Joint Boards Articulation Commission

Meeting Summary Notes
March 14, 2001
OIT Metro
Portland, Oregon

Members Present

Phil Creighton, Chair, Eastern Oregon University (via phone)
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Adrienne Hill, Southern Oregon University
Sheldon Nord, Oregon Institute of Technology
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Mary Kathryn Tetreault, Portland State University
Mark Wahlers, Concordia University (via phone)
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development


Phil Creighton called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m. and Sheldon Nord facilitated the remainder of the meeting.

1. Announcements

Jim Arnold reviewed the upcoming (June 2001) expiration dates for terms of six current JBAC members. Arnold and Yandle-Roth will be working with the Chief Executives of their agencies to appoint the membership for the upcoming year. If any current members have suggestions for new members, please contact Arnold or Yandle-Roth as soon as possible.

The suggestion was made to attempt to arrange some of the JBAC meetings over video-conferencing capabilities now available in many locations. Yandle-Roth will explore how that might be accomplished and try to set that up for as early as the April 2001 meeting. Members will be notified if the meeting will be conducted in this manner.

2. Minutes of the February 14, 2001, Meeting

The minutes of the February 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Credit for Prior Learning Recommendations: Academic Council Report

Tetreault reported that the latest JBAC language for the Credit for Prior Learning recommendations was accepted by the OUS provosts at the February Academic Council meeting.

Arnold will see that this item appears as an action item on the agenda for the Joint Boards meeting scheduled for May. After Joint Boards approval, letters will be sent to institutional presidents on behalf of the JBAC and the Joint Boards to inform them of this action. Other campus staff close to the implementation of the Credit for Prior Learning recommendations will also be copied on this letter.

Yandle-Roth (working with Marylee King of Marylhurst University) will provide an updated version of the Credit for Prior Learning report, including the new language for recommendations, in time for the Joint Boards meeting.

4. Student Transfer Committee Report

Dave Phillips indicated that the most recent meeting (February 22, 2001, at OIT Metro) of the Student Transfer Committee (STC) was very successful and well-attended. He reported on the major topics under discussion at that meeting, specifically (1) the consideration of an Associate of Science transfer degree, (2) modifications to the current Associate of Arts transfer degree, and (3) the possibility of including WR214 Business Communications (from LBCC) in the current transfer degree.

An Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer (AS/OT) Degree in Business?

Phillips stated that the first charge for the STC was to consider the appropriateness of an Associate of Science/Oregon Transfer (AS/OT) degree in Business. Business was the field most commonly identified (by participants at the December 2000 OUS-community college conference) as having a need for such a degree. The initial part of the STC discussion focused on the updated table of general education requirements for OUS institutions and a comparison chart of lower-division requirements/recommendations for business degree programs. The STC looked at "what is in common?" among the institutional requirements. The STC also had available a variety of additional documents from other states that had associate's and/or transfer degrees in Business.

Phillips emphasized that in conducting this examination and discussion, the STC was in no way attempting to substitute its judgment for Business programs and/or faculty.

The STC spent a good deal of time developing a model for such a degree in order to initiate and stimulate further discussion. The general education requirements for this proposed version are different from, but parallel to, the current AA/OT degree requirements.

Specifically, the degree model proposed by STC includes the following general education and business-specific components:



General Education Components


Writing (121, Composition; BA214, Business Writing)




Math (111, Algebra; 241, Calculus; 245 Math for Management, Social Science)


Social Sciences (ECON201, 202, plus one additional social science course)


Arts & Letters (4 courses with no more than 3 from the same prefix)


Physical Science (3 laboratory science courses)


General Education Credit Subtotal


Business-Specific Components


101, Intro to Business


211, 213, Financial, Managerial Accounting


131, Business Data Processing


230, Business Law (or other business elective)


Business Credit Subtotal


Degree Credit Total




Phillips indicated that if this proposal looks reasonable, then it should be turned over to the Business programs of OUS and the community colleges to discuss. Apparently the community colleges have in place a statewide group of Business faculty who meet on a regular basis.

Yandle-Roth stressed that the State Board of Education would have to be included in this discussion at an early point since, at present, they do not allow AS degrees to have any specific designations attached to them. However, approached as a "statewide degree," the Board may be receptive.

It was the plan of the STC to first consider the possibility of a Business transfer degree, then to move on to other areas.

The JBAC recommended that Phillips take this proposed degree outline to the Council of Instructional Administrators at their May 2001 meeting and that Tetreault take it to the Academic Council meeting the same month. If the chief academic officers are receptive to the general concept and to the specific proposal, then the Business faculty should be invited to participate in the discussion regarding the possibility of developing this degree.

Should We Modify the Existing AA/OT?

The question of whether or not to modify the current version of the AA/OT was precipitated by the migration of many courses from three to four credits. The general and distribution requirements in the AA/OT are based on a three-credit course assumption.

The STC discussed what modifications might better accommodate the current credit situation and the following was proposed:

Current AA/OT Credit Requirements


Proposed AA/OT Credit and Course Requirements



8-9 credits



4 credits



3 credits


Arts & Letters

2-4 courses (from at least two disciplines), 10-12 credits


Social Sciences

3-5 courses (from at least two disciplines), 15-16 credits


Science/Math/Computer Science

15 credits minimum, including 3 lab courses. An approved computer science course must be included if the 3 lab science courses add to less than 15 credits

A "bold-stikethrough" version of the current AA/OT requirements is available online at After some discussion, some modifications to this version of the proposed degree were proposed, namely that the list of appropriate writing courses continue to be included.

This proposal should also be reviewed by the CIA and Academic Council at the May meetings.

This proposal attempts to speak to what to do about credit changes, but does NOT address competencies. In terms of alignment with PASS, this degree is not necessarily a good fit. Perhaps we need two models for an AA/OT now? One that addresses credit requirements, one that speaks to competencies? The STC will take up the issue of AA/OT proficiencies at their May 4th meeting.

Include WR214 in the AA/OT?

This inquiry comes to the JBAC and STC by way of Linn-Benton Community College. They have a proposal that describes their WR214 Business Communications course as a hybrid of WR122 and WR123 and advocates for the inclusion of this course in LBCC's AA/OT degree. The proposal was considered by STC, but the members wanted to know more. The group charged Jim Arnold to draft a letter to the Oregon English and Writing Advisory Committee on behalf of STC/JBAC in order to clarify some issues about this course. Arnold's draft was distributed for approval and was subsequently given the go-ahead to send this letter to OWEAC on behalf of the JBAC.

At a future date, Arnold will report back to JBAC on the response from OWEAC.

5. JBAC Workplan

Arnold indicated that Rick Levine will soon convene his small group regarding item #8 of the JBAC workplan. No other groups made reports.

In response to a question by Nord, Creighton indicated that reports from committees to the full JBAC would be appropriate. Closure on several of these issues is sought.

6. Update on Expanded Options

Yandle-Roth indicated that the small ad hoc group convened by Sen. Gordly continues to meet, with the most recent meeting last Friday (March 9). Another meeting is scheduled for this Friday (March 16). Among the concerns/issues addressed by this work group are whether or not program services would be available to the high school dropout population and if remedial/developmental courses would be included. The present status of the discussions include a "cap" on the number of credit hours available to students per high school and a "sunset" on that portion of the proposed law. Negotiations are continuing. Hearings are now scheduled for March 27, 3:00 p.m. on what is now SB 783.

7. Adjournment and Next Meeting

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Wednesday, April 18, 2001
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Chemeketa Community College
Building 2, Board Room



Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
March 20, 2001