SOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
August 31, 2012
9:00 a.m. – Founders Room
MINUTES
Members Present: Billy Alonzo, Rafael Aguilera, Cary Banks, Nanette Blair, Rob Blair, Dane
Dewbre, Urisonya Flunder, Ann Gregory, Kara Martinez, Mollie Melton, Cathy Mitchell, Yancy
Nuñez, Robert Plant, Lynda Reid, Yolanda Salgado, Amanda Sims, Ron Spears, Jeremy Todd,
Dawn Valles, Jim Walker, Ben Walton, Jack Wardlow, Ronnie Watkins, Alan Worley and
Stephen John.
Members Absent: Jim Belcher, Hope Beyer, Sharon Bogener, Sue Ann Lopez, Gary
Poffenbarger, Jody Reding, Lance Scott and Pete Stracener.
Guest: Laura Graves
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Committee Chair Stephen John welcomed new
members to the committee who included Jim Belcher, Hope Beyer, Nanette Blair, Dane Dewbre,
Ann Gregory, Jody Reding, Yolanda Salgado, Ron Spears, Pete Stracener, Jeremy Todd, Ben
Walton and Ronnie Watkins.
Minutes of the April 13, 2012 meeting, distributed earlier by email, were presented for approval.
Motion by Jack Wardlow to accept minutes by consensus. Motion seconded by Rafael Aguilera.
The following agenda items were taken up.
2012 Employee Survey Results
Committee members reviewed and discussed the results of the 2012 Employee Survey that was
conducted this past spring. A results and analysis report prepared by the Office of Institutional
Advancement was distributed to all members. A total of 403 employees responded to the
survey, representing 70.6% of the total college workforce of 571. It was noted that the survey
indicated a high level of employee satisfaction and commitment to the college’s critical success
attributes: student focus, learning focus, access and diversity, employee empowerment,
supervisory management, cooperation/teamwork, internal employee relations, physical
environment, community focus and leadership focus. Mean ratings for all 17 organizational
success factors exceeded the 3.50 benchmark. However, respondents had higher levels of
satisfaction (higher mean ratings) in 15 of the 17 success factors two years ago, and five of the
factors recorded the lowest mean rating since 2004.
The notable decline in employee satisfaction in certain areas of the survey is a reflection of the
uncertainty the college has experienced in the past two years. The rapid growth of the college,
continuing budget constraints and challenges, new state accountability mandates, expected
changes to the core curriculum, reorganization of key administrative areas, and the overall
economic uncertainty has influenced employee satisfaction.
The survey also identified areas that employees feel are in need of continued improvement,
which included:
 Greater cooperation and teamwork between department and work groups
IE Committee Meeting, 8/31/12
1




Improved rewards and recognition in the form of higher salaries
Better communication channels between departments and work groups
Greater involvement in the College’s planning and decision-making processes
Greater involvement in the allocation of budget resources
These results do not deviate from previous surveys.
The Administrative Council reviewed and discussed the results at its Summer Planning Retreat
held July 31, 2012. John reported that the council discussed the need to improve communication
channels and what were employee expectations in regard to organizational communications.
Dr. Kelvin Sharp, president of the college, addressed these areas for improvement at the annual
Fall Employee Breakfast.
IE Committee members discussed various aspects of the survey, noting that the written
comments of the survey provide some context for the level of responses to certain survey
statements. For example, implementation of TimeClock for classified personnel and policy
changes to accrual of comp time were voiced as items that need to be changed. These factors in
all likelihood contributed to the lower levels of agreement among classified personnel to the
statement “Support staff and instructional staff are treated fairly and equitably” (62%
agreement).
All classes of employees expressed less satisfaction with organizational communications,
especially between departments and work groups (46.8% agreement among all respondents).
Discussion of this finding prompted a question about registration policies for internet classes.
Enrollment in online courses is reported to be down 12% for the semester. A new registration
policy may not have been adequately communicated to advisors in certain departments. Ben
Walton reported his department just discovered that students are prohibited from enrolling in
online classes if they are not TSI compliant. Certain certificate programs have online technical
courses that do not require students to be TSI compliant. Advisors were being required to
override these registration blocks. It was also suggested that there may be a coding issue in the
registration module of POISE that is blocking students from registering for classes they are
eligible to take. Rob Blair and Cathy Mitchell indicated they would investigate this problem.
In summary, John said the survey did find that employees continue to see SPC as a great place
to work. Survey respondents believe they are contributing to the success of the College (92.8%),
that co-workers are committed to helping students succeed (95.0%), and they are proud to work
at SPC (95.5%).
Supervisors Network – LeadSPC
Rafael Aguilera reported that the professional development workshop for instructional and
administrative supervisors held April 27, 2012, was well received. Randy Anderson with E3
Professional Trainers presented a “Life Plan” session, and 18 supervisory personnel attended.
The session had very positive evaluations that will be used to schedule future professional
development workshops.
John said adequate opportunities for professional development on all levels were also identified
as an area of improvement in the Employee Survey, especially among classified personnel. The
Administrative Council discussed the possibility of merging LeadSPC with the Professional
Development Committee to create a better structure for delivering professional development.
Yancy Nuñez pointed out it is important to define professional development. Committee
IE Committee Meeting, 8/31/12
2
members discussed a variety of resources that can be leveraged to improve professional
development opportunities. Some of these ideas included identifying the expertise we already
have on campus, using professional development to improve communications, involving all
employees in some form of professional development, developing a speakers bureau, and
including classified personnel on the committee. John and Jim Walker were designated by the
Administrative Council to investigate these possibilities.
