Community College Planning Task Force Minutes

Task Force Meeting Information

July 24 and 25, 2008

University of Wyoming Outreach Building, Casper, Wyoming

Task Force Members Present

Senator Henry H.R. “Hank” Coe, Co-Chairman

Representative Del McOmie, Co-Chairman

Senator Rae Lynn Job

Senator Michael Von Flatern

Representative Pete Jorgensen

Representative Lorraine Quarberg

Jerry Austin, Wamsutter, Representing Oil and Gas

Mary Behrens, Casper, Representing Health Care

Lynn Birleffi, Cheyenne, Representing Travel, Tourism & Recreation

Glenn Dalton, Rock Springs, Representing Community Colleges-Vocational Programs

Joan K. Evans, Cheyenne, Representing Workforce Services

Steve L. Johnson, Sheridan, Representing Mining

Tom Kinnison, Sheridan, Representing Small Business Community

Bryan Pedersen, Cheyenne, Representing Public-At-Large

David R. Reetz, Powell, Representing Community Colleges-Academic Programs

Other Legislators Present

Senator John Schiffer

Legislative Service Office Staff

Dave Nelson, School Finance Manager, Brenda Long, School Finance Analyst

Matthew Sackett, Research Analyst, Josh Anderson, Staff Attorney

Others Present at Meeting

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Community College Planning Task Force met for two days in Casper Wyoming. The Task Force considered a series of recommendations made by the Wyoming Community College Commission. The Task Force requested staff to prepare additional information for their next meeting August 25 and 26 in Riverton.

Call To Order (July 24, 2008)

Co-Chairman Coe called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

Approval of Minutes

Senator Job moved that the task force approve the minutes of the May 8-9, 2008 meeting and the June 16 meeting, the motion was seconded and passed.

Wyoming Community College Commission Recommendations

Mr. Dave Nelson of the legislative service office provided the Task Force with a copy of the response of the Wyoming Nurses Association to the Community College Commission Survey. See Appendix 3 for a copy of the handout.

Ms. Ann Chambers Noble of the Wyoming Community College Commission provided a handout to the task force of their recommendations and discussion points for the funding model (see Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 for a copy of the handouts.) Ms. Noble noted that the Commission spent an extra half day to hear from all of the college presidents about their concerns and recommendations. Ms. Noble noted that the Commission identified 30 stakeholders who have a vested interest in the community college system and sent out questionnaires. Ms. Noble stated that the commissioners reviewed the issues and held an additional retreat to deal with recommendations. Ms. Noble noted that items 1 through 9 in the handout are listed in priority and that the commission unanimously approved the recommendations.

Dr. Jim Rose of the Wyoming Community College Commission stated that traditionally the funding model was a 2 part instrument where the Commission would determine the magnitude of the request and then determine the distribution of those funds. Dr. Rose stated that recommendation of the Commission was that it be structured similar to other agencies, be built upon prior year funding as appropriated by the legislature and that it consist of a standard budget request where anything outside of the standard budget comes in the form of an exception budget request . Dr. Rose stated that there would be ongoing funding solely determined by what the legislature determines and that the funding could tie directly to the strategic plan. Dr. Rose noted that under the old process the new expenditure would be rolled into the budget but under the recommendation the new expenditure would instead be outside the standard budget under the exception process. Dr. Rose noted that the separation of the budget pieces would allow the Commission to tie the budget to the strategic plan.

Dr. Rose noted that as the process exists now there are 21 levels of instruction across the state for the purpose of computing costs per FTE: 3 per college among seven colleges. He stated that under the recommendations of the Commission that would be compressed to just 3 levels of instruction system wide. He stated that colleges which grow FTE would have opportunities to collect additional revenues while the 3 year rolling average would help protect colleges with FTE decreases. Dr. Rose noted that increases would be addressed in the biennial budget request and that the Commission would recommend a hold harmless provision which would sunset after three years. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the current formula does not have a direct tie to growth although it is in the formula. He noted that the recommendation would be a departure from expenditure based funding and that augmentations to funding would be achieved by growth and there would be consequences for declines in enrollment.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that the recommendations would allow for funding beyond a base level and that additions to the base budget would be through the exception process and approved item by item. Dr. Rose stated that under the current structure each college has its own cost per credit and that the Commission would instead propose a cost system wide based on the current average cost among the colleges as an open the door cost. He noted that under the current system there is about a 30% difference between the colleges and that such a difference was probably not appropriate if the colleges are part of a statewide system.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the standard budget request under the recommendations would be the same as requested this biennium. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that fixed costs could vary among the colleges under the recommendations and that after those costs are factored out, the cost of instruction should not be vastly different from one college to another.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the statewide strategic plan must be completed this biennium and the questionnaire was the first part of the process. In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that under the recommendation if a college grows it will be rewarded but noted that generation of credit is not a true picture of efficacy of the institution.

