevail.
and honesty with respect to data.
19 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Several interviewees trace the Board's sophistication in
the use of data to highly contested legislation in 1993
that redirected a portion of unemployment taxes paid by
businesses into a workforce training fund. When colleges
became eligible for funds, they retooled programs
to meet employer needs. The business community,
led by Boeing, initially opposed the redirection of the
unemployment funds. The community colleges eked
out the necessary support for new training money but
the upshot was pressure on SBCTC to demonstrate the
outcomes of their workforce training programs. This
spurred a sharpened focus on measuring and reporting
student outcomes to demonstrate that investment in its
college system was paying off.
The State Board's data capacity and its partnerships
with external researchers have been essential factors
in its policy development. The Board's collaboration
with researchers at the Community College Research
Center at Columbia University generated the "tipping
point" and "momentum points" findings that were
crucial in the development of I-BEST and the Student
Achievement Initiative. The Board's use of data from
the National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems (NCHEMS) on the extent of the under-educated
adult population was instrumental in cementing its
high priority on creating pathways to bring adults
from noncredit to credit educational pathways. Data
on geographic areas underserved by universities
influenced the choice of community colleges to offer
applied baccalaureates. The widespread reliance on data
to examine outcomes and set policy directions works
hand-in-hand with the SBCTC's collaborative approach to
policymaking. The use of data to drive decision making
can neutralize personal or political agendas that might
distract decision makers from the broader mission. In
Washington, colleges have come to understand and
respect the critical role the State Board staff play in
gathering and interpreting data, as no college would
have the capacity to do what the Board can do for them.
Because data are shared widely across the extensive
network of decision-making structures, data capacity is a
source of legitimacy for the State Board but not a source
of power that is abused.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 20
Coordination - The Ultimate Balancing Act
Coordinating a set of semiautonomous entities is a distinctly different task than managing or directing. A
coordinating role implies that each party has some independent standing that must be respected but that there
are benefits to working together. The balancing act that the State Board has performed includes determining when
and how to further statewide coordination and when to let local priorities and directions rule. A leader sitting at
the state level will rarely have complete information about the impacts of the decision at the local level. Similarly,
a college may need to be persuaded of the statewide benefits of an effort that carries a price. Finding the proper
balance between local and state decision making is ultimately the job of the State Board.
New Times, New Challenges
These Board and legislative actions signal a certain
impatience with business as usual. As lawmakers attempt
The equilibrium point between local and state
to balance shrinking state budgets among competing
decision making has varied over time in Washington.
state services, they are calling for greater efficiency
Astute observers note that a shift in the balance of
and accountability across state government. A handful
power has occurred in recent years. When longtime
of legislators are pushing for more and faster changes
executive director Earl Hale retired in 2006, the Board
from the college system. The
made it clear that it wanted
State Board itself is restless
a stronger role. Current (but
and striving to stay ahead of
soon to retire) executive
Presidents, especially those with
the legislature to stave off
director Charlie Earl, who
some tenure in the system, had
unwanted interference.
succeeded Hale, understood
become accustomed to setting the
this directive and has acted
The shift to more directives
policy agenda.
accordingly. The State Board
coming from the State
has also worked to give
Board has left some college
the trustees organization,
presidents feeling that they are no longer equal partners
TACTC, a bigger leadership role within the system.
in running the system. Some claim that presidents have
Additionally, the legislature has begun to engage
become just one of many stakeholders seeking the ear
more actively in setting the policy agenda for the
of State Board members and worry that the consultative
college system.
processes that have served the system well are eroding.
Others, while understandably nervous about the future
Presidents, especially those with some tenure in
of their institutions, note that it was probably time for
the system, had become accustomed to setting the
the colleges to be forced to take a hard look at current
policy agenda. Historically, policy innovations began
practices and to accelerate the pace of their decisions.
at the college level or at WACTC. But the State Board
They acknowledge that business as usual might not be
proposed, in fact mandated, the Student Achievement
sustainable in the current fiscal environment.
Initiative and the legislature mandated the efficiency
study. In both cases, the details of the policies and
A new equilibrium has yet to be achieved. This unsettled
their implementation were left to the familiar internal
balance will likely strain the collaborative culture, testing
collaborative processes. The State Board was also the
its mettle as nothing before has. If severe losses are
force behind the recent Mission Study, to identify more
to be distributed, will colleges be able to withstand
specifically the means to implement system priorities,
the pressure to preserve themselves at the expense
and the Technology Task Force, to develop a plan to
of others? The economic pressures from state budget
update the college system's approach to technology.
downturns are compounded as the public and the
21 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
federal government raise questions about college costs
and accountability. Will Washington’s colleges be able to
make changes quickly enough, with their consultation
processes, to satisfy pressure from the legislature? Will
they once again find frameworks that allow for extensive
self-governance, or will they work to advance formulas
that will benefit some at the expense of others, reflecting
comparative political power? Only time will tell.
Many of the most senior staff we interviewed at the
State Board and at colleges articulated a sophisticated
understanding of the way organizations work; they
understood the perspectives of other players even when
those perspectives differed from their own. Much of
this understanding seems to center in genuine clarity
about the various roles that must be played to keep the
system working – the State Board, the college trustees
and presidents, the legislature, and key constituencies
all have a role to play, as was described eloquently by
Earl Hale nearly 20 years ago.6 That understanding of
organizations, and a keen awareness of how the policy
process can be used to improve outcomes, should
continue to serve the system well. A system that could
easily fracture along any number of lines has remained
largely unified, continually producing innovative policies
to serve their students and the citizens of Washington.
6 Hale, E. (1994). Management perspectives at the state level. In A.M. Cohen & F.B. Brawer (Eds.), Managing community colleges: A handbook for
effective practice (pp. 141-165). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 22
Self Assessment
Increasing the Effectiveness of Postsecondary Coordination
A Companion to
“On Balance: Lessons in Effective Coordination from the
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges –
An Organizational Perspective”
A Framework for Understanding
Effectiveness
Public organizations charged with coordinating higher
education institutions face a complex set of tasks.
Whether coordinating institutions within one sector
or across sectors, such organizations play vital roles
in promoting a state’s capacity for policy leadership
to meet the growing need for an educated citizenry.
National experts have emphasized that effective
policy capacity requires coordinating entities that
can articulate mission and goals, devise strategies
for meeting them, and use resources, including
relationships with state leaders, to influence policy.
Our case study subject, the Washington State Board
for Community and Technical Colleges, was selected
because of its track record of focusing a diverse
constituency on a valuable public mission and using
its resources strategically to facilitate large-scale policy
changes aimed at making progress toward the mission.
Its effectiveness rests in large part on its continual
attention to relationships in order to mediate and
balance the needs of various state and local parties.
For states interested in improving existing coordinating
organizations or designing new ones, we suggest that
an assessment of the current context can illuminate
possibilities for improvement. Multiple factors interact to
create forward momentum and can be leveraged in myriad
ways. Thus, the self assessment questions are designed so
states can more clearly understand the factors at play in
their own situations and more strategically evaluate shortterm and long-term opportunities.
The most critical component in evaluation is honesty.
No coordination effort will work if the context is not
well understood. Accepting the existing starting point
will lead to much better outcomes than attempting to
coordinate within a “wished for” context. Over time, of
course, better options may become available, but for
today you must work with what you have.
Recognizing the different circumstances across states,
the self assessment questions do not presume a “right”
answer, although clearly there will be circumstances
where one condition would be preferable to another.
Nothing is beyond improvement; some states will just
have a considerably longer road to travel.
23 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
The self-assessment questions fall into three categories: the state political and economic context, the design of
the coordinating body itself, and the organization and leadership strategies used by the coordinating body. These
factors are generalized from the Washington experience. They do not reflect an exhaustive review of the research
or experiences of other states.
1. State political and economic context. The
political culture of a state shapes expectations about
the role of government, the degree of centralization
of power, the level of legislative oversight, the
function of interest groups – expectations that
affect how postsecondary education operates. These
cultural aspects of state contexts change slowly if at
all. Economic aspects of a state’s context may change
somewhat more readily as industries shrink and grow
and state fiscal circumstances improve or worsen.
Differing economic situations will place different
demands on higher education institutions. Those
seeking to improve postsecondary coordination
must understand the constraints and opportunities
presented by their own prevailing state contexts.
3. Organization and leadership strategies.
The leaders of coordinating entities must devise
strategies for success while understanding the
constraints imposed by the existing political and
economic culture and the institution’s design. The
best design can be wasted, or undermined, by poor
leadership and poor choice of strategies. Conversely,
gifted leadership can overcome serious deficits in
formal power. Unless the formal design is so flawed
that even gifted leaders can’t make it work, attending
to organizational leadership offers more and shorterterm opportunities to increase effectiveness of the
coordinating function.
2. Institutional design. Coordinating bodies have
specific formal governance structures and rules,
usually created by statute. These can be changed,
given sufficient time and political will, and many
states are making or considering such changes.
States should be aware of (a) how well institutional
design, and the formal powers it bestows, matches
public expectations about basic distributions of
powers and functions and (b) the implications of
institutional design for the kinds of funding, people
and relationships needed to make it work.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 24
Self Assessment
Increasing the Effectiveness of Postsecondary Coordination
The following questions are intended to help individuals
in other states, or those working with other states,
understand what opportunities may exist to improve
the coordination function. We organize the questions by
the three-part framework of state context, institutional
design, and organizational leadership to make it clear at
what level these potential change agents might need to
focus their attention.
How to Interpret the Self-assessment
Results
The instrument is not designed to produce a quantifiable
score but rather, to get users to think about the relative
strengths and weaknesses, or the assets and deficits,
that are facing a state with regard to postsecondary
coordination. It is akin to an environmental scan in
traditional strategic planning. Rather than identifying a
“wished for” context, one must begin with what exists.
It will be important for users of the self-assessment to
think in terms of assets and deficits both within and
across the three “buckets” of state context, institutional
design, and organizational leadership. Changes in
some areas may be more attainable than in others and
improvements in one area might be able to compensate
for deficits in others. The findings are highly state-specific
and there are no right answers. But it is important for
those invested in the coordination function for a specific
state to take a holistic view across the three categories.
For example, institutional design features that work well
in a state with a highly collaborative political culture, like
Washington, may not work well in states with hyperpartisan political cultures or with faculty unions that
are more active in state-level policy than is the case in
Washington.
Users of the self-assessment should look for
opportunities to address identified deficits. It may be
possible, for example, to influence state contextual
factors by mobilizing populations that have not been
sufficiently engaged, perhaps by demonstrating
links between postsecondary issues and other highpriority issues or by communicating problems in more
meaningful ways. Another possibility is to consider some
temporary, ad hoc structures to work around identified
deficits in the short term while longer-term solutions are
developed. Effective coordination is difficult – hence the
genesis of this case study subject. The self-assessment
is intended to illuminate possibilities for improvement –
even as it will likely point to some daunting challenges.
We caution users that the strategies that emerge
from this assessment may well require a long view of
the change process and associated patience. Those
working in government often experience that policy
change occurs at a snail’s pace. The same may be said
of organizational change. Legitimate, meaning widely
accepted, change takes a long time to take effect.
Keeping an eye on the long-term objectives will be
important, as the pace of change can be slow and
distractions numerous.
25 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Key Questions for a State’s Self-assessment
State Context
This set of questions begins by inquiring broadly about the economy of the state, the political culture, and the
degree of oversight that characterizes the power relationships between state government and postsecondary
institutions, including the coordinating entity. Much of this will be simply background information as these features
are not likely to change, but they are a critical part of the background understanding. Responses to these questions
should clarify the extent and level of state involvement in postsecondary education and whether authority is
concentrated with the governor, the legislature, or passed on to a coordinating entity (CE).
1. What are the basic drivers of the state’s economy?
Have those been relatively stable over time?
6. Is the postsecondary culture one of competition or
collaboration among institutions?
2.Generally speaking, are policy and fiscal matters
traditionally handled locally or at the state level;
i.e., is the accepted locus of decision making largely
centralized or decentralized?
7. To what extent do local colleges compete against
each other in the legislative arena, either via the
college representatives or via local legislators?
3. Are state laws generally adopted in a broad frame with
details left to the agency or local level to work out or
are they highly detailed and specific?
4. Is the political atmosphere highly polarized around
partisan lines? If so, has higher education become part
of the politically partisan debate?
5.Does the governor traditionally play a strong institutional
role in influencing the postsecondary system?
8. What level of oversight do lawmakers typically
provide to the existing CE?
9. To what extent is the CE expected to centralize
priorities, operating procedures, programs, and
policies across the constituent institutions? Are
expectations geared towards an articulated state
vision or local differentiation?
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 26
Self Assessment
Increasing the Effectiveness of Postsecondary Coordination
Institutional Design
Institutional design, or formal governance structure, likely reflects state culture to a great extent. Therefore, it
is important to consider answers to the previous section when assessing institutional design. For those states
that have an existing coordinating entity, reviewing the design elements will be helpful for understanding the
authority that the board has been granted. For others it may suggest alternatives for their state. Major topics for
consideration here include the statutory basis of governing bodies, the scope of authority over fiscal and policy
decisions, and relationships to other education entities. These questions should help clarify whether the CE has
sufficient authority to match its charge and the expectations for its performance. Different combinations of these
design components offer different opportunities for effective coordination but some options may be constrained
by state context.
10. What is the scope of the stated mission and purpose
of the CE? Is it comprehensive or more narrowly
prescribed? What does the scope of the mission
imply for relationships with other educational
institutions?
14. How much control does the CE have over the use of
system resources? Can it meaningfully influence the
use of institutional resources in pursuit of systemwide
priorities? To what extent is resource use predetermined by legislative or gubernatorial mandates?
11.Does the statutory basis of the governing board
facilitate implementation of a coherent statewide
agenda?
15. What is the mix of state and local revenues for the
system? How does this mix affect the ability of the CE
to build a cohesive agenda?
12. Is the CE role primarily designed as a regulator or a
facilitator of constituent institutions? Do the assigned
tasks reflect the role?
16. To what extent is the CE dependent on other
educational agencies to fully achieve its mission?
13. How is funding distributed from the state to
colleges? Does the CE have a meaningful role in
determining distributions or is it a pre-determined
formula approach?
17. How much control does the coordinating entity have
over hiring its own staff?
18. What is the role of local trustees? Are they elected?
Appointed?
27 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Organizational Leadership
Once the context and design elements are understood, a CE can begin to better understand the type of
coordination role it might most effectively play. For some states coordination is effectively achieved by helping
myriad local entities stay relatively united at the policy level while respecting the local differences. Other states may
find that extensive control is vested (historically and/or in statute) in the legislature and thus legislative relations
might take center stage in the management of relationships and setting of organizational strategies. The critical
component for this section is seeking alignment of the CE with the authority, expectations, and resources at its
disposal. For any state, the principal leadership challenge is to set the organization on a path to fulfill its mission.
Important elements in this section include mission clarity, cultivation of support from key constituencies, and
development of a staff with the requisite skills to meet the mission.
19. How actively does the CE seek to identify a mission of
value, focus on it, and communicate clearly about the
mission?
20.Does the CE board appropriately apportion its time
between strategy/policy oversight versus rulemaking
given its mission?
26.Do senior CE staff have appropriate professional
backgrounds to work effectively with colleges and
lawmakers, as appropriate to their assignments and
expectations of the CE?
a.Do governmental relations staff understand the
culture of the capital?
21.Does the CE staff appropriately apportion its time
between strategy/policy oversight versus rulemaking
given its mission?
b.Do budget staff understand the legislative
appropriations process and campus fiscal
management?
