College Council -- March 2, 2012

Quick Jump to Sections: Budget, Accreditation, Grants Task Force, College Goals, Evaluation of College Council, Construction/Facilities, Parking Fees, Other Things, Next Meetings.

This was interim president Robert Jensen's first time running the College Council meeting. Based on what I've seen from the Budget Committee meeting last Monday and Friday's College Council meeting, it looks like he is having to learn about a number of the issues at the meeting itself without having had been briefed by Greg or Nan ahead of time. On the one hand this slows down the decision-making process since he is getting his briefing at the meeting. On the other hand, it does mean that he is looking at our issues with a very fresh set of eyes, much like an Accreditation team would and he is asking the questions that would be asked that get us to re-examine our assumptions or rationale behind our processes. He told us that he will be with for a total of 90 days and his goal is to get plans laid that will take the college through the next 12 to 24 months of very rough budget times. The new permanent president will be selected sometime in June and will report for duty sometime after that. The new president will need several months to get up to speed on the college processes and how to move forward in a way that fits Bakersfield College. Taking this into account we'll be navigating through the budget crisis and the accreditation visit with the plans we make before the new permanent president comes on board.


Updated budget figures will come from the Chancellor's cabinet or consultation council this coming week (March 6th meeting). Jensen's goal will be to keep cuts as far from the students and the classroom as possible. If the Governor's tax proposal does not pass this November, some community colleges will close. Jensen noted that it would be smaller districts in northern California that would probably close. Ones he mentioned are Lassen, Siskiyous. A community college district that he mentioned has been fiscally conservative like KCCD in keeping an adequate reserve is Los Rios in Sacramento.


The first draft of the college's self evaluation report is now available online—see the email from Robert Jensen sent to bc_all on March 1st at 4:14 PM with the subject line "Your Opportunity to Help the Bakersfield College Accreditation Process" for the link to the first draft of the self study.

The Accreditation Steering Committee chair, Kate Pluta, brought to our attention again that the college needs to have discussion across the campus on student achievement, particularly with reference to the easily measured metrics of course completion rates, persistence rates, retention rates, etc. The college has a pretty good handle on being able to describe significant trends over the past five years but our accrediting agency (ACCJC) will be looking for us to be able to answer the following questions as well:

  1. Has the institution set performance expectations (key performance indicators or target goals) for its own performance, and how does it judge its achievement of the intended target goals?
  2. Is the institutional performance satisfactory?
  3. What changes have been made or are planned as a result of the analysis of the data?

As a college we have not discussed these three questions and we need to do so. Things BC has done toward improving student achievement that were brought up at the meeting include the African-American male project announced at the start of the spring semester and the Writing Lab. There are other things, of course, but all of these projects tend to be done in "silos" without collegewide knowledge of the projects and why money and time have been allocated to them.

I'd appreciate any of your thoughts on these and on how we increase our success rates while maintaining rigor and high quality.

Grants Task Force

Here's the report from the grants task force: (dated March 2, 2012)

  1. Website or central location (possibly InsideBC) with listing, by category, all grants. College goals should be connected to grants.
  2. Grant Request: on a one-page summary which includes a format similar to the Proposal Change Form (from Academic Senate):
    1. What is the issue
    2. History & current status
    3. Proposed action
    4. Potential Impacts (+/-)
  3. Grants Taskforce to meet as needed (charge of the taskforce that will review the requests still to be developed)
  4. Criteria:
    1. Relevant to college goals/mission
    2. Facilities
    3. In kind (I'm not sure what that item actually means but it probably means what the college will have to supply or fund in order to get the grant)
    4. Staffing
    5. Impact on existing services (student services, Academic Affairs, Administrative Services)
  5. Use the existing "Grant Approval Routing Sheet" (district form?) as summary requirement sheet and final routing (put summary requirement sheet on website).
  6. Develop Taskforce (that will be the one to review the grant requests and recommend to the president's office on whether or not to pursue the grant)

College Goals

The college goals survey closed on Friday, March 2nd. The college goals work group will be analyzing the results but we'll need to have an additional college council meeting to really explore themes from the survey results and recommendations from the working group. The working group did say that the current process of developing goals is too intense to be done every year. What they're doing is something that should be done for a three or four-year strategic planning process instead of annual goals. That is, in fact, what we're going to do with this data as well as the Actionable Improvement Plans from the Accreditation Self-Study. Rather doing a year-long information gathering process like we did with the Renegade 2012 Plan with outside consultants, we'll keep it simpler and use the information from college goals survey and the AIPs. That should give us plenty of material for the next three to four years. We also need to take a look at our mission and values statements as part of the process. Can this all be done and approved by College Council and the Academic Senate by the end of this semester? That's why we're going to have a half-day meeting of College Council on March 23rd. Also, a strategic planning task force was formed that includes Kate Pluta, Corny Rodriguez, Meg Stidham and/or Jennifer Marden and one of the administrators (sorry, I didn't get all of the names down).

Evaluation of College Council

A survey on how well (or not) you think the College Council structure and process is going will be sent out on March 19th. We reviewed survey questions and there was discussion on whether to include questions specifically directed at integrated institutional planning or to keep the survey focused on how well you all think the new College Council is doing to inform you on collegewide issues and to provide your input into decisions made on collegewide issues.


For the SAM project: architecture people will be meeting the dean and faculty of the departments affected by the SAM remodel to look at "value re-engineering" the project. They will be looking at what materials we can use that will reduce cost while keeping the scope of the project (e.g., instead of wood-paneling a room, can we use regular wall board instead?)

Interim president Jensen noted with surprise the deplorable conditions of some of the buildings on campus, especially the Student Services building that project an image that the college does not take pride in the campus and its students. We faculty do not take responsibility for the deterioration of our buildings as that is the responsibility of our administration. One thing Jensen mentioned at the Budget Committee meeting on Monday is that one of the most difficult things he's had to do as a college president is getting whatever college he's been leading to understand why he directed some state dollars toward facility maintenance and repair in times of tight budgets. The Student Services building has long been planned for extensive remodeling+repairs (for the past ten years at least) but very little has been done.

Parking Fees

The consensus was that we could at least raise the daily permit fee to $3. One challenge we have with collecting fees is that the aging permit dispensers break down too frequently. When a dispenser is out of commission, we cannot enforce the parking rules in the student permit areas (no citations).

LaMont Schiers and Bill Cordero passed out a matrix of staff parking fees and student parking fees at 13 community colleges: San Diego Community College, Fresno State Center Community College, Coast Community College District, Pasadena Area Community College District, Saddleback College, Sacramento City College, Southwestern Community College District, Santa Barbara College, Ventura/Moorpark/Oxnard, College of the Canyons, Allan Hancock College, Cuesta, and Taft. Of these, five (Fresno, Pasadena, Saddleback, Hancock, Cuesta) charge staff for parking and just one (Fresno) charges staff at a rate equivalent to the students; the other four charge less than the student rate.

Friday evening we received the report from FCDC about staff parking fees from the FCDC reps. Select the link to view a PDF of their report.

I have heard from some of you on this topic. I would appreciate knowing which community colleges do not charge their employees for parking and which ones do, so please ask your contacts at other colleges about parking fees and let me know ASAP.

Other Things


Next meetings

First and third Fridays of the month at 8:30 to 10:30 AM (except finals and winter+summer break). Plus half-day March 23rd regular meeting plus college goals session.

Go to main BC College Council website

Back to Sciences/Health-PE reports archive

Last updated: March 3, 2012

Document author: Nick Strobel