Present: Michael Pham, Lorraine Odom, Alice Madsen, Erik Scott, Astrid, & James Peyton

Meeting Notes:

Animals on Campus

• Members of the council were given time to provide feedback to the proposed Animals on Campus Policy for a third reading.
• Michael would like to call for a vote on this policy in the February meeting (2/26/18).
• Francesca will send out a new copy with the grammatical change in the last line of the policy.

Weapons on Campus

• Michael proposed that a new Weapons on Campus policy should reflect the HC Student Conduct Code (WAC 1321-125-100) language, which defines weapons as a prohibited conduct.
• An addition was suggested regarding the ‘intent’ behind holding a knife, cutting, or stabbing instrument versus such weapons as a firearm, dagger, or sword.
• A suggestion was made to change the term ‘pistol’ to ‘handgun’ in the second paragraph.
• The council members agreed to run the next draft by members of the criminal justice program, who frequently have faculty members that bring weapons on campus as commissioned law enforcement officers.

Drug Free Campus

• Michael presented the proposed changes to the Drug Free Campus policy.
• Lorraine mentioned adding a clarifying line that people with a marijuana prescription, are not allowed to bring the drug on campus premises.
• Michael asked for feedback on the second paragraph, and whether it needs to be so explicit on the consequences of violating the policy.

Drug Free Campus

• Michael presented the proposed changes to the Drug Free Campus policy.
• Lorraine mentioned adding a clarifying line that people with a marijuana prescription, are not allowed to bring the drug on campus premises.
• Michael asked for feedback on the second paragraph, and whether it needs to be so explicit on the consequences of violating the policy.

Next Meeting Date:

• February 26 (Monday), at 3:30 p.m. in 99-269.

Present: Michael Pham, Toni Castro, Alice Madsen, Erik Scott, Vanessa Primer, & James Peyton

Meeting Notes:

Animals on Campus

• A motion was made to pass the policy as its written, seconded by Erik Scott, all voted in favor except for one. The Animals on Campus Policy was approved by Policy Development Council and will be moved up to the President’s Office.
• Prior to the policy passing, Erik Scott shared notes from faculty senate expressing concerns that this policy could contradict a Human Resources procedure on reasonable accommodations.
• Vanessa shared that student government put together a task force group to see if comfort animal could be defined and found that there was no good official definition the college could objectively follow.

Weapons on Campus

• The committee supports the policy language matching the existing Student Code of Conduct text.
• Vanessa proposed replacing the word ‘pistol’ with the word ‘firearm’ to encompass more gun types.
• The Committee agreed to include the term ‘authorized contractors’ into the policy language.
• To organize the policy, all the listed exceptions will be in the second paragraph.

Drug Free Campus

• The committee supports the simplified “proposed revised version” of the policy. In addition, the committee recommends adding language to clarify/explain Federal prohibition vs. State’s legalization (of marijuana for example). Vanessa will forward language proposed by the Student Council. Toni will forward recommended language from SS commission.

Present: Michael Pham, Toni Castro, Alice Madsen, Erik Scott, Vanessa Primer, & James Peyton

Meeting Notes:

Animals on Campus

• Jeff Wagnitz is waiting for information from the Access Services office as to whether this policy would affect any current comfort animal procedure they have in place.

Weapons on Campus

• Erik Scott proposed new language to better define weapons and the intentions of those weapons.
• Committee discussed accommodations to gun owners who do not want to leave their fire arms locked in their vehicle. Currently, Public Safety owns a safe that was purchased for the purpose of allowing people to safely store their fire arm. Michael will discuss the committee feedback and concerns with David Menke, Director of Public Safety and Emergency Management.
• Michael will update the weapons policy and send out the newly revised version for campus feedback.

Drug Free Campus

• The committee proposed language changes. Michael will update the policy and send out the revised version for campus feedback.

Policy Webpage

• The new policy webpage will go live next week. The new page has reorganized the policies according to division, instead of alphabetically.
• A link to the new site will be shared with committee members prior to announcing the change to campus.

PDC Bylaws

• Executive Staff is proposing to additional non-voting members to PDC to accurately reflect the campus population.
• In the 2018-19 school year PDC will have a set monthly schedule that works for all members.
• Michael will research the campus organizational chart and employee number break-down data to examine which employee populations are under-represented at PDC.
• With a new Director of HR, it is the committees hope that a new WPEA member will be assigned to the council very shortly.

Present: Michael Pham, Sy Ear, Emily Lardner, Tessa Bowen, Sam Alkhalili, Heather McBreen

Meeting Notes:

Draft Proposal for restructure of PDC

• Michael presented a Draft proposal for restructuring PDC
• Discussion included: Should there be a consistent format in which policies must be presented to the PDC as a proposal (such as listing the intent, which RCW, WAC or laws are referenced, who is impacted, etc.)? This would help define whether policies are ready to be considered by the PDC or not. Perhaps provide questions to be asked and answered.
• The council can request from the President to include another department/ division/ group to be represented
• Build in language that every x (5?) years PDC reviews policies- in accordance with accreditation standards
• PDC creates a calendar to review on a regular and defined schedule ( review policies by both date and importance)

Animals on Campus (Policy 4020)

• Michael resubmitted Animals on Campus Policy that was adopted by PDC in Feb 2018
• Council recommended to forward to HR and Access Services for review and feedback prior to taking another action
• Emotional support animals are not confined to the same definitions as service dogs. Therefore an emotional support animals could be any animal as it is up to the discretion of the owner. Where would Highline draw the line if comfort animals were allowed?
• Different kinds of service/ emotional support/comfort animals need to be clearly defined
• Campus housing needs to be included in updated policy

