Friday,
January 30, 2004
Sheraton Grand Hotel, Sacramento
7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Members present: Mark Bender, Kara Caldwell-Freeman,
Dan Chang, Robert Cherny, Jan Frodesen, Martin Flashman, Tom Krabacher,
Diane Mayne-Stafford, Mary Nolan-Riegle, Barry Pasternack, Peggy
Renner, Herb Strauss, Mark Van Selst, Mark Snowhite, Shaaron Vogel
and Don Warner and Anthony Zambelli.
A. Approval Process for IMPAC Correspondence
Executive Director Adams reminded members that at the January 16,
2004 Steering Committee meeting, members requested that a small
workgroup be formed to discuss the approval process for IMPAC correspondence
and other communication to representatives in the three segments.
The workgroup was charged with developing a draft proposal that
would clearly describe the approval process. Members on the workgroup
were two volunteers (Caldwell-Freeman and Zambelli) and the three
lead faculty coordinators (Pasternack, Snowhite and Strauss). The
workgroup discussed the approval process and developed a draft process
to be recommended to the Steering Committee and subsequently ICAS
(see Appendix A). In addition, the process was circulated to the
Steering Committee via email (see Appendix B for a summary of those
comments). Steering Committee members discussed the IMPAC approval
process proposal and agreed that the proposal would be forwarded
to ICAS for discussion.
Members discussed a proposal by CSU
to change the governance structure of the IMPAC project. The process
would require that 75% of the CSU chairs approved the CAN descriptors
prior to submission to the CAN Board. Members raised several concerns
about the proposal, particularly about the difficulty in getting
all CSU chairs to agree. Adams volunteered, as a courtesy to CSU,
to send the current CAN Descriptors under consideration by ICAS
to all CSU Chairs for feedback. She would then prepare a summary
report of any concerns or comments voiced by the chairs. Cherny
commented that this proposal would be on ICAS' upcoming agenda for
discussion.
B. Regional Meeting Logistics
Members discussed the meeting logistics for the regional meeting
to be held the next day.
C. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. By consensus, the Faculty
Discipline Leads will meet the night before the next regional meeting.
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 disciplines that have interdisciplinary
influence.
Questions: What if one discipline disagrees
with another? How do we resolve the disagreement?
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.
Questions: What does approval mean in
this context?
ISSUES TO CONSIDER:
1. Do we need to create a more extensive review process?
2. When information is developed (e.g., transfer information), how
can we ensure that the appropriate representatives have contributed
to the discussion (i.e., discipline faculty, articulation officers,
counselors, etc).
3. How do we ensure that the lead faculty member has complied the
true voice of the discipline? What do we need to determine the accuracy
of the reports? Is this necessary?
4. The Steering Committee reviews the annual report at the end of
each cycle. How can we ensure that all discipline faculty agree
with the recommendations? Should there be an extensive review of
the report by the Steering Committee? Could other discipline faculty
leaders identify concerns in other disciplines? Is this necessary?
5. Is it enough to list the recommendations in the annual report?
Or should the Steering Committee discuss the recommendations and
any cross-disciplinary ramifications?
6. How can we add more credibility to the process? Should ICAS just
accept the report? Or should they approve the report? Is so, what
do we need to do so that ICAS is comfortable for approving recommendations
for disciplines?
Appendix B
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS REGARDING POSSIBLE
CHANGES IN IMPAC PROCESS:
Lead Discipline Faculty and Lead Coordinating Faculty Email Exchange
DO WE NEED TO CREATE A MORE EXTENSIVE
REVIEW PROCESS?
Overall there seemed to be a sense that a more extensive, internal
IMPAC review process does not need to be developed. However, some
voiced an opinion that there should be different levels of review.
For example, if a document is going to be sent to students, then
there should be a review process to ensure that the information
is correct. Additionally, some felt that the segments should be
given an opportunity to review those recommendations that would
impact them (e.g., CAN descriptor additions or modifications). It
appears that the current recommended process would address most
concerns with what should be reviewed (see attached process). However,
some clarifications should be incorporated into who would approve
the correspondence:
HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE CONTRIBUTED?
There seems to be a consensus that the review process should inherently
trust the lead faculty and their ability to gain consensus through
whatever means they deem necessary. The meeting notes and annual
reports are shared with the attendees at each regional and statewide
meeting, are presented to elicit comment or correction, and should
be presented as validation that widespread agreement exists. The
list of faculty in attendance can also be found in the annual report
and are on the IMPAC website.
