WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY
AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
BOARD OF PRESIDENTS
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
July 27, 2012
Skagit Valley College
MEMBERS PRESENT
Ron Langrell, Bates
Laura Saunders, Bellevue
Patty McKeown, Bellingham
Gail Hamburg, Big Bend
Eric Murray, Cascadia
Jim Walton, Centralia
Bob Knight, Clark
John Walstrum, Clover Park
Rich Cummins, Columbia Basin
Jean Hernandez, Edmonds
Eileen Ely, Green River
Jack Bermingham, Highline
David Woodall, Lake Washington
Chris Bailey, Lower Columbia
Mark Mitsui, North Seattle
David Mitchell, Olympic
Luke Robins, Peninsula
Denise Yochum, Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Colette Pierce Burnette, Pierce Puyallup
Steve Hanson, Renton
Paul Killpatrick, Seattle Central
Lee Lambert, Shoreline
Tom Keegan, Skagit Valley
Gerald Pumphrey, South Puget Sound
Gary Oertli, South Seattle
Scott Morgan, Spokane
Janet Gullickson, Spokane Falls
Pamela Transue, Tacoma
Steve VanAusdle, Walla Walla
Jim Richardson, Wenatchee
SUBSTITUTES
John Olson for David Beyer, Everett
Ron Leatherbarrow for Kathi Hiyane-Brown,
Whatcom
MEMBERS ABSENT
Ed Brewster, Grays Harbor
Michele Johnson, Pierce District
Jill Wakefield, Seattle District
Christine Johnson, Spokane District
Linda Kaminski, Yakima Valley
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
Charlie Earl, Executive Director, SBCTC
John Boesenberg, Deputy Exec Dir, HR, SBCTC
Denise Graham, Deputy Exec Dir, Finance, SBCTC
Deb Merle, Deputy Exec Dir, Gov Relations, SBCTC
Mike Scroggins, Deputy Exec Dir, IT SBCTC
Jan Yoshiwara, Deputy Exec Dir, Ed, SBCTC
GUESTS and SBCTC STAFF
Tim Douglas, TACTC president
Michelle Andreas, SBCTC
Connie Broughton, SBCTC
Wayne Doty, SBCTC
Laura McDowell, SBCTC
David Prince, SBCTC
Julie Walter, SBCTC
CALL TO ORDER & WELCOME
Tom Keegan, WACTC president, called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m., welcomed those present,
and asked for self-introductions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
It was moved and seconded that WACTC approve the June 1, 2012 Minutes without
corrections.
MOTION PASSED.
TREASURER’S REPORT
Tom Keegan presented the WACTC Treasurer’s Report with an ending balance of $50,370.66 as of
July 24, 2012.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT – Tom Keegan, WACTC president
•
Development of 2012-13 WACTC Agenda
•
End Run Policy
•
Relationships with Commissions
•
SBCTC Executive Director Search
CTC SYSTEM ROLE IN PROVIDING BACCALAUREATE ACCESS
The following questions were discussed in small groups regarding the role of Washington’s
community and technical colleges in meeting baccalaureate degree production goals for the state.
1. How should colleges and the system determine which baccalaureate degrees are
appropriate and most needed?
o What types of bachelor’s degrees are a good fit with the overall system direction and
mission of CTCs?
o Should our system continue to focus on applied bachelor degrees or think more broadly
about student access to bachelor degrees, in general?
o What should be the distribution of bachelor degrees in the state (i.e., should every
college have at least one bachelor degree program or should location be determined by
state need)?
o Who should represent CTC bachelor degree programs to the legislature when we seek
financial and program support? What are your thoughts about developing a system
master plan for bachelor degrees, similar to the capital projects master plan?
July 27, 2012
2
2. How should bachelor degree programs be financially supported?
o How should industry support be considered in applications for bachelor degree
programs?
o How should FTE targets be considered?
o What is a viable long-term funding strategy?
3. What should be the governance structure for bachelor degree approval in the CTC system?
o As a college grows the number of baccalaureates it offers, at what point, if ever, does it
become a formal part of the university governance system (i.e., Council of Presidents)?
4. How should the approval process for new bachelor degrees be designed?
o How should new applied bachelor degree applications (those not yet filed) be handled
during the time that WACTC develops a position on the role of CTCs in bachelor degree
production?
The small group notes will be compiled and forwarded to the Education Services Committee to
serve as the foundation for a draft position paper.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT INITIATIVE (SAI) DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
John Walstrum, Jack Bermingham, Mark Mitsui, and David Prince presented the proposed changes
to the SAI metrics and funding model for discussion.
