REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Minutes of the College Council
7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, CA, Board Room
Monday, February 22, 2010
MEMBERS
PRESENT
MEMBERS
ABSENT
Allen Keppner, Dave Holper, Becky Blatnick (phone), Martha Racine (phone), Keith
Snow-Flamer, Marjorie Carson, Ruth Moon, Lynn Thiesen, Jeff Marsee, Ron McQueen,
Jose Ramirez, Ruth Bettenhausen, Melissa Ruiz, Mike Wells
Riley Emanaker, Reaia Reaves
CALL TO ORDER Marjorie Carson, VP of Instruction, called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm
MINUTES After a number of suggested revisions to the minutes offered by Ruth Moon, Dave
Holper suggested delaying the vote to approve the minutes at this particular meeting because a number of College Council members did not have a copy of the minutes for review. A motion was made, seconded and passed to table the minutes until the
Council was prepared to review and approve them.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
INTEGRATED
PLANNING
MODEL
The Council reviewed and discussed the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and IPM narrative. Keith Snow-Flamer reported that the IPM and narrative had been reintroduced to the Academic Senate last Friday (Feb 19 th
, 2010). Feedback from
Academic Senate included:
1.
Why was the Coordinated Planning Council (CPC) IPM developed when the
Program Review Committee (PRC) had already drafted one?
2.
The model as it stands didn’t take into account any discussion regarding student achievement or student success. The model implies that everything is tied to the budget and FTES generation
3.
The current model does not reflect Instruction’s relationship with the Enrollment
Management Committee
4.
What is the relationship between the IPM and the Facilities and Technology
Master Plan Committees (FMPC and TMPC)? How do the Tech and Facilities tear-off forms from program review flow through the Tech and Facilities committees and inform the Budget Planning Committee? How does the
Facilities Committee interact with the Budget Planning Committee regarding issues such as priorities for deferred maintenance, capital improvement and matching block funds from the state?
5.
What planning process will be implemented while the CPC IPM and PRC IPM are reconciled?
6.
How can the IPM be modified so the Program Review Process (and not the budget process) is the central piece
Keith Snow-Flamer noted that over the years CR had received numerous ACCJC recommendations related to linking program review to budget.
President Jeff Marsee recommended amending the IPM so that ‘Academic Affairs’,
‘Program Review Committee’ and ‘Instructional Assessment’ flowed into ‘Enrollment
Management’ and not ‘Budget Planning Committee’.

Minutes-College Council
Page 2 of 4
February 22, 2010
CLASSIFIED
SENATE UPDATE
DISTRICT WIDE
FORUM:
MISSION, CORE
VALUES, GOALS,
PHILOSOPHIES
COLLEGE OF
THE REDWOODS
MENTOR
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
AP 2511 “COLLEGE
COUNCIL”
Ruth Moon suggested that revision of the IPM to meet the needs of the Academic
Senate should be completed outside of College Council and that the role of College
Council should be to ensure that the IPM has been developed following the collegial consultative process.
Dave Holper noted that many members of College Council had played active roles in shaping the two proposed Integrated Planning Models and past Integrated Planning
Models and suggested that an ad-hoc College Council committee form to reconcile the two competing IPMs. The committee will consist of:
1.
Keith Snow-Flamer (Chair)
2.
Dave Holper
3.
Ron McQueen
4.
Becky Blatnick
5.
Marjorie Carson
The IPM Reconciliation Committee will report out at a subsequent College Council meeting.
Jose Ramirez reported that the Classified Senate was working on setting up their next meeting. At that meeting Classified Senate will be discussing bylaws and representation.
President Marsee noted that he had appointed Jose Ramirez as the interim Classified
Senate Representative. Jose reported that he would fulfill that role until the Classified
Senate held regular elections.
President Marsee noted that Pam Fisher from the Association of Community College
Trustees had met with Jeff Marsee, Alan Keppner and Dave Holper to discuss the district wide forum regarding mission, core values, goals and philosophies. Dave
Holper and Alan Keppner both agreed that Pam could be an effective facilitator for the event. Pam Fisher agreed to provide her facilitating services Friday March 19 th .
Alan Keppner reported that Friday, March 19 th
was during Spring Break. President
Marsee reported that he would work on rescheduling the event.
Mike Wells reported that he was in the process of researching CA Community College best practices regarding professional development mentor programs.
Mike also reported that the Professional Development Committee was nearly formed
(lacking a faculty member).
During the 02/08/10 College Council meeting a suggestion was made to further refine the scope and proposed AP2511 to reflect:
1.
Process by which APs are reviewed by College Council then forwarded to the
President and BOT
2.
College Council constituent representation
3.
College Council operating procedures and process flowchart
Dave Holper reported that he had revised the proposed College Council Scope and had begun drafting College Council operating procedures. The committee will provide a progress report at the 03/08/10 College Council Meeting.

