REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Minutes of the College Council
7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, CA, Board Room
Monday, February 8, 2010
MEMBERS
PRESENT
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, Reaia Reaves
MEMBERS
ABSENT
Riley Emanaker, Mike Wells
CALL TO ORDER
Marjorie Carson, VP of Instruction, called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm
MINUTES
The Council discussed the College Council scope revision outlined in the 01-25-10
College Council minutes. 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
The College Council minutes dated 02/08/2010 were approved as presented.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
INTEGRATED
PLANNING MODEL
The Council reviewed and discussed the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) that was
drafted and approved by the Coordinated Planning Committee (CPC) on
12/14/2009. Keith Snow-Flamer, VP of Student Services, explained that the CPC,
after reviewing the IPM forwarded by the Program Review Committee, drafted the
IPM to more accurately depict the relationship between program review and budget.
Martha Davis, Director of IR, suggested that the CPD IPM did not reflect the
importance of ‘Student Success’. Academic Senate Co-President Dave Holper
agreed and noted that the proposed IPM model did not meet the “Sustainable
Continuous Quality Improvement” standards set out in the ACCJC ‘Rubric of
Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness.’
Academic Senate Co-President Dave Holper recommended drafting a narrative that
explains how the CPC authored IPM dovetails with the ACCJC ‘Rubric of
Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness.’ Marjorie Carson, VP of Instruction,
reported that her-self and Keith Snow-Flamer, VP of Student Services, would form a
subcommittee with the intent to draft a narrative that explains the CPC authored
IPM. The IPM, including a narrative, will be presented to College Council at their
next meeting.
Additions and corrections offered at the 02/22/10 meeting noted in italics:
During the ‘Approve Minutes’ portion of the 02/22/10 College Council meeting Ruth
Moon noted that Martha Davis’s comments regarding the IPM during the 02/08/10
College Council meeting were ‘slightly different’ than what is noted above.
Martha’s words during the 02/08/10 meeting were “I’m a little bit concerned after
Minutes-College Council
Page 2 of 3
February 8th, 2010
being through two (accreditation) visits that they (ACCJC) are really interested in
student success. There is no loop (in the proposed IPM) on student success and
continuous improvement. This is more of a budget oriented/FTES integrated plan. I
know that they are going to want to see an integrated plan in the ‘Self Study’ that
addresses student success.”
Ruth Moon also noted that she, in addition to Dave Holper (who’s request was in
the minutes) had also requested that a narrative be drafted to accompany the IPM.
Ruth specifically asked for a narrative that would address:
1. The back-story of the model. Where did it come from? What was it a product
of?
2. An explication of the specific steps which are not clear in the model. What
exactly happens in the purple diamonds? And then arrows pointing off to
success and retention. I wanted an explanation of what is that process that
the arrow is symbolizing in the chart.
POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
AP 4021 “PROGRAM
REVITALIZATION OR
DISCONTINUATI-ON
PROCESS”
The Council reviewed a draft AP 4021 that was authored by the Academic
Standards and Policy Committee (ASPC) and approved by the Academic Senate on
02/20/2009.
Support staff noted that AP4020 “Program and Curriculum Development” and
AP4021 “Program Revitalization or Discontinuation Process” were both categorized
under BP4020 “Program and Curriculum Development”. There is no CCLC
recommended BP4021.
The Council recommended the following revision to the draft AP4021:
1. Under ‘Identification of At-Risk Programs’ add a fifth bullet:
 “Irrelevance of programs as measured by job-placement percentage and
transfer rates.”
2. Under “Development of Action Plan to Discontinue Program” revise the 8th
bullet: (see strike-through)
 Fiscal impact, including savings in salaries and benefits and/or revenue
from sales of equipment and or facilities
3. In all instances, change ‘area Director/Division Chair’ to area Director/
Dean’
AP 5055
“ENROLLMENT
PRIORITIES”
AMD representative Lynn Thiesen reported that College Council constituent
representatives had sent out, on 02/08/10, the proposed BP/AP 5055 to their
constituent groups for review/feedback. As previously discussed at College
Council, district stakeholders will have 30 days to submit feedback/concerns. At the
March 8th, 2010 College Council meeting College Council representatives will
present any feedback they received from their groups to College Council. If no
revisions are recommended by College Council, College Council will vote to
forward AP 5055 to the President for implementation and presentation to the BOT,
and to submit BP5055 to the BOT for approval.
AP 2511 “COLLEGE
As noted in the “MINUTES” section above, The Council discussed the College
Minutes-College Council
Page 3 of 3
February 8th, 2010
COUNCIL”
Council scope revision outlined in the 01-25-10 College Council minutes. 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
A subcommittee was formed consisting of CRFO representative Ruth Moon and
support staff (Academic Senate Co-President Dave Holper will also provide input)
to draft College Council operating procedures and a process flowchart.
The Council discussed the BP/AP approval process. President Marsee noted that an
AP is not official until it has been reviewed by the BOT and that the President is
responsible for implementing procedures that were created with true constituency
participation. President Marsee also noted that proposed BP/APs approved by
College Council will be forwarded to the BOT without revision.
Additions and corrections offered at the 02/22/10 meeting noted in italics:
During the ‘Approve Minutes’ portion of the 02/22/10 College Council meeting Ruth
Moon noted that she did not recall agreeing to serve on the subcommittee formed to
draft College Council operating procedures and process flowchart. Ruth noted that
she was not sure if she had the time to commit to something like this. Ruth requested
that she be removed from the committee. Dave Holper noted that he was
comfortable participating in the committee and that he had begun work on a revised
College Council scope statement and College Council operating procedures.
BP/AP 4240
“ACADEMIC
RENEWAL”
BP and AP 4240 were approved by College Council on 04/21/2009. Support staff
recommended that they be sent to district stakeholders for the 30 day
review/feedback period.
AP305.01/AP305.03
“FACULTY
PRIORITIZATION”
A “Faculty Prioritization” committee update will be given at the 02/22/10 College
Council meeting/
BP/AP 4231 “COURSE
GRADE CHALLENGE”
BP/AP 4231 will be addressed at the 03/08/10 College Council Meeting.
BP/AP 4020
“PROGRAM AND
CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT”
BP/AP 4020 will be addressed at the 03/08/10 College Council Meeting.
ADJOURN
de
The meeting was adjourned at 4:33 pm.