Academic Leadership Team (3/22/16)

Academic Leadership Team
March 22, 2016
1:00 pm
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

Members Present:     Gayle Arries, Dan Averette, Tiffany Blackwell, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Rick Cothran, Matt Edwards, Adam Ghiloni, Tom Hiebel, Jenn Hulehan, Linda Jameison, Lynn Lewis, Chris Marino, Crystal McLaughlin, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords, Hap Wheeler

Members Absent:      Jenni Creamer, Scott Harvey

Other Attendees:      

Length of Meeting:   2 hours

The minutes of the March 8, 2016 meeting were approved as presented.

Galen discussed the Student Registration Agreement.  This agreement has been created and put into place to comply with multiple trade practices regulations.  As part of the registration process, students will have to agree that they have read and understand the Registration Agreement.  In reviewing the agreement, the following were noted:

• Links need to open into a separate window so that the registration page does not go away.
• #5 - Change the first part of that sentence to “I will be responsible for….”
• #5 – Some discussion on clarifying the (Up to 30%) language.

ACTION ITEM:  Communication Plan.  Cara Hamilton will send a mass communication about this agreement.  The members of the group will follow up with discussions at division and unit meetings.

Prior to the project charter review, Galen reminded the group of the project procedure and noted that:

• Projects need to have input from outside the team.
• Dependencies need to be identified.  IT and Facilities need to be included in discussions. (Reminded the group of the 3:00 Monday standing meeting with IT and Facilities.)
• Will provide a framework for the project team that is more actionable.

Project Charter Review:

Develop intrusive academic support structures that boost student success.

Look for ways to help transition students, keeping in mind that some groups have more needs.  As a college, be more intentional in helping students with the transition into and out of the college, and while they are here.

• Deliverables:

• May be too specific.  Roll up into the bigger picture.
• Dependent of the student characteristics project charter

• Assumptions:

• Under-resourced students do not reach out. 
• Use the tools we already have to facilitate communication of resources (Starfish, etc.)

The project charter group will revise the charter, as needed.

Create a framework for assessing the delivery mode approach for program offerings at the College.

Are we reaching the students we need to reach based on what and when we deliver.  Start with the population we want to serve. This project ties in with program prioritization and can be used as a decision-making tool.

• Purpose

• Will allow each program the framework to make its own decisions.

• Scope Definition

• Add – Will not create pedagogy.

• Project Board

• Dan and Hap may serve as board members.

The project charter group will revise the charter, as needed.

Classroom Design Standards

The project charter group sees the need for a bigger, phased-in approach and wants to consider every classroom tool.

The group was considering the physical design standards.  Online considerations are a different discussion.

How do we design a room and balance individual needs with what the college can afford?  We need keep in mind timing and expectations and have recommendations ready for next year’s budget. 

• Scope Definition

• Out of Scope – Will not allocate classrooms.

• Team Structure

• Include CCE.

The project charter group will revise the charter, as needed.

Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, Vision and Business Case

This project will be a massive, multi-year effort.  It will have implications on how we do business and how we respond to our biases.  With global employers, with diverse thought and speech, our students need to be prepared to be as employable as they can be.  How to set boundaries for this project, is a concern.

• Purpose
  • This would provide a richer employee experience too.

• Deliverables
  • Are very broad.  May have to chunk into multiple projects.  Consider a phased-in approach.
  • Phase 1
    • Deliverables 1 and 2
  • Phase 2
    • Deliverables 3 and 4

• Scope Definition
  • Out of Scope – Will not set quotas

• Assumptions
  • Separate employees and students
  • Chunk to focus on one or both
  • Definitions are for both

The project charter group will revise the charter, as needed.

ACTION ITEM:  Groups will make changes to their charters within the next three weeks.  In late April, an action planning meeting for the five new charters and any carryovers will take place. 

Galen gave a few updates:

The FTE prioritization meeting will take place in April.  He asked the members of the group to send any FTE requests and justifications to him by April 18. 