Dr. Rose noted that this is a process and that it was important to take time in developing these requests. Dr. Rose stated that item 9 of the proposal would allow the Commission to allocate resources where the potential exists for serving the state and stated that the Commission may need to direct resources to specific schools, rather than proportionally to all schools.

Ms. Noble noted that due to concerns about the change to the new funding model, the Commission would recommend a hold harmless provision which would be phased out over three years. Ms. Noble noted that the Commission wanted to make sure that it could recognize and support centers of excellence that have been developed locally at the colleges. The Task force received a handout of the 2009-10 revenues distributed to the colleges. See Appendix 6 for a copy of the handout.

In response to a question, Ms. Noble noted that the Commission was frustrated with not knowing what should come first related to the strategic plan but stated that the Commission has begun work and has a plan of action. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the Commission has not gotten to a point yet to determine what it would need from an external consultant but noted that the Commission does intend to ask for some external assistance. Dr. Rose noted that the Commission's work is concurrent with the work of Task Force and noted that the Commission will likely not be able to complete the statewide strategic plan before Task Force completes its work.

Dr. Rose noted that under the recommendation credit courses are the measure of how to get funding and a certificate is a number of credits. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that there is no incentive in the funding to encourage a student to complete a degree but rather the incentive is to have students complete credit classes.

Ms. Noble stated that the Commission would like some direction from the Task Force on what should be the statewide priorities. She noted that the Commission did not even start to meet on the strategic plan until it had heard from all the colleges and that the Commission was interested in each college’s strategic plan and master plan.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that under the recommended change, when they make an exception request to the standard budget the Commission would not try to dictate specific methodology to the colleges and that the Commission would rely on the colleges to achieve improvements with that revenue which would be given to the colleges with a goal in mind. He stated that the money would essentially be given as a block grant with performance expectations.

Task Force member Tom Kinnison noted that each college has a strategic plan and asked the Commission to work with staff to prepare a matrix of the colleges' plans.

Ms. Noble stated that priority 1 of their recommendations was to establish the standing of the colleges within the Constitution. She noted that without a constitutional provision there was some confusion on whether the colleges should be funded. She noted that the k-12 system and the university are in the constitution and if they were all in the constitution it would assist with articulation agreements among the different systems and could help address many of the other problems. In response to a question, Ms. Noble stated that it would enable the colleges to be recognized on a state level rather than as a community issue. Dr. Rose noted that the issue is whether the state should fund community college capital construction since there is not a constitutional obligation and that this recommendation would clarify that issue.

Ms. Noble stated that priority 2 was to change how the one-mill levy is treated. Ms. Noble noted that all of the recommendations are somewhat connected. Ms. Noble noted that the issue being addressed is whether the local funding is being addressed fairly and whether each Community college is paying its fair share. In response to a question, Ms. Nobel noted that to some extent the disparity does hamper the ability of less wealthy schools to offer certain classes because they are working with less money. Dr. Rose noted that it is only the 1 mill that is the problem, the 4 mills are redistributed among the colleges but the inequity is with the 1 mill levy and he noted that the disparity does impact access.

Ms. Noble noted that priority 3 was to establish the state’s roll in capital construction. She noted that the most contentious meeting of the Commission is when they determine the capital construction request. Ms. Noble noted that the Commission currently does not have enough direction on what the state wants and that guidance is needed.

Ms. Noble stated that point 4 is to update the statutory references to performance indicators. She noted that as the Commission goes forward with the strategic plan, some of the 13 indicators will be archaic and some new indicators will need to be added. Dr. Rose stated that what the Commission is asking for is to integrate statute with the statewide strategic plan.

