Executive Committee Meeting AGENDA              go to minutes

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

8:15-9:45am, KaLama 102


1.                  Continuation of Instructional Program Review

a.       Data and Resource Implications (Reorg Requirements/savings?)

b.      Program and Position Vacancy Priorities

c.       Annual Program Health Indicators



2.                   President and EVP Meeting: RCUH-HGEA negotiation; Second Decade, Financial and Management Audits by State Auditor:

3.                   International and Domestic Recruitment Progress, Admissions followup, daily purges; version adoption options,.KAOI Ads

4.                  Summer and Fall Session Enrollments and Revenues, Lahaina Ed Ctr Status

5.                   Title III Award,

6.                   Reorganization Status

7.                   IP; July 12 Student Housing Groundbreaking, student center renovation, Science Bldg PDR and Design Funding; RFP for Okada Trucking/Cutter parcel access Criteria

8.                   First Day Back: Reorg, Four Year (BSW, University Center Annual Admissons)

9.         WASC Comprehensive Self Study

9.                  China Developments (Shanghai Culinary) budget draft proposals

10.              Grants: Title III, RDP

11.              MCC Foundation Updates: Newsletter draft; Alumni Dinner allocations/distribution of funds

12.              Akaku Status

13.              Other Items



Wednesday, July 13, 2005

8:15 a.m., Ka Lama 102


Present:        Kate Acks, Pam Hoopii, Robyn Klein, Diane Meyer, Jeannie Pezzoli, Suzette Robinson, Clyde Sakamoto, Frances Segundo, Alvin Tagomori, David Tamanaha, flo wiger, Jennifer Yoshioka.


Continuation of Instructional Program Review

         Still in process of working through reorg proposal.

         Savings of around $35,000-$40,000

         Involved personnel moving from 11 to 9 month and re-assigned time

         (Handout) Worked with Debbie Brown on identifying and listing of Instructional positions

         Four positions are in processing of being filled (Physics, English, Auto, Nursing)

         Positions filled by people on a temporary basis are included on list.

         Incuments in temporary positions can continue on a yearly basis. At the end of seven years, they need to be converted into permanent positions. Incumbent can automatically go into the position w/o a search being done. If incumbent does not want to take the permanent position, then a search will be conducted.

         Collective Bargaining Agreement states that if we maintain those positions with people in them for seven years, that they get converted into permanent positions, and the search is not necessary.

         The remedial positions are filled & funding is available.

         We will not approve the budget for the campus until we have a spreadsheet for all of the positions.


Program Review:

         Instructive in terms of setting the context. Talks about where our students are enrolled.

         Liberal Arts majors, numbers increased from 494 in 1986 to 1,195 in 2004.

         The Liberal Arts major is now a larger contributor to overall head count, however, it is not a majority.

         Unclassified is a fairly high percentage. Important because it begins to impact academic programs, how we are responding to groups of people or students.

         One part of the discussion is how the counselors are dealing with this

         Another part has to do with data and the fact that students at a certain point decide that they are classified. Unless they engage with a counselor, or they are talking to a person in their program.

         Part of the discussion is taking place at the System Level when looking at the whole program review process. Is there a way that we can insure, in banner, that when students enroll online something triggers the question, “You are classified as unclassified, Do you want to change that? To what?” The problem is it does not engage the student with a counselor or a faculty member.         

The annual Program Review analysis:   

         The Deans’ criteria are “what are the pieces that we have in our Program Review in looking at forwardness?”

         At this point these are the ones that we got the most information on and are the most relevant:

         Centrality to the Mission of the Institution: Does the program meet with the Institutional needs? The Department of Labor Employment Outlet provides the data on workforce demands (jobs available on Maui and in Hawaii).

         Major Field Enrollment: Based on data extracted from man reports. Actual enrollment, commencement rolls.

         Graduation Rate: Number of graduates divided by the number of majors.

         Placement in Employment: Job placement.

         Plan of Action: How has the program addressed previous plans and is there an appropriate plan for 2005-2006?

         Allocation of Resources: Based on the data contained in the program reviews, flexibility and response, community needs, will additional resources make a difference? Does the program demonstrate a culture of student centered learning and the evaluation of the additional resources? If they are placed in the program.

         Data Concerns: Fairly critical when looking at program review. We don’t always have access to the needed information, or it may not be received in a timely manner. Inaccurate coding of majors in banner is a real problem. The caution when it comes to dealing with small numbers, depending on how many students you’re talking about, one person graduating can change the graduation rate.


Program Review for Administration of Justice:

         There is no program coordinator. 17 people identified as majors.

         AJ classes, is at 72% meaning it’s the actual enrollment with maximum enrollment. It’s how many seats and what is the actual fit in that class.

         Graduation rate is 29%, placement and employment, in related field, is 100%.

         Need to look at how much we spend on AJ and Soc. and see if there is a potential way of creating a temporary position.

         To look at a group of students in terms of these criteria, need to look at them as a cohort.

         Need to track cohort all the way through the process which we don’t do. So we are looking at raw data.

         If we track a cohort, it would provide a clearer picture of what the students are doing.

         “Our students don’t leave, they weave.” They weave in and out; they come and take classes, and come back again.

         We have a data collection problem/challenge.

         Need to indentify the possibility of passing out the leaver survery along w/graduation survery during graduation. 

         Cohort is part of IPEDs data. Based upon first time/full time degree seekers. Indicated they are pursuing a major. Did student graduate/ receive certificate? If student did not graduate, did they transfer out? Much larger part-time than full-time.


Program Review for Agriculture Program:

         Plan of Action: Normally one of two tracks, or both tracks, if the program is large enough.

         One track is scientifically oriented, comprise track so students can take the appropriate courses and transfer to a four-year baccalaureate.

         Second track is skills oriented. A certain amount of science but skills oriented in landscape management. Challenge is trying to accommodate a very small program.

         Sustainable Living Institute of Maui, Maui Community College will be working with Earth University, we’ll be bringing in faculty from all over the world who are going to be doing things with us, and we’ll have interns engage in this process. Issues from the scientific formality may be addressed because of this.    

         Agriculture is a serious proposition for us. We need to figure out what our agenda is and how to make a difference.


Program Review for Auto Body Repair:

         Decline in full time students and graduation because of Math, an issue for students in technical programs.

         Another issue is the development of skills, as soon as students have a level of skill; they are hired without a degree

         Suzette & flo asked to look at a greater collaboration between credit and non-credit.

         students want to work on their vehicles so they enroll in the program.