22.Does CE leadership exercise its leadership so as to
earn or keep the appropriate level of confidence from
lawmakers?
c.Do educational program and policy staff
understand the campus culture?
23. Are external constituencies identified? Are working
relationships cultivated?
27.Does the CE and do the colleges have a wellcoordinated approach to dealing with outside
constituencies, such as business and labor?
24. How well does the assignment of roles and
responsibilities to CE staff align with the expectations
of state lawmakers for the degree of centralization of
the system?
28.Does the director have the interpersonal skills to
understand and balance state and local perspectives,
including working effectively with internal and
external constituencies?
25. How well does the assignment of roles and
responsibilities to CE staff align with what college
leaders expect and will be comfortable with?
29. Is there good information flow within and across the
CE and the colleges?
30. Are local trustees utilized to help express system
priorities to the public and to lawmakers?
31.Does the CE have sufficient data capacity to
understand systemwide performance in relation to
state and local needs?
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 28
Self Assessment
Increasing the Effectiveness of Postsecondary Coordination
Putting the Pieces Together
Once you have considered the above questions you will begin assessing what the combination of factors means for
your state. As a starting point in putting the pieces together, we suggest considering these two questions:
1.Does the CE’s institutional design, (i.e., the formal
structure and powers) match the expectation by state
lawmakers for the mission and functioning of the CE?
2.Does the capacity of the CE organization, (i.e.,
leadership, staffing, relationships) allow the CE to
discharge its formal mission and duties?
The range of possible combinations of answers to these questions is boundless and there is no one best set of
answers. We believe that thoughtful consideration of these questions can help those engaged in working to improve
postsecondary coordination better understand the relevant context, the value of core design, and ways to align
organizational operations with expectations.
29 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Appendix A
SBCTC Notable Policy Innovations –
Descriptions and References
Running Start
Running Start is a program dating to the 1990s that
allows 11th and 12th grade students to enroll in courses
at any of Washington’s community and technical colleges,
giving them an early start on their postsecondary
educations. Students in Running Start receive both high
school and college credit for their courses.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Running Start Annual Progress Report.
Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Running Start Program. Retrieved from
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/s_runningstart.aspx.
Worker Retraining
In 1993, the Washington legislature enacted the
Workforce Employment and Training Act, a program that
serves dislocated and unemployed workers by offering
occupational training to prepare them for future careers.
Specifically, the funds from the Workforce Employment
and Training Act help workers pay for training programs
and assist community and technical colleges in improving
programs to update equipment and revise curriculum.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Worker Retraining. Retrieved from http://
www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/_e-wkforceworkerretraining.aspx.
Centers of Excellence
Centers of Excellence are statewide institutions that
provide leadership in a targeted industry. The Centers
serve as statewide liaisons to business, industry, labor
and Washington’s education systems, working to ensure
information and resources are shared among the
different stakeholders. Specific to education, the centers
look to coordinate programs and the training they
provide, to ensure programs are aligned with businesses’
needs, and to assist schools in offering relevant
training. Currently there are ten Centers of Excellence,
focusing on: Agriculture, Allied Health, Aerospace and
Advanced Materials Manufacturing, Clean Energy,
Construction, Education, Homeland Security, Information
and Computing Technology, International Trade,
Transportation, and Logistics, and Marine Manufacturing
and Technology.
Washington State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges (2012). Centers of Excellence.
Retrieved from http://www.sbctc.edu/college/_ewkforcecentersofexcellence.aspx.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2009, February 27). Retrieved from http://
www.sbctc.edu/college/workforce/revised_final_coe_
vision_mission_ends.pdf.
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training
(I-BEST)
I-BEST’s model integrates adult basic skills education
and postsecondary occupational training. Each class has
two teachers, a basic skills instructor and a college-level
career-technical faculty, who jointly design and teach
college-level occupational courses to students in need
of adult basic education. I-BEST programs are required to
include college-level occupational credits that are part of
a career pathway and must be in a field deemed highdemand locally.
Jenkins, D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. (2009).
Educational Outcomes of I-BEST Washington State
Community and Technical College System’s Integrated
Basic Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from
a Multivariate Analysis. New York: Community College
Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Prince, D. & Jenkins, D. (2005). Building Pathways to
Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for Community
College Policy and Practice from a Statewide Longitudinal
Tracking Study. New York: Community College Research
Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 30
Appendix A
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Integrated Basic Education and Skills
Training (I-BEST). Retrieved from http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/
college/e_integratedbasiceducationandskillstraining.aspx.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2008). Increasing Student Achievement for Basic
Skills Students. Olympia, WA: Author.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2005). I-BEST: A Program Integrating Adult Basic
Education and Workforce Training. Olympia, WA: Author.
Applied Baccalaureates
In 2005, the Legislature gave the SBCTC authority
to select community and technical colleges for pilot
programs offering an applied baccalaureate degree. In
2010, legislation gave the SBCTC the authority to remove
the pilot status from applied baccalaureate programs.
There are currently eight applied bachelor programs at
Washington’s community and technical colleges. Applied
baccalaureates are designed to fill specific skill gaps and
serve students seeking degrees in technical areas with
limited opportunities available at four-year colleges.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2011, July). Applied Baccalaureate Degree
Program Approval Process. Retrieved from http://www.
sbctc.ctc.edu/college/education/applied_baccalaureate_
degree_program_approval_process_july2011_000.pdf.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Applied Baccalaureate Degrees at
Community and Technical Colleges. Retrieved from http://
www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/e_appliedbaccalaureates.aspx.
Opportunity Grants
The SBCTC developed Opportunity Grants in 2006
through pilot programs run by ten community and
technical colleges. The Opportunity Grants help lowincome adult students train for careers designated as
high-wage, high-demand (starting at $13 per hour). Grants
cover multiple years of tuition and may include tutoring,
career advising, and childcare.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Opportunity Grants. Retrieved from
http://www.sbctc.edu/college/s_opportunitygrants.aspx.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2011). Opportunity Grant Program. Retrieved
from http://www.sbctc.edu/college/studentsvcs/2011_
opp_grant_report-final.pdf.
Student Achievement Initiative
The Student Achievement Initiative is a system of
performance funding for the community and technical
colleges. Formerly, funding came entirely based on
enrollment targets, but now outcomes are evaluated as a
basis for allocating a small portion of funding. There are
four categories of achievement measures:
1. Building towards college-level skills (basic skills gains,
passing pre-college writing or math)
2. First year retention (earning 15 and 30 college-level
credits)
3. Completing college-level math (passing math
courses required for either technical or academic
associate degrees)
4. Completions (degrees, certificates, apprenticeship
training)
Colleges do not compete against each other for
performance funding, but rather against their previous
scores on these measures.
Jenkins, D., Ellwein, T., & Boswell, K. (2009). Formative
Evaluation of the Student Achievement Initiative "Learning
Year". New York: Community College Research Conter,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Shulock, N. & Jenkins, D. (2011). Performance Incentives
to Improve Community College Completion: Learning
from Washington State’s Student Achievement Initiative.
Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy.
31 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges (2012). Student Achievement Initiative.
Retrieved from http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/e_
studentachievement.aspx.
Caswell, T. (2011, May 27). The Open Course Library of
the Washington State Colleges. Retrieved from https://
edutechdebate.org/digital-learning-resources/the-opencourse-library-of-the-washington-state-colleges/.
Open Course Library
Open Course Library. (n.d.). FAQ. Retrieved from https://sites.
google.com/a/sbctc.edu/opencourselibrary/home/faq.
The Open Course Library is a collection of free, digitized,
and shareable course materials published by the SBCTC
for use by instructors in designing common introductory
classes. The Library includes course materials like syllabi,
course activities, readings and assessments designed by
college faculty or experts. Course materials are intended
to be adoptable by and adaptable to faculty anywhere as a
starting point for designing a course.
Suehle, R. (2011, October 31). The Open Course Library
Launches Today with a Vision for Better Open Courseware.
Retrieved from http://opensource.com/education/11/10/
open-course-library-launches-today-vision-better-opencourseware.
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 32
Appendix B
Community College Size, Governance, and Funding in Ten States
State
State and System
Boards: Governing or
Coordinating1
California System-Level Coordinating
Legislature:
Full or Part
Time2
Is There a
Local Board
(appointed or
elected)
n
Funding Sources3
n
n
# of Colleges
Size of
# of Students
State
(2010
% public undergrad
4
population)
enrollment in
2-year sector
Full
Yes
(6-9 members,
elected)
• State and local
• 112 colleges
government 60.0%
• 2.9 million students
• Federal government
• 75%
11.3%
• Net student tuition 8.4%
• State and local grants and
contracts 10.5%
• Other 9.8%
37,253,956
Yes
(5-9 members,
appointed by
governor)
• State and local
• 28 colleges
government 44.4%
• 800,000 students
• Federal government
• 38%
16.8%
• Net student tuition 24.1%
• State and local grants and
contracts 6.8%
• Other 7.9%
25,145,561
No
• State and local
• 19 community colleges;
government 41.5%
6 technical colleges
• Federal government
• 93,000 students
23.1%
• 48%
• Net student tuition 16.6%
• State and local grants and
contracts 14.0%
• Other 4.8%
4,339,367
Board (17 members)
Florida
State-Level Coordinating
Board for Universities and
Community Colleges (7
members); State-Level
Governing Board for
Community Colleges
Full
Kentucky
Regulatory State-Level
Coordinating Board;
Governing Board for
Community and Technical
Colleges (14 members)
Hybrid
New York
State-Level Coordinating
Board and 2 SystemLevel Governing and
Coordinating Boards: State
University of New York
(SUNY, 18 members) with
64 campuses and City
University of New York
(CUNY, 19 members) with
19 campuses
Full
Yes
(5 members
appointed by
local legislative
body or board,
four appointed
by governor, one
student elected
by students)
• State and local
• 37 colleges;
government 43.4%
8 technical colleges
• Federal government
• 339,000 students
13.0%
(248,000 SUNY in 2011,
• Net student tuition 29.4%
91,000 CUNY in 2010)
• State and local grants and • 48%
contracts 9.0%
• Other 5.2%
19,378,102
North
Carolina
System-Level Governing
Board (21 members)
Hybrid
Yes
(13-14 members,
appointed by
multiple actors)
• State and local
• 58 colleges;
government 61.6%
• 810,000 students
• Federal government
• 56%
14.0%
• Net student tuition 12.3%
• State and local grants and
contracts 3.7%
• Other 8.5%
8,049,313
33 | institut E f or higher education lea der shi p & p olic y at cal if o rnia state universit y, sacr amento
State
Ohio
State and System
Boards: Governing or
Coordinating1
Advisory Coordinating
Board overseeing
Universities and
Community and
Technical Colleges (9
members)
Is There a
Legislature:
Local Board
Full or Part
(appointed or
Time2
elected)
n
Funding Sources3
n
n
# of Colleges
Size of
# of Students
State
(2010
% public undergrad
4
population)
enrollment in
2-year sector
Full
Yes
(9 members,
appointed by
governor)
• State and local government
38.2%
• Federal government 14.3%
• Net student tuition 31.6%
• State and local grants and
contracts 5.1%
• Other 10.7%
• 15 community colleges;
8 technical colleges
• 175,000 students
• 43%
11,353,140
Oregon
System-Level Regulatory
Coordinating Board for
all Community Colleges
(7 members)
Hybrid
Yes
(7 members,
elected)
• State and local government
46.9%
• Federal government 15.3%
• Net student tuition 20.5%
• State and local grants and
contracts 6.0%
• Other 11.4%
• 18 colleges
• 385,000 students
• 56%
3,421,399
Tennessee
Advisory Coordinating
Board for all Public Higher
Education (15 members);
Governing Board for
Community Colleges,
Technology Centers and
Single-Campus
Universities (19 members)
Hybrid
No
• State and local government
41.3%
• Federal government 17.6%
• Net student tuition 30.5%
• State and local grants and
contracts 6.6%
• Other 4.0%
• 13 community
colleges, 26
technology centers
• 245,000 students
• 42%
5,689,283
Texas
State-Level Coordinating
Board (18 members)
Hybrid
Yes
(7-9 members,
elected)
• State and local government
52.3%
• Federal government 16.8%
• Net student tuition 19.5%
• State and local grants and
contracts 3.1%
• Other 8.2%
• 50 community college
districts, many with
multiple campuses
• 569,000 students
• 57%
20,851,820
Hybrid
Yes
(5 members,
appointed by
governor)
• State and local government
41.4%
• Federal government 9.2%
• Net student tuition 20.0%
• State and local grants and
contracts 18.3%
• Other 11.2%
• 29 community
colleges; 5 technical
colleges
• 485,000 students
• 58%
5,894,121
Washington Coordinating Board for
Community & Technical
Colleges (9 members)
1 Coordination typically signifies an agency or body that is responsible for planning and efficient allocation of resources among multiple community
colleges. Governance typically signifies an agency or body that is responsible for policy making that guides the management and operation of one or
more community colleges. Information on makeup of state boards came in part from two reports by the Education Commission of the States: http://
mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=224 and http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=223
2 All cells from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx. The National Conference of State Legislatures
defines states that require legislators to work 80 percent or more of a full-time job as full-time. Hybrid legislatures require two-thirds of a full time job,
and part-time legislatures require only half.
3 Choitz, V. (2010). Getting What We Pay For: State Community College Funding Strategies that Benefit Low-Income, Lower-Skilled Students. Washington, DC:
Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success.
4 All cells from 2010 census: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
On B a l ance: Less ons in E ffective Coor dination fr o m the Washingto n State Board fo r Co mmunit y an d Technica l Co l l e ges | 34
institute for higher education
leadership & policy
The project is supported by a grant from
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy seeks to enhance leadership
and policy for higher education in California and the nation by producing research and
services for policymakers, practitioners, and educators.
Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy
6000 J Street, Tahoe Hall 3063 | Sacramento, CA 95819-6081
T (916) 278-3888 | F (916) 278-3907 | www.csus.edu/ihelp
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM
TAB 2
February 6, 2013
Discussion
Action
Topic
Legislative Update
Description
The 2013 legislative session began on January 24th and is scheduled to adjourn on April 28th.
With a projected operating budget deficit in the neighborhood of $2 billion, the budget will
dominate the session once again this year.
On the first day of session the new “Majority Coalition Caucus” (MCC) assumed leadership in
the Senate. Senator Rodney Tom (D) was chosen as the MCC Leader and Senator Tim
Sheldon (D) will serve as President Pro Tem. The remaining 23 members of the MCC are
Republicans. The MCC has a one vote (25-24) majority. The House Democrats maintained
their majority (55-43).
Both the House and Senate made changes to their committee structures and member
assignments, and several members have changed offices. Attached are new committee rosters
and contact information for members.
Beyond significant budget challenges, the Legislature will grapple with a variety of policy bills
with potential impact to the community and technical college system. Staff will update the board
on key pieces of policy legislation being considered.
Key Questions

How would the board like staff to respond to various policy bills discussed during this
agenda item?
Analysis
A number of bills of import to our system have been dropped already. Attached is the Watch
List of bills to which we are paying particular attention. Staff will update the board on these and
other bills dropped between now and the Board meeting.
Background Information
Attachment A: Rosters of Senate and House Membership
Attachment B: Bill Watch List
TAB 2, Page 2
Recommendation/Outcomes
The board will be briefed on significant policy legislation that affects the college system. Staff is
seeking board input on changes needed to policy legislation where the system could reasonably
exert influence and direction.
