REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
September 17, 2010, 1 p.m.

Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)

Del Norte: 883 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, Room 28

Mendocino Coast: 1211 Del Mar Drive, Ft. Bragg, Room 106 B
Members Present: David Holper, Mark Winter, Rebecca Ashbach, Michael Bailey, Bob Brown,
Kady Dunleavy, Jennifer Gardner, Dave Gonsalves, Jeff Hogue, Allen Keppner,
Philip Mancus, Kerry Mayer, Todd Olsen, Pat Padilla, Ruth Rhodes, Mike
Richards, Chris Romero, Justine Shaw, Gary Sokolow.
Members Absent: Utpal Goswami.
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 called for public comments; no public comments were offered.
3.
Approve the September 3, 2010 Meeting Minutes: On motion by Bob Brown, seconded by Jeff
Hogue, the minutes were approved as written.
4.
Action Items
4.1
September 10 Curriculum Committee Recommendations: Curriculum Committee member
Allen Keppner presented the recommendations and answered questions. On motion by
Kerry Mayer, seconded by Gary Sokolow, the recommendations were unanimously approved by the following roll call vote: Bailey – y, Brown – y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves – y, Hogue – y, Keppner – y, Mancus – y, Mayer – y, Olsen – y, Padilla – y, Rhodes – y,
Richards – y, Romero – y, Shaw – y, Sokolow – y.
4.2
Eureka Campus-wide Faculty Meeting Schedule Guidelines: Copresident Holper presented the proposed guidelines, and he highlighted the addition of the Associate Faculty
Committee meeting. On motion by Todd Olsen, seconded by Chris Romero, the proposal was unanimously approved by the following roll call vote: Bailey – y, Brown – y, Gardner
– y, Gonsalves – y, Hogue – y, Keppner – y, Mancus – y, Mayer – y, Olsen – y, Padilla – y,
Rhodes – y, Richards – y, Romero – y, Shaw – y, Sokolow – y.
5.
Discussion Item
5.1
Accreditation Follow-Up Report: Karen Nelson, one of the co-authors of the Follow-up
Report, presented the draft, and she explained that, under Vice President Goswami’s direction, the report included a descriptive summary, an analysis, and the college’s plans to date. The draft was reviewed by the Cabinet and the Board of Trustees earlier this week, and at today’s meeting, the Senate will have the first opportunity to provide feedback from the larger college community. During discussion, Senate suggestions and feedback on the
Follow-Up Report included the following: (1) Explicitly tie activities to the

Academic Senate Minutes
September 17, 2010
Page 2 recommendation on roles and responsibilities; (2) Replace passive language with factual, clear statements; (3) State what the college has accomplished and is doing rather than what we plan to do; (4) Deal directly and honestly with the issues; (5) Be transparent, accurate and substantive in addressing areas where the college is off track; (6) Replace the word
“evidences” with “evidence”; (7) Address the administration’s top-down communication style and how it does not contribute to creating an environment of trust and respect; (8)
Explain the relevancy of some sections to the ACCJC’s recommendations, such as the formation of the managers council and the president’s innovations; (9) Specifically tie evidence to one of the three main styles of institutional governance named in the report— participative, collaborative or directive; (10) Omit the Convocation presentation as evidence of improving communication; (11) Include the evidence regarding the issue of trust that was gathered through the employee satisfaction survey; (12) Accurately describe the current status of the faculty prioritization process and how it evolved; (13) Include evidence that appropriate constituent groups were not included in the summer revisions of board policies and administrative procedures; and (14) Include evidence in the summary of what the college is doing to address the ACCJC’s recommendations on roles and responsibilities. With the Follow-Up Report due to the Accrediting Commission by mid-
October, senators asked what the timeline and next steps are in the revision process and whether there would be additional opportunities for constituents to provide feedback.
6.
Reports
6.1
Title III Year Five Report: Title III Activities Director Karen Nelson presented a Year Five
Report that included the Title III Year Five Accomplishments, five years of Title III survey results, surveys developed for use by the Business/Technology (B/Tech) division, and a
SLO Assessment Planning Worksheet to help departments with developing a Student
Learning Outcomes assessment plan. Karen presented an overview of the Title III accomplishments, and she explained the functions of each of the B/Tech surveys. On
Thursday, September 23, a Title III Summative Evaluation presentation by external grant evaluators Mary Gelinas and Roger James is scheduled for the college community from 3 –
5 p.m. in AT 103-104, and Karen encouraged all faculty to attend either in person or through CCC Confer.
6.2
Program Review Committee Update: Program Review Committee (PRC) member Karen
Nelson presented the calendar approved by the PRC, which the committee feels allows for a reasonable amount of time to accomplish the work and doesn’t have the PRC and the functional groups each doing their work at the same time. Karen explained that to date the program review process has not been evaluated, and the Senate is not currently included in the process. Additionally, specific components such as Program Initialization and Program
Revitalization or Discontinuance procedures have not been finalized. It was suggested that senators forward feedback on the PRC calendar or process to Karen, Keith Snow-Flamer or
Utpal Goswami.
6.3
Board Policies and Administrative Procedures – Sunset Recommendations: CRFO past
President Ed Macan reported that CRFO Executive Committee members reviewed the BP’s and AP’s listed on the sunset recommendation chart and the reason given for each of the recommendations. CRFO saw no problem with the recommendation of “CRFO Contract
Item” or “Obsolete,” but they did question the sunset recommendation of BP 338,
Administrator Retreat Rights, with the reason given for the recommendation being

Academic Senate Minutes
September 17, 2010
Page 3
“Conform to district practice.” Since this is covered in the contract, they questioned why it was not noted as “CRFO Contract Item.” On their attorney’s recommendation, CRFO wants clarification on the sunset recommendation for BP 338 before they will sign off on it.
6.4
September 1 College Council Meeting: Copresident Holper reported that the BP/AP sunset recommendations were discussed, and the revision process for board policies and administrative procedures was addressed. The Council agreed that revisions with slight modifications would have a 30-day constituent review period, while revisions with significant changes would have a 90-day review period followed by an additional 30-day constituent review window prior to College Council approval. Dave reported that Senateapproved policy revisions that were addressed on previous Council agendas will be placed on future agendas for additional review and will hopefully go forward and be implemented.
Copresidents Holper and Winter stressed that they intend to be vigilant that policies under the Senate’s purview will not be approved by College Council before the Senate has an opportunity to address the revisions.
6.5
ASCR Update: Student Representative Rebecca Ashbach reported that she forwarded the
Senate’s concerns that the noise generated at ASCR supported activities held outside the cafeteria interferes with classroom instruction in the Forum Building. Rebecca said she will continue to work with ASCR to find ways to resolve the issues.
6.6
September 14 Board of Trustees Meeting: Copresidents Holper and Winter reported that the Senate Update that Dave read at the Board meeting was well received, and Board members complimented the copresidents on the Senate’s new website. The Board addressed a number of construction issues, including next-steps in the potential modification of the old library for faculty offices, and they were given a report on the profitability of the 101 Corridor by Community and Economic Development Executive
Director Ahn Fielding.
7.
Announcements and Open Forum: No announcements or open forum items were forwarded.
8.
Adjournment: On motion by Gary Sokolow, seconded by Mike Richards, the meeting was adjourned at 3:04.
Respectfully submitted by Sally Frazier, Administrative Secretary to the Academic Senate.
Next Meeting:
October 1, 2010