Grays Harbor College
1620 Edward P. Smith Drive ● Aberdeen, WA 98520
Bldg. 1500 ● Room 1512
Business Meeting:
October 24
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
1:00 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting Agenda
1:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Welcome
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
1:05 p.m.
Host College Presentation: Grays Harbor College
Dr. Ed Brewster, Grays Harbor College President
1:50 p.m.
Executive Directors Report
Marty Brown
Discuss
2:05 p.m.
Approval of Consent Agenda
a. SBCTC Meeting Minutes, September 12, 2012
b. Centralia College Local Expenditure Authority, Property
Acquisition at 402 South King & 812 CC Blvd.
Resolution 12-10-42
c. Yakima Valley CC Local Expenditure Authority, Property
Acquisition at 600 Wine Country Road
Resolution 12-10-43
d. Yakima Valley CC Local Expenditure Authority, Property
Acquisition at 1111 & 1113 South 12th street
Resolution 12-10-44
e. Olympic College Local Expenditure Authority, Traffic Light
Overruns
Resolution 12-10-45
f. Whatcom CC Local Expenditure Authority, Tenant
Improvements
Resolution 12-10-46
Action
Tab 1
2:10 p.m.
Student Achievement Initiative Update
David Prince
Discuss
Tab 2
2:30 p.m.
2011-12 Student Achievement Awards
Resolution 12-10-47
Jan Yoshiwara
Discuss
Tab 3
2:50 p.m.
Efficiency Study Update
Jan Yoshiwara
Discuss
Tab 4
3:25 p.m.
Break
3:35 p.m.
Legislative and Communications Update
Deb Merle
Discuss
Tab 5
3:55 p.m.
State Board Retirement Plan Update
John Boesenberg
Discuss
Tab 6
4:25 p.m.
Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) Demonstration
Connie Broughton
Discuss
Tab 7
SBCTC Regular Meeting Agenda
October 24, 2012
Page 2
4:55 p.m.
Chair’s Report
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
 Trustees’ Association Report
Dick Van Hollebeke, TACTC Secretary
 Presidents’ Association Report
Tom Keegan, WACTC President
 Parking Lot
Marty Brown, SBCTC Executive Director
5:15 p.m.
Adjournment
Next Meeting: December 5-6, 2012 ~ Pierce College, Ft.
Steilacoom
5:30 p.m.
Dinner Meeting with State Board Members, Grays Harbor
Trustees, staff and State Board Deputy Directors.
Building 2000, Music Pavilion
Discuss
10-15-12
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.
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
Tab 1a
REGULAR MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD FOR
COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
MEETING MINUTES
September 12, 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
September 12, 2012
Resolution
Number
----
12-09-30
12-09-31
12-09-32
12-09-33
12-09-34
12-09-35
12-09-36
12-09-37
12-09-38
12-09-39
Description
Page in
Minutes
Adoption of Regular Meeting Agenda
Adoption of Consent Agenda:
- Approval of State Board Meeting Minutes for June
21, 2012, August 2, 2012, August 8, 2012 and
August 10, 2012
- Wenatchee Valley College, Local Expenditure
Authority (LEA), Energy Service Project
- Green River CC, LEA, Trades and Industry
Replacement Project
- Pierce College Fort Steilacoom, LEA, Rainier
Building
- Olympic College, LEA, Remodel Automotive
Program Space
- Olympic College, Increase local match for Child
Development Center
- Olympic College, LEA, CSC Building Fire Sprinkler
- Olympic College, LEA, Humanities and Student
Services Project
- Highline CC, LEA, Noise Abatement Project
- Spokane Falls CC, LEA, Stadium Structural Repair
- Centralia College, LEA, Welding Air Scrubber
Project
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
12-09-40
Approval of 2013-15 Operating Budget Request
2
12-09-41
Approval of ctcLink Contract Negotiation
3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Olympia
Regular Business Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2012
State Board Office, Olympia
The State Board’s regular business meeting was preceded by a retreat held at the State Board
on September 10-11, 2012. Topics and issues discussed at the retreat included: 1) System
Direction update, 2) Student Achievement Initiative Update, 3) 2012 Efficiency Study Report
Update, 4) 2013-15 Operating Budget Request, 5) Update on ctcLink Acquisition Process. No
action was taken in the retreat sessions.
State Board Members Present: Sharon Fairchild (Chair), Erin Mundinger, Elizabeth Chen, Anne
Fennessy, Shaunta Hyde, Larry Brown, Jim Bricker, Wayne Martin
State Board Member Absent: Beth Willis
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Chair Sharon Fairchild called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m., welcomed those present, and
thanked everyone who participated in the State Board retreat for their contributions.
MOTION: Moved by and Larry Brown seconded by Erin Mundinger that the State Board
adopt the agenda for its September 12, 2012 regular business meeting as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA (Resolutions 12-09-30 to 12-09-39)
MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the State
Board adopt the consent agenda for its September 12, 2012 regular business meeting as
follows:
a) Approval of June 21, 2012, August 2, 2012, August 8, 2012 and August 10, 2012
State Board meeting minutes
b) Resolution 12-09-30: Wenatchee Valley College LEA, Energy Service Project
c) Resolution 12-09-31: Green River CC LEA, Trades and Industry Replacement
Project
d) Resolution 12-09-32: Pierce College Ft. Steilacoom LEA, Rainier Building
e) Resolution 12-09-33: Olympic College LEA, Remodel Automotive Program Space
f) Resolution 12-09-34: Olympic College, Increase local match for Child Development
Center
g) Resolution 12-09-35: Olympic College LEA, CSC Building Fire Sprinkler
h) Resolution 12-09-36: Olympic College LEA, Humanities and Student Services
Project
i) Resolution 12-09-37: Highline CC LEA, Noise Abatement Project
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2012
Page 2
j) Resolution 12-09-38: Spokane Falls CC LEA, Stadium Structural Repairs
k) Resolution 12-09-39: Centralia College LEA, Welding Air Scrubber Project
MOTION CARRIED.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT




Washington Student Achievement Council
Canvas Contract
Parent Education Waiver
ABE Enrollment History
MOTION: Moved by Shaunta Hyde and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the Executive
Director be appointed as the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
representative to the Student Achievement Council.
MOTION CARRIED
APPROVAL OF 2013-15 OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST (Resolution 12-09-40)
Denise Graham and Nick Lutes of the State Board staff presented that beginning in February,
the Board worked with stakeholders on the development of the 2013-15 Operating Budget
Request, which contains $197,846,000 in policy level enhancements.
The 2013-15 Budget will be considered by the Governor and Legislature over the next six
months. Many external factors are in play that will impact the outcome of this biennial budget.
MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Shaunta Hyde that the State Board
adopt Resolution 12-09-40 approving the SBCTC 2013-15 Operating Budget request for
submittal to Office of Financial Management in September and giving the Executive
Director authority to make necessary adjustments and changes as necessary to meet
changing conditions consistent with the Board’s Direction.
MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF ctcLink CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS (Resolution 12-09-41)
Mike Scroggins of the State Board staff presented that a process has been underway since
summer 2011 by State Board staff and the Gartner consultancy to identify functional, technical,
and business process requirements. Hundreds of college participants have been involved in the
evaluation of vendor proposals. Vendors were asked to respond in their proposals as to how
their software and approach address the State Board and college requirements. The request
for proposals was released in June 2012; vendor responses have been evaluated; onsite
vendor demonstrations completed; and apparent successful vendors have been selected for
recommendation to the Board.
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes
September 12, 2012
Page 3
The Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has statutory authority over all state information
technology projects. SBCTC staff worked with OCIO staff in the development of the ctcLink
RFP, the evaluation of vendor responses, and evaluation of vendor demonstrations. The OCIO
has approved the apparent successful vendors and will participate in contract negotiations.
MOTION: Moved by Shaunta Hyde and seconded by Wayne Martin that the State Board
adopt Resolution 12-09-41 delegating authority to the Executive Director to begin
contract negotiation with the selected vendors.
MOTION CARRIED.
LEGISLATIVE AND COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE
Laura McDowell of the State Board staff presented that the SBCTC’s communications plan calls
for community and technical colleges to use consistent, system-wide messages that resonate
with the legislature and the public. The focus is on over-arching messages, tailored for individual
audiences. The current plan is rooted in research conducted for our system in 2004 by Doug
Gould and Associates. We are currently working with Gould again to gauge public perceptions
given the dramatic changes in our economy. The findings will influence updates to the statewide
plan as well as impacting our messaging to the legislature during the upcoming session.
Deb Merle of the State Board staff presented that with the primaries behind us, it is clear that
the Democrats will maintain their majority in the House. There are several close races in the
Senate. The race for governor between Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Rob McKenna is
also expected to be close. Staff will discuss these and other races of interest.
She presented “one-pagers" that were developed by State Board staff in consultation with
presidents, trustees, and public information officers. System participants use these materials
during the Summer and Fall when they meet or correspond with their local legislators. The
information in the one-pagers lays the foundation for issues we believe will be relevant during
session. Our final Comprehensive Legislative Agenda flyer will be produced, much closer to
session, after the Board has approved the final budget request and the college system has
settled on any policy issues for the legislative session.
ADJOURNMENT/NEXT MEETING
There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its regular meeting of September
12, 2012 at 10:03 a.m. The next regular meeting of the State Board is scheduled for October
24-25 at Grays Harbor College.
_____________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 1b
October 24, 2012
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 12-10-42)
Topic
Centralia College Property Acquisitions (402 South King Street & 812 Centralia College Blvd.)
Description
Centralia College is requesting authority to acquire .07 acres of property at 402 South King
Street and .15 acres of property at 812 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 .07 acres of property at 402 South King
Street and .15 acres of property at 812 Centralia College Boulevard at estimated total principal
costs of $130,000 and $68,000, 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.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-42, giving Centralia College authority to acquire
the properties located at 402 South King Street and 812 Centralia College Boulevard in
Centralia, Washington.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1b
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 12-10-42
A resolution relating to Centralia College’s authority to acquire the properties located at 402
South King Street and 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington.
WHEREAS, Centralia College is requesting authority to acquire .07 acres of property at
402 South King Street and .15 acres of property at 812 Centralia College Boulevard in
Centralia, Washington, at estimated total principal costs of $130,000 and $68,000, 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 authority to purchase the properties located at 402 South King
Street and 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012.
_______________________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 1c
October 24, 2012
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 12-10-43)
Topic
Yakima Valley Community College Property Acquisition (600 Wine Country Road)
Description
Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire .63 acres of property at
600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington. The acquisition is a part of the College’s
master plan and was approved by the College’s Board of Trustees in June of 2008.
Major Considerations


The proposed acquisition is within the College’s master plan.
The College’s Board of Trustees has approved the property purchase.
Analysis
Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire the .63 acres of property at
600 Wine Country Road at an estimated total principal cost of $165,000, which will be paid for
using local funds. The property will be used to develop a main campus entry and campus
parking off Wine Country Road. Attachment A shows the boundaries of the proposed purchase.
The purchase of the property is part of the College’s master plan.
Background Information
Attachment A: Proposed Acquisition Map
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-43, giving Yakima Valley Community College
authority to acquire the property located at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1c
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 12-10-43
A resolution relating to Yakima Valley Community College’s authority to acquire the property
located at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington.
WHEREAS, Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire .63
acres of property at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington, at an estimated total
principal cost of $165,000, to be paid for using local funds; and
WHEREAS, the property will be used to develop a main campus entry and campus
parking off Wine Country Road and is within the College’s master plan;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges gives Yakima Valley Community College authority to purchase the property located at
600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012.
_______________________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
As of May 2012
Possible Future Acquisitions
Proposed Acquisition
YVCC Owned
Parking/Circulation
Park
Union Pacific Railroad
Apostolic
Assembly
tW
We
s
ine
Rd
Car Wash/
Laundromat
nt
ry
Co
u
Joint
YVCC/City
Library
Activity
Center
Post
Office
Workforce Ed
Center
TAB 1c
Attachment A
GRANDRIDGE
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 1d
October 24, 2012
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 12-10-44)
Topic
Yakima Valley Community College Property Acquisitions (1111 & 1113 South 12th Avenue)
Description
Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire .21 acres of property at
1111 South 12th Avenue and .17 acres of property at 1113 South 12th Avenue in Yakima,
Washington. Both acquisitions are a part of the College’s master plan and were approved by
the College’s Board of Trustees in June of 2008.
Major Considerations


The proposed acquisitions are within the College’s master plan.
The College’s Board of Trustees has approved the property purchases.
Analysis
Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire the .21 acres of property at
1111 South 12th Avenue at an estimated total principal cost of $132,000 and the .17 acres of
property at 1113 South 12th Avenue at an estimated total principal cost of $133,000, which will
both be paid for using local funds. The properties will be converted to a pay-to-park parking lot.
The lot will then be supported by revenue generated from parking fees. The purchase of the
properties is part of the College’s master plan.
Background Information
Attachment A: Proposed Acquisition Map
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-44, giving Yakima Valley Community College
authority to acquire the properties located at 1111 and 1113 South 12th Avenue in Yakima,
Washington.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1d
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 12-10-44
A resolution relating to Yakima Valley Community College’s authority to acquire the properties
located at 1111 and 1113 South 12th Avenue in Yakima, Washington.
WHEREAS, Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire .21
acres of property at 1111 South 12th Avenue and .17 acres of property at 1113 South 12th
Avenue in Yakima, Washington, at an estimated total principal cost of $132,000 and $133,000
respectively, to be paid for using local funds; and
WHEREAS, the properties will be converted to a pay-to-park parking lot, which will then
be supported by revenue generated from parking fees; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of the properties is part of the College’s master plan and has
been approved by their Board of Trustees;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges gives Yakima Valley Community College authority to purchase the properties located
at 1111 and 1113 South 12th Avenue in Yakima, Washington.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012.
_______________________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
TAB 1d
Attachment A
3D Rose - 1111 S. 12th
3D Rose - 1113 S. 12th
WP
Additional Properties Bequeathed to the College:
As of October 2012
Duplex
Single-Family Unit
Retail Eating Facility
Retail Auto Shop
Single-Family Unit
Signel-Family Unit
230-230 1/2 N. 37th Ave.
1124 S. 16th Ave.
16th Ave. @ Nob Hill Blvd.
501 W. Nob Hill Blvd.
1017 S. Pleasant Ave.
1019 S. Pleasant Ave.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 1e
October 24, 2012
Consent Item
Action (Resolution 12-10-45)
Topic
Olympic College Local Expenditure Authority (Traffic Light Overruns)
Description
Olympic College is seeking approval to use an additional $225,000 in local funds for the traffic
light on Warren Avenue. This is part of a larger project with a total of approximately
$43,091,000. Local expenditures for capital projects require State Board authorization.
Major Considerations



Consistent with the State Board’s direction to achieve increased educational attainment for
all residents across the state.
Consistent with the State Board’s direction to improve academic achievement for all
students.
Will provide a safer place for students to learn in.
Analysis
In May 2012, the State Board approved a request for Olympic College to acquire a piece of
property vacated by the City of Bremerton. In exchange for the College gaining the property,
they agreed to dedicate a section along Warren Avenue and 13th Street for the construction of a
traffic signal, which they would be responsible for building. Since that time, various costs
associated with the project have added to the scope, including some mandated by the City of
Bremerton to prepare the site for the installation of the traffic light. The benefits of the traffic
light include better flow of traffic in front of the College, along with a safer student crossing.
The College has local funds dedicated for this project and it has been approved by the College’s
local board designee.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-45, allowing Olympic College local expenditure
authority increase to use up to $225,000 for their traffic light project overruns.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1e
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 12-10-45
A resolution relating to Olympic College’s local expenditure authority increase to use up to
$225,000 for their traffic light project overruns.
WHEREAS Olympic College gained property along Warren Avenue vacated by the City
of Bremerton, with the condition that they build a traffic signal there; and
WHEREAS various costs associated with the project have added to the scope, including
some mandated by the City of Bremerton to prepare the site for the installation of the traffic
light; and
WHEREAS the benefits of the traffic light include better flow of traffic in front of the
College, along with a safer student crossing; and
WHEREAS the College has local funds dedicated for this project and it has been
approved by the College’s local board designee; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges gives Olympic College local expenditure authority increase to use up to $225,000 for
their traffic light project overruns.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012.
_______________________________________
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 1f
October 24, 2012
Consent Item
Action (12-10-46)
Topic
Whatcom Community College – Local Expenditure Authority (Tenant Improvements)
Description
Whatcom Community College and its board of trustees are requesting authority to expend up to
$1,900,000 in local funds to make tenant improvements necessary to relocate the health
professions programs to a new building under development. Expenditures over $400,000 in
local funds require State Board authorization.
Major Considerations



Consistent with the State Board’s direction to strengthen state and local economies by
meeting the demands for a well-educated and skilled workforce.
Consistent with the State Board’s direction to ensure state-of-the-art, lifelong education that
is relevant, convenient and efficient.
Meets the needs of the College through a public-private partnership.
Analysis
Whatcom Community College is requesting approval to complete the interior build-out of a
leased facility directly adjacent to campus and relocate their health professions programs there.
The new space will include collocation of programs with similar resource needs, along with
meeting the need for additional space for growing demand for the programs. It will consist of
classrooms, laboratories, computer labs, faculty offices, meeting spaces, break areas, and
common/study areas. It will also free up space on main campus for general enrollment growth,
STEM expansion, and faculty office needs.
The project’s close proximity to campus and local parking will allow students easy access to
campus services while promoting opportunities to partner with community and other higher
education organizations. The tenant improvements will be cost effective due to the flexibility of
new construction and limited constraints on design. Local funds will be used by the college and
the anticipated cost to make the tenant improvements is $1,900,000.
Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-46, allowing Whatcom Community College
to expend up to $1,900,000 in local funds to perform tenant improvements necessary to relocate
the health professions programs to the adjacent leased facility.
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 1f
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 12-10-46
A resolution relating to Whatcom Community College tenant improvements.
WHEREAS, Whatcom Community College is requesting approval to complete the
interior build-out of a leased facility directly adjacent to campus and relocate their health
professions programs there; and
WHEREAS the space will consist of classrooms, laboratories, computer labs, faculty
offices, meeting spaces, break areas, and common/study areas and will also free up space on
main campus for general enrollment growth, STEM expansion, and faculty office needs; and
WHEREAS, The tenant improvements will be cost effective due to the flexibility of new
construction and limited constraints on design; and
WHEREAS, Local funds will be used by the college and the anticipated cost to make the
tenant improvements is $1,900,000;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges authorizes Whatcom Community College to perform tenant improvements necessary
to relocate the health professions programs to the adjacent leased facility.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on October 24, 2012.
J.A. Bricker, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 2
October 24, 2012
Discussion
Action
Topic
Student Achievement Initiative Update
Description
When the State Board adopted the Student Achievement Initiative in 2006 it called for a review
after five years. At the December 2011 Board meeting, the Board reviewed the draft work plan
for a review led by WACTC and tasked to a Student Achievement Advisory Group. The Board
requested regular updates on the review.
At the September Board Retreat, the Board heard a panel of Advisory Group members discuss
challenges in aligning the funding principles with the funding methodology. The Board gave
input on the principles, and they have been rewritten (Attachment A). Subsequent to the Board
Retreat, the Advisory Group met to review pros and cons of different methods alongside the
principles. WACTC heard from a panel of Advisory Group members and gave their feedback on
the principles and the methods under consideration.
The Advisory Group will meet in October to formulate their final recommendation on a funding
method.
A full proposal for metrics and funding will be presented to WACTC in November and to the
State Board for approval in December.
The Board will receive an update on where the Advisory Group is leaning for its funding
recommendation and will be able to provide input on the issues they are considering.
Key Questions

What direction and input does the Board want to give to the Student Achievement Initiative
Advisory Group regarding the funding model?
Analysis
At the State Board Retreat, an Advisory Group panel discussed issues it is wrestling with before
making a final proposal on a funding model. Current funding model awards colleges for
improvement in net point gain. The current principles call for each college to compete against
itself. New funds are identified as the best source. However the past several years the fund
source has come from a re-allocation of college’s base funds. This has introduced competition.
Net point gain has not been a readily transparent method for colleges to understand where they
are improving.
Tab 2
Page 2
The Advisory Group has deliberated the principles to better fit the reality of base money to
create an award pool. They have studied the pros and cons of different methods to calculate
performance as well as different ways to create the funding pool. Presidents weighed in on the
pros and cons of different methods and principles at their September meeting. Three funding
methods are under consideration as a result: Total Points, a measure of productivity; Points per
Student, a measure of effectiveness; and Total Completions, a measure which fits to the
national completion agenda. The Advisory Group will select method(s) and discuss how to
create a funding pool that fits based upon the principles in preparation for their final
recommendation to WACTC in November.
Background Information
Attachment A: Student Achievement Initiative Guiding Principles
Attachment B: Determining the Method for Awarding Colleges for Student Achievement
Recommendation/Outcomes
The Board will discuss the different funding methodologies the Advisory Group is considering
and offer their views on the funding methods that best fit the policy goal for raising overall
attainment and the Advisory Group’s thinking of how to construct a funding pool that aligns with
the principles.
Prepared by: David Prince, dprince@sbctc.edu, (360) 704-4347
Tab 2
Attachment A
DRAFT
Student Achievement Initiative Guiding Principles
September 25, 2012
Student Achievement Initiative
Guiding Principles
As approved by the Board, 2007
Student Achievement Initiative
Guiding Principles
[Draft 2012]
System Direction Policy Goal for Student
Success:
System Direction Policy Goal for Student
Success:
Achieve increased educational attainment
for all residents across the state
Achieve increased educational attainment
for all residents across the state
Overall Principles for Accountability and
Performance Funding:


Overall Principles for Accountability and
Performance Funding:
The initiative leads to improved educational
attainment for students, specifically the goal
of reaching the “tipping point” and beyond.
The initiative allows colleges sufficient
flexibility to improve student achievement
according to their local needs.
Principles for Measurement:






The initiative leads to improved educational
attainment for students, specifically the goal
of reaching the “tipping point” and beyond.
The initiative allows colleges sufficient
flexibility to improve student achievement
according to their local needs.
Principles for Measurement:
Performance measures recognize students
in all mission areas and reflect the needs of
the diverse communities served by
colleges.
Performance measures must measure
incremental gains in students’ educational
progress irrespective of mission area.
Measures are simple, understandable, and
reliable and valid points in students’
educational progress.
Measures focus on student achievement
improvements that can be influenced by
colleges.
1




Performance measures recognize students
in all mission areas and reflect the needs of
the diverse communities served by
colleges.
Performance measures must measure
incremental gains in students’ educational
progress irrespective of mission area.
Measures are simple, understandable and
reliable, and valid points in students’
educational progress.
Measures focus on student achievement
improvements that can be influenced by
colleges.
Tab 2
Attachment A
Principles for Funding:





