Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Final Minutes – 11/23/14
Research and Planning Commission (RPC) Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference - Thursday, October 30, 2014 – Friday, October 31, 2014
Best Western Plus Lake Front Hotel ─ Moses Lake, WA
Attendance: 42 participants representing 25 institutions (including 3 from SBCTC) over the 2 days.
Institutions represented:
Bates Technical College
Big Bend Community College
Bellevue College
Bellingham Technical College
Centralia College
Clover Park Technical College
Columbia Basin College
Community Colleges of Spokane
Ex Officio: SBCTC
Edmonds Community College
Green River Community College
Lower Columbia
North Seattle College
Peninsula College
Renton Technical College
Seattle Central College
Shoreline Community College
Skagit Valley College
Spokane Community College
Spokane Falls Community College
Tacoma Community College
Walla Walla Community College
Wenatchee Valley College
Whatcom Community College
Yakima Valley Community College.
Thursday October 30
9:00
Welcome and introductions
Valerie Kirkwood, Big Bend
Dr. Terry Leas, Big Bend Community College President
Susan Murray – RPC members introduce themselves
9:20
Commission Status 201: PRC purpose and function (Susan Murray)
Topic: College participation. Now that institutional researchers have had commission status for a couple
of years, Exec has observed: participation from all colleges is necessary, but that has not happened.
Colleges have not changed their approach to participation from the pre-commission focus on IR
professional development and conversations about issues, to being a formal part of the CTC governance
and decision making structure.
RPC has uniquely broad membership among the WACTC commissions, as anyone in any role related to
institutional effectiveness, research, planning or assessment is invited. Members range from vice
presidents to IT analysts, including classified staff and a faculty member. This is in contrast to other
SBCTC commissions, which are generally limited to a specific person in a given role on each college
campus. (Colleges can send as many members to RPC as they wish, but one vote per college.)
Topic: Committees. Specific RPC committees are not spelled out in the by-laws, in order to allow
flexibility to be responsive to emerging and evolving issues. Committees are charged with getting work
done, and then making recommendations to Exec. Various gaps in this process have been identified.
Discussion. As recommending bodies, committees have on-going work that requires continuity. One
concern is that over time the leadership has fallen on a small number of people, which is unsustainable.
A second issue is that committee project selection processes have been informal. In some cases there
are governance decisions being made that have implications beyond the committee itself. For example
Page 1 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
when projects are proposed directly to committees rather than via Exec. At the Business Meeting
10/31/14, RPC will consider convening a taskforce to develop guidelines to supplement the by-laws.
9:40
Review of 2014-15 work plan (Susan Murray)
Overview. RPC is asked each year to present a work plan to Education Services Committee for approval.
Ed Services also has their own work plan and can task RPC with projects (none so far this year) The Work
Plan as shown in the hand out, minus the two shaded columns, was reviewed and approved by the
Presidents, with little substantive comments, at their fall 2014 meeting.
Discussion: Several new strategies have been added. System Direction Goal: Innovation, Objective:
Increase efficiency in data gathering, management and analysis. Strategy: there will be the first ever
joint meeting with ITC, February 12-13 2015 in Bellevue.
System Direction Goal: Student Success, Objective: Support Development of meaningful, accessible data
related to educational attainment. Strategy: addressing the WSSSC-MDSSC request for RPC assistance,
dialog has been restarted. They want: more disaggregated data available at the system level
(race/ethnicity and other identity characteristics); disaggregation of the Asian race/ethnicity category to
more specifically identify Pacific Islanders. Darby has developed tools under the aegis of AtD reporting,
and the idea is to share those tools with WSSSC-MDSSC, provide training and figure out if the tools meet
their needs.
Data Governance Committee, only cross-group committee on data governance. Provides consultation
across all commissions on data and coding issues. Carmen McKenzie/Susan Maxwell co-chair.
Discussions about these topics will occur in that venue.
