Unapproved
WEST VALLEY COLLEGE
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary
Wednesday, Feb 18, 2015 – 2:30-4:30
Fox Collaboration Space
ATTENDEES
NAME
REPRESENTING
P
G
C
D
C
C
Pr.
NAME
REPRESENTING
Diane Hurd
AAS
x
Kuni Hay
VP Instruction
Jim Henderson
Business
x
Victoria Hindes
VP Student Services
Kathy Arnold
Fine Arts
x
Stephanie Kashima Dean, Inst.& Stu. Success
Leigh Burrill
Language Arts
x
Brad Weisberg
Dean, Career Ed
Steve McCann
Physical Education
x
Eric Pape
Academic Senate
Rebecca Wong
Science & Math
Pat Fenton
VP Administrative Services
Nichola Gutierrez
Social Science
x
Teri Langworthy
Classified Staff Rep
Janis Kea
Social Science
x
vacant
Student Rep
Carol Pavan
Student Services
x
Indicates Voting Member of PGC or DCC
Guests: Sonia McVey, LeAnn McGinley, Lynn Kelly, Julie Maia, Whitney Clay, Randy Castello
DCC:
Kuni welcomed the group back after the long weekend.
Jim stated that for next week, someone had requested in an email that PGC and DCC be flipped
next time.. Leigh stated that we have a lot to discuss in PGC today. Jim stated we will have PGC
first and DCC second next week to capture topics that we have not been able to discuss. Eric
suggested that the group may still want to consider having PGC and DCC on separate meeting
days.
I. Review Agenda
No changes to the agenda for today.
a) Bless notes from 2/11/15
Notes didn’t go out until today to review. The group asked to wait until next week to review.
II.
Committee Reports
a) Academic Senate
At the next meeting, Senate will be discussing with ACE regarding SLOs being in the teacher
evaluations. There will be curricular approvals. Pat F will be giving a presentation. Eric stated
that the Board will be having listening sessions again and Eric recommended asking for
discussion on district services such as IS and HR and their level of functioning and support for
the colleges. The Senate will also discuss accreditation as it is a standing item on their agenda.
Eric stated that at the Board meeting, the Scorecard presentation was made by Dr. Miqueas
Dial and discussion occurred by the board members. They wondered how the information is
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 1 of 16
P
G
C
D
C
C
Pr.
x
x
x
x
x
Unapproved
used. The Board asked what kinds of resources could be provided to help with the downturn in
career education. Eric felt that the response was not optimal. Kuni added that Bob Owens
expressed how concerned he is with the enrollment decline and mentioned this 3-4 times
during the meeting. At some point, we may be asked to give a presentation on this topic. Eric
added that the district was supposed to have used some of the marketing money to market the
colleges/district and this apparently has not yet been done. Eric stated that he has not yet seen
anything as a result from the district’s spending of the money. Eric reported that Bob Owens
reported that he was not aware the district was supposed to be spending marketing funds and
doing marketing activities. Kathy asked if this group could send a communication to the board
to be read aloud asking for the marketing funds to be spent. Jim stated that that perhaps this
could be a question about how the $100,000 that was set aside for district marketing funds has
been spent. Jim suggested that he and Kuni will draft this letter for the group for their review.
Eric said this could either be a letter to the board or to the Chancellor. Eric stated that Trustee
Owen’s comments about decline in enrollment were of interest.
Kuni stated that at the last Academic Senate meeting where the chancellor was invited, the
Senators communicated clearly with the Chancellor that the SLO/evaluation language was not
what was wanted and needed. Eric explained that the Chancellor decided to move forward with
the language and the Board has had the first reading of this language. It requires a second
reading before being adopted as board policy. This still needs to go to District Council.
Eric mentioned to the board on behalf of the Curriculum committee this week the delay in
getting curriculum approved through the board process. State is doing better in reviewing and
approving courses and programs so the college needs support to be able to get board approval
quicker so as to submit them to the state in a timely fashion.
b) ADC
This group will meet next week.
c) Curriculum
Kuni stated that the college has received a $6 million water grant and plans are required to be
developed. Part of the requirement is the needs to write curriculum to support this grant for
specific jobs that are available and needs to be filled (water and water treatment related field
on all levels). Brad W and David E will be visiting Curriculum Committee on this topic and we
will bring this information forward to this group as some of the disciplines will be involved.
d) SLPEC (SLO/A, PR)
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 2 of 16
Unapproved
Stephanie thanked the group for completing all SLO submissions for Sp14 and F14 for courses.