Facility-use (Policy 4070)

• Michael submitted first reading of Facility Use Policy
• Procedure (draft from) was also presented, discussion included:
• needs a policy number assigned when ready
• how to define/ know which external/ sponsored groups are compatible with goals of Highline

Present: Sy Ear, Sam Alkhalili, Mohamed Jama, Heather McBreen, David Menke, Summer Korst, Rachel Collins 

Meeting Notes: 

Animals on Campus

• Summer Korst and David Menke were present to discuss Summer’s proposed policy
• Summer’s policy is currently in place at both Wenatchee and Bellevue College
• The council agreed that HC needs a more robust policy to guide the campus either way
• The council discussed the ability to inform faculty and staff of the presence of emotional support animals without breaking any privacy laws
• Each emotional support animals would have to be filed as a disability accommodation

Facility Use

• Rachel Collins was present to discuss her proposed Facility Use Policy
• Rachel explained that it is necessary to have a policy that guides who pays for rentals and how funds are to be generated under what circumstances
• Rachel stated that fees are always associated with everything that happens on campus, there are no “free events” even when waived
• Conference Services is auxiliary in which all department funds are generated from external rental fees
• The council discussed how to word the policy to reflect free speech rights while also protecting the college from groups that conflict with HC’s ideas and interests

Present: Michael Pham, James Peyton, Sam Alkhalili, Tessa Bowen, & Emily Lardner

Invited guests: David Menke, Rachel Collins, Jenni Sandler, & Francesca Fender (note-taker)

Meeting Notes:

Board of Trustee Travel (Policy 1030)

• The proposed policy is trying to meet state compliance standards.
• The proposed policy and process is already happening, and the proposed policy does NOT include any changes to the process.
• Sam Alkhalili made a motion to approve the Board of Trustees Policy as it was presented.
• All approved. The motion was passed.

Animals on Campus

•  Michael Pham made a motion to pass the ‘Service Animal Policy’ with the correction of making the distinction to state that it applies to ‘inside campus buildings’.
• The motion to pass the policy was also dependent on the committee creating and discussing a separate ‘Emotional Support Animal’ policy at a later time.
• All approved. Motion was passed

Facility Use

• Michael Pham made a motion to pass the ‘Facility Use Policy’ with a removal of the text in the parenthesis stating that rentals must adhere to the mission of the college.
• All approved. Motion was passed.

Restructuring Policy Development Council

• Michael Pham made a motion to pass the restructuring proposal for PDC.
• All approved. Motion was passed.

Present: Michael Pham , Aaron Reader, Sam Alkhalili, Mohamed Jama, Tessa Bowen, Heather McBreen (note taker) Guests: Francesca Fender, David Menke

Meeting Notes

Timely Warning Policy draft

• Presented by Francesca Fender in compliance with Clery Act
• A serious crime is defined by what might pose a threat to the community at large- if not sent out could it cause harm to others?
• The time in which to send information should be defined by how quick it takes to procure details of the incident and should be sent within a time frame that benefits the most people
• Should be consistent in language referring to “Campus Safety” and/or “Public Safety”
• Faculty are not considered a CSA (but anyone who has a strong working relationship with students)
• If a crime happens near to campus and could impact students then a message should be sent out ( is good practice to do so)
• Need to define terms within the policy
• Will share updated draft as changes are made

Emergency Notification Policy draft

• Presented by Francesca Fender in compliance with Clery Act
• Campus should be notified in the event of that the health and safety of campus is impacted such as a fire
• Will share updated draft as changes are made

Missing Student Policy draft

• Presented by Francesca Fender in compliance with Clery Act
• After checklist has been reviewed then Public Safety has 24 hours to report the student as missing to local authorities
• The only difference for those under 18 is that their legal guardian must be contacted (even if they are not the emergency contact)
• Only applies to student housing residents ( Campus View is within Clery geography)
• Would be useful to include definitions
• Will share updated draft as changes are made

Present: Michael Pham (chair), Aaron Reader, Sam Alkhalili, Mohamed Jama, Tessa Bowen, James Peyton, Heather McBreen (note taker) Guests:  David Menke

Meeting Notes:

Policies for Discussion

• Timely Warning Policy draft (4330)
  •  Applies to college and property/geographical locations within Clery geography
• Security of and Access to Campus Policy draft (4340)
  •  To reflect all college controlled property
• Missing Student Policy draft (4350)
  •  This only applies to residents of on-campus housing
• Reporting Crimes and Emergencies Policy draft (4360)
  •  Reviewed and revised 

Action Items

• Bring drafts to your area for review- to vote in 2 weeks via email poll (either approve or amend)
• In accordance with accreditation standards, will start posting all draft policies and approved policies in one place (PDC webpage)

Present: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Eriksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Sam Alkhalili, Tessa Bowen, Jarmaine Santos, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen (note taker)

    Meeting Notes                     

• Introductions
• Membership
  • Everyone in the council is a voting member (excluding the secretary)
• Bylaws
  • Elected Michael Pham as chair of the council
  • Members to review/ seek feedback on the bylaws ( count this as a first reading)
  • New bylaws include more members
  • Members can bring policies for review from their area
    • Each policy brought forth must be sponsored by someone in PDC
    • If one of our policies is in conflict with the law then the policy needs to change
  • Structure of PDC
    • Each member has 2 weeks to present to their represented area for feedback
  • Review of divisional existing policies/procedures
    • Each member to review existing policies with their area and recommend to “re-adopt” or not ( will be dated on the website)
    • Michael would like all policies to be reviewed before the academic year is over (this will require time spent outside meetings)
  • New policies (first reading Jan 21,2021)
    • Records Retention Policy Draft submitted by Tim Wrye
      • Right now HC has no official retention policy
    • Workplace Civility and Respect Policy Draft submitted by Summer Korst
    • Harassment draft policy sent out for review (current policy 4110)

