|
Friday, June 11, 2004
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Holiday Inn Capitol Plaza, 300 J Street, Sacramento
I. Reports
Executive Director Adams called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
Members present: Mark Bender, Dan Chang,
Sam Edelman, Jan Frodesen, Kara Caldwell-Freeman, Martin Flashman,
Tom Krabacher, Scott Lukas, Ruth Masters, Barry Pasternack, Larry
Pitts, Peggy Renner, Mark Snowhite, John Tarjan, and Tony Zambelli.
Guests present: Michelle LaCentra, CIAC;
Jose Michel, CAN System; Jeff Spano, CCCCO; and Eric Taggart, ASSIST.
ASSIST Director Taggart requested time
to make short ASSIST presentations at regional IMPAC meetings.
II. Steering Committee Minutes and
Lead Discipline Faculty Meeting Notes
The Steering Committee discussed the draft Minutes from the January
16, 2004 Meeting and meeting notes from the January 30, 2004, February
27, 2004 and April 29, 2004 Meetings.
MSU (Renner) to approve the minutes
and notes of the above referenced meetings.
III. IMPAC Governance
A. Relationship with CAN/IMPAC/ASSIST
ICAS Chair Pitts updated members on discussions in ICAS about how
CAN, IMPAC and ASSIST might better coordinate their efforts. Pitts
explained that the overlapping missions/functions of these groups
were discussed at ICAS. The overlap between CAN and IMPAC seems
larger than the overlaps with ASSIST. A proposal was put before
ICAS for consideration that may result in the formation of a small
work group to consider further reducing duplication of efforts between
CAN and IMPAC. Parallel to the ICAS discussion, ICC has also discussed
the creation of a working group looking at the same issue of better
coordination of efforts among transfer initiatives in the near future.
CAN Director Michel provided members
with an historical background of CAN and the creation of IMPAC.
He commented that CAN "failures" in the past to conduct
faculty-to-faculty discipline meetings was one reason for the creation
of IMPAC. The future of CAN lies in the increased acceptance of
its function across faculty senates and system offices. A comment
was made that CAN may have a limited future because one major shortcoming
is its lack of acceptance by the UC system. However, it was pointed
out that while UC does not accept prescriptive processes, some UC
campuses nevertheless use CAN descriptors to make articulating course
easier. One example of UC's use of the CAN descriptors can be found
in engineering. Although Engineering will not endorse CAN descriptors
for engineering, they may be useful for transfer guidance when describing
curriculum in other disciplines such as appropriate chemistry, mathematics
or physics course sequences. Also, CAN numbers facilitate the very
large movement of students across community colleges. Consequently,
CAN cannot function without significant faculty participation.
There was more discussion of the role
and procedures of CAN and how IMPAC contributes to the process.
The CAN process can work independently of IMPAC. Several other statewide
intersegmental organizations can submit courses to CAN for approval
under the current CAN model. Members commented that it is inefficient
for different voices to be able to take recommendations to CAN.
A suggestion was made that perhaps CAN should identify one group
to represent the faculty from that discipline.
Pitts continued by informing members
that ICAS has also discussed how to involve department chairs or
designees in the IMPAC discussions. This issue was raised because
the faculty participating in the IMPAC discussion are not necessarily
the faculty that make the curricular decisions.
As this discussion continues in ICAS,
members of the Steering Committee will be updated on it progress.
B. IMPAC New Governance Structure
ICAS Chair Pitts informed members about a revised governance structure
for IMPAC. He explained that ICAS by nature is a body that was formed
to discuss intersegmental issues at the state level and is not an
effective body to oversee such a project as IMPAC. Hence, ICAS members
felt that a subcommittee of ICAS would be more efficient in coordinating
the efforts of the IMPAC Project. At its last meeting, ICAS discussed
and approved a new governance structure for the IMPAC Project. An
Executive Committee will be formed that consists of the three segment
Senate chairs, three lead coordinating faculty members and the Executive
Director. In addition, the Steering Committee will be reduced to
the three lead coordinating faculty, six experienced discipline
leads, the Project Director and the Executive Director.
Members discussed this new governance
structure and raised a number of issues. First, members wondered
if the new Steering Committee would continue to invite the representatives
of CAN, ASSIST and CIAC as liaisons. Chair Pitts mentioned that
ICAS did not address the liaisons participation but felt that the
new Steering Committee could invite liaisons to the meetings as
necessary to provide input on key issues. Second, members raised
concern about the balance across segments overall and particularly
with the balance of lead faculty. Members felt that efforts should
be made to retain balance across discipline faculty and requested
that the following language be included in the governance document:
"…six experienced lead faculty
members for disciplines with attention to a balance among the segments
as feasible…."
Next, members discussed the importance
of providing an opportunity for all leads to meet together to deal
with needs, objectives of the regional and statewide meetings and
issues revolving around the conduct of the discipline group meetings.
The current Steering Committee voted on a request that ICAS add
the following bullet to the responsibilities of the new Steering
Committee: "The Steering Committee will be responsible for
regularly convening meetings of all lead discipline faculty."
However, this motion was defeated. A comment was made that the lead
discipline faculty already meet prior to the regional and statewide
meeting, and a majority of the members felt that these pre-meetings
should continue to be held. This recommendation would be forwarded
to the new Steering Committee for consideration.
Opinions were mixed on the new structure-much
discussion about the merits occurred. A suggestion was made to have
a larger Executive Committee with the existing structure of the
Steering Committee. After much discussion, the current Steering
Committee voted to endorse the new governance structure with the
inclusion of the above language regarding balance.
MSU (Zambelli) to endorse the new
IMPAC Governance Structure with the suggestion of adding the phrase
"…six experienced lead faculty members for disciplines
with attention to a balance among the segments as feasible…."
Members discussed the role of the steering
committee. Members felt that the Steering Committee needs to develop
means for mentoring and training newly selected lead discipline
faculty. In addition, members felt that the two-year term limit
for both coordinating and lead faculty makes staffing the Steering
Committee with experienced leads more difficult. Members proposed
to have the term two-years with additional one-year extended terms.
By consensus, the mentoring and training of new leads will be addressed
by next year's Steering Committee.
A. Role of the Steering Committee
This item was discussed under Item III.A. above.
B. Leadership of Discipline Groups
Members discussed the need for co-chairs for discipline groups.
A proposal was made to have four-year segment lead discipline and
two-year community college co-leads for all the disciplines. Concern
was voiced that the community college discipline leaders do not
have enough clout when requesting faculty participation or input
from the four-year universities. Having both may increase discussion
and cooperation across faculty from all three segments. Members
recognized that there would be budgetary implications to this plan
and thought that consideration could be made that not all disciplines
would need co-leads. For example, anthropology would not need co-leads
because there is collaboration at the state-level professional organization.
Members suggested that an alterative to the co-leads might be a
"chair elect" structure whereby upcoming leaders would
be invited to attend all the meetings. This item will be referred
to the new Steering Committee for consideration.
IV. IMPAC 2004 - 05 Planning
A. Process and Goals for 2004-05
Math faculty discipline lead Flashman provided members with a proposal
for improving the process and identifying the goals for 2004-05.
Members discussed both the process and goals for next year's disciplines.
Several members felt that IMPAC should
focus on how counseling and advising processes could be improved
through the development of information for counselors. A discussion
about what would be the best method to inform counseling faculty
ensued. Some felt that the advisory letters are an effective method
to provide information. However, care should be taken to ensure
that the information is correct and has input from others such as
articulation officers and other lead faculty members. The grids
are useful for some disciplines but are not published because the
information in them becomes outdated as articulation changes occur.
A suggestion was made that IMPAC should develop best practices for
disseminating the work of the disciplines. In addition, it was agreed
that the new Steering Committee should discuss whether counseling
faculty should be invited to attend IMPAC meetings.
This item-including the agenda handout
developed by Martin Flashman, lead faculty for mathematics-will
be referred to the new Steering Committee for discussion.
B. Colleges within Regions
Members discussed the regional alignments of campuses. Adams commented
that several campuses have requested that they be moved to another
region based on their feeder schools. Members agreed and moved Sonoma
State to the Bay Area region and Los Angeles Harbor to Metro.
C. Discipline Meeting Schedule
Members discussed those disciplines that do not need to hold regional
meetings next year. Speech Communication, Criminal Justice, Agriculture,
Engineering, as well as other disciplines are making alternate meeting
schedules to meet their particular needs. Other disciplines will
continue within the current meeting arrangement. Based on the discussion,
members felt that most disciplines could move to two regional meetings
rather than the four currently held. By consensus, next year the
Bay Regional meeting will be held near Oakland or San Francisco
and the South regional meeting will be held in Los Angeles followed
by a statewide meeting at LAX.
D. Leads for Next Year
Member discussed the discipline lead rotation and recommendations
to ICAS for next year's discipline leads. Members were requested
to provide Adams and the Lead Coordinating faculty with names of
faculty interested in serving as a lead discipline faculty member.
