REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Academic Senate
January 21, 2011, 1 p.m.
• Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
• Del Norte: 883 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, Rooms E3 and E7
• Mendocino Coast: 1211 Del Mar Drive, Ft. Bragg, Room 106 B
Members Present: David Holper, Mark Winter, Rebecca Ashbach, Bob Brown, Kady Dunleavy,
Jennifer Gardner, Dave Gonsalves, Utpal Goswami, Jeff Hogue, Allen Keppner,
Philip Mancus, Pat Padilla, Ruth Rhodes, Mike Richards, Chris Romero, Justine
Shaw, Gary Sokolow, Kevin Yokoyama (meeting substitute for Todd Olsen).
Members Absent: Kerry Mayer, Todd Olsen.
1. Call to Order: Copresident David Holper called the meeting to order at 1:03.
2. Introductions and Public Comments: Copresident David Holper welcomed all members and
guests, and he introduced Kevin Yokoyama as the meeting substitute for Todd Olsen. Dave
called for public comments; no public comments were offered.
3. Approve the January 14 Special Meeting Minutes: On motion by Gary Sokolow, seconded by
Bob Brown, the minutes were approved as written.
4. Action Item
4.1 Proposed Senate Appointment: Copresident Holper presented the proposal that Jennifer
Gardner be appointed as chair of the Associate Faculty Committee. On motion by Allen
Keppner, seconded by Kady Dunleavy, the proposed appointment was unanimously
approved by the following roll call vote: Brown – y, Dunleavy – y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves
– y, Hogue – y, Keppner – y, Mancus – y, Padilla – y, Rhodes – y, Richards – y, Romero –
y, Shaw – y, Sokolow – y, Yokoyama – y.
5. Discussion Items
5.1
Basic Skills Initiative (BSI): Copresident Holper presented the background of what led up
to the formation of the BSI Steering Committee, and he introduced Tri-chairs Keith SnowFlamer, Erin Wall and MaryGrace Barrick. MaryGrace named the members of the BSI
Steering Committee, and she informed the Senate that the members have agreed on Action
and Expenditures Plans. Erin reported that the Committee members attended a Logic
Modeling retreat, and they plan to use the Modeling to help them establish priorities and
develop paths for addressing those priorities. Starting from where Judie Hinman’s BSI
Report left off, the Committee has decided to revisit proposed initiatives, including the ESL
program. Keith informed the Senate that CR’s budget for BSI this year is $90,000, and it
appears that the same amount will be available next year. All of this year’s $90,000 has
been budgeted, and the budget will be posted on the BSI internal website. How the BSI
Steering Committee receives input and information from sources other than Program
Review was discussed, and it was suggested that divisions and committees can forward
ideas to the Tri-chairs.
Academic Senate Minutes
January 21, 2011
Page 2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Program Review: Utpal Goswami presented an overview of Program Review (PR)
activities for the semester, and he reminded the Senate that the calendar of who does PR
and when was adjusted. Seven of the comprehensive Program Reviews that cover multiple
areas and were due last year have not yet been completed due to a lack of clarity with
workload issues, but other Reviews are being submitted as scheduled. A position request
form has been added to the PR documents, and a Faculty Prioritization meeting is
scheduled for Saturday, January 22.
Senate Resolution Regarding Resolution Process Draft 1/21/11: Copresident Winter
presented the background for the resolution process draft, and he informed the Senate that
an added component of the process is that Senate resolutions, once approved, will be
forwarded for inclusion in the Board packet. Because the Senate has decided to use the
resolution process to address issues, a clear process for drafting and forwarding resolutions
is needed. Mark reviewed the components outlined in the Resolution Process draft, and
senators made suggestions for added clarity. A revised draft will be forwarded for Senate
approval on February 4, and Mark asked senators to take the proposal to their constituents
for feedback.