Prepared by: Deb Merle, 360-704-4348, dmerle@sbctc.edu
TAB 2 Attachment A Senate Roster of Members
Members of the 63rd Legislature 2013-2014
Member
Party District Room
Phone
Bailey, Barbara
R
10
INB 109B (360) 786-7618
Baumgartner, Michael
R
6
INB 201
(360) 786-7610
Becker, Randi
R
2
INB 110
(360) 786-7602
Benton, Don
R
17
LEG 409
(360) 786-7632
Billig, Andy
D
3
LEG 412
(360) 786-7604
Braun, John
R
20
INB 103
(360) 786-7638
Carrell, Mike
R
28
INB 102
(360) 786-7654
Chase, Maralyn
D
32
JAC 241
(360) 786-7662
Cleveland, Annette
D
49
JAC 230
(360) 786-7696
Conway, Steve
D
29
JAC 212
(360) 786-7656
Dammeier, Bruce
R
25
INB 205
(360) 786-7648
Darneille, Jeannie
D
27
JAC 226
(360) 786-7652
Delvin, Jerome
R
8
INB 202
(360) 786-7614
Eide, Tracey
D
30
JAC 235
(360) 786-7658
Ericksen, Doug
R
42
LEG 414
(360) 786-7682
Fain, Joe
R
47
LEG 404
(360) 786-7692
Fraser, Karen
D
22
LEG 314
(360) 786-7642
Frockt, David
D
46
LEG 402
(360) 786-7690
Hargrove, James
D
24
LEG 411
(360) 786-7646
Harper, Nick
D
38
JAC 227
(360) 786-7674
Hasegawa, Bob
D
11
JAC 220
(360) 786-7616
Hatfield, Brian
D
19
JAC 237
(360) 786-7636
Hewitt, Mike
R
16
INB 204
(360) 786-7630
Hill, Andy
R
45
JAC 303
(360) 786-7672
Hobbs, Steve
D
44
JAC 239
(360) 786-7686
Holmquist Newbry, Janéa
R
13
INB 106B (360) 786-7624
Honeyford, Jim
R
15
INB 107
Senate Members (360) 786-7684
TAB 2 Attachment A Member
Party District Room
Phone
Keiser, Karen
D
33
JAC 224
(360) 786-7664
King, Curtis
R
14
JAC 305
(360) 786-7626
Kline, Adam
D
37
JAC 223
(360) 786-7688
Kohl-Welles, Jeanne
D
36
JAC 219
(360) 786-7670
Litzow, Steve
R
41
LEG 416
(360) 786-7641
McAuliffe, Rosemary
D
1
LEG 403
(360) 786-7600
Mullet, Mark
D
5
LEG 415
(360) 786-7608
Murray, Ed
D
43
LEG 316
(360) 786-7628
Nelson, Sharon
D
34
JAC 218
(360) 786-7667
Padden, Mike
R
4
INB 105
(360) 786-7606
Parlette, Linda Evans
R
12
LEG 309
(360) 786-7622
Pearson, Kirk
R
39
INB 115D (360) 786-7676
Ranker, Kevin
D
40
JAC 215
(360) 786-7678
Rivers, Ann
R
18
LEG 405
(360) 786-7634
Roach, Pam
R
31
INB 112
(360) 786-7660
Rolfes, Christine
D
23
JAC 233
(360) 786-7644
Schlicher, Nathan
D
26
JAC 213
(360) 786-7650
Schoesler, Mark
R
9
LEG 305
(360) 786-7620
Sheldon, Tim
D
35
LEG 312
(360) 786-7668
Shin, Paull
D
21
LEG 407
(360) 786-7640
Smith, John
R
7
INB 115A (360) 786-7612
Tom, Rodney
D
48
LEG 307
Senate Members (360) 786-7694
TAB 2 Attachment A House of Representatives Roster of Members
Members of the 63rd Legislature 2013-2014
Member
Party District Position Room
Phone
Alexander, Gary
R
2
1
LEG 426B (360) 786-7824
Angel, Jan
R
26
1
JLOB 434 (360) 786-7964
Appleton, Sherry
D
23
1
LEG 132F (360) 786-7934
Bergquist, Steve
D
11
2
JLOB 322 (360) 786-7862
Blake, Brian
D
19
2
LEG 437A (360) 786-7870
Buys, Vincent
R
42
2
JLOB 465 (360) 786-7854
Carlyle, Reuven
D
36
1
JLOB 325 (360) 786-7814
Chandler, Bruce
R
15
1
LEG 427B (360) 786-7960
Chopp, Frank
D
43
2
LEG 339C (360) 786-7920
Clibborn, Judy
D
41
2
JLOB 415 (360) 786-7926
Cody, Eileen
D
34
1
JLOB 303 (360) 786-7978
Condotta, Cary
R
12
1
LEG 425B (360) 786-7954
Crouse, Larry
R
4
1
LEG 427A (360) 786-7820
Dahlquist, Cathy
R
31
1
JLOB 426 (360) 786-7846
DeBolt, Richard
R
20
1
LEG 335C (360) 786-7896
Dunshee, Hans
D
44
1
JLOB 314 (360) 786-7804
Fagan, Susan
R
9
1
JLOB 406 (360) 786-7942
Farrell, Jessyn
D
46
2
JLOB 370 (360) 786-7818
Fey, Jake
D
27
2
JLOB 330 (360) 786-7974
Fitzgibbon, Joe
D
34
2
JLOB 305 (360) 786-7952
Freeman, Roger
D
30
2
JLOB 331 (360) 786-7830
Goodman, Roger
D
45
1
JLOB 328 (360) 786-7878
Green, Tami
D
28
2
LEG 429A (360) 786-7958
Habib, Cyrus
D
48
2
LEG 132D (360) 786-7848
Haigh, Kathy
D
35
1
JLOB 320 (360) 786-7966
Haler, Larry
R
8
2
LEG 122D (360) 786-7986
Hansen, Drew
D
23
2
JLOB 369 (360) 786-7842
Hargrove, Mark
R
47
1
JLOB 409 (360) 786-7918
House Members TAB 2 Attachment A Member
Party District Position Room
Phone
Harris, Paul
R
17
2
JLOB 403 (360) 786-7976
Hawkins, Brad
R
12
2
LEG 122G (360) 786-7832
Hayes, Dave
R
10
2
JLOB 467 (360) 786-7914
Holy, Jeff
R
6
2
JLOB 405 (360) 786-7962
Hope, Mike
R
44
2
JLOB 466 (360) 786-7892
Hudgins, Zack
D
11
1
LEG 438A (360) 786-7956
Hunt, Sam
D
22
2
LEG 438B (360) 786-7992
Hunter, Ross
D
48
1
JLOB 315 (360) 786-7936
Hurst, Christopher
D
31
2
JLOB 335 (360) 786-7866
Jinkins, Laurie
D
27
1
JLOB 311 (360) 786-7930
Johnson, Norm
R
14
1
JLOB 425 (360) 786-7810
Kagi, Ruth
D
32
2
JLOB 308 (360) 786-7910
Kirby, Steve
D
29
2
LEG 437B (360) 786-7996
Klippert, Brad
R
8
1
JLOB 410 (360) 786-7882
Kochmar, Linda
R
30
1
LEG 122F (360) 786-7898
Kretz, Joel
R
7
2
LEG 335A (360) 786-7988
Kristiansen, Dan
R
39
1
LEG 425A (360) 786-7967
Liias, Marko
D
21
2
JLOB 414 (360) 786-7972
Lytton, Kristine
D
40
1
JLOB 310 (360) 786-7800
MacEwen, Drew
R
35
2
JLOB 431 (360) 786-7902
Magendanz, Chad
R
5
2
JLOB 427 (360) 786-7876
Manweller, Matt
R
13
2
JLOB 470 (360) 786-7808
Maxwell, Marcie
D
41
1
JLOB 327 (360) 786-7894
McCoy, John
D
38
1
LEG 132A (360) 786-7864
Moeller, Jim
D
49
2
LEG 430
Morrell, Dawn
D
25
1
JLOB 306 (360) 786-7948
Morris, Jeff
D
40
2
LEG 436A (360) 786-7970
Moscoso, Luis
D
1
2
JLOB 332 (360) 786-7900
Nealey, Terry
R
16
2
JLOB 404 (360) 786-7828
O'Ban, Steve
R
28
1
JLOB 424 (360) 786-7890
House Members (360) 786-7872
TAB 2 Attachment A Member
Party District Position Room
Phone
Orcutt, Ed
R
20
2
JLOB 408 (360) 786-7990
Ormsby, Timm
D
3
2
LEG 122H (360) 786-7946
Orwall, Tina
D
33
1
JLOB 326 (360) 786-7834
Overstreet, Jason
R
42
1
JLOB 422 (360) 786-7980
Parker, Kevin
R
6
1
JLOB 421 (360) 786-7922
Pedersen, Jamie
D
43
1
LEG 436B (360) 786-7826
Pettigrew, Eric
D
37
2
LEG 434B (360) 786-7838
Pike, Liz
R
18
2
LEG 122B (360) 786-7812
Pollet, Gerry
D
46
1
JLOB 317 (360) 786-7886
Reykdal, Chris
D
22
1
JLOB 319 (360) 786-7940
Riccelli, Marcus
D
3
1
JLOB 419 (360) 786-7888
Roberts, Mary Helen
D
21
1
JLOB 420 (360) 786-7950
Rodne, Jay
R
5
1
JLOB 430 (360) 786-7852
Ross, Charles
R
14
2
LEG 122A (360) 786-7856
Ryu, Cindy
D
32
1
JLOB 324 (360) 786-7880
Santos, Sharon Tomiko
D
37
1
JLOB 321 (360) 786-7944
Sawyer, David
D
29
1
JLOB 418 (360) 786-7906
Schmick, Joe
R
9
2
JLOB 432 (360) 786-7844
Scott, Elizabeth
R
39
2
LEG 122E (360) 786-7816
Seaquist, Larry
D
26
2
LEG 132C (360) 786-7802
Sells, Mike
D
38
2
LEG 132B (360) 786-7840
Shea, Matt
R
4
2
JLOB 437 (360) 786-7984
Short, Shelly
R
7
1
JLOB 436 (360) 786-7908
Smith, Norma
R
10
1
JLOB 435 (360) 786-7884
Springer, Larry
D
45
2
LEG 132E (360) 786-7822
Stanford, Derek
D
1
1
JLOB 318 (360) 786-7928
Stonier, Monica
D
17
1
JLOB 309 (360) 786-7994
Sullivan, Pat
D
47
2
LEG 339A (360) 786-7858
Takko, Dean
D
19
1
JLOB 336 (360) 786-7806
Tarleton, Gael
D
36
2
JLOB 334 (360) 786-7860
House Members TAB 2 Attachment A Member
Party District Position Room
Phone
Taylor, David
R
15
2
JLOB 428 (360) 786-7874
Tharinger, Steve
D
24
2
JLOB 368 (360) 786-7904
Upthegrove, Dave
D
33
2
JLOB 304 (360) 786-7868
Van De Wege, Kevin
D
24
1
LEG 434A (360) 786-7916
Vick, Brandon
R
18
1
JLOB 469 (360) 786-7850
Walsh, Maureen
R
16
1
JLOB 411 (360) 786-7836
Warnick, Judy
R
13
1
LEG 122C (360) 786-7932
Wilcox, J.T.
R
2
2
LEG 426A (360) 786-7912
Wylie, Sharon
D
49
1
JLOB 417 (360) 786-7924
Zeiger, Hans
R
25
2
JLOB 468 (360) 786-7968
House Members State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Watch List
As of January 28, 2013
TAB 2 Attachment B Bills in play
HB 1043 (Seaquist) Differential Tuition 1043:
House Higher Education –
Public Hearing 1/29 HB 1109 (Hanson) Early Registration for Veterans HB 1011/SB 5179 (Appleton/Shin) Military/Resident Tuition 1109:
1011:
5179: 1048:
House Higher Education ‐
Public Hearing 1/29 Executive Session 1/31 House Higher Education –
Executive Session 1/29 Senate Higher Education House Higher Education ‐
Executive Session 1/31 HB 1050 (Angel) Authorizing Government Agencies to Sell Naming Rights of Public Facilities 1050:
House Government Operations & Elections – Public Hearing 1/22 HB 1089/SB 5035 (Dunshee/Honeyford) 2013‐2015 Capital Budget 1089:
5035: 1208:
House Capital Budget –
Public Hearing 1/28 HB 1048 (Seaquist) Higher Education Governance HB 1208 (Reykdal) Digital College in the High School Pilot Project Senate Ways & Means House Education ‐
Public Hearing 1/29 Removes the authority for SBCTC to pilot or institute differential tuition (authority was initially provided during the 2011 session and was suspended for the 2011‐13 biennium during the 2012 session). Excludes resident undergraduate students from the four‐year schools’ authority to implement differential tuition models. Requires certain institutions of higher education to have a process in place, beginning in the 2013‐2014 academic year, to offer students who are eligible veterans or national guard members early course registration. Expands the definition of "resident student," for purposes of eligibility for resident tuition, by removing the one‐year waiting period for veterans and active members of the military. Amends RCWs to (1) Remove references to the Higher Education Coordinating Board; (2) Modify the composition of the Student Achievement Council to include representatives of workforce training and early learning; (3) Eliminate the Joint Higher Education Committee. Establishes the facilities naming act. Provides additional opportunities for individuals to purchase naming rights for facilities as a mechanism to alleviate the burden of ongoing cost escalation on taxpayers. Authorizes the office of the governor to create a single set of rules authorizing the sale of naming rights by all executive branch agencies. Funds all requested minor work, designs and seven, out of eight, major construction projects. The construction project budgets were reduced by eliminating about one‐
half of the contingency. Proposal would provide $322,827,000 in new appropriations and authorize alternatively financed projects as requested. Establishes the digital college in the high school as a pilot project to expand free access to online college courses for high school students. Requires OSPI and SBCTC to establish a single online portal for eligible high school students to apply and enroll in college courses offered by all 34 community and technical colleges through the Washington online system. Requires SBCTC and the colleges to establish a common admission standard for students enrolling in the digital college in the high school. Requires OSPI to: (1) Conduct a marketing and communications campaign to inform parents, students, and school districts about the digital college in the high school; and (2) In consultation with SBCTC, evaluate the digital college in the high school and submit a report to the education and higher education committees of the legislature. For additional details on hearings, bills, resolutions, or memorials go to: http://leg.wa.gov/legislature 1 HB 1247 (Hansen) Job Skills Program (JSP) 1247:
House Labor & Workforce Development ‐ Public Hearing 1/30 HB 1320 (Zeiger) Online Higher Education Transfer and Student Advising System HB 1322/SB 5195 (Seaquist/Rolfes) SNG ‐ WGU 1320:
House Higher Education
1322:
5195: 1342:
House Higher Education –
Public Hearing 1/30 Senate Higher Education House Early Learning & Human Services HB 1348 (Reykdal) Collective Bargaining 1348:
House Labor & Workforce Development HB 1429 (Seaquist) Inmate Postsecondary Education Degree Programs SB 5018 (Benton) Public Art Purchases SB 5180 (Shin) Improving Access to Higher Education for Students with Disabilities SB 5217 (Schoesler) Eliminating the Washington State Quality Award Program 1429:
HB 1342 (Walsh) WorkFirst “Work Activity” Modifies the Job Skills Program (JSP) by (1) Exempting small businesses from providing a dollar for dollar match for training; (2) Creating an appropriated and non‐
appropriated account for the JSP so funds can be carried over to the second year of the biennium and so that donations made be made to the JSP funds from the private sector; and (3) Changing priority criteria for awarding program funds. Requires the student achievement council to establish and maintain a statewide online transfer and student advising system that integrates information related to programs, advising, registration, admissions, and transfer. Allows nonprofit institutions recognized by the state to be eligible to participate in the state need grant program. Revises RCW 74.08A.250 that defines WorkFirst "work activities" that includes education and training activities provided by SBCTC WorkFirst providers. Extends maximum length of time for Vocational Education (VE) to 24 months from the current 12. Requires trustees to provide step increases or increments to full and part‐time faculty as they are negotiated in local agreements. Step increases awarded by a board may exceed compensation provided by the Legislature. "Step increases" and "turnover savings" are defined. Allows colleges to offer academic programs in prisons.
5018:
Senate Ways & Means
Repeals the requirement to purchase public art with appropriations made for construction of public buildings. 5180:
Senate Higher Education
Creates a large taskforce, staffed by the Student Achievement Council to work on Improving access and transition to higher education for students with disabilities. 5217:
Senate Governmental Operations Eliminates the Washington State Quality Award Program.
For additional details on hearings, bills, resolutions, or memorials go to: http://leg.wa.gov/legislature 2 STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM
TAB 3
February 6, 2013
Topic
Washington Aerospace & Advanced Materials Manufacturing Workforce Pipeline Advisory
Committee Report
Description
Washington aerospace industry faces a shortage of skilled workers due to increased orders,
pending retirements, and technological advancements that out distance workers’ skills.
Community and technical colleges have ramped up training to narrow the skills gap and move
well-trained workers into well-paying jobs.
In 2012, Second Substitute House Bill 2156 established the Washington Aerospace &
Advanced Materials Manufacturing Workforce Pipeline Advisory Committee (Aerospace Pipeline
Committee) to address the skills gap in the aerospace industry. SBCTC Washington given the
role to convene and staff the Committee. SBCTC also has reporting and recommendation
responsibilities connected to the work performed by the Committee.
Key Questions



What is the Aerospace skills gap?
What does the community and technical college system need to do to address/fill the skills
gap?
Where is reduced funding focused in order to maximize outcomes for students and
employers?
Analysis
The work of the Aerospace Pipeline Committee and the annual report/survey that it has been
tasked with directly tie to the Board’s System Direction goals around Economic Demand. The
Aerospace Pipeline Committee is an industry led Committee that is to coordinate and
disseminate industry advice from aerospace and advanced materials programs. All of the
Board’s goals under Economic Demand align with the Committee’s chartered responsibilities in
addressing needs for a skilled aerospace workforce.
Aerospace comprised more than one-third ($27 billion) of Washington $64.6 billion in total
international exports in 2011. In an effort to retain and support the industry, significant amounts
of state and federal funding has been invested in a variety of venues tied to training at the
community and technical colleges. The 2013-2015 budget proposed by Governor Gregoire
identified $26,295,000 for education-related aerospace activities in the state. Of those funds,
$10.2 million were identified for use by community and technical colleges.
Aerospace employers (large and small) throughout the supply chain, educators, labor
representatives, and students are among the groups affected by the need for skilled workers in
aerospace. The Committee members tasked with assisting the legislature and the CTC system
in addressing the training needs includes the following representatives:
Industry Representatives:
• Frank Nichols, CEO, Silicon Forest Electronics
• Eric Hahn, Vice President/Organization Development, General Plastics
• Michael Greenwood, Senior Manager, The Boeing Company
• Al Pennell, The Boeing Company
• Debbie Byrd, Human Resources Manager, GE Aviation Services LLC
• John Theisen, President and CEO, ORION
• Jackie Davis, Regional Sales Manager, AMI Metals, Inc.
• Bahman Hadi, Cascade Engineering Services
• Tom Doughty, VP Administration, Janicki Industries
• Ben Hempstead, Engineer-Mechanical Lead, Electroimpact
• Linda Lanham, Director, Aerospace Future Alliance
Education Representatives:
• David Beyer, President, Everett Community College
• Larry Cluphf, Director, Washington Aerospace Training & Research Center
• Steve Hanson, President, Renton Technical College
• Laura Hopkins, Executive Director, Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship Program
Labor Representatives:
• Ken Atkinson, Design Engineer, SPEEA, IFPTE Local 2001
• Ron Harrell, Staff Assistant, IAM and AW District Lodge 160
Ex-Officio Members:
• Alex Pietsch, Director, Governor's Office of Aerospace
• Mary Kaye Bredeson, Director, Center of Excellence for Aerospace & Advanced
Materials Manufacturing
• Betty Klattenhoff, Career and Technical Education Director, Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Marty Brown, Executive Director, Washington State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges
• Alexis Holzer, Assistant Director-Economic Development, Washington State
University
Committee Staff:
• Jim Crabbe, Director-Workforce Education, Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges
• Kendra Hodgson, Policy Associate, Washington State Board for Community
and Technical Colleges
• Bryan Wilson, Deputy Director, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board
• Tina Bloomer, Policy Research Associate, Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges
• Jon Agnone, Assistant Research Manager, Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board
Two significant accomplishments to date include an employer survey of skilled workforce needs
and a budget proposal to increase the numbers of skilled aerospace workers.
The Aerospace Pipeline Committee expects to establish improved communication and structure
for the Committee during 2013. It is planned that they will look at legislative needs in the
community and technical college system well in advance of the 2014 legislative session and
examine the results of the employer survey in order to make recommendations for addressing
industry needs.
Background Information
2012 Committee Chronology
March 29, 2012
• SSHB 2156 approved
July 19, 2012
• First Aerospace Pipeline Advisory Committee meeting convened
September 12, 2012
• Executive Order 12-05 enacted
September, 2012
• Interim Pipeline Committee Report Published
October 23, 2012
• Pipeline Committee meeting vote on Chair and Vice-Chair
• Creation of Data Sub-Committee and Legislation Sub-Committee
November 29, 2012
• Pipeline Committee meeting (legislative recommendations vetted)
December 2012
• First Annual Pipeline Committee report published
Aerospace Manufacturing Skills: Supply, Demand and Outcomes for Washington Aerospace
Training Programs report published December 2012
http://www.wtb.Washington.gov/Documents/Aerospacefinal2012report.pdf
Attachment A: February 6-7, 2013 SBCTC Aerospace Pipeline Committee PowerPoint
Presentation
Outcomes
Inform and update the Board on the activities and accomplishments to date of the Washington
Aerospace & Advanced Materials Manufacturing Workforce Pipeline Advisory Committee.
Prepared by: Kendra Hodgson, 360-704-4324, khodgson@sbctc.edu
TAB 4a
REGULAR MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD FOR
COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
MEETING MINUTES
December 6, 2012
State Board Members
Sharon Fairchild (Chair), Spokane
Beth Willis (Vice Chair), Lakewood
Jim Bricker, Coupeville
Erin Mundinger, Omak
Shaunta Hyde, Lake Forest Park
Elizabeth Chen, Federal Way
Anne Fennessy, Seattle
Wayne Martin, Richland
Larry Brown, Auburn
Statutory Authority: Laws of 1967, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington
State of Washington
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Olympia
ACTION INDEX
December 6, 2012
Resolution
Number
---12-12-48
12-12-49
12-12-50
12-12-51
Description
Adoption of Consent Agenda:
- Approval of State Board Regular Meeting Minutes
for October 24, 2012
- Walla Walla Local Expenditure Authority,
Expansion for Wind Energy Lab
- Clover Park Local Expenditure Authority, Parking
Lot
- Lake Washington Local Expenditure Authority,
Renovation of ASG Student Programs Center
- Edmonds Local Expenditure Authority (LEA),
Predesign of Science Engineering Technology
Building
Page in
Minutes
1
1
12-12-52
ctcLink Project Management and Quality Assurance
Services
2
12-12-53
Approval of funding sub-grantees for Integrated Digital
English Acceleration Gates Grant
2
12-12-54
Approval of Revisions to the Student Achievement
Initiative
4
12-12-55
Efficiency Study 2012 Report
3
12-12-56
State Board Retirement Plan Investment Policy Statement
4
12-12-57
Approval of South Seattle Bachelor of Applied Science
Degree in Professional Technical Teacher Education
5
12-12-58
Approval of Bellevue College’s Bachelor of Applied
Science Degree in Information Systems and Technology
5
12-12-59
Approval of Bellevue College’s Bachelor of Applied
Science in Nursing
6
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Olympia
Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2012
Pierce College Fort Steilacoom, Lakewood
The State Board held a study session on December 5, 2012, from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Board
received a presentation from host college President, Denise Yochum. They also heard presentations
on subjects including: Student Legislative Academy, State Need Grant Position Paper, Executive
Director’s Report, and a Legislative and Communications Update. They also heard the chairs report
which included reports from both the Trustees and Presidents group.
State Board Members Present: Sharon Fairchild, Beth Willis, Jim Bricker, Erin Mundinger, Elizabeth
Chen, Wayne Martin, Anne Fennessy, Larry Brown
State Board Members Absent: Shaunta Hyde
CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOME
Chair Sharon Fairchild called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed those present. She
asked for audience introductions.
ADOPTION OF REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Erin Mundinger that the State Board adopt
its December 6, 2012, regular meeting agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA (Resolutions 12-12-48 through 12-12-51)
MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Erin Mundinger that the State Board adopt
the consent agenda for its December 6, 2012, regular meeting as follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Approval of October 24, 2012, State Board regular meeting minutes
Resolution 12-12-48: Walla Walla LEA, Expansion for Wind Energy Lab
Resolution 12-12-49: Clover Park LEA, Parking Lot
Resolution 12-12-50: Lake Washington LEA, Renovation of ASG and Student Programs
Center
e) Resolution 12-12-51: Edmonds LEA, Predesign of Science Engineering Technology
Building
MOTION CARRIED.
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2012
Page 2
CTCLINK PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES (RESOLUTION 1212-52)
Mike Scroggins, of the State Board staff, presented that the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Project (ctcLink) will replace a wide variety of computer systems across 34 colleges and SBCTC.
Two major elements of a project of this size are the project management and independent quality
assurance.
The fundamental responsibility of the ctcLink project manager is to successfully implement the ctcLink
project on schedule, within budget, and according to requirements. The fundamental responsibility of
the external quality assurance practitioner is to ensure that the ctcLink project is conducted in a
disciplined, well-managed, and consistent manner that promotes the delivery of quality products
completed on time, within budget, and that supports the business requirements of the SBCTC and the
college system.
He noted that there could be a contract prior to the February Board meeting resulting in a special
meeting to approve a final contract.
MOTION: Moved by Wayne Martin and seconded by Jim Bricker that the State Board adopt
Resolution 12-12-52 delegating authority to the Executive Director to enter into contracts with
the apparent successful vendors.
MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF FUNDING SUB-GRANTEES FOR INTEGRATED DIGITAL ENGLISH
ACCELERATION (I-DEA) GATES GRANT (RESOLUTION 12-12-53)
Jon Kerr, Kathy Cooper and Connie Broughton of the State Board staff presented that SBCTC staff
joined with program leaders from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in an extended discussion
about ways to accelerate progression and transition for the lowest level English language learners.
The collective goal is to leverage college system instructional and eLearning innovations with multiyear funding from the Foundation to substantially increase the progress of English language learners.
These discussions resulted in a successful grant request for $3,525,394, which will be used over the
next three and one-half years to engage Washington’s community and technical colleges in creating
open eLearning resources and transforming English language instruction to accelerate progress for
low-level English language learners.
Over the course of this project, I-DEA will engage cohorts of 25 learners at all 34 community and
technical colleges, directly improving instruction for 1,600 ESL learners and providing them with an
accelerated On Ramp to I-BEST. The goal is for ten colleges to participate in the first year, ten more
in the second year, and the final 14 in year three. The first ten colleges were chosen based on
diversities that represented the college system.
MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Erin Mundinger that the State Board adopt
Resolution 12-12-53 approving the distribution of $1,362,820 in grant funds to the first cohort
and delegating authority to the Executive Director to make adjustments consistent with the
resolution as needed.
MOTION CARRIED.
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2012
Page 3
EFFICIENCY STUDY 2012 REPORT (RESOLUTION 12-12-55)
Jan Yoshiwara of the State Board staff presented that the Efficiency Study Steering Committee has
completed its recommendations for the Board’s consideration and approval. She thanked Board
member Erin Mundinger for her leadership of the task force.
At the October meeting, the Board was briefed on the Efficiency Study Steering Committee’s findings
and recommendations, and provided feedback on the proposed outline for the report. The following
recommendations were discussed with the Board, college presidents and vice presidents in
September, October and November, and are contained in the report.
 Governance changes and college district mergers are not recommended.
 The college system will continue implementing the changes in instruction, student services,
and business processes including information technology and human resources outlined in the
2011 Efficiency Study report.
 College retain local autonomy for client-facing functions and pursue shared services
approaches for common, non-client facing activities in accounts payable, payroll, purchasing,
admissions, enrollment, financial aid, employee benefits administration and information
technology management.
 Colleague groups for business officers, student services and instruction vice presidents,
human resources directors and information technology directors are asked to use the
efficiency study data to evaluate those functions for approaches to shared services.
 All business processes for the colleges are to be reexamined and redesigned due to ctcLink.
 Results of analysis on positive value drivers be used to reinvest any savings from efficiencies
to improve student outcomes.
MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Wayne Martin that the State Board adopt
Resolution 12-12-55 approving the 2012 Efficiency Study report.
MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT INITIATIVE (RESOLUTION 1212-54)
Jan Yoshiwara of the State Board staff presented that the Student Achievement Advisory Group has
completed its review of the Initiative and WACTC has approved their recommendations for changes to
the Student Achievement Initiative point metrics and award method.
In recommendation #1, no changes to the principles for measures are recommended. In keeping with
evaluation findings, these principles have helped establish metrics that include all missions and all
students. The same principles were deemed critical to any proposed changes. Changes to the
funding principles are recommended. The Board has reviewed these draft principles at prior
meetings. The final principles reflect this input.
In recommendation #2, the metrics framework is revised to better measure and account for student
progression, retention and completion. These changes are in keeping with the findings in the
CCRC/IHELP evaluation.
In recommendation #3, the award method is revised for a combined model that awards performance
for total student achievement points, points per student and completions. This combined model
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2012
Page 4
demonstrated the best opportunity for colleges’ awards to be based on performance, mitigating or
eliminating effects due to college or student characteristics. The combined methods are also
supported by the external evaluation.
Recommendation #3 also includes methods for assessing colleges for funds put into the pool. These
methods align the way funds are awarded with the ways colleges are assessed.
Finally recommendation #3 proposes a one-time assessment for the annual award allocations.
Recommendation #4 is an implementation plan that proposes October 2014 as the first year for
awards based on the revised metrics and award method.
A panel of members from the Student Achievement Advisory Group discussed WACTC’s
recommendations with the Board.
MOTION: Moved by Wayne Martin and seconded by Jim Bricker that the State Board adopt
Resolution 12-12-54 adopting the four recommendations revising and improving the Student
Achievement Initiative.
MOTION CARRIED.
STATE BOARD RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT (IPS) (RESOLUTION
12-12-56)
John Boesenberg of the State Board staff presented that investment options available to participants
of the State Board Retirement Plan are under review, with the intent of revising the list to offer best-in
class investing options. Adopting an IPS is the first step towards achieving the objectives of reviewing
and updating the investment menu. An IPS provides policy direction and procedural guidelines for the
selection and ongoing monitoring of investment options and is consistent with best practices for
retirement plan fiduciaries. It achieves these objectives through delineation of an overarching
investment philosophy, identification of specific and diversified investment classes offered in the Plan,
and outlining selection criteria. It also defines roles of the parties involved in the management of plan
assets and administration of the plan.
