Quick Jump to Sections: Accreditation, Facilities, Enrollment and Productivity, Budget---What is "Core"?, Other Things, Next Meetings.
We will get Accreditation Visiting Team bios next week. I was mistaken in my last report about what happens at the exit forum. The visiting team will NOT share preliminary evaluation and recommendations. They will share some sort of summary of what they did on campus and what they found and possibly highlight areas where we should get kudos but the evaluation and recommendations is done by the whole ACCJC and we won't get their evaluation+recommendations until late January or early February 2013. I either misinterpreted what was told to us at the Sept 21st meeting or incorrect information was given. Either way, my apologies for any confusion this caused.
Anyone who uses Moodle for their online or face-to-face class websites will have an "Accreditation Team" participant that was originally intended to give the visiting team the ability to "visit" an online class. The access to the Moodle shells was given system-wide with the unintended consequence of opening up your face-to-face class Moodle site to them as well. The team will VERY likely just peruse through the online class Moodle sites. Time constraints would prevent them from looking at the face-to-face class Moodle sites anyway.
Rubrics, evaluation manuals, etc. that the visiting team will use for creating their report to the ACCJC are linked to on the College Council - Accreditation website.
Reminder of the open forums:
There will be two open forums and an exit forum with the Accreditation Visiting Team during their visit October 23rd to 25th. At the open forums anyone can share their views with the visiting team about the college, particularly with how well the college meets the accreditation standards. At the exit forum the visiting team will share some sort of summary of what they did on campus and what they found and possibly highlight areas where we should get kudos. The forums are:
Accreditation full self-evaluation report is posted at http://accreditation.bakersfieldcollege.edu/ .
Nothing new to report.
The formula or method used in calculating the FTES numbers is posted on the Budget Committee website—see the "How FTES is Calculated" link.
No change in budget status from my previous report. There was clarification of what the college president, Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg, was instructed to give the district by October 16th and the December 1st deadline of the program viability taskforce put together by the Academic Senate. By October 16th Nan will present the plan of how the college will figure out where the $5.2 million in cuts will come from. She will NOT identify specific people or enough detail of program cuts that could then be traced to particular people. By December 1st the Academic Senate's program viability taskforce will identify programs that should be sustained, strengthened, suspended, or discontinued. Note that discontinuing a program or degree may very well not affect the budget because the faculty will still teach the courses to service other departments.
The $5.2 million cut if Prop 30 fails is so large that even if we did away with all administration and classified staff positions, we wouldn't meet the $5.2 million cut. Note that funds from selling the land purchased by the SRID (Measure G) bond canNOT be used to replace general fund dollars because the money would have to go back into the bond.
There was quite a bit of discussion of what is the true core but no consensus. Note that a "farthest from the students" criterion is pretty vague when it comes right down to determining specific actions. Payroll technicians in Business Services are pretty far from the students but payroll must be done and they've already been stripped down to the minimum. Financial aid techs are pretty far from direct instruction but without them the students don't get the money to attend our classes. Maintenance + Operations personnel are far from the students-direct instruction but we have to have someone keep the HVAC and electricity on for our instruction. Perhaps we could get rid of the vice-chancellor level of the district office structure but certain admin oversight must be done for things like Information Services, Business Services, Human Resources, so the cost savings won't be as much as hoped for. Even if we got rid of ALL of the vice-chancellor positions and didn't have that admin oversight, it wouldn't meet the $5.2 million needed by BC alone, much less what PC and CC have to do as well. Pure cost savings come when we centralize all admin functions at one location and there has been several areas where centralization has happened (e.g., Information Services, Business Services, + Human Resources). If we were to farm all of those functions back out to the individual colleges (e.g., Banner, network/infrastructure, payroll, auditing—I'm fuzzy on the HR area), it would cost the whole district more. We have kept some personnel of these centralized offices at the colleges because the service for instruction and our faculty can be done in a timelier manner than having all the personnel centralized to one location and driving out from there (e.g., we have some computer techs here to take care of BC needs, some HR people take care of just BC needs, there are some Business Services personnel who process just BC transactions, etc.).
So what is the "true core" of the college? We have already greatly reduced (if not outright eliminated all) basic skills that are more than two levels below transfer level. How much would we save if we trimmed the transfer courses to just those that are needed by students going to CSUB? There are some disciplines that have their students transfer to other schools (Cal Poly for architecture comes immediately to mind). I strongly suspect that if we cut the transfer courses to just those used by those going to CSUB, it would be a pretty small cut.
The things that Nan looks at when considering candidate programs to cut: what demand there is for the courses both by the students and by the job market, whether or not the course meets CSU Gen Ed Breadth/IGETC, success+retention rates, availability of adjuncts to teach courses at times that full-time faculty cannot teach because FT faculty already have full loads/overloads, number of degrees/certificates awarded, and information from the APR.
Nan is considering having open forums on what is the "true core" of the college to gather input from the campus. We may also do a similar thing we did with the budget cut ideas input via a webform that is dumped into the email Public Folders on Exchange.
If you have ideas or comments that you'd like me to bring to College Council or the Budget Committee, please send them to me!
Question for you: how can we improve College Council's effectiveness as a forum for collegial discussion, recommending changes, and spreading wide understanding particularly in the areas of planning, budget, facilities, and the Decision-Making Document? That was the weak area found in last spring College Council Evaluation. I'm at a loss of what I can do to improve the two-way communication between College Council and you all or what the College Council could do as a whole. Any ideas?
Changes in the committee charges for ASC and the Program Review Committee are still working their way through the channels including Academic Senate. The changes will be incorporated into an updated Decision-Making Document.
No word yet on who the next college president will be. Should know by the Board of Trustees meeting next week.
Next College Council meeting will be October 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM.
Last updated: October 5, 2012
Document author: Nick Strobel