State Budget – The state budget is flat for the system, although there is some money for special projects.  We are budgeting for a 2% decrease in enrollment, so the college should be in good shape.  With a decline in enrollment, it is not likely that we will have many FTEs.  The current budget includes a 1.5 – 5% raise for full time employees. 

Placement – The RFP process has been completed and is with the State MMO.  Hopefully, a contract will be awarded in early April.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Wednesday, May 11, at 3:00, in RH 248

Academic Leadership Team (6-28-16)

Academic Leadership Team

June 28, 2016

1:00 pm

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

Members Present:     Gayle Arries, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Rick Cothran, Mark Dougherty, Stacey Franks, Adam Ghiloni, Glenn Hellenga, Linda Jameison, Lynn Lewis, Chris Marino, Crystal McLaughlin, Sarah Shumpert,  Brian Swords, Hap Wheeler, Tracey Williams

Members Absent:       Dan Averette, Tiffany Blackwell, Jenni Creamer, Matt Edwards, Scott Harvey

Other Attendees:      

Length of Meeting:   1.50 hours

The minutes of the June 14, 2016 meeting were approved as presented.

Gayle Arries discussed the handout showing the many Tri-County “rogue” media sites, and the proposed Social Media policy and procedure.  She remarked on the lack of consistency in the many sites and noted the desire and need for an official college media presence.   The college needs a policy and procedure in place to provide guidance.  The proposed policy and procedure reflect a review of best practices, and she reported that the college attorney has reviewed the documents.  She stated that this is a first step to have these documents in place, and that they will continue to evolve.  The following were noted during the discussion.

Policy:

·         First page, fourth line, change “should” to “will”

·         Back page, remove “in business and industry” so that no partner is left out

·         Is this ADA compliant?

Gayle noted that she will hold a social medial amnesty day and will present the Marketing and Graphics department as a resource to help with sites.

Procedure:

·         For a site to be done well, it must be accurate, timely, and relevant.  It should not compete against the college.  All presences should support each other.

·         Can connect a site with the main page and twitter.

·         Protect the brand, but recognize what the student is using it for.  Social media needs to be flexible to meet students’ needs. 

·         Be sure that the procedure is aligned with Human Resources’ policies.

·         A closed faculty/staff group could help build community. 

Usage Guidelines:

·         Not an easy thing to create.

·         Trying use common sense and be proactive

·         Under “Be Transparent”, Item b – does it need to be tighter?  Gayle will review.

Next Steps:

·         Documents to the Commission for review at the August meeting.

·         Within the next few weeks, send comments to Gayle. She will use any input for continual edits.

Linda Jameison discussed the Library policies and procedures.

3-1-5000, Circulation of Library Materials (Policy)

·         Last line, spell out PASCAL

3-1-5000.1, Circulation of Library Materials (Procedure)

·         No additional changes

3-1-5011, Selection, Acquisition, and Weeding of Library Materials (Policy)

·         No changes

3-1-5011.1, Selection, Acquisition, and Weeding of Library Materials (Procedure)

·         Updating to reflect operations of how programs’ needs are met.

·         Suggested using a word other than “weeding”.

·         One page two, Item G, some discussion on the intent of the statement.  Hap Wheeler will work with Mary Orem on this.

3-1-5012.1, Challenged Library Materials (Procedure)

·         No changes

Galen discussed the next steps on the project charter interest form.  Matt Edwards will set up the interest form in Cherwell so that the project boards can review who is interested.  Academic Leadership Team will set the teams at the late July meeting.  This pilot will be limited to the five strategic plan initiative project charters and the resource hub charter. 

Jackie Blakley noted that in the revised Registration Agreement, the student signature is required in all cases.  This differs from what was presented earlier.  Linda will take this concern to Scott Harvey.