An IPS is a dynamic document. While changes may be infrequent, the document will be reviewed on
a regular basis to ensure that the language and goals are current and remain appropriate. This task
is assigned to the Investment Advisory Committee.
The State Board retains authority to approve the final fund selection. A draft menu of investment
options is scheduled to be shared with the State Board during the March 27, 2013 meeting and acted
upon during the May 9, 2013 meeting
MOTION: Moved by Larry Brown and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the State Board adopt
Resolution 12-12-56 approving the Investment Policy Statement, effective January 1, 2013.
MOTION CARRIED.
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2012
Page 5
APPROVAL OF SOUTH SEATTLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE’S BACHELOR OF APPLIED
SCIENCE IN PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL TEACHER EDUCATION (RESOLUTION 12-12-57)
Kathy Goebel of the State Board staff and a panel from South Seattle presented that the Professional
Technical Teacher Education baccalaureate degree program will provide an educational pathway for
adults seeking a career as Workforce Education faculty at community and technical colleges or in
industry as corporate trainers. Faculty qualifications for processional technical programs vary from
college to college. Most colleges look for candidates with a number of years of work experience in a
specific field leading to a journeyman designation in industries such as welding and construction.
Baccalaureate degree attainment, while a desirable qualification, is not typically required within many
occupations and trades. Most college instructors and industry trainers learn how to teach “on-thejob”. The proposed program offers the dual benefit of an educational pathway that leads to an applied
baccalaureate degree and teaching credential for students who complete the program, while
simultaneously improving the quality and effectiveness of Workforce Education across the state as
graduates become teachers and trainers.
MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the State Board
adopt Resolution 12-12-57 approving the recommendation of the Review Committee to
authorize South Seattle Community College to offer a Bachelor of Applied Science in
Professional Technical Teacher Preparation degree program.
MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF BELLEVUE COLLEGE’S BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE IN INFORMATION
SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY (RESOLUTION 12-12-58)
Kathy Goebel of the State Board staff and a panel from Bellevue College presented that Bellevue’s
baccalaureate degree in Information Systems and Technology will provide an educational pathway for
students seeking careers as computer systems and network administrators, computer system security
specialists, software and application developers, and business and data analysts. Bellevue College
began developing the bachelor of applied science degree in response to employer requests for a
bachelor’s degree program that would produce graduates for a variety of information technology jobs.
Bellevue College also hosts the Center of Excellence for Information and Computing Technology.
The degree will couple a broad base of theoretical and technical knowledge with in-depth knowledge
and skills in specific career concentrations – systems administration, security, application
development or business intelligence.
MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the State Board
adopt Resolution 12-12-58 approving the recommendations of the Review Committee to
authorize Bellevue College to offer a Bachelor of Applied Science in Information Systems and
Technology degree program.
MOTION CARRIED.
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2012
Page 6
APPROVAL OF BELLEVUE COLLEGE’S BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE IN NURSING
(RESOLUTION 12-12-59)
Kathy Goebel of the State Board staff and a panel from Bellevue College presented that Bellevue’s
baccalaureate degree in nursing will provide access to promotional opportunities for nursing
professionals holding an RN professional credential and an associate degree in nursing. As nursing,
like other healthcare professions, becomes more advanced and complex, many employers are
seeking nurses who have attained a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. Several local hospitals
asked Bellevue College to develop and offer an RN-Baccalaureate program due to their changing
workforce needs. A bachelor’s degree is increasingly required for staff nurses and has become
requisite for nurse manager roles. Bellevue’s current nursing program was established in 1967 and
has been in continuous operation and fully accredited ever since.
MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the State Board
adopt Resolution 12-12-59 approving the recommendation of the Review Committee to
authorize Bellevue College to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree program.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT/NEXT MEETING
There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its regular meeting of December 6, 2012,
at 11:40 a.m. The State Board will hold next meeting February 6-7, 2012, at the State Board Office in
Olympia.
______________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
Tab 4b
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD FOR
COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
MEETING MINUTES
January 18, 2013
State Board Members
Sharon Fairchild (Chair), Spokane
Beth Willis (Vice Chair), Lakewood
Jim Bricker, Coupeville
Erin Mundinger, Omak
Shaunta Hyde, Lake Forest Park
Elizabeth Chen, Federal Way
Anne Fennessy, Seattle
Wayne Martin, Richland
Larry Brown, Auburn
Statutory Authority: Laws of 1967, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington
State of Washington
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Olympia
ACTION INDEX
January 18, 2013
Resolution
Number
13-01-01
Description
Page in
Minutes
Adoption of Special Meeting Agenda
1
Approval of ctcLink Implementation Contract
1
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Olympia, Washington
Special Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2013
State Board Office - Olympia
State Board Members Present: Sharon Fairchild (Chair), Beth Willis (Vice Chair), Jim Bricker,
Shaunta Hyde, Elizabeth Chen, Anne Fennessy, Wayne Martin
State Board Members Absent: Larry Brown, Erin Mundinger
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sharon Fairchild called the State Board’s special business meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
and welcomed those present.
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MOTION: Moved by Beth Willis and seconded by Jim Bricker that the State Board adopt
its January 18, 2013 special meeting agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board convened in executive session at 8:35 a.m. to review negotiations of a publicly bid
contract. No action was taken by the Board during the executive session.
APPROVAL OF ctcLink IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT (Resolution 13-01-01)
Mike Scroggins, of the State Board staff, presented that ctcLink contract negotiations have been
active since October 1, 2012 with Oracle and Ciber. The primary student, finance, and human
resources software applications proposed by both vendors are Oracle’s PeopleSoft. The
implementation methodology proposed was significantly different with demonstrations from both
vendors evaluated by subject matter experts from the colleges. The result of the contract
negotiations has led to Ciber being the apparent successful vendor finalist.
The Board thanked Mike and his staff for their hard work to make this happen.
MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Wayne Martin that the State Board
adopt Resolution 13-01-01 delegating authority to the Executive Director to enter into
contract with the apparent successful vendor.
MOTION CARRIED.
SBCTC Special Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2013
Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its special meeting of January 18,
2013 at 9:22 a.m.
_____________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 4c
February 7, 2013
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 13-02-02)
Topic
Centralia College Property Acquisitions (808 and 814 Centralia College Boulevard)
Description
Centralia College is requesting authority to acquire .10 acres of property at 808 Centralia
College Boulevard and .15 acres of property at 814 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia,
Washington. These acquisitions are a part of the College’s master plan and were approved by
the College’s president.
Major Considerations


The proposed acquisitions are within the College’s master plan.
The College’s president has approved the property purchases.
Analysis
Centralia College has critical parking and circulation needs, as identified in their 2010 master
plan. They are requesting authority to acquire the .10 acres of property at 808 Centralia College
Boulevard and .15 acres of property at 814 Centralia College Boulevard at estimated total
principal costs of $90,000 and $49,000, respectively. The purchase of these properties will
enable the College to provide parking and to incorporate the sites into its overall master plan by
preparing for the next major building on the adjacent block.
Background Information
Attachment A: Centralia College Campus Acquisition Map
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 13-02-02, giving Centralia College authority to acquire
the properties located at 808 and 814 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 4c
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-02
A resolution relating to Centralia College’s authority to acquire the properties located at 808 and
814 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington.
WHEREAS, Centralia College is requesting authority to acquire .10 acres of property at
808 Centralia College Boulevard and .15 acres of property at 814 Centralia College Boulevard
in Centralia, Washington, at estimated total principal costs of $90,000 and $49,000,
respectively; and
WHEREAS, Centralia College has critical parking and circulation needs, as identified in
their 2010 master plan and the purchase of these properties will enable the College to provide
parking and to incorporate the sites into its overall master plan by preparing for the next major
building on the adjacent block;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges gives Centralia College $139,000 in local expenditure authority to purchase the
properties located at 808 and 814 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED February 7, 2013.
_______________________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
TAB 4c
Attachment A
B
A
Proposed Acquisitions:
A 808 Centralia College Blvd, Centralia
Parcel Number 000840000000
B 814 Centralia College Blvd, Centralia
Parcel Number 000843000000
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 4d
February 7, 2013
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 13-02-03)
Topic
Spokane Community College District – Local Expenditure Authority (ESPC Controls Project)
Description
Spokane Community College District is seeking approval to use $620,000 in local funds for a
Energy Saving Performance Contract (ESPC) to upgrade Controls. The District’s Board of
Trustees approved the project on December 18, 2012. Local expenditures for capital projects
require State Board authorization.
Major Considerations

Consistent with the State Board’s direction to use technology, collaboration, and innovation
to meet the demands of the economy and improve student success.
Analysis
The District’s current energy management control systems in a number of their Spokane and
Spokane Fall’s buildings are outdated and ineffective. The District is requesting authority to use
$620,000 in local funds to modify and enhance the existing systems. This will enable their
technicians to efficiently control the temperatures in the buildings and reduce energy costs by
being able to put the system into an unoccupied mode when not in use. The local funds include
a Department of Commerce grant of over $148,000, estimated rebates of over $48,000, and ongoing energy savings that will realize a 10 year payback.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 13-02-03, allowing the Spokane Community College
District local expenditure authority to use up to $620,000 for an ESPC Controls project.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 4d
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-03
A resolution relating to Spokane Community College District’s local expenditure authority for an
Energy Saving Performance Contract (ESPC) to upgrade Controls.
WHEREAS, the District’s current energy management control systems in a number of
their Spokane and Spokane Fall’s buildings are outdated and ineffective; and
WHEREAS, the District is requesting authority to use $620,000 in local funds to modify
and enhance the existing systems, which will enable their technicians to efficiently control the
temperatures in the buildings and reduce energy costs by being able to put the system into an
unoccupied mode when not in use;
WHEREAS, the local funds include a Department of Commerce grant of over $148,000,
estimated rebates of over $48,000, and on-going energy savings that will realize a 10 year
payback;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges grants Spokane Community College District local expenditure authority up to $620,000
for an ESPC Controls project.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on February 7, 2013.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 4e
February 7, 2013
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 13-02-04)
Topic
South Seattle Community College – Local Expenditure Authority (Wine Building Remodel)
Description
South Seattle Community College is seeking approval to use an additional $350,000 in local
funds for their Wine Building Remodel project. The project total is approximately $2,494,000.
The State Board previously approved the use of $650,000 in local funds for this project. The
College’s Board of Trustees approved the revised scope and budget for this project on January
10, 2013. Local expenditures for capital projects require State Board authorization.
Major Considerations


Consistent with the State Board’s direction to support strategic industries by appropriately
focusing program growth and development.
Consistent with the State Board’s direction to meet the unique needs of innovative,
entrepreneurial people who are operating small businesses, working as creative,
independent contractors in a knowledge-based society.
Analysis
South Seattle Community College is requesting to use an additional $350,000 in local funds to
supplement existing state and local funds to complete the renovation of their old machine shop
for the Northwest Wine Academy. The additional funds will allow for completion of the project
by making various improvements in order to reoccupy the space for instructional purposes. This
work will also free up other instructional and student support space on campus.
Background Information
Resolution 11-6-36 for 2011-13 Capital Budget Allocations – Minor Program Improvements [Tab
9 - http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/admin/June_2011_Resolutions.pdf]
Resolution 11-10-55 for South Seattle Community College – Local Expenditure Authority
(Instructional Wine Building Remodel) [Tab 5d http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/admin/Complete_Agenda_October_2011.pdf]
Resolution 12-06-16 for South Seattle Community College – Local Expenditure Authority
(Instructional Wine Building Remodel) [Tab 7c http://sbctc.edu/general/admin/June_2012_complete_agenda_packet.pdf]
TAB 4e, Page 2
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 13-02-04, allowing South Seattle Community College
local expenditure authority to use up to $1,000,000 for their Wine Building Remodel.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 4e
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-04
A resolution relating to South Seattle Community College’s local expenditure authority for their
Wine Building Remodel.
WHEREAS, South Seattle Community College is requesting use an additional $350,000
in local funds to supplement existing state and local funds to complete the renovation of their old
machine shop for the Northwest Wine Academy; and
WHEREAS, the additional funds will allow for completion of the project by making
various repairs in order to reoccupy the space for instructional purposes; and
WHEREAS, the College has sufficient local funds dedicated for this project and their
Board of Trustees approved this revision to the project;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges increases South Seattle Community College local expenditure authority up to
$1,000,000 for the Wine Building Remodel project.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on February 7, 2013.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 4f
February 7, 2013
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 13-02-05)
Topic
Seattle Central Community College – Local Expenditure Authority (Broadway Phase II
Renovation)
Description
Seattle Central Community College is seeking approval to use up to an additional $1,800,000 in
local funds for the Broadway Phase II Renovation, making the total project cost $3,000,000. On
June 21, 2012, the State Board approved the use of $1,200,000. Expenditure of local funds on
capital projects requires State Board authorization.
Major Considerations


Consistent with the State Board’s direction to support strategic industries by appropriately
focusing program growth and development.
Consistent with the State Board’s direction to be responsive to the changing needs of the
business community by offering high quality, relevant, flexible programs.
Analysis
Seattle Central Community College is seeking approval to use up to an additional $1,800,000 in
local funds to renovate space to house the International Education Programs. This area was
formerly used as a childcare classroom and kitchen. The renovation will serve the IEP’s
administration, faculty, finance, marketing, advisory, and admission functions and offices. The
College expanded the scope of the project to include the cost of relocating and renovating new
spaces for offices/programs affected by the IEP project, including Parent Education, American
Sign Language, and Custodial Services. In addition, the new total also includes cost for
upgrading the exterior hallways and entrances surrounding the IEP renovation space.
The total project is now estimated at $3,000,000. The funds will continue to come entirely from
the local International Education Program’s net revenue.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 13-02-05, allowing Seattle Central Community
College local expenditure authority to use up to an additional $1,800,000 for the Broadway
Phase II Renovation.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 4f
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-05
A resolution relating to Seattle Central Community College’s local expenditure authority for the
Broadway Phase II Renovation.
WHEREAS, Seattle Central Community College is requesting use of an additional
$1,800,000 in local for the Broadway Phase II Renovation, bringing the total cost up to
$3,000,000; and
WHEREAS, the project will renovate space to house the International Education
Programs, serving the IEP’s administration, faculty, finance, marketing, advisory, and admission
functions & offices; and
WHEREAS, the College expanded the scope of the project to include the cost of
relocating and renovating new spaces for offices/programs affected by the IEP project, including
Parent Education, American Sign Language, and Custodial Services, along with upgrading the
exterior hallways and entrances surrounding the IEP renovation space; and
WHEREAS, the funds will continue to come entirely from the local International
Education Program’s net revenue;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges authorizes Seattle Central Community College local expenditure authority, not to
exceed $3,000,000, for the Broadway Phase II Renovation.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on February 7, 2013.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 4g
February 7, 2013
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 13-02-06)
Topic
Bellevue College Local Expenditure Authority (Negotiated Price on Previously Approved
Acquisitions)
Description
Bellevue College is seeking approval to use an additional $265,000 in local funds for the second
of two prior approved acquisitions located at 2440 145th Street and 2626 145th Avenue SE in
Bellevue, Washington. The total project amount would be $1,200,000, which was approved by
the Bellevue College Board. Local expenditures for capital projects require State Board
authorization.
Major Considerations


The acquisitions were approved by the State Board on October 27, 2011 for $935,000.
The proposed acquisitions are within the College’s facility master plan.
