Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
APPROVED MINUTES
Present
Dr. Celia Barberena, Gary Carter, Gordon Watt, Tram Vo-Kumamoto, Paulette Lino, Dawn Girardelli,
Susan May, Kathy Linzmeyer, Tom Clark, Jim Baum, Norman Buchwald, Catherine Powell, Cheryl
Sannebeck, Jeannine Methe, Yulian Ligioso, Kathy Kelley, Tim Dave, Ruben Pola, Dr. Susan Sperling,
Gerald Shimada, Nancy Soto, Dr. Marcia Corcoran, Latrina Reed, and Yvette Nahinu.
Meeting Called To Order
President Barberena opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m., and thanked all for attending.
Agenda Items
Open House
A description of Open House assignments by cognizant Vice-President, administrators or staff was
distributed and discussed. Dr. Howard Irvin is scheduling campus tours, consisting of four campus tours
starting in the Event Center lobby, where students will staff four tables and guests can sign up for tours.
After the tours, guests will go to the Event Center to see a presentation on the Chevron global green
initiatives involving thermal and solar power, followed by a dedication of the Reed L. Buffington Visual
and Performing Arts Center Building Dedication. On-campus parking will be waived from 2 to 7 p.m.,
and guest parking will be available in Lots G/H.
Dr. Railey has discussed the tours with the Deans and assignments have been made as to who will be
showing the facilities. Dr. Marcia Corcoran is giving tours of Building 400. Tram Vo-Kumamoto has
coordinated a guided tour of the Planetarium conducted by Tim Dave. Dale Wagoner has assigned
faculty and staff to give tours of the Dental Hygiene and Athletics areas. Tom Clark has assigned
faculty to give tours of the BMW lab. Jon Palacio will be coordinating two jazz band combos to play in
the CSSC and outside the PAC for the dedication. Susan May and Jim Matthews will be preparing two
PowerPoint presentations: one regarding new campus facilities and renovations through Measure B
projects and another one related to Dr. Buffington’s life and contributions to Chabot College. President
Barberena will emcee the events. Bella Witt will assist as well.
Kathy Kelley recommended an increase in guest chairs at the PAC and a contingency plan to have
additional chairs available. Dr. Barberena reassured Kathy there will be extra chairs available. Kathy
recommended we place monitors and screens outside so guests seated outside could see the
ceremony. IT will work with Media Services about availability. Kathy Kelley recommended we place a
banner at the front of campus inviting the community to the event. Dr. Barberena will be asking Doug
Horner about that. Sergeant Pola, Matt Kritscher, and Dr. Howard Irvin have been discussing event
signage. Dr. Barberena will be sending staff information regarding the Open House via Email.
Accreditation Visit Report
Two members from the original Accreditation Site team will be visiting Chabot on Tuesday, November
2nd. Gary Carter gave this report on behalf of Vice President Railey. Mr. Robert Dees, Chair of the
Accreditation Visiting Team Fall 2009, and Dr. Barry Russell, a member of the Fall 2009 Accreditation
Visiting Team, will be conducting a one-day follow-up visit on Tuesday, November 2nd. The Visiting
Team will conduct interviews during the day and review evidence to document whether we have or
1
Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
have not met recommendation #2. Hard copies of evidence related to our work in responding to
recommendation #2 have been collected and we are including additional documents as we continue
our preparations for the follow-up visit. The College will receive notification of ACCJC’s decision
regarding the status of our Follow-up Report in January or early February 2011. In Spring 2011, we will
begin identifying Accreditation Committee Chairs for each of the recommendations received during our
2009 visit in preparation for the 2012 Midterm Accreditation Report (due to ACCJC in October 2012).
Recommendation 2 requires the college to revise our program review processes so we ensure we tie
assessment of programs to the allocation of resources. The program review process now in place
identifies program’s needs based on data that speaks to student success and to program effectiveness.
This information is tied to unit plans and necessary request for resources that improve the programs as
documented by data. Resources are aligned with requests based on data. Through the program review
process activity, we identify faculty that need to be assigned to a program. Those needs are submitted
to Dr. George Railey, head of the faculty prioritization process. Deans and faculty advocate for the
faculty they need by presenting data to the faculty prioritization process. We make a list of the faculty
requested and ask the faculty prioritization committee to vote on the requests made through this
process since we never have enough funding for all. Kaaren Krueg tallies the votes. The prioritized list,
as voted, is distributed. Last year the members of the Faculty Prioritization Committee ranked the top
21 faculty. There was funding for 17.
