Minutes of the College Council
7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, CA, Board Room
Monday, March 8, 2010
Allen Keppner, Dave Holper, Becky Blatnick (phone), Martha Racine (phone), Keith
Snow-Flamer, Marjorie Carson, Ruth Moon, Jeff Marsee, Melissa Ruiz (phone), Mike
Wells, Ryley Emanaker, Paul Mullin (ASCR alternate)
Reaia Reaves, Jose Ramirez, Ron McQueen, Lynn Thiesen
President Jeff Marsee called the meeting to order at 3:03 pm
The minutes of February 8th, 2010 were approved with the following changes:
1. Under item one, bullet one of “AP 4021 ‘PROGRAM REVITALIZATION OR
DISCONTINUATION PROCESS” change ‘irrelevance’ to ‘relevance’.
The minutes of February 22nd, 2010 were approved with the following changes:
1. Change section header from “JEFRFERSON SCHOOL” to “JEFFERSON
2. Ryley Emanaker noted that ‘Ryley’ is spelled as such
Keith Snow-Flamer, VP of Student Services, reported that the IPM revision committee
was scheduled to meet Thursday, March 11th at 4:00 pm. The committee consists of:
1. Keith Snow-Flamer
2. Marjorie Carson
3. David Holper
4. Ron McQueen
President Marsee reported that Thursday, April 29th, 2010 was identified as a possible
date for the district-wide forum to be lead by Pam Fisher of the ACCT to discuss CR’s
mission, core values, goals and philosophies.
Ruth Moon noted that:
1. A single day may not be enough time to revise CR’s mission, core values, goals
and philosophies
2. Utilizing break-out sessions with constituent groups may generate more input by
encouraging people to submit ideas who may not do so in a single large group
President Marsee responded that the district-wide forum would only be the first step in
the mission revision process. President Marsee suggested inviting Pam Fisher to attend
via conference call the next College Council meeting to answer questions related to the
mission revision process.
AP 2511 “COLLEGE The Council reviewed a draft scope statement prepared by Academic Senate CoCOUNCIL”
President Dave Holper.
Dave Holper reported that his intent was to render the College Council scope statement
more coherent and linear and to revise it to include language that reflected general
Minutes-College Council
Page 2 of 4
March 08, 2010
College Council operating procedures.
Marjorie Carson, VP of Instruction, questioned the following statement contained in the
proposed scope “… College Council also seeks all constituents’ input on policy and
procedure before recommending final approval.” Marjorie noted that she felt that
‘constituent input’ was provided through constituent representation on College Council
and that College Council did not formally ‘seek’ out constituent input on policy and
procedure whether constituent input was provided through constituent representation.
Ruth Moon responded that she felt College Council did ‘seek’ constituent feedback
through the 30 day district review period.
President Marsee noted that the scope must ‘define who’s in the Council and define
what the Council’s primary goal is which is to ensure open consultation has occurred (in
revising/developing policies and procedures).’
Dave Holper noted that in order to forward proposed policies and procedures to the
President and Board of Trustees, College Council needed some sort of mechanism that
would indicate that College Council agrees a policy or procedure had been developed
following the collegial consultation process and that College Council agrees the
proposed revisions are ready to forward to the President or BOT.
Various members of the Council proposed the following revisions:
(Revised language in italics)
The Redwoods Community College District shall establish governance structures
which are efficient, effective, and which allow for broad participation in the
decision-making process. The District seeks to build understanding and trust among
various groups in the College through open collaboration and shared responsibility.
The College Council is a district-wide constituent based collegial consultation body
that includes representatives from all of the District’s constituent groups.
College Council helps ensure that policies and recommendations have been
developed following the collegial consultation process.
College Council receives drafts of policy and procedure from the appropriate
constituents, reviews and suggests revisions when appropriate, and either sends
these documents back to the constituent group that wrote it for any necessary
revision or can, if deemed appropriate, create an ad hoc committee for revisions.
After such revisions, College Council also seeks all constituents’ input on policy
and procedure before recommending final approval.
The College Council is then responsible for approving recommendations on BPs
and APs before sending them on. Once the College Council has confirmed that a
policy or procedure has gone through the shared governance process, the
recommendation document is sent on to the President/Superintendent for action.
