Redwoods Community College District
College Planning Council Meeting
Friday, April 10, 2009
3:00 p.m.
Board Room
In Attendance: Keith Snow-Flamer, Martha Davis, Sheila Hall, Jose Ramirez, Tracy Thomas,
Chris Romero, Pam Kessler, Judie Hinman, Karen Nelson, Fred Trapp, and Michele Vagle.
Keith introduced Fred Trapp to the group and asked him to give the group his opinion and findings
from the 3 groups he met with this week as the findings will be very instrumental both this year and
next. Fred reported that yesterday he met with Keith and Ruth Bettenhausen, the discussed the
feedback received regarding use of the template for Program Review. Much of the feedback
indicated it was difficult for non-instructional programs as it was more designed for instruction
programs. Keith reported that he has already begun drafting a new Comprehensive/Annual
Program Review Template for Student Services and Ruth will begin drafting one for Administrative
Services and reported that it was similar to forms she had used in Maryland. Lastly, Fred met with
Program Review today. They are comparing the template they have been working on for the past 6
weeks to one from Riverside Community College. The groups did not have time to get to the
question of what and Annual Program Review document should look like when compared to the
comprehensive. Fred reported that he will be back on April 24th.
Pam expressed that a common theme that has been expressed is that although many people and
lot of work went into this process, the work was not used and seemed to disappear. Keith told the
group that their frustrations were noted and processes would be changed to ensure this doesn’t
happen again.
Chris Romero asked how often Program Reviews are suppose to be completed for the purposes of
ACCJC. Fred said that Comprehensive Reviews should be completed every 3-6 years and Annual
Reviews every year. Some colleges complete Annual Reviews to express resource needs or set
program goals. Annual Reviews are a more focused way for institutions to allocate resources.
Chris made the point that College of the Redwoods (C/R) got dinged by Dr. Beno for using
Program Reviews for the purpose of resource allocation. Fred emphasized that when doing these
reviews we must look at accountability data and learning outcomes. Keith asked how a program is
defined. Pam said that the Student Learning Outcomes will address Dr. Beno’s concern.
Pam had questions regarding longitudinal data and ARCC and are we comparing our college to
statewide results or our cohorts and which way would Fred recommend? Generally, he likes a 3
year assessment in order to be more accurate. It was pointed out that until we have more years
worth of data and it is possible to really drill down in reports and get good numbers we won’t be
able to effectively address needs.
Jose asked how the forms Fred presented differ from the forms we currently use. Fred explained
that the forms were customized to address differing needs and to prioritize. Keith told the group
that Fred will be returning on April 24 to fine tune the work he’s done with work groups this week
and to work on linking planning and program review.
CPC Committee Meeting
April 10, 2009
Page 1 of 2
Keith explained that there is an addendum to the April 1 Accreditation Response Letter with more
detail on Program Review and Assessment as well as the EMP and FMP and this will be sent out
to all on Monday. Pam asked if in terms of revision to the EMP, has the issue of the Preamble
been addressed as faculty have not been involved in this process until yesterday and this process
has not been handled in a timely manner. Judy Hinman asked why things had been handled this
way. Martha responded that due to the short timeline, tasks were divided and dolled out. Keith
said that he was acknowledging that things were not done in the way they should have been done
due to time constraints but since we can’t turn back time, we are asking for everyone’s help to
prepare the document in order to meet next weeks deadline. To clarify the document that gets
sent next week is different from the one done in January, but it will be in the May Board Packet.
Keith further clarified that this has been a long and difficult process for all. Had the institution taken
accreditation seriously four years ago and addressed it properly at that time we would not be were
we are now. However, we are going into the EMP honestly and have changed processes to be
even more collaborative from here on out.
Pam asked if the Preamble is still in the EMP document and per Karen, yes it is. Keith said that it
will be revised before the final document is sent out next week. Pam pointed out that “the clock is
ticking” and it is difficult to give an honest assessment at this late date. Keith said a new draft of
the EMP will go out on Monday and include it after the CPC has had a chance to look at it. Pam
stated that it feels as if this is a continually evolving draft without feedback and that the process
needs to be made transparent so all can be involved. Keith stated that he is not willing to address
the pat at this time and again admits that if we had more time would we have done this with even
more dialogue? The answer is of course yes. However, we need to move forward in the process
and change things from this point forward. Karen further pointed out that more than 60+ people
have been involved in the EMP revision in one way or another, either directly or through the wiki.
Some questioned how valuable feedback and dialogue are through the wiki. Jose stated that the
wiki and processes like it are the way his generation communicates and those comments were
incorporated into the EMP. Keith said we need to distinguish the difference between feedback and
dialogue as both are important and this will take time so that we do not make the same missteps
going forward.
Pam questioned pulling the Integrated Planning Model and Keith concurs as there has been no
feedback for this as of yet. Keith will rewrite the preamble this weekend and pull the Integrated
Planning Model per suggestion from Fred and this committee discussion and resend it to all to be
vetted out with this committee carefully looking over these sections.
Keith recommended that instead of holding the next meeting on April 21, to instead meet with Fred
on April 24. The committee concurred and the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 pm.
Submitted by: Michele Vagle, IR Account Clerk
CPC Committee Meeting
April 10, 2009
Page 2 of 2