Susan Murray will be reporting out to the Ed Services Committee tomorrow at the end of tomorrow’s
meeting.
10:15 Student Achievement Initiative: Data , System/College Perspectives (Darby Kaikkonen)
SAI
Presentation_Fall RPC Meeting_2014.pptx
PPT: Student Achievement Initiative: Overview and Data Tools. What is it? Performance based funding
and accountability system. Current model awards a share of $4,684,627 in new money (above-base
allocation ) which is a variable pool that does not add to the base allocation each year. It is essentially a
zero-based award process every year.
More detail is available in files on the SBCTC website. http://www.sbctc.edu/college/_e-studentachievement-2012.aspx
Data principles were developed based on feedback from first iteration. One focus is transparency for
people who want to use SAI data to track what is going on at their college.
Clarifications: it is possible but rare that a student would earn an academic 45-credit point in one year,
and a workforce 45-credit point the next. Workforce credits are CIP based at the course level, but not
screened for fit within a particular workforce program.
Page 2 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Data tools:
1. SA Cohorts (first-time fall quarter starts). Based on GISS 2011. Excel workbooks are released to
colleges annually, and include college-specific and system level data enabling comparisons.
2. Achieving the Dream Data Tool is based on SA Cohorts data, focus on “first time in college” (uses
state YRQ start field). Includes data for all colleges. Available on the SBCTC website under
Achieving the Dream data resources. Will be updated to reflect the new SAI framework, with yetto-be-determined approach for enabling trend analysis.
3.
Measuring Up based on GISS 2013. Unlike SA Cohorts, includes all students enrolled in a given
academic year. Addresses recommendations regarding the framework of SAI, such that basic skills
transition has become a focus (rather than simply level gains), as has completions (viewed as ratio
of completions/student).
College stories:
Lower Columbia (Wendy Hall): AtD now requires WA colleges to use SAI tools. College uses SA Cohorts
for tracking (strategic plan, core themes). Areas most helpful include the tool showing transition of precollege math students getting to quantitative point. Used for successful AtD Leader College application.
Tacoma (Kelley Sadler): Used 15 credit point to show progression beyond pre-college English and math.
Enables college to focus on transition to college level building on pre-college work. Also uses for core
theme indicators to show how college compares to the system.
Spokane Falls (Sally Johnson): Uses with advisors, focusing on academic transfer students. For example,
by encouraging students to take math by their second quarter, may see an impact in quantitative point
attainment. Providing more intentional advising may increase attainment of 45-credit point.
SBCTC: Uses these data to identify colleges performing exceptionally well in particular areas.
Suggestions for sharing the resources more effectively
1. Uploading the data into Tableau. An issue is labor required for upload/maintenance. Possibility of
incorporating into the RPC work plan was discussed. Tacoma has created an SA Cohorts Tableau
dashboard, willing to provide training.
2. A single location for a short summary of the tools and the anticipated reporting calendar. Possibility
of revising the SAI web page on the SBCTC website.
11:15 Logic Models for Evaluation (Bayta Maring, Shoreline CC)
RPC Fall 2014 Logic
Models FINAL.pptx
PPT: Logic Models Intro/Refresher Logic Models are becoming more important in accreditation and
grants. There are resources that members may find useful for developing logic models at their college.
Discussion: Outputs versus outcomes. E.g., output as in “hold a workshop” outcome in terms of what
difference it made that the workshop was held. Development of theories of action first. Explicit
consideration of external factors. Trade-offs such as time to plan versus implementation; evaluation
effort and timeliness. Necessity of input assessment up front. Process of constructing model might be
more valuable than the product.
12:45 Committee Meetings
Accreditation and Performance and Outcomes (joint meeting): See Friday committee reports.
Data Quality and Technology: See Friday committee reports.
Communications committee: See Friday committee reports.
Page 3 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2:30
2014 Fall Conference
Draft_Excellent
Practices_2014-11-10.docx
Principles for Identifying Best Practices: Final Draft (Maureen Pettitt)
“Excellent Practices” hand out. General support was expressed. Those with comments were asked to
send them to Maureen, as David Prince is planning to circulate RPC draft to the other commissions soon.
2:45
ctcLink: Master Data Views and Finals Process in PeopleSoft and Data Governance
Committee report (Carmen McKenzie)
1. ctcLink: Master Data Views and Finals Process in PeopleSoft
Update on role at SBCTC: Carmen has moved out of Research and into IT Dept. Working with the ctcLink
project from the perspective of SBCTC need for data and reporting. For clarity: Tonya Benton is ctcLink
rep for the colleges, Carmen for the SBCTC. Carmen is working on system for how to get data out of
ctcLink and into Data Warehouse.
Topic: Student Data. Current practice: throughout quarter registrars enter/correct data. At end of
quarter, registrars run MIS report, data elements are added, it goes to SBCTC. Then it is pulled to DW,
elements are added. DW instances are released to the colleges.
Issues: A. colleges end quarters at varying points, so early-ending colleges have more time to clean their
data than late-ending colleges. B. current practice involves lengthy year-end lag for catch-up data work
at the colleges prior to year-end reporting on completions.
Discussion: PeopleSoft does not have preset process for extracting data for SBCTC DW. A mapping
process has begun, focused on the fields in PS necessary for DW. Plan is to create views for “SBCTC
master data” that are moved over to data view managed by the SBCTC nightly. Added will be key data
elements for reporting (e.g., kind of student, worker retraining).
Colleges will be able to see the data in-quarter so coding errors and other issues can be identified and
fixed prior to end of quarter DW pull. A full re-engineered version will be extracted at 10th Day and at
the end of the quarter for the DW 2.0.
The format will be reports colleges access for error checking, e.g. aggregate state FTES, worker
retraining (allocation-relevant). PS data views will use true master data source (includes everyone, no
“MIS reportable” filter).
Decisions need to be made about what data elements to include in views, as those data elements will
then fall under the scope of the Data Governance Committee. The DGC can then look at scope and
determine definition of that data element.
Q: Will there be an indicator equivalent to “MIS Reportable”?
A: Yes. The DW structure will stay the same as legacy structure for a couple of years, allowing SBCTC to
continue reporting and cohort creation they need. DW 3.0 to be created after more experience with PS.
Q: Will PS Views being created be accessible to all colleges in ctcLink?
A: Yes, within PS, in the transaction instance and reporting instance.
Q: Will Carmen’s documentation of views and criteria be made available?
A: These documents are in process, and documentation is being worked on, but they will be shared.
Q: Daily updates of State FTES?
A: Tonya has been involved in developing these tools. Several fields are involved. A job will be run every
night to calculate FTE. The view will be accessible to everyone, with transparency around the process.
Page 4 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Q: OBIE requires a repository, so could not use the views being discussed.
A: Will need to follow up with Tonya.
Issue: Timing of data reporting. Carmen spoke to the Registrars about the process to be used to get the
data from the colleges to the SBCTC. The process runs at night. Currently Registrars must release data
to SBCTC, whereas PS version is passively automatic. Idea to use the college-specific Quarter End Date as
the final extraction date, although registrars have expressed wish for a few days to clean up.
Currently, for each academic year, there are 5 pulls (quarterly and final). Final pull September/October
updates previous academic year dataset. This is later than optimal. Registrars have requested onequarter lag in Transcripts/Completions data pulls during the year. That would slow within-year
reporting, but academic year-end reporting could be ready at end of summer quarter (in August).
Discussion: Current situation involves enormous workload in Oct/Nov for prior academic year. Problem
is that colleges are not able to keep up with completion posting during the year which introduces a lag.
Problem with new system is reporting for grants that need transcript data as the year progresses. Tradeoff of mid-year/ongoing reporting versus ability to do earlier year-end reporting. Generally participants
were in favor of the proposed process giving registrars one quarter lag.