There are 2 remaining program submissions which Janis and Nichola are working on.
e) Accreditation
This Friday is the deadline to complete the draft for Kuni and Heidi (minus the evidence linking
completion). There is still some evidence needed such as one for the SLO/A being in the
evaluation. Content-wise, it is in great shape. Brad Davis has edited. Friday, there will be a
Steering committee meeting and it will be disseminated to college community and to
Chancellor. This will be it in regard to review and getting feedback. It must be going to Board by
March 3. Dr. Vurdien and 3 other people will be visiting. Jim Temple and Monica and Melinda
from the previous team will be here on Thursday, Apri; 16, 2015. The visit will be from
10:30am-3:00pm. Dr. Vurdien will identify which groups he wants to meet with once he reviews
our report. Kuni and Heidi will continue to inform this group and the college with preparation
process moving forward.
f) Classified Senate
Teri not here. This year George Mageles has been nominated for statewide Classified Staff of
the Year.
g) ASO
no rep
h) College Council
Leigh reported that Brad Davis stated that the AAS building will be the Cilker School of Arts and
Design building completed in Spring 16. There will be a $175,000 contribution for this naming.
There will be shared classroom space in the Profession Studies building. Completion for that
building is 2017 or 2018. Jim stated that the intent for the Professional Studies building is to
have maximum flexibility in classrooms to allow other areas teach there and to include
potential for synchronous instruction. Brad W stated that the proposed move is for summer
2016 for moving into the Cilker building. The moves have been moved back 6 months so the
Professional Studies building move in will be in 2018. Leigh added that the PE renovation
money is getting smaller as other projects costs are raising. The Student Services building will
be completed Fall 18. Costs for that building have risen because 6000 sf have been added.
There was a review of a new job description for a Learning Resources and Success Center
Specialist. This position will work in the library but also assist in other areas for one-stop shop
service model. As for enrollment, she stated that Brad Davis stated that having 3000 FTES is a
good number for this semester and that the district planning committee doesn’t always set
reasonable goals. Graduation will be Mountain Winery this year due to construction occurring
on campus. There will be a 50th Anniversary Celebration for the entire college community after
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 3 of 16
Unapproved
the graduation with drinks and hors d’oeuvres. The cost for the graduation will be cheaper at
Mountain Winery than when we have it here.
Jim added that the new Professional Studies building will house 13 faculty offices. Eric stated
that he and Wael have asked Ed to review our use of the RAM model. Eric believes Ed is
budgeting to FTES because we have a RAM model but this doesn’t make any sense because we
are Community Support funds now. Ed seems to be setting enrollment goals that are not
realistic and when we don’t meet the goals, he is still providing the funding at the goal level.
This is good for one college and not for the other. Eric would like to know why we go with an
FTES model that doesn’t make any sense and instead go with a model that goes with our goals.
If we prioritize funding career programs, we could fund this. How do we provide the resources
programs need? We have data from the Scorecard to use to establish these goals.
Randy stated that the Resource Allocation Model was created to provide transparency but it
doesn’t seem to be providing it. Ngoc has a very complicated worksheet to keep all the
information straight. Randy added that Bob Owens is asking if we need new buildings given our
enrollment decline. These new buildings will require additional funding to maintain and will we
have students to use them, Bob wondered, reported Randy. Kuni asked if there has been any
discussion to address the declining enrollment issue at other campus committees. Randy stated
that Ed reports to the board that the goals he has set were from the college’s
recommendations. This group agreed that that is not true. Eric stated that he believes the
board will want to discuss enrollment as part of their listening sessions.
Kuni stated that perhaps this group (PGC/DCC) can identify what data we need to determine
what size college we should be. Eric stated that budgeting according to our goals is something
the district/board should consider. Randy stated that some career programs need support in
identifying where the demand is and how to create a plan for their programs. Career programs
should be identifying what support they need to create effective plans for their programs. This
would help define what kind of college we want to be. How can we set ourselves apart from
other area colleges. Kuni recommended this as a future agenda item for PGC, perhaps in a
retreat format.
i) Student Services Council
Carol reported that there is a lot of concern about whether students are getting effective
messaging regarding priority registration (SSSP implementation). They are working on a
message to students. Kuni mentioned that the clearly delineated visual of the priority
registration was constructed by the SS Core Team which has been reviewed by the SS council.
Kuni added that we would include them in the printed schedule and catalog as well as posted
on the website and portal to ensure that we provide clear information for students regarding
their registration dates to avoid further confusion. Sean Pepin is organizing all the events
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 4 of 16
Unapproved
happening across campus next semester. He is creating a calendar for the college. Early Alert
will happen Feb 23 – Mar 2. Please ask faculty to submit their rosters. The name has been
changed to Early Progress Assessment. End of March is Cesar Chavez celebration.
