Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: March 11, 2016
Present: MBBenvenutti, FBourgoin, ACedillo, LCelhay, LCook, DHankins, BLove, AMcMurdo, MOrkin, MRivas, LSanford, CSmith,
ISodhy-Gereben, TVo, HYam
Chair/Co-Chair: Mike Orkin/Linda Sanford
Guests: MLewis
Facilitator/Recorder: MBBenvenuti
Agenda Item Committee
Goal
Strategic
Planning Goal and/or
Institutional
Objective
Discussion Follow-up
Action
Decisions
(Shared
Agreement/
Resolved or
Unresolved
)
I. Agenda Review and Review of
Meeting Minutes from
February 26, 2016
II. CPT and AB86
No Quorum
.
Tram Vo added transition plan for assessment of new students given that Compass expires this September.
Removed
III. . C-YES

College
Timelines
College VPs
4. Review data and make recommend ations regarding students’ completion of core
SSSP services.
A: Advance
Student Access,
Equity, and
Success.
A.2. Student
Success
COA: No one present.
Merritt: No report.
BCC: TVo -looking at positions and trying to determine where they will sit in org chart. We have to reconfigure the positions and evaluate.
Laney - MLewis- Implementation timeline power point for the
C-Yes center at Laney Collelge:
Beyond emancipation for coaching. Work with students and help identify why to take the next step. Will be hiring a person similar to the one in the B2b Bridge to Bridge program..
Discussion:
What is the staff training that you are providing? What would it take to get more faculty to get involved? MLewis- Expanding the invitation.
More clarity requester for our next meeting regarding this topic.
Also, requests for a report at next meeting from Dean
Hotep.

Cleavon – issues – announcement of positions – the colleges were directed to figure out these positions in October/November. So we have the listing issue plus the colleges should have figured out how the positions fit into the college. All of the positions are posted on the Peralta website. These are not college positions, they are classified district positions. The money that the district took off the top needs to be spent in December, now half the year has gone by.
Has space been identified? We cannot spend 6.5 million in 6 months.
1/3 of the money has not been spent. We have to talk about interim hires. Promote people from within the institutions because general funds you get to carry over. The campuses have been asked to make these reports in October to show how they will fit into the structure.
Cleavon – hoping as DEC we can recognize that we are rehashing the discussion we had in October. We are sitting on a lot of money but the things we are to do for students is not getting done. Since the campuses haven’t acted on it the DO took over.
Dean Hotep has spent a huge amount of time to get funding for these foster youth position and went to each college and district. That part of it was well communicated. There is a lot of this general process flow that hasn’t been addressed.
Something is not getting done.
We need more clarity in our next meeting regarding this topic. Where are we with the spending of this money? What positions are moving?
Not enough services being offered to the student population.
Expect a report at next meeting from Dean Hotep.
-How can we can do things without perfecting them? In the meantime we are not more aggressively providing to the students the service that we have to provide.
Dean Hotep went months ago went to each college and presented to the presidents and others. He said here is the money, the state agrees with that. Here is money to help students, underserved populations, and it’s stalled.

IV. SSSP Update
V District Office
Reorganization
Removed.
Discussion:
You get an email that is dropped in your lap. Taking Ed Svcs and eviscerating it. Enormous amount to be given without offering input or explanation. How did this come about? This has far reaching implications.
Ed Svcs will continue but have limited projects. Dual enrollment, new initiative adult ed. A lot of the former functions are going to academic affairs.
-The changes have been abrupt and not been clear. Is there an org chart to see how things flow, where to know where to go?.
Cleavon- we could make some recommendations, what does an office of academic affairs look like and does this support the college. Isn’t this committee the body to make recommendations?. LCelhay- lack of process - what was the conversation, justification that lead to such a big change?
Cleavon- do we want to create an ad hoc for a job description? How do we want to act, what do we want to do?
If Ed Services is being dissolved, what happens in the meantime before the new person comes on board? When does this actually happen? Who is overseeing what?
-Can we make a motion that is directed to the chancellor that we would like explanation and the ability to provide input what is a transformative document for Peralta which is a shared governance?
Part of the process, we want to be involved. This has significant meaning. And we agree with the entire district to do things in a certain way. Approved.
-
Regarding the Farelli group there wasn’t specificity so we asked for a specific plan. What are the problems that lead to the Farelli group coming in and what are the plans ? How is the org chart going to address this in a specific way? -How was the decision made?
Ad hoc meeting called.