Action Items

• review bylaws
• review and seek feedback on Records Retention Policy Draft
• review and seek feedback on Workplace Civility and Respect Policy Draft
• review and seek feedback on Harassment draft policy/procedures
• review existing policies/procedures for your area

Attendees: Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Eriksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Sam Alkhalili, Tessa Bowen, Jarmaine Santos, Heather McBreen, Michael Pham

Absent: Justin Dampeer

Meeting Notes

• Review Workplace Civility Policy Feedback
  • Classified staff felt this policy was too subjective. How can it be enforced?
  • Needs definitive classification of what is “harassment”
  • Classified staff expressed concern over procedure- detracts from an employee’s right to file a grievance
  • Currently, WPEA contract addresses civility in the workplace, but the HCEA contract is rather lite on civility in the workplace
  • James Peyton suggests that we simplify the draft (we have preexisting expectations regarding civility)
  • Is this intended to be a policy statement regarding expectations or a procedure?
    • Michael and James suggest this be a statement rather than a procedure
  • Policy is needed for consistency and for collective bargaining (needed as a starting point to address complaints)
  • IA is concerned about some of the vague definitions
• Review Non-discrimination- harassment procedures/policy
  • Needs revision to reflect Title 9 IX changes/updates (as of Aug 1, 2020)
  • HCEA would like for Title IX to apply to a wider range of context including social media, online formats since we are working virtually
  • HCEA would like clarification regarding what a complaint should look like
    • Complaints are to be made to the Title IX officer
    • Faculty could lose their job for not reporting discrimination/ harassment (this is tricky but necessary to have something to this effect in writing)
  • IA would like clarification as to whether discrimination/harassment can only be tracked via college technology (given most employees aren’t using college tech at the time)
    • Policy states it applies on and off campus as long as it interferes with campus
  • Our title IX must reflect Wa state law (RCW) can be more restrictive but not less
• Review records retention policy
  • James’s suggests to remove “protection” as it is outside the scope of this particular policy
  • Student Services would prefer the registrar weigh in before PDC votes to move forward
    • We will extend reading time by 15 days
  • Any other existing policy/procedures to approve?
  • Will review bylaws next week
  • Approve 1.21.21 minutes
    • Approved by the council

Attendees: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Eriksen, James Peyton, Sam Alkhalili, Tessa Bowen, Jarmaine Santos, Heather McBreen, Michael Pham

Absent: Gretchen Erhart                      

Agenda Items

• Vote on minutes 2.4.21
  • Approved by the council
• Review records retention policy (vote on)
  • Jen Scanlon proposed to add another link
  • Policy 4320 is approved by the council (one abstention) to move forward for Presidential approval
• Bylaws (updated)
  • First reading (2.18.21)
  • Change made to provision one under “The Role of PDC” to include HCEA and WPEA
  • Sam brought up idea for a section that refers to member accountability (such as bringing a proxy if you are unable to come or dealing with attendance, membership expectations)
    • Sam to propose written language
  • James proposed re-write/insert language of initial policy review procedure ( as well as appeal process)
    • How to determine what is eligible while still being inclusive
    • James to propose written language
  • Any other existing policy/procedures to approve?
    • Not at this time
  • Where are we at with updates?
    • Justin would like to give instructional cabinet opportunity to review existing policies as needed for transparency
    • Goal is to review policies and update with review dates
    • If we are out of WAC compliance it is up to HC to change our policies
      • It is very difficult to change a WAC

Attendees: Michael Pham, Sam Alkhalili, Tessa Bowen, Jarmaine Santos, Summer Korst, Jennifer Scanlon,

Absent: Heather McBreen, James Peyton                       

Agenda Items

1). Non-discrimination Harassment Policy – Introduced by Summer Korst

– Governor Inslee issued memorandum requiring state agencies to have a diverse, equitable and inclusive work environment.

– Previously there was a non-discrimination policy tied with the Title IX policies. These were separated and are treated separately.

– The non-discrimination harassment and retaliation policy and the Workplace Civility policy will allow the college to address discrimination, and bias in the workplace.

– Only change to the Non-Discrimination Harassment Policy is a small definition of procedure with employees.

– James mentioned that different cultures and races have different way so of interpreting the term ‘civility’ and ‘yelling’. These terms, used in certain contexts, can feel intertwined with institutional racism.

– Jennifer added a sentence to be responsive to the cultural concerns that may come up with this policy and the terms used:

“Civility in the workplace contributes to our institutional ability to cultivate and maintain a climate of justice. We recognize the terms “civility” and “respect” have historical contexts. The intent of the policy is to protect employee’s well-being in the workplace.”

• The name of the policy was recommended to be changed to the ‘Respectful Workplace Policy’.
• The word “yelling” was recommended by the Council to be changed to “verbal assault”.
• Council members will need to bring the revised policy back to their respective groups and offer any written recommendations to Summer by the next PDC meeting.

2). Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation Policy

• Summer urged the council to prioritize the Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Policy. It has a great effect on the work that HR conducts, especially in regards to received complaints.