The presidential review is allowed in the process and in the decision making. In the last process, Dr.
Barberena took 15 of the 17 highest recommendations and brought two up because of institutional
needs – one for Auto Tech due to the BMW partnership, and a counseling position because this service
is critical to student success and there have been various vacant counseling positions in the past that
have not been re-hired. We have requests for classified staff positions through the Classified
Prioritization Process. Classified Senate and others worked on the classified prioritization process last
year and positions vacant by classified staff who took the SERP went through the priority process to
determine what positions would be hired. The positions prioritized and agreed upon by IPBC were
hired.
Yulian Ligioso reported that unit plans have requests for 4000, 5000, and 6000 accounts. Until now the
Budget Committee has had only $1 million from the bond to assign for equipment. There are funds in
the coming cycle for 4000 and 5000 accounts. For 2010-2011, we have identified Prop 20 Lottery funds
that will go through the Budget Committee to address instructional supply needs. Here is an opportunity
to help augment some budgets in those areas. For 5000 accounts, we can bundle those with
equipment purchases as opportunities arise. Digitizing information in A&R is an example of bundling
that included training and installation.
Dr. Barberena said Chabot will know about Chabot’s accreditation status in February after the ACCJC
meeting in January. After the November 2nd visit we will be preparing for the ACCJC mid-term report.
The next Self-Study Accreditation will be happening in October 2015 and will start preparation work
after the mid-term report is finished.
2
Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
The team coming November 3 will review our processes and see if we have met their criteria, and will
interview various people. The Board Room will be the meeting room and there will be technology like
computers, wireless printers, and web access available to the visiting team. Kathy Kelley recommended
we send faculty a reminder about the Accreditation Visit and the Open House. Yulian recommended we
put a link on the website about the Accreditation visit.
New Chabot Website 3.0
Abdullah Yahya was sick and not available to present the new Chabot website 3/0; therefore, Yulian
Ligioso presented it. Dr. Barberena explained that prior to bringing up the website, a campus Email of
what the website would look like was sent. Many felt the site looked nice by appearance and aesthetics.
The web site subsequently went up, but had not gone through college or district consultation processes
as referred to in the Technology Plan. Subsequently the website was taken down. The website has now
been presented to various groups for consultation, as stated in Jeannine Methe’s e-mail, also
presented to the group, that names District and College groups.
Yulian Ligioso stated, “When we had made the decision to go from 1.0 to 2.0, a similar process was
followed that was reviewed by college administration, College Council, college marketing, college
technology, and IT, and in collaboration with District public relations as well as District IT staff. When
the website went up this time students were not included for input and participation. To present the 3.0
version, Yulian and Abdullah met with District staff, District IT, and the public relations officer October
13th. One day later they met with campus and District IT, and presented to ASCC. Yulian demonstrated
the new website which is cleaner, elegant, student-focused, not as cluttered as 2.0, and includes a
header and footer consistent with the pages.
The following comments were made regarding the new website.
1) Zone – are we moving toward it? How do we transition students after a year to be on the zone?
2) We need to include the San Leandro Center on the front page of the website.
3) Student Latrina Reed felt the Zone is hard to find, and stated, “Lots of students find they have to
navigate throughout to find it. I like the fact you have Email included on the website. Yulian felt,
“Similar comments were made at the ASCC meeting about the Zone. We placed it in the top right
corner with the quick links with the 10 most sought out places you want to go to regarding parking,
tutoring, and other key information.”
4) Yvette Nahinu, Student Trustee, said they had discussion at ASCC where half liked it, half thought it
was a bit dry, and not as innovative because our students are innovative and tech-savvy. Regarding
registration information, half liked the access and colors, and half did not like it.