Analysis
Bellevue College’s 2008 facility master plan (FMP) includes the College’s continued expansion
plan and long-term goal of acquiring properties adjacent to the college campus in an area called
Sunset Ranch, a residential development of 42 single family homes. The College will use the
houses for campus occupants and needs such as storage or interim offices. Eventually, along
with the adjacent property the college will begin to establish a base for dormitory or other
campus priorities. The College had already acquired 12 of these homes and the State Board
approved the purchase of two more on October 27, 2011, for $935,000. The College is now
requesting to use an additional $265,000 to cover the renegotiated cost of the second approved
property.
Background Information
Resolution 11-10-54, Bellevue College Property Acquisitions [Tab 5c http://sbctc.edu/general/admin/Complete_Agenda_October_2011.pdf]
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 13-02-06, allowing Bellevue College to use up to
$265,000 in additional local funds to complete the purchase of two properties located at 2440
145th Street and 2626 145th Avenue SE in Bellevue, Washington.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 4g
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-06
WHEREAS on October 27, 2011 the State Board approved the use of $935,000 to
acquire the two properties located at 2440 145th Street and 2626 145th Avenue SE in Bellevue,
Washington; and
WHEREAS the College is now requesting to use an additional $265,000 to cover the
renegotiated cost of the second approved property; and
WHEREAS the Bellevue College Board approved the total project amount of $1,200,000
and the College has local funds available to cover the amount;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges authorizes Bellevue College to use local funds, up to $1,200,000 to acquire the second
of two prior approved acquisitions located at 2440 145th Street and 2626 145th Avenue SE in
Bellevue, Washington.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED February 7, 2013.
_______________________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 5
February 6, 2013
Discussion
Action (Resolution 13-02-07)
Topic
Approval of Major Capital Selection Criteria
Description
The Board adopts policies to guide the development of college budget requests and the
allocation of resources. Projects that cost $5 million or more compete against each other to
receive limited state resources. Over the years the selection and ranking process has been
refined to remain relevant to the system’s needs and the legislative, administrative, and market
environments. The Board adopts budget requests on behalf of the colleges seeking State
capital appropriations.
Board staff and system stakeholders have developed a set of Project Development Guidelines
for 2015-17 (See Attachment A – 2015-17 Project Selection Criteria) and updated Capital
Asset Model parameters (See Attachment B – Proposed Capital Asset Model) for the
Board’s consideration.
The recommendation includes a preference for taking care of the existing buildings and
capacities over adding new square footage to a campus.
Key Question



Will the proposed criteria support student success?
Will the proposed criteria lead to the fair and wise distribution of resources?
Will the proposed criteria effectively communicate our system needs to the Legislature?
Analysis
Almost three years ago, the State’s revenue projections and subsequent capacity for new bonds
were dropping very fast. Our pipeline of projects was prioritized, but really only worked if it was
funded near the anticipated level of $500 million.
With uncertain economic and legislative environments, there is no way to know what level of
funding the community and technical colleges may receive in any given budget. System
stakeholders concluded that we needed a prioritized list that would work at any funding level.
In March 2010, the Washington Association of Community and Technical Colleges (WACTC)
had an academy to discuss how our pipeline could be revised to reflect this new environment.
Five principles were adopted to guide future work. The first four principles addressed how to
deal with the projects that were already in the pipeline.
TAB 5, Page 2
The fifth principle conveyed the desire to create capacity for new projects to be added to the
pipeline. This principle led to colleges voluntarily postponing designs if they had more than one
already in the pipeline. These projects became known as the “2nd Designs.”
Building on the principles from March 2010, a task force was created with broad system
representation. Members of the task force came from the Trustees Association of Community
and Technical Colleges (TACTC), Washington Association of Community and Technical
Colleges (WACTC), Business Affairs Commission (BAC), Instruction Commission (IC), Student
Services Commission (WSSSC), Library Media Directors Council (LMDC), and the Operations
and Facilities Council (OFC). The task force also consulted with an architect who had worked on
several college projects.
The task force met several times and learned how online learning was impacting our system’s
facility needs, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, what the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation wanted, and how our cost estimates had gotten out of
sync with recent bid results.
Over the last two years the WACTC and BAC, with help from IC and OFC, worked out all of the
details necessary to implement the task force recommendations and develop system-wide
acceptance of the proposed scoring criteria.
The proposed scoring criteria are objective, transparent, and can differentiate proposed projects
so that a single scalable prioritized list can be created for the 2015-17 Capital Budget Request.
Background Information
Attachment A: 2015-17 Project Selection Criteria dated December 11, 2012
Attachment B: Proposed Capital Asset Model (CAM) dated December 11, 2012
February 6, 2013 - Updating the criteria for the selection of new major projects for design in
2015-17 [Tab 5] http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/_a-agenda.aspx
June 20, 2012 – 2013-15 Capital Budget Request [Tab 8]
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/admin/June_2012_complete_agenda_packet.pdf
May 9, 2012 - Mission Study Recommendation: Build a 21st Century Learning Infrastructure
[Tab 3] http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/documents/May_2012_Complete_SB_Agenda.pdf
May 11, 2011 – Status Report/Panel Discussion: Mission Study Recommendation #8 – Build
21st Century Learning Infrastructure [Tab 1]
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/admin/2011_Complete_May_Agenda_Packet_000.pdf
Existing Capital Asset Model in Section 6 Appendix H of the State Board Policy Manual http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/general/policymanual/_a-policymanual-ch6Append.aspx#appendh
Recommendation/Outcomes
State Board staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution 13-02-07 to update the selection
criteria for the addition of new major projects to the pipeline for design in 2015-17 and update
the CAM in the Policy Manual.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 5
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-07
A resolution relating to the development of the 2015-17 capital budget project selection criteria.
WHEREAS, the Board adopts policies to guide the development of college budget
requests and the allocation of resources; and
WHEREAS, projects that cost $5 million or more compete against each other to receive
limited state resources; and
WHEREAS, State Board staff have worked with the system’s stakeholders over the last
three years to update the scoring criteria in response to new learning environments,
sustainability goals, market conditions, and other administrative and legislative requirements.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges adopt the Project Development Guidelines for 2015-17 (Attachment A) with a
preference for taking care of existing buildings and capacities over adding new square footage;
and
BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges adopts
the Capital Asset Model (Attachment B) parameters and directs staff to update Appendix H of
the Policy Manual as appropriate; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is authorized to make adjustments as
may be necessary in response to actions taken by the Governor, by the Legislature, and
externally-imposed restrictions or guidelines.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on February 7, 2013.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary
TAB 5
Attachment A
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
2015-17 Project Development Guidelines
Project Request Report
When developing the Project Request Report (PRR), the following items should be addressed:
1. Executive Summary
 Problem statement/type of project request
 Proposed solution
 Programs addressed by project
 Probable cost summary and comparison to benchmark (reasonableness of cost)
 Project schedule
 Funding (state funds, local funds, COPs)
2. Scope and Project Description
 Short description of the project and its benefits
 Table showing a summary of program and related space
 Increased FTES accommodated by this project
 Table of affected existing buildings with their Unique Facility Identifiers, dates built and
square footages.
3. Prior Planning
 History of building and original funding source, if applicable
 How this project relates to:
o Facilities master plan
o Strategic plan
o Institutional goals
 How this project relates to the SBCTC System Direction goals for Economic Demand,
Student Success, and Innovation
4. Needs Analysis
 Define the capital problem in terms of building age, condition, functionality, health,
safety, code issues, etc.
 Describe the obvious and critical needs that are driving the project. For example:
o New space for enrollment demand
o Renovation/replacement
 Program mix changes
 Simplifying space relationships
o Accreditation needs
 Alternatives considered
o Programmatic and facility related
o Consequences of doing nothing
5. Issues Analysis
 Useful life of proposed facility
 Discussion of sustainability – LEED Silver Standard required
 How this project will impact deferred maintenance and repair backlog
1
TAB 5
Attachment A
6. Site Feasibility (Identify special issues related to the project where a new site is being
selected)
 Acquisition needs
 Mitigation and neighborhood related issues
 Parking expansion directly related to the project
 Permit issues, variances required
 Utility and other infrastructure needs
 Storm water and other environmental issues
 Roads and traffic signals
NEW
 Department of Historic and Architectural Preservation and tribal reviews
7. Space Utilization
 Capacity and utilization analysis: current capacity, density, classroom usage, efficiency
of use
 New programs, changing mix of programs
 New space and what happens to vacated space – is it renovated or demolished?
 Need and availability of surge space
NEW
 Flexibility and adaptability of proposed space
8. Capital Cost Development
 Prediction of overall project cost
 Comparisons of $/FTE to similar Washington community and technical college projects
 Anticipated funding sources
9. Operating Budget Impacts
 Anticipated annual impact on the college’s operating and maintenance budget in both
Program 090 FTES and M&O cost, including but not limited to:
o Janitorial costs
o Utility costs
o Technology – infrastructure and technician support; voice, data and video
communication
o Capital maintenance, general repair, and furniture/equipment replacement
o Roads, walks, landscaping and grounds maintenance
o Security
o Administration
10. Schedule
 Listing of major project milestones and approximation of dates: predesign, design, bid,
notice to proceed, substantial completion, and final contract close-out
11. Implementation
 Timing of the budget request and college priority
 Justification for desired method of construction – Design-Bid-Build, GC/CM, or Design Build
2
TAB 5
Attachment A
Attachments
 Cost Estimate
 Completed Project Parameters form
 Minimum and Overarching Criteria form with college responses.
 Estimating documents supporting special needs, mitigation or extenuating circumstances
associated with the project
Diagrams and Sketches
 Site map showing project location
 Preliminary drawings and sketches
Appendices (required where cited in proposal)
 Any site-specific materials important to the project – structural engineering report,
geotechnical report, traffic studies, etc.
 Selected material from Facility Condition Survey
 Selected material from the master plan and strategic plan that ties directly to the scoring
criteria
 Completed LEED checklist
 Other relevant material where referenced in proposal may be included as appendices
Format Expectations
 Narrative should follow headings from this set of guidelines.
 Length should not exceed 20 pages, single-spaced (excluding project cost, diagrams and
sketches, and appendices, cover sheet, title page, and table of contents); type font should
be Times New Roman 12 point and margins should be one inch.
 College should submit in native formats (Excel, Word, etc.) via e-mail to SBCTC Capital
Budget Director for distribution to the evaluation team.
 SBCTC will forward copies of the Project Request Reports to OFM, SAC, and legislative
staff upon completion of the selection process.
3
TAB 5
Attachment A
Project Parameters
Type of Space
Renovation of Existing
Square Footage
(S1)
Percent
New Space
(S2)
Demolished Area
(S3)
Total Affected Area
(S4)
Net Area Change = New - Demo
S5 = (S2 – S3)
Costs
Dollars
Percent
Dollars
Percent
Acquisition
Consultant Services
Construction Contracts
Equipment
Artwork
Other Costs
Project Management
Total Project Cost (C1)
Funding
State Appropriation
Financed – backed by State Appropriation
Local Funds – Cash (see list of qualifying funds)
Ma
Financed – backed by Local Funds
Mb
Total Project Funding
(F1)
Matching
(Ma+Mb)
Variance = Cost - Funding
(C1 – F1)
Project Weighting
Equivalent Area
Percent
Matching
(M4 * S4)
M4 = 2 * (Ma+Mb)/F1
Renovation
(R4 * S4)
Replacement
(P4 * S4)
New
(N4 * S4)
Total
S4
R4 = (S1 * (1-M4))/
(S1+S5+min(S2,S3))
P4 = (min(S2,S2) * (1M4))/(S1+S4+min(S2,S3))
N4 = ((S2-S3)*(1-M4))/
(S1+S5+min(S2,S3))
M4+R4+P4+N4
4
(Ma+Mb) / F1
TAB 5
Attachment A
2015-17 Category Weighting
The following values reduce the preference for new area by 5%.
Overarching Weighting (O2)
Matching Fund Weighting (M2)
Renovation Weighting (R2)
Replacement Weighting (P2)
New Area Weighting (N2)
1.92
3.35
2.26
2.03
2.29
The following is provided for reference only, these values represent a system without any
differential category weighting.
Overarching Weighting (O2)
Matching Fund Weighting (M2)
Renovation Weighting (R2)
Replacement Weighting (P2)
New Area Weighting (N2)
5
1.92
3.35
2.26
2.03
2.41
TAB 5
Attachment A
2015-17 Minimum and Overarching Criteria Points
Evaluation Criteria
College Response
Scoring Standard
Affected buildings are at a single site.
College Response
Project does not include improvements to
temporary or portable facilities..
Project is not a gymnasium or recreational
facility.
Project is not an exclusive enterprise function
such as a bookstore, dormitory or contract
food service.
Project is not dependent on another project in
the current request.
Project meets LEED Silver Standard
requirements.
College has a Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction plan.
The facility is state owned or a condominium
interest is held (state capital funds cannot be
spent on leased space).
Project is not less than 25,000 gsf or does not
exceed 70,000 gsf without WACTC Capital
Budget Committee approval.
If project includes renovation or replacement,
then affected buildings have been owned by
the college for 20 years at the time of the
request.
If project includes renovation, then the project
extends the useful life of the affected building
at least 20 years.
If project includes renovation, then the cost
does not exceed 80% of the current
replacement cost.
Select one
1st priority
2nd priority
3rd priority
Add up points from each category: (Max 6)
Directly tied to facilities master plan
Directly tied to strategic plan
Directly tied to institutional goals
College Response
College Response
College Response
College Response
College Response
NEW
College Response
College Response
College Response
College Response
College Response
College Response
Ability to enhance state and
institution’s achievement of goals
Includes partnerships with K-12, 4 yrs, business, etc.
NEW
Project includes at least seven of the best
practices identified in Appendix A to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Overarching Subtotal (O1)
Overarching Weighting (O2)
Overarching Weighted Subtotal (O3 = O1 x O2)
Overarching Portion of Project (O4)
Overarching Points (O5 = O3 x O4)
6
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
5
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
TAB 5
Attachment A
2015-17 Matching Fund Points
(used when project includes non-state resources)
Evaluation Criteria
Project clearly benefits students
Scoring Standard
Add up points from each category: (Max 4)
Increases program access
Increases efficiency
Improves service to students
Simplifies space relationships
Demonstrated need
Serves a critical need
Enhances program delivery
Improves space
Not addressed
Reasonableness of cost
Total project cost is less than or equal to the
expected cost per square foot for the facility
NEW
type, escalated to the construction mid-point.
See Appendix B.
Project cost is between 100% and 137% of
expected cost.
Project cost is more than 137% of expected
cost.
Project completion timeline
Completion within 2 years
Completion within 3 years
Completion within 4 years
Project schedule
Project and funding milestones are clearly
identified.
Project schedule w/o a funding schedule
Schedule is uncertain or not evident.
Project feasibility
Assessment of the likelihood of success and
good local participation
Matching Fund Subtotal (M1)
Matching Fund Weighting (M2)
Matching Fund Weighted Subtotal (M3 = M1 x M2)
Matching Fund Portion of Project (M4)
Matching Fund Points (M5 = M3 x M4)
Qualifying Non-State Resources
Foundation Resources
Cash Donations
Private Grants
Federal Funds awarded for
Capital Construction
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
0
2
1
0
3
1
0
3
1
0
Up to 5 points
Non-Qualifying Resources
S & A Balances or Fees
Enterprise Funds
Parking Fees
COP Funds
7
TAB 5
Attachment A
2015-17 Renovation Points
(used when project includes renovated space)
Evaluation Criteria
Age of the building or portion
of building being renovated
Scoring Standards
Over 50
41 – 50
36 – 40
31 – 35
26 – 30
20 – 25
< Less than 20 years
Condition of the building or
Greater than 600
portion of building being
526 - 600
renovated
476 - 525
451 - 475
351 - 450
276 - 350
0 - 275
Reasonableness of cost of the
Total project cost is less than or equal to the
renovated portion of the
expected cost per square foot for the facility type,
building
escalated to the construction mid-point. See
Appendix B.
