Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

Criterion Committees:
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5

NCA Criterion 2 Committee

Meeting Minutes

February 14, 2005

Present: Ronnie, Ann, Loman, David, Brent, Dennis, Betsy, Jill, Janet, Wilbert, Darren

Recap of Minnesota workshop: remember to look at everything in an evaluative manner. Remember to ask “so what?” when talking about your criteria.  The term “assessment” is to be used within the context of student learning.  The term “evaluation” is to be used with all other areas, such as facilities improvement.

The committee has finished looking at 2B and Betsy will have a written version soon.

In 2B there are four areas:

1.      Financial Resources

2.      Physical Resources

3.      Human Resources

4.      Academic Support

What are our evaluation processes in these four areas?

Financial Resources – look at the way we budget, the way we allocate resources, and planning and budget.

• Every year take a look at how fast money is being spent, how it is spent, how much is spent, etc.
  
  
• By January can look and see where we are, for example this year received more money, but also burned it faster. Every month look at burn rate based on last year’s burn rates and determinations of how much and what is spent are made.  (burn reports)  Burn rates are reviewed and recommendations are made based on how much has been spent and what is left of the money received. Those recommendations are given to the President. It is up to the President and PCLC to decide how to use extra money if burn rate is low.  Ann will request PCLC minutes.
  
  
• Goal is to get as close as possible to the 3% rollover; use as much of our monies as possible without going over. We have had this rollover for the last 3-4 years. The colleges’ spending is not always at 3%, but try to stay as close to as possible to it. All colleges have 3% rollover; however, some overspend and have to borrow. Phoenix College has not borrowed since the last self study.
  
  
• If we don’t meet Annual FTSE production then we have to pay back the difference of what we didn’t make. FTSE reports have to be same or higher than last year to not have to pay back. Ann will check with Dean Kakar on relationship between summer scheduling and FTSE generation.
  
  
• Can auditors be an example of showing that we evaluate? Auditor generals’ office is our legal certified accountant, and NCA has an MOU saying they will accept this. The auditor generals’ office looks at if we are financially viable.

Physical resources - Bond(s), Maintenance, New preventive maintenance plan, Vehicle replacement plan, ADA compliance, Landscaping, Parking, Classroom allocation

• The climate survey included 3 questions that would apply to this area.
  
  
• Did we evaluate what was done with the last bond, or do we just know what wasn’t done from the last bond.
  
  
• Need additional insight into the process for deciding what was done and what will be done, did it work?   A “debriefing of facilities” would be an example of evaluation.
  
  
• Don’t have a process of evaluation – build new buildings but don’t evaluate once the building is up and the impact of it.
  
  
• District sets the bond plans/procedures. The colleges then look at the District plans and can make recommendations (i.e. ensure enrollment is not jeopardized) to make changes to the District plan – this procedure is evaluative.
  
  
• Facilities are not at the standard they need to be, but are working on improving them. College has began working on this, and trying to improve, but in fixing some problems, such as meeting fire codes, other problems are arising, i.e. class size is smaller so FTSE goes down.
  
  
• Facilities Improvement Committee – Did they conduct any “formal” evaluation?  Ann will check with Cindy Cloud and Mark Rosati.

Human Resources - Staffing levels, Development of Human Resources, Quality of Human Resources

• PC is “out of kilter” with the other colleges in terms of hiring processes and one objective is to put us back on schedule. Other colleges appear to be ahead of us, so staffing committee has been instructed to try to get back in the loop.   Appears we are too slow in our hiring processes.
  
  
• HR is supposed to present a proposal of how they are going to keep records updated here at PC.
  
  
• Can look at professional growth dollars, percentage of how much is being used (can get this info from Paul D. or Ronnie), at LTD, MCLI, for evaluation. Our college does a good job at using our professional growth funds. In 1998-99 there was a 30% increase in usage. Evaluated the travel plan and came up with a better system for using professional growth money.
  
  
• Performance evaluations: FEP. Value of them is questionable.
  
  
• There are a few climate survey and CSSSE questions related to this.

GENERAL COMMENT – We have improved data collection tools (i.e. software) and more campus-wide support (i.e. Jan Binder’s group) for more coordinated evaluation processes at PC. 

Academic Support – this will be looked at the next meeting.