IMPAC Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

Liaisons and Guests Present: Gary Ford, ELC; Michelle LaCentra, CIAC; Jose Michel, CAN; Jeff Spano, CCCCO; Eric Taggart, ASSIST

B. Agenda Approval
Members discussed the agenda. Item H. SciGETC was added and the original items H and I were reordered.

C. Minutes Approval
MSU (Snowhite) to approve the minutes as presented.

D. Reports
1. Executive Director Adams informed members that several disciplines have not submitted the minutes from the regional meetings. She commented that timely minutes from discipline discussions are critical to communicating the project to others groups, particularly as transfer continues to be a priority for the Legislature. Members were asked to submit the minutes as soon as possible.
2. Project Monitor Spano updated members on the recent appointment of a new Chancellor for the Community Colleges System and on the status of the Community College budget.
3. ASSIST Director Eric Taggart updated members on the Governor's cuts to the ASSIST Budget, on their new strategic plan, and on other new ASSIST projects.
4. CIAC Representative Michelle LaCentra informed members about upcoming SCIAC and NCIAC conferences.
5. CAN Director Michel updated members on the impact of the Governor's Budget on the CAN system. He then informed members about the current work with CSU on transfer, work with ASSIST to display CAN information on ASSIST, and on current CAN marketing strategies.

E. Anthropology Online Course Transfer Issue
CCC Academic Senate President Clark informed members about a recent concern raised by UC about the curriculum approval process of community colleges. Recently UC Berkeley refused to accept an anthropology distance education. It was reported that UC was unhappy with some of the upper level course work completed by community college students because it was taken via distance education. The UC Berkeley faculty have since requested to review the syllabi for all Anthropology courses taken at a community college. The Senate is asking community college articulation officers not to submit their syllabi and is working with the UC Senate Chair to address this issue. Members discussed the articulation issue and particularly the affect on students.

F. External Communication
1. Correspondence with Discipline and Counseling Faculty
Math Discipline Lead Flashman presented two advisory letters to be used to provide students interested in pursuing a math degree with important information. The letters were developed two years ago and have been widely circulated to attendees at both regional and statewide meetings as well as to CSU department chairs. The letters will be mailed to community college counseling faculty and department chairs at both CSU and community colleges. Members discussed the letters and voiced concern regarding potential misinformation contained in the letter. The letters will be corrected and emailed to the Steering Committee for further clarification. By consensus, once corrected the letters will be mailed out.

Members discussed the development of advisory letters for other disciplines. Any advisory should have input from receiving institutions. In addition, articulation officers should also be asked to review the letters. Several questions were raised regarding the approval process for such advisory letters: 1) who should validate the letters-admissions offices or counseling departments? 2) Is it necessary to get approval from all department chairs? 3) Does ICAS need to approve all correspondence to the field?

By consensus, other disciplines will consider developing advisory letters. Any advisories developed to go to students will be vetted properly, approved by discipline faculty, reviewed by articulation officers and other discipline faculty, and disseminated widely. In addition, the Steering Committee will develop an approval process. Any process developed will contain methods to coordinate with professional organizations and department chairs. It was also suggested that all advisories have the same format so that counseling faculty will become familiar with the advisories. By consensus a small work group will be formed to develop an approval process for IMPAC correspondence and other communication to the representatives in the three segments (faculty, administration, and staff), particularly as the correspondence relates to discipline communication. Members will include: Adams, Caldwell-Freeman, Pitts, and Zambelli. The subgroup is charged with drafting the process and circulating to the Steering Committee for feedback by January 30. [Note: See Appendix A for the process approved via email and by consensus.]

2. Coordination with Other Projects
Members discussed the relationship with CAN and IMPAC and how best to coordinate efforts. CAN Director Michel compared the new CAN model to the existing CAN Model.

Members questioned about how the CAN Board resolves questions specific to disciplines. Recently Psychology discipline submitted PSY 8 descriptor with a requirement for an English prerequisite. The CAN Board raised concerns regarding the descriptor and requested that the discipline leads be available to respond to question or concerns. The discipline faculty member was contacted and was able to respond to the CAN Boards concerns. Consequently, the CAN Board has asked that all leads submitting CAN Descriptors be available when the CAN Board reviews them. By consensus, each discipline lead will be available for the CAN Board when the discipline CAN descriptors are forwarded to the Board.

Members discussed developing a road map for students, particularly the development of grids that show the major preparation by campus and any prerequisite necessary for the major. Concern was raised that grids are static and only provide information that is available at a moment in time, which would be misleading to students. Members discussed other methods including how ASSIST could be used to help to provide easier access for improving direct communication of information between students, counseling faculty, and faculty. ASSIST Director Taggart commented that ASSIST is willing to talk about ways that ASSIST data can be used to develop a roadmap for students.

3. Development of Future Structures
No discussion.

G. Relationships with Professional Organizations
Engineering Chang and Gary Ford informed members that the Engineering Liaison Council would like to pursue a relationship with IMPAC and described possible coordinated efforts. Members discussed the importance of working intersegmentally. By consensus, members felt that the development of working relationships with professional organizations is important to develop. Adams will work with Chang and Ford to coordinate efforts.

H. SciGETC
Lead Chemistry Discipline faculty member Strauss updated members on the SciGETC proposal. Given the ongoing discussions, he felt that the proposal could be presented at the statewide meeting and then on to ICAS for discussion and possible adoption. Members briefly discussed the proposal.

I. Operational Concerns
1. Members discussed the planning for regional meetings and the submission on annual reports.

J. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. By consensus, the Lead Discipline Faculty will meet again the night before the January 31, 2004 regional meeting to discuss the IMPAC Approval process.

Appendix A

IMPAC Process For Approval Of Correspondence To The Field

No Approval Needed:
The lead discipline faculty members can send any communication to individual faculty members announcing the meetings, encouraging attendance, requesting input or any other communication that does not involve recommendations that appears to be a directive.

Lead Faculty Coordinator Approval:
The Lead Faculty Coordinators will review and approve any IMPAC correspondence that is sent to the CCCs, CSUs, and UCs and includes a recommendation for the disciplines. Informational correspondence does not need approval. If the Lead Coordinators do not feel that the correspondence should be shared with the segments, the issue will be referred to the Steering Committee otherwise the correspondence will be sent.

Steering Committee Approval:
The Steering Committee will review any correspondence that is referred by the Lead Faculty Coordinators. If they find that there is concern with the correspondence, the issue will be referred back to the discipline faculty lead for discussion with discipline faculty. If the issue cannot be resolved at this level, it will be referred to ICAS.

The Steering Committee will also review the discipline annual reports. The Steering Committee will approve the report and make a recommendation to send forward to ICAS. It will be the responsibility of all discipline faculty to pay special attention to recommendations of those discipline that have interdisciplinary influence.

ICAS
ICAS Chairs will review and consider for approval any correspondence that has been forwarded by the Steering Committee. The IMPAC annual report will be presented to ICAS for approval.