Overview of Working Group

Purpose: This guide is intended to provide an overview of the first layer of ctcLink program governance, Working Group:

  • How the group originally formed
  • What the scope of responsibilities are for the group
  • How the group makes decisions and their voting protocols
  • How Enhancement Requests reach the Working Group
  • How Working Group decisions are appealed
  • What decisions has the Working Group made since inception
  • What the group's new charter looks like

Audience: All ctcLink system users

Current Working Group Structure
Working Group Membership

The Working Group membership changed from 6 college members with 2 alternates and 5 State Board votes, shared by joint votes across project and production support teams to instead be 9 college voting members with no alternates and 6 State Board votes.  Those 9 voting college members represent the breadth of subject matter area expertise in categories such as; Finance, HR/Payroll, Campus Solutions, Financial Aid, Finance/Student Financials, Data and Reporting, Accessibility, Data and Reporting, IT/Security.

ctcLink Working Group Member Roster

Working Group Scope of Responsibilities

ctcLink Working Group Members represent the interests of all colleges, not limited to a specific organization, and are responsible for eliciting input from subject matter experts and varying points of view in order to make informed and equitable decisions.

The ctcLink Working Group provides guidance to the overall operations of ctcLink and ensures that decisions are made in a timely and efficient manner related to ctcLink issues and proposals that have been escalated to the Working Group. The issues and proposals escalated to the Working Group usually involve solutions that could not be resolved by the SBCTC and/or have a ctcLink system-wide impact.

Thus, individually, the Working Group members should:

  • Attend all scheduled meetings;
    • If an individual member is regularly unable to participate in scheduled meetings, it may become necessary to identify a replacement for those who cannot attend consistently.
    • If needed, action will be taken based on recommendation of the co-chairs and a vote by the full committee.
  • Review available materials if provided before meetings, and be prepared to discuss and vote;
  • Work to develop collaborative decisions;
  • Participate in sub-committees as necessary.

In practice, this means the members:

  • Make decisions within the Working Group’s Scope of Authority;
  • Coordinate with Data Governance Committee on state and federal reporting and other system-wide solutions;
  • Provide oversight on changes to configurations;
  • Identify and help mitigate risks;
  • Provide oversight and feedback for elements of projects related to training, communications, Organizational Change Management (OCM), and global configurations;
  • Prepare escalated decision packages regarding functionality or changes to the implementation schedule for review and decision by the ctcLink Steering Committee;
  • Prepare completed decision packages for communication to stakeholders and for filing in the issue and decision log.
Working Group Meeting Materials

Upcoming meeting materials will include agenda and any presentation decks/information submitted prior to meeting. *Minutes will be posted upon approval at the following meeting which includes all presentation materials.

August 16, 2023

Minutes from 8/2/2023 Meeting will be posted upon approval

Previous Working Group Agendas and Meeting Minutes dating back to 2019 can be found at the following link: https://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/it-support/ctclink-governance/working-group-meeting-minutes

Enhancement Request Process - *** Updated ***

Looking for the status of an already submitted Enhancement Request? Refer to the Enhancement Request Status guide to see all Enhancement Requests (ER) ever submitted. Don't see your submission? Reach out to ctcLink Customer Services Team to ensure it has been properly tracked and made visible on our guide.

Looking for the process of how to submit an Enhancement Request (ER)? Refer to the Enhancement Request Process guide to find the ER Form, detailed process steps and instructions for filing out and submitting the form.

Voting Process for Working Group Decisions


Previously, the Working Group was composed of 15 voting members constituting 11 votes. Seven of the 11 votes constituted a quorum, of which four must be representative of the colleges.  

In the new Operational Governance model, the working group has 15 voting members, 9 college and 6 State Board votes. Ten of the 15 votes constitute a quorum, of which 6 must be representative of the colleges.


In general, the ctcLink Working Group will strive for consensus as it engages in decision-making and issue resolution. However, it may not be possible to attain 100% consensus on all topics and alternatives.

If consensus cannot be reached, votes will be taken by the Chair, or their designee, as required.

Votes are distributed as defined under the Working Group Composition section. A two-thirds majority vote of those attending (with a minimum of seven votes required for a quorum) will constitute a final decision.

No alternates or shared votes.  A member who cannot attend a specific meeting may review the materials provided in advance via the listserv and ask a specific voting member to vote on their behalf by proxy.

Appealing Working Group Decisions

 Appeals of decisions by the Working Group can be brought to the Working Group by a sponsor:

  • ctcLink College Collaboration Group
  • Commissions (Chairs)
  • Data Governance (Co-Chairs)
  • College President or designee
  • SBCTC (Deputy Executive Directors)

The appellant must provide written documentation via the sponsor, to include:

  • Why the appeal is compelling.
  • Any budgetary and cost/benefit impact of the appeal.
  • Why alternatives are not possible and why reconsidering the decision is the only available option.

The written appeal goes to the co-chairs of the Working Group. It will be placed on the next agenda for discussion and the person appealing will be invited to attend. An appeal may be approved, denied, or escalated.

Appeal decisions that are not approved can be escalated to Strategic Technology Advisory Committee (STAC) and will follow the STAC appeal review process.

New Working Group Charter

The new Working Group Charter was approved and adopted by system-wide presidents' group (WACTC) in April 2022.

Working Group Charter


Add your comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.