3). Course Requirements Policy

• In a review of older policies, the Council cannot remember the context or purpose behind the Course Requirements Policy.
• Justin will take it back to Academic Affairs to analyze the policy for further scrutiny and see if the purpose of this policy is still valid.

Invitees: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Sam Alkhalili, Tessa Bowen, Jarmaine Santos, James Peyton, Jennifer Scanlon

Absent: Tessa Bowen, Jarmaine Santos                      

Agenda Items

• Vote on minutes 4.29.21
  • Voting members in attendance approved
• Respectful Workplace Policy
  • James Peyton suggested adding “due process” to procedures
  • Michael called for motion to adopt
  • Motion adopted by voting members
  • Motion rescinded after further discussion below
  • Added “language fluency” to section f
  • Called for a second motion to re-adopt
  • Motion adopted again
  • Policy will be forwarded to college president
• Discrimination and Harassment Policy
  • Concern from IA that there isn’t specific language regarding language skills
  • Would like to include that people shouldn’t be discriminated against for not speaking “proficient” English
    • Does “race and national origin” encompass “language” ?
    • Is this something that is more appropriate/covered in the civility policy?
  • Unsure about latest copy of policy. Will touch base with Summer regarding procedure document.
• Course Requirement Policy
  • Did not discuss

Invitees: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Stephanie Ojeda Ponce, Tessa Bowen, Mya Leonhard, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen

Absent: Jennifer Scanlon 

Agenda Items

• Introductions 
  • Welcome Stephanie and Mya! 
• Bylaws 
  • Tessa Bowen voted as council chair for school year 21-22
  • Discussed “meetings” section of the bylaws. 
    • What constitutes an emergency meeting?
    • Stephanie noted that emergency decisions are usually rushed and result in inequities. Stephanie suggested interim decisions that can be revisited 
    • Proposal that in the event that any emergency decisions are made, they be revisited
    • James proposed “additional meetings may be called by the chair or by any 2 members of the PDC” and to include when the PDC meets
  • Stephanie asked whether the role of the PDC should reflect that PDC will revisit the bylaws on a regular basis
  • PDC to vote on language next meeting (Heather will send out with changes) 
• Faith and Conscience policy (first reading) 
  • Brought forward by Justin/ academic affairs. He will bring this back to academic affairs for review/ feedback
    • Questions to be directed to Justin by Nov 1st 
  • The goal is to be in compliance with the WAC by having this type of policy in place 
  • James is wondering whether needing to make the request within the first 2 weeks of the quarter offers enough flexibility. 
  • Mya brought up: is this something we can include in a syllabus that is mandatory for students to read so that they are aware of it as soon as class starts?
  • What documentation should be provided by students? (should there be an additional procedural doc?) 
  • Comments brought up by Stephanie: 
    • How detailed do we get in this policy vs. internal guidance? What is the required language? What limitations are there for students, for faculty?
    • Notification: A. Notify within the first two weeks of the course OR B. Notify within X days before the absence. C. Notify within X days after the absence.
      • Faculty likely won’t be supportive of “after language”
• Staff Teaching policy (first reading)
  • Brought forward by Justin/ Academic affairs. Justin to bring this back to academic affairs for review/feedback. Heather to send out draft 
  • Can staff be members of two unions at once in the case of “additional employment” at the college? And if not, language needed
  • Would any grievances as an adjunct be represented by HCEA? 
  • Tessa can bring this back to WPEA
  • Michael and James proposed addition of “Instructional policies and the HC-HCEA collective bargaining agreement govern work under a part-time faculty contract.”
• Next meeting (Nov 18th) 

Attendees: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Tessa Bowen, Mya Leonhard, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen

Absent: Stephanie Ojeda Ponce

Agenda Items

• Vote on Minutes from 10/14
  • Minutes approved by voting members 
• Bylaws 
  • Need to reconcile the differences between bylaws (policy 1020 is the original bylaws) 
  • Heather to send out all three versions for review  (original, 2020, and 2021) 
• Faith and Conscience policy (second reading) 
  • Justin brought back to Academic Affairs. Got lots of comments and feedback from faculty. Justin recommended that this policy is not quite ready for a second reading. 
• Staff Teaching policy (second reading)
  • Draft 2170
  • Tessa brought back to the WPEA 
  • The roles need to be clearly defined (IE when someone is classified and when someone is adjunct) 
  • Applies to staff and faculty moving forward (for those in which teaching isn’t in their job description) 
  • Questions regarding teaching during lunch hours. It was decided by the council that this would not be appropriate 
  • Justin will bring this back to instructional cabinet. This will need a third reading next time 
• Next meeting (Dec 9th) 

Attendees: Justin Dampeer, Jack Harton (in for Stephanie Ojeda Ponce), Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Tessa Bowen, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen, Mya Leonhard

Absent: Stephanie Ojeda Ponce 

Agenda Items

• • Vote on Minutes from 11/18
    • Minutes approved by voting members 
  • Bylaws 
    • Michael received feedback from Dr. Mosby that the current bylaws are a bit dated 
    • Having new trustees may be an opportunity for a fresh start (Dr. Mosby may want to approach the BOT before PDC does anything else) 
  • Faith and Conscience policy (third reading) 
    • Not enough capacity in AA to work on this right now. PDC will review again in January 
    • IA wanted to give feedback on this, but have not done so yet 
    • James Peyton pointed out that Wa state law does have pretty detailed instructions for how this is to be addressed. But it is up to the college to decide what is “reasonable” 
  • Staff Teaching policy (third reading)
    • Stephanie had the following questions/comments (presented by Jack): 
      •         Has the committee consulted with staff in teaching roles and their supervisors to see how this might impact people currently in non-faculty teaching roles (Examples: Bobby Butler – Sustainable Agriculture, Bruce Lamb – Paralegal Studies?)
      •         If staff are teaching, are they offered a separate adjunct/faculty contract?

