Gresham Campus
All Staff:
10/27, 4-5pm, Vista Dining Room
11/18, 12:10-1:10pm, Visual Arts Theater
Part-time Faculty & Tutors (all in president’s office):
10/27, noon
10/28, 5:30pm
12/1, noon
12/2, 5:30pm
Full-time Faculty:
10/22, 12-1pm Visual Arts Theater
11/4, 4pm, Faculty Senate
11/18, 4pm, Faculty Senate
Classified Association:
10/16, 12-1:30pm, Board Room
11/25, 2:30-3:30pm, location TBD
12/18, noon, Board Room
Students:
11/3, 5-6 pm, Jazz Cafe
11/10, 12-1pm, Jazz Cafe
Maywood Park Campus
All Staff:
11/5, 4-5pm, rm 223-224
P-t Faculty & Tutors:
10/30, 5-6pm, rm 223-224
Steps to Success
All Staff:
11/7, 2-3pm, Mt. Hood Room
12/12, 2-3pm, Mt. Hood Room
The Bruning Center
All Staff:
12/3, 4-5pm
12/10, 3-4pm
3 comments:
President Ski,
Per your request for feedback regarding yesterday’s strategic plan forum, I would like to offer my input on the areas that I feel are critical to accomplishing our mission.
But first, I would like to thank you for including all staff members in this process. If we want to promote employee commitment to any changes, the employees must be involved in formulating and implementing the changes, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of the changes.
Having said that, I feel that employee success #5 is critical to our strategic plan. Our college is only as successful as our employees are. If our employees are not successful, then how can our students or our services be successful?
I feel that our employees are the foundation of the college and our success. Being successful or unsuccessful in your job can create a domino effect with our employees, student & the community.
Next, I think that we could merge several issues. Meeting the diverse and changing needs and expectations of our students 4.2 and 9.1 meeting the diverse and changing needs and expectations of employers in the area go hand in hand. I think that we should look at the community around us and expand from there. Both of my children attended xx High School and while they attended MHCC, the majority of their classmates did not. There is a vast number of potential students at xx HS that we have not connected with. This also links to 8.1-8.3.
Given the current economy, I feel that another critical point is 9.3. A large number of people don’t feel that they can commit to long term education. They have families to support and bills to pay. If we could develop short-term customized training that is designed to get them back into the workforce quickly and back on their feet, I think that we would see them returning for more education down the road. If they get positive results from the training they receive here they are more likely to return for more training and education. This could also be connected to 10.3 and 10.4.
Last, is 13.2 implementing cost-saving strategies while maintaining the quality of our programs and services. I feel that the last administration got too caught up in middle management. Some areas have several layers of managers, and some only manage two people. This could also be linked to 5.8 , appropriately distribute decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability. While every company has employees who do not behave in a responsible manner, I think that the majority of MHCC employees know their jobs and are capable of performing their jobs with little input from a manager. I feel that MHCC employees understand that their job contributes to the collective success of the college and that in turn is their motivation to perform their job well.
In closing, I would like to say that it’s not always the amount of our income or expenses that is the key to our fiscal success, but the balance between the two, that is maintained over the long run that defines our sustainability.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and participate in the strategic planning process.
Some of thoughts on Shared Governance as a Strategic Planning goal…
I personally feel that the idea of shared governance should be integrated into MHCC’s Strategic Plan as a major goal. The concept of shared governance is not a new one to the college, although it has been called by different names and has taken on different forms. What I put forth here is just a compilation of some thoughts that have been swirling in my mind since I arrived at MHCC regarding the idea of shared governance. As always, these are nothing but some of my personal thoughts on the issue; I am not representing any group at the college. While shared governance issues have been discussed outside of Strategic Planning, my understanding from the most recent Strategic Planning forum is that shared governance has not been made a focal goal of the current Strategic Planning initiatives. I propose that we do make it a major goal, as it will drive so many other goals outlined in the handout we were given during the recent forum.
I came across a UCLA website (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ccs/digests/dig9907.html) that cites a study by Lau (1996) regarding how the term “shared governance” is defined in the community college setting. Here is the direct passage from that website: “Shared governance is a social system of self-government wherein decision-making responsibility is shared among those affected by the decisions. At the community college level, shared governance means that responsibility for institutional decisions is shared among governing boards, district administration, and faculty, with joint recognition and respect for the participation of staff and students (Lau, 1996).”
My personal belief is that for shared governance to really follow the definition listed above, it must not just involve input of faculty and staff (as is the model at a number of institutions), but also that faculty, staff, students, and administrators all have direct voting rights in the decisions that affect the institution. I worked under this model at xx, and loved it, as did everyone I came across there. I feel strongly that looking to such a model in driving a Strategic Planning goal of shared governance at MHCC might prove highly useful and appropriate.