Principles for Funding:
Colleges are rewarded for improvements in
student achievement.
Funding is structured so that colleges
compete against themselves for continuous
improvement rather than competing with
each other.
Funding is stable and predictable, and
cumulative over time.
Incentive funding rewards student success
and becomes a resource for adopting and
expanding practices leading to further
success.
New funds provide the greatest incentive.
2
1. Student achievement is a factor in
allocating funds to colleges.
2. Colleges are rewarded for efficiency and
productivity in student achievement.
3. Funding is structured so colleges compete
against themselves for continuous
improvement rather than competing with
each other.
4. New funds provide the greatest incentive.
If base funds are used, the method used to
create the performance fund aligns with
the award method.
5. Colleges have a fair opportunity to earn
performance awards regardless of student
demographics, program mix or college
characteristics.
6. Performance funding rewards student
success and becomes a resource for
adopting and expanding practices leading
to further success. The amount of
performance funding is balanced between
providing significant incentive without
undermining the college’s ability to impact
student success.
DeterminingtheMethodforAwardingCollegesforStudentAchievement
Awarding Methodology Net Point Gain (Current Primary Method) Description The increase (change) in total points generated by a college from one year to the next year. (Current method awards point gains by paying a dollar per point.) Points per Student Ratio of points per student; calculated as total points divided by (Current Secondary number of students for a rate. Method) (Modified version of this is used currently when college has no point gain and enrollments decreased.) Total Points The total number of points generated by a college for an academic year. Focus on… Pros Tab 2
Attachment B
Cons  Is influenced by increasing FTE enrollments.  Can be used to easily discuss and demonstrate improvement.  Each college is measured against itself, not compared to others.  Is influenced by increasing FTE enrollments.  Difficult to get point gains when enrollments are falling. Efficiency
Is a college moving their students through the maximum possible number of point milestones?  Is not influenced by enrollments.  Rewards colleges for moving each student further faster. Productivity
Is a college moving students through milestones?  Encourages enrolling as many students as possible.  Easy for a college to see which students are earning points (simple, understandable, reliable)  Is not influenced by enrollments.  Is dependent on which students are being included and the accuracy of the student intent coding.  Might be difficult to find a neutral and fair way of creating funding pool.  Encourages enrolling as many students as possible. Improving Productivity
Is a college increasing total points generated by students from year to year?  Can be used to determine how well colleges perform regardless of college enrollment size.  It is difficult to identify what practices influenced the net point gain. (Colleges can analyze points by mission area and for student characteristics.) Total Completions (Added for consideration after WACTC discussion) Calls out from the ‘Tipping Point’ milestone the total number of degrees, apprenticeships, and certificates earned. Effectiveness
Is a college moving their students to a point of receiving a degree or certificate?  Can be used to easily discuss and demonstrate success and reinforces the national completion agenda.  Completions are already counted as a point in SAI. This creates an added emphasis for completions beyond the framework.  Would need to re‐visit how to count certificates.  Does not address principles of recognizing incremental gains ”‡’ƒ”‡†„›’‡”ƒ–‹‰—†‰‡–ˆˆ‹…‡
DeterminingtheMethodforAwardingCollegesforStudentAchievement
Tab 2
Attachment B
and gains in all mission areas.
Awarding based… Share of Points Description Bases award distribution on a college’s share of a total amount of points generated by the system. Focus on… Distributing a Fixed Amount of Funding Pros Cons  Allows for 100% distribution of funding provided.  A college outcome is influenced by the outcome of other colleges. Dollar amount per point (Current Method) Assigns a fixed dollar value to a point Paying for output
then awards based on points The more points, the larger the generated. award.  Allows for easy calculation of a college’s award totals (i.e., it isn’t dependent on knowing what other colleges are doing, as with shares).  Low system point totals can leave unspent funds in the pool (i.e., not distributed). ”‡’ƒ”‡†„›’‡”ƒ–‹‰—†‰‡–ˆˆ‹…‡
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 3
October, 24 2012
Discussion
Action (Resolution 12-10-47)
Topic
Approval of 2012 Student Achievement Awards
Description
In 2007, the Board launched the Student Achievement Initiative. Its purposes are to both
improve public accountability by more accurately describing what students achieve from
enrolling in our colleges each year, and to provide incentives through financial rewards to
colleges for increasing the levels of achievement attained by their students. It represents a shift
from funding entirely for enrollment inputs to also funding meaningful outcomes.
The initiative emerged from the Board’s 2006 System Direction document that sets an overall
goal to “raise the knowledge and skills of the state’s residents” by increasing educational
attainment across the state. Attainment is a product of participation and student success.
With exceptions for correctional education and international programs, every college student is
measured and their progress is tracked when they reach specific achievement points. These
points include: improving preparation for college-level coursework via increasing basic skills
and advancing in pre-college course levels, making progress towards a year of college credit by
accumulating 15 and 30 college credits, completing college math, and completing certificates,
degrees and apprenticeships.
Colleges earn financial rewards for net increases in achievement points gained each year.
Key Question