Q: Can first generation status be added to PS views?
A: It is an admissions element that will be added to the PS views. Definition has now been standardized
across colleges. Discussion: First generation information on FAFSA is different from how the question is
asked on applications, so it would be useful to have both elements available in PS view.
2. Data Governance Committee (Carmen McKenzie, continued)
Topic being discussed by DGC: PS Online admissions requires values in FirstName and LastName fields,
which is a problem for students with one name (mono-name). Legacy made standardization difficult, so
there is a lot of variety. A policy is needed, as names are used for probability-matching processes
including e.g., ERDC. Susan Maxwell, DGC co-chair, is taking lead on mono-names.
Discussion: Names that do not fit FN MN LN model other than mono-names include transliterations,
multiple middle or surnames. Elements include use of hyphens, spaces and so on. Cynthia Requa noted
Susan Maxwell’s commentary on the implications of how these name data are used in communications.
Topic: Prior Learning Assessment document that was sent through the process for approval last year
needs to be looked at again in light of PS and addition of HS21 learning assessment process. Went to
Registrars, will be sent back through RPC soon.
Q: Implications/flagging of Smarter Balanced results or method of handling in PS.
A: Carmen will do consultations to find out what is planned and possible.
Q: Process for “matriculation” field rather than firstYRQ?
A: Definition is under discussion, and whether it means students are accepted into a program versus
other definitions.
Topic: PS does not use Intent codes, but SBCTC uses them to build SA Cohorts. Crosswalk of Intent Codes
to PS Plan codes is under development. Issue: How are colleges using G intent? Question of selective
admissions programs for mapping to PS.
Discussion: Students taking Allied health pre-requisites are coded G. Also prof/tech programs that
require portfolio evaluation for entry e.g., Graphic Design. Problem of inconsistency across programs
within a given college as well as across colleges. Issue about implications for students of coding (e.g.,
financial aid). Using G affects financial aid differently than using M.
Page 5 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Suggestion: SBCTC to work with colleges as they go, because EPC codes will need to be cleaned up at
each college in order to work in PS as Plan Codes, which link to Exit Codes.
3:45 Updates: System Issues and Interactions
ITC: Joint meeting in Winter 2015 (Russ Beard, Susan Murray/Teresa Greene (RPC liaison to ITC))
ITC is the only commission RPC has a formal relationship with, given shared interests. A joint RPC/ITC
meeting is being planned for February 2015 at Bellevue College. Space will be available for RPC to meet
Wed, joint meetings Th.
Question: What should be on the agenda?
Discussion: Convene discussion with DBAs, IT leads/CIOs, people with who use the data (RPC). Topics
would include tools commonly used by RPC, IT/IR communications.
Leave time for people at each college to talk with each other at the meeting, in a framework based on a
set of questions. Future of the ODS is a matter for discussion engaging the DBAs and IR.
Anyone interested in being part of joint planning group should send email to Susan Murray. Russ will
take lead from ITC side, and coordinate through RPC Exec.
Other:
ITC is developing their work plan. Support is available if IR need help with Sharepoint site. Questions
about ODS code can be directed to Russ. Also, in a first for the ITC, they are collaborating with Wash U
on the March 2015, WA State Higher Ed Tech Conference in Spokane.
Allocation and Accountability Task Force (Ty Jones)
In July, just before President’s Retreat, an allocation model was put together for recommendation.
Basics are that there is an accountability piece, and 5-10% of total allocation state receives will be set
aside for SAI awards. Within SAI subset, allocation will remain 45%-45%-10%
A few remaining details are still being worked on prior to adoption, including work on weighting, and on
providing incentives for colleges to offer high-cost/high wage/high demand programs.
Current allocations are based on colleges attaining 96% of FTES on average across 3 years. Going
forward it will be based on looking at 3-year average for each of the previous 3 years, the lowest one
will be used to determine the basis for the enrollment side of the allocation.
