Meeting
Summary Notes
November 1, 2001
Chemeketa Community College
Salem, OR
Members
Present
Rick Levine, Rogue Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Ken Gilson, Western Oregon University
Liz Goulard, Chemeketa Community College
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce
Development
Rick
Levine called the meeting to order at 10:25 a.m. and added one item to the
agenda (relating to JBAC membership and a proposed revision of the Commission’s
Operating Guidelines).
1. Introductions
and Announcements
Members
introduced themselves and Levine welcomed Ken Gilson to the membership of JBAC.
Gretchen Schuette, President of Chemeketa Community College, welcomed this
meeting of the Commission to campus.
Jim
Arnold explained the supplemental materials sent out with the meeting packet,
including a copy of the latest edition of New Directions for Community
Colleges (Summer 2001), which has an article authored by Arnold.
2. Minutes of
the June 13, 2001, Meeting & JBAC Membership List
The
minutes of the June 2001 meeting
were approved as submitted. One correction was made to the contact information
for the web version of the JBAC
membership list.
3. JBAC
Membership and Operating Guidelines
Levine
explained that, during the summer, Chancellor Cox wrote a letter to
Commissioner Preus-Braly with a proposal to modify the operating guidelines of the
JBAC, including a suggestion to restructure. Levine distributed a copy of the
Chancellor’s proposal to the group. While most of the proposed modifications
are mostly “housekeeping” in nature, likely the most controversial element is
to eliminate representation of community college and OUS presidents. Levine
indicated that he had taken the Chancellor’s proposal to the most recent
meeting of the community college Presidents Council and that group was in favor
of keeping presidential representation on the JBAC. While acknowledging that
presidential schedules are often quite complicated, the community college
presidents suggested that having the JBAC operate on a modified schedule, with
fewer face-to-face meetings, might be more accommodating in terms of having
presidents attend scheduled meetings. Another proposal considered by the
community college presidents was to replace presidential representatives with
the OUS Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Commissioner of Community
College and Workforce Development. The presidents wanted to preserve the
stature of the group, as originally constituted, and feared, that without
presidential representation, some issues would not get resolved.
JBAC
members expressed support for presidential representation as well, stating that
having presidents represented lends status when important issues arise. Arnold
elaborated on the Chancellor’s proposal, indicating that recruiting a
representative from the OUS pool of seven presidents can be quite problematic given
their range of responsibilities and competing priorities. Additionally, Arnold
noted that OUS presidents do not take JBAC issues to the Presidents Council;
within OUS, the JBAC issues that need to be discussed are typically handled by
the Academic Council.
One
member noted that, perhaps, we have gotten to the point of this proposal “as a
result of our successes.” While the work of the JBAC may have been seen as a
priority in the group’s early days, the same urgency of this work is not felt
today because intersector cooperation is so commonplace. Further, it is
difficult to get presidents to show up for what may be considered by them as
“peripheral issues.”
In
addressing the scheduling issue, Levine suggested that the JBAC keep the
previously scheduled dates of January 16, 2002, and April 17, 2002, as the
dates for this year’s in-person meetings. Meetings held in between these dates
could be handled by conference call.
Elaine
Yandle-Roth volunteered to report on this discussion to the Commissioner, who will
then respond to the Chancellor’s proposal. Liz Goulard will take the proposal
regarding the operating guidelines to the Council of Instructional
Administrators for discussion.
4. JBAC Annual
Report, 2000-2001: Joint Boards Working Group Meeting of September 21, 2001
Levine
reported that the annual report of the JBAC’s work was delivered to the Joint
Boards Working Group in Salem on September 21, 2001. The report was
enthusiastically received and Board members appeared very positive about the
JBAC’s progress. One question that arose during the brief discussion was
whether or not legislators were aware of all the intersector cooperation and
collaboration that occurs. While the JBAC has made reports and documents
available to legislators, it is always helpful to remind them of our work.
Members suggested that perhaps the JBAC could mail copies of our recent annual
reports to legislators?
5. Student
Transfer Committee Report
Phillips
reported on the most recent
meeting of the Student Transfer Committee (STC), held September 28, 2001,
at OIT Metro. It was a productive meeting with excellent attendance by
committee members. The first topic covered was the proposed modifications to
the AA/OT degree. Since the proposal was first made by the STC last spring,
many groups were consulted, including the Council of Instructional
Administrators, the Academic Council, and the Oregon Writing and English
Advisory Committee (OWEAC). Some concerns were expressed, the most serious of
which were offered by OWEAC about the writing requirement in the proposal. As a
result of the feedback received from all constituencies, the STC re-wrote the proposal for AA/OT modifications
which will be presented to the joint meeting of the community college and OUS
chief academic officers on November 14, 2001.