Institutional Research and Data Subcommittee
Jack Wardlow presented information about two options for the Momentum Points Model that is
being advocated to state policy makers by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The
Texas Association of Community Colleges, Community College Association of Texas Trustees
and the THECB collectively prepared a briefing for state policymakers. The Momentum Points
Model is based on metrics for 1.) developmental education for math and/or English 2.)
completion of first year college-level math and/or English; 3.) completion of 15 or 30 semester
credit hours; 4.) earning a degree or certificate; and 5.) transfer for four-year university. The
Coordinating Board option is to allocate 10 percent of base formula funding on earned credit
hours on the basis of student achievement of the five metric milestones. TACC proposes that
funding should not be tied to Momentum Points at this time. Wardlow provided the milestone
metrics for SPC for FY 2009 and 2010. Total annual momentum points increased from 10,844 to
11,124, a 2.6% improvement. The statewide momentum point total improved 16.2%. The
challenge will be for the College to keep pace with the improvements seen statewide. We will
also be compared with the Large College Peer Group. At this time there are no milestone data
for this group.
IE Committee members discussed the implications for the Momentum Point models and its
impact on accountability. Wardlow also commented that state reports have changed
dramatically in the past several years as a result of more accountability measures.
Mission Statement Evaluation Subcommittee
John reported that at the Mission Statement Evaluation Subcommittee has not met. To date, 151
responses to the External Constituent Survey have been received. An additional 100 responses
are needed. The survey has been mailed to a list of 1,000 selected constituents. A second mailing
is being planned. A meeting of the Subcommittee will be scheduled later in the semester.
QEP Progress Report
Dr. Laura Graves, co-chair of the QEP Steering Team, provided a progress report on this
requirement for the college’s reaffirmation of accreditation. She provided a timeline of activities
that have been completed and those that are being planned in order to prepare the QEP. She
reported that the team held a dozen focus group sessions that included students, faculty, staff
and community members. From these sessions, hundreds of ideas were gathered from the
focus group prompt. The team has been organizing the ideas into broad themes. From this
process, the team’s recommendation is for the Quality Enhancement Plan to focus on some
aspect of student advising and learning how to go to college. The question the team seeks to
answer is “What can SPC do to improve student success?” Dr. Graves said that efforts are
underway to increase the number of faculty on the steering team. A draft of the plan will be
completed by April 2013 with the final plan completed and ready for submission by June 2013.
Once the plan is approved by the SACS/COC on-site committee, it will be implemented from
2014 to 2019.
IE Committee Meeting, 8/31/12
3
IE Committee members discussed various aspects of the QEP advising topic, noting that new
students do not always know where to begin. First generation students have to learn how to go
to college in order to be successful, Nuñez observed. Wardlow emphasized the need to have all
employees involved in a supportive network of which advising is a central part. Committee
members provided Dr. Graves with additional input and ideas for consideration. She said that
the steering team has explored similar plans developed by other colleges and universities. Texas
State University San Marcos is in the process of implementing a QEP that focuses on student
success and changing the university’s environment to support student learning. Dr. Graves said
that the Retention Team and Advisement Management Team have collected seven years of
student data that is being used to define the topic. The thesis will be identified by the end of
September.
Compliance Certification Report
John reported that work has begun on writing the compliance narratives for the Compliance
Certification Report that is due March 15, 2013. Compliance Certification Coordinators met
August 29 for a progress report. Approximately 10 percent of the requirements and standards
have been addressed at this time. The goal is to have final drafts completed by Nov. 20.
Currently working on a way for faculty and others to review the compliance narratives and
provide feedback to the report authors.
NEO Vision and Values Session
Approximately 50 employees participated in New Employee Orientation August 14-15. This
group has been invited to attend the final NEO session, Working and Living Our Vision and
Values scheduled for September 14. IE Committee members were invited to serve as small
group facilitators and recorders for the session. Interested committee members should contact
the Advancement Office.
Program Review Process
IE Committee members discussed a proposal to implement a system of program review. In
preparing the compliance narrative for Core Requirement 2.5 Institutional Effectiveness, it is
evident that documentation of a systematic, comprehensive program review is lacking. While
SACS/COC does not require an institution to have a system of program review in place, many
colleges use program review to show that assessment takes place and that analysis of
assessment data is used for long-term planning. To develop the 2005-2008 Institutional Plan,
planning guides were developed and distributed to all unit planners in order to conduct a
program review. Program review has been a part of the technical program and also for those
programs that are accredited by outside accrediting bodies. A draft of a Program Review Guide
for Instructional Programs and Non-Instructional Programs was distributed to committee
members for review. The guides were based on guidelines previously used to develop prior
Institutional Plans. Each guide consists of a series of questions that ask the unit planner to
examine and report on the unit’s 1.) purpose, role and scope; 2) department or program
objectives; 3.) assessment of current operations and services; 4) department and program
strategies (operational plan); 5) measures and benchmarks (evaluation). Following discussion,
Nuñez commented that the review guides appear to be similar to what departments are being
asked to record in TaskStream. John said that program review functions as a summative report
of what the department has accomplished and what it plans to initiate in the next four years
based on an analysis of its operations. This information from the departmental level is valuable
and needed in order to update the college’s Institutional Plan for the next four years. Committee
members were asked to review the guides and provide feedback. The goals is to develop a
IE Committee Meeting, 8/31/12
4
manageable program review process that contributes to planning and assessment, and
ultimately results in continuous improvement.
Announcements
Nuñez reported that course revisions to meet the requirements of the new State core curriculum
is underway this fall. However, curriculum revisions do not become implemented until fall
2014.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
IE Committee Meeting, 8/31/12
5