One comment was made that the IMPAC
Project should gain approval from the four-year segments for the
course descriptors. However, this would entail a significant change
in the IMPAC Project and quite possibly require a change in the
grant language. Another suggestion was that the reports be submitted
to the department chairs and deans. It should be noted that the
current process does include mailing the annual report to all segments
for review and comment. If we do not receive a response, we assume
that they have accepted the recommendations in the report. The question
might be how do we ensure that the departments and chairs have received
the documents and understand their role in responding to the reports?
Can a structure be developed that ensures that the feedback loops
are functioning? Who is responsible for ensuring the chairs/deans
have reviewed the recommendations? Leads? Staff?
HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THE LEAD FACULTY
MEMBER HAS COMPLIED THE TRUE VOICE OF THE DISCIPLINE? WHAT DO WE
NEED TO DETERMINE THE ACCURACY OF THE REPORTS? IS THIS NECESSARY?
The responses to these questions closely resemble the answers to
question 2. There is currently an avenue for wide distribution of
the information with the opportunity for many to contribute. The
meeting notes are posted on the web and the annual report gets wide
distribution. Lead faculty members are responsible for accurately
recording the discussions at the meetings, thus these notes should
be shared with those discipline faculty in attendance for approval.
As a reminder, the notes and annual reports provide the concerns
and recommendations of faculty participating in the regional and
statewide meetings and are not representative of all faculty in
the disciplines. The lead faculty member should, however, strive
to get as much input from the discipline faculty as possible. For
example, the lead faculty members should ask attendees to take the
notes to other discipline faculty on their campus and to their department
chairs for comment and feedback.
As with question 2, the lead faculty
member should be trusted to accomplish the work of IMPAC. Since,
the lead faculty members are appointed by ICAS as representatives
of each system, they should be trusted to communicate with the appropriate
discipline representatives and if not, they should be removed as
nonresponsive. It was suggested that the lead faculty members should
document in their annual report other efforts to contact or communicate
with discipline faculty.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE
ANNUAL REPORT? SHOULD THERE BE AN EXTENSIVE REVIEW?
The Steering Committee should continue to review the IMPAC Annual
Report for clarity. All lead disciplines should also review the
annual report for any discipline decisions that affects another
in a cross-disciplinary nature. As noted above, the other reviews
mentioned provide for the flow of information to the leads of each
discipline by the discipline faculty. The lead discipline faculty
are the expertise in their field and should be trusted to make recommendations
based on discussions at the regional and statewide meetings.
It was suggested, however, that the
Steering Committee should review and discuss the final report with
the purpose to enhance or pose other questions. This may result
in a better report that consequently would be more acceptable to
ICAS. One process could be to divide the annual report among the
members of the Steering Committee. (The reviewer should not be the
person who wrote the section). The reviewer should look over his/her
section carefully and bring problems to the attention of the author
of that section of the report and then to the entire Steering Committee,
if necessary.
IS IT ENOUGH TO LIST THE RECOMMENDATIONS
IN THE ANNUAL REPORT? OR SHOULD THE STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSS THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANY CROSS-DISCIPLINARY RAMIFICATIONS?
Most felt that the recommendations get lost in the report. It was
suggested that the recommendations be pulled out of the report for
ease of reading for ICAS. However, both the report and the abbreviated
recommendations would be submitted to ICAS.
Similarly, a suggestion was made that
the Steering Committee have a one-day retreat after the annual meeting
for each discipline to share its findings. Additionally, representatives
from CAN, ASSIST and other organizations would be invited.
HOW CAN WE ADD MORE CREDIBILITY TO
THE PROCESS? SHOULD ICAS JUST ACCEPT THE REPORT, OR SHOULD THEY
APPROVE THE REPORT? IF SO, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO SO THAT ICAS IS
COMFORTABLE WITHAPPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS OR DISCIPLINES?
Since this is an ICAS project, ICAS is the logical body to approve
the report. Some felt that ICAS should approve the recommendations
as it does lend more credibility, especially with Chairs and Deans.
Who better represents the faculty of all three segments of higher
education than ICAS? However, ICAS may not be comfortable approving
all the recommendations of the discipline, thus accepting the report
may be sufficient. However, someone needs to take responsibility
for the recommendations that come forward, if not ICAS, then who?
Again, ICAS should trust the IMPAC Steering committee to be diligent
and trustworthy.
Two other concerns were raised: one,
CAN's subsequent validation of the IMPAC work. What is the weight
of the work done by dozens of faculty through IMPAC discipline discussions?
Second: A suggestion was made that the chairs of disciplines at
four-year institutions need to be provided a more explicit opportunity
to contribute to the discipline discussions, perhaps by inviting
these department chairs to the IMPAC statewide meeting for discussions
within the discipline.
|