Do the Student Achievement funds advance the Board’s intent for funding performance and
for increasing student success?
Analysis
Performance. The framework for Student Achievement is that as more students increase their
basic skills and college readiness, gain momentum from first year college success, and finish
college math they will complete in greater numbers. In the first two years we saw more students
complete the early milestones. In the third, following the framework, more students moved
beyond their first year college milestones, completing college math and advancing to college
completions.
2011-12 is the fourth performance year. For the second consecutive year headcount enrollment
decreased. In fact, headcount fell 9 percent, below the level served in the baseline year.
Colleges, however, increased achievement for a greater share of their students. Points per
student, calculated as total points/total student headcount increased 2 percent. As a result, total
achievement decreased 7 percent. Also like last year, more of the students enrolled continued
Tab 3
Page 2
on to completion. Since the start of the Initiative, completions have increased 46 percent
(Attachment A)
Each college’s total 2011-12 achievement points are compared to the total points earned by
each college in 2010-11. Typically colleges are measured for their self-improvement with
rewards that are based upon total achievement point gain over the previous year. With funding
cuts, 33 colleges experienced declining total FTE enrollments (Attachment B).
Twenty-one (21) colleges increased performance in 2012. When the Initiative was
implemented, one policy was to not penalize colleges for declining FTE enrollments. The award
method included rewarding colleges for increasing the share of students who earned points
measured by points per student. All of the awards earned in 2012 are due to increases in points
per student. Attachment C shows each college’s Student Achievement results.
2012 Awards. The Board is using $1,180,000 million of proviso state appropriation to fund
2012 rewards. The flat rate per point is $84 per point for improvement and in the case of
remaining funds a share of funds based upon relative effectiveness. Attachment D shows
colleges’ awards.
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Annual System Achievement Growth 2007-2011
2011 College FTE Enrollments and One Year Change
2011 College Student Achievement Results
2011 College Student Achievement Awards
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-47, adopting the allocation of 2012 Student
Achievement Awards.
Prepared by: David Prince, 360-704-4347, dprince@sbctc.edu
Susan Wanager, 360-704-4344, swanager@sbctc.edu
Tab 3
Attachment A
Annual System Achievement Growth 2007-2012
Total
Headcount
Basic
Skills
College
Readiness
1st 15
Credits
1st 30
Credits
Quantitative/
Certificate,
Computation
Degree,
Apprentices
2006-07
Baseline
2008-09
%
Change
from
Baseline
2009-10
1 Year %
Change
2010-11
1 Year %
Change
2011-12
1 Year %
Change
Total %
Change
from
Baseline
Total
Points
467,809
70,950
61,581
60,422
45,385
33,989
22,932
295,259
486,927
94,796
73,652
70,127
52,300
36,000
25,544
352,419
4%
34%
20%
16%
15%
6%
11%
19%
489,932
108,219
86,888
73,824
57,128
39,332
27,952
393,343
1%
14%
19%
5%
9%
10%
9%
12%
486,223
97,640
89,861
70,625
55,713
41,411
32,671
387,921
-1%
-10%
3%
-4%
-2%
5%
17%
-1%
442,262
81,809
86,006
66,322
52,954
41,162
33,462
361,715
-9%
-16%
-4%
-6%
-5%
-1%
2%
-7%
-5%
15%
40%
10%
17%
21%
46%
23%
Tab 3
Attachment B
2012 State Funded FTE Enrollments*and One Year Change by College
College BATES BELLEVUE BELLINGHAM BIG BEND CASCADIA CENTRALIA CLARK CLOVER PARK COLUMBIA BASIN EDMONDS EVERETT GRAYS HARBOR GREEN RIVER HIGHLINE LAKE WASHINGTON LOWER COLUMBIA OLYMPIC PENINSULA PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM PIERCE PUYALLUP RENTON SEATTLE CENTRAL SEATTLE NORTH SEATTLE SOUTH SEATTLE VOC INSTITUTE SHORELINE SKAGIT VALLEY SOUTH PUGET SOUND SPOKANE COMMUNITY SPOKANE FALLS TACOMA WALLA WALLA WENATCHEE VALLEY WHATCOM YAKIMA VALLEY 2010‐11
4,209 9,980 2,440 1,887 2,091 2,641 9,819 5,562 5,084 6,439 5,479 1,954 6,675 6,927 3,747 3,652 6,031 2,012 3,783 2,464 4,054 5,852 4,371 4,735 700 5,182 4,322 4,373 6,564 8,169 5,990 3,443 2,908 3,124 4,417 2011‐12
4,796 9,356 2,264 1,782 1,955 2,345 9,637 4,965 5,037 5,721 5,174 1,803 6,290 6,389 3,256 3,184 5,982 1,888 3,579 2,269 3,633 5,397 4,096 4,595 604 5,108 3,982 4,023 6,376 7,693 5,928 3,273 2,834 2,850 4,316 161,081 152,378 One Year Change 587 ‐624 ‐175 ‐105 ‐136 ‐296 ‐182 ‐597 ‐47 ‐718 ‐306 ‐151 ‐385 ‐539 ‐491 ‐468 ‐50 ‐124 ‐204 ‐195 ‐422 ‐456 ‐275 ‐140 ‐96 ‐74 ‐340 ‐350 ‐187 ‐475 ‐63 ‐170 ‐73 ‐274 ‐101 (8,703) Tab 3
Attachment C
Student Achievement Points
2011-12 Cohort
Year End
Student Achievement Points
2011‐12 Cohort
Year‐End
College
BATES
BELLEVUE
BELLINGHAM
BIG BEND
CASCADIA
CENTRALIA
CLARK
CLOVER PARK
COLUMBIA BASIN
EDMONDS
EVERETT
GRAYS HARBOR
GREEN RIVER
HIGHLINE
LAKE WASHINGTON
LOWER COLUMBIA
OLYMPIC
PENINSULA
PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM
PIERCE PUYALLUP
RENTON
SEATTLE CENTRAL
SEATTLE NORTH
SEATTLE SOUTH
SEATTLE VOC INSTITUTE
SHORELINE
SKAGIT VALLEY
SOUTH PUGET SOUND
SPOKANE
SPOKANE FALLS
TACOMA
WALLA WALLA
WENATCHEE VALLEY
WHATCOM
YAKIMA VALLEY
Total Headcount
11,458
35,198
7,425
4,078
4,644
6,372
26,655
10,890
12,988
17,949
21,247
4,166
19,857
18,141
8,273
8,414
15,134
5,409
18,584
6,408
11,405
15,304
14,555
15,165
1,412
10,459
11,488
11,435
13,183
21,508
15,957
7,950
7,456
11,136
10,559
442,262
Basic Skills
1,352
2,868
718
1,444
876
1,148
4,034
1,776
2,753
4,172
3,832
1,100
3,185
6,445
2,868
1,435
881
1,626
1,518
1,081
5,693
4,277
2,170
3,911
519
1,952
1,776
1,164
3
6,607
1,842
1,440
830
1,036
3,477
81,809
College Readiness
744
3,728
736
1,811
1,162
1,339
7,246
2,379
2,909
3,639
3,369
1,415
3,965
2,440
1,890
2,617
3,815
1,051
3,581
1,536
824
2,890
1,519
1,358
‐
2,075
2,980
2,427
2,742
2,679
4,898
1,739
1,802
3,239
3,462
86,006
1st 15 Credits
1,614
4,917
800
781
1,067
957
4,171
1,624
2,263
3,031
3,401
621
2,774
2,528
1,088
1,171
2,829
710
3,058
1,477
1,000
2,089
1,818
1,689
241
1,680
1,987
1,782
2,259
2,588
2,361
1,222
1,254
1,778
1,692
66,322
1st 30 Credits
1,215
3,744
714
603
862
744
3,430
1,277
1,779
2,129
2,488
530
2,195
2,056
947
958
2,319
586
2,412
1,275
809
1,652
1,392
1,332
250
1,400
1,392
1,450
1,990
2,149
1,995
1,033
1,085
1,489
1,273
52,954
Quantitative/ Computation
331
3,555
569
437
912
652
2,023
737
1,304
1,809
2,110
441
1,709
1,894
752
747
1,757
522
1,904
1,037
315
1,138
1,388
1,002
-
1,285
1,217
1,318
1,328
1,338
1,976
676
813
1,288
878
41,162
Certificate, Degree, Apprenticeships
903
1,778
720
466
383
572
1,689
924
1,305
1,386
1,163
385
1,647
1,146
851
832
1,699
467
893
460
1,009
811
820
1,054
212
908
864
1,004
1,604
933
1,144
910
824
907
789
33,462
Total Points
6,159
20,590
4,257
5,542
5,262
5,412
22,593
8,717
12,313
16,166
16,363
4,492
15,475
16,509
8,396
7,760
13,300
4,962
13,366
6,866
9,650
12,857
9,107
10,346
1,222
9,300
10,216
9,145
9,926
16,294
14,216
7,020
6,608
9,737
11,571
361,715
2010‐11 Total Points
486,225 97,640 90,288 71,393 56,503 41,792 32,684 390,300
Variance
(43,963) (15,831) (4,282) (5,071) (3,549) (630) 778 (28,585)
% Change from 2010‐11
‐9%
‐16%
‐5%
‐7%
‐6%
‐2%
2%
‐7%
2010‐11 Total Points
Variance
6,989 (830)
21,983 (1,393)
5,060 (803)
5,231 311
5,488 (226)
6,565 (1,153)
23,430 (837)
8,974 (257)
12,605 (292)
18,819 (2,653)
18,134 (1,771)
4,627 (135)
16,159 (684)
18,121 (1,612)
8,944 (548)
8,350 (590)
14,712 (1,412)
5,948 (986)
13,785 (419)
7,372 (506)
10,611 (961)
14,169 (1,312)
10,004 (897)
10,257 89
1,678 (456)
9,630 (330)
10,707 (491)
10,709 (1,564)
10,132 (206)
17,926 (1,632)
15,121 (905)
7,778 (758)
6,722 (114)
10,876 (1,139)
12,684 (1,113)
390,300 (28,585)
updated 10/09/2012
Tab 3
Attachment D
October 2012 College Student Achievement Awards
2012 Award at $84 per Adjusted Net Point Gain* Point BELLINGHAM 97 $8,148 BIG BEND 2,252 $189,168 CASCADIA 401 $33,684 CLARK 521 $43,764 CLOVER PARK 1,593 $133,812 COLUMBIA BASIN 242 $20,328 GRAYS HARBOR 860 $72,240 LAKE WASHINGTON 1,501 $126,084 LOWER COLUMBIA 232 $19,488 PENINSULA 1,095 $91,980 PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM 648 $54,432 SEATTLE CENTRAL 580 $48,720 SEATTLE SOUTH 606 $50,904 SHORELINE 561 $47,124 SKAGIT VALLEY 498 $41,832 SPOKANE 64 $5,376 SPOKANE FALLS 419 $35,196 TACOMA 511 $42,924 WALLA WALLA 347 $29,148 WENATCHEE VALLEY 275 $23,100 YAKIMA VALLEY 611 $51,324 13,914 $1,168,776 *Adjustment is based upon increase in points per student in 2011‐12 Performance Year compared to 2010‐11 Tab 3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
RESOLUTION 12-10-47
A resolution relating to the Student Achievement Initiative Awards.
WHEREAS, the Board established the Student Achievement Initiative to reward colleges
for improvements in increasing student success and to shift a portion of funding from
enrollments to performance; and
WHEREAS, the Student Achievement Initiative measures colleges for the intermediate
outcomes that students achieve, leading to and completing college certificates and degrees;
and
WHEREAS, state funds for Student Achievement were given a proviso in the 2011-13
budget to the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges; and
WHEREAS, twenty-one (21) colleges accomplished net increases in Student
Achievement between the 2010-11 and the 2011-12 performance year; and
WHEREAS, these funds are awarded to the colleges based on their own achievement
gains; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges approves the 2012 distribution of $1,168,776 to support the Student Achievement
Initiative to be awarded in 2012; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate for 2013 be set at $84 per Achievement
point; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments, as necessary, for actions
taken by the Governor, computational errors, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or
guidelines, legislative appropriation provisos, restrictions, guidelines, uniform accounting and
reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal funding.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on October 24, 2012.
Sharon Fairchild, Chair
ATTEST:
Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 4
October 24, 2012
Discussion
Action
Topic
Efficiency Study Recommendations
Description
The 2010 Legislature enacted ESSB 6359 to encourage further community and technical
college efficiencies in order to enhance student access and success, strengthen academic
programs, and develop and retain high quality faculty. The Efficiency Study Steering Committee
is finalizing recommendations for the State Board’s consideration and approval. The purpose of
this agenda item is to provide Board members with an opportunity to engage with Steering
Committee representatives as they discuss specific recommendations and a proposed
implementation process. The final report to the Legislature will be provided to the Board for
approval at the December 5-6, 2012 State Board meeting.
Key Questions



