View Document - ARC Institutional Governance Online Repository (IGOR)

Meeting Notes

NAME OF COUNCIL/TEAM: Executive Leadership Team
OBJECTIVE OF MEETING: ELT Retreat: (1) prepare for the upcoming 2018-19 governance cycle by reviewing charters and considering changes to council composition; (2) discuss the ARC Redesign Implementation Plan and Timeline which was informed by the work of the 2017-18 project teams
DATE OF MEETING: 08/17/2018 TIME: 10:00am		LOCATION/ROOM #: Student Center Board Room CALL-IN NUMBER: CALL-IN CODE:
FACILITATOR(S): Thomas Greene
ASSISTANT: Sue McCoy
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Aguilar, Alden Crow, Tamara Floyd, Thomas Greene, Adam Karp, Kuldeep Kaur, Lisa Lawrenson, Janay Lovering, Olga Prizhbilov, Olga Prizhbilov, Alisa Shubb, William Simpson, Tressa Tabares, Tressa Tabares, Nicole Williams, Susan McCoy, Robin Neal,
INVITED GUEST(S):
SUPPORTING RESOURCES (ITEMS READ IN PREPARATION FOR AND/OR BROUGHT TO MEETING):
Attached Files: Draft ELT Notes - May 14, 2018 Draft Participation Charter Proposed Composition Change - ELT Proposed Composition Change - Operations Council Draft Project Charter: ARC Online 2.0 Draft Project Charter: Clarify Program Paths Draft Project Charter: ELSS Draft Project Charter: Facilities Master Plan Draft Project Charter: Integrated Planning Improvement Draft Project Charter: Institutional Equity Draft Project Charter: Wellness Center Council Charter: Institutional Effectiveness Council Council Charter: Operations Council Council Charter: Student Success Council Redesign Diagram Redesign Plan and Timeline
UPDATES AND BRIEF REPORTS:
Topic	Person(s) Responsible	Notes
Welcome	Thomas Greene
Creating Connection (Ice Breaker)	All	Team members partner and introduce each other with three nouns
ACTION ITEMS:
Question	Person(s) Responsible	Notes and Decision(s)	Next Steps
Draft Notes: Does the ELT agree to adopt the notes from the May 14, 2018 meeting?	Thomas Greene	Thumbs up.	N/A
Draft Participation Charter: Are any adjustments needed? Does the ELT support adoption of the participation charter so that it can be introduced to members at the September 7th, 2018 governance orientation/training ?	Thomas Greene	Technical issues prevented saving of notes.	Participation charter to be revised/updated and sent out electronically for ELT approval
ELT Composition: Does the ELT support the proposal to revise its membership to include both the chairs and co-chairs of each council?	Thomas Greene	Thumbs up.	N/A
Operations Council: Does the ELT support the proposal to revise the Operations Council membership to include representatives from the unions?	Kuldeep Kaur	Thumbs up. Technical issue prevented saving of notes.	N/A
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Question	Person(s) Responsible	Notes and Next Steps
ARC Redesign: Do the draft diagram and timeline clearly convey the work involved with the Redesign and how it will be implemented? Will these documents help the councils in their role of coordinating, supporting, and monitoring progress on those aspects which are within their purview?	Thomas Greene	 Project team reports accepted by ELT in May  Over the summer, PES reviewed each report line by line – found overlap, inconsistencies & gaps  Graphic reflects the tea reports and other resources Front door experience for students (prior to Achieve@ARC):  Application  Email from District  Get ID  Log on to E-services  Get five steps  No mention of financial aid  In the last year, communication center calls students after each step Front door experience w/Achieve@ARC  Includes recent high school graduates enrolling full-time  Put in cohorts  Still getting phone calls  Staff person now assists with financial aid and completion of each step  Needs assessment, career assessment, pre-populated schedule with guaranteed math and English class  Guaranteed book voucher if completing a new student experience  Fees waived for first year  What we’re doing now is not full implementation of every recommendation  What we’re doing now will likely go away with introduction of SEL  Graphic hopefully conveys message that recommendations from project teams are being implemented  Eventually include comprehensive review of business practices for students entering the front door (i.e., major barrier – how students currently verify residency) Graphic recommendations  Stack certain elements vertically instead of horizontally to eliminate the presumption of a certain sequence Pre-term Experience prior to Achieve@ARC  Students subject to 3-5 hour wait to see counselor and get ed plan or met w/counselor after registering and found enrollment in wrong classes  Group planning sessions developed to assist with first-semester ed plan – discovered not sustainable  Moved to get connected session to accommodate the number of students Pre-term Experience w/Achieve@ARC  Students signed up for one of five new student experience sessions  Assigned to student success teams  Divided into three groups  Two counselors, SPA, clerk and FA liaison per group  Academic departments had tabling events  Participants get $300 book voucher for fall and spring  Case management teams has scheduled events for each group throughout fall and spring  How do we connect new students with other success teams – athletics, DSPS, EOPS, CalWORKS, veterans, TRIO, Puente, Umoja, etc.  All students can be assigned to an area of interest and in future may have success teams in alignment with areas of interest  Used targeted communication to students assigned to areas of interest  Risk of over communication by being part of more than one success team  Over time we want all recent high school grads to enter the college through achieve  Achieve program through first 24 units  Move road map to the left so students are connected to a program road map which will then drive their ed plan  Have not addressed program for probationary, transfer, students w/degrees, etc.  