5) Kathy Kelley spoke about the common practice to have a beta site to test new software so all can
interact, participate, and give feedback. The comments presented here today are very important and
key to the matter. Our primary customers, the students, have only seen this for a few hours. We
need to have a very clear and available process, identify who are the participants, how will the
process work, will the process be vetted, and how do we identify all the issues and the needs of the
various constituencies. We need to have this agenda item on campus by putting things in writing,
vetted by all the constituent groups, and to have input and clarity where people can come into the
process, how they can participate, and how the ultimate decision has been made.
Dr. Barberena stated, “It’s not clear to me how this website went up. We need to own the fact we have
had a lot of people upset about something, we need to say publicly we were too quick at the switch, we
3
Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
need to say processes need to be written up, and lessons learned. Our main customers, the students,
were consulted after the fact.”
There was a discussion about an Email from Jeannine Methe dated October 14th, 2010 that presented a
schedule for the review of the Chabot 3.0 Website. Dr. Barberena also passed a governance chart that
documents that the Tech Committee recommendations go to College Council. “This is the chart that has
been in existence at this college since before I came,” she said.
Tim Dave stated, “This is about getting all information out to all the groups, which should have been
done three or four months ago. What we have not done very well is this very continual process of
pushing information to people on a constant basis. We need to improve upon, and we have not been
doing this.”
Kathy Linzmeyer asked who could make the decision for Chabot to have a beta site, and if the site could
be live simultaneously. Jeannine stated that on the current website, 2.0, we could post a link to the 3.0
to do a demo of what is coming. It can be called a pilot, a test, or a beta version.
Dr. Barberena stated that the reason this discussion is in front of us today through a joint meeting of the
Administrative Staff and College Council, is to decide how we move forward. Should we put it up
immediately as is, or wait, or should we put it up immediately and continue to work to improve it.
Dr. Marcia Corcoran asked who she would give feedback to, who would receive her feedback, and who
would decide if her input would be used on the website. If she had time to review the website, who and
where would she forward her feedback to. Who decides which program would get the major links
coverage? Jim Baum said feedback would be reviewed by the Web Advisory Committee.
Latrina Reed agreed with Gary Carter’s idea about having a focus group for the website. She felt it is
important to get students involved in focus groups because they are the college’s primary customer.
Getting students involved, getting their feedback, and getting something for the students is what is
important. Latrina asked if there could be a variety of versions available on the beta test site with two or
three choices for students to review and vote on, as compared to having just one site only to review.
Kathy Lizmeyer felt it was important to have a beta site available immediately for review.
Norman Buchwald questioned how much usability testing was done, and what was used to provide
insights. Tom Clark said Abdullah Yahya designed the site with many comments brought in over the last
one and a half years that included student representation. Abdullah received feedback from an ad hoc
committee. Gordon Watt said a Web Advisory Committee is referred to in the Technology Plan and that
that this is the group to make recommendations for the site.
Tim Dave talked about a need to have institutional history, keeping and distributing records, and needing
to keep information and decisions made alive and given to all.
Yvette Nahinu recommended posting on the site a flashing sign stating “test this website”, that could be
conducted through Student On-Line Services.
4
Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
Tram Vo-Kumamoto felt Chabot was asking for practice documentation because she felt we did not
want to have to go through this again. Focus groups are challenging and time consuming, but we could
utilize Student On-Line Services to allow students a venue to test the site and create and provide a
venue for feedback. She needed to use and test this website before providing comments.
Susan May was involved with the website before, and one thing done was to randomly video tape
students reviewing the site and asking them to find something specific. The taping captured the
students navigating the site to see if the site was intuitive.
Gerald Shimada stated, “I hope, as we mull over our processes, we consider the DSRC staff in the
focus group as part of the inclusion and discussion process.” Gordon Watt felt it was important Chabot
ensures the site is usable by readers and the site-impaired.
Dr. Barberena discussed these options: (1) Bring up the site as is, and continue developing the site as
a responsibility of the Web Advisory Committee with faculty, staff, student representation including
district representation; (2) Not to put up this site now and have the Web Advisory Committee, including
staff, faculty, District, and student participation continue to work on improving and making further
developments.
Regarding feedback, Jim Baum felt the site should go up and should happen first. Dr. Barberena asked
if we should try to put it up while the Advisory Committee conducts focus groups, ask for student
feedback, and collect information and feedback.