The
STC also considered the proposed AS/OT in Business that was written last spring
and similarly distributed for feedback from various groups. Suggestions for a
new proposal were developed and are available in the meeting notes of the September 28th
meeting. This proposal needs to be discussed fully by the chairs of the
Business departments, although (reported Yandle-Roth) their next
regularly-scheduled meeting is not now until next spring.
JBAC
members expressed a desire to pave the way for the Business chairs discussion.
Can we alert them by email to the proposal? Can we develop a “background piece”
to introduce the proposal to outside constituencies? It would be very helpful
to get business department feedback before the next STC meeting, which is
scheduled for March, 1, 2002.
Suggestions
for the “background piece” for the AS/OT in Business included:
Arnold
agreed to draft a background/introduction
narrative for the AS/OT proposal.
The
STC also considered other possible AS/OT degrees in additional disciplinary
areas, including, for example, engineering and computer science. Yandle-Roth is
going to check in with the computer science chairs to get on the agenda for
their next meeting in order to gauge their receptivity to such a proposal in
their field. It was agreed that the proposed AS/OT in Business is the highest
priority since it could potentially affect more students.
6. OUS
Implementation of Transfer Policies
Arnold
reported that OUS has recently begun implementation of two new policies related
to the transfer function. A letter dated September 28, 2001, from Shirley
Clark, OUS Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, to the OUS Provosts announced
the policies, which included (1) adoption of the credit for prior
learning recommendations, as developed by the JBAC over the period
1998-2001 and ultimately approved by the community college Council of
Instructional Administrators and the OUS Academic Council; and (2) a revision of
the credit transfer limitation. This latter change “endorses a policy that
allows [students transferring into] Oregon University System (OUS) institutions
to transfer up to 124 lower-division credits from Oregon community colleges
when those credits contribute appropriately to a baccalaureate degree program.
(The increase of transfer credits from 108 to 124 is intended to allow students
maximum benefit from credits earned in a community college; however, the policy
does not alter institutional requirements for either upper-division or
graduation and in individual cases may increase the total number of credits
required for a student to graduate.)”
With
regard to the credit for prior learning policy, it is the OUS position that
once the appropriate parties had signed off on the recommendations from the
JBAC, OUS would go ahead and implement those recommendations. Approval of the
Joint Boards was not required. With regard to the transfer credit limitation,
the language is permissive, not directive, and does provide for more
institutional flexibility in this area than does the prior policy in place
since the early 1970s.
7. Residency
Rule Differences and Implications
Arnold
described for the group the dimensions, and implications for students, of the
residency policy differences for the community colleges and OUS. This is an
issue brought to prominence at the JBAC level in 1998 by the report of the Student Service Action
Team. Many of the residency appeal cases heard by the OUS
Interinstitutional Residency Committee are from students who transfer to OUS
from an Oregon community college and find themselves non-residents of Oregon
for tuition purposes at their new OUS campus. Arnold is going to discuss this
issue at the next joint meeting of the Academic Council and the Council of
Instructional Administrators (CIA) on November 14th. Goulard
suggested that this be a discussion item for the next joint meeting of the CIA
and the Chief Student Services Administrators (CSSA), scheduled for February
2002. Little seems possible in terms of JBAC action, but at the very least,
this remains a huge advising issue among the postsecondary sectors and impacts
many transfer students annually.
8. JBAC
Workplan for 2001-2002
Arnold
explained the evolution of the JBAC workplan, including the information that an
annual plan is typically develop by the JBAC to guide work for the coming year.
Last year’s draft workplan was distributed to use a starting point for this
year’s discussion and work. Each point from last year’s plan was examined, and
either kept, revised, or eliminated from the plan entirely. The new, revised workplan for 2001-2002
is now available at the JBAC website.
9. The 2001
Articulation and Transfer Conference
Arnold
drew members’ attention to the draft agenda for the 2001 Articulation and Transfer
Conference, to be held December 7th at Chemeketa Community
College. This event is greatly expanded (now including 18 concurrent sessions)
over previous year’s events in order to accommodate the year-to-year increasing
interest in this conference. All JBAC members are especially invited to attend.
10.
Adjournment and Meeting Dates
The
meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
The
JBAC schedule for the year will remain as:
December 12,
2001 (Conference call 10:00-12:00)
January 16,
2002 (Chemeketa Community College 10:00-2:00)**
February 13,
2002 (Conference call 10:00-12:00)
March 13, 2002
(Conference call 10:00-12:00)
April 17, 2002
(Chemeketa Community College 10:00-2:00)**
May 15, 2002
(Conference call 10:00-12:00)
June 12, 2002
(Conference call 10:00-12:00)
**denotes
in-person meetings at Chemeketa Community College
Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
November 7, 2001
http://www.ous.edu/aca/11-1-01.htm