Maintenance of Operations allocation (MOA): each college will get a fixed allocation of ~2.8m to cover
basic functions every college needs (president, registrar). Currently it is $2m. Ty noted that $2.8m is
lower than other estimates of actual MOA.
In sum, if total SBCTC allocation from the state is 100%, first 5-10% off the top is for SAI. Then, every
college gets $2.8m. Aside from earmarks and provisos, the rest will be allocated based on FTES in a
complex manner based on a set of assumptions and considerations embedded in the new allocation
model.
The idea was raised of inviting someone to talk to RPC about this new model.
Other: Summer Kenesson requests volunteers to attend Advisors and Counselors meeting in April to
lead a workshop on developing measures and indicators.
Page 6 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Friday October 31
Start time: 9:00
State Board updates (Darby Kaikkonen)
Issue: A data discrepancy was found in PMIS data from last year regarding state-funded staff FTE. New
PAC codes were entered that did not get attached to a funding source, a problem identified and fixed in
2013-2014. The issue is that while 2013-2014 have been cleaned up, but 2012-2013 data will have a
discrepancy that there are not resources to backward-clean.
Discussion: There may be other issues at least one specific college, whose IR is working directly with the
SBCTC.
Issue: Statewide, enrollment was down 6% this summer. A projection model is being run, and it looks
like overall the system will be down to the target level which is concerning after years of overenrollment.
Discussion: Members discussed local conditions, which vary considerably. ABE/ESL enrollments in
particular are up in some areas, down in others. Colleges are convening Strategic Enrollment
Management groups to develop new strategies for enrollment and retention.
Question for RPC: How do you work with labor market information (LMI)?
Discussion: Generally LMI is a decentralized function at the colleges. The role of IR in
collecting/analyzing/reporting LMI varies across institutions.
Members discussed specific resources, particularly EMSI. Several members cited EMSI as being
particularly useful because of geographic specificity. Others generally use publicly available data
sources, often in tandem with by EMSI. Also discussed was Burning Glass, a service which includes data
from local want ads. Subscribers can use an online interface, or one can submit a request for specific
report. There is a lag and a limit on report requests.
Q: Will the presidents pursue a system level EMSI contract?
A: it is under consideration by WACTC
Question for RPC: Would RPC see a bigger role in LMI utilization at the colleges? Is there a place to
expand use of LMI in strategic planning versus just prof/tech program planning?
Discussion:
Focusing on this LMI privileges prof/tech versus academic transfer.
LMI is not the answer to everything, has specific uses that may not generalize. Different behavior and
dynamics are at play across the various labor market areas. Students do not come to the college looking
for LMI per se.
LMI is useful in the context of new areas colleges are exploring, but issue of how to connect LMI to other
data e.g., Census data, and so on, and how to make sense of it. It could be useful to have specific
illustrative cases.
Context is extremely important, and that knowledge rests with the workforce area, not generic research.
Understanding the complexity and subtleties of available LMI is necessary.
At Green River, LMI rests with IR. Cynthia has expertise in EMSI, has been working on policy group at
national level to figure out how to help colleges better serve their students. Three focus areas for
working group: Nationwide employment data, industry certifications, transfer. A white paper is under
development.
Q: Is there an interest of RPC to take on a larger role with Labor Market Information?
A: Follow up is needed.
Page 7 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Share Outs:
Joe Montgomery
Columbia Basin College has worked with veterans groups to survey veterans on campus. Working with
director of Veteran’s Affairs at Edmonds (Peter Schmidt), developing an instrument, seeking other
colleges with interest. Survey addresses military experience, post-military and educational experiences.
Central Washington and Western are participating. Email Joe if interested in participation or in
literature.
Also noted: YVCC is using Challenge coin awards for veterans who attain 45 college-level credits (low
cost/high impact)
Cynthia Requa
The Association will have 1-day winter meeting at the Hilton Airport. Retreat on Leading from the
Middle was a big success. Will be doing it again, making it a day longer, will be held in April. Update of
survey on college structure. Please provide response to Cynthia.
