Chabot College Map

Chabot College Facilities & Sustainability Committee

Wednesday 19 February 2014 

Accreditation Standard 3B - Physical Facilities


Attendees:

Rick Moniz (Social Science - History)

Debbie Mejia (Language Arts - ESL)

Jay Mumford (Applied Tech/Business - Real Estate)

Jennifer Lange (Science/Math - Biology)

Debra Howell (Science/Math - Biology)

Janice Golojuch (SOTA - Art)

Clayton Thiel (SOTA - Sculture)

Angie Magallon (Language Arts - English)

Bruce Mayer (Sci/Math - Engineering)

Dan Miller (Kinesiology/Athletics)

Will Tavis (Kinesiology/Athletics- Baseball)

Ella Vilche (Kinesiology/Athletics)

Jeff Drouin (Kinesiology/Athletics) - Co-Chair

Danny Calcagno (Kinesiology/Athletics - Football)

Steve Friend (Kinesiology/Athletics - Baseball)

Larry Leach (Social Science - Communications)

Dale Wagoner (Health, Kinesiology, Athletics) - Co-Chair

Catherine Gentiluomo (Health, Kinesiology, Athletics, Nursing)

Scott Hildreth (Science/Math - Physics & Astronomy) - Co-Chair


Meeting Summary & Minutes

1) Accreditation Home Page (created by Jim Matthews with examples, timelines, links to institutional research, and more - this is your best first stop!)

http://libraryguides.chabotcollege.edu/content.php?pid=563309&sid=4643474

 

2) Standard 3B Description: ( page 12 of 20 at http://www.accjc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Accreditation-Standards_Edited-Nov-2012.pdf )

Physical resources, which include facilities, equipment, land, and other assets, support student learning programs and services and improve institutional effectiveness. Physical resource planning is integrated with institutional planning.

1. The institution provides safe and sufficient physical resources that support and assure the integrity and quality of its programs and services, regardless of location or means of delivery.

a.The institution plans, builds, maintains, and upgrades or replaces its physical resources in a manner that assures effective utilization and the continuing quality necessary to support its programs and services.

b.The institution assures that physical resources at all locations where it offers courses, programs, and services are constructed and maintained to assure access, safety, security, and a healthful learning and working environment.

 

2.To assure the feasibility and effectiveness of physical resources in supporting institutional programs and services, the institution plans and evaluates its facilities and equipment on a regular basis, taking utilization and other relevant data into account.

a. Long-range capital plans support institutional improvement goals and reflect projections of the total cost of ownership of new facilities and equipment.

b. Physical resource planning is integrated with institutional planning. The institution systematically assesses the effective use of physical resources and uses the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement.

 

Minutes:

Dale helped kick off our meeting sharing his experiences from prior Accreditation Committees, and in particular from the Physical Facilities (Standard 3B) side.  He reminded us of the need to gather evidence and documentation to help us as we create the self-study report, and to encourage participation and input from all of our colleagues.  He also reminded us of the need to document what we are doing now, rather than focusing on a list of things we want to get done; this isn't the committee to DO things as much as it is an oversight committee to see what process are working and how they are getting done.

We will want to reference the new (2012) Facilities Master Plan in our work (available at http://www.clpccd.org/bond/Chabot/documents/2012_Chabot_Las_Positas_Facilities_MP_Report-Final.pdf )

We looked at the past results of the 2008 Faculty/Staff Survey, specific to Physical Facilities (Pages 14 and 15 of  http://www.chabotcollege.edu/IR/StaffSatisfaction/A.%20Sp08_Staff_Accred_Results_All_staff.pdf  and the Historic Comparison of Similar Items in Past Surveys - Pages 13 - 14 of http://www.chabotcollege.edu/IR/StaffSatisfaction/A.StaffSurv_similar_items_1995-2008.pdf

We discussed why some items (like Parking) might be rated lower from the students, and solicited thoughts on questions that should be added, or amended, for the next Survey (Due early March)

We agree to try to create a *facility-specific* survey instrument through the Facilities and Sustainability Committee, to be completed by users of particular buildings and areas, to gather even more useful data. The Spring Staff survey is not meant to capture this data.

We also discussed:

- A need to update everyone on what we have learned from the past construction that has been completed, and how we apply that learning to new opportunities (Jennifer Lange).  We need to know whether rooms are big enough to accommodate the planned class sizes, how user-group input is evaluated against what was built, etc. 

- How cleanliness on campus has been affected with the additional buildings built but with an overall reduction in custodial time per square foot of area at various levels of cleanliness.

- How equipment vs. facilities should be "divided" in the accreditation report.

- What planning agenda (action) items were present from the 2009 self-study and accreditation report that related to facilities (none, as far as we found).

Scott (Co-chair)

 

 

 

 

sh - 2/19/14