1. Home
  2. Board Operations
  3. Minutes
  4. Minutes 11/10/2004

Minutes 11/10/2004



GOVERNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 10, 2004
MINUTES

A retreat of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 8:00 a.m. at the Rio Conference Center in Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD

Linda Rosenthal, President
Don Campbell, Secretary
Scott Crowley, Member (via teleconference)
Nancy Stein, Member

ABSENT

Ed Contreras, Member

ADMINISTRATION

Rufus Glasper, Chancellor
Debra Thompson
Steve Helfgot
Anna Solley
Darrel Huish for Ron Bleed
Jose Leyba
Art DeCabooter
Phil Randolph
Maria Hesse
Larry Christiansen
Gene Giovannini
Mary Kay Kickels
Joyce Elsner for Ken Atwater
Clay Goodman for Homero Lopez
Corina Gardea
Linda Thor

SPAC

Jean Abel
Pat Case
Jeanne Christen
Carl Couch
Paul Dale
Rick DeGraw
Tanya Drake
Lionel Diaz
Georgia Gudykunst
Christine Hall
Leah Heathcoat
Laura Helminski
Lynda Helminski
Dean Hermanson
Rosemary Kesler
Pete Kushibab
Earl Monsour
Janice Reilly
Steve Schenk
Teresa Toney
Ruth Unks
Kevin Vahle
Mary Vanis

GUEST

Jerry D. Walker, Board Member Elect

CALL TO ORDER

The retreat was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by President Rosenthal with brief welcome remarks and a reminder that there was no rank in the room and that participants should have fun.

Rio President Thor also welcomed everyone and called attention to the toy prism located at each person's place. The prism was intended to have participants reflect back on the election of the previous week and remind people to focus on what appears to have mattered most to voters on November 2 as it related directly to community college both on a state level and nationally. Given these messages, should the organization be thinking or doing anything different as it related to strategic planning and monitoring? Report out comments were as follows:

  • Need to go back to basics
  • Need to deliver on promises
  • Need to seek out new programs and do more partnership development
  • We are loved
  • We provide access to education for everyone
  • Need to provide stewardship of resources
  • Do more strategic planning and monitoring
  • Need to work with legislature for operating dollars
  • Can't be arrogant but must be confident
  • We need to be in alignment with values they support
  • Importance of continued communication

Dr. Glasper followed with the perspective that we need to take economic development into account in our planning. He questioned if we were moving away from instruction and concentrating on workforce development. He stated that we have a governor and also a mayor who include community colleges in their message and planning. When we plan, we need to step up areas that we feel we need to concentrate on. We cannot get caught up with ASU. We need to define where we want to be and where we want to expand. We need to make sure we are meeting the needs of our students. The Arizona Tax Research Association will continue to come after us and now we will need to go before the JCCR for approval. If we are true to our plan, we will not have problems. We need to provide to those that voted for us that their faith in us was not in vain. We need to keep on doing what we are doing.

Dr. Glasper turned the retreat over to Vice Chancellor Debra Thompson for discussion on strategic planning.

Strategic Planning Overview

Ms. Thompson provided an overview which included accomplishments to date, outcomes intended for this retreat, and a discussion of next steps.

The accomplishments consisted of the following:

  • Environmental Trends and SWOT Analysis - 2002
  • Planning Framework - 2002
  • Operational Plans - 2002, 2003, 2004
  • Strategic Plan - 2003, 2004
  • Planning Handbook - 2003, 2004
  • Updated Trends - 2003, 2004

The outcomes for the retreat were as follows:

  • Annual Monitoring Report Review
  • Start consideration of What We Want to Accomplish - What Matters Most to Student Success
  • Status and Recommendations: Vision, Mission, Values, Guiding Principles
  • Goals as outcomes statements

Next Steps:

  • Operational Plans - February 2005
  • Updated Strategic Plan - May 2005
  • SPAC - "work the strategic plan" (explore trends, issues, greater linkages with other councils)
  • Beyond Boundaries - implications/implementation
  • Monitoring - "What Matters Most" focus on outcomes and how these can be measured, national benchmarking studies, dashboard or balanced scorecard approach
  • Changes to Vision, Mission, Values, Strategic Directions

Dr. Georgia Gudykunst and Laura Helminski stepped forward next to provide Monitoring and Assessment Reports.

