2020-08-21 SGTF agenda and notes

Meeting information

Aug 21, 2020 (2:30 - 3:20 pm)

Zoom: please see Outlook meeting invite.

Recording of the meeting: forthcoming, to be distributed on the listserv (please note: Zoom-hosted recordings will be available for 120 days after the meeting , after which they are automatically deleted by Zoom).

Attendees

Ginny Steel, (co-chair)
Aislinn Sotelo, (co-chair)
Donald Barclay
Peter Brantley
Kevin Comerford
Alan Grosenheider
Sarah Houghton
Cathy Martyniak
Felicia Poe
Danielle Westbrook

Guests

N/A

Regrets

Susan Boone
Salwa Ismail
Alison Regan
Sarah Troy

Agenda and discussion notes

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	Housekeeping	Opportunity for co-chairs and members to share brief announcements and notices.	00:05	Ginny, Aislinn	The SGTF is thinking of those impacted by the fires, particular UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis.
2	SGTF mid-phase assessment	Update; walk through/confirm the revised assessment scope and goals; discuss/confirm next steps and work; reaffirm work plan and timeline for assessment (specifically, Sept. 14 deadline to submit the built out assessment instrument to the WG, so they can discuss at their Sept. 18 meeting).	00:45	Alan, Kevin	How can we accomplish this assessment? Assumption: likely an electronic survey, to achieve most if not all goals. Capturing demographics, will be important. As an option, respondents can self-identify, for follow-up. Potentially, interviews/focus groups could be a follow-up mechanism. A task force member reflected that there may not be sufficient time to organize a focus group. Agreement on the task force - all questions asked should be actionable and should be scoped to the focus ( Agreement that our approach should favour multiple choice and aim for a survey to take no more than 15 minutes max. Next steps: Developing the instrument, right now assumed to be a survey. To ensure a more cohesive final product, and given our timeline (one more for a version ready for WG review), a core subgroup should be assigned. Brainstorming Demographics and telescoping will likely be a useful tool and may potentially be used to ask different questions to different groups. Likely required demographics: campus; SILS cohort/not. In terms of other demographic questions, the subgroup should consider and recommend what other demographics should be optional or required. Where demographic data might lead to identifying an individual, it will be anonymised. A statement could be included in the survey to note this. Only if someone opts-in to identifying themselves, will they potentially be engaged or directly associated with their response/data.	Decision: The SGTF endorses the assessment scope and goals, and thank Alan and Kevin for their work on it. Decision: Alan, Kevin, Sarah will form a subgroup to develop the assessment questions. Donald will act as reviewer, before it’s shared with the task force. Decision: Danielle will build out the survey.	Action: Danielle will finalize the Assessment Scope and Goals document and will share the finalized document with the WG, as a courtesy (the WG already voiced their support for the document). Action: Aislinn will let Lena and Christine know that SGTF would like to move the deadline for sharing the assessment instrument with WG, to the 10/02 WG meeting.
3		Total	00:50

Future agenda items

Further work on assessment, as led by the subgroup (Alan, Kevin).
Further discuss UCLAS, what we might learn from an assessment of our phase 4 shared gov. structure, and initial and ongoing shared governance needs.
Initial brainstorm/discussion about operational SILS shared governance (based on the assumptions already identified).