3-8-05

IEL TASK FORCE NOTES 03/08/05

Present: Roxanne Beloit, Ellen Brown, Toni Cummins, Karen Driscoll, Joe Dunlap, Marcus Jorgenson, Linda McDermott, Mike Mires, Scott Morgan, Joanne Murcar, Linda Powell (recorder), Jacque Rainer, Colleen Straight, and Linda Uhden Guests: Adrienne Tabar for Dixie Simmons, Jim Minkler and Amy Lopes Wasson for Pam Praeger.

The meeting came to order at 2:34 in the Palouse Conference Room at SFCC.

Review of Meeting Notes: The March 1, 2005 meeting notes were presented. No changes were noted. Scott asked the task force group to send any changes to the notes to Linda Powell by end of day, March 2.
Scott Morgan asked the task force group what they thought about this group or representatives of this group reviewing the final draft of the IEL Task Force Report with the Chancellor or Cabinet before the final is forwarded on. There was unanimous consensus to complete the draft report and submit the final Task Force Report to the Chancellor and Cabinet.

Scott announced that a Cabinet retreat has been tentatively scheduled for April 7, 2005. Scott asked for volunteers to attend the retreat and discuss the final IEL Report recommendations and findings with Cabinet members.

The following task force members volunteered to attend the April 7, 2005, Cabinet Retreat to be held at SIRTI:

Credit Instruction/A-6 Policy: Dixie Simmons, Joe Dunlap, Pam Praeger and possibly Don Brunner

Student Services: Karen Driscoll and Roxanne Beloit

Business and Industry: Joanne Murcar and Mike Mires

IEL Visibility: Colleen Straight

All other (where needed): Scott Morgan and Linda McDermott

Scott announced that a Cabinet retreat has been tentatively scheduled for April 7, 2005. Scott asked for volunteers to attend the retreat and discuss the final IEL Report recommendations and findings with Cabinet members.

The following task force members volunteered to attend the April 7, 2005, Cabinet Retreat to be held at SIRTI:

Credit Instruction/A-6 Policy: Dixie Simmons, Joe Dunlap, Pam Praeger and possibly Don Brunner

Student Services: Karen Driscoll and Roxanne Beloit

Business and Industry: Joanne Murcar and Mike Mires

IEL Visibility: Colleen Straight

All other (where needed): Scott Morgan and Linda McDermott

Scott announced that a Cabinet retreat has been tentatively scheduled for April 7, 2005. Scott asked for volunteers to attend the retreat and discuss the final IEL Report recommendations and findings with Cabinet members.

Scott announced that a Cabinet retreat has been tentatively scheduled for April 7, 2005. Scott asked for volunteers to attend the retreat and discuss the final IEL Report recommendations and findings with Cabinet members.

The following task force members volunteered to attend the April 7, 2005, Cabinet Retreat to be held at SIRTI:

Credit Instruction/A-6 Policy: Dixie Simmons, Joe Dunlap, Pam Praeger and possibly Don Brunner

Student Services: Karen Driscoll and Roxanne Beloit

Business and Industry: Joanne Murcar and Mike Mires

IEL Visibility: Colleen Straight

All other (where needed): Scott Morgan and Linda McDermott

2. Draft 3 IEL Report Outline Review

Introduction

Scott Morgan asked for assistance in writing an introduction section. Toni Cummins submitted an introduction sentence; Scott will review Toni’s recommendation.

IEL Background

Add IEL Mission statement to introduction.
A suggestion was made to consistently use "institution" instead of "unit" throughout the report and "CCS" rather than "Spokane Community College District".

Geography

a) definition of delivery
b) limited credit offerings; recommendation was made to use "instruction"
c) IEL offerings located in Spokane County as well as five rural counties
d) add Fairchild as a site

Organization

a) third sentence, a suggestion was made to revise as follows: Many of the instructional activities that the IEL specializes in are set up as a means to address student and community needs for basic skills, off-campus delivery and business and industry training. Scott mentioned that this is an important issue. The IEL specializes in programs that are not high profile at a typical community college.

b) a suggestion made to mention students more often in the report

c) a question was raised, "why have an IEL?" A lengthy discussion followed. Points raised included: 1) the IEL is important to the way we serve our community. 2) the IEL serves as a "champion". 3) A question was raised if this sentence should be included in the report as a finding and would the recommendation be to continue the IEL? The task force agreed to leave this sentence in the Organization section and to also add this as a finding and recommendation. This sentence should reference the primary mission. Basic skills is a primary mission of any institution.

e) the three institutional missions of CCS form a comprehensive district. The three missions are identified in the IEL Role and Responsibility section.

Programs

a) add additional programs: Women’s Programs; Pace/SEER; and Military
b) accreditation requirements dictate certain behaviors and prohibit others
c) a suggestion was made to reorganize geography and programs—move geography references to the Geography section and program references to the Program section

Status

a) Change last sentence to read, "Neither effort resulted in college status."

IEL Statistics
a) break out percentage of state-funded FTEs that are ABE—Linda McDermott reported approximately 15%; in the big picture, numbers get diluted.
b) a suggestion was made to add more statistical data easier to grasp.
c) Scott asked Colleen Straight and Roxanne Beloit to review this section and possibly add a table.

Continuing Education

A suggestion was made to add Continuing Ed definition. Ellen Brown recited a definition that the task force had agreed upon at an earlier meeting. There was unanimous agreement to add this definition to the background statement for continuing education.
Currently only two findings and recommendations in this section; Scott asked group to review and forward additional background information, findings and recommendations for this section to him via e-mail.
IEL provides important services to the community and creates close connection between institutions and the community.

Business and Industry Training

In this section, Scott incorporated earlier discussion about what business wants from CCS as an organization. Conversation included:

TECC remain as primary point of contact for the business community. Where would the single point of contact be located? There has not been general consensus on this issue. CCS has to work together to satisfy needs of business community.
CCS institutions must work together to be responsive to "Top 10" things employers want from colleges. Need clearly defined process and contacts on each campus to work and coordinate with TECC.
The first business and industry finding and recommendation was discussed at length. The second sentence of the first recommendation was revised to read, TECC shall continue to function as the district’s front door to the employer community. There was agreement on this revision. A question was asked, do we need a new finding?
There was agreement that the second bullet under Findings should read that TECC will work with CCS’ three institutions; therefore, agreeing to four entities.
TECC’s training and coordination functions were discussed. Training and coordination are part of TECC’s name. A question was asked should TECC be renamed?
Should the District Office provide the front door function? This change in direction would create additional costs.
A recommendation was made to move the teaching and instruction function of TECC to the IEL; and the front-door coordinating function of TECC be housed in the District Office. A question was asked what would be the advantage of moving the coordinating function to the District Office.

A lengthy discussion followed regarding current CCS processes, structural issues and coordination with TECC. A recommendation was made to examine the current funding model. Options and possible solutions were discussed. Consensus was not reached on TECC’s current structure. There was consensus that TECC cannot be effective without coordinating with the institutions.

Mike Mires stated that School and College Relations is a good example of CCS coordination and provides a good model to structure TECC. Linda McDermott mentioned that TECC’s current financial model makes it hard to maintain fairness.

Scott suggested that at the next IEL Task Force meeting sections of the draft report be assigned to subcommittees and reviewed more comprehensively. Scott will attempt to incorporate today’s suggestions into next draft and forward to task force members.

The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Next meeting: The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2:00- 5:00 p.m. in the Palouse Conference Room at SFCC.