• Yes, this would be a separate contract. All instructional duties would be covered by HCEA 

• • • •         Can the policy be flexible to define working hours for staff based on supervisory agreements? For example, could a person teach an 8 or 9 am course then begin their staff job at 11 am. This would provide scheduling flexibility, could allow for evening coverage of student services, provide more teaching capacity at the most high-demand hours, and create opportunities for more staff to teach the new college studies course.

• Tessa noted that the current job’s schedule must be the priority

• Gretchen noted that the policy says the teaching role must fall outside the regular work hours, therefore the supervisor isn’t granted the ability to be flexible

• Policy was amended to reflect that it must fall outside the “employee’s regular work schedule” 

• • To be voted on in next meeting Jan 20th 
• Course Repeat Policy (first reading) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uHUOlSgu1UCZefUxkBXrn7MK7INhOd4RsV-8otpgud4/edit
  • Brought forward by Jen 
  • Unclear language about how many times a student can retake a class was cleared up 
    • Michael noted that technically a student could take a class more than 3x, but it wouldn’t count towards anything for the student or the college FTE
  • Michael suggested that any other related policies be stated 
  • Everyone please bring back to your areas for review/ feedback (second reading next time we meet)
• Next meeting (Jan 20th) 

Invitees: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Tessa Bowen, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen, Mya Leonhard, Stephanie Ojeda Ponce 

Absent: Michael Pham

Agenda Items

• Vote on 12/9/22 notes
  • Voting members vote to approve 
  • Stephanie abstained 
• Faith and Conscience Policy #2160 (third reading)
  • Decision to table this for now 
  • Will be brought back when Academic Affairs is ready to discuss 
• Staff Teaching Policy #2170 (vote)
  • Stephanie commented that students and the institution might be better served with more flexibility that “work hours” should be defined within in each area to ensure there is enough staff and instructors in the modalities and on the schedule that best served student need. Further, this could have a positive impact on student enrollment.
  • It was noted by Gretchen that if a staff member’s ability/availability to teach is defined by the supervisor then it might result in inequities 
  • Everyone agreed that flexible working schedules should be discussed at greater length as part of a larger conversation 
  • Present voting members to approve this policy. It will now be forwarded to Dr. Mosby for approval. 
• Course Repeat Policy #2180 (second reading) 
  • Language was made clearer regarding transcripts and grades that are recalculated after a course has been completed
  • Stephanie would like to bring this back to her area for further review 
• Justin brought up how we can make this a more equitable process that includes more input from more stakeholders 
  • How can PDC better define values, objectives and priorities that guide policy development?  
  • How can PDC be more transparent? Many people on campus don’t know what PDC is or how decisions are made 
• Discussion regarding public records requests and electronic activity monitoring 
  • Most staff aren’t aware what the guidelines are
  • Who has access to what? 
  • How are staff electronic activities monitored? And what info is collected? And for what purpose? Current policy states that staff must be notified before electronic activities are monitored
  • Stephanie noted that this is something students could be notified about during orientation. As the digital landscape of education evolves this becomes more important 

Attendees: Jennifer Scanlon, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Tessa Bowen, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen, Mya Leonhard, Stephanie Ojeda Ponce 

Absent: Justin Dampeer, Shakira Ericksen, 

Guests: Mirian Mencias

Agenda Items

• Vote on 1/20/22 notes
  • Minutes approved by voting members (Michael Pham abstained) 
• Support for students with covid 
  • Guest Mirian Mencias came to provide insight into this issue 
  • Mirian proposed 10-14 days for students to recover prior to rejoining the class 
  • Tessa volunteered to shepard Mirian on the PDC process as she prepares a policy to come before PDC
• Course Repeat Policy #2180 (third reading) 
  • Policy 2180
  • Revised language referring to state board resolution under which this policy is based. 
  • Voting members approved 
  • Tessa will now forward to Dr. Mosby for approval 
• Faith and Conscience Policy 
  • Will be revisited next meeting 
  • Feedback for next time would be to only include what is in the RCW

Attendees: Justin Dampeer, Jennifer Scanlon, Gretchen Erhart, James Peyton, Tessa Bowen, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen, Mya Leonhard, Stephanie Ojeda Ponce 

Absent: Shakira Ericksen

Agenda Items

• Vote on 2/17/22 notes
  • Minutes were approved by voting members  
• Faith and Conscience Policy 2160 (Second Reading)
  • Most of the policy is required language from the state RCW
  • Student requests for time off cannot create an undue hardship on the college 
  • Justin reached out to Green River to see how they handle this. Green River has students request time off through their deans of enrollment and student life. They haven’t had instances where students requested excessive time off 
  • The less “stuff” in the policy, the more likely it will pass. Stephanie therefore suggests removing the procedure component and having it live elsewhere 
    • The procedures can evolve, but the policy should be more intransigent 
    • Typically, PDC doesn’t approve procedures, only policies (not required) 
  • There was discussion revolving around what constitutes an “undue hardship” and how this may vary depending on a wide variety of contexts 
  • Justin has offered to attend Faculty Senate to discuss 
  • PDC voted to approve the policy (not the procedure) 
• Review policy rubric 
  • Equity First Strategic Planning group has created a rubric to help evaluate policies based on how equitable they are 
  • A tool to help guide equity-minded discussions regarding policy 
  • Equity First is looking for feedback on this rubric (hopefully to hear back in the next week)
    • PDC would like time to look this over and digest before discussing (next meeting) 
• Stephanie brought up a new “program review” for faculty 
  • Creates a large workload for faculty 
  • Is in the process of being reviewed for adoption 
  • Stephanie and Justin will chat more off-line 