NEW
Project cost is between 100% and 111% of
expected cost.
Project cost is between 111% and 137% of
expected cost.
Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost.
Program related
(Assignable Square Feet)
Percentage of
improvements in the
total
renovated portion of Classroom, labs
the project
Student Services
Library
Childcare
Faculty offices
Administrative
Maintenance/Central Stores/Student Center
Significant health, safety, and
Add up points from each category (Max 4)
code issues addressed in the
Seismic issues (documentation required)
renovation
Life safety
ADA access
Energy code issues
Extension to renovated portion
31 + years
of building’s life
26 – 30 years
20-25 years
Fitness for Use of the renovated Adequacy for use
portion of the project
Renovation Subtotal (R1)
Renovation Weighting (R2)
Renovation Weighted Subtotal (R3 = R1 x R2)
Renovation Portion of Project (R4)
Renovation Points (R5 = R3 x R4)
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
4
6
4
1
0
-2
4
3
1
0
x score
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
Up to 3 points
Total
TAB 5
Attachment A
2015-17 Replacement Points
(used when project includes demolition)
Evaluation Criteria
Age of the building or portion
of building being replaced
Scoring Standard
Over 50
41 – 50
36 – 40
31 – 35
26 – 30
20 – 25
< Less than 20 years
Condition of building or
681 - 730
portion of building being
601 - 680
replaced
526 - 600
476 - 525
451 - 475
351 - 450
276 - 350
0 - 275
Reasonableness of cost of the
Total project cost is less than or equal to the expected
replacement portion of the
cost per square foot for the facility type, escalated to
project
the construction mid-point. See Appendix B.
Project cost is between 100% and 111% of expected
NEW
cost.
Project cost is between 111% and 137% of expected
cost.
Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost.
Program related
(Assignable Square Feet)
Percentage of
improvements in the
total
replacement portion
Classroom, labs
of the project
Student Services
Library
Childcare
Faculty offices
Administrative
Maintenance/Central Stores/Student Center
Significant health, safety, and
Add up points from each category (Max 6)
code issues addressed by the
Seismic issues (documentation required)
replacement portion of the
Life safety
project
ADA access
Energy code issues
Fitness for Use of the
Adequacy for use
replacement portion of the
project
Replacement Subtotal (P1)
Replacement Weighting (P2)
Replacement Weighted Subtotal (P3 = P1 x P2)
Replacement Portion of Project (P4)
Replacement Points (P5 = P3 x P4)
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-2
7
5
2
0
x score
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
Up to 3 points
Total
TAB 5
Attachment A
2015-17 New Area Points
(used when project has a net increase in area)
Evaluation Criteria
Enrollment trends
Efficiency – use of new area
Scoring Standard
Over 100 FTE/year
76 - 99 FTE/year
50 - 75 FTE/year
36 - 49 FTE/year
26 – 35 FTE/year
0 – 25 FTE/year
SF / FTE - Community Colleges
- Technical Colleges
Comprehensive project
planning for new area
Reasonableness of cost of the
new area – efficient utilization
of funds
(Building being proposed)
NEW
Add up points from each category:(Max 10)
Space improves program delivery and student support
Programs and student support space are identified by
usage and square footage
Location of project is identified by site
Special initiatives beyond participation rates
Reasonable cost estimate and building efficiency
Expected building life – 50 years or greater
Add up points from each category: (Max 10)
$/Net new FTE
Building efficiency (ASF/GSF)
Total project cost is less than or equal to the expected
cost per square foot for the facility type, escalated to
the construction mid-point. See Appendix B.
Project cost is between 100% and 111% of expected
cost.
Project cost is between 111% and 137% of expected
cost.
Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost.
New Area Subtotal (N1)
New Area Weighting (N2)
New Area Weighted Subtotal (N3 = N1 x N2)
New Area Portion of Project (N4)
New Area Points (N5 = N3 x N4)
10
9
8
7
5
3
1
< 90 = 3, < 110 = 2, > 110
= 1, > 150 = 0
< 125 = 3, < 140 = 2, > 140
= 1, > 165 = 0
Up to 4
Up to 2
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
5
2
0
TAB 5
Attachment A
Appendix A – Best Practices to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
NEW
Included
in Project?
System / Best Practices
Mechanical
Solar water heating
Above code HVAC system efficiency
Use natural gas instead of electricity for heating
Geothermal heat pump
Post occupancy commissioning
Electrical
Photovoltaic energy systems
Time of day and occupancy programming of lighting
Efficient lighting
Envelope
Minimize building surface area for necessary floor area
Roofing materials with high solar reflectance and reliability
Green roofs to absorb heat and act as insulators for ceilings
Site
Orient building for natural light and reduced heating and cooling
loads
Trees and vegetation planted to directly shade building
Paving materials with high solar reflectance, enhanced water
evaporation, or otherwise designed to remain cooler ore require
less lighting than conventional pavements
Increase transportation choices – drive, walk, bike, or public
transit
Total number of these best practices included in project:
11
TAB 5
Attachment A
Appendix B – Expected Cost Ranges
NEW
EXPECTED PROJECT COSTS IN 2008 DOLLARS
The following data is from the Facilities Financing Study dated December 10, 2008, prepared by
Berk & Associates, http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/capital/higher_ed_capital_finance_study.pdf.
This study was completed in response to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 3329, enacted by the
2008 Legislature.
Facility Type
Classrooms
Communications buildings
Science labs (teaching)
Research facilities
Administrative buildings
Day care facilities
Libraries
Number
of Data
Points
19
5
16
12
9
4
6
Construction Costs / GSF
Std Dev
$57
$68
$66
$61
$36
$24
$59
Best Fit
$297
$267
$309
$440
$218
$199
$237
Total Project
Costs / GSF
Expected Cost
$420
$378
$437
$623
$309
$283
$336
ADJUSTING EXPECTED COSTS TO CONSTRUCTION MID-POINT
The following data is based on the May 2012 Global Insight forecast for state and local
government spending and is to be used for adjusting the expected costs from July 1, 2008, to the
mid-construction date for comparison to project estimates.
Mid-construction Date
Expected Cost Multiplier
Mid-construction Date
Expected Cost Multiplier
7/1/2008
1.000
5/15/2016
1.302
2/14/2012
1.109
8/15/2016
1.313
5/15/2012
1.119
11/14/2016
1.323
7/16/2012
1.127
2/14/2017
1.333
8/15/2012
1.130
5/16/2017
1.342
11/14/2012
1.140
8/16/2017
1.350
2/14/2013
1.150
11/15/2017
1.358
5/16/2013
1.160
2/14/2018
1.365
8/16/2013
1.171
5/16/2018
1.372
11/15/2013
1.181
8/16/2018
1.379
2/14/2014
1.192
11/15/2018
1.386
5/16/2014
1.204
2/14/2019
1.392
8/16/2014
1.215
5/16/2019
1.398
11/15/2014
1.227
8/16/2019
1.404
2/14/2015
1.240
11/15/2019
1.410
5/16/2015
1.253
2/14/2020
1.416
8/16/2015
1.266
5/15/2020
1.422
11/15/2015
1.279
8/15/2020
1.428
2/14/2016
1.291
11/14/2020
1.434
12
TAB 5
Attachment A
SAMPLE PROJECT FOR DEMONSTRATION OF EXPECTED COST RANGES
Construction Mid-point:
Expected Cost Multiplier:
Project GSF:
5/16/2018
1.372
65,000
from Appendix B
S4 from Project Parameters
Facility Type
Expected Cost
/ GSF in 2008$
Expected Cost
/ GSF
Classrooms
$420
Communications buildings
$378
Science labs (teaching)
$437
Research facilities
$623
Administrative buildings
$309
Day care facilities
$283
Libraries
$336
$576
$519
$600
$855
$424
$388
$461
GSF by
Type
Expected Cost
39,000 $
- $
13,000 $
- $
13,000 $
- $
- $
22,473,360
7,794,332
5,511,324
-
65,000
35,779,016
39,714,708
49,017,252
$
$
$
Point
Thresholds
100%
111%
137%
The Project Cost (C1) is compared to the Expected Cost for determination of Reasonableness of Cost points.
Expected Cost / GSF = Expected Cost / GSF in 2008$ * Expected Cost Multiplier
GSF by Type = ASF by Type / Sum(All ASF) * GSF
13
TAB 5
Attachment B
Proposed Capital Asset Model, December 11, 2012
Assignable Square Feet per FTE Student
Academic FTE
Vocational FTE
Basic Skills FTE
First
First
First
FTE
1,000
Additional
1,000
Additional
1,000
Additional
Type of Space
Type
General Classroom
1
12.4
12.4
7.5
7.5
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Science Lab
2
6.0
6.0
3.5
3.5
N/A
N/A
Computer Lab (open)
2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Music
2
A one-time allowance of 4,000 asf @ CCs only
Art
2
A one-time allowance of 6,000 asf @ CCs only
Drama
2
A one-time allowance of 5,000 asf @ CCs only
Physical Education **
2
26.0
10.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Library ***
2
16.8
8.5
16.8
8.5
16.8
8.5
Faculty Office
2
8.1
8.1
10.8
10.8
8.1
8.1
Admin/Student Services
2
8.98
5.13
8.98
5.13
8.98
5.13
Student Center & Related
2
13.19
7.97
13.19
7.97
13.19
7.97
Childcare
2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
Central Stores/Maintenance
2
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
Auditorium
2
A one-time, total space of 9,000 asf @ CCs and TCs
FTE Type 1: Day On Campus w/o Online (Category 3N).
FTE Type 2: Day On Campus plus Online of same intent regardless of time of day.
* Vocational space will be included in the CAM based on a formal analysis of space needs by program and
projected enrollment growth.
** Calculation based on first 500 FTE.
Tab 6
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
February 7, 2013
Discussion
Action
Topic
ctcLink Project Update
Description
The Washington State Community and Technical College Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Project (ctcLink) will replace a wide variety of computer systems across 34 colleges and
SBCTC. The ERP will provide improved student services, comprehensive financial aid services,
a unified view of human resources, integrated financial management and controls, and robust
reporting and research capabilities. The ERP will be the template to align college and system
business processes. A contract has been signed for implementation and hosting services with
Ciber, Inc. The implementation phase of ctcLink has begun along with the mobilization of the
project team, Ciber team, and college subject matter experts.
Key Questions



What detail of reporting would the Board like to receive from the external quality assurance
consultant?
Would the Board like to have an executive project orientation and leadership session?
At what stage during the project will process efficiencies be identified?
Analysis
The ctcLink Project critical milestones










March 7, 2013 - Project Initiation and Kickoff
June 21, 2013 - Complete Solution Design
July 17, 2013 – Complete the Global Design Configuration
October 31, 2013 – Complete System Integration Testing First Round
July 7, 2014 – Complete User Acceptance Testing
August 4, 2014 - FirstLink Production (Go-Live)
April 28, 2015 - Phase 1 – Production (Go-Live)
January 20, 2016 - Phase 2 – Production (Go-Live)
October 6, 2016 - Phase 3 – Production (Go-Live)
June 29, 2017 - Phase 4 – Production (Go-Live)/Project Completion
Background Information
ctcLink Project Documents: http://ctclink.sbctc.edu
Tab 6, Page 2
Recommendation/Outcomes
A panel will discuss with the Board the details of project initiation and kickoff, the schedule, the
Critical Milestones, and the importance of meeting the Critical Milestones. The Board will be
formally introduced to Ciber leadership and provided a forum whereby Ciber can discuss the
ctcLink Project and implementation approach that will be used.
Prepared by: Michael Scroggins, 360 704-4377, mscroggins@sbctc.edu
Tab 7
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
February 7, 2013
Discussion
Action
Topic
IT Division Organization Design
Description
The ctcLink project has given the SBCTC the opportunity to redesign the information technology
division to maximize effectiveness and efficiency. Most IT organizations evolve over time in a
reactive mode dealing with operational pressures more so than strategic functional value. The
ctcLink project will change college processes, and how both the SBCTC IT Division and college
IT departments support these processes. This organizational redesign and implementation is
necessary to support colleges as they move to ctcLink. The redesign will include a plan to
bridge the gap between existing and new staff competencies and the geographic location of the
space needed for them. As we optimize the organization it will transition from a service provider
to a service and relationship manager that adds value and function to the colleges and for
students.
Key Question

Where should the SBCTC IT Division staff be located to maximize the use of technology,
collaboration and innovation to meet the demands of the economy and improve student
success?
Background Information
The Center for Information Services located in Bellevue was a legal entity established by
interlocal agreement between all colleges and the SBCTC. This organization’s primary function
was to develop, acquire and support a common suite of administrative software applications for
use by the colleges. The college presidents requested that the SBCTC assume responsibility
for the Center for Information Services, its operating budget, personnel, assets, and liabilities.
The SBCTC, by State Board Resolution 08-04-10 dated April 15, 2008, agreed to assume
responsibility effective July 1, 2008. The State Board already had an IT Department located in
Olympia within the Finance Division that primarily supported SBCTC staff and college data
reporting, research and policy initiatives. The new IT Division was created combining both the
Bellevue staff and Olympia staff into one work unit reporting to the Deputy Executive Director for
Information Technology.
Approval of New Model of Governance and Management of System-Level Technology
Functions (Resolution 08-04-10)
http://www.sbctc.edu/docs/board/agendas/2008/apr_speclmtg_08/special_conf_call_mtg_15apr
2008_completeagenda.pdf
Tab 7, Page 2
Analysis
In mid-2008 the SBCTC housed almost 100 staff and a data center with most of the college
HP3000 computers in the Bellevue office building. Those staff and that data center primarily
supported the legacy administrative systems. Since that time all the all the systems have been
relocated to the State’s data center in Olympia and the Bellevue data center is used only for
printing. Due to budget reductions and efficiencies there are only 42 permanent staff still
assigned to the Bellevue office building. The building also houses the SBCTC ctcLink project
team and will house the Ciber contract project team for the duration of the project.
With SBCTC taking over responsibility for the building and the decision to house the majority of
the IT equipment supporting the college system in Olympia there is a reduced need for this
facility beyond the scope of the ctcLink project. This past summer the SBCTC engaged a real
estate advisory firm to recommend a strategy to optimize the investment in this asset and
develop a disposition strategy given the condition that the IT Division currently operating in the
building will require at least partial occupancy for another five years or the completion of the
ctcLink project.
To inform the strategic analysis we took a closer look at the Bellevue building’s market value,
condition of the major systems, and compliance with current codes. Potential improvements
also were estimated and prioritized.
Three cash flow projections were developed: 1) sell the building now and lease back the space
needed, 2) continue to own the building while leasing out space as it becomes available and
then sell the building, and 3) sell the building later when none of it is needed.
Recommendation/Outcomes
The State Board will have the opportunity to discuss the long-term strategic direction for
developing a 21st century information technology organization including the alignment with the
ctcLink project and the transition from the current organization both functionally and
geographically.
Prepared by: Michael Scroggins, 360 704-4377, mscroggins@sbctc.edu
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 8
February 7, 2013
Discussion
Action (Resolution 13-02-08)
Topic
New Applied Baccalaureate Approval Process
Description
In 2010 the Legislature granted authority for the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges and the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) to approve applied
baccalaureate programs offered by community and technical colleges – removing the pilot
status and limitation on the number of colleges that could offer applied baccalaureate programs.