Senate Resolution Regarding Faculty Development Draft 1/21/11: Copresident Winter
presented the draft resolution, and he explained how the proposal evolved. In response to a
question, Mark explained that if a teaching and learning center is created to support faculty
development, the New Faculty and the Associate Faculty Mentoring Programs will be
housed within the center. A revised draft of the resolution will be forwarded for Senate
approval on February 4.
Senate Resolution Regarding Institutional Research Draft 1/21/11: Copresident Winter
informed the Senate that this resolution proposal was drafted in response to Accreditation
recommendations, input from faculty, and the Title III Leadership Team. With the Title III
grant money no longer funding CR’s Institutional Research (IR) Department, the resolution
draft asks that in order to support the district’s planning and budgeting process, the IR
Department be restored to the staffing levels previously supported by the grant. The draft
resolution will be forwarded for Senate approval on February 4.
Guidelines for Assessment Activities Proposal 1/21/11: Copresident Holper presented the
background of why the Guidelines are needed, and he explained that upon Senate approval,
the proposal will be forwarded as a recommendation to CRFO for MOU consideration.
Senators discussed elements addressed in the proposal, and Assessment Coordinator Justine
Shaw expressed support for passing the Guidelines to codify assessment activities and how
assessment can and cannot be used. Senators were asked to share the proposed Guidelines
with their constituents and forward any feedback to Dave and Mark. The proposal will be
forwarded for Senate approval on February 4.
6. Reports
6.1 Executive Committee December 15 Approval: As specified in the Senate’s Bylaws,
Copresident Holper reported that the December 10 Curriculum Committee
recommendations were approved by the Senate Executive Committee on December 15.
The approved curricular changes were forwarded for Board consideration in January.
6.2 Accreditation Update: Utpal Goswami reported that the Self-Study timeline includes the
goal of having a substantial draft report ready for review by March 15. Following review,
a revised draft should be ready by early May. Between now and early May, work toward
meeting the accreditation standards will go forward, and information for the report will
continue to be gathered through the standard committees. The writing team will be
Academic Senate Minutes
January 21, 2011
Page 3
reconstituted, and funding may be available for the writers and editors of the final draft.
The entire college community is being asked to participate in the Self-Study process, and
participants are needed to help develop planning agendas that document how we intend to
meet our goals and what people are assigned to specific tasks.
6.3 Accreditation Update – Senate Efforts: Copresident Holper informed the Senate that at
President Marsee’s invitation, Dave and Mark met on December 23 with President Marsee
and Trustees Emad and Mullery. At the meeting, recommendations from the Mock SelfStudy Team were addressed. During discussion on how the college can move forward to
meet the recommendations, several agreements were made, and Mark and Dave were asked
to draft those agreements into a letter that will probably be distributed to the college
community following Board review. Dave highlighted the agreements reached, which
included (1) Appoint an Assessment Coordinator who will receive 9 TLU’s of reassigned
time, and he reported that Justine Shaw has agreed to take on the assignment; (2)
Encourage the Board to fill the Director of Institutional Research position; and (3) Consider
hiring one of the Mock Team members as an accreditation consultant to guide the college
through the Self-Study process. On recommendation of the Mock Team, Dave and Mark
have appointed an ad hoc committee comprised of former Senate leaders to do an inventory
of the college’s policies and procedures to assess where the district stands on the 10 + 1
issues.
6.3.1 Overall Accreditation Committee: Faculty Tri-chair Kevin Yokoyama highlighted a
number of issues raised in the Mock Self-Study Report, and he reported that the
Standards committees are working on meeting the recommendations included in the
report. Kevin stressed that there is a lot of work to be done to meet the
recommendations, and with the Commission wanting specific planning agendas and
evidence of follow-through in meeting those planning goals, a college-wide effort
will be required. A survey done of similar community colleges indicated that we
should have had two full time faculty with a hundred percent reassigned time for at
least a year to accomplish the work required to meet the recommendations.