Do the recommendations support the System Direction and Mission Study
recommendations?
Are the recommendations consistent with the Steering Committee’s commitment to
recommend efficiencies that produce cost-savings and improve services to enhance student
access, persistence and success?
Is there appropriate implementation alignment between the efficiency recommendations and
the ctcLink work phases?
Analysis
Recommendations
At the direction of the Steering Committee, the Hill Group consultants in collaboration with eight
case study colleges, identified and mapped out common business and service processes
performed at each college that held promise for cost savings and benefits if consolidated at the
regional or statewide level. With the leadership of the Business Affairs Commission, an
information request was sent to each of the colleges asking college staff to provide detailed
information on staffing, volume of work, and time on task for each of the processes.
The consultants discussed their analysis and findings with Steering Committee members on
September 24th. (Attachment A: Enhancing Value in Washington’s Community and Technical
Colleges.) Committee members reviewed eight potential efficiency recommendations and
implementation strategies. Each recommendation was evaluated in terms of potential cost
savings and improved services or benefits to students. The consultants discussed various
service delivery structures that could be used to maximize efficiencies and improve services
within the eight process areas such as standardized, centralized, and shared services models.
Tab 4
Page 2
Implementation Plan
During the discussion, the consultants stressed the timing to implement strategies for
streamlining and improving processes couldn’t be better due to the work being done to
implement ctcLink. Changes in business practices will inevitably have to take place as a result
of moving from the system’s “home grown” computer systems to a commercial software
product. It makes good sense to develop business processes that will be more efficient and add
value as the system begins to migrate to the new ctcLink management system.
Communication with Colleges
The draft recommendations were discussed with the college presidents at their meeting on
September 28th. The college commissions discussed the recommendations at their meetings in
early October. Feedback was collected by staff and shared with the Steering Committee at their
meeting on October 15th.
Background Information
Attachment A: Enhancing Value in Washington’s Community and Technical Colleges
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6359 can be found at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6359S.SL.pdf
Recommendation/Outcomes
Board members will have an opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on the Efficiency
Study recommendations with representatives from the Steering Committee.
Prepared by: Kathy Goebel, 360-704-4359, kgoebel@sbctc.edu
Enhancing Value in Washington’s Community and Technical Colleges:
Realizing value through greater service delivery coordination
“…the legislature intends to provide mechanisms to encourage further efficiencies that will provide cost savings to
be used to enhance student access and success, strengthen academic programs, and develop and retain high quality
faculty through cost-effective partnerships and coordination between institutions, including shared services and increased complementary programming as well as structural administrative efficiencies.”
- ESSB 6359, P.2, lines 1-6
Overview:
To address the original request from the Washington State
Legislature, as outlined in Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill
(ESSB) 6359, the Washington community and technical colleges
formed an Efficiency Steering Committee composed of college
presidents, trustees, faculty union representatives, faculty,
students, State Board members, and Washington State Board
for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) staff to identify
areas within the operations of the entire community and
technical college system where resources could be reallocated
to further enhance student value.
The initial analysis provided the following findings:
1. Identified the controllable and uncontrollable factors
related to community and technical colleges that
influence student access, persistence, and completion,
2. Concluded, through joint-quantitative and qualitative
analysis, that there was no statistically significant
relationship between student outcomes and the
institution’s governance structure nor a capacity for
sustained value creation to come from such governance
changes,
3. Highlighted that, given the current level of
communication and cooperation through the design and
culture of Washington’s community and technical
college system, efficiencies may be found in the
improvement of the processes performed within the
institutions by taking a system-wide perspective.
Building upon the findings from the initial analysis, outlined in
Enhancing Value in Washington Community and Technical
Colleges – Update for WACTC, July 2012, the goal of the second
stage of this third phase was to conduct a thorough analysis of
potential value creation within each of these eight areas and
develop a conservative assessment of the additional value that
could be realized through enhanced partnerships and
coordination between institutions.
Understanding the cost denominator of the value creation
equation
This study was not intended to focus solely on budget-cutting,
but to identify a set of recommendations that will “provide cost
savings to be used to enhance student access and
success” (ESSB 6359, P.2, line2). Figure 1 provides a visual
depiction of the value equation used to frame the
methodology.
The concept of value was separated into faculty/staff value,
student value, and community value with the term on the
opposite side of the equation illustrating the concept of benefit
(expressed through access, persistence, and achievement) over
cost (described as avoidable and unavoidable).
Figure 1: Defining Value and Avoidable Cost
The focus of this effort from March to July 2012 was aimed at
understanding the controllable and uncontrollable factors
influencing a student’s access, persistence, and completion
(Benefit Drivers) and quantifying this influence to determine
the magnitude and strength of the relationship – thus defining
the numerator of the equation in Figure 1.
Recent efforts have concentrated on a narrow scope of process
areas (eight processes), their relationship to the benefit drivers,
and their ability to reduce the total resources required by these
processes (equation denominator). Resources reallocated to
controllable benefit drivers within the institutions – thereby
creating value.
The eight in-scope process areas focus within specific
functional clusters
Due to time and resource constraints, and to allow for the
development of actionable recommendations, the Efficiency
Study Steering Committee selected a subset of processes that
would (A) realize value enhancement in both the short- and
long-term and (B) continue to benefit the system when the
technology (i.e. ctcLink) utilized by these process areas
changes.
Each in-scope process area was decomposed to identify the
discrete activities that are performed similarly across
institutions
In order to understand the extent to which increased
collaboration between institutions would be beneficial within a
specific process area, a detailed mapping of the activities
performed, systems and documents utilized, and individuals
performing the activities was critical.
To achieve this level of understanding, a detailed conversation
was held with the process owner(s) of each process area within
eight case study institutions. The result of these conversations
was the definition of the process as it operated within their
specific institution. This allowed for the identification of
homogeneous process activities across all eight institutions for
inclusion in the efficiency analysis.
Figure 2: In-scope process clusters
As depicted in Figure 2, these eight process areas form three
clusters – representing the relationships between process areas
- (Business Office, Human Resources, and Student Life Cycle)
and one supporting process (Information Technology
Management).
2
While it would be ideal to map the in-scope processes for all
institutions within the Washington community and technical
college system, time and resource limitations prohibited this.
The case study group utilized did compose a strong crosssection of institution sizes, structures, areas of focus, student
populations, and program offerings to provide a solid
understanding of process similarity and difference.
Figure 3: Percent of system expenditure in-scope
The result of this mapping identified a total of 80 discrete
process activities that were candidates for further analysis
within the eight process areas. These candidates were defined
based upon the following criteria:

Is not a comparative advantage – performance of the
activity did not serve as a differentiating factor for the
institution

Homogeneous – performance and/or intended outcome
from performance of the activity was similar for all of the
case-study institutions and would logically continue to be
similar for the remainder of the system

Little duplex communication – performance of the activity
largely required little or mostly one-way communication
between the requestor and individual performing the
function

