1. Logistics
   proposed having the event at NAU and the possibility a partnership with them and AAHE/TLTR. We can reserve the conference facility even if NAU is not involved. We will be able to support 150 people attending the retreat. There is a limit due to the cost of the accommodations.

   Last year we set up the attendance by allocating a base team size of 10 to each college and than adding more in proportion to the number of faculty at each college. Is this a reasonable formula? Should it be an even split?

   After a brief discussion of whether people would be willing to drive to Flagstaff, a decision was made to have the retreat in Flagstaff (more will be able to go with early notice of the date and location). If people are interested in piggy-backing another event, the day after our retreat is the start of NAU.web98, a conference for teachers using the web. Several faculty from PC attended last year and said it was an excellent conference. More information is at:

       http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~nauweb98/

   A likely retreat schedule is arrival/check-in by 1:00 and starting activities at 2:00. Dinner + discussion, break, AM breakfast, activities, lunch, at leave by 2:00 PM the next day.

   Doug Sawyer from SCC was unable to attend the meeting, but did send a message saying that they want more time for inter-college interaction and less large group work and they also are not interested in having outside consultants.

   Last year's retreat was focussed on introduction to TLTR and forming college teams. This year, we can continue to focus on the college activities but also began to discuss broader, district wide issues.

   It may help to generate what some of these issues are before we go (?). Suggestions/Examples included:

   • Student fees for technology-- how much? across all courses (i.e. should racquetball students have to pay a tech fee?) Does this look like a tuition hike? Should the fees stay at the college (fears of lost funds if sent back to district).
   • Distance Learning-- If al the colleges independently set up internet courses, can they bear the costs? Should that perhaps be Rio's mission for the entire district, to be the offerer of Maricopa DL courses?
   • Access to technology: On-campas, off-campus, disability issues
   • Roundtables seem to start with goals of addressing teaching and learning but end up getting swamped in discussing administrative issues; how can they "get back" to the key issues?
   • Better support for obtaining grants
   • Support issues: what are suggested "standard" numbers for the number of staff needed per computer/lab/student/class

2. Location
   Flagstaff was decided as discussed above.

3. Format (discussing issues with Open Space Technology)
   Manny and Jackie described the Open Space Technology (OST) process and about how the it was used at the "Learning@maricopa.edu" November 14 meeting at SMCC.

   A brief description of OST (a recent A1 from QQ) was also distributed. OST was developed by publisher Harrison Owen as a means for small to large groups to hold productive meetings that produce tangible outcomes. The process is very simple, and calls for little up front planning; in fact no agendas are prescribed ahead of time. The participants who show up develop the agenda for the meetings, individuals with topical interests present them to the group and lead discussion sessions. By the end, each group publishes a report that is distributed before everyone leaves.

   The summary of the Nov 14 meeting at SMC meeting is available at:

       http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/learning/

   Brad [MCC] - brought up the issue that there might be too many items to be discussed because of the wide variety of issues per campus. The group also expressed concern about wanting to have some time devoted to college issues and other time for district-wide issues.

   It was agreed that each chair member would bring the issues from their campus and then the Ocotillo Chairs would try to come up with common/cross-campus issues that could be discussed at the retreat. Please share these by A1 as your teams meet and bring them to the February meeting!

   It was suggested that District people be invited to the event so we can make them a part of the solution(s). Also, the committee thinks a heads up should be sent to the Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, etc., so they can get the retreat on their calendars ASAP.

4. AAHE involvement
   How can they help us? Do we want them to help us? Do we want them for observation and feedback?

   Pat [RIO] - Rather have good facilitators [and not necessarily out of the system] rather than speakers or possibly bring in Steve Gilbert to help with feedback and/or related national issues/conclusions. Perhaps as a dinner speaker.

   The consensus was that we want to devote as much time to activities and discussions related to our roundtable work. We'd rather not have formal presentations/lectures.

   The AAHE Summer Institute will be the second weekend in July, again in Phoenix. Last year we sent about 45 people. GWCC said after going 2 years that they would probably opt out. It would be worth attending for teams that have not been before. There are opportunities to hear the national issues and hear solutions being used at other colleges. Please ask your team about the interest level in going.

Ocotillo discussion at the All Faculty Convocation (January 9, 1998)
Manny asked for each chair member to be a part of the Ocotillo panel discussion session. He'd like each college to discuss their particular campus happenings.

Future

• January 9, 1998 All Faculty Convocation
• Future meeting as a hands on with technology?

• important district-wide issues listed by your roundtable
• ideas for activities, how to balance to activity between college-focus and topic-focus
• estimates of how many are interested in attending the retreat