Proposed Changes to the SAI Metrics
Much of the original SAI framework is unchanged; however, two sets of changes are proposed.
The first change reflects current innovations underway in re-designing pre-college courses. The
proposed change in this area shifts away from counting the number of levels advanced to
measuring after the highest level of pre-college math or English is passed.
The second set of changes is focused on paying more attention to student progression and
retention. These changes include points for students earning 45 degree credits, measuring basic
skills students beyond basic skills, and measuring students who return and continue to earn points.
Proposed Changes to the SAI Funding Model
The funding principles were revised. Notably, the revised principles reflect that different
configurations of achievement points yield different award results by describing different aspects
of performance. The principles also reflect that performance funding is inherently competitive.
The purpose of performance funding is to incent colleges to raise attainment, but not be so volatile
that funding can cause harm to colleges in serving their missions.
Funding Principles (July 2012)
o The system’s funding distribution will be based on both enrollments and performance.
o Performance funds should incent colleges to increase educational attainment serving as a
catalyst to change practice.
o There is inherent risk in performance funding that requires a balance between providing
incentive and doing no harm to colleges.
o Every student is included, unless there is a compelling reason why they should not be.
July 27, 2012
3
o All colleges should have an equitable opportunity to move students along a continuum.
o It is important to recognize both improvement and efficiency/effectiveness in the funding
structure.
o The funds used to support Student Achievement should be assessed in a way consistent
with colleges’ opportunities to earn funds.
o Keep the funding system appropriately simple.
The proposed model combines three methods. Keep performance funding for net point gain and
combine this with total annual achievement (productivity) and annual points per student
(efficiency/effectiveness). Each component is assigned a portion of the total performance funding
pool. Districts with net point gain would be allocated funds based upon a set point value (e.g., the
value in FY 2012 was $82/point). The other two methods would drive an allocation of funds based
upon a district’s share of points generated by the methodology. The three methods together
provide a multi-faceted view of performance that takes into account college size and equitable
opportunity for colleges to move students along a continuum.
The following prioritized options were recommended for the creation of an ongoing pool of funds
that would be awarded annually. The funds would be returned to the pool the next year to be
redistributed as a variable allocation, similar to the variable Worker Retraining allocation.
1. Create the pool from new monies appropriated specifically for Student Achievement.
2. If new monies are not provided specifically for Student Achievement, but other monies are
appropriated for things such as enrollment, a portion of these new monies would be used
to create the Student Achievement funding pool.
3. If there are no new monies, the pool would be created from a one-time assessment based
upon each college’s proportionate share of allocated state enrollments.
WACTC will discuss the proposed changes again at the September meeting prior to State Board
action on the final proposals in October.
OPERATING BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT – Pamela Transue, chair
•
Draft 2013-15 Operating Budget Request
LEGISLATIVE & PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMITTEE REPORT – David Mitchell, chair
•
Draft one-pagers
o Strategic Investments for the Future
o Build a Workforce-Ready Washington
o Accelerate and Complete!
•
PIC Toolbox
•
Contract and November Presidents’ Academy with Doug Gould
July 27, 2012
4
CAPITAL BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT – Bob Knight, chair
•
Capital Project Request List
o Adoption of a new scoring process with integrated categories
o Addition of space standards for the most common vocational programs to the Capital
Asset Model (CAM)
o Process that would allow previously selected projects that were postponed (2nd designs)
to compete against new projects to be added to the pipeline in 2015-17, with a
minimum effort by the college
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT – Jack Bermingham, chair
•
No report
TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT – Scott Morgan for Michele Johnson, chair
•
ctcLink Request for Proposal Update
•
Canvas Learning Management System
STRATEGIC VISIONING COMMITTEE REPORT – Rich Cummins, chair
•
Competency-based degrees and the creation of a coalition to develop a competency-based
curriculum with a project manager who will have three large goals:
1. Development of a competency-based degree
2. Development of grant requests to Gates and others for money to help build the model
3. Re-engineering of WAOL as the delivery mechanism
TACTC REPORT – Tim Douglas, TACTC president
•
TACTC Board of Directors Retreat, September 4-5, 2012
STATE BOARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT – Charlie Earl, Executive Director
•
Aerospace Pipeline Committee
•
Student Achievement Council
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the July 27, 2012 Board of Presidents meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be September 27-28, 2012 at the State Board Office.
Minutes prepared by Julie Walter
July 27, 2012
5