Attendees: Stephanie Ojeda Ponce, James Peyton,  Heather McBreen, Michael Pham, Cathy Cartwright, Mahad Dahir, Justin Dampeer, Shakira Ericksen

Guests: Raechel Dawson, Tony Johnson, Izzy Wroblewski, Ay Saechao

Absent: Gretchen Erhart, Kendra Ferrer

Agenda Items

• Policy 3070 First reading: Hazing Prevention – Ay Saechao & Izzy Wroblewski (see attached document)
  • Required for higher education to have a hazing policy after “Sam’s Law” legislation was passed 
  • According to current records, there doesn’t appear to be a history of hazing at HC
  • HC has a provisional policy, but a permanent policy and procedure is now needed
  • Legislation requires that HC have a hazing prevention committee that meets regularly
  • Legislation requires mandatory reporting on hazing incidents as well as training 
  • Mahad Dahir brought up the importance of having this policy available in multiple language 
  • Faculty Senate wants to know if there are existing committees on campus that could be restructured to fulfill the need of a prevention committee (faculty senate is against the formation of more committees)
  • Hazing specifically pertains to instances of recruitment, admission, initiation, pledging or affiliation with a group, club, team or living situation 
    • Concerns that this definition is very specific and that people might not feel comfortable reporting 
  • The next stop would be for Izzy and Ay to take this feedback back to their area and hopefully PDC could take this to a vote the next time we meet 
• Policy 5010 First reading: Social Media Policy – Tony Johnson & Raechel Dawson (see attached document)
  • Most other colleges in the system have social media policies that guide consistent responses/best practices 
  • Any public account is subject to public record requests 
  • This policy was first drafted in 2021 and needs updates 
  • Faculty Senate requested that the policy be separated from the procedure. 
  • Faculty Senate  requested that “social media” be defined within the policy .
  • Where does one’s professional affiliation with HC begin and end?
  • HCEA brought up the issue of access to the log-in as well as the importance of defining and handling “dead accounts”
  • Tony notes the difference between someone who works at the college posting about the college and a post being made by/on the official college account. Raechel notes that this policy applies only to official HC accounts, not personal accounts. 
  • Michael offered to work with Tony and Raechel on the formatting of the policy. Then the policy can be brought back in front of the council. 
• Revise policy 2130 (Stephanie Ojeda Ponce)
  • Didn’t get to this 
  • PDC will discuss the rubric in the next meeting 

Invitees: James Peyton,  Heather McBreen, Michael Pham, Mahad Dahir,  Justin Dampeer, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, Kendra Ferrer, Jesse Knappenberger, Stephanie Ojeda Ponce

Guests: Raechel Dawson, Tony Johnson, Izzy Wroblewski, Ay Saechao

Agenda Items

• Votes on 11/18/22 minutes 
  • Minutes approved by voting members 
• Policy 3070 Second reading: Hazing Prevention – Ay Saechao & Izzy Wroblewski 
  • Izzy and Ay made a few sustainable changes to the draft that help clarify matters and address given feedback 
  • PDC voting members voted to approve this draft as the final version 
  • PDC voting members voted to recommend this policy for adoption 
• Policy 5010 Second reading: Social Media Policy – Tony Johnson & Raechel Dawson 
  • Added a policy statement and a definition of “social media”
  • How would this policy apply to faculty/faculty webpages? 
  • There is some concern about the length of this policy. Will the guidelines be posted as part of the policy? Or will it be separate for brevity? 
  • The council would like the policy statement to be separate from the procedures/guidance/best practices  (housed on IA webpage) 
  • Will be revisited next quarter 
• Policy Review Rubric
  • Stephanie wanted more guidance regarding how policies are evaluated/considered 
  • Could this be piloted for a year before being finalized? 
  • Should this policy be developed internally or should it be taken back to the respective groups for feedback?
• Review Policy 2130: Grades and Transcripts, the first-week non attendance policy (Stephanie Ojeda Ponce) 
  • Ran out of time and not able to discuss 
  • Gayatri can move forward on this without Stephanie 

Invitees: Gayatri Sirohi, James Peyton, Heather McBreen, Michael Pham, Mahad Dahir, Gretchen Erhart, Kendrea Ferrer, Jesse Knappenberger