Tram Vo-Kumamoto wants the site up with vetting in specific places. Jim said it is advisable to go
ahead and put it up as long as it is in conformance with District policies. If it is not causing a problem
with the District, let’s put it up and have the Advisory Committee evaluate the site. There should be a
constant quality improvement process over a period of time, and this should be written.
Catherine Powell felt that the Web Advisory Committee could ask more students to participate. We
should confirm with Don Bosco Hu about implementation. With on-line registration happening
November 10th, the beta site might make the process more difficult. Catherine felt Chabot should put it
up at a later time.
Yulian Ligioso said several comments were made at ASCC where students who were asked to
navigate the new system could not navigate it. Because the Accreditation Site Team will be on campus
November 2nd and the team has used the 2.0 site, they might come through on the 2.0 site. If they
become confused, that would create a problem.
Kathy Linzmeyer felt we should have the beta link and use December 1st as a test date. She stated,
“Abdullah has done a great job with the site. I advocate we play with the site a bit more and delay the
site launch.”
Kathy Kelley felt the process has not been transparent. Kathy worries about having various sites, and a
link would be more accessible with flash test button.
5
Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
Ruben Pola agrees with option 2 to wait. There is a lack of communication as an institution, and this
issue has come about based on a lack of communication. It doesn’t lend itself to a very professional
process when we just put up a site without consulting and reward this behavior.
Latrina Reed wants to be included in the focus group.
Regarding whom will test the site, Gordon Watt felt we should keep the current website up for a while
with a link asking people to look at the new test site. We need to keep our Distance Ed students in mind
since they do not come to campus, and Community Ed and older students who might not be tech
savvy, when implementing a test site. We need their feedback.
Yvette Nahinu agrees with option 2.
Nancy Soto would like to wait but include parameters on option 2, and felt it is important to include a
time line stating when the site will go live, and indicate what changes will happen as of a specific date.
Tim Dave wants to decide the time frame now.
Tom Clark wants representation from instruction and A&R to identify the windows needed.
Kathy Kelley felt it was important to utilize The Spectator to help communicate the changes coming
and why the new site is better.
Norman Buchwald discussed the importance of having the link available off campus for off campus
students.
Dr. Barberena asked for assistance from a parliamentarian who could guide us as to how to carry a
vote from College Council and a vote from Administrative Staff. Gary Carter suggested it was
permissible to form this as a “Committee of the Whole” and to take one vote. A motion of becoming the
“Committee of the Whole” was moved by Gary Carter, and seconded by Kathy Kelley at 10:56 a.m.
This motion passed unanimously.
Dr. Barberena stated that now we are a Committee of the Whole, do we entertain a motion of option 1
or option 2? Our choices include do we use the Advisory Committee to gather input but post the site
immediately, or do we wait to post while a beta site is tested and bring the site up at a later date.
Kathy Linzmeyer made a motion to wait and put up the beta link site while others have an opportunity to
review it. The Advisory Committee would collect data and would help to determine the launch date. The
link would be for on campus or off campus viewing.
Tim Dave asked if an amendment could be made to Kathy Linzmeyer’s motion that includes, “that the
Advisory Committee be given the charge to establish a yeah or naye access to launch the site or not,
and establish a date or time of the launch. The Advisory Committee would have the purview and
authority to say we think the launch is ready now or not ready now.”
6
Joint College Council & Administrative Staff Meeting
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
9 a.m., Board Room
The group felt this was a different motion altogether. Kathy has a motion that would include waiting and
putting up a beta link while others review it. Through this process, the Advisory Committee would
collect data and would help determine the launch date when they believe the site is ready to launch.
The site would wait and not be put up until the Advisory Group felt it was ready to be launched and after
feedback has been received and reviewed.
Dr. Barberena called for the “Committee of the Whole” to vote on the motion. The motion, made by
Kathy Linzmeyer, was approved at 11:04 a.m. with only one nay vote.
It was requested that the Advisory Committee bring the new site for approval to the “Committee of the
Whole”.
Jim Baum will call a meeting of the Advisory Committee to proceed with this process.
Other Business
None.
Meeting Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by President Barberena at 11:07 a.m.
kls
10/22/10
Revised 2/7/11
7