Adam Ghiloni distributed and discussed Determination for Self-certification of a New Program.  He stated that the college has the ability to self-certify its eligibility for financial aid, which allows the college to be more nimble and to speed up the implementation process for certificates and diplomas, but it also creates some risk.  He reviewed the policy and procedure and noted the risks involved in self-certification.  He stated that the policy and procedure are building on what we already d, and for the most part our self-certifications will have low risk.  The phased approach with the Oversight Review Group will allow the college to stop the process if this risk is too high. 

During his absence, Galen distributed a list of designees to handle issues. 

Any equipment purchased from the pre-approved list does not need Galen’s approval.  Purchase requests for those items can be sent directly to the Procurement Office. 

The college will have $995,000 of STEM funding.  This money may be able to fund some equipment.

The demolition of Clarke, McKissick, and the amphitheater will begin on July 5.  The parking lots behind Ruby Hicks will be closed.  Employees need to park in Parking Lot A.  The handicapped parking spaces will be re-positioned and will be available near Ruby Hicks.

Mark Dougherty reported that Stephanie Winkler is considering changing the name of our Disability Services unit.  After some research, she is suggesting the new name Accessibility Resource Center, and has a transition plan in place.  Some discussion took place on the need for guidelines for service animals. 

Chris Marino reported that through CHE and the SARA reciprocity agreement, we can apply to offer distance learning courses anywhere.  He noted that with a significant yearly fee ($6000), the college may want to look at how we are offering services and where we want to go as an institution. 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, July 26, at 1:00, in RH 248

Academic Leadership Team (6-14-16)

Academic Leadership Team

June 14, 2016

1:00 pm

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

Members Present:     Dan Averette, Tiffany Blackwell, Jackie Blakley, Rick Cothran, Jenni Creamer, Stacey Franks, Adam Ghiloni, Glenn Hellenga, Linda Jameison, Lynn Lewis, Chris Marino, Crystal McLaughlin, Sarah Shumpert, Tracey Williams

Members Absent:       Gayle Arries, Tim Bowen, Mark, Dougherty, Matt Edwards, Scott Harvey, Brian Swords, Hap Wheeler

Other Attendees:      

Length of Meeting:   1.25 hours

The minutes of the May 24, 2016 meeting were approved as presented.

Galen DeHay welcomed Stacey Frank, the new Faculty Senate President, to the group.

Linda Jameison distributed and reviewed a draft project team interest form, Interest in Serving on a Project Charter Team.  Once finalized, this form will be housed in the existing Cherwell system. Linda explained that the intent is to have a short, simple, intuitive form that identifies an employee’s interests, skill sets and roles, and preferences.  Cherwell will allow the data to be loaded into a spreadsheet for the project charter boards.  The group members considered what else they would need to know before filling out an interest form:

·         Need college-wide communication about the new process.

·         Need to mention the proposed length of time for the project (typically a year) and the proposed time commitment from the team member. 

·         Planning stages may need to be modified.

·         In the interest form, add a link to the project charter for easy review.

·         Keep the form short.

·         Include next steps.

The following suggestions were made after a careful review of the draft.

·         Explain more about strategic planning in the preamble.

·         Remove all questions from “List past service…” to the end of the document.

·         Create a post-project survey to gain insight from the team member.  Tie to professional development opportunities. 

With the revisions, the campus will be notified and the interest form will be created in Cherwell.  The form will be available until July 20, the ALT will use the July 26 meeting to consider the forms, and project teams will be formed by August 1.

The group also discussed the training needs for the project teams.  It was noted that the training needs to begin with the end in mind, needs to focus on the project, and needs to clearly understand and explain the deliverables.  Rick Cothran suggested using a SixSigma training component.  The two day Yellow training level may fill our needs.  Rick will send the information to Galen. 

Announcements:

Galen noted that for our current strategic plan, project team leaders need to be sure to send updates so that we can track progress. 

Ann Hall recently reported that budgets are loaded. 

