Academic Senate


Student Learning


Board Policy

Basic Skills

Flex Day



President's Notes


May 1, 2014


College Council (met April 22)

Endorsed three Board Policies previously reviewed/revised by the Academic Senate in 2013: College Catalog, Pre-Reqs and Co-Reqs, and Philosophy and Criteria for Associate Degree and General Education.


Unanimously endorsed the Accreditation resolution and the Response to the Proposed Accreditation Standards


Continued work on Institutional Goals.


The Institutional Goals are still in a brainstorming "pre-draft" form, but summarized here, in an email from Diane Boynton:

Even with an awkward process, I believe we had a substantive conversation. My notes (after a tad bit of clean-up) are as follows:

1.       Improve (or do something about!) student achievement rates. (Need to define achievement). Such a goal relates to proposed mission, SB 1456, accreditation standards.  Perhaps focus on improving:

·         Course completion rates

·         Persistence

·         Transfer rates

·         Completion rates relevant to courses, certificates, degrees


2.       Establish and maintain sustainable, strategic administrative policies, procedures, and functions that promote a stable future for the college.

·         Develop and maintain fiscal stability.

·         Pursue opportunities to increase resources.

·         Update Board policies and administrative procedures.

·         Purchase and implement an integrated planning system (ERP).

·         Create and implement a marketing plan.


3.       Address the needs of the college’s diverse populations.

·         Manage growth of Marina and Seaside.

·         Use demographics (economic scan) to develop or adapt programs and services relevant to the current and future diverse populations.

·         Provide information materials in Spanish.

·         Develop programs to address job needs.

·         Adjust/adapt life-long learning relevant to the new funding model. (Meet needs of life-long learners [need to DEFINE] in light of regulatory changes.)


Add to Values:  Promote academic excellence and student services.


As we discussed, these “goals” reflect our brainstorming. Let’s continue to review relevant documents to see if such goals would be most beneficial to the college and our students. If you have other ideas to add to the mix, please share at our next meeting. Also, we need to begin to wordsmith the goals and clarify the objectives, so continue to work!



Board of Trustees

On April 23, the Board of Trustees heard and responded favorably to the recommended response to the draft ACCJC standards (about faculty evaluations), and to the resolution expressing concern about relationships and calling for the ACCJC to act in a transparent and public manner.


Since these items were not agendized for the April 23 meeting, they decided to agendize these items for the special meeting on April 30.


Comment on Standard IIIA6

The Board of Trustees enthusiastically endorsed the comment on the standards.


The comment on the draft ACCJC standard IIIA6 was sent in to the ACCJC from my email with both my and Walt's name. I received the following email email thanking Walt for his contribution:


April 30, 2014


Walter Tribley


Monterey Peninsula College


Dear President Tribley:


We have received the input you sent to the ACCJC on the Accreditation Standards and practices currently being considered for revision.
Thank you for your interest in accreditation and in ensuring academic quality through accreditation practices.


The Commission’s Standard Review Committee will be periodically reviewing the input received from December 2013 through
April 30, 2014 as it prepares the draft revised Standards for the June 4-6, 2014 Commission meeting.




Tom Lane


Tom Lane

Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges

10 Commercial Blvd Ste 204

Novato, CA 94949

Tel:     415-506-0234

Fax:    415-506-0238




The ACCJC Resolution

The Board of Trustees were supportive of the resolution, but decided that a few of the phrases needed a bit of tweaking. Loren Steck volunteered to undertake the tweaking and return something to us by Friday May 2. My perspective is that small tweaks should not change the intent of the resolution and we should be able to send it along after this process. Is this how should approach this issue?


Main issue was the phrase about the ACCJC "offering adequate resources" to CCSF to address their recommendations (this is not the role or responsibility of the ACCJC).

Another issue was the tone of the resolution. Loren Steck thought the tone was "too much vinegar and not enough sugar". This perspective was not shared by the rest of the board.




Because there were five Wednesdays in April, AAAG has not met since our last meeting.


Tech Plan


Mike Midkiff is revising the Tech Plan and will bring it back with revisions.


From: Michael Midkiff
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:12 AM
To: Technology Committee
Cc: Alfred Hochstaedter
Subject: FW: Technology Plan - Academic Senate Feedback


Technology Committee,


Yesterday, I had a very fruitful meeting with Fred Hochstaedter providing feedback from the April 17th Tech Plan presentation at Academic Senate. 


Here is a summary of my notes from that meeting:


1.       The plan, as written, puts too much emphasis on IT Staffing needs. The emphasis should be “front loaded” on the technology needs for MPC with the IT staffing presented as a way to address those needs. Recommend not removing, but deemphasizing IT Staffing in the Tech Plan.

The plan needs to focus on needs and outcomes to Students, Instruction and Other institutional needs

2.       It was not clear in the Plan that DE support using Moodle was under Academic Affairs, not I.T.

3.       The plan needed to show evidence of Data Informed decision making – Suggested Appendix’s with Survey Results

4.       The centralization of Lab Technicians should not be presented as something we are going to do; rather as a feasibility to work towards the most efficient and effective use of MPC’s technical support resources.

5.       Change centralized printing to research more efficient methods to address campus printing needs

6.       You would like to see Tech Committee endorse the plan through a vote or other means.



The overall tone of the meeting was very upbeat and positive.  I found Fred’s feedback to be very reasonable and encouraging.  The Tech Plan Sub-Committee will be meeting next week and we will be bringing the latest version of the plan to Tech Committee for review.



Michael Midkiff

Director, I.S. / CISO

Monterey Peninsula College

CISOA Board Member