In addition, Adams requested that members provide feedback about
the participation of the current discipline leaders as well as the
value of the current appointed articulation officers. Members felt
that the current lead coordinators and the Executive Director would
be the best people to provide valuable input to the Executive Committee
about the selection of the Steering Committee and the Lead Discipline
faculty. By consensus, Adams, Pasternack, Strauss and Snowhite will
provide the Executive Committee with information about next year's
selection.
V. Discipline Discussions
A. Nutrition Letter
Members discussed advisory letters developed by the lead discipline
faculty for nutrition. Several questions were raised regarding the
content, particularly the wording, the course pattern and the contacts.
In addition, the letter needs to be further vetted through the department
chairs. By consensus, the letter will be revised and sent for comment
to the CSU department chairs for feedback. Once revised and vetted,
the letter will return to the Steering Committee for discussion
and the Executive Committee for approval.
B. Family Consumer Science
Adams informed members that representatives of a Faculty Consumer
Science grant have approached IMPAC. They would like IMPAC to consider
adding a cluster on family and consumer science if another year
of funding is secured. They have already begun initial groundwork
similar to IMPAC and feel that incorporating their work in IMPAC
would be beneficial for all segments. Members referred this issue
to the new Steering Committee for consideration.
Since IMPAC does not have disciplines
designated for 2005-06, the Steering Committee would need to recommend
new disciplines to the Executive Committee for consideration. It
was suggested that the new Steering Committee consider those disciplines
that are in the CSU top twenty majors.
C. Professional Organizations
Members discussed holding regional meetings in conjunction with
meetings of professional organizations and felt that coordination
with other discipline groups would be beneficial to IMPAC. However,
there should be a discussion about what impact this coordination
would have on the IMPAC budget. Two main questions were raised:
(1) Could we fund statewide as well as regional attendance? And
(2) Could we combine with discipline chair meetings? Members thought
that each discipline would be in a better position to decide whether
such arrangements would make sense. Another question was raised
about the criterion for funding such meetings? This item will be
referred to the new Steering Committee for consideration.
D. CAN Recommendations
Members briefly discussed the importance of informing new discipline
leads about the criteria for developing or modifying CAN descriptors.
In addition, there should be some orientation about what CAN can
or cannot do. These concerns will be referred to the new Steering
Committee for inclusion in the orientation of new leads.
E. Annual Reports
Members briefly discussed the discipline annual reports. Some felt
that the annual reports were too detailed. Questions were raised
regarding who is the audience for the annual report. Currently,
the report is used to provide an update to faculty in the segments
as well as the Legislature on the progress of the project. A comment
was made that the report should be an historical report of what
has and has not been accomplished by IMPAC. It was suggested that
the new Steering Committee should consider whether to require a
one-page summary by discipline.
Executive Director Adams suggested that
the annual reports be peer-read for accuracy. She will send out
an email message asking for volunteers willing to proofread reports.
In addition, the three lead coordinating faculty will be responsible
for the final review of the reports prior to circulating them to
discipline faculty in August.
By consensus, the new Steering Committee
will consider who should receive the report and what the report
should contain.
F. Orientation for New/Returning
Lead Faculty
Members discussed what orientation for new and returning lead faculty
members should look like. By consensus, the new Steering Committee
will further develop an orientation for new leads.
VI. Budget Discussion
A. Regional and Statewide Meeting Costs
Members discussed how to reduce costs for regional and statewide
meetings including which disciplines should meet. Executive Director
Adams commented that there was a record attendance at the last State
meeting, which severely impacted the budget. She suggested that
a guideline for participation be developed. This guideline would
enable the IMPAC Office to limit the participation at some events.
For example, we might limit multiple attendees from a department
to only two with one being the department representative or designee.
In addition, we might limit the statewide meeting to Saturday, with
only a chairs-only meeting on Friday. This item will be referred
to the new Steering Committee for discussion.
B. Annual Report
Members discussed the costs of producing the annual report. Concern
has been raised that it costs too much to reproduce the publication.
Members commented about whether it was necessary to send the report
to all faculty in the department. Some felt that this was an embarrassment
because of its appearance of waste. Other cost reducing methods
were discussed such as: use of listserv vs. mailings; reduce the
report to an executive summary only; publish a smaller number of
annual reports for selective individuals; make many discipline-to-discipline
reports; or distribute electronically. This issue will be referred
to the new Steering Committee for consideration.
VII. Other
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Julie
Adams, Executive Director
|