Minutes-College Council
Page 3 of 4
February 22, 2010
AP305.01/AP305.03
“FACULTY
PRIORITIZATION”
Alan Keppner reported that the committee charged with updating the faculty prioritization model had reviewed every previous faculty prioritization process, including the decision tree, and found that each had specific problems. The committee then looked at best practices from around the state and drafted a rubric that utilizes data submitted in program reviews.
Alan Keppner presented the draft faculty prioritization rubric. Alan reported that the committee tasked with revising faculty prioritization suggested that a committee consisting of five administrators and five faculty members pilot the rubric using data gathered from program review. Alan suggested the committee meet to pilot the proposed rubric prior to spring break.
Marjorie Carson agreed that testing the rubric using the program review documents would be useful and suggested the committee schedule an all-day Saturday retreat.
Dave Holper noted that the program review process lacked a ‘Faculty Position Request’ and suggested a ‘Faculty Position Request’ be developed.
Many members of College Council agreed that the ultimate objective was to develop and implement a faculty prioritization process that was functional and objective and that could be used year after year.
Alan Keppner added that a few pieces were still missing in the planning process:
1.
Program initiation process
2.
Discontinuance or revitalization process
After these processes are developed the prioritization model may need to be adjusted.
Dave Holper noted that individual positions may not be applicable to every category of the rubric; therefore position scoring will be measured by percentage of points possible and not total points.
Keith Snow-Flamer suggested that service area faculty positions should be evaluated outside of the teaching faculty process. Historically counselors were not given high prioritization. Keith also suggested that a service area faculty member should be invited to serve on the faculty prioritization committee. Ruth Moon volunteered to be on the faculty prioritization committee.
President Marsee suggested that the number of counselors retained should be a determined using a ratio factor such as enrollment/counselors or FTES/counselors.
Dave Holper suggested authorizing the faculty prioritization co-chairs to make adjustments to the rubric as needed.
The ad-hoc faculty prioritization committee will report out at the next College Council meeting.
TITLE III REPORT Title III Activities Director Karen Nelson reported that Title III was busy working on:
1.
A business technology project with CTE Dean Steve Brown to develop graduate employer surveys. The need for the survey was identified through program review responses.

Minutes-College Council
Page 4 of 4
February 22, 2010
JEFRFERSON
SCHOOL
ADJOURN
DE
2.
Revision of manager evaluation instruments and protocol.
3.
Evaluating data sets contained in program reviews
Jose Ramirez noted that part of the Title III grant was to develop a data warehouse.
Karen Nelson responded that the idea had been discussed but not acted upon and that developing a data warehouse was not a specific requirement of the grant. Keith Snow-
Flamer agreed but noted that developing a date warehouse would be extremely valuable.
President Marsee reported that CR had submitted a 90 day non binding proposal to purchase the Jefferson School. President Marsee also noted that the due diligence process was underway and pending receipt of the due diligence reports President
Marsee would be making a recommendation to the BOT to purchase or not purchase the property.
Alan Keppner suggested an open forum be held amongst the campus community to share information regarding Jefferson school and solicit feedback. Other concerns voiced by the Academic Senate at the previous academic senate meeting were:
1.
One academic senator noted that he lived in that community and thought CR would have a negative impact
2.
Bond money should be used to address deferred maintenance and not purchase new property
3.
In addition to CTE faculty, non CTE faculty should have been invited to review and evaluate the Jefferson property
Lynn Thiesen agreed that the deferred maintenance needs of the College need to be addressed.
Ruth Bettenhausen noted that bond funds can be used for capital investments but not operating costs. Ruth also reported that the Facilities Master Plan Committee was currently working on prioritizing deferred maintenance needs. Prioritization is measured considering the following factors in order of importance:
1.
Safety
2.
Structural
3.
Of the students (cafeteria, sports fields)
4.
Savings
President Marsee requested that two district-wide open forums be scheduled to discuss the Jefferson School opportunity. The first forum will be held ASAP and the second following receipt of the due diligence reports.
Ruth Moon suggested holding district wide open forums on a regular recurring basis.
Alan Keppner pointed out that recurring forums are difficult to schedule without college hour.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.