In order to improve a process, variance in process execution
must be controlled
Provides the opportunity for current resources to focus
on strategic activities – as has been frequently discussed,
the goal of this analysis is not merely budget-cutting and
therefore if it is often seen that the resource performing
this activity could create greater value by allocating their
time elsewhere, the activity was considered a candidate
for review
A common first step in realizing efficiencies from process
improvement is identifying and reducing variability in both the
cost to complete and time to complete the process activity for
a single unit of volume. A graphical depiction of the degree of
variance was developed for each of the 80 in-scope process
activities using “bubble” charts.
In most cases, the initial and ending activities within a process
remained at the institution and did not become candidates for
further analysis. While those activities that were more
repetitive in nature and did not interface with individuals
outside the process were often included for further analysis.
The current level of base salary expenditure associated with
these 80 process activities among the reporting institutions
(approximately 25 institutions) was $34.5 million. This
represents approximately 9.6 percent of the administrative
budget for all institutions within the Washington community
and technical college system and 3 percent of the total budget
(Figure 3).
Each bubble within the chart represented the relationship
between the weighted average labor cost per hour (y-axis) and
the number of labor hours required to per unit of volume for
that activity (x-axis). The size of the bubble represents the
number of units of volume driving the process activity. The
volume driver were identified in order to allow for
comparability between institutions that perform the same
activity at different levels and highlight efficiencies in having a
greater number of volume drivers. An example of a volume
driver would be the number of invoices processed for the
activity “Purchasing receivables/invoice review”. The median
value for each axis was calculated and represented in each
chart by the horizontal and vertical dashed lines.
3
Figure 4 illustrates an example of a process activity with
variance in cost. A majority of institutions are taking a similar
time to complete the activity per unit of volume but are
utilizing individuals of varied costs per hour to complete the
same function.
Figure 4: Cost Variance
The ability to realize efficiencies and control variance can be
conducted through multiple service delivery structures
Multiple service delivery structure alternatives are available for
reducing the degree of variability in process execution and
potential reduction in the level of resources allocated to the inscope activities for reallocation to those areas that have been
previously found to drive student benefit.
Standardization
Standardization involves the definition of consistent processes
for completing a specified task using similar technology,
documentation, and resources. The execution of these
processes would remain within the individual institutions and
therefore governance over process execution would also reside
within the colleges (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Standardization Graphic
Figure 5 illustrates an example of a process activity with
variance in the time required to complete the activity. A
majority of institutions are utilizing an individual of similar skilllevel but are requiring a varying amount of time to complete
per unit of volume. Activities with a high degree of time
variance often indicates a difference in how the process is
completed or the percentage of the individual’s total workday
that is associated with the specific process activity.
Figure 5: Time Variance
Assuming that resources are fluid (i.e. removing the necessary
assumption that resources must be reviewed in terms of
individuals), standardization of the in-scope process activities to
the median time to complete and hourly rate calculated from
the responding institutions would result in approximately $7
million in net annual cost avoidance for the responding
institutions. However, it is unlikely that each institution has a
single individual performing each of the functions and could
replace that individual with another person having salary
requirements of the median institution and only have them
perform the specific process activity with productivity at the
median time.
In reality, many of the individuals within the Washington
community and technical college system spend their day
performing multiple process activities. A total of 1,300
individuals were reported to play some role in the execution of
in-scope process activities yet the total time required to
perform all activities equates to only 417 FTE. Further analysis
of this allocation indicates that by standardizing the process,
those above the median time required to complete a process
would not realize a level of reduction in utilization that would
allow the institution to significantly reduce the number of
individuals required to perform a process – as the process must
still be performed within the institution.
4
Centralization
Centralization is the action of allocating responsibility for all
process execution completed by system institutions within a
central group. In this model, it would be the responsibility of
the central group to request necessary information from each
institution, likely through the use of identified “process
liaisons”, and complete the process with little governance held
by the institutions themselves (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Centralization
This model would help to realize greater annual value creation
by completely removing the need for each individual institution
to complete all process activities thereby freeing up additional
time among current individuals to reallocate to activities
impacting student outcomes. However, given the (A) current
degree of local activity required for completing the larger
process in which these in-scope activities fall, (B) need for local
responsiveness to institution students, faculty, staff, and
vendors throughout the completion of these processes, and (C)
necessity for maintaining or enhancing the degree of service
provided within these processes as a result of any delivery
change, the estimated cost avoidance to be realized through
consolidation of in-scope activities would likely be
compromised by the lack of local accountability exhibited
within the centralized model.
Shared Services
Implementation of a shared services model seeks to “pool” the
resources of multiple organizations that may or may not be
affiliated with one another in order to provide a standardized
set of services at a lower cost and higher quality than that
which the organization could provide on their own.
This model differs from that of centralization in that the
responsibility for process execution would remain with the
institution who would retain those activities that help to
differentiate the institution and contract with shared services
for those activities that are homogeneous in nature and not
likely to require a great deal of communication with local
individuals nor the stakeholders for whom the process is
performed (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Shared Services
Accountability for efficient and effective execution of the
process activities within shared services can be realized through
the structuring of the group providing the service and creation
of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) outlining the level of service
to be provided to all institutions and related repercussions for
not meeting these predefined metrics.
A comprehensive review of the approximately 1,300 individuals
currently performing the process activities that are in-scope,
assessment of the degree each individual performs these
responsibilities, and reallocation of these hours to reduce the
number of individuals necessary for performing these
processes at the institution and related adjustment to the
necessary size of the shared services group created an
estimated annual cost avoidance of $3.3 million across the
approximately 25 reporting institutions. In most cases, this cost
avoidance is not due to a reduction in total headcount, but a
reallocation of activities from a more experienced resource that
performs those functions as a small part of their job to a lower
cost resource that can perform those activities full-time
through completing the activity for multiple institutions.
This estimated cost avoidance is extremely conservative as it is
only assuming a level of productivity and cost in line with the
median value of the reporting institutions. Greater efficiencies
and increased quality of process outputs are a common result
from implementation of a well-managed shared services
structure.
5
Figure 9: Alignment with ctcLink implementation
Aligning the implementation of an enhanced delivery structure
and ctcLink would provide additional opportunities for value
enhancement
A critical element in the effective implementation of any
enterprise resource planning system, such as ctcLink, is the
alignment of the processes to be performed using the system
with the capabilities of the system itself. Business process
redesign for those areas impacted by the ctcLink implementation
would be necessary with or without a change in the delivery
structure of the in-scope process activities however, the ability to
utilize this opportunity to design the process and configure the
technology in order to achieve optimum value in service delivery
would likely generate cost avoidance above the estimated $3.3
million and result in better quality of process execution. For this
reason, it is recommended that the implementation of any
delivery structure changes be done in tandem with the wavestyle roll out of ctcLink (Figure 9).
In some cases, the implementation of ctcLink would remove
the need for human interaction with an in-scope process activity. This was found to be the case in three of the activities
reviewed. Two of these process activities were related to the
collection and entry of paper timesheets while the final area
was the performance of unofficial degree audits. The removal of labor costs from these activities resulted in an expected
annual cost avoidance of $1.5 million.
Estimating the increased efficiencies in the other process
areas through the implementation of ctcLink was not included in this analysis as these have not yet been fully defined. It
would be reasonable, however, to expect additional cost
avoidance purely related to the system’s implementation,
increasing the value of a more coordinated delivery structure
as these efficiencies can then be pooled to realize cost avoidance rather than being left with partially unallocated individuals within the institution.
6
Much is left to be done in operationalizing a shared service
strategy
While a compelling argument exists in both the realms of cost
avoidance and enhanced service delivery evidencing the
feasibility of such a model, it will be the responsibility of the
Efficiency Study Steering Committee and other key
stakeholders
to
begin
to
operationalize
these
recommendations and progress this model in parallel with the
ctcLink implementation.
Key topics to be addressed prior to operationalizing the model
include:
 How the collaborative group will be structured (e.g.
centrally, regionally, virtually, hybrid, etc.),
 Further analysis on the reallocation of resources related to
the process activities migrating from being locally executed
to being shared,
 Whether additional process activities should be included
within the shared services group’s offerings during this
initial phase, and, l
 How the relationship between the shared services group,
the community and technical college institutions, and the
SBCTC will be structured to maintain a high level of quality
and service in process activity execution for a cost that is
below the market rate
Additionally, an agreed upon method for reallocating avoided
costs through use of the shared service model should be
addressed to aid in incentivizing institution participation in this
effort.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 5
October 24, 2012
Discussion
Action
Topic
Legislative and Communications Update
Description
Staff will update the board on the status of key legislative races and topical issues, current and
upcoming messaging materials, and the statewide communications plan.
Key Questions