Committed to success teams for all new and returning students  Career center and transfer center indicated for students completing goal (i.e, transitions support box)  Is there a way to connect to PeopleSoft so as students call enrollment services for next steps the student’s current status is provided – info currently housed in Canvas, not PeopleSoft, and those two don’t communicate Graphic Recommendations  Achieve NSE box – assignment or connection to success team as opposed to case management  Current model of success teams likely look different from recommendations of project teams  We’re honoring the teams’ recommendations but making operational changes as we move forward  Some recommendations not yet fully vetted but included in diagram to honor work of the teams – recognize additional dialog is needed  Students come to us to get a job – get a living wage  Diagram shows the first 24 units but also need diagram to reflect the ultimate goal of job, transfer, etc.  Will this diagram be shared with the entire college community?  All ELT members should be able to communicate this document but will need additional time to review, digest, etc.  Has this work been shared with the project leads and teams? Suggestion to share with leads prior to sharing college wide.  Robin will share with the leads  To be shared more broadly as diagram and timeline are more finalized  Took diagram and broke down into four-year timeline with understanding work will likely take longer than four years to complete  Took each component of timeline and broke down further with detail, timeline, primary contact and references  Included questions to resolve and other considerations/references  Is there a need to include in questions to resolve to include district- or board-related questions, concerns, etc.? Next Action  Robin to share work w/team leads  Members to read timeline document prior to next meeting and come back with questions, concerns, etc.
Draft Project Charters: What suggestions does the ELT have for strengthening and clarifying the draft project charters? This is a first reading to allow refinement prior to considering the charters for adoption at our next meeting.	Thomas Greene	 These are final drafts  Need to address gaps in team composition  Process: if generally approved today, draft charters will be shared with the teams/councils with an understanding that the concept outlined is approved by ELT but may be tweaked with input from team/council members.  Sponsoring councils have not had an opportunity to provide input  Governance frame work allows teams to be proposed by the president but hope that most recommendations for teams come from councils  Councils should calendar review of draft charters at first council meeting  Faculty still unofficially appointed at this time ARC Online 2.0  Fairly comprehensive and good example of project team charter  Current vacancy is very prescriptive – is there a component to broaden that description to assist in filling spots Clarify Program Paths  Ted Ridgway no longer member  With AB705 there is no longer basic skills math – suggestion to remove that language ELSS  This charter linked to district processes  Diana Hicks recommended as Instructional Dean  Kale to serve as project steward  Verify that researcher is needed as team member and not just resource  Change Tony’s descriptor as participant of District Tool Selection Committee  Remove chemistry from Linda Zarzana Facilities Master Plan  Linked to district processes  District will be pursuing general obligation bonds  Long-term review of facilities – 2030 and beyond  FM will provide list of criteria state uses to review funding requests  Very tight timeline for deliverable  Management & classified appointments to be added– Cheryl Sears, Rina Roy, Jeff Stephenson; Cheryl Watt, Richard Wood  Remove Workforce and Economic Development  Remove Natomas and McClellan as master plan will focus on main campus only Integrated Planning Improvement  Continuation team  Need to include student representative Institutional Equity Plan  Ongoing conversations regarding team membership  Attempting to keep membership to roughly 10 individuals  Broad college-wide communication; Potentially to continue in 2019-20 given the scope of work Wellness Center  May experience pressure for consistency across the colleges or partnerships for delivery of services  Add Bettie Harris as note taker
Council Charters: Do the existing council charters still accurately reflect the purpose, charge, and scope/deliverables of each council?	Thomas Greene	Council chairs will take notes, make changes and submit final versions to Sue General Comments  Purpose and scope combined into one  use bullet points to eliminate paragraphs  Align various sections with team charters  Charge potentially redundant  final bullet under scope/deliverables notes review of work to possibly continue work of the team and not the actual work of the teams  Clarify what it means to sponsor a project team and add to final bullet regarding sponsoring team; spell out all acronyms (i.e., AY, S, etc.) Institutional Effectiveness Council  Bullet #2 – PRT coordinates while IEC monitors/oversees Operations Council  Same consistencies from general comments  Add “operational” between college and systems in first sentence  Add collective bargaining representatives to membership and “and communicating” to last bullet in scope/deliverables Student Success Council  Same consistencies from general comments  Chair/co-chair still working on edits  Need clarification in exactly what council does and doesn’t do  Updated to reflect current language and remove reference to ATD and basic skills  Membership will also be revisited  Put charters on basecamp for group’s review  Approval will be calendared for the September meeting Next Action  Council chairs to update council charters and send final versions to Sue  Final versions to be put on Basecamp for ELT review
Reflection: Think back on today's meeting and prepare to share your thoughts. (1) What went as you anticipated? What did not? (2) What insights did you gain or what peaked your interest for further exploration? (3) Applying an equity lens, were all the relevant perspectives represented and/or considered in the dialogue? If not, how could we do better next time? (4) Did we fully accomplish our objectives? If not, what was overlooked or needs to be further addressed? (5) What could we have done to enrich the dialogue and better inform our decisions?	All
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION:
Topic		Contact Person
Adoption of final project charters (2nd reading at Sept. 10th meeting)		Thomas Greene

Notes - Approved

Meeting Notes