VI. Common assessment
-Why was the decision made?
-What is going to happen going forward with the job description and org chart?
-Who was involved in the decision? Specificity, not just that there was problems.
Love – in a shared governance environment how does this happen and no one is involved? Cleavon and Mario would like to participate in group. How, why was the decision made and what is going to happen going forward? Who was involved in the decision? Mario – asking for specificity. Cleavon – what is the process for formulating the job description?
Let’s form an ad hoc work group to develop a job description for VC of academic affairs.
Seconded. Ad hoc committee motion. Passed. Who will be on ad hoc work group? Cleavon, Mario, Lilia, Lisa, Hermia. The chancellor needs to get this when he gets back.
-In forming this ad hoc committee. Are you agreeing that there should be such an office?
Tram Vo- CCC Assess implementation power point. CCC common assessment initiative. The first piece the faculty need to go through the questions and determine what we will use for cut scores. Students coming in for spring 17 will need a new tool. Decisions that have to be made right now.
-On April 13 we have an opportunity to bring a team. The biggest issue will be IT, not faculty and staff.
. Implementation phase next year. Compass dropped their assessment tool. If we were to move to another tool it would take a lot of time to vet it so we decided to use this one at the state level.
Who would we choose to be on the committee? Got to be a balance group of folks – diverse – attitudinally. Overwhelming sort of process. Tram – that’s why she’s bringing it to the DEC. State will have some level of validation. Lisa – good news in terms of math,
English, esl, doing this type of assessment as part of the basic skills process. ESL at Laney includes this type of diversity. Blue print exists on how to go through process to address concerns.
Nathan will send out an email inviting everyone, to a meeting or a conference call.
Nathan is going to take the lead in covering the meeting.

Adjournment
Can bring a team to a diverse group at a session given by the State.
Need to ask – do we need an interim solution for 2017 while we are working on this o do we want to cram it in – it’s an IT issue – not know if we can connect to this system with regard to integration into
Prompt. At the state level, they did a good job of telling us who should be at the table. In student services we’ve been talking about this – using multiple measures during the transition. Has agreement with high schools – uploading transcripts with help from Nathan.
Assessment orientation coordinator & Hermina are going to the state wide initiative meetings. Tram – need to bring in the faculty to decide how to manage the data. Nathan – spoke to Jennifer Cohmen
– asking around the state how these CUT scores will be assessed.
They are developing rubric to set CUT scores. Will still have to validate – state ed code still prevails.
Initially we’ll be using common assessment workgroup in English,
ESL, and math. Map competencies to our courses. Key is the professional development sessions will provide teams on training and info on how to do this work. Critical that we start to create teams to go to training and then determine how to support them. Can apply for funding to support implementation for fall. Pilot schools – some schools are using it embedded into current assessment tools. Nathan
– need for DO level leadership – question is communication. Having it said here is one thing but identifying who is on the team and scheduling time - Adela & he will attend the session on April 15.
Linda – would like to have DAS take the lead since this is also a faculty task. No communication at the district level about anything going on. First step is that everyone at this meeting we need to say each campus needs a team. Need a team to go from both the campus and district level AND some type of meeting needs to happen before the April training. Where does the decision happen if using HS grades & see a counselor. Nathan – next steps – will send out email
DAS, VPs, to get everyone there at an organizational meeting.
Next Meeting: April 15, 2016 9 a.m.- noon
Time: 11:30