Discussion concluded at approximately 4:30 pm
Page 8 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Business meeting – Friday October 31, 2014
9:35 am
Call to order (Susan Murray)
Roll call (Cherisa Yarkin)
Quorum requirement: simple majority. Present: 23, Absent: 12. (66% present)
Colleges with representatives present (23):
Bates Technical College
Bellevue College
Bellingham Technical College
Big Bend College
Centralia College
Clover Park Technical College
Columbia Basin College
Edmonds Community College
Green River Community College
Lower Columbia College
North Seattle College
Peninsula College
Renton Technical College
Seattle Central College
Skagit Valley College
Spokane Community College
Spokane District
Spokane Falls Community College
Tacoma Community College
Walla Walla Community College
Wenatchee Valley College
Whatcom College
Yakima Valley Community College
Lake Washington Institute of
Technology
Olympic College
Pierce College
Seattle College District
Shoreline Community College
South Puget Sound Community
College
South Seattle College
Not present (12):
Cascadia Community College
Clark College
Everett Community College
Grays Harbor College
Highline Community College
Approval of the meeting agenda by voice vote (Susan Murray)
Minutes from Spring 2014 (Susan Murray)
Corrections were solicited, and the following amendments offered:
1. With reference to committee by-laws, wording needs to be changed to guidelines.
2. On front page, SBCTC needs to be categorized separately, not as an institutional member.
Approved as amended, by voice vote.
Treasurer’s Report (Starr Bernhardt)
Forty-three people attended the Fall 2014 meeting and total income was $2,580. Expenses for facilities,
food, the social event, printing, and other supplies were estimated to be $3,268. Ending balance from
the previous meeting was $14,505, minus a net change of –$688 from this meeting leaves the current
ending balance at $13,817.
Members expressed appreciation to Starr for her extra efforts to organize the fall 2014 meeting.
President’s Report (Susan Murray)
BAS Programs: Work on BAS programs is reflected on Research report 14-4 on SBCTC website. There is a
new process whereby BAS proposals will be reviewed 3 times each year at a meeting called specifically
for that purpose.
WACTC Academy: The most recent Academy focused on financial audits. The next will look at transitions
from HS, impact of Smarter Balanced and related placement topics, led by Bill Moore. The following will
examine reverse transfer.
Page 9 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
Focus also on dual enrollment legislation, which Student Achievement Council is working on. Since there
will be a budget element, not clear whether it will move forward. Historically, community colleges have
been primary RS venues; RS in the HS has seen more 4-yr school involvement. Legislation will specify RS
– at college, College-in-the-HS (CiHS) at HS location. CTC Presidents raised issue of faculty qualifications,
and the legislation does not appear to address this topic. Legislation could impact options for dual
enrollment and expand the number of college/university players.
Discussion: Students taking 4-year college version of CiHS, but are not guaranteed subsequent
enrollment at the 4-year, so they may show up at community college with those classes. As 4-year
colleges get more aggressive current HS students are in some cases seeing access to an array of offerings
from a variety of institutions including multiple CCs offering to a given HS population.
Q: Is tech prep going away?
A: No explicit discussion of tech prep, which is about articulation, not dual enrollment.
Q: Clarification needed for all offerings including Early College HS and others.
A: Idea is to provide clarity to students and parents about what they are getting. One aspect is a fund for
RS students, but additional work is needed to clarify specifics.
Q: The funding model leads to RS-In-HS classes being rejected by SMIS so FTES cannot be collected.
A: Because no state-supported students enrolled. Need at least one, under the current data structure, to
form records needed for SMIS.
Comment: RS in the HS (which may end) – college instructor delivers college instruction in the HS.
College-in-the-HS – college instructor teaches HS teachers how to teach the curriculum.