6.3.2 Standard I – Institutional Mission and Effectiveness: Co-chair Jeff Hogue reported
on the work being done by the committee, and he highlighted a number of
recommendations in the Mock Self-Study Report that the committee is attempting
to address. Included in those recommendations is (1) a formal process for the
regular review of institutional planning cycles with evidence that the institution is
following its Integrated Planning Model and (2) a formal process for a systematic
review of the college’s Mission Statement.
6.3.3 Standard II – Student Learning Programs and Services: Co-chair Steve Brown
highlighted recommendations that the committee is addressing, and he reported that
the work is being sub-divided and assigned to teams to gather information in
specific areas. Steve reported that the Mock Team Report included
recommendations that planning agendas are needed for the Enrollment Management
Committee, for how we plan to develop Institutional Research leadership and
capacity, and for the appointment and ongoing support of a Student Learning
Outcomes coordinator. In addition, the college needs to draft sustainability plan
for the library and for support services at all sites.
6.3.4 Standard III – Resources: Co-chair Becky Blatnick reported that Standard III
includes Human Resources, technology, facilities and finances, all of which impact
every area of the college. A long-term planning agenda is needed for facilities, and
the Mock Team recommended that the college develops a three-to-five year
financial plan for how the district will maintain financial stability and how the
Academic Senate Minutes
January 21, 2011
Page 4
financial planning integrates with the overall institutional planning. Becky reported
that the committee has had several all-day meetings to address the
recommendations, and she encouraged more faculty and staff to become involved.
6.3.5 Standard IV – Leadership and Governance: Co-chair Mark Winter reported that the
leadership and governance also includes the Board of Trustees and the President’s
roles. College policies and procedures are being reviewed, and the committee is
tasked with identifying the strengths and limitations of college processes. A
planning agenda for a regular review cycle needs to be drafted, and Mark reported
that the committee is working on an assessment tool to be used by the Academic
Senate and its standing committees. As did all the co-chairs, Mark encouraged all
faculty and staff to become involved and participate in the Self-Study efforts.
6.4 ASCR Update: Rebecca Ashbach reported that an update on ASCR activities will be
presented on February 4.
6.5 Board of Trustees January 4 Meeting: Copresident Holper presented the press release
regarding CR’s involvement in the Jefferson School negotiations that apparently came out
of one of the Board’s January 4 closed sessions. Dave reported that the Senate Update that
he presented at the meeting was focused on the letter regarding accreditation issues that
came out of the December 23 meeting that occurred with President Marsee, Trustees Emad
and Mullery, and Senate Copresidents Holper and Winter. The Board meeting also
included an announcement by President Marsee that no more houses would be built by
students in the Construction Technology (CT) Program, and faculty member Bill Hole
spoke to the importance of the house to the entire CT Program. A meeting with the CT
faculty, two trustees, and representatives of the administration was scheduled to address the
CT issues. Senators expressed the need to approve and implement the Program
Revitalization and Discontinuance proposal so a mechanism for addressing programmatic
issues is codified.
7. Announcements and Open Forum
7.1
Portugal Award 2010-2011 Presentations by Cynthia Hooper: Copresident Holper
announced Cindy Hooper’s Portugal Award presentation titled Anthropogenic Aquascapes:
Videos about Water and the Environment,” which is scheduled on the Eureka campus for
Friday, January 28, from 11:30-1:00 in FM 100. Additional presentations are scheduled for
the Del Norte and Mendocino Coast campuses and at the Klamath-Trinity site. The
presentations are free and open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend.
7.2 Portugal Award 2011-2012 Call for Proposals – Submission Deadline February 4, 2011:
Copresident Holper reminded senators that the call for 2011-2012 Portugal Award
proposals has been distributed, and he encouraged faculty to take the opportunity to submit
proposals to the Senate Office by the February 4 deadline.
8. Adjournment: On motion by Gary Sokolow, seconded by Allen Keppner, the meeting was
adjourned at 2:34.
Respectfully submitted by Sally Frazier, Administrative Secretary to the Academic Senate.
Next Meeting:
Friday, February 4, 2011
Academic Senate Minutes
January 21, 2011
Page 5