The following comments were provided about the Indicator Report for 2004:

  • U. S. Colleges struggling with extensive data facts/details in reporting
  • New, more focused form of monitoring and a number of indicators (measures) tied to national community college project
  • Indicator is measure to reflect how we are doing related to an outcome we want to achieve (it is not the outcome)
  • MCCD member of Advisory Council, National Community College Benchmark Project
  • 1st national community college benchmark project on general institution indicators
  • 2 yr investment: Create national indicators of general institution effectiveness that are consistently define so that any community college in U.S. can use
  • 94 community colleges
  • Incorporate national study indicators into MCCD's Indicator Report - by generating composite scores for MCCD
  • A starting point would be to establish a baseline including national data and MCCD data to enable trends for MCCD Indicator Report

The following factors were identified as indicators that MCCD was doing a good job:

  • Identify how MCCD compares to nation on indicators
  • Assess where we meet, exceed or fall below nation on indicators
  • Begin to discuss what we think is good or great for each indicator
  • Consider targets or levels that we want to strive for on the indicators
  • Determine what is considered a good job from a customer perspective, a learning perspective, from a resource/financial perspective, and from an internal business perspective

The following factors were identified as indicators that matter most:

  • From a practitioner point of view consider environment scans (students, needs, goals; new accreditation measures tied to learning; performance mandates; and fiscal resources)
  • Revisit the larger questions - what outcomes matter most?
  • Support Internal Culture (that shares information, broker knowledge, sustain ongoing learning)
  • Integrate information with best practices and benchmarking (e.g., balanced scorecard)
  • Focus District Dialogues (on implications, improvements, excellence and opportunities)
  • Facilitate data-driven decision making in light of mission/vision/values
  • Evolve indicators using the above input

The Indicator Report focuses on general institution indicators (retention, persistence, transfer, market penetration) and does not focus on student learning and assessment.

The following comments were provided by Laura Helminski about the Assessment Report:

  • The MCCD District Student Academic Achievement Assessment Committee wrote and approved an assessment statement:
    • The purpose of assessment in the Maricopa Community Colleges is to improve teaching and student learning in support of the Governing Board Goal of post-secondary competencies.
  • The key characteristics of assessment are:
    • Owned and drive by faculty
    • Directed by local campuses
    • Involves multiple methods
    • Ensure an on-going, sustainable process of review
    • Uses results to contribute to curriculum, budget, and planning
    • May be addressed various levels
  • The 2004 report emphasizes the significant progress that is being made in assessment work - distinct natures and common commitment
  • We are no longer "shackled" to data collection and analysis
  • Evidence of Distinct Natures
    • Differences in documented improvements
    • Differences in assessment tools
    • Differences in student population and students' skill levels
    • Differences in professional development, workshops, and training opportunities
    • Differences in college planning and budgeting processes
  • Evidence of Common Commitment
    • Shared goal of improving teaching and learning
    • Focus on multiple levels
    • Working to include adjunct faculty
    • Using data to determine improvements
    • Adding assessment work to faculty hiring, new faculty orientation, workshops, etc.
    • Increased use of common rubrics
  • Assessment in MCCD
    • MCCD colleges have a strong commitment to and an increased capacity for effective assessment of student learning because we value the impact of this work on our students' learning.

Paul Dale was the next presenter. He summarized the four themes that were identified from the strategic conversation from the night before. These themes were:

  • Increased and enhanced communication to students
  • Greater attention to student goal setting
  • Desire to be engaged
  • That they don't know that they don't know

Mr. Dale commented that page 17 of the Monitoring Report included the same indicators that were heard from the students during the strategic conversation.

Jean Ann Abel spoke about the broad results that we want to achieve and what wee want to emphasize on a high level. She posed the question about what should we look at when we do our strategic planning?

The various table groups engaged in 60 minutes of group discussion on the following questions and then report outs were made by each group.

  • If we wanted to better meet Student Goals, what questions should we be asking?
  • If we wanted to better meet Community Goals, what questions should we be asking?
  • How do we know we are doing a good job? How do we know when we have moved from good to great?
  • Given the answers to the above, what are the implications for planning as a system?
    (Responses are attached.)

Dr. Thor stepped forward to provide an update on the proposed Vision and Mission. Changes were proposed earlier in the year as a result of two strategic conversations held. She explained that the Vision is the "What?", or the picture of the future we seek to create. The purpose of the Mission is the "Why?", or the organization's answer to the question "Why do we exist?" She explained that great organizations have a larger sense of purpose that transcends providing for the needs of shareholders and employees. They seek to contribute to the world in some unique way and to add a distinctive source of value. Core values answer the question, "How do we want to act, consistent with our mission, along the path toward achieving our vision?"

Dr. Thor commented that SPAC recommended the following:

Vision: A Community of Colleges, Colleges for the Community

Mission: The Maricopa Community Colleges provide access to higher education for diverse students and communities. We focus on learning through:

  • University Transfer Education
  • General Education
  • Developmental Education
  • Workforce Development
  • Student Development
  • Continuing Education
  • Community Education
  • Civic and Global Engagement

Changes were also recommended to the Values and Guiding Principles.

The following recommendations were proposed:

  • Propose adoption of the revised mission
  • Drs. Debra Campbell and Leonard O'Brien to start a project to examine and align the values statement and guiding principles (June 05 completion expected)
  • With this input, build the vision proposal for the district (possible December 05 completion)
  • Goals would become outcomes statement when revised

ADJOURNMENT

The retreat adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

———————————
Dr. Donald R. Campbell
Governing Board Secretary