Ms. Noble stated that priority 5 is to examine the inequities of the current 7 district system. She noted that two areas of concern are that Campbell and Albany counties, both of which have extensive outreach programs affiliated with an existing district, are not being taxed and that the current taxation of the college counties may be inequitable.

Ms. Noble noted that priority 6 is the BOCES and BOCHES process. Ms. Noble noted that these are local agreements and that they seem to be inconsistent due in part to the fact that there is not much state oversight. She noted that the Commission may be the proper entity to provide oversight where community colleges are concerned.

Ms. Noble stated that priority number 7 from the handout is coordination in transfer of students. She noted that the Wyoming Education Planning and Coordination Council has been established but it needs to be invigorated. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the WEPCC has not met in the last year. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that one impediment to a fully functional student tracking system is the student's right to privacy.

Ms. Noble stated that priority 8 is to standardize and simplify dual enrolment. She stated that it is a good program but it is not successful everywhere and that there is inconsistency across the state.

Ms. Noble stated that priority 9 is the centers of excellence. She noted that this would allow a college to be a leader for the state, maybe even the nation in a certain program and would allow the Commission recognize those programs that are in the best interest of the state. The recommendation would allow the Commission to direct resources accordingly.

Ms. Noble noted that the Commission also had some additional concerns that were not on the priority list but that could be considered. Ms. Noble stated that one concern was the fee structure which is distinct from tuition and that it would be of interest to consider who should be setting those fees. She noted that another area of concern is the oversight of non-credit programs and to consider whether to fund those courses if they are in the state's interest. Another concern is in the area of advising and providing incentives to encourage innovation in that area. In response to a question, Ms. Noble noted that the Commission has not had a discussion about centralized advising but it will consider it.

Ms. Noble noted that an additional concern is the coordination of statewide programs and that if industry or the state needs something done it could go to the Commission instead of the seven different colleges. She noted that the Commission is willing to be the central agency for that statewide coordination. In response to a question, Ms. Noble noted that it has been discussed whether to place a member from Workforce Services or other agencies on the board but the concern became at what point to stop placing different agencies on the Commission because the colleges can affect many state agencies. Ms. Noble noted that another concern of the Commission is distance education because it has evolved without a lot of structure and that now the Commission is not sure exactly what they have. She suggested that each college may, for example, offer English 101 but it is not clear if that is necessary or if could it be best done by just a couple colleges which would allow other colleges to offer different programs.

Community College Information Session

Dr. Rose stated that the Commission has attempted to put forward what it believes are issues that are important to the institutions and the system and that the Commission is prepared to accept the central role that the strategic plan will take in the process. He stated that if the Commission has the guidance of the Task Force, it will help inform work of the commission to develop the strategic plan.

Task Force member Lynn Birleffi stated that it may be appropriate to revisit the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee on workforce needs, specifically concerning an advisory board. She stated that it was important for the state to be able to focus on what is needed and that this would be a centralized mechanism for workforce direction.

Mr. Kinnison stated that if it is in the interest of the state for community colleges to have funding for capital construction, it is important to determine how the guidelines are set up, who sets them, the amount of matching funds needed.

Representative Quarberg stated that it was important to stay focused on what they were directed to do as a Task Force. She noted that capital construction funding could be dealt with by the Task Force independent of the strategic plan.

Senator Von Flatern stated that it was important to get back to the basics. He noted that it is a broad task to take care of and suggested that the Task Force take on a couple of items, work on those this interim and reconvene next year.

Senator Job stated that it was important for the Task Force to get a definition of what is a statewide interest.

Task Force member Joan Evans stated that the Task Force has some things that it can deal with now, without waiting for the completion of the strategic plan.

Senator Job stated that regardless of the strategic plan, community colleges should be funded as part of the statewide education system. She noted that it was important to answer the question of what is the state interest in community colleges first.

Task Force member Bryan Pedersen stated that there are two things that the Task Force could accomplish without the strategic plan, capital construction and strengthening the community college commission.

Co-Chair McOmie stated that workforce development is important but it is also important not to overlook the academic side of the system.

In response to discussion by the Task Force, Mr. Nelson provided a handout to the Task Force on the appropriations to community colleges for capital construction (see Appendix 7 for a copy of the handout).

Co-Chair McOmie stated that he had asked staff to draw up a proposal based on ideas from the k-12 capital construction process. He stated that he felt there is a need for a priority system that would give confidence in the priority list.