Are there other key messages the board would like to focus on for the upcoming legislative
session?
Analysis
Legislative Update
The gubernatorial race and several senate races are expected to be close. Party control of the
executive branch and the senate hang in the balance. Results of the November 6th elections will
be discussed at the December board meeting.
In September, the Board approved the system’s 2013-15 operating budget request. Board staff
then worked with presidents, trustees, and public information officers to develop a one-page
summary, which was widely distributed to colleges, legislators and stakeholders. Staff also
prepared a set of talking points that accompanied the summary, for use by the colleges
(Attachments A & B).
A comprehensive legislative agenda flyer will be produced again this year in December.
The flyer will summarize our operating and capital budget requests and any policy asks that gel
between now and then.
Communications Update
As part of the statewide communications plan, the SBCTC contracted with Douglas Gould and
Associates to conduct an online focus group and survey to gauge the public’s perceptions of
community and technical colleges. Gould and Associates will identify messages that resonate
with the public and the Legislature and make recommendations related to the statewide
communications plan. Doug Gould will provide a summary of his findings and a strategic memo,
and present his results to system participants at two workshops in November.
September’s online, virtual community forum provided valuable insight for the 500-person
survey now underway. Staff will update the board on initial findings and next steps.
Background Information
Attachment A: 2013-15 Operating Budget One-Pager
Attachment B: 2013-15 Operating Budget Talking Points
Prepared by: Deb Merle, 360-704-4348, dmerle@sbctc.edu
TAB 5, Attachment A
Washington Community and Technical Colleges
2013-15 Operating Budget Request
Building a Work-Ready Washington
Expand STEM, other high-demand degrees, programs ($74.6 million)
High-demand certificates and degrees lead to jobs available now and build a skilled workforce for
Washington. For every unemployed science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) worker,
there are 2.1 jobs available. By contrast, there are 3.7 unemployed people competing for every nonSTEM job. High-demand workforce programs are often more expensive to deliver and many were
reduced or closed due to budget cuts. It’s time to grow these critical workforce programs again.
•
•
•
•
Professional-technical certificates and degrees lead directly to jobs in aerospace, healthcare,
alternative energy, and other STEM fields.
One-third of all STEM baccalaureate degree holders in the state began at a community or
technical college, benefitting from high-quality, lower-cost coursework before transferring.
Adult Basic Education (ABE) brings low-skilled adults into the workforce by improving their
math, reading, and English language skills.
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) combines workforce and basic skills
training so students learn literacy and workplace skills at the same time.
Get students through college and into jobs ($43.0 million)
Helping students complete programs quickly and get to work has never been more important.
Increasing support services – like academic advising and career counseling – and decreasing costs
will propel students to completion and into jobs.
•
•
•
•
The Student Achievement Initiative measures student progress and rewards colleges for moving
students toward completion ($17.5 million).
Transitioning more than 180 part-time faculty to full-time positions will improve student success
and increase completion rates ($9.4 million).
Opportunity Grants help low-income adults train for careers in high-demand fields. Grants cover
tuition, books, emergency childcare, and transportation services. Funding will expand the
number of students served from 3,700 to 4,300 ($10.1 million).
Washington’s Open Course Library offers textbooks and other materials at a fraction of the cost.
Expanding and integrating open resources with a new learning management system will help
students complete college courses quickly and affordably ($6 million).
Investments in quality faculty and staff ($80.1 million)
High-quality faculty and staff prepare students for great jobs and careers.
•
•
•
1
•
The Legislature can authorize modest salary increases for faculty who update their knowledge,
skills and abilities ($10.2 million).
More competitive salaries will help colleges recruit and retain high-quality faculty and staff for
outstanding education that sharpens Washington’s competitive edge ($37.8 million).
Equalizing faculty and exempt staff cost-of-living increases will create a more cohesive college
system ($9.6 million).
Moving the average part-time faculty starting salary from 62 to 67 percent of the average fulltime faculty salary will help colleges maintain flexible weekend and evening courses and quickly
respond to emerging workforce needs ($22.5 million).
TAB 5, Attachment B
Washington Community and Technical Colleges
2013-15 Operating Budget Request
Building a Work-Ready Washington
Key messages
• Washington must increase job training in high demand fields – especially science,
technology, engineering and math (STEM) – to move more people into high-wage jobs
and keep our economy competitive. These vital programs are often more expensive to
deliver and many have been closed or reduced because of recent budget cuts. It’s time
to grow these critical workforce programs again.
• Community and technical colleges are uniquely positioned to respond quickly to urgent
state-wide labor market shortages. We have a proven track record of filling “skill gaps.”
We’ve done it before and can do it again, given sufficient resources.
• Getting students through college and into jobs quickly is also important so students pile
up less debt, leave with job-ready skills, and contribute to the economy. We’ve got the
tools to move people further and faster.
o Our performance-based funding system – the Student Achievement Initiative –
provides financial incentives for colleges who move more students to completion.
o Opportunity Grants and on-line, open resources help make college more
affordable.
•
High-quality faculty and staff are also key to the success of our students and the strength
of our economy. Competitive salaries and incentives for faculty who update their
knowledge, skills and abilities will bring the latest innovations and practices into the
classroom so students are prepared for the real world, regardless of how fast it
changes.
1
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges | www.sbctc.edu | October 5, 2012
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM
TAB 7
October 24, 2012
Discussion
Action
Topic
Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) Demonstration
Description
Canvas is the learning management system selected during a statewide RFP process in March
2012. In June the Board authorized the executive director to proceed with contract negotiations
and execute a contract for the college system to use Canvas. The SBCTC contract allows each
college in our system and all public four-year institutions to purchase Canvas for all faculty, staff
and students at a favorable price.
SBCTC began a two-year implementation of Canvas in July 2012. By October, ten system
colleges had set up a Canvas environment, and another 15 colleges will begin using Canvas by
June 2013. The University of Washington, Eastern Washington University and Western
Washington University are also using the SBCTC Canvas contract. The remaining higher
education institutions are actively considering whether to move to Canvas.
Staff, faculty and students who have already moved to Canvas appreciate these features:
 Mobile technology
 Flexible delivery so users can choose where to receive course material ─ in the online
classroom, on Facebook, by email, etc.
 Straightforward interface for all users
 Cloud hosting and greater capacity for large digital files
 Universal access for all campus staff, faculty and students at a single price
 Open source programming
 Easy integration with other technology tools
 Ability to easily share content and enrollments across institutions, which will enhance
use of both the Open Course Library and WAOL shared courses
Major Considerations





The learning management system (LMS) is the core technology to support the suite of
teaching and learning tools and support services as recommended by the SBCTC Strategic
Technology Plan.
Instructure (Canvas) was the clear choice of a formal RFP process that included feedback
from almost a thousand faculty and staff, as well as participation by all six of the public fouryear institutions in Washington.
The RFP committee and other colleges chose Canvas because of its user-friendly
programming that includes advanced mobile technology for faculty and students.
System colleges started a two-year migration process to move classrooms and
programming to Canvas; that process is currently ahead of schedule.
System libraries are in the process of choosing a single library platform that will be
integrated into Canvas, making it easy to find and use all library content from inside the
Canvas classroom
Tab 7
Page 2
Analysis
No institution, including the four-year institutions who participated in the RFP process, is
required to use the Instructure (Canvas) contract. The institutions that do participate will benefit
from a reduced price based on the aggregated FTE of any participating institution in the state.
Canvas institutions will also be able to take advantage of integrations with system elearning
tools like Tegrity, Collaborate, and library materials. Colleges are already collaborating on the
development and delivery of professional development for faculty and college administrators.
Faculty find Canvas easy to use, and they like its superior mobile and social networking tools.
Since Canvas is hosted in the cloud, hosting capacity will always meet or exceed user demand.
Today, the online classroom is used not only by students who are working at a distance, but
also by students in face-to-face classes, and by students and faculty during emergency
closures. A common learning management system for all students and staff creates new
opportunities to take advantage of digital technologies that can improve teaching and learning.
SBCTC eLearning will integrate Canvas with the student management system and with other
system-supported elearning tools (Tegrity, Bb Collaborate, and library systems), so users will
have all centrally supported elearning tools with one log-in process. Each institution will have its
own Canvas installation that is hosted in the cloud, so each institution will be able to manage
their own users, classrooms and branding. At the same time, since most institutions in the state
have indicated that they will move to Canvas in the next two years, Canvas will provide an
unprecedented opportunity for colleges to share professional development, programming, and a
simple way to share course content. An easier way to use open content, including Open
Course Library content, will save students money in textbook costs. Most important, when our
students move from campus to campus, they can focus on learning the course content rather
than learning different course content delivery systems.
Background
Canvas: http://instructure.com
RFP materials: http://sbctc.edu/college/_e-elearningprojects.aspx
Outcomes
Staff will provide a demonstration of the new learning management system, Canvas. Board
members will have an opportunity to see the new system and discuss its features with faculty
and student users.
Prepared by: Connie Broughton, cbroughton@sbctc.edu 360-704-4334.