In 2012 the HECB was eliminated as a state agency and the Washington Student Achievement
Council was created to oversee education policy for Washington State. The new agency no
longer retained its authority over degree program approval. Therefore, the State Board has sole
approval authority for applied baccalaureate degree programs provided by community and
technical colleges in Washington.
Given these agency authority changes, staff worked with the Washington Association of
Community and Technical Colleges (WACTC) to recommend changes to the selection process
used by State Board members to approve applied baccalaureate degree programs.
Key Question

Does the proposed revised selection process accurately reflect the change in agency
authority and provide sufficient rigor to ensure quality applied baccalaureate programs
offered by community and technical colleges?
Analysis
Applied Baccalaureate degrees build on the workforce mission and programmatic strengths of
community and technical colleges to serve the needs of local and state employers. Applied
baccalaureate degrees are defined in statute as degrees “specifically designed for individuals
who hold an associate of applied science degree, or its equivalent, in order to maximize
application of their technical course credits toward the baccalaureate degree,” and “are based
on a curriculum that incorporates both theoretical and applied knowledge and skills in a specific
technical field.”
Applied baccalaureate degrees increase educational pathways for professional and technical
associate degree graduates who are limited in their ability to apply credits toward a traditional
baccalaureate degree. A large portion of professional and technical degree graduates are lower
income, place bound, working adults, and applied baccalaureate degrees are an important
means of access to baccalaureate degree completion for these populations.
TAB 8, Page 2
Growth and expansion of applied baccalaureate degrees is identified in the Board’s Mission
Study and the higher education System Design document as a means to raise educational
attainment for all adults in the state. The goal for community and technical colleges is to
produce 1,400 applied baccalaureate degree graduates across the state by 2030 in their
System Design.
Applied Baccalaureate Degree Approval Process Revisions. In 2010 State Board staff
members worked cooperatively with HECB staff members to create a proposed selection
process, uniform selection criteria, and one application package for colleges seeking applied
baccalaureate program approval. The State Board and the HECB maintained their independent
approval authority in the process and criteria. The approval process and criteria were voted on
and approved by the State Board and the HECB in fall 2010.
The proposed revised selection process modifies the 2010 approval process in two ways (see
Attachment A for proposed revised changes):
1. Removes all mention of the HECB in the review and approval process; and
2. Eliminates the “philosophical” discussion between the State Board and the college
administration. Staff recommends periodic updates to the Board on college plans to
propose new BAS degrees.
There are no suggested changes to the criteria used for the State Board to approve applied
baccalaureate degrees. See Attachment B.
Student Panel
A panel of BAS students will participate in this agenda item to provide perspectives on their
experiences.
Background Information
Attachment A: New Applied Baccalaureate Degree Program Approval Process - Revised
January 2013
Attachment B: Current Applied Baccalaureate Degree Program Approval Process
January 2005 Study Session regarding baccalaureate capacity study.
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/docs/board/agendas/2005/20050118_agenda_jan_sbctc_mtg.pdf
The 2010 Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 6355 giving the State Board authority to
approve community and technical college applied baccalaureate degree programs. This
removed the pilot status of the community and technical college applied baccalaureate
programs.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6355&year=2009
Recommendation
Staff recommends State Board action on Resolution 13-02-08, approving the new Applied
Baccalaureate Degree Program Approval Process.
Prepared by: Michelle Andreas, 360-704-4338, mandreas@sbctc.edu.
2
Tab 8, Attachment A
Applied Baccalaureate Degree
Program Approval Process
Proposed Revisions January 2013
As part of the 2010 System Design Plan legislation (SSB 6355), the status of applied
baccalaureate degrees offered by Washington's community and technical colleges was changed
from pilot to regular status. The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)
approves all proposals for applied baccalaureate degrees from the community and technical
colleges. These programs are intended to:
1. Serve professional and technical degree-holding students who have limited access to
baccalaureate degree programs after completing their technical associate degree.
2. Provide opportunities for working adults who are place-bound and want to earn a
baccalaureate degree.
3. Fill skills gap needs in specific occupations.
In July 2012, SBCTC retained sole approval authority for applied baccalaureates degrees. The
following describes the process for community and technical colleges seeking to acquire state
approval to offer applied baccalaureate degree programs. The SBCTC may make future
revisions to the selection process and criteria as needed.
Step 1:
Institutions notify SBCTC and higher education partners of their intent to offer
an applied baccalaureate degree program by placing the program title and
anticipated date of enrollment on the higher education Inter-institutional
Committee on Academic Program Planning (ICAPP) Grid.
The grid is used to informally notify higher education partners (colleges, universities,
the WSAC, and the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges) of a
college’s intent to offer a program. This informal notice allows concerns to be
addressed between colleges prior to the official notice to higher education partners.
 Institutions simply send an email to the SBCTC staff responsible for reviewing
applied baccalaureate degree program proposals. The body of the email must
include the working title of the degree program and the anticipated enrollment
date.
 SBCTC staff will place the program information on the ICAPP grid for notice to
the higher education community.
 SBCTC staff members will provide quarterly updates to State Board members
regarding potential upcoming applied baccalaureate programs being considered
by colleges.
1
Tab 8, Attachment A
Step 2:
Institutions submit a Statement of Need to SBCTC staff and a brief analysis of
the College’s content area strength and capacity for the applied baccalaureate
degree.
 Institutions can download the cover sheet and document entitled “Statement of
Need Criteria” (Forms A and B) from the SBCTC website. Institutions must
complete all elements of Forms A and B and then submit the completed forms to
SBCTC staff within the specified period of time.
 The Statement of Need will be reviewed by SBCTC staff to ensure that all criteria
have been met. SBCTC staff will forward feedback regarding the strengths of the
plan and areas needing improvement to the college with the goal of strengthening
the proposal to move smoothly through the process. The college may submit
revised documents as many times as appropriate.
 Once criteria are met, staff from the SBCTC will send out a notice to universities
and community and technical colleges officially informing them of the proposed
program. Questions or concerns about the proposal must be submitted to the
SBCTC within 30 days. Concerns will be sent to the submitting college.
Step 3:
Institutions submit program approval application to the SBCTC. Institutions can
download the cover sheet and document entitled “New Degree Program Proposal”
(Forms C and D) from the SBCTC website. Institutions must complete all required
elements of Forms C and D and submit the completed documents to SBCTC staff
within a specified period of time.
 A committee of higher education representatives will review the application. The
committee will be comprised of community and technical college vice presidents
of instruction, student services, and finance/business; a community or technical
college president; and others as appropriate. A representative from the proposing
college will be encouraged to attend the review committee meeting to respond to
questions and concerns. The committee will make recommendations to the
SBCTC.
Step 4:
The State Board for Community and Technical College board members will
officially vote on the program proposal. A college representative will participate
in the Board meeting and provide oral support for the proposal and respond to
Board member questions.
2
Tab 8, Attachment B
Applied Baccalaureate Degree
Program Approval Process
(Current)
As part of the 2010 System Design Plan legislation (SSB 6355), the status of applied
baccalaureate degrees offered by Washington's community and technical colleges was changed
from pilot to regular status. The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)
and the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) approve all proposals for applied
baccalaureate degrees from the community and technical colleges. These programs are intended
to:
1. Serve professional and technical degree-holding students who have limited access to
baccalaureate degree programs after completing their technical associate degree.
2. Provide opportunities for working adults who are place-bound and want to earn a
baccalaureate degree.
3. Fill skills gap needs in specific occupations.
The following describes the process for community and technical colleges seeking to acquire
state approval to offer specific applied baccalaureate degree programs. The SBCTC and the
HECB may make future revisions to the selection process and criteria as needed.
Step 1:
Institutions notify the HECB, the SBCTC, and higher education partners of
intent by placing the program title and anticipated date of enrollment on the
higher education Inter-institutional Committee on Academic Program Planning
(ICAPP) Grid.
The grid is used to inform higher education partners (colleges, universities, the
Higher Education Coordinating Board, and the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges) of a college’s intent to offer a program.
 Institutions simply send an email to the SBCTC and the HECB staff responsible
for reviewing applied baccalaureate degree program proposals. The body of the
email must include the working title of the degree program and the anticipated
enrollment date.
1
Tab 8, Attachment B
 SBCTC staff will place the program information on the ICAPP grid for notice to
the higher education community and notify HECB staff.
Step 2:
Institutions submit a Statement of Need to SBCTC staff, who will then forward
the Statement of Need to Board members for a conceptual discussion regarding
the relationship of the proposed applied baccalaureate degree to the mission,
vision and goals of the college and the system.
 Institutions can download the cover sheet and document entitled “Statement of
Need Criteria” (Forms A and B) from the SBCTC website. Institutions must
complete all elements of Forms A and B and then submit the completed forms to
SBCTC staff within a specified period of time. SBCTC staff will then forward a
copy to HECB staff.
 Once a SBCTC staff member receives the Statement of Need, a State Board Study
Session will be scheduled at a mutually agreed time between the Board and
college administration. The Study Session will focus on the college’s strategic
goals, applied baccalaureate selection criteria, and state and regional needs.
College administrators will receive feedback from the Board on their Statement of
Need and other appropriate elements related to their proposed applied
baccalaureate degree concept.
 The Statement of Need will also be jointly reviewed by HECB and SBCTC staff
to ensure that all criteria have been met. SBCTC staff will forward feedback
regarding the strengths of the plan and areas needing improvement to the college.
The college may submit revised documents as many times as appropriate.
 If the Statement of Need criteria are met, staff from the SBCTC and the HECB
will send out a notice to universities and community and technical colleges
informing them of the proposed program. Questions or concerns about the
proposal must be submitted to the SBCTC and the HECB within 30 days.
Agency staff will jointly review all feedback received.
Step 3:
Institutions submit program approval application to the SBCTC. Institutions can
download the cover sheet and document entitled “New Degree Program Proposal”
(Forms C and D) from the SBCTC website. Institutions must complete all required
elements of Forms C and D and submit the completed documents to SBCTC staff
within a specified period of time.
 A committee of higher education representatives will review the application. The
committee will be comprised of community and technical college vice presidents
of instruction, student services, and finance/business; a community or technical
college president; and representatives from a university, the Workforce Training
and Education Board, the HECB, the SBCTC, and others as appropriate. The
committee will make recommendations to the SBCTC.
2
Tab 8, Attachment B
Step 4:
The SBCTC will review the program application and the recommendations
from the review committee. The college will be notified of the outcome. If the
application is approved by the State Board, the program proposal will move to
Step 5.
Step 5:
The HECB Education Committee will review the program application. The
college will be notified of the outcome. If the HECB Education Committee
supports the program, the program proposal will move to Step 6.
Step 6:
The HECB will review recommendations from the HECB Education
Committee. If the HECB approves the program, the college may begin full
program implementation.
APPLIED BACCALAUREATE DEGREE
STATEMENT OF NEED CRITERIA
Criteria
Standard
1. Relationship to institutional role,
mission, and program priorities.
Describe how the proposed program reflects and supports the role and
mission of the institution, and reflects program priorities.
2. Support of the statewide strategic
plans.
Describe how the program will support SBCTC Mission goals outlined in
the Mission Study and HECB policies and goals for higher education as
articulated in the Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education.
Employer demand must exceed regional supply of graduates with relevant
3. Employer/community demand for degrees.
graduates with baccalaureate level
Demand must be based on data sources including but not limited to local
of education proposed in the
employer survey, traditional labor market data, industry data, trade
program.
association data, and other transactional data. Please provide evidence of
the gap between the number of program graduates versus the number of
job openings locally and regionally.
4. Applied baccalaureate program
builds from existing professional
and technical degree program
offered by the institution.
Describe the existing professional and technical degree program that will
be used as the foundation for the applied baccalaureate program.
▪
▪
How long has the program been in existence?
What has been the enrollment history of the program over the past
five years?
Provide information regarding the following information related to
potential students in the program:
▪
▪
▪
Provide enrollment projections for each year over the next five years.
Describe how the program will serve place-bound working adults.
Describe how you will recruit and facilitate student articulation and
3
Tab 8, Attachment B
transition from regional community and technical colleges with
similar programs.
Evidence of student interest and demand from multiple sources, such as
but not limited to: Students graduating with technical associate degrees in
the region, survey of students within region, demand in excess of
opportunity to enroll in related traditional baccalaureate programs, and
changes in industry standards.
5. Student demand for program
within the region.
6. Efforts to maximize state
resources to serve place-bound
students.
Identify similar programs offered by public or independent institutions in
the region.
Describe options that have been explored for collaboration with other
public baccalaureate institutions, businesses, and/or community
organizations considered in the development of the proposal.
Describe unique aspects of the proposed program that differentiate it from
similar programs and/or describe why expansion of an existing program
would be desirable or necessary.
NEW DEGREE PROGRAM PROPOSAL
CRITERIA
STANDARD
7. Curriculum demonstrates
baccalaureate level rigor.
Describe curriculum including: (1) program learning outcomes; (2)
program evaluation criteria and process; (3) course preparation needed
by students transferring with a technical associate degree; (4) general
education components; and (5) course work needed at junior and senior
levels in the BAS.
8. Qualified faculty.
Provide a profile, including education credentials, of anticipated faculty
(full-time, part-time, regular, continuing) that will support the program
for each year (junior and senior). Include faculty needed to cover the
technical course work, general education courses and electives. In
addition, provide the total faculty FTE allocated to the program.
Faculty and administrators responsible for technical courses must meet
certification requirements for professional and technical administrators
and instructors in the Washington Administrative Code.
9. Selective admissions process, if
used for the program, consistent
with an open door institution.
Describe the selection and admission process. Explain efforts that will be
used to assure that the program serves as diverse a population as possible.
10. Appropriate student services plan.
Describe services that will be needed by the students admitted to the
degree program and the college plan for providing those services.
Include a description of financial aid services and academic advising for
4
Tab 8, Attachment B
students admitted into the program.
11. Commitment to build and sustain
a high quality program.
Provide a financial plan for the first five years of program operation.
This plan should include (1) types of funds to be used to support the
program; (2) projected program expenses; (3) appropriate facilities to be
used; (4) equipment, technology, and instructional resources needed for
the program.
Document the college’s ability to sustain the program over time.
12. Program specific accreditation.
Indicate whether the institution will seek specialized program
accreditation. If so, describe plans for accreditation and identify
appropriate accrediting body.
13. Pathway options beyond
baccalaureate degree.
Describe opportunities and articulation agreements for the place-bound
BAS graduates to continue their education onto a graduate (Master’s)
degree program.
14. External expert evaluation of
program.
The institution will select two external experts to review the program.
In a separate document, provide copies of external evaluators’ reports or
letters. Summarize the institution’s responses and subsequent
modifications to the proposal based upon evaluator’s recommendations.
Attach a short bio of the evaluators.
5
TAB 8
WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 13-02-08
A resolution regarding the revised selection process that will be used to approve applied
baccalaureate degree programs.
WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and the Higher
Education Coordinating Board approved a selection process used for applied baccalaureate
degrees in 2010; and
WHEREAS, in 2012 the Legislature passed a bill eliminating the Higher Education
Coordinating Board and introducing the Washington Student Achievement Council, whereby the
Student Achievement Council retained no authority to approve higher education degrees in
Washington State; and
WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges now retains sole
authority to approve applied baccalaureate degrees provided by community and technical
colleges; and
WHEREAS, the State Board seeks to modify the approval process approved by SBCTC
and the HECB in 2010;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges approves the proposed revised process for approving Applied Baccalaureate Degree
programs.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on February 7, 2013.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary