IEL TASK FORCE MEETING NOTES 03/22/05
Present: Roxanne Beloit, Ellen Brown, Don Brunner, Toni Cummins, Karen Driscoll, Joe Dunlap, Marcus Jorgensen, Pat Lamb, Scott Morgan (chair), Joanne Murcar, Linda Powell (recorder), Pam Praeger, Jacque Rainer, Dixie Simmons, Colleen Straight, and Linda Uhden.
The meeting came to order at 2:03 p.m. in the Palouse Conference Room at SFCC.
Review of March 15, 2005 Meeting Notes: The IEL Task Force group reviewed the March 15, 2005, meeting notes. The notes were approved as presented.
IEL Report, Draft #5 Review: Scott Morgan opened the meeting by announcing that today’s meeting is the last scheduled meeting of the IEL task force unless the task force group agrees to meet one last time. Scott stated that the task force’s goal today should be to review and "polish" Draft 5 of the IEL Report.
A question was asked if the task force group had agreed on whether or not to include a majority/minority report on issues not reaching consensus. Scott proposed to the task force that rather than have a minority/majority report on issues not agreed upon to list possible options and state that the task force did not reach a consensus. Scott suggested that task force members consider how they would want to proceed on this issue.
Scott explained that once the IEL Report is finalized, the next step (following today’s meeting) will be to present the draft report to the chancellor and then meet with him to explain findings and recommendations and answer questions.
The task force reviewed and discussed the IEL Report: Draft 5 in length working from the Introduction section through the IEL Visibility/Identity section, focusing on findings and recommendations. Draft 5 review and discussion included:
- Consensus to use the word agreement rather than contract throughout the report.
- Credit Instruction: Scott added and condensed the background statement recommended by Don Brunner and Marcus Jorgensen.
- Institutions need to communicate and share information with each other (i.e., identify curriculum, programs, future plans, etc); infrastructure needs to be created for the IEL/SCC to share information like the IEL/ SFCC (M drive).
- Marcus would like another opportunity to review this section.
- Colleges should work towards standardization of services rather than operate separately (SMS used as an example); need to ensure IEL students have full access to available services.
- Student fee structure; SCC/SFCC charge different student fees.
- Student services at all institutions are impacted when new initiatives are introduced; this is a district issue—not isolated to the IEL—Communication needs to improve district-wide.
- Continuing Education: The group refined continuing education definition. Scott added and modified continuing education Draft 5 findings and recommendations forwarded to him from Roxanne Beloit. Other issues discussed included:
- All three institutions are involved in continuing education—this can lead to confusion; issues should be resolved through district education and vice presidents council groups.
- Develop "seamless" registration process for continuing education.
- IEL Statistics: Colleen Straight explained updates and additions to pie charts in this section; changes included: 1) state support data and 2) added percentage of FTEs produced by credit and non-credit instruction.
- SBCTC: Scott reported that he received a response back from the State Board regarding the task force’s request to them.
- Reporting: The State Board is willing to work with the IEL to separate IEL data from SFCC data
- Grants: The IEL may be able to apply directly for grants. The district would be limited to two grants and would make the decision about which among the colleges and the IEL will apply or receive them.
- Business and Industry Training:
- Discussed possible need for a task force group to develop processes and infrastructure for contract training. Joanne Murcar reported that there is an existing district group in place made up of workforce administrators with representation from each institution that can respond and work together to develop solutions.
- Need to determine single point of contact.
- Design process to identify and incubate programs for handoff to the colleges.
- Fairchild discussion included:
- Eight week schedule out of sync with rest of district’s processes—difficult to deliver student services and schedule makes it difficult for adjunct faculty to fill teaching positions. Dixie stated that an eight week schedule is normal for military programs world-wide.
- Possible enrollments could be increased by providing blended learning with on-line instruction.
- Lots of higher ed competition at Fairchild such as WSU, Webster, Central Texas College, etc. Our competitors offer adults intensive accelerated schedules.
Issues identified as needing further discussion and resolution included:
- IEL/college relationship: Do program offerings at SCC better serve IEL students and communities?
- TECC: Should the "front door" be a part of the IEL or located at the district office or on a college campus?
- TECC Name Change: TECC better served to have name reflect what TECC does.
- Fairchild findings and recommendations
- IEL Visibility/Identity: Consider changing IEL’s name.
There was agreement that these and other unresolved issues will be addressed in future discussions and as relationships and partnerships are initiated and developed.
Scott explained that he would make edits and include additions agreed upon today and then will forward the next draft (Draft 6) via e-mail for the task force’s review. Scott noted that once he distributes Draft 6, the task force group will have approximately 10 days to review and forward recommended changes to him via e-mail.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Next meeting: This was the last scheduled working meeting of the IEL Task Force group. The next meeting will be with the chancellor to review the completed IEL Report.