Document 17658710

South Plains College
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
September 19, 2014
8:30 am – Founder’s Room
Members Present: Billy Alonzo, Corye Beene, Hope Beyer, Ashleigh Brewer, Lynne Cleavenger, Kaleb
Corder, Dane Dewbre, Shanna Donica, Jerry Findley, Ann Gregory, Lola Hernandez, Stephen John, Patti
Lindsey, Cathy Mitchell, Mollie Melton, Dan Nazworth, Susan Nazworth, Jeremy Nicholson, Gracie
Quiñonez Yolanda Salgado, Pete Stracener, Jack Wardlow III, Ronnie Watkins, and Alan Worley. Eric
Aubrey attended in absence of Kara Martinez.
Members Absent: Nanette Blair, Rob Blair, Sue Ann Lopez, Kara Martinez, Stuart Moody, Yancy
Nuñez, Jody Reding, Ron Spears, Jeremy Todd, Dawn Valles, Shalyn Slape, Jim Walker, and Ben
The Meeting was called to order at 8:30 am. New members were welcomed and introduced. Kaleb
Corder was introduced as our student representative. Each member was given a copy of the SACS COC
reaffirmation letter. Our reaffirmation is for 10 years. It was noted by Shanna Donica that all TaskStream
2013-2014 workspaces are due for completion on September 30, 2014.
The following agenda items were presented.
Employee Survey
The employee survey was first administered in 1996 and revised in 2004. Stephen John presented results
beginning with an overview of the survey structure. (Handout of results was given to each attendee).
There are 53 agreement statements, 1 employee identification statement and 3 open ended questions. The
survey was available to employees between April 1, 2014 and May 21, 2014. Employee participation
comprised 401 faculty and staff members, approximately 70% of the workforce of South Plains College.
This was 2 fewer employees than the 2012 administration (n=403). The breakdown of employees by class
who took the survey was as follows: 54.1% Faculty (n=217), 17.0% Classified (n=68), 21.7%
Professional Non-Faculty (n=87), 4.7% Administrators (n=19) and 10 respondents did not identify
employee class.
Data analysis of the raw data is compared to benchmarks set to identify strengths and opportunities for
improvement. Attributes/Success benchmark is a mean greater than 3.50 and statement agreement
benchmark is greater than 70% agreement. 100% of the Attribute/Success factors met 3.50 benchmark,
94.3% of Statements met 3.50 benchmark and 75.5% of statements met 70% agreement benchmark. The
overall level of disagreement increased from the 2012 survey. Student focus remains as the highest mean.
Attributes/Success Factors that declined in the level of agreement included Cooperation and Teamwork,
and Rewards and Recognition. Communication within departments is good, but communication between
departments is a struggle. We have work to do in the area of organizational communication. The
subcategory of Planning and Effectiveness has increased since the last survey, but still needs work. The
budgeting and allocation subcategory has low levels of agreement on 3 of the 4 statements, indicating that
individuals do not agree that they have input into the budgeting process.
Attribute/Success Factors means:
Student Focus – Mean 4.36
Institutional Effectiveness Committee Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2014
Learning Focus – Mean 4.32
Access and Diversity – Mean 4.30
Community Focus – Mean 4.05
Employee Focus – Mean 3.95
Employee Empowerment – Mean 4.04
Supervisory Management – Mean 4.05
Cooperation and Teamwork – Mean 3.82
Rewards and Recognition – Mean 3.58
Quality Work Environment – Mean 4.00
Organizational Communications – Mean 3.63
Internal Employee Relations – Mean 4.11
Physical Environment – Mean 4.26
Leadership Focus – Mean 3.84
Planning and Effectiveness – Mean 3.71
Leadership – Mean 4.01
Budgeting & Allocation of Resources – Mean 3.71
Covered improvements and setbacks. Communication is a common problem and it is troubling that we do
not have an “open exchange of ideas”. Stephen referred to table 8 on p.17 of the survey results report for
information on the frequency and percentages of employees who listed strengths of the college. The
highest was Student Focus being mentioned 94 times by 42.5% of those who commented on the question
and comprised 16.6% of the comments. Stephen encouraged everyone to read the summary and action
plan. We have dealt with decreases in enrollment, QEP, reaffirmation, stagnant budgets, salaries not
increasing enough to keep up with real inflation, which are all factors contributing to the increase in
disagreement. Overall the employee survey results were positive for 2014. For further information
please read the summary report handed out during the meeting.
Institutional Plan 2015-2020
Stephen John went over the draft of the Institutional Plan for 2015-2020. The process used to write the
Institutional Plan began with planning workshops last fall. That information was used in the spring to
start working on the plan. Through this process 5 strategic priorities were identified. (These are listed on
the handout given to each attendee). After the 5 strategic priorities were identified goal statements were
created followed by outcomes statements. It was determined that simpler format would be better
understood and were a better measure of effectiveness. The new plan is simpler and more concise than
the current plan. This helps everyone when trying to implement the plan in their own departments. Help
everyone plug their own activities into the plan.
Discussion followed: Cathy Mitchell stated that we wanted it to be less prescriptive and more inclusive of
all departments. Dan Nazworth asked if the plan would be in place in time for Taskstream due dates.
Stephen answered that yes it would be. Stephen requested that anyone with suggestions, questions or
comments on the plan email or call him. He suggested each department think about where they want to
be and where they want the college to be in 5 years. Mollie Melton asked if there would be a separate
report in TaskStream. Shanna Donica answered that the reports would be based on mapping departmental
objectives and outcomes to the Institutional Plan outcomes. Mollie asked if there was a separate Strategic
Plan and Stephen replied that last year should drive this year, what you need to work on in your
department. Not changing the way things are done, just the terminology.
TaskStream Due Dates for 2014-2015
Possible due date for TaskStream workspaces for 2014-2015 were presented for discussion. (Handout
given to each attendee). The proposed due dates are split up with pieces of the workspace being due at
Institutional Effectiveness Committee Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2014
different times. This will hopefully prevent the rush to get everything in at the last minute which can lead
to less planning going into assessment activities. (Presented by Shanna Donica)
Discussion followed: Dan Nazworth, based on due date of December 1st for the assessment plan would
need to be moved back until after the Strategic Plan is in Place. Shanna Donica said that dates could be
adjusted for 2014-2015 and then readjusted for future years after the Strategic plan is set.
Assessment Roundtable
Shanna Donica presented the Assessment roundtable where individuals could come to discuss assessment
with one another to know what others are doing and trade ideas on best practices. Ann Gregory offered
the use of one of the Technology Center computer labs so TaskStream help could also be offered. First
meeting was suggested for October 10th at 1:30 pm with details to follow. After the meeting Hope Beyer
responded that October 10th is a holiday. Scheduling is being evaluated.
Other Discussion and Announcements
Minutes for the April 18, 2014, IE Committee meeting were considered for approval. No changes were
suggested, Dan Nazworth moved to accept meeting minutes, and Ann Gregory seconded the motion.
Motion carried, minutes from April 18, 2014, meeting were approved.
Reminders of upcoming events – Constitution Day Panel, Disability Services professional development
and WTAC conference.
Stephen John also suggested an ad hoc group to study communication as was done in 2007. He may pull
and redistribute the report form 2007 for review. It would be a good starting point to work on
communication. Is it time to administer a communications survey again?
With no further announcements or business, the meeting adjourned at 9:37 a.m.
Institutional Effectiveness Committee Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2014