REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Meeting of the Academic Senate Executive Committee Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, SS 201, Academic Senate Office Crescent City: 883 W Washington Blvd, Room DE4 Monday, February 1, 2016 – 3:00 PM MINUTES Members Present: Mark Renner (by Telepresence), Connie Wolfsen, Lisa Sayles, Mike Dennis Member Absent: Kady Dunleavy 1. Call to Order: 3:05 pm 2. Public Comment: Co-President Renner welcomed all to the meeting and asked for public comment. No comments forwarded. 3. Discussion 3.1 Accreditation Oversight Committee (AOC): Co-President Renner reported that the past AOC will be reinvented. Email has gone out to invite past AOC members, Co-Presidents, CIO/CSSO Winter, and President Snow-Flamer for an hour discussion regarding the AOC. There has also been an email regarding hiring a faculty co-chair for the AOC. At the meeting they will discuss the makeup of the new committee, the committee mission, etc. Since that meeting hasn’t occurred, today’s meeting will be ‘less informed’ than the Co-Presidents had hoped. The committee did some brain-storming for ideas the Co-Ps can take to the meeting. Also to discuss the Feb. 5 subject of AOC. We could determine that it’s a good idea to leave it on the agenda, or we could decide to pull it for now. We may find out things that we don’t currently know when we bring it forward to Senate. Discussion included: • In previous AOC there were ‘substandard’ groups and people stepped up under the stress of Show Cause. Shall we try that approach, again? We can’t have just a few people doing such a big job. • Will it be a core, sustained committee with subcommittees? That has not been determined as yet. They will be looking at what worked and what didn’t. • The ‘guide to evaluating’ was less developed than it is now. • Figure out what existing data could be used to show we met standards, data and evidence • Online and f2f were not compared equally. • Standards evolve, so what does it mean to comply? • Mike Dennis wrote Standard 2; there were three people on his ‘substandard’, with a representative from student services involved (Student service related). The subcommittee wrote drafts, word-smithed, called on others, then wrote the standard. • The AOC archive is in place and can be accessed for info on past practice. • There were 13 different work groups plus the core AOC. • Mark and Connie remarked that at the training (last October), they learned not to have one or two gurus, but to break it up into many functional parts (as we did in past). • Standing core committee included was Dave Bazard, Keith Snow-Flamer, Lee Lindsey, Rachel Anderson, Jeff Cummings, Anita Janis, Geisce Ly, Mike Richards, Kerry Mayer, MaryGrace McGovern, Dan Calderwood and Tami Engman; also three resource support staff; Roxanne Metz, Angelina Hill, and Paul Demark. • Invoke a standing committee that will require faculty members assigned. • Economize on personnel by using some of the core personnel for subs. Choose subcommittee ‘chairs’ who will make up the core of the AOC, and then find personnel to participate in each subcommittee (who will not be on core AOC). • The ‘Link’ persons or chairs don’t have to be faculty (though they could be), and faculty should be chosen for subcommittees • Angelina has a matrix (scroll down to “Other Resources and choose “Responsibility Matrix.xlsx”), but it may not show all the pieces that involve faculty; good starting point. • Planning lead gets 9 TLUs per semester (2 semesters); accreditation writer is 22.5 for the year; there is still time for faculty to apply till Feb. 19. Ask CIO if anyone has applied. • At Senate we could start thinking of campus activities to get people on board (fun stuff that relates to the accreditation process and to prep for the visit). Perhaps have it ready for Convocation. • For Friday, look at other schools to see how they engage personnel. The structure of a new AOC may need more information before we know what to present/discuss at Senate. Perhaps change it to a report and remind the Senate to bring it up with constituents, at some point we need to talk to the previous folks to see what worked and the strengths and weaknesses that they remember. That is what they’ll do, but The past committee had a different task of pulling us out of a disaster; the revamped committee will have an ongoing mission to keep up with challenges, have the pulse of the standards, and put in place mechanisms for continuous quality improvement. Some brainstorm thoughts: • What are the current Threats? Weaknesses? • SWOT analyses? • Keep an “ear to the ground” for ACCJC developments (drafts included) so we are prepared to utilize when they suddenly are presented • Keep asking for ideas, and a clear direction will develop • May not need as large a committee for new AOC • Not having a guru creates more interaction; no matter how superb the guru, what he/she doesn’t know about may create glaring deficiencies and quality control cannot be the job for a single person. • Assessment/program review/accreditation are all working mechanisms, now, but were not cohesive when we were put on Show Cause. • President-proof; if processes are in place, the institution will be successful. • AOC needs to look into areas where we know we are deficient but also where we’ve heard there might be trouble coming (for instance, in Distance Education) The suggestion to turn the AOC into a report instead of a discussion was then discussed and was agreed to by mutual consent of committee. 3.2 Meeting in May (after May 13): Tabled until all 5 members can be present. 4. Future Agenda Items: 1)Discussion regarding too many committees; ways to improve the way in which we take a finite number of faculty and spread them around to too many committees. 2)BPC faculty co-chair responsibilities. 3)Explore the Bookstore issues and encourage ASCR participation on evaluating issues. 4)Create OTLT training in a credit or noncredit class, possibly bringing DEPC to a meeting to discuss; ask Professional Development Committee (PDC) to address the overall delivery of such training; CRFO needs to be part of discussion, too. There is confusion about staff/faculty being enrolled in a CR class - am I a student or employee while in the class??? PDC should develop goals, foresee potential problems, develop a strong DE program that is Self-sustaining. 5. Announcements/Open Forum: None 6. Adjournment: On a motion by Mike Dennis, seconded by Lisa Sayles, the meeting was adjourned at 4:24 pm. Public Notice—Nondiscrimination: College of the Redwoods does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, color or disability in any of its programs or activities. College of the Redwoods is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Upon request this publication will be made available in alternate formats. Please contact Debbie Williams, Academic Senate Support, 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, CA 95501, (707) 476-4259. Hours are 8 to 3 M-TH and 10 to 5 Fridays.