REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Boardroom
Monday, October 17, 2011
1:10 p.m.
Draft
NOTES
PRESENT
Rachel Anderson, Nick Bogdan, Jeff Cummings, Paul DeMark, Anna
Duffy, David Gonsalves (phone), Kathy Goodlive, Sheila Hall,
Angelina Hill, Anita Janis, Allen Keppner, Pam Kessler, Mark Renner
(phone), Tiffany Schmitcke, Keith Snow-Flamer, Ken Strangfeld,
Juana Tabares, Bruce Wagner and Danny Walker.
ALSO PRESENT
Roxanne Metz, Michael Regan
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY
NOTES
EMC summary notes of October 3, 2011, were approved with
corrections.
COMMITTEE ON
MEASURES OF
STUDENT
SUCCESS
Angelina stated that a draft report from the Committee on Measures of
Student Success has recently been sent out and it contains a lot of
information that may be helpful to this committee. She will email the
report out to everyone on the committee for review. The report makes
note about the diverse mission of the Community College and why
students attend. IPEDs reporting was discussed and it was noted that
this is only one type of reporting but it could have broad implications.
Discussion also took place regarding the definition of success at the
Community College level. It was also noted that this is a time of
transition for the Community Colleges and in the future who and how
students are served may be changing.
COMMITTEE
EVALUATION
RUBRIC
Sheila reported that in developing the Evaluation Rubric she, Angelina
and Rachel started big and looked at several different models and
themes, they also reviewed the planning principals. She noted that the
rubric could be kept general so that it could be used by other
committees or it could be made more specific so that it only applied to
EMC. This is only the first draft of the rubric and the components are
overlapping. There was discussion as how to deploy this and if it
should go back to Institutional Effectiveness, do we make it specific
or have it general and over-arching?
Rachel stated that if we made it really specific to EMC and then
moved to the rubric used by ACCJC we would be grading ourselves
and in the end we would match up or diagnose the problem.
The importance of communication was discussed and it was noted that
EMC has gotten much better at this than in the past. Communication
needs to happen at different levels throughout the district and meeting
minutes and committee representatives are helping with this. Some
committees are still struggling to do this and if an evaluation
instrument were put together that could be used across the district it
would be very positive. It was noted that this is a great document to
improve the feedback loop.
Keith stated that the goal is to get the final draft of the rubric to the
committee by November 7, at which time we will decide if we will
forward it to the IEC.
SPRING
SCHEDULE
UPDATE
Tiffany reported that a huge portion of the spring schedule has been
sent out to be reviewed by the deans and directors, area coordinators
and faculty will also have opportunity to review it. She hopes to get
changes back no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday and have the
schedule available on Web Advisor for viewing only on Saturday. She
also reported that she is not able to give an update on TLUs yet, but
it’s looking really good. With new guidelines from the Chancellor’s
office she had to make sure that everything was entered accordingly.
Tiffany noted that she does not enter the schedule for either Del Norte
or Mendocino but once it has been entered she double checks it to
make sure it is consistent with Eureka.
IR will do a FTES projection as soon as Del Norte and Mendocino are
entered to compare to last spring. When the final numbers are
calculated she will forward them to Keith so that he can release them
to the committee.
Kathy stated that during the district audit this year the auditor’s
requested documentation on how the student was informed about
scheduling and they’ve asked to review about 40 different sections.
She also reminded everyone of the repeatability guidelines that will go
into effect this spring which will trace the number of times a student
has attempted a class to the beginning of their student career.
Discussion continued regarding concerns related to course
repeatability. Some of the concerns included:
 Extenuating circumstances, what are they?
 Should we consider having Recentcy requirement?
 Will counselors have the necessary information when enrolling
students?
 Student appeals
 Apportionment/FTES
SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORTS
Develop plan to allocate additional TLUs Spring/Summer (Rachel,
Bruce, Kathy)
Rachel noted that this subcommittee is not going to do
anything until the schedule is out. They will be coding the
schedule for spring to see how it falls out per area and how to
allocate appropriately. They will also be comparing and
contrasting and refining the total numbers served.
Recommend TLU allocation strategy (Rollover, decrease and growth
funding) for 2012-13 (Jeff, Mark, Ken)
Jeff reported that this committee has not met yet but is
scheduled to do so soon.
Review fall schedule blocks and develop recommendation for
improvement (Jeff, Allen, Danny, Tiffany)
This subcommittee has not met yet.
Develop 2011-14 EM plan (Keith, Sheila, Juana, Pam, Anna, Dave)
 Looked at best practices, put recommendations together on
themes and actions will meet again by end of October.
AB 743 and
AB 1056
These bills were signed into law by the Governor, however, the
chancellor’s office does not know yet how they will be implemented.
SUMMARY OF
EMC BPC COCHAIRS
MEETING
Bruce and Keith reported that over the last couple of years the
allocation of TLUs has changed. A concern this year is that the BPC
did not factor in faculty re-assign time. As the district’s budget has
shrunk faculty has had to fight for reassign time. Problems arise when
with faculty retire or on leave. A discussion was started with Lee
Lindsey and Bob Brown, co-chairs of the Budget Planning Committee
(BPC) and some problem solving was done. BPC and EMC need to
work with Administrative Services to take all into account. As reassign time changes, money needs to flow in and out of the Associate
Faculty budget. A preliminary time-line needs to start with EMCs
FTES projection. Administrative Services is trying to work on the
development of a 3 year budget cycle.
Bruce also noted that we have to decide what kind of cap on
enrollment we want. We also need to get an estimate of Associate
Faculty and an estimate of faculty retirements to forward to the BPC.
It will take a couple of meetings to decide on the instructional budget
and what the targets will be. They will also need to come up with
allocations. Deans won’t have to be concerned with associate faculty
only with FTES. Didn’t have the budget category for reassign time.
We really need to get information to BPC.
ADJOURNED
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
SUBMITTED
lw