Guests: Raechel Dawson, Tony Johnson, Sarah Trimm

Absent: Shakira Ericksen, Justin Dampeer

Agenda Items

• Votes on 12/8/22 minutes
  • Approved by voting members 
• Policy 5010 third reading: Social Media Policy – Tony Johnson & Raechel Dawson 
  • Condensed policy with a link to the website which will include all the guidelines and recommendation 
  • Example of social media created on behalf of the college would be a Instagram page for the HC arts and humanities department. But a personal account from an employee that shares HC content would not qualify as “on behalf of the college.”
  • “A page” is a professional/business page that officially represents the college and is maintained by the college whereas “an account” could be a personal account that is not representative of the college 
  • Suggestion to include stronger language for requesting permission to create official pages on behalf of the college 
  • Suggestion to include a section outlining the steps taken when something is out of compliance 
    • This could be added to the guidelines section rather than the actual policy 
    • Suggestion to add stronger language about maintenance 
  • The policy was approved by voting members. Now to be forwarded to Dr. Mosby 
• Policy Review Rubric
  • The rubric would guide discussions for evaluating policies 
  • Suggestion to simplify the process/criteria for evaluation 
    • Concern about the “scoring mechanisms” and creating barriers for policies to be brought forth 
  • Suggestion to share this with represented groups, then come back with feedback to discuss 
  • Suggestion to add a flow chart of guidelines to follow 
  • Suggestion to go back and discuss with the folks who created the rubric
• Review Policy 2130: Grades and Transcripts, the first-week non attendance policy (first brought forward by Stephanie Ojeda Ponce) 
  • Faculty Senate would like to take this back and make changes before bringing it to PDC 
• Affinity Groups Policy (to be brought forward by Michael)
  • Michael would like to skip for now 
• Academic Standards Policy Revised -first reading (brought forward by Jesse) 
  • Make language more accessible. Goal is not to make students feel like they’re in trouble 
  • The first step is connecting students to resources and giving them resources 
  • The second step is academic review which would involve working with an advisor 
  • The third step is academic pause where the student may choose to pause their academic journey
  • The policy is based on state compliance with “degree completion timeliness” 
  • The goal is to do away with the suspension portion of the previous policy and to instead provide as much support as possible
  • Suggestion to tighten the language relating to communication/ when students are contacted 
  • Please take this back to respective groups for feedback 

Attendees: Gayatri Sirohi, James Peyton, Heather McBreen, Michael Pham, Mahad Dahir, Shakira Ericksen, Gretchen Erhart, Kendrea Ferrer, Jesse Knappenberger

Guests: Sarah Trimm, Jennifer Johnston, Angel Steadman

Absent: Justin Dampeer

Agenda Items

• Votes on 2/2/23 minutes
  • Minutes approved by voting members 
• Academic Standards Policy Revised (discuss 2:30-3) Second reading 
  • New title of policy: Student Progress (Academic Standards) Policy 
  • The GPA grid will not be part of the official policy (more procedural)
  • Additional clarifications on status were made 
  • The intention behind RCW 28B.10.695 is to ensure/promote student retention and completion (policy needs to address excess accumulation of credits) 
    • Do the instructions in the policy count as procedure? 
    • Student services may need to have a larger conversation about the RCW 
  • The policy will be separate from the procedure 
  • Sarah and Jesse will do one more revision pass then bring back to PDC for a third reading 
• Policy Review Rubric (discuss 3-3:30) first reading 
  • This rubric was intended for both PDC and folks who need to craft/draft policy (on both a departmental and college-wide scale)
  • Equity is not always possible, but this rubric should help work towards crafting an equity-focused lens as much as possible  
  • Rubric is also a starting point for the many “common practices” on campus that aren’t part of official policies/procedures 
  • This rubric could be split into both a policy and a procedure and/or modified 
  • PDC would like to meet again to discuss next steps for this rubric 
• Affinity Groups Policy (discuss if time at end)
  • Question about broadening the language to include identity-based affinity groups whose membership is exclusive to that identity 
    • Student and employee groups are treated differently (state funding allocations are a factor that exist for students but not employee, likewise time away from work hours is a factor for employees but not for students) 
  • First reading will happen at the next meeting 

Invitees: Gayatri Sirohi, James Peyton, Heather McBreen, Michael Pham, Shakira Ericksen, Kendrea Ferrer, Jesse Knappenberger, Justin Dampeer, Mahad Dahir, 

Absent: Gretchen Erhart, 

Agenda Items

• Votes on 3/2/23 minutes 
  • Approved by voting members 
• Policy Review Rubric (discuss 2:30-3) second reading
  • PDC to proceed forward with how this rubric would be utilized/implemented 
  • Proposed that before a policy is submitted to PDC, those bringing it forward would need to explain the responsiveness/relevance and outcomes of the policy. The remaining criteria would be evaluated by PDC. Proposal would reduce the scope of the policy. 
    • James proposed that this be tried out as a “pilot” for 6 months 
  • Gayatri offered to take back to faculty senate for review (since it was originally sponsored by the former faculty senate representative)
• Affinity Groups Policy (discuss 3-3:30) first reading 
  • Michael brought to EC, but was deferred to PDC 
  • Application and approval process is not included in this policy 
    • Not clear whom the approval process would be governed by 
  • A formal recognition process for affinity groups is needed on campus in order to clear up confusion regarding working hours and state resources. 
  • Proposal that affinity groups be considered “professional development” in order to help legitimize them on campus/ demonstrate the value of affinity groups 
    • Policy already offers generous language about access to and welcoming affinity groups 
    • Could affinity groups be considered PD if the groups brought in speakers, held workshops or worked towards certifications? Or offered PD opportunities to the campus?
  • Need for parameters regarding allowable hours for affinity group participation (for example, a right to x amount of hours per y) 
  • Important to note that different classifications of employees are restrained/unrestrained by different “rights” 
  • PDC members to bring back to their respective groups for feedback (especially regarding allowable hours) 
  • What is the role of the college in instances of tension between or within affinity groups? Under the current policy, the college really only has the ability to deny approval of the group 
    • Could affinity group activities fall under the respectful workplace policy? Unclear whether the respectful workplace policy would protect affinity group activities 

Invitees: Michael Pham, Jesse Knappenberger, Kendra Ferrer, Shakira Ericksen, Sangeeta Sangha, James Peyton, Danielle Slota, Maribel Jimenez, Heather McBreen, Devoni Young