In response to a question, Mr. Chris Boswell of the Governor's office stated that the capital construction requests were not approved in part due to a lack of understanding of the process of the colleges and the Commission and the factors that were considered throughout the process. He also stated that there was not a lot of skin in the game from the private sector for workforce development and there was a feeling that if a college could wait long enough it would get it's project, even if it was not necessarily in the state’s interest.

Mr. Nelson provided a handout to the task force of a proposed capital construction mechanism (see Appendix 8 for a copy of the handout). Mr. Nelson explained the handout and noted that the proposal assumed that the Commission would be the entity making the decisions and that requests would be aligned with the strategic plan.

Dr. Rose noted that currently the Commission has a facility handbook that determines how the priority list is generated. In response to a question, Ms. Noble stated that a critical component of the strategic plan was ensuring that items on the priority list are within the state's interest.

After discussion on the current Capital Construction process, Mr. Pedersen moved that the Task Force forward the proposed capital construction process. The motion was seconded and passed by a voice vote.

Mr. Kinnison asked for some documentation on the prioritization process from last session to give the Task Force some background.

Meeting Recess

The Committee recessed at 5:00 pm.

Call To Order (July 25, 2008)

Co-Chairman McOmie called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.

Task Force Discussion on Community College System Focus

In response to a question, Mr. Richard Cox of the Budget Office stated that with a standard budget, what the agency had in the last biennium is carried forward and anything new is an exception budget. He stated that the request comes to the budget office first, it is reviewed and then it goes to the Governor, then to the Joint Appropriations Committee and the Legislature.

Task Force member Jerry Austin stated that it was important to have education that enables citizens to stay in Wyoming and get education.

Senator Von Flatern stated that a good education system is the interest of the state and that a strong community college system with accountability to the state for money that is put in is important. He noted that workforce development is important but it should be a global look at education and accountability is the strongest issue so that the system can show value to the state through reporting.

Task Force member Mary Behrens stated that a strong community college system gives access to education to more citizens. Ms. Behrens noted that particularly in health care the state has a shortage and that the community college system fits with the concept of growing your own.

Mr. Kinninson stated that capital construction for the community colleges is a crisis. He stated that the state has the money and that it was important for the task force to do a checklist and get it done.

Mr. Pedersen stated that there is a need for workforce development and there is a need for a statewide place for workforce development. He stated there is also a need for a statewide place for accountability to the legislature that would move the state towards a statewide community college system.

Task Force member Glenn Dalton said there is a need to look at what the colleges are doing right now and what is their plan over the next few years. He stated that the strategic plan should be based on what they are already doing.

Representative Jourgensen stated that it was important to go back to the accountability issue and that it all comes down to money and requests for money. He noted that accountability on a simple metric and an unarguable state interest would help the requests for money.

Ms. Birleffi noted that when talking about workforce she did not intend to exclude fundamentals but she stated that there is a crisis in workforce. She stated that colleges have made great moves forward but there are cries for a statewide look and that she was interested in knowing if it is a viable option to build the colleges to bring people in from out of state.

Co-chair McOmie stated that when the curriculum is developed it should be developed to encourage an associates degree and to be transferable. He stated that if students are willing to go farther in their education, the students will go farther in their jobs.

Senator Job noted that the state has a whole agency that is focused on workforce development and that she was concerned about agencies and the Commission duplicating effort. Senator Job also stated that the Task Force should consider establishing criteria and that colleges should have to follow strict criteria to get state money and that there should be follow up to see if the colleges did what was intended with that money.

Ms. Evans suggested that it was important to line up education, economic development and employment. She stated that there should be a balance between regional relationships and there should be a focus on building solutions around sectors of the economy as opposed to individual employers. Ms. Evans stated that it is necessary to have many different pieces working together to make it move forward.

Senator Schiffer stated that there are some areas of education that need to be done on a state level and that those areas should move up to the Commission. He stated that there are some statewide priorities that should be sent to the Commission to make sure they are being looked at for a statewide approach.

Representative Quarberg stated that the strategic plan needs to identify those areas where the colleges can and should have a statewide system. She noted that it was important for the colleges to not be territorial in the process and that the system has to have accountability.

