1
Attendees: Kathy Kelley, Heather Hernandez, Mireille Giovanola, Gordon Watt, Trish Shannon, Jim
Matthews, Carolyn Arnold, Christine Warda, Carla Walter, Marcia Corcoran, Connie Willis, Jeanne
Wilson, Jeremy Wilson, Wanda Wong, Rachael Tupper-Eoff, Jason Ames, Catherine Powell, Deonne
Kunkel, Kathleen Allen, Jane Wolford, Diane Zulliani, Bob Buell
Called to order at 3:10
I Approval of Minutes
II
Move to approve by Jim Matthews and seconded by Kathy Kelley.
Committee Updates and Reports
III
Faculty Senate: Both the Prioritization Committee and Faculty Senate are drafting possible revisions to the Prioritization process. Senate’s draft is based off the process
LPC uses, which more highly involves Faculty Senate. Areas submit a request form in
September, giving the college time to vet and interview. All requests are presented by
Deans to the Prioritization committee. Ranking are brought back to Faculty Senate for approval. Senate is drafting a form/template for requests and this form includes PRBC criteria related to the strategic goal plan.
Prioritization: The Prioritization committee has spent over 6 hours drafting a revised
Prioritization process. Next week, the committee will work to draft a template.
Facilities: Facilities will be looking at requests made through the Program Review process.
Prioritization
The Prioritization process was discussed at length, in particular the role of PRBC to provide big picture synthesis. It was noted that synthesizing and presenting the results of Program Review differs from including a question related to the Strategic Goal Plan in the Faculty Hiring Request template or form.
Both the Faculty Senate and the Prioritization Committee’s drafts include language related to PRBC’s role. PRBC discussed the draft section relating to PRBC, revising language related to its role. The word “recommendation” was replaced with
“Guidance” to read: PRBC will provide guidance regarding areas of need as defined by

2 the integration of the college’s mission and values, strategic plan ning , program reviews, and deans’ summaries.
A motion to approve the revised language was passed.
Deonne will forward the revisions to Faculty Senate and the Prioritization Committee.
Plan PRBC’s Process for Reading Program Review IV
PRBC reviewed process that had been followed in the past. One year, everyone `read at least one program review then PRBC discussed trends. These trends were used to inform campus planning at a time when bottleneck data was under development. Results weren’t presented to
Priortization or Budget. Under Jan, all the Program Reviews were read and results were presented to the college on a FLEX day.
This year, we hope to use the result to inform Prioritzation and Budget in a more systematic process, to provide big picture analysis of campus need. Variou methods for reading were discussed: everyone reading one, groups reading an interdisciplinary set of PR’s, one person reading. It was determined that it would be best for those who read to read an interdisciplinary set from across the college.
Deonne will locate the reading template Jan used and bring potential templates to the next meeting for consideration.
For the good of the order.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.