Update on RPC representatives to CTC system workgroups
Use of Smarter Balanced for placement: Sally Johnson and Angie Rogers
Math Acceleration Taskforce. Wendy Hall and Cherisa Yarkin.
Data Governance Committee. Carmen gave update yesterday.
Committee Reports
Accreditation (Wendy Hall) and Outcomes and Performance (Maureen Pettitt) met jointly.
The committees engaged in an extensive conversation about accreditation, focusing on the Mid Cycle
Review and on the recently introduced Fee Schedule. A panel of accreditation evaluators/those who
received evaluations is planned for the RPC winter meeting to provide information for colleges with
spring Mid-Cycle Evaluations. The Accreditation Committee is also working to bring an NWCCU
representative to RPC winter meeting.
The conversation on indicators for community engagement is ongoing and will continue.
Q: will presidents raise question of fees to NWCCU?
A: that topic is under discussion; colleges are experiencing differences in fees and in the kinds of
documents needing review. Costs can be high, there is uncertainty about the source of variability
making it hard to plan for. The NWCCU is a membership organization, commissioners are elected by the
institutional members, but communication has been a challenge. RPC members noted the PNLC
Accreditation Symposium Nov 25 2014, a third-party event aimed at producing feedback to NWCCU.
Communications Committee (Evan Picton)
The biggest task for the year will be the Sharepoint site. It will require professional development for
Communication Committee members in order to pursue. Since there is not a formal process in RPC for
Page 10 of 11
Research and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2014 Fall Conference
requesting professional development funding, the Communication Committee is drafting one. Members
explored Linda.com and training they offer. There will likely be a survey of interest and professional
development needs. It is anticipated that professional development will be offered at the spring RPC
meeting.
Data Quality and Technology
Past chair – Mark Macias and Cynthia Requa
Current chair – Hal Royalty
Incoming chair – Sheila Delquadri
History of DQT: data stewards predates RPC. Under WARP Data Stewards had charter. With merger of
Data Stewards and Data and Technology, there was much work on integrating charters. But have
learned that in the formal RPC environment, committees cannot have charters, but instead have
guidelines. Guidelines will be finalized and anticipate approval prior to Feb 2015 meeting.
Projects:
IPEDS – will make recommendations for how implementation happens in PeopleSoft
DW 2.0 – working with Carmen. Pretty good definitions for student file, which was most complex. CLASS
is clear, STUCLASS is pretty good. Impetus is when FirstLink colleges go-live (current estimate is Feb
2015), so work needs to be finished by end of winter quarter.
New Business
Approval of 2014-15 Work Plan
Discussion: Spring meeting, committees worked on updates, Exec continued refinements over summer.
The version presented here minus shaded columns was submitted to Ed Services.
Amendment: change wording from “Best Practices” To “Excellent Practices” to reflect current version.
Approved as amended by voice vote (unanimous).
Taskforce on RPC code of ethics
This taskforce was approved in spring 2014, but not yet launched due to the summer break.
Volunteers - Wilma Dulin has agreed to chair. Starr Bernhardt has agreed to participate. Additional
members are being solicited.
Taskforce on development of operational guidelines for RPC Committees
Motion to direct Exec to constitute group to address how/when committees report to Exec, timelines
for response, guidelines that will provide transparency and consistency.
Approved by voice vote (unanimous).
Volunteers - Cynthia Requa, Ty Jones, Maureen Pettitt
Other
Historical records: RPC may consider creating an historian position, or at least documenting the period
prior to RPC. Maureen Pettit has paper files of WARP (2002-2011) and Loretta Seppanin’s work with the
Data Group (prior to 2002), and a list of presidents over time. Maureen Pettit willing to get started, but
will need additional participation to create a document of pre-RPC history.
Recordkeeping: It was noted that the RPC needs to keep a separate record of motions RPC approves,
with official numbering and actions. This applies to Exec as well.
Meeting adjourned at 10:44 AM
Page 11 of 11