Mr. Dalton suggested that it was important to educate the counselors in the high school and that students would take more concurrent classes if they were advised to take them. He noted that it is hard to find instructors because people can make more money as a fabricator than teaching fabrication

Co-chair Coe stated that this was an opportunity to take advantage of what minerals can do in the state and that it was an opportunity for economic development and business development for the state.

Co-chair McOmie noted that outreach and distance learning have to take place within the community college system and should be an important element of the strategic plan.

Senator Job stated that there is a lot of agreement on the centers of excellence as suggested by the Commission and stated that she would like to see criteria for excellence. She noted that those centers of excellence will attract people from out of state if they know they will get the best programs possible. She stated that there should be a process to always scan the horizon and be aware of new technologies coming and that there should also be a process to allow the colleges to remain responsive and dynamic as a system.

Mr. Pedersen noted that it was important to keep quality of life issues and that the colleges can be used to help attract people and retain them by offering other types of classes.

Task Force member David Reetz stated that there is a need to scan the horizon and be competitive. He stated that the colleges should be comprehensive community colleges and that there should be a determination of needs in terms of measurable goals, that they should encourage differentiation in strengths and that the system should encourage collaboration and cooperation. Mr. Reetz suggested that the Commission should meet with JAC and JEC to help determine the needs of the state.

Task Force member Steve Johnson stated that having centers of excellence is a way to address concurrent enrolment in high school and the ease of moving from k-12 to community colleges and to the University. He noted that the strategic plan would be a living document and that the Commission won’t get it right the first time. He suggested that a bottom up strategic plan would be better than a top down strategic plan and suggested that the colleges work with the Commission.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that the Commission has developed a calendar of benchmarks for the strategic plan but they are reevaluating the process in response to the comments of the Task Force. He noted that the statute gave the Commission two years but that the Commission recognizes that it is advantageous to work with the Task Force.

Mr. Kinnison stated that at the next meeting he would like to look at matrix of the individual colleges' strategic plans. He stated that he was concerned about what will happen in the next year regarding capital construction and stated he would like to see how the capital construction process works for other requests outside of the colleges.

In response to some discussion, Dr. Rose noted that the appropriation for operational funding has been made for this biennium but noted that it was predicated on a process that has not been approved in rules. He noted that the Commission was only able to distribute the appropriation for one year. He stated that the Commission would need to have a funding model in place for the second year of the biennium and that the model presented yesterday is a recommended change to that process.

Co-Chair McOmie said that he would like to see a spreadsheet comparing funding under the old model and how it would be under the proposed model.

Dr. Rose stated that the Commission would run a simulation for the proposed model and said that it may shift funding fairly dramatically in some instances.

Co-chair McOmie noted that the Legislature asked the Task Force to look at the issue of funding with the idea that they could potentially take something to the floor of the House and Senate.

Senator Schiffer stated that the state could change where it puts resources in order to incentivize change in the system. He noted that if they were to tie the strategic plan to funding it would meet the needs of the students and the state.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Task Force should consider what the game plan is to address current issues that it can accomplish for the legislative session. He stated that he hoped that the Task Force would not try to tackle funding and let other things get through the cracks.

Co-chair McOmie stated that the Task Force should take each element individually and hear a little more about it and then vote on whether it needs to be done. He noted that while the funding model will take a long time he would like to hear more about it.

Ms. Birleffi suggested that the Task Force should look at budget footnote and that they should keep it with them at the next meeting.

Next Meeting

The date for the next meeting is August 25 and 26 in Riverton, Wyoming.

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Co-Chairman McOmie adjourned the meeting at 12:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Senator Coe, Co-Chairman Representative McOmie, Co-Chairman

Appendix	Appendix Topic	Appendix Description	Appendix Provider
1	Committee Sign-In Sheet	Lists meeting attendees	Legislative Service Office
2	Committee Meeting Agenda	Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting	Legislative Service Office
3	Commission Survey	Response of the Nursing Association	Legislative Service Office
4	Recommendations	Community College Recommendations	Community College Commission
5	Funding Model	Discussion points on funding model	Community College Commission
6	Community college revenues	Community college revenues	Legislative Service Office
7	Capital construction	Capital construction appropriations	Legislative Service Office
8	Capital construction	Cap con process mechanism	Legislative Service Office
9	Capital construction	Cap con funding criteria	Community College Commission
10	Capital construction	Form 303	Community College Commission