The basic “jist” of this model is that there are a number of lead committees that drive the activities and processes of the college. Each of these committees included 2 co-chairs (1 faculty member, and 1 administrator) and 1-3 members each representing faculty, administration, classified, and students (with the exception of the Curriculum Committee, which, in addition to the co-chairs, had faculty members representing each academic discipline and the Articulation Officer). At xx, anyone who was interested in serving on a particular committee was eligible to apply and state why they wanted to serve on that committee. Members were chosen based on desire to serve, not just because of their particular experience or qualifications with the duties of that particular committee. Members served on a committee for 2-3 years, and were replaced on a staggered basis. This kept fresh perspectives and energy on the committees, while still ensuring history and stability. It also allowed for new faculty to get involved in the college, and provided for collaboration amongst the various disciplines. ALL members of each committee had equal voice and equal voting rights in decisions and policies put forth by the committee. Any policies or decisions related to instruction made by a committee would then have to be taken through the Academic Senate (xx’s version of our Faculty Senate) for input and approval. The Academic Senate could then choose to send the proposal back to its committee for revision or pass the proposal on to an oversight committee consisting of the Academic Senate president and the college president. That oversight committee then either approved the proposal for implementation, or sent it back to the original committee for revision.
Thus, under the xx model, all factions of the college have a direct input and vote in decisions and policies of the college. This opens the pipeline for transparent and continuous communication, and thus college growth and advancement. The current structure of shared governance (although it is not currently called that) at MHCC allows for input from faculty, but does not always allow faculty (and other employees, and students) to have a direct vote in policies being made. I see a huge difference between having a voice and having a voice that legally counts. When people feel their vote is actually being officially counted, they tend to take their role on a committee more seriously.
I’ve created a little draft flowchart that outlines an example of how the xx shared governance model might be adapted for MHCC. I pulled some of these committee ideas out of the air, so please take this as nothing more than an idea from my rambling thoughts…take it with a huge grain of salt!
Here are some features of the flowchart:
You’ll notice there are a ton of arrows on the flowchart (making it painful to look at or follow!). I tried to make show that I envision many of the committees being designed to communicate with each other. This input from other committees is important for driving the direction of committee activities as streamlining budget and curricular issues before they surface in Faculty Senate or beyond. I couldn’t really show it on the diagram (too many arrows to draw!), but each committee would also be in regular communication with appropriate cabinet offices as they design their proposals and make decisions. For example, the “Outreach and Diversity Committee” would want to work closely with the Offices of College Advancement and Institutional Research, and the “Curriculum Committee” would want to work closely with the Offices of Instruction, Enrollment Management/Student Success, and Institutional Research. I’ve also tried to show that committees are ultimately tied to communication with the Budget committee, which would be working closely with the Office of Administrative Affairs, the president, etc.
Once committees related to instruction or faculty development develop their proposals, they are sent to the Faculty Senate, which then either sends them back to committee for revision or passes them on to the “Shared Governance Oversight Committee”, which would consist of the College President (who is advised on a continual basis by the president’s cabinet) and the Faculty Senate President. Both of these individuals would have an equal vote on the committee. If this committee does not approve a proposal, it gets sent back to committee for revision. If it does get approved, it would get sent to the “Institutional Planning and Assessment” committee, which would be responsible for ensuring its implementation, subsequent evaluation, and eventually, its potential incorporation into the next institutional/strategic planning cycle. Thus, the work that comes out of the “Institutional Planning and Assessment” committee would drive the work of the committees, as the planning and assessment processes would be tied back to budget, curricular development, etc.
Anyway, that’s the overview in a nutshell! Again, these are just some personal thoughts on shared governance as a Strategic Planning goal. Although the idea of shared governance in general is being looked at during the faculty contract negotiation process (as was mentioned in the public faculty letter to the Board November 12), I have not yet shared what’s written here (or my diagram) with my colleagues. Thus, we would of course need a ton of input from everyone across the college on whether this is the direction they want to go, both as a general strategic plan goal and in terms of specifics of the model. I am currently working on a table (similar in structure to the one I made for Transfer), outlining the proposed shared governance structure shown in the diagram (including example memberships and duties of the various committees, and the sub-committees and constituent groups included under these). I will send that forth once I get it all together. Thanks for letting me bounce these ideas off on you….and feel free to trash the whole thing if needed!
Strategic Planning Goal for Shared Governance: “Make MHCC a model institution in Oregon for a shared governance structure that promotes transparent communication across the college and fully involves all factions of the college in decisions that affect the institution.”