The President/Superintendent is responsible for taking revisions and new policies/
procedures to the Board of Trustees for approval (BPs) or for informational
purposes (APs).
College Council also reviews the actions of the Cabinet, Academic Senate,
Coordinated Planning Council, and the Financial Advisory Council.
Minutes-College Council
Page 3 of 4
March 08, 2010
Members convey information from the Council to their constituent groups and from
their groups to the Council. Members represent their constituents’ views to the
College President who serves as Council Chair. The Council serves to advise the
College President before implementation of the recommendations.
President Marsee requested that he and Dave Holper identify a time to meet in order to
further revise the College Council Scope Statement.
In response to a question from Ruth Moon, President Marsee noted that if he did not
agree with a recommended policy or procedure as forwarded from College Council, the
President/Superintendent should advise College Council and invite further discussion
regarding proposed changes to the recommendation.
Patrick Wilson of School and College Legal Service, via conference call, explained
Brown Act application. Patrick explained that, according to Govt. Code 54950, the
Brown Act must be adhered to by governing boards of community colleges and any
committees created by formal action of a governing board. Patrick noted that the
College of the Redwoods College Council did not seem to have been created by formal
action of the BOT, therefore was not subject to the Brown Act.
Academic Senate Co-President Allen Keppner reported that the ad-hoc faculty
prioritization model trial committee met Saturday, March 6th with intent to test the
revised faculty prioritization rubric. Allen reported that after initial testing the trial
committee found that the proposed rubric did not work.
According to Allen, the committee went on to identify factors that would be relevant in
any rubric dealing with faculty prioritization. Allen reported that the trial committee
would forward their findings to the committee charged with revising the prioritization
model and would encourage them to incorporate their findings into a revised rubric.
VP of instruction Marjorie Carson read the faculty prioritization rubric trial committee’s
collective statement:
The committee attempted to use the rubric and found the rubric to be un-workable.
Rather the committee used its time to identify additional criteria to incorporate into
a new rubric and subsequent program review prioritization form.
Marjorie pointed out that a program review prioritization form needed to be created in
addition to the new rubric. Marjorie also reported that the trial committee listed and
categorized 18 items for consideration in revising the rubric.
Academic Senate Co-President Dave Holper reported that he had begun work revising
the rubric to incorporate the findings of the trial committee and that the ad-hoc faculty
prioritization committee would meet again after Spring Break.
Support staff reported that the 30 day constituent feedback period for AP4021 “Program
Revitalization or Discontinuation Process” would end 03/19/2010 and reminded Council
members to continue to solicit feedback from their constituent groups.
Minutes-College Council
Page 4 of 4
March 08, 2010
Support staff reported that the 30 day constituent feedback period for AP4240
“Academic Renewal” would end 03/19/2010 and reminded Council members to
continue to solicit feedback from their constituent groups.
Support staff noted that the 30 day constituent feedback period for BP/AP5055 ended
March 08, 2010. President Marsee invited constituent feedback related to BP and AP
Keith Snow-Flamer, speaking on behalf of Lynn Thiesen (absent), reported that the
Administrator, Manager, Confidential (AMC) group had expressed only positive
feedback regarding revised BP/AP 5055.
Allen Keppner reported that Academic Senate had reviewed the proposed BP/AP and
had no objections or modifications.
After reviewing the existing BP and AP 5055, a motion was made (Keith SnowFlamer), seconded (Dave Holper) and passed unanimously to approve forwarding the
revised BP5055 and AP5055 to the President (AP) and BOT (BP).
BP/AP 4020
Support staff noted that BP/AP 4020 was drafted by ASPC and approved by the
academic senate on 05/02/2008. President Marsee requested that the proposed BP and
AP 4020 be sent out to constituent groups for a 30 day constituent review period.
BP/AP 4231
Support staff noted that BP/AP 4231 was drafted by ASPC and approved by the
Academic Senate on 11/21/2008. After discussion regarding the existing course grade
challenge process, President Marsee requested that proposed BP/AP 4231 be agendized
for the subsequent College Council policy/procedure meeting. President Marsee also
requested support staff to draft the corresponding BP 4231 utilizing league
BP/AP 510/804
President Marsee requested that BP/AP 510 and 804 be agendized for the subsequent
College Council meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 pm.