Joint Boards Articulation Commission


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