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

March 9, 2005

Present: Ronnie, Jill, Ann, Betsy, Loman, Brent, David, Janet, Leonard

March 24: Karen Soloman will be on campus. She is a staff liaison from NCA. Each NCA liaison is responsible for about 290 colleges. Diane (our current liaison) is leaving NCA and Karen will fill in for her on the 24^th. We are given the chance to ask questions. Each criterion committee has the opportunity to ask questions if they have any. When she comes she will meet with the assessment committee, steering committee, faculty senate, and others.

Are there any questions that this committee would like to ask?

1. Have any other reports been written so that 2D is first, is it possible to structure the report in this manner?

Looking at the surveys we are highlighting, we need to go back to the people we have surveys from and ask them how they use the results from these surveys, if they have used them or how they use that data. Janet will do this.

Looking at 2D: looking more at the major planning areas, the big picture

For examples of evidence (Internal):

There is a conscientious effort for the alignment between the mission and vision for MCCD and PC align with strategic planning

• we have started strategic planning again and reevaluating what has been done, wrote 05-06 objectives
• List of things to do and prioritized
• Given our understanding of our environment and needs. This is the “lens”

BRC is trying to align itself with Strategic Planning and to do this it would be a recommending body to PCLC

• BRC is working on 06-07 Budget.
• Working so far out is driven by District. This is to make sure we have adequate rollover.
• Dynamics of BRC are changing and BRC is trying to identify what their role is.  
• Reprioritization of its mission and goals.
• Impact of bond  - capital requests only perhaps changing environments – change to BRC
• Saving money to make sure that there is adequate rollover for innovative ideas/something new.
• The educational role of BRC has changed so that there is better communication.
• BRC is a recommending body, they recommend to administration and then administration decides if it is recommendation is approved or not.
• Day of learning – there was a presentation about budget but it did not have a good response

Looking at external –

• President’s roundtable is restarting (find out new name for this).
• Macro and micro levels for planning, campus wide and department wide (alumni office) – point to advisory council 2A
• Institutional councils
• Club planning process – can point to Criterion 5 based on information from external constituents

Challenges:

• Respond quickly to these changes
• Long term planning vs responsive (immediate response)
• Participatory – extent to which this can be participatory, especially when coming from District or the president.