III. Announcements
Stephanie stated that she sent out an all user email on tutoring. We are attempting to reinstate
to Sp14 levels. She thanked the group for their patience.
Kuni stated that last night at the Board meeting in the President’s report, Brad was very
complimentary about the Global Citizenship recent events with Eric’s speech and encouraged
people to come to the next event.
Nichola asked for status on Printing Services. Kuni asked Pat to join us so he can explain how to
deal with needed copies when copier machines are not working. Pat stated that all division
copiers are capable of high volume copying. There are 2 machines down and the temp person
ran out of time so he has not staffing. Scott’s staff is helping get things done, but the machines
are down. He recommends doing it on the division copier. He stated not to worry about the
number of copies made on those machines. Pat stated that there is no limitation on the copies
while addressing this issue. Jim stated that we may need more paper. Pat will give people
paper. He asked people to send him an email if they need paper and he will get it to them. Pat
stated that the hiring process for the permanent replacement has taken far too long. He asks
for patience. Leigh asked Pat to send an all users message regarding the machines being down.
He said he will do so. Kuni concluded that the divisions have the permission to use the division
machines for copying and not to worry about the budget for the time being. Kuni thanked for
their patience and understanding.
PGC:
IV.
Enrollment Management
a) Overall
We are at 2739 credit FTES. Efficiency is at 501 for this semester.
b) Late start
There are 5 classes that need attention:
PE 3.34 - cross listed
PE 3.36 – cross listed
CA 31B – Jim will follow up on this – will be cancelled unless there is other information
Soc 001 – Soc efficiency is above 90% planned efficiency
DMIS 025 – starts March 5 – will watch it
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 5 of 16
Unapproved
Timing of cancellations: Kuni stated that this group has stated they want to talk about the
timing of cancellations in the near future. This week, Maritza has informed Kuni that there is a
very negative impact on financial aid when we cancel late. Students get 50% of their total
financial aid award a week before the semester. If the student has changed their enrollment
status due to class cancellations and if the cancellations occurs during the second week, their
Financial Aid funds are reduced from the rest of the 50% they would have received. We then
have to ask them to return funds to the college (and college to the Federal government) and
this is not a good practice for the students or the college. Also, students can get penalized for
future financial aid if the student does not pay the money back in a timely manner, i.e. if the
money has already been spent but they needed to do so to pay books, rent, food, etc.. Maritza
added that when a class is cancelled, student total units change and this has a domino effect on
the student and the financial aid office. She has asked for us to consider such impact when
discussing timing of the class cancellation.
V.
VI.
Schedule status: Summer/Fall 2015
A subcommittee was developed (Steve, Pat, Jim, Kuni, Stephanie, and Lynn) by this group last
June 2014 to develop a tool out of cognos where we can identify FTES and efficiency numbers
as we develop courses for the subsequent semester. In addition, we were to include
comparison of # of sections scheduled vs. # of sections planned in the Annual plan. The project
stalled for months with Kevin Cartier last fall into spring 2015. Project was shifted to Linh
Nguyen and the subgroup is committed to work with her to complete developing this tool. For
now, we got the bottom-line information for fall 2015 as to where we are today.
Lynn projected a report of all sections scheduled for Fall 15. It shows that Fall 15 scheduled
sections totaling 3142 FTES. This is projected FTES based on the actuals from Sp14 and F14.
There are errors in the efficiency calculations. We do not have summer to show at this point.
15 – 16 Annual Plan
a) Updates
Last week, we discussed those programs that were more than 10% higher or lower in Sp16 plan
and Sp15 actuals. DCs were asked to go back and review what changes could be made to the Sp
16 plan. The concern was especially about programs planning less than Sp15 actuals. Kathy
stated that she has concerns about programs that are planning 10% more and might be asked
to cut but where that will lower them below 500 efficiency. There was not resolution last week.
There was some concern about a downward spiral mentioned previously by a Division Chair.
Steve stated that we need to consider that we used Sp14 to build Sp16 and Sp14 was a very low
point for the college and this should be considered. We shouldn’t use 500 as a standard for all
programs. Leigh read the notes from last week on this topic which referenced comments
recommending not planning below Sp15 level to avoid down-ward spiraling, but no reference
to 500 as a standard.
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 6 of 16
Unapproved
Business: made changes to 5 of the 7 programs and sent to Lynn.
No other programs submitted changes to Lynn as of yet.
PE: Steve will make an adjustment and send to Lynn.
LA: Sp15 actual is 422 but the Sp16 plan was 469. Leigh stated that the Language Arts and Basic
Skills classes will always be on the low end. She is concerned that some programs are being
asked to lower their plan to meet actuals, but that some programs are also being asked to cut
their ftef because they are at a low efficiency. This seems to be a mixed message. Jim stated
that we are simply asking programs to plan realistically. If programs plan too high, when we
review actuals in Sp16, the program will be held to the plan established and this may not be to
their advantage.
Janis stated that some programs may have a higher actual because they are good at cancelling.
She wants to know if we will be looking at both our planned and actual numbers when
reviewing Sp16. She feels this will be important. Jim stated that he believes we will. He gave
CTR as an example. They made the plan more realistic, but they also cancelled classes that were
very low enrolled. Janis stated that it is hard to look at just efficiency numbers without seeing
the number of sections alongside it.
Kathy stated that the Sp15 numbers incorporate the requirement of 15 students or above. Will
we continue to have this standard moving forward? Jim stated that we agreed to assume that
the current enrollment guidelines apply to the 15-16 year as we assess how realistic the 15-16
plans are. Steve stated that this committee is not only about efficiency, but also about
allocating ftef. Perhaps if programs are not meeting their efficiency threshold, we should
remove ftef. If they are performing to that threshold, perhaps we leave their ftef as it is. Leigh
stated that this is what we are doing when we approve the annual plans. We are approving the
ftef allocation. We need to go on a case by case basis and adhere to the contract. If we ask
programs to change plans, we must ask for it in writing.
LeAnn stated that she is concerned with programs that are setting high expectations for Sp16
compared to actuals Sp15. A program that is going 28% over their actuals begs the question
about impact on pedagogy. Ocean is planning 28% over Sp15 actuals. Leigh stated that sciences
are at base 18 which is why they are at the high end of the efficiency scale. Nichola stated that
looking at the Sp15 actuals gives us a richer picture of what is actually happening. Jim stated
that there may be unknowns that the program knows but we don’t that leads them to plan that
way. Janis stated that perhaps some of these plans don’t reflect what has actually happened.
Kathy stated that Fine Arts has matched their Sp16 plan to Sp15 actuals except that there are
higher projected enrollments based on the number of students targeted on the course outline.
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 7 of 16
Unapproved
Kuni stated that this group has agreed to use the actual census numbers to project a couple of
years ago so that the planning is more realistic. In the past with the “red plan” numbers were
all arbitrary where “wishing to have” enrollment numbers constituted the planning and we
cannot go back there. The curriculum number is not an effective realistic number to use on the
COR as they are usually room capacity. Randy stated that if we allow lower efficiencies, we will
have less ftef to use overall. She reminded the group that we have declined in enrollment
considerably in the last year. So planning needs to be done thoughtfully. There is a concern
about a lack of the strategic part of planning. Planning cannot just be based on numbers like
efficiency. Comparing Sp15 to Sp16 may not be a good basis of planning since enrollment is
unpredictable.
Kuni stated that the college needs to identify where in the downward trend we want to stop. It
is hard to identify this number without any data. Department Chairs are concerned because
they are bound by the contract efficiencies number and FTES goals. Kuni stated that if we had
more data such as the environmental scan (in its works via Educational Master plan), we could
plan more effectively. Jim stated that looking at efficiency only can disguise the outcome. We
could increase the denominator (ftef) or numerator (WSCH) and affect the outcome. How
departments are identifying the numbers they are entering into the plans, Jim wondered. Leigh
stated that one reason there is a big discrepancy in the Actual/Plan efficiency for FOLA is that
this plan was done Sp14. FOLA has already reduced their FTEF by 24%. They reduced their
overall sections voluntarily. They are now at 455 because Leigh asked her division to focus on
efficiency this semester. Historically, FOLA has come back to PGC with low enrollments and PGC
has allowed the classes to run. This resulted in actuals in the 300s. Therefore, the program
planned to 368 efficiency for Sp16.
Kathy added that it would be easier to do this in Nov rather than Feb since that is when we
developed the plans. Steve stated that we didn’t have the Sp15 actuals to compare at that time.
Jim stated that our job as PGC is to evaluate the integrity of the plans and either accept or not
accept the plans for Sp16. Janis would like to see more information. We need to see the ftef. If
the ftef is not changing and the efficiency number in the plan is changing, we can make better
decisions. Jim recommended providing ftef and ftes along with efficiency on a document in
comparing Sp15 actuals and Sp16 plans. Leigh recommended looking further back than Sp15
actuals. Jim stated that this is what Division Chairs should do and come back to PGC to report
what is realistic based on a review of various data like that trend data. Janis added that we
need to remember there were semesters when we were chasing WSCH and the efficiencies
might be low. Also, our funding model was different and we had to make a certain FTES
number. This is no longer true. We should keep this in mind as we review plans.
Jim stated that he is visualizing a 9 column worksheet. Sp15 actuals, Sp16 plan and delta for
each of ftef, ftes and efficiency. He will not go back to Sp14 because it is an anomaly. Sp14 was
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 8 of 16
Unapproved
30% under goal. Jim stated that Sp15 is 20% under goal. He added that in Sp14 we reacted and
allowed low enrolled courses to address unexpectedly low enrollment. In Sp15, we are not in
the apportionment model and so we didn’t have to react in that way this semester. Jim
repeated that a planning assumption was that the enrollment management guidelines for 15-16
will be the same as they are for 14-15 so it is fine for us to compare Sp15 and Sp16.
Next Steps:
Jim will create this spreadsheet and send out over the weekend.
The DCs will use the data to analyze and draft a revised Sp16 plan (by penciling into Jim’s
spreadsheet) to prepare for discussion next week’s PGC.
If a DC wants to submit a revised plan to Lynn, they can do so but Lynn will not update the
annual plan until after next week’s meeting.
Randy recommended that perhaps PGC asks a select few programs to come in to justify their
Sp16 plan.
b) FTEF shift plan
Jim stated that last fall, PGC asked DMIS to deliver their program with 1.7 less ftef. They have 4
FT faculty so this was a challenge. Between then and now, curriculum changes have been
approved by the state and there is now a program to offer to students. Jim asked Jean to lay
out the sequence of courses students should take in the new program on a 4 semester basis to
see if it is deliverable within the ftef that has been allocated. This was the reason that DMIS was
removed from ADC review. A document was distributed that showed the ftef usage per
semester based on an ed plan for a student. This is great work by Jean the group agreed. Carol
stated that this document will be helpful for the counselors in advising students.
LeAnn stated that there are some courses that have no assessment attached to them.
Stephanie stated that there is one additional program awaiting state approval which may
explain this. Jim will look into this. The group agreed that this document is an excellent analysis
and planning tool. Randy stated that this plan raises issues because there are 4 FT faculty in
that program. Jim stated that all those faculty are making load, some are teaching in different
disciplines and some also teach at MC. Randy stated that those faculty need to know where
their load is coming from. LeAnn stated that there needs to be a longer term plan to provide
these faculty with load within WVC. Jim stated that in all likelihood, there will be only 2 faculty
in this area in a couple of years. Randy expressed concern about when these faculty will be able
to make up their under loads.
Leigh sent out an email out on Feb 12 prior to her meeting with Brad Davis. The meeting with
Brad resulted in consultations regarding the contract and some arguments that we are not
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 9 of 16
Unapproved
following Article 20 of the contract. Leigh wants everyone to understand where she is coming
from:
World Languages: there are 2 academic programs that have approved plans and are making
90% of their plan. They have always had a reduced efficiency due to their pedagogy. They have
never been referred to ADC. There is no prelude to this. World Languages just cut by 24% for
this semester (7 sections of Spanish down to 2 sections). Initially, there was an attempt on the
part of World Languages to comply (e-mail), but later there was resistance and Leigh
understands this. PGC has not supplied World Languages with a written explanation for wanting
to cut their ftef. This feels out of the blue to them. All the other programs in the bottom were
referred to ADC. Leigh asked if PGC is a union entity because it is mentioned in the contract.
She has cut from 7 Spanish classes to 2 without our asking her to. World Languages has the
highest efficiency in Language Arts right now. Leigh has met with the ACE President and the
College President.
Randy stated that there is the issue of the need to supply a written request to the program.
There appears to be an attempt to use PGC to starve programs out of existence. She doesn’t
see anything strategic behind this exercise. By stripping the associate faculty ftef, we are not
following the spirit of the contract. How is it that we know for each of these programs that the
best solution is to cut the associate ftef? There is a process for struggling programs which is to
go through ADC. She has a problem with the PGC being used as the ADC. Leigh stated that she
has asked to discuss program discontinuance during DCC and there was discussion that we are
not talking about program discontinuance. Leigh stated that we agreed that we need to identify
what a program is. There was a lot of program about how ESL is a complex program that needs
revision but this is not a PGC purview. This will not be an effective way to get ESL to revise their
program. To take one third ftef away from ESL makes it impossible for students to complete the
program. It is affecting a program functioning. If students cannot complete the program, they
will leave the program. Ann Marie tracks where students are and what they will be taking in the
following semesters. Leigh stated that Ann Marie feels this change would dismantle the
program.
Janis stated that some of the nontransferable basic skills courses will no longer be allowed in
credit per communications from the state Chancellor’s office. It looks like the train has left the
station on this issue. When this hits us, is ESL prepared for this change? What kind of plans have
they made for this? Leigh stated that Ann Marie is on top of the planned new legislation. Leigh
stated that this is not anything we can do anything about as PGC. Janis stated that this is about
credit court ftef allocation and so this will affect us in PGC. She would like to know what plans
they are making to meet this challenge.
Randy stated that this is the point of requiring that contact be made back to the department
chair in writing, to communicate this kind of thing regarding curriculum. This process should
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 10 of 16
Unapproved
include gathering information first and then making the decision. You may end up making the
same decision, but you need to gather the information first. Kuni stated that she appreciates
her feedback and can see the faculty perspective. She reminded the group of how we got to
this place. This group asked the administration to make some decisions because the ADC
process did not result in any decisions. The Academic Senate President stated publicly many
times that the Senate will not make a decision on discontinuance so the administration needs
to make a recommendation. The DCS said that they cannot tell their colleagues to add or
reduce sections. It is too challenging. Therefore, this group asked the administration to make
some recommendations as to how to reallocate FTEF and we agreed to come up with our
sample schedule. We are going to bring a bigger sample forward to this group as requested as
parameters for schedule development. This 5-program FTEF shift exercise was a baby step to
show what we are thinking about constructing the full schedule. It was a first step and we
wanted to share this with the group for the sake of transparency. More discussion will continue
when the sample schedule is constructed. She would hate for a huge recommendation to come
to this group in one chunk without any prelude or approach to be shared prior. This group has
been working on these decisions for 2 or 3 years in regard to these programs. She is responding
to this. She has no intent of violating the contract and committed to continue to honor that.
Any changes that we need to make in the process to be in compliance with the contract, of
course, she will welcome that and make augmentations, but this group asked the
administrative team to help. It may seem simplistic to just look at the lowest performing
programs for now, but somebody had to start thinking about how to address these low
performing programs and reconstruct the way we offer courses so students will enroll.
Curriculum committee has tried with 3 of the programs and so has ADC and they are stuck. We
continue to offer the status quo courses and cancel the same courses semester after semester.
We are trying to respond to this situation to provide a starting point to try to act.
Kuni added that Park Management faculty promised that they would come up with a plan and
present to Brad Davis as a result of their meeting with President Davis since last Wednesday. As
of this morning, President Davis forwarded her the plan that PKMGT submitted to him. She
stated that this group should look at any plan that comes forward. But she would like this group
to help her because the administration was asked for help and now that the proposal is brought
forward, people are saying it is not ok. We need to be able to address these issues. She shared
one example. Mel Pritchard is the one who said to this group that we need to do the Annual
Plan and do it in the correct term (fall instead of spring). This prompted us to start doing the
Annual Planning again in fall. This committee is a joint committee with the union and the
administration as stated in the contract and the administration has as much responsibilities as
the PGC faculty members. She is stuck with the request for help and then the response that you
are not going to move forward with the proposal. She would like to look at what faculty
members have done such as DMIS and then consider what other programs would like to do
such as Park Management and World Languages today to see if we agree. She would like to see
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 11 of 16
Unapproved
how this group feels about what the faculty members come up with. Creating an ed plan kills
three birds with one stone: annual planning revision, schedule development, and curriculum.
Julie Maia stated that she appreciates Kuni acknowledging that the request for reducing ftef
comes from administration. She stated that as Leigh mentioned, World Languages and ESL are
not part of the ADC process so it is not appropriate to bring these programs forward. Julie
wants to speak to the shared governance process. The Senate has set up a process to discuss
programs that are in trouble. Those 2 programs need to go through that process before
administration makes such a radical proposals. She stated that this group as PGC is a union
organization as their job as PGC is to watch out for faculty interests regardless. They can also
look out for the interests of the institution but they need to think about what faculty need first
and always. She doesn’t like the way this process highlights how our shared governance is in
trouble. Many of us have worked to strengthen the union but it won’t happen if faculty don’t
step up and speak up as union members as united front and the needs of our faculty and resist
what administration suggests. She urges this group to take the position to strengthen shared
governance.
Leigh stated that she appreciated the recommendation that came from the administration but
that it was a recommendation and not a foregone conclusion. As a PGC rep on ADC, she
believes that ADC was told that it was the Senate that discontinues programs, not ADC. She
believes that this group has not yet discussed this thoroughly. These programs feel they have
been completely blindsided. Leigh stated that we have a process for discontinuance and this is
not the body that does this. This is not the group that will slash ftef. She understands that some
people feel the buck is being passed around. She doesn’t remember agreeing to accept without
question any recommendation from administration.
Kuni stated that she then needs help in addressing the request that was made to
administration. LeAnn stated that she feels this group wanted to know what the vision was for
this college. What is it that this college is really going to strive to be? Then there was a question
about where the ftef is going. There appears to be a recommendation from administration to
slash ftef on the micro level when the request was a macro level request.
Diane stated that she appreciates the administration taking the request from the PGC and
doing something about it in such a short period of time. She thought that the group would
discuss the proposal instead of acting on it without explanation. Regarding Park Management,
she was puzzled as to why they were asked to cut the full amount of the PT ftef since ESL and
World Languages were only asked to cut one third. When she and the Park Management
faculty met with President Davis as suggested by the PGC, she shared with him data on Pkmgt
and he stated that he had not seen the data. He told Diane that he didn’t specify numbers in his
request to cut. The Pkmgt faculty stated to President Davis that they were being asked to cut
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 12 of 16
Unapproved
immediately. Brad Davis stated to Pkmgt that we are not discontinuing your program, but you
need to impress me with what you can do with your program, which lit a fire under the
program. The program presented information to the President about agreements with various
local agencies. President Davis has asked the group to outline their reductions for Fall 15 and
they have done so.
Randy stated that in Article 20, it is stated that the only group to distribute ftef and make
decisions on switching it around is PGC on which administration does have representation but it
is PGC and administration has no power. She doesn’t understand the ADC process and needs
clarification. The President has not purview over ftef allocation whatsoever. He has
administrative representation on PGC, but this group is the group with the authority. There is a
calculated reason why there are only 2 administrative representations on the PGC. Even
though she knows Senate doesn’t want to be in the business of discontinuing programs, they
have to do so. Randy stated she is sure the Senate President didn’t cede the authority to
discontinue programs to the President. Kathy and Carol stated that this authority was ceded.
Carol stated that we recognized that there was a problem with certain programs because ADC
wasn’t acting, Senate wasn’t acting, and this group was having trouble acting so this group
asked Brad Davis for recommendations. She was not expecting a detailed recommendation of
cutting ftef. She believes that ADC is working because now Park Management and DMIS have a
plan. We need a decision making body regarding program discontinuance because we cannot
simply say we are not going to take action.
Leigh remembers asking the President if we are discontinuing programs and he said no. Her
sense it that there is money so this is not a belt tightening exercise. There is no vision as to
where we are going. We have had at the bottom of our PGC agenda an item on ADC
recommendation process. We seem to not be prioritizing this discussion. Janis stated that this
group asked for the leadership and recommendations, but this group always gets stuck on the
details. The discussion that has arisen from this has been so beneficial. She feels that the
movement in DMIS and Pkmgt have been from the discussions in PGC, not ADC. She applauds
this group for the discussion. She doesn’t want to spend any time on recommending programs
to ADC unless she knows ADC is going to do something. She wants to know what to expect from
ADC moving forward. What will the benchmarks be?
Stephanie stated that she feels that we got here because we are all trying to do the right thing.
She feels that all the members of this group are here because they care about the institution
and want to do the best for the institution but it was clear that there was a reluctance in
various campus groups to make decisions about programs that were low functioning. Therefore
this group asked administration to assist in making a decision. She hopes that this group can
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 13 of 16
Unapproved
help the programs to get to the point that DMIS is at where they have planned out their ed
planning and ftef allocation planning.
Kuni stated that she understands that this group feels that this is a short time line but reminded
them that she wanted to share our first step with the group in accordance with our scheduled
development and annual plan revision timeline (2/18/15) – it is honoring the contract here. she
also feels that she would like to see some feedback on the programs who did the work and
what they can do. She would like the faculty’s recommendations to be reviewed by this
committee.
Jim stated that perhaps we figure out how to move forward. He asked the group to give input
on how they are feeling about how to advance. Leigh stated that Anna make her decision on
reductions based on PGCs focus on efficiency this semester. Leigh doesn’t feel there is a
rationale for cutting further. Diane stated that there seems to be a general disappointment
about ADCs non-recommendations, but Diane believes they did their job. The programs
improved. With Park Management, it was ADC that got them to revise their program. Randy
stated that it is fair to look at lower efficiency programs. Perhaps we share the DMIS analysis
and ask the lower performing programs to produce what DMIS did produce. Randy also asked
how we follow up on the Ed Code requirement that we review at CTE programs every 2 years to
see if there is still need.
Nichola stated that we should be looking at this kind of analysis for all programs. This discussion
allows us to engage in this process to be better programs. Leigh stated that ESL and World
Languages are currently the highest efficiency programs in Language Arts Division. There are 12
programs below ESL and World Languages in efficiency this spring 15 census. She feels it is not
wise to look at these programs given this data point. The question is “low efficiency” as of now
or over time? LeAnn asked why we cannot shift this back to a focus on efficiency rather than on
ftef removal. Perhaps programs should look at their efficiency trend. She stated that ADTs will
soon cause us problems because they require us to offer low enrolled courses thus lowering
efficiency. Perhaps we should be looking at this now.
Kuni asked if the group could look at Park Management proposal. Kathy stated that World
Languages efficiency this semester is higher than many other programs.
Pkmgt: Diane explained the handout which is the email from Pkmgt to Brad Davis on their
proposed reductions: Pkmgt 19 (0.353), 16B (0.2) and 24 (0.104). The email also states that
there are agreements with various agencies to refer students to specific courses; therefore they
will need to offer PKMGT 15 next semester. They are reducing 0.305 FTES. Janis asked if Pkmgt
is confident that the classes listed on this document will fill with 15 or more in Fall 15? Diane
stated yes. Jim stated there is no guaranteed enrollment. The courses are:
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 14 of 16
Unapproved
Pkmgt 10, 12A, 12B, 14, 15A, 15N, 15C, 16A, 16B, 16C, 20A, 21, 14. Diane stated that Pkmgt is
confident that these classes will fill with 15 or more students in Fall 15.
Janis doesn’t want to see in the fall that we need to cancel some of these courses due to low
enrollment. Jim stated that we will need to continue to look at their enrollments in fall. We
think these classes will run, but we need to think about what is the right investment to make in
the college and programs. Kuni stated that if the program has an agreement with area agencies
regarding these classes and if the program participates in CTE night, this group should consider
this work. Stephanie stated that it would be helpful to have Pkmgt put together a course
sequencing plan as DMIS did. Diane stated that they have done so but she will ask them to put
it into the DMIS format. Kuni asked the group if they would support asking the program to
continue working with Curriculum Committee on their improvements. The group agreed that
Pkmgt proposal of 0.304 FTEF reduction given to President Davis was accepted by PGC with the
caveat that the faculty continue to work directly with the Curriculum committee..
Jim summarized the feeling of the group that World Languages and ESL have addressed
efficiency this semester and would continue to maintain these efficiency levels moving forward,
other languages change in popularity over time, such as Sign Language and Japanese. Leigh
stated that World Languages already cut and feels they cannot cut anymore. Leigh stated that
the program (ESL) has the second highest language arts efficiency and feels that making
additional cuts to the program is not viable. Nichola asked if Anna is going to offer the same
schedule for F15 as for Sp15. Leigh will tell Anna to maintain their current efficiency. She is
confident they can continue this efficiency into F15. Randy asked if the program has identified
any research they need to identify how to reformat their program. Leigh stated that Spanish,
French and Italian have always been popular. Other languages change in popularity over time.
Perhaps we should be surveying students on their language interests. Perhaps we should
collaborate with other colleges on our language offerings. Kuni stated that as part of our EFMP
process, we have asked for data on the 1.5 generation who speak 2 languages but may want
formal instruction in their native language. This data may be helpful to World Languages to
consider, for example, a “heritage” route of course offerings. Jim summarized that the World
Languages feels they have already scaled back and will not scale back anymore for F15. Leigh
agreed. Kuni asked how Leigh left it with Brad Davis. Leigh stated that she told Brad World
Languages had already reduced.
Janis asked for clarification that World Languages that the reduction for that area discussed in
email is no longer being acted on. Leigh confirmed as that was a recommendation prior to
meeting with President Davis. Kuni stated that she would need to take this back to Brad Davis
for consultation. Leigh asked what is happening with Photo. There is no associate faculty in
Photo.
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 15 of 16
Unapproved
Jim asked what we are doing with ESL. Leigh stated that the program feels making cuts to the
program is not viable. Stephanie stated she believes there is one ESL class that appears to have
never been offered which raises the question of what the pipeline for ESL actually is. Which
courses are required as part of this pipeline? Leigh will look into it.
Jim summarized that the reduction agreed to today is from Pkmgt alone and is a reduction for
.304 for F15 eliminating Pkmgt 16B (.2) and Pkmgt 24 (.104). Kuni stated again that she would
be bringing the information about ESL and World Languages to the President for consultation.
Carol asked if ADC is meeting this semester? Leigh stated that we are meeting next week and
waiting to hear from PGC about recommended programs. Jim stated that we are still looking at
Architecture and Pkmgt. DMIS has a plan; Photo did their work; CA has a plan. Randy
recommended using the ADC process as the official process for reviewing career programs
every 2 years.
VII.
ADC recommendation process from PGC
VIII.
Adjournment at 6:09
Respectfully Submitted by Stephanie Kashima
PGC/DCC Meeting Summary – Feb 18, 2015
Page 16 of 16