Some of xx’s Thoughts on Transfer as a Strategic Planning Goal…..
Since coming to MHCC, I have perceived that a dichotomy seemingly exists between technical and transfer foci, and have perceived that transfer has not been made a top priority at MHCC. Perhaps, without a strong focus on transfer (making transfer issues a major target in Strategic Planning), we may be missing a huge pool of potential, transfer-bound students who are choosing PCC or Clark over MHCC because they are more focused on transfer issues, and therefore better meet those students’ needs. Many students who are already at MHCC often find difficulties in transfer advisement and updated course-to-course and program articulation with 4-year institutions. There have been many instances where students have left MHCC to go to PCC or Clark because they felt they would be better able to experience seamless transfer to their chosen university. Students regularly identify gaps in MHCC transfer issues, including lack of breadth of course offerings/discipline electives, articulation, and advisement. I believe that rectifying this situation requires a combination of transfer-focused marketing, new curriculum (course- and program-level) development, updated articulation agreements for existing curricula/programs, increased and expanded partnership development with programs at 4-year institutions, and time and effort devoted to articulation. There is also a need at MHCC for increased attention paid to articulation between MHCC and area high schools. Below is a table outlining a mechanism for developing Transfer as a Strategic Planning goal. Included in this goal is the creation of an “Office of Transfer and Articulation”, and under it a director that would oversee its activities and assessment. More notably, within this office would be one or more “Articulation Officers”, that would work as liaisons between MHCC faculty, the MHCC Curriculum Committee, MHCC and university advisors, and university faculty and articulation staff. Instead of MHCC faculty themselves having to secure letters of support from universities as they take proposed curricula through the Curriculum Committee, the Articulation Officer would be the one working with the universities to ensure transferability. This may make faculty more inclined to author curricula, thereby potentially growing our programs and offerings (and therefore, FTE).
Strategic Planning Goal for Transfer:
“Make MHCC the flagship institution in Oregon for the promotion and success of seamless student transfer to 4-year institutions of higher learning.”
A) Strategies to attain goal;
B) Organization; &
C) Primary Duties:
1 - A) Develop an “Office of Transfer and Articulation”
B) • Reports to VP for Enrollment Management and Student Success
C) • identify potential programs for transfer at 4-year institutions within and outside the Northwest
• work with faculty to develop needed curricula (both General Education and program/discipline-specific) to ensure students can enter programs at 4-year institutions with “junior” status
• work with the MHCC program/discipline faculty and Curriculum Committee and 4-year institutions to ensure transferability of courses and programs being developed or revised
• work with the Office of College Advancement to market transferable courses, programs and target institutions
• work with the Advising Office and program coordinators to ensure proper student advisement and program-level marketing of transferable programs, courses, and institutions
• work with the Office of Research and Planning to assess success of transfer and articulation programs, and the success of students post-transfer
• maintain a student-centered website that would allow students and advisors to match courses taken at MHCC with the articulated equivalent courses at the students’ universities of choice
2 - A) Create a “Director of Transfer and Articulation” position
B) • reports to VP for Enrollment Management and Student Success
C) • Oversee and evaluate success of activities conducted within the “Office of Transfer and Articulation”
• Oversee and evaluate employees within the “Office of Transfer and Articulation”
3 - A) Create a full-time 4-year Institution Articulation Officer position(s) for transfer and articulation issues related to transfer to 4-year institutions of higher learning:
B) • Reports to the “Director of Transfer and Articulation”
C) • identify potential programs for transfer at 4-year institutions within and outside the Northwest
• work with faculty to develop needed curricula (both General Education and program/discipline-specific) to ensure students can enter programs at 4-year institutions with “junior” status
• work intimately with the MHCC Curriculum Committee and program/discipline faculty to ensure articulation of already-approved curricula and curricula being developed or revised to multiple universities within and outside the Northwest
• work to ensure transferability of courses as General Education courses
• ensure course-to-course equivalencies within university departments/programs
• work with 4-year institution program faculty and admissions/articulation staff and advisors by phone, email, and face-to-face meetings to market and ensure seamless transfer of MHCC courses and programs
4 - A) Create a High School Articulation Officer position(s) for transfer and articulation issues related to transfer from area high schools
B) • Reports to the “Director of Transfer and Articulation”
C) • identify courses and programs at area (including Oregon and Washington) that have potential for articulation with corresponding courses/programs MHCC
• work with area high school faculty and advisors to by phone, email, and face-to-face meetings to market and ensure seamless transfer of high school students to MHCC
• work with MHCC faculty and advisors to ensure proper advisement of transferees from area high schools
Post a Comment