Manny Griego, GCC        Alan Levine, MCLI
  Doug Sawyer, SCC         Pat Medieros, SCC
  Joan Ritsch. PC          Nancy Matte, PC
  Ted Wolter, CGCC         Brad Kincaid, MCC
  Fred Gaudet, GWCC        Rosemary Kesler, GWCC
  Mary Long, SMCC          Bob Albury, GCC
  Chris MacCrate, EMCC

Feedback on Retreat

• Day 1 - The questions were redundant for some groups. Can we think about using new questions for the retreat?
• People were jumping from question to question, maybe that's why they felt the questions were redundant; The discussions tended to wander and not stay at one question at a time
• There was too much information to process. And from listening to each other they eventually came around to the same positions
• The preplanning/data collection was useful; It probably varies by campus, some colleges probably had more support on the data than others;
• Did you like taking several topics and narrowing it down to those few topics; In some cases the people who answered the questions did not attend, so in that case it was interesting. In other cases, the same people who worked on the questions also attended, so they were answering the same questions again; The assessment and evaluation, in our case without that information we could have easily, we could have argued about the definition for an hour. The fact that we could go through and make a concise summary of what was happening was valuable; In our case, we actually took off and didn't address the questions in the same way at all, we started off with what the ideal that we wanted to have so that that background information was helpful;
• The intent was to come here with prior background work done and just continue; Some campuses finalized discussion questions; It was a good beginning; Our campus, in reference to the group meeting, can now go back and meet in our roundtables and say these are the important issues;
• Documenting of the raw data was useful - became common elements in the college plans; Some of the people who responded to the questions will use the information collected will be used for a more formal [like the staffing issue, to start to revise the whole initiative];
• Do you think you will go back and pull out the bigger pieces of the more coherent threads and sort of summarize it; I think the hope was that these could become common elements in each of the college plans [that was one of the goals];
• Involve key people in all discussion groups [i.e. Dr. de los Santos]; Part way through the second session, we started to lose steam, and Dr. de los Santos brought a new perspective, part of our intent was to recommend what the district could be doing to help on a particular issue; He was very tactful choosing his moments to coming in and introduce new ideas and that got us going again; Alfredo is very sensitive - he even mentioned that his being at the discussions, he just wanted to listen and was very timely in some of the comments he made - he certainly just wanted to observe and be part of the discussion if it warranted it.
• Because we had two totally different groups for each session, that brought a wide variety of views [i.e. Access - the technology people gave us a completely different way of looking at Access] The mix of views was helpful and important; Each person was listening to each element and we were able to determine how the pieces fit together - because you have to get everyone on the same page;
• Day 2 - Excellent - more time was needed to work in college groups;
• The idea of "What are we going to do when we get back?" We've got to have something concrete that this is what we are doing next;
• MCC Because a large part of the college roundtables were missing, we felt like we couldn't make decisions for those that were absent;
• We started listing, getting away from feasible action plans for next year and have 8 or 9 things on each of the issues, maybe we should wait until the beginning of the semester when the whole TLTR is there - with the intent to carry forward this summer and that would be at each of our own risks because maybe the agenda items you choose to go forward with this summer may not be the ones the rest of the colleges or your TLTR's find important;
• I think you can lay the ground work for it and I think what you felt was important here is probably what your roundtable will think is important too and if they have another issue than that can be incorporated in the fall, but I can't see why you can't get started laying the ground work now [you are not making the final decisions, just putting the background together and saying this is what we think we should be doing];
• We would like to see the momentum carried through with those who want to participate; We want to keep the chairs going over the summer and also the participants, we want to invite them and do what we can to at least find out what the next steps will be to carry on into the fall semester;
• Energized college discussions - more problems solved;
• What needs improvement for next year?:
  • Would like to be closer [to home];
  • Didn't like starting after a long drive;
  • Maybe start later in the afternoon with an evening social hour the first night only;
  • Date of event? Up for discussion;
  • Provide a snack or lunch if starting the same time of day;
  • Tables for laptops;

Ocotillo Chairs 1998 - 1999
Manny serves second year as general faculty chair

• CGCC - Pam Petty
• EMCC - Chris MacCrate
• GWCC - Rosemary Kesler
• GCC - Richard Shortridge [Bob Albury will assist him over the summer]
• MCC - Brad will work through the summer [is unsure about fall etc.]
• PVCC - ??
• PC - Nancy Matte
• RSC - No one will be around for the summer; Pat Case will continue in fall
• SCC - Pat Medeiros [Doug Sawyer will assist over the summer]
• SMCC - Mary Long

Summer Projects

• try to set up these 'dialogue days' throughout the summer;
  • Do we need to have a separate day for each issue or could we have 2 days to duplicate the issue [one in June/one in July]?;
  • Instead of replicating what we did on day 1, we should replicate what we did on day 2, which is work within our college groups;
  • What is our goal for these 'dialogue days', what are we hoping to get out of it?
  • 'Dialogue' denotes discussion and we are looking for action from these ideas that people have come up with [i.e. working on developing the student technology assistance program] Maybe we could pilot as projects that would transcend some of the college issues/
  • The goal is to keep things moving and see what we can get done in the summer if we can;
  • Hold discussions on campuses [possibly provide $100 as incentive to faculty to participate over the summer];
  • we were talking about holding these discussions on the campuses and the participants who were here and others who are interested in participating would be paid/
  • Work on 'district-wide' issues [i.e. Access, Staffing];
  • Keep it up to the campus to decide what is good for them

  Provide a proposal to Alan and Manny for discussions

• The need is apparent for campus work over the summer;
• Is there also an interest in trying to pull out what is cross-campus and how we can go about setting those up;
• District/MCLI/Ocotillo chair provide tools as models to help;
• What questions are of district-wide concern? Determine those versus college questions;
• Questions written during the summer and dealt with in the fall; Establish district-wide questions during the summer;
• MCC Student Technology Assistant Program [STA]
  • Possible TLTR group workshop [all can benefit] for summer;
  • Learning from their experience [TLTR] Funds are available for this program;
  • Late July / Early August would be best for Brad;
  • We can afford to bring in an outside consultant;
• How are we going to sustain what we've done here?
  • Dispository of district issues
  • College specific issues
  • Use of district people as resources;
• Planning sessions for work for fall; If a college is going to discuss a particular topic then the key district people should be there for the summer meetings;

• Co-facilitators send a 'proposal' on their topic to Alan and Manny for a one day discussion at on of the colleges; Also try to come up with what can be done [campus issues vs. district-wide issues]
• Do the 'easy' fixes first;
• Is there value in changing instructional technology plans? In spending a longer time sharing notes [a pre-pre-draft]; Alan and Manny have suggested moving the deadline for these plans to November [instead of October];
• For Mesa, I don't know if we'll have anything called an Instructional Technology Plan - We have an instructional plan and an Information Technology Services Department Plan and somewhere in between is what you guys are calling an Instructional Technology Plan - we believe that things should be programatically driven, the instructional program shouldn't have a technology plan that is somehow co-equal with an instructional plan.
• Facilitation teams [enforce collaboration between colleges];
• Report district-wide issues relevant to each topic and forward to Alan and Manny to call meeting with key people;