Attendees: Christie Knighton, Michael Pham, Heather McBreen, Danielle Slota, Shakira  Ericksen, James Peyton, Jesse Knappenberger, Devoni Young, Justin Dampeer

Agenda Items

• A formal recommendation to the President/Executive Cabinet and eventually to the Board of Trustees for a formal/permanent PDC org structure.
  • The current policy is very old and needs to be formally updated 
• A review of ALL currently published policies on our website WITH an insertion of the actual date reviewed by PDC.
  • PDC should go back and ask constituents how to proceed with this task given that it’s a pretty hefty task 
    • Should PDC do a full review of each policy? Or would it be more of an FYI?
    • James Peyton’ suggested proposal of dividing up the responsibility and putting a statute of limitations on how often policies need to be reviewed/updated (suggested 5 years).If a group decides a policy needs further review (minus minor edits), then it would move through the PDC process, but if not, they could say “no updates needed”  and label it “reviewed/updated on xyz date” 
      • PDC should take this proposal back to your areas for review
• A discussion on how to proceed with policy review and development (given of the hundreds of policies out there).
  • Question of how to handle policies required by the state? Should they bypass the PDC process since they are required? 
  • PDC agrees that required policies should be streamlined, but to what extent requires further conversation 

Invitees: Michael Pham, Jesse Knappenberger, Kendra Ferrer, Shakira Ericksen, Sangeeta Sangha, James Peyton, Danielle Slota, Maribel Jimenez, Heather McBreen, Devoni Young

Attendees: Michael Pham, Heather McBreen, James Peyton, Danielle Slota, Kendra Ferrer, Jesse Knappemberger, Shakira Ericksen, Jen Heckler

Agenda Items

• Vote on meeting minutes from 11/15/23
  • Meeting minutes approved by voting members 
• Discuss new meeting time for next quarter (Thursdays?)
  • Looking at Thursdays 2:30-4 (waiting to hear from Faculty Senate) 
• Proposal for reevaluating existing policies 
  • Discuss at next meeting
• Formal recommendation for PDC org structure 
  • Reviewed existing BOT policy 
  • To be reviewed again in next meeting 
• Underage Admission Policy draft (first reading)
  • Common for colleges to have this type of policy 
  • There was a recent case of an 11 year old who wanted to enroll 
  • As an institution, we are not seeking to supplant k-12 system
  • The institution on the whole is focused on adult learning and students should either have a hs diploma or be 18 years or older
  • This will go to the SS leadership team for feedback 
    • Suggestion that this get feedback, make suggested revisions, then come back for an official “first reading” 
  • There were a few questions about homeschool, parent-issued diplomas and how that will be addressed in this policy 
  • Question posed about rephrasing sentence about 18+ enrolment priority 
  • Question about how “readiness” is demonstrated relating to testing/placement 
    • The typical enrollment process begins with admission, then testing, placement and determined “readiness” are later steps in the enrollment process, but in the case of minors, the process may be somewhat inverted 
  • Question about how this impacts/pertains to emancipated minors 

Invitees: Michael Pham, Jesse Knappenberger, Kendra Ferrer, Shakira Ericksen, Sangeeta Sangha, James Peyton, Danielle Slota, Maribel Jimenez, Heather McBreen, Devoni Young, Justin Dampeer

Attendees: Michael Pham, Jesse Knappenberger, Kendra Ferrer, Sangeeta Sangha, James Peyton, Danielle Slota, Heather McBreen, Devoni Young,Justin Dampeer, Maribel Jimenez

Agenda Items

• • Vote on meeting minutes from 12/6/23
    • Minutes approved by voting members 
  • Proposal for reevaluating existing policies 
    • Instruction cabinet has small edits/revisions to make to existing policies and wants to know what the process would be for evaluating existing policies 
      • Instruction cabinet will review on a 3 year cycle 
      • If a policy was approved/recommended specifically by PDC, then in the instance of any changes, it would need to be reviewed by PDC 
    • Previously, it was discussed to review policies in a 5 year cycle 
    • Divisions would be responsible for reviewing and updating, but if significant changes are made then PDC would need to be involved for input 
      • A “significant revision” would be defined as any change involving and/or requiring a back and forth discussion 
  • Formal recommendation for PDC org structure 

• Provisional policy will be taken back for review

• • • Reviewing/clarifying language of what is covered by the collective bargaining agreements (will confer with HR and relevant union before being addressed) 
    • Pertaining to the prior comment about 6, this is in an older document: Return the proposal to the Policy Development Council requesting consideration of the presidential revisions.
    • Danielle Slota, as per amendment: These board practices and policies may be amended, altered, replaced or repealed by the Board at any regular or special meeting, provided that proposed action on the policy is announced in the notice of such meeting. New policy shall respect the College’s Policy Development Process.  However, if any conflict cannot be resolved then local board authority and responsibility shall adhere to RCW 28B.50.140. All policies shall be reviewed every third year by the Board.”
    • Add: At the top of the text “In keeping with Board Resolution No. 35-85, the following outlines the procedure for developing new Board or College policies or changing existing policies.”
  • Underage Admission Policy draft (first reading)
    • Dean Knappenberger walked PDC through the draft including questions and feedback and how they were addressed. 
    • Might need to add something about “ability to benefit” 
    • This policy is in response to questions received about 11-12 year olds seeking admission + other colleges have policies regarding this. 
    • Most policies don’t need to quote RCW directly/ can leave specific WAC language out
    • Access Services/Achieve should be asked for feedback 
    • Should there be a section about expedited review? 

• PDC to please share and gain feedback from respective areas