All funds relating to Tri-County remain in the state budget.  $740,000 will come directly to Tri-County for TSS.  This is recurring money.  We will also have funding for the following projects:

·         $4 million - Oconee Workforce Development Center

·         $.5 million ITC – next phase

·         $.5 million  - Funding for the central energy plant as a component of the Student Success Center project

The state budget also has funding for workforce scholarships that help fund high need, high demand CCE programs. 

A new law is in place that creates a Workforce Development Council. 

Galen encouraged the group to read Dr. Booth’s memo about the Student Success Center. 

Jenni Creamer announced that TC Central is open, and handled 400 visits in the first week.  The feedback has been very positive.  She noted the following about the center.

·         Building collaborative nature for employees.

·         Continuing to learn new functions.

·         The system is working.

·         Continual process improvement.

Jenni also noted the staff’s huge investment to make TC Central work, the staff development that is taking place, and the creation of a better understanding of the open office concept. 

Linda Jamesion asked the group whether the college should respond to the Orlando tragedy.  She will send the ACPA resources to the group for review.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

 

Academic Leadership Team (5-24-16)

Academic Leadership Team

May 24, 2016

1:00 pm

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

Members Present:     Gayle Arries, Dan Averette, Tiffany Blackwell, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Jenni Creamer, Matt Edwards, Adam Ghiloni, Glenn Hellenga, Tom Hiebel, Linda Jameison, Lynn Lewis, Chris Marino, Crystal McLaughlin, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords, Hap Wheeler

Members Absent:       Rick Cothran, Scott Harvey, Tracey Williams

Other Attendees:       Sharon Colcolough

Length of Meeting:   2 hours

The minutes of the May 11, 2016 meeting were approved as presented.

Galen DeHay welcomed Glenn Hellenga and Mark Dougherty, our new Dean of Student Development, to the group.

Each charter group discussed project team roles and characteristics.  In addition to the following commonalities, the group leaders will make changes based on recommendations specific to their charters. 

·         In the timeline section, reflect whether the project is multi-year and what will be accomplished in each year.

·         Involve students when possible.

·         Be aware of the size of the team. 

o   People may need to serve multiple roles.

o   May need to bring in people at different stages to address a certain deliverable.

·         Be aware of the time commitment.

·         Possible re-assignment time if the project exceeds normal college service responsibilities.

Following up on discussion from the last meeting about student involvement on the project teams, Galen and Adam Ghiloni stated that we could make the student role a work/study position.  Adam noted that for those students who may not qualify for federal work/study aid, other funding can be set aside.  The group agreed that being a member of a project team would be a great high impact practice for these students.  They also agreed that the student role needs to have a specific set of responsibilities, perhaps as a communicator.

Much discussion took place on how to select team members and touched on the following:

·         Consider a broader group.

·         Apply to a project based on your interest.

·         Treat the team selection like a hiring process where demonstrable skills are matched with team needs.

·         Must be well communicated.

·         While training for team members may delay the start of the project, the time could be made up by a more efficient team.

·         What if people who express an interest do not have the right skills?  Expressing interest is one way of forming a team.  Other options can be used.

·         Some misgivings about a formal application process.  The focus should be on expressing interest.

·         Already created a bias by asking for “experience” in a role.

 

In order to manage the application process, Matt Edwards noted that a category could be added to the Service Desk portal.  The application could be routed to specific people and follow a work chain. 

After continued discussion, the group agreed to develop an “interest form” that would allow employees to state their project preferences and to rank them.  The Academic Leadership Team will evaluate the interest forms.  If an employee is not selected, he/she can work with his/her supervisor to find other opportunities to be involved.  The employee’s supervisor will be included at the ALT evaluation meeting.  It was stressed that this will be a pilot. 

ACTION ITEM:  The “Interest Form” group will meet to create the form.  Matt Edwards, Sharon Colcolough, and Linda Jameison are the group members. 

Project board training, project team training, and a discussion on and integration of the book Touch Points will take place in future meetings. 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Recorded By:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, June 14 at 1:00, in RH 248