INTEGRATED PLANNING MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
MAY 2, 2003 11:00 a.m. - 12:35 p.m. BOARD ROOM
FACILITATOR: DR. TOM MILLER

In Attendance: David Bell, Fay Freeman, Doug Hannaman, Jeffrey Holmes, Tom Miller, Joe Pendleton, Bill Porter, Marc Skuster, Caroll Yule

1. Approval of Highlights of April 4 meeting: The highlights were approved.

2. Discussion of the Draft of the College Mission Statement Revision - Tom Miller said that plans are underway to finalize the revised mission statement. Members of the Foundation and Board of Trustees were invited to attend today to submit their ideas and Dr. Spencer may be able to drop by as well. A handout distributed had the current mission statement on one side and the revised statement on the other side. On the revised statement, proposed changes/additions are shown in italics. Tom said we would look at each of the points on the statement along with the input that was submitted and incorporated into the statement. Marc Skuster has been heading the subgroup that worked on the mission statement and any adjustments to it. Marc directed our attention to the criteria for the revised statement, adding that the requirements that seemed reasonable were listed. Marc pointed out that the two crucial items to consider are what the Ed Code and the First Accreditation Standard call for. Another handout had a summary and an excerpt from the Ed Code that addresses the mission statement and lists functions and missions. Marc said that the first accreditation standard refers to the content of the statement and says that we should identify our student population, that the statement should be appropriate to the student population, that there be a regular process for review of the statement, that the statement actually be used and that we work our goals through the statement. Marc said it is important that the statement reflect the content of the Ed Code and measure up to the First Accreditation Standard. Tom pointed out the differences between the existing and proposed statements. Bill Porter said that the college and the community have an interdependent relationship and while the statement looks good, it is short of the total integration he would like to see between the college and the community. Tom discussed the handout that listed the comments on the statement received through campus email. Comments dealt with the statement addressing cultural activities, the phrase "lower division college level" and the singling out of one segment of curriculum.

Item One
On the first item, it was said that the words on lower division are in the Ed Code but there are classes that are related to the community and that the training or vocational instruction is actually on a specialized level. It was suggested that the item read "to enable students to succeed and development competency." Marc said there are restrictions to the student population we serve. Tom Miller said the statement is restrictive and reflects the nature of the Ed Code. References to ESL and Basic skills were said to also be in the Ed Code. Community Colleges are allowed to offer upper division courses if they are working with an accredited or private college, a move that has just started going through the legislative process.

Item Two
Caroll Yule commented that language in item 2 could be clarified and that the phrases "personal enrichment" and "economic growth" should be separate items. Caroll preferred the focus be on how well VVC relates to the community with automotive, basic skills, fire department training and certificate programs. David Bell suggested that the statement be expanded so as to not limit innovation and creativity; the challenge he said is to balance this with the Ed Code. Marc thought item two should include ". . . vocational and technical instruction leading to employment." Caroll said the college has responded well to community needs and the statement should speak to how VVC addresses the workforce needs of new companies. Tom Miller suggested that "responding to community employment needs" be added. After some discussion, the phrase will be "To contribute to community and state-wide economic growth . . ." with personal enrichment moved to the third item.

Item Three
On the third item, the phrase "personal enrichment" was added and there was discussion that the word student could be removed. David suggested that the word "diverse" or "diverse needs" could be added to the third item or another bullet item could be added to the goals section regarding accommodation. There was also discussion on use of the word global in this item of the statement. Fay Freeman suggested that "the learning community" was a less awkward choice of words and would incorporate the idea of the local, regional and global community or the internal and external community; she added that there will be requirements that go with using the term "learning organization." . Fay said that the statements from other colleges had been looked at and that VVC is in the business to educate students. David said it's important to indicate that VVC won't offer bachelor's degrees. Marc suggested that the wording should be "culturally enriching," that personal enrichment be changed to "personal development" and the word "our" (students) be changed to "the" (students). Marc suggested the local, regional and global statement be changed to "the community," "the expanding learning community" or "the global learning community." It was decided that the phrase will read as follows: "To foster personal enrichment and life-long learning through culturally enriching programs/activities for the expanding learning community."

The bulleted goal items of the statement will be sent to the College Assembly for discussion. Changes made to this section include: 1) The word verified will be left in the student learning success item, 2) collegiality will be changed to collaboration, 3) allocation will be changed to allocating and 4) accommodation of diversity will become a separate bullet item; it was asked what the equality of access refers to and David suggested that wording be added to indicate equality of access for those who will benefit from our instruction. Jeffrey Holmes said that adding the phrasing on those who benefit would introduce another program to ensure meeting that requirement; Tom added that that language has a legal connotation. Jeffrey thought it should give the student the ability to benefit but he suggested that the word be removed. Tom submitted it should say "equality of access for those who are qualified" because students have to pass assessment and meet other requirements -we are not an open access institution. Jeffrey said we should consider the bottom line of what we're trying to accomplish as well as the legal aspects of the wording. Marc said there was a theme of diversity in previous versions of the ed master plan and that programs and services accommodate a diverse population. Jeffrey said it could say embracing diversity or recognizing diversity.

3. Report on Bond feasibility planning update

4. Tech plan update

5. Student Outcomes update

6. Sub group tasks working information

7. Next Meeting: