REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Academic Senate
• Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
• Del Norte: 883 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, Rooms E3 and E4
• Mendocino Coast: 1211 Del Mar Drive, Ft. Bragg, Room 106 B
Friday, October 7, 2011, 1 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Introductions and Public Comment: Members of the audience are invited to make comments
regarding any subject appropriate to the Academic Senate.
3. Approve the September 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes
4. Action Items
4.1 Approve Academic Senate Proposed Appointments, Mark Winter (Attachment)
4.2 Approve Curriculum Committee September 23 Recommendations, Peter Blakemore
(Attachment)
4.3 Approve Faculty Qualifications Committee September 23 Recommendation, Michelle
Haggerty (Attachment)
5. Discussion Items
5.1 College Council Policy and Procedure Drafts for Constituent Review:
5.1.1 BP/AP 3260 Participatory Governance, Mike Richards (Attachments)
5.1.2 Instructional Exigency Plan Due to Adverse Budget Environment, Mark Winter
(Attachment)
5.2 International Baccalaureate and College Level Exam Program (CLEP) Issues, Allen Keppner
(Attachments)
6. Reports
6.1 Budget Planning Committee Update, Bob Brown (Attachments)
6.2 Basic Skills Committee Report, Erin Wall (Note: Attachment will be distributed after the
October 5 Basic Skills Committee meeting)
6.3 College Update, Utpal Goswami
6.4 ASCR Update, Bobby Shearer
6.5 College Council September 26 Meeting, Mark Winter
6.6 Board of Trustees October 3 Meeting, Mark Winter
7. Announcements and Open Forum
7.1 September 2011 Senate Rostrum, Mark Winter
8. Adjournment
Public Notice—Nondiscrimination:
College of the Redwoods does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation,
color or disability in any of its programs or activities. College of the Redwoods is committed to providing
reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Upon request this publication will be made available in
alternate formats. Please contact Sally Frazier, Administrative Secretary to the Academic Senate, 7351 Tompkins
Hill Road, Eureka, CA 95501, (707) 476-4259, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday—Friday.
Next Meeting: Friday, October 21, 2011
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Academic Senate
September 16, 2011, 1 p.m.
• Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
• Del Norte: 883 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, Rooms E3 and E4
• Mendocino Coast: 1211 Del Mar Drive, Ft. Bragg, Room 106 B
Members Present: Mike Richards, Dave Bazard, Trish Blair (substituting for Allen Keppner), Bob
Brown, Steve Brown, Kady Dunleavy, Ryan Emenaker, Chris Gaines, Jennifer
Gardner, Utpal Goswami, Dave Gonsalves, Cindy Hooper, Philip Mancus, Susan
Nordlof, Bobby Shearer, Kevin Yokoyama.
Members Absent: Allen Keppner, Gary Sokolow, Mark Winter.
1. Call to Order: Copresident Mike Richards called the meeting to order at 1:01.
2. Introductions and Public Comments: Copresident Mike Richards welcomed all members and
guests, and he introduced Bobby Shearer as the new ASCR representative on the Senate. Mike
called for public comments; no public comments were forwarded.
3. Approve the September 2 Meeting Minutes: On motion by Kevin Yokoyama, seconded by Bob
Brown, the minutes were approved as written.
4. Action Items
4.1
Academic Senate Proposed Appointments: Copresident Richards presented the proposed
appointments. On motion by Bob Brown, seconded by Dave Bazard, the appointments
were unanimously approved by the following roll call vote: Bazard – y, Blair – y, Brown,
B. – y, Brown, S. – y, Dunleavy – y, Emenaker – y, Gaines – y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves –
y, Hooper – y, Mancus – y, Nordlof – y, Yokoyama – y.
4.2 Curriculum Committee September 9 Recommendations: Committee Chair Peter
Blakemore presented the recommendations, and he answered questions. On motion by
Steve Brown, seconded by Dave Bazard, the recommendations were unanimously
approved by the following roll call vote: Bazard – y, Blair – y, Brown, B. – y, Brown, S. –
y, Dunleavy – y, Emenaker – y, Gaines – y, Gardner – y, Gonsalves – y, Hooper – y,
Mancus – y, Nordlof – y, Yokoyama – y.
4.3 2011-2012 Eureka Campus-wide Meeting Schedule Proposal: Copresident Richards
presented the proposal, and he gave the background. Bob Brown moved to approve,
seconded by Kady Dunleavy. It was suggested that the guidelines be adjusted in the future
to reflect the new teaching periods, and the Senate meeting time be changed to 3:15-5:15.
Following additional discussion, Dave Bazard moved to amend the motion, seconded by
Ryan Emenaker, to delete the second to last sentence and revise the last sentence to read,
“The Academic Senate suggests that division and department meetings be scheduled in
such a way that they do not conflict with the regularly scheduled meetings noted above.”
The amendment was unanimously approved by the following roll call vote: Bazard – y,
Blair – y, Brown, B. – y, Brown, S. – y, Dunleavy – y, Emenaker – y, Gaines – y, Gardner
Academic Senate Minutes
September 16, 2011
Page 2
– y, Gonsalves – y, Hooper – y, Mancus – y, Nordlof – y, Yokoyama – y. The vote on the
mail motion then carried unanimously by the following roll call vote: Bazard – y, Blair –
y, Brown, B. – y, Brown, S. – y, Dunleavy – y, Emenaker – y, Gaines – y, Gardner – y,
Gonsalves – y, Hooper – y, Mancus – y, Nordlof – y, Yokoyama – y.
5. Discussion Item
5.1
College Council Draft Policy and Procedure for Constituent Review – BP/AP 3260
Participatory Governance: Copresident Mike Richards presented the drafts, and he
explained that they are currently out for a 30 day constituent review and will be considered
for approval by College Council on October 10. Senate discussion included (1) the
suggestion that the Decision Making Model included in the AP be removed as it doesn’t
reflect what we do, (2) add cross references within the documents when other policies or
procedures are cited, (3) clarify in the AP what elements of governance are not part of
participatory governance, and (4) clarify the roles of administrators and managers and
consider including the roles of deans and area coordinators. Mike asked senators to
forward the drafts to their constituents and bring feedback to the October 7 Senate meeting.
6. Reports
6.1
Curriculum Committee Update: Curriculum Committee Chair Peter Blakemore reported
that at their September 9 meeting, the committee had an opportunity to address the
following issues: (1) The new GE process. Peter asked senators to remind their
constituents that there is a new course outline for proposed GE courses. When current GE
courses are due for revision, the new form should be used and the outcomes reviewed. (2)
Mapping student learning outcomes for GE courses. Peter reported that he will keep the
Senate informed on the mapping process and the progress that has been made on assessing
GE courses. (3) Distance education (DE) and where the college is going with DE. The
Curriculum Committee would like a process in place that informs them if a proposed
course would put the program offering through DE over the 50% threshold, which requires
a Substantive Change be submitted to the ACCJC. Peter requested Senate guidance in
what should be included in that process. (4) New programs and a Program Initiation
Process. The Curriculum Committee would like Senate guidance in developing a process
for how the committee should address proposed curriculum that will lead to the
implementation of a new program. Peter also informed the Senate that a Curriculum
Spotlight and a Spotlight for DE courses are now available on the Institutional Research
website for tracking the approval cycles of courses and to highlight those that need
updating.
6.2 Basic Skills Committee Update: Faculty Tri-chair Erin Wall presented the draft of the
End-of-the-Year Expenditure Report for 2010-2011, which is due to the Chancellor’s
Office by October 10, and she gave background information and answered questions. Erin
reported that the committee has $90,000 to allocate this year, and a portion of the money is
being used to fund the English writing and the math labs. A call for proposals for the
remaining basic skills funds was distributed to faculty and staff in late August, with the
proposal review process to begin November 1. The Basic Skills Committee is meeting
again to revise and update the report before it is submitted to the Chancellor’s Office, and
the Senate will have an opportunity to review the final draft on October 7.
Academic Senate Minutes
September 16, 2011
Page 3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
Accreditation Update: Utpal Goswami reported that the college is in the logistical phase of
scheduling meetings and organizing the October 17-20 ACCJC site visit, which will
include visits to Del Norte and Mendocino Coast. Open sessions with the college
community will be scheduled for the first morning, and meetings with district committees,
including College Council and the Senate Executive Committee, will be scheduled at the
team’s request. Utpal reported that the team wants to see the college’s committee work
tied to the mission of the institution, and at Utpal’s request, statements are being posted on
committee websites that outline how each committee’s activities supports the college
mission. With the intention of assessing how our face-to-face sections compare with those
taught online, the team plans to request access to selected distance education (DE) classes,
and they will also visit the corresponding classes taught face-to-face. DE instructors will
be contacted by early October and informed of the team’s request. Utpal reported that the
team will be very interested in learning how informed the CR faculty and staff are in the
college’s progress toward meeting the ACCJC Standards, and all district employees are
encouraged to attend one of the two accreditation information sessions scheduled for
Friday, September 30.
Academic Standards and Policies Committee (ASPC) Assignment – BP/AP 4030
Academic Freedom: Copresident Richards informed the Senate that he and Copresident
Winter tasked the Senate’s Academic Standards and Policies Committee with reviewing
BP/AP 4030 Academic Freedom. On completion of the review, ASPC will forward its
recommendations to the Senate for approval.
Course, Degree/Certificate and General Education (GE) Assessment Update: Assessment
Coordinator Justine Shaw reported that through work done by the Assessment and the
Curriculum Committees, a GE assessment plan is being developed that will allow faculty to
assess students directly. About 20 GE sections will be identified to participate in the plan,
and the assessment will focus on the area of critical thinking. The 20 faculty who teach the
identified GE sections will be asked to include one portion of their grading on a critical
thinking rubric, which will be submitted at the end of the semester. In the spring, the 20
faculty will meet to collectively review the results and to exchange ideas on what worked
and what elements can be improved. Justine also reminded senators that a six hour
assessment session that will include Del Norte and Mendocino has been scheduled for
Friday, September 30. Justine and members from the Program Review Committee will be
available throughout the session to assist faculty in developing five-year plans for assessing
course-level and degree/certificate-level outcomes.
BP/AP 3430 Prohibition of Harassment – Multicultural and Diversity Committee (MDC)
Feedback: Committee Chair Justine Shaw reported that the MDC discussed the proposals
at their September 16 meeting, and they forwarded the following feedback: (1) A
procedure for filing harassment charges needs to be drafted; (2) The AP focuses on sexual
harassment, but other types of harassment need to be given more consideration; (3)
Revisions were suggested for the protective categories listed in the BP; (4) Language
inconsistencies need to be addressed; and (5) The proposals potentially infringed on
academic freedom. Justine informed the Senate that the MDC will address a more formal
draft of recommendations at their next meeting, and once approved, she will forward the
recommendations for Senate consideration.
ASCR Update: ASCR representative Bobby Shearer reported on the following ASCR
activities: (1) The Student Senate established semester objectives, some of which dovetail
Academic Senate Minutes
September 16, 2011
Page 4
with BP/AP 3260 Participatory Governance; (2) To support improved communication,
ASCR plans to install drop boxes where students can forward concerns and suggestions,
which will then be sent to the appropriate areas; (3) A barbeque for students is scheduled
for Constitution Day, and (4) ASCR is working on reinvigorating student clubs and
activities. Bobby reported that the ASCR office is next to LS 102, and he asked faculty to
inform their students that there is a Student Senate that represents them and their peers.
6.8 College Council September 12 Meeting: Copresident Richards reported that Interim
President Utpal Goswami presented an ACCJC update to the Council in which he
emphasized the need for the college to have participatory governance documents in place
that clarify our governance process prior to the ACCJC visit. To that end, the BP/AP 3260
Participatory Governance proposals are currently out for a 30 day constituent review, with
the goal of having them approved on October 10. College Council also discussed how to
revise the college’s planning model to include a different routing process for items that are
not appropriate for Budget Planning Committee consideration, and Mike reported that in
addition to the BP/AP proposals that have been addressed at Senate meetings, there are a
number of BP/AP proposals currently out for constituent review. He urged senators to
access the documents on the College Council website and forward feedback to the
copresidents.
6.9 Board of Trustees September 13 Meeting: Copresident Richards reported that the
September 13 Board meeting included the following issues: (1) Interim President Utpal
Goswami recommended that the Board not accept the current bid for the Garberville site,
but that a site review be conducted that will probably result in a scaled-down proposal
being presented at a future Board meeting. (2) CRFO President John Johnston made a
public statement requesting that the Board not approve initiating the process for a 50% Law
waiver for 2010-2011. (3) The Board approved initiating the 50% Law waiver process for
2010-2011. (4) CSEA President Thomas Olivares asked the Board to review the large
number of temporary employee requests and to consider filling permanent positions
instead. (5) Copresident Winter’s letter to the Board was well received. (6) Reporting from
the closed session, the Board rejected the proposal to subdivide the Garberville site, and it
was announced that Ahn Fielding will be the district negotiator with CRFO.
7. Announcements and Open Forum
7.1
7.2
7.3
Portugal Award Presentations: Copresident Richards announced that Jon Pedicino’s 20112012 Portugal Award presentation titled “The Space Telescope Kepler; Searching for
Extrasolar Planets, Looking for Earths,” is scheduled at the following three locations: (1)
September 23, Mendocino Coast campus, Room 112 at 1 p.m.; (2) September 30, Eureka
campus, Room PS 113 at 7 p.m.; and (3) October 7, Del Norte campus, room DM 29 at 1
p.m. The presentations are free and open to the public, and everyone is invited to attend.
Science Night: Kevin Yokoyama announced that the 26th annual Science Night is
scheduled for Friday, October 21, from 5-9 p.m. in numerous locations on the Eureka
campus. More information will be distributed by early October.
Diversity Conference: Bobby Shearer announced that in conjunction with Science Night,
the ASCR is planning a Biodiversity Conference. The Conference will include a number of
forums presented by guest speakers, and ASCR is planning to have the conference recorded
and archived as a college and community resource.
Academic Senate Minutes
September 16, 2011
Page 5
7.4
Student Communications and Feedback: With the objective of improving communication
between faculty and students, Bobby asked faculty to forward any student comments and
feedback to him, and he will forward the communications to the ASCR. Bobby will keep
the faculty updated on ASCR issues through his regular report to the Senate.
8. Adjournment: On motion by Kevin Yokoyama, seconded by Dave Bazard, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:20.
Respectfully submitted by Sally Frazier, Administrative Secretary to the Academic Senate.
Next Meeting:
Friday, October 7, 1 p.m.
4.1
PROPOSED NOMINEES
FOR
ACADEMIC SENATE APPOINTMENTS
October 7, 2011
The copresidents of the Academic Senate forward for approval the following nominees as
members of the Program Review Committee to serve a two-year term from September 1,
2011, through June 30, 2013:
1. Dana Mayer – Arts/Languages/Social Sciences
2. Marcy Foster – Eureka Nonteaching
The copresidents of the Academic Senate forward for approval the following nominee as
a member of the Tenure Review Committee to serve a one-year term from September 1,
2011, through June 30, 2012:
1. Chris Romero – Career/Technical Education
The copresidents of the Academic Senate forward for approval the following nominee as
a member of the Tenure Review Committee to serve a four-year term from September 1,
2011, through June 30, 2015:
1. Tim Baker – Math/Science/Engineering
4.2
College of the Redwoods Summary of Course Changes 9.23.11 LEGEND PREFIX = Course prefix; # = Course Number; TITLE = Course title or title change; NEW = New course or large format/distanced education proposal first submission; REV = Revised course; REP = Replaces existing course; INA = Inactivated course; UNITS = Total Units and hrs of new or revised course; UC = UC transferable – indicate UC transfer status by placing an A for approved courses and a P for courses pending; CSU = CSU transferable – indicate CSU transfer status by placing an A for approved courses and a P for courses pending CR GE = credits apply to CR General Education; underlined indicates new CR GE; COMMENTS = Review of outline changes, including prerequisites. Prefix # Title/Title Change N R R I [ Units ] C U CR E E E N Lec/Lab S C GE W V P A U Hrs Comments/ Summary Changes Discipline Code/ Prerequisite Change ENGL 1B Critical Inquiry and Literature X A A Course update includes outcomes and content to reflect current pedagogy and practice; and to facilitate more effective and efficient SLO assessment. POLSC 10 US Government and Politics X A A A Course update includes change to course title to align course with most colleges and universities. Two SLOs were combined to improve assessment. POLSC 13 Environmental Politics and Policy X P P New course designed to be a part of the core of courses currently under development for a proposed Associate of Arts in Environmental Studies. CIS 70 Systems Analysis and Design X X Inactivation. Course has not been offered for several years. Advisory Board has indicated that course is not necessary for our networking awards. AG 3 Intro to Animal Science X A A Course has been approved as CR GE. AG 30 Agriculture Economics X A This course was proposed as CR GE but was not approved. Curriculum Changes: 9.23.11 4.3
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Faculty Qualifications Committee Recommendations
To the
Academic Senate Executive Committee
September 23, 2011
Equivalency to the Minimum Qualifications application reviewed:
Name
Discipline
Recommendation
1. Michelle Cartier
Film Studies
Approval
5.1.1 a
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Board of Trustees Policy
BP 3260
PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE
Introduction
Governance at College of the Redwoods (CR) is a deliberate process which seeks out creative
and constructive ideas and perspectives of this community of learners. It enables active,
responsible participation of affected parties (which could be functional units and/or employee
groups) in the decision-making process by providing meaningful opportunities to introduce,
analyze, discuss and provide input or recommend courses of action before a final decision is
made. Governance at CR is a process of participatory governance where decisions are made at
the broadest possible level of the organizational structure.
Principles Embodied in Governance
1. Board/Administration Authority. Participatory governance recognizes that the college
mission should drive governance and accepts the authority vested in the Board and the
Administration. It also recognizes that such authority will be exercised after due
consideration of the recommendations resulting from the participatory governance process.
2. Freedom of Expression. Participatory governance is most effective when individuals and
groups can express their opinions and engage in discourse freely and without fear of retaliation.
Thus, it is the responsibility of all parties to conduct themselves and act in a manner that is
consistent with this principle.
3. Respect and Implementation of Final Decision. Participatory governance is a process that
allows for many divergent views, opinions and perspectives to be brought forward and
discussed. However, participatory governance will be effective only if all parties agree to
accept the final decision and do their part in implementing it, though they may disagree with
the decision itself.
4. Constituent Participation and Influence. Participatory governance recognizes that the
participation of affected constituent groups should be real and meaningful and that this
participation should be based on the principle that each group should have the largest
influence in matters that concern it most. As an example, according to this principle, faculty
will have the largest influence when it is a matter of the areas mandated by AB 1725, such as
curriculum, while student services staff will have the largest influence when it is a matter of
matriculation.
5. Communication. Participatory governance recognizes that in addition to the involvement of
members of affected groups or functional units, the need for establishing regular
5.1.1 a
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
communication between and among the representative bodies and seeking their participation
as appropriate.
6. Formal and Informal Processes. Participatory governance recognizes that governance
involves implementation of an organized system of policies, procedures, guidelines and
practices. It is recognized that the deliberate and formal process of participatory governance
is appropriate for the first two while informal and collegial consultation is appropriate for the
later two.
7. Hiring and Evaluation of Administrators. Participatory governance recognizes the necessity
and importance of participation of involved parties in the initial selection of supervisors and
administrators and subsequently in providing feedback in the evaluation process of
supervisors and administrators.
8. Decision Making. Participatory governance is most effective when decision-making is
distributed throughout the organization so that decisions can be made at the broadest level of
the organizational structure and when roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority of
functional units and committees are clearly delineated.
9. Exceptions to Shared Governance. Participatory governance recognizes that while there is
the presumption that the administration will abide by the advice and recommendation of the
constituents there will be instances where it may choose to disregard such advice or
recommendation. In such cases it is incumbent upon the administration to provide a rationale
for the decision. It also recognizes that, in exceptional circumstances, it may become
necessary to take action affecting institutional constituencies without the full benefit from the
shared governance process. In such cases, the representative bodies will be informed as soon
as possible and will haveopportunities to provide feedback.
10. Self-Assessment/Feedback. Participatory governance requires periodic assessment of the
process itself. It is expected that the process will be evaluated at least once a year with the
express objective of making it better.
11. Decisions Not Requiring Participatory Governance. Participatory governance recognizes that
there are many administrative decisions made in CR that do not fall under the purview of this
process—for example, developing the facilities master plan is a matter of participatory
governance while implementing the plan is not.
12. Timelines. Effective participatory governance requires that constituents and functional units
adopt processes and practices that allow for decision-making in a timely manner.
5.1.1 a
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Reference: Education Code Section 70902(b)(7); Title 5, Sections 53200 et seq., (Academic
Senate), 51023.5 (staff), 51023.7 (students); Accreditation Standard IV.A
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Administrative Procedure
AP 3260
PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE
College of the Redwoods hereby establishes a model for participatory governance to facilitate
broad participation and involvement in college decision-making by all members of the college
community, including students, faculty, classified staff and administrators. A major role of
governance for the college must rest with the President, directly accountable and responsible to
the Board of Trustees for the educational leadership and effective management of the college's
human, physical and fiscal resources. In keeping with the spirit of the Education Code of the
State of California, the success of participatory governance at College of the Redwoods depends
upon the levels of cooperation and trust attained, the values shared, and the consensus achieved
among all college constituencies. The goal of the participatory governance process is to bring
together all constituent groups in order to facilitate the development of college-wide
recommendations.
Participatory governance at CR must also function harmoniously with, but separate from,
collective bargaining laws and the negotiated agreements between the respective employee
bargaining units and the Redwoods Community College District. The California School
Employees Association (CSEA) and the College of the Redwoods Faculty Organization (CRFO)
represent the college classified staff and the faculty, respectively, in all matters pertaining to
hours, wages, and working conditions. The Academic Senate also has rights and responsibilities
that are defined by AB1725 (commonly referred to as the 10 + 1) and reflected in District Board
Policy. The participatory governance model should be one that functions within:
•
•
•
the mandates of AB 1725, the Education Code, and Title V of the Code of Regulations
the Collective Bargaining Agreement(s), and
the policies of the Board of Trustees of the Redwoods Community College District.
Vision/Mission/Values
Vision
College of the Redwoods is a learning community where lives are transformed.
Mission
College of the Redwoods puts student success first by providing outstanding developmental,
career technical, and transfer education. The College partners with the community to contribute
to the economic vitality and lifelong learning needs of its service area. We continually assess
student learning,institutional performance and practices to improve upon the programs and
services we offer.
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Values
Student Success and Access: We put students first, ensuring that student learning,
advancement, and access are pivotal to all we do.
Educational Excellence and Innovation: We value ongoing and systematic planning and
evaluating methods that that move us towards excellence.
Honoring Diversity: We value all members of our community and strive to create a nurturing,
honest, open environment that allows diversity to thrive.Participatory Governance: We value
ethical behavior and strive to create a culture where all students, staff, faculty and administrators
engage in an inclusive, ongoing and self-reflective decision making.
Environmental Awareness: We value the environment and recognize the need to minimize our
impacts upon it.
Community Development: We value the economic and intellectual development of the
communities we serve.
Supportive Culture: We strive to create a supportive, problem-solving culture, and we
recognize the proven usefulness of an interest-based approach (IBA) for achieving trust,
cooperation and effective problem solving.
Accreditation Standards
Redwoods Community College District is accredited by the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), the two-year higher education division of the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Governance, as defined in these accreditation
standards, supports institutional effectiveness by requiring processes in which ethical and broadbased leadership:
• guide the accomplishment of the mission, and
• promote ongoing dialogue focused on continuous improvement.
Governance is addressed in two components of the accreditation standards. Standard IV includes
these statements most relevant to this document:
• governance roles are designed to facilitate decisions that support student learning
programs and services and improve institutional effectiveness, while acknowledging the
designated responsibilities of the governing board and chief administrator.
• the institution establishes and implements a written policy providing for faculty, staff,
administrator, and student participation in decision-making processes. The policy
specifies the manner in which individuals bring forward ideas from their constituencies
and work together on appropriate policy, planning, and special-purpose bodies.
These accreditation standards provide a mandate for collaborative decision making and ongoing
cooperation in decision making among the components of the District.
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Value of Participatory Governance
Participatory governance is a process and structure designed to enable those who work and study
in an academic institution to share the responsibility for planning and guiding the direction of the
institution and for the implementation of recommendations and decisions. While decisions are
not always based on majority rule, participatory governance shares the democratic belief in the
inherent equality and dignity of persons, and the goal of promoting mutual benefit and individual
liberty through an open deliberative process. It is this process when embraced by participants
that can lead to effective governance and can result in an environment of innovation, respect,
collaboration, and collegiality.
Active service in participatory governance requires a significant expenditure of time and effort,
both during, and in addition to, regularly assigned working hours. Substantial faculty and staff
involvement is critical to the success of this endeavor. Each member of the college community
belongs to one or more of the college constituent groups and has the responsibility to actively
participate in the participatory governance process. This responsibility may be a leadership role
or a representative role, in which one may be required to attend meetings, report information and
collect input, or as a general college member it may be to communicate questions, concerns and
opinions to one’s representatives.
Regardless of a member’s role, they may be asked to serve on committees or task forces and they
have the responsibility to keep informed about the issues facing their constituent group.
Whatever themember role, it is through active involvement by all members in the participatory
government process that effective governance will occur.
Implementation of Participatory Governance at CR
The College and its governance groups strive to put into practice the spirit and principles of
participatory governance. Effective participatory governance is a partnership between and among
those who are charged with making recommendations and those who are held accountable for
outcomes. An inclusive governance structure enables members of the college community to
participate in developing recommendations for consideration by the Board of Trustees.
Through mechanisms of participatory governance, the knowledge and experience of committed
individuals and organizations will be molded into better decisions than any individual could
make alone. In addition, there is a greater likelihood that participants will understand, embrace,
and faithfully execute these jointly-developed decisions. Toward this end, it is appropriate that
each individual and each constituent group within the Redwoods Community College District
make a commitment to the success of our students, our mission, and the governance process by
subscribing to a common set of standards within the participatory governance process.
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
The participatory governance process at College of the Redwoods shall be guided by our
commitments to the following standards:
1. We hold as our first priority in each decision the best interests of students and the
provision of the highest quality programs and services.
2. We recognize that we are mutually dependent upon one another to perform our respective
roles. The Board of Trustees, administration, faculty, support staff, and students all play
critical roles; none of us can be successful without the support of others.
3. We affirm that each of us who fulfills a role also has value because of the knowledge and
experience we contribute to making enlightened decisions. Our primary objective will be
to make the best decision.
4. We strive to be honest, open, candid, and tolerant; to expect and cultivate the same
behavior from all others in the process; and to refrain from words or behavior that either
personally demean another participant, or discount his or her contribution or legitimate
role.
5. We refrain from making decisions in a unilateral and authoritarian manner.
6. We respect the ultimate legal authority of another person or body to make the decision, so
long as there has been an attempt to understand and incorporate the reasoning and
perspectives of the various parties of interest, and so long as there has been a good-faith
attempt to gain consensus about the decision.
7. We guard against tendencies of institutional, group, and personal self interest that can
divert the focus from making the best decision.
8. We make our positions known to others as clearly and explicitly as possible, and to make
every effort to resolve conflict within the shared governance framework.
9. We consider commitments of time and resources as a cost of governance that should not
detract from our fundamental role of providing direct instruction and services to students.
10. We accept personal and group responsibility for the development of trust and
communication.
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
The intent of AB 1725 and the accreditation standards is actualized in such a spirit of
collaboration. Functionally, the process includes a system of committee meetings and activities
designed to solve challenges at levels closest to the staff and work units affected and to provide
the President with assistance in preparing plans, processes, and policies.
These processes work because members of the College governance, advisory, and operational
groups and administrative staff agree that shared responsibilities are important and are to be
protected through adherence to the following mutual agreements:
• All members agree to:
o Work for the greater good of our students.
o Use analytical skills, creativity, and expertise to further District long-range goals,
effective day-to-day functioning, and students’ well-being.
• Fulfill group member responsibilities through:
o Attendance at meetings
o Clear articulation of constituent needs
o Function as a team member with other members of the group
o Follow-through on tasks
o Report meeting outcomes back to constituent groups
• Work toward common understanding and consensus in an atmosphere of respect.
• Support the implementation of recommendations once group consensus is reached.
• Welcome change and innovation.
In turn, the President agrees to support the work of Cistrict groups by making the commitment
that members will have:
• Flexibility and resources needed to accomplish assigned tasks.
• Shared responsibility for outcomes.
• Praise and recognition for their work.
• Support for change and innovation.
• Access to leadership opportunities.
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Decision Making Model
College President
Constituent Groups
College Council
Sub Committees
Administrative
Team
Accreditation
Steering Team
CSEA
Budget Planning
Committee
Managers’ Council
Facilities Planning
Committee
ASCR
Enrollment
Management
Committee
CRFO
Safety Committee
Institutional
Effectiveness
Committee
Academic Senate
Curriculum
Committee
Multicultural
Diversity
Furniture &
Equipment
Committee
Faculty
Qualification
Faculty
Development
Basic Skills
Committee
Executive
Committee
Associate Faculty
Committee
Technology
Committee
Education Master
Plan Committee
Program Review
Committee
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Tenure Review
CRFO Senate
Liaison
Professional
Relations
Committee
Academic
Standards and
Policies
Committee
Relationship of College Constituency Groups: Roles of Board, President, Faculty, Staff,
Administrators, and Students
The College has developed individualized processes to generate, review, and implement
recommendations on the academic and professional matters defined in law and regulation.
However, when the implementations of recommendations impact the College as a whole, these
recommendations are presented at the College Council. After being reviewed and considered by
this group, recommendations flow to the President and Board of Trustees or return to the
originating group for clarification. All groups retain the right to communicate directly with the
Board of Trustees.
Critical to the integrity of the College governance structure is that each member of the
community understands the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of each constituent group
in the governance process.
Members of the College have the authority and responsibility to make recommendations in
matters appropriate in scope. The scope for each constituent group outlined below is derived
from several sources: the Government Code of California, California Code of Regulations Board
Policy, and College practices and procedures.
Role of the Board of Trustees
Trustees are guardians of the public’s trust and are accountable to all citizens of the District. As
described in the previous section of this document, the Board’s primary responsibility is to
establish District policies that align with the minimum standards set by the Board of Governors
of the California Community Colleges.
The Board of Trustees, as elected representatives of the community, is the final voice in the
District subject to the laws and appropriate regulations of the State Legislature and State
Chancellor’s Office. The Board ensures that this mission and vision will be accomplished by
assigning responsibilities to the President. In this way, the Board remains outside the operations
of the District.
As a legislative body, the Board of Trustees conducts deliberations and actions openly within the
realm of public scrutiny consistent with Government Code Section 54953, also known as the
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Ralph M. Brown Act. Minutes are prepared for all actions taken by the Board of Trustees to
serve as the District’s public record.
Every regular Board meeting provides an opportunity for the public to address the Trustees on
any item of interest to citizens within the jurisdiction of the Board. No action, however, can be
taken on an issue unless it has first been noticed on the Board agenda. In response to
unagendized public comments, therefore, Board members may:
•
•
•
•
Request clarification from those making public comments;
Request staff to provide factual information on the comments being presented;
Request staff to report back to the Board on the subject of comment at a later meeting; or
Direct staff to place the matter on a future agenda.
Exceptions to the requirement for open meetings occurwhen the Board confers in private for
consideration of or to confer with:
• the appointment, employment, evaluation, discipline or dismissal of an employee;
• charges brought against an employee by another;
• national or public security;
• legal counsel regarding litigation;
• student disciplinary actions;
• real property transactions;
• District representatives within the scope of collective bargaining;
• honorary degrees or gifts from anonymous donors; Or
• on any time as current law allows.
Items to be discussed in such a closed session are disclosed in open session through the printed
and public Board agenda. Following a closed session, the Board reconvenes in open session and
announces any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstentions of its members.
Trustees do not disclose personnel, collective bargaining, or other discussions prohibited by law.
Role of District President/Superintendent
The President is the administrative agent of the Board of Trustees and, as such, is the only
employee responsible directly to the Board. The President is accountable for the operation of the
District and for providing policy recommendations to the Board.
The President has the right to accept, reject, or modify recommendations from the College
Council. When the President rejects or modifies a recommendation from the College Council,
he/she informs that group of the objections to their recommendation. The Academic Senate,
CRFO, CSEA, Managers Council and ASCR retain the right to present their comments on the
President’s recommendation directly to the Board of Trustees.
Role of Faculty
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
Faculty members perform duties as instructors, librarians, or counselors in areas for which they
possess appropriate qualifications; implement activities based on applicable recommendations
and District/College goals; perform contractually identified professional responsibilities; and
provide advice and recommendations regarding relevant policies and procedures through active
participation on committees, councils, and task forces.
Full-time and part-time faculty members at theCollege are represented in governance by an
Academic Senate. In the following areas the Board delegates authority and responsibility to the
Academic Senate for making recommendations to the Board. In making decisions in these areas,
the Board will rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate:
1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines
2. Degree and certificate requirements
3. Grading policies
4. Standards or policies regarding student preparation or success
5. Faculty qualifications, including equivalencies, internships, and the placement of
courses in disciplines for the purpose of establishing minimum qualifications
6. Decisions to offer tenure
7. Policies for faculty professional development activities
In these areas the recommendations of the Senate will normally be accepted, and only in
exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons will the recommendations not be accepted.
If a recommendation is not accepted, the Board or its representative, upon request of the
Academic Senate, will communicate its reasons in writing.
In the following areas the Board or its representatives will reach mutual agreement with the
Academic Senate, and such agreement will be expressed either by written resolution,
administrative regulation, board policy, or other board action:
1. Educational program development, including both the initiation and elimination of
programs
2. College governance structures as related to faculty roles
3. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes including self-study and
annual reports
4. Processes for program review
5. Processes for institutional planning and budget development
6. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the Board
and the Academic Senate
In these areas, when agreement cannot be reached between the Board and the Academic Senate,
existing policy shall remain in effect unless continuing with such policy exposes the district to
legal liability or causes substantial fiscal hardship. In cases where there is no existing policy, or
in cases where the exposure to legal liability or substantial fiscal hardship requires existing
policy to be changed, the Board will act, after a good faith effort to reach agreement, only for
compelling legal, fiscal, or organizational reasons.
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
In addition to the specific responsibilities noted above, the Academic Senate is responsible, after
consultation with the President or his or her designee, for making faculty appointments to all
committees, task forces, or other groups dealing with academic and professional matters.
Full-time and part-time faculty members within the District are represented in collective
bargaining by CRFO, which operates under a contract negotiated and approved by its members.
The two bodies that represent faculty are compatible; the Academic Senate is responsible for
professional and academic matters, while the CRFO responds to negotiable matters such as
salary, benefits, and working conditions.
Role of Classified Staff
Classified staff members include College employees in a wide range of positions including
administrative assistants, clerks, custodians, and grounds workers. Classified staff members are
provided with opportunities to participate in the formulation and development of
recommendations as well as in the processes for developing recommendations that have or will
have a significant effect on their work.
Classified staff members are represented by the CSEA. This collective bargaining unit conducts
elections to appoint classified staff to College governing councils in the areas that have or will
have a significant effect on staff and that are outside the scope of collective bargaining. Prior to
the Board of Trustees taking action on such matters, classified staff are provided with the
opportunity to participate in the formulation of recommendations through committee
participation in areas that affect them. The Board gives every reasonable consideration to
recommendations and opinions of staff.
Role of Students
Students are the reason the College exists: Students learn through participation in and completion
of approved courses and involvement in college life activities. Students are represented by an
Associated Student College of the Redwoods (ASCR) organization composed of an elected
Student Senate. The student government organization operates in accordance with its own
constitution and bylaws and is responsible for appointing student representatives to serve on
College councils and committees. In their role representing all students, they offer opinions and
make recommendations to the administration of the College and to the Board of Trustees with
regard to policies and procedures that have or will have a significant effect on students. Those
areas are specifically defined as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grading policies
Codes of student conduct
Academic disciplinary policies
Curriculum development
Courses or programs which should be initiated or discontinued
Processes for institutional planning and budget development
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
•
•
•
•
Standards and policies regarding student preparation and success
Student services planning and development
Students fees within the authority of the District to adopt
Any other District and College policy, procedure, or related matter that the District Board
of Trustees determines will have a significant effect on students
Generally, the Board of Trustees shall not take action on a matter having a significant effect on
students unless they have been provided with an opportunity to participate in the
recommendation process. The Board of Trustees ensures that recommendations and positions
developed by students are given every reasonable consideration. Similarly, the Academic Senate
will consult with their counterpart ASCR prior to making recommendations that impact students’
interests.
Role of Administrators and Management Staff
Administrators and management staff are held accountable to provide effective leadership for
and support of faculty and staff in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of College
activities while maintaining compliance with state regulations, laws, and College policies. They
are also held accountable to carry out their responsibilities in styles that support and maintain the
spirit and letter of participatory governance.
Structure of Participatory Governance
Participatory governance at College of the Redwoods relies on advisory committees, each
concerned with functions critical to the well-being of the college community. The President
chairs College Council. College Council is assisted by information gathered by many segments
of the college. Other governance and representative groups at the college include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Academic Senate (Full-time and Part-time Faculty)
Administrative Cabinet (Management Team)
Managers Council
California State Employees Association (CSEA) (Permanent Full-time & Part-time
Classified)
College of the Redwoods Faculty Organization (CRFO) (Full-time & Part-time Faculty)
Student Senate/Associated Students of CR (ASCR) (Students)
Operating Agreements for Groups
Operating agreements outline the rules of conduct, desired behaviors, delegation of authority,
and the roles and responsibilities committee members. Some groups may develop specific
operating agreements. Tthere are five overall operating agreements for all CR groups.
1. All members of District groups understand that they attend meetings to represent constituent
groups at a College. In this role, members are responsible to serve as a conduit for
5.1.1 b
Constituent Review ends 10/11/11
information and the catalyst for discussion on topics raised and within the constituent group.
These topics include, but are not limited to, the specific areas outlined in state law and
regulation.
2. Team members are committed to their group’s charge and to agreed-upon norms for
operating in District groups. In the first fall meeting, each governance group will:
•
•
•
•
Distribute and discuss the group’s charge and reporting structure to ensure the group
members understand of their relationship in the Colleges’ governance structure
Develop norms for working as a team (see Appendix I for suggestions)
Develop operating agreements for determining recommendations
Review or establish task-specific operating agreements, if needed
3. Team members are committed to regular attendance and understand that matters will be acted
upon irrespective of absent members.
4. A record of each meeting is distributed and posted on the District website.
5. Recommendations from all groups are forwarded to the President. The chairs are responsible
for tracking the progress of those recommendations and providing feedback to the group on
the approval, rejection, or modification of the recommendations. All College consultative
bodies are expected to conduct their work efficiently and provide recommendations to the
President on a timely basis. Failure to provide recommendations in a reasonable period of
time will result in the President exercising his delegated authority to act independently for the
good of the District.
6. It is everyone’s responsibility to work toward achieving the Mission, Vision, and Strategic
Goals of the College. Additionally, the members and chairs of committees are responsible for
ensuring a continuous flow of communication regarding decision making from the College
President, the College Council, committees, constituency groups, and the campus at large.
Reference: Education Code Section 70902(b)(7); Title 5, Sections 53200 et seq; 51023.5;
51023.7; Accreditation Standard IV.A.2, IV.A.5
5.1.2
Constituency review period ends Nov 21, 2011
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Administrative Procedure
Draft AP 4023
Instructional Exigency Plan Due to Adverse Budget Environment
In the event of a significantly adverse budget environment and only after all other budget
reductions have been considered and acted upon by the Budget Planning Committee, the
President may declare that instructional cuts for budgetary reasons are necessary and will
provide written justification for the declaration (For example: unrestricted general fund equity
forecasted to fall below a 5% minimum balance for more than one fiscal year, state funding for
student enrollments forecasted to significantly decline, etc. ). Then, the Instructional Exigency
Committee will be formed to consider relevant factors and make recommendations to the
President.
The committee will consist of the following members:
 College President (ex officio and non-voting)

Vice President of Instruction (or designee. Will serve as Chair)

Academic Senate Co-Presidents

One designated faculty representative from Program Review Committee (assigned by the AS
Co-Presidents

Director of Institutional Research (or designee)

Vice President of Administrative Services

Co-Chairs of the Budget Planning Committee

Deans and Directors of Academic, CTE, and Instructional Programs
The President will call the first meeting and provide the following information at the first
meeting:
 Committee’s charge.

Full financial disclosure: The committee will be provided a written justification for
instructional cuts including other budget non programmatic or non-instructional reductions
and dollar amount required. Implications of all budget cuts, including instructional program
discontinuation, suspension, or workforce reduction, to the 50% law. The required budget cut
cannot reduce the District’s expenditure for instructional costs below the 50% criterion
(50% Law.) Any additional contingency cut, and a written justification if the amounts differ
from the recommendation of the Budget Planning Committee.

Prohibited subjects. The committee will avoid discussions or recommendations on
negotiable issues related to collective bargaining or confidential matters.
5.1.2
Constituency review period ends Nov 21, 2011

Avoid rumors. Until the committee publishes its recommendations, the committee will avoid
discussing its work outside of the committee, except as necessary to complete the
committee’s charge.

Deadline. A deadline, of not less than 30 days from the date of the first meeting, for the
committee to complete its work and submit its written recommendation to the President.

To prepare for and attend these committee meetings, the President may excuse committee
members from other committee work in the event of meeting conflicts.
Because sufficient time may not be available to perform in-depth research and develop reports,
the committee will primarily rely on readily available data and reports. The Committee may
consider the Executive Summaries from the Program Review Committee and a breakdown of the
cost of programs and/or disciplines from Administrative Services, as well as any relevant data
from Institutional Research on enrollment, student-faculty ratio, persistence, degree or certificate
completion, transfer data, marketplace data, or any other relevant information. The Committee
may consider the impact of the budget cuts as a whole on the college’s ongoing operations and
may adjust its recommendations to reduce disruptions to students and to position the college for
academic and financial stability, while still meeting the required budget cut amount.
Using a process to be determined by the committee, the committee will locate program(s) and/or
disciplines, prioritize them, ranking from high-low (in order of potential cuts) and listing the
expected budget impact of each program. The recommendations will be made by a simple
majority vote. Any member may abstain from voting.
After compiling the ranked order list of program/discipline recommendations, the committee will
forward the recommendations to CRFO and the Administration for negotiations (per the
Collective Bargaining Agreement).
Reference: No reference
Approved: xx/xx/xxxx
5.2 a
September 22, 2011
Academic Senate
College of the Redwoods
Eureka, CA 95501
Dear Senators:
Attached please find information regarding two credit-by-exam programs
which are accepted by colleges and universities across the country.
International Baccalaureate (I.B.) is a new consideration for College of the
Redwoods, and the College Level Exam Program (C.L.E.P.) is currently
accepted by College of the Redwoods but in a form explained in the catalog
that no longer exists. This information is presented for your review and
discussion with the intent to possibly alter our current credit-by-exam options
and revise C.L.E.P. if deemed appropriate.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration regarding these two programs.
College of the Redwoods also accepts credit-by-exam for the Advanced
Placement Program.
Respectfully submitted,
Allen Keppner
Counselor/Transfer Center Director
5.2 b
College Board: College Level Exam Program (C.L.E.P.)
The College Level Exam Program (C.L.E.P.) is provided by the College Board as a
means by which college credit can be acquired by earning qualifying scores (as
determined by the individual accepting institutions) on any of 33 discipline specific
exams. This provides an opportunity to receive college credit for knowledge acquired
through previous coursework, on-the-job training, professional development, internships,
or self-study through successful exam completion.
C.L.E.P. can be used to satisfy a variety of requirements (as determined by the accepting
institution) in areas of proficiency, general education, prerequisites, major preparation, or
electives toward transfer, degrees or certificates. The exams typically cover material at
the lower division level and represent approximately one semester of instruction.
With the exception of English Composition, the exams are typically ninety minutes long
and composed of multiple choice questions. English Composition is a written exam.
Some exams may include other types of questions or an optional essay.
C.L.E.P. Exam Centers are available at over 1,400 colleges and universities in the U.S.
and abroad. C.L.E.P. Centers are also available on many military installations.
C.L.E.P. Exams are typically taken by college students, home-schooled students, working
parents, those seeking career advancements, military personnel, international students,
and others seeking continuing education for credential acquisition or renewal.
Each accepting institution establishes its own policy as to which subjects, minimum
scores required, unit equivalencies, and category of credit awarded.
The College Board is also responsible for S.A.T., Advanced Placement (A.P.)
examinations, and Accuplacer.
In a recent random sample survey using catalogs from 57 of the 112 California
Community Colleges, 54 (95%) accept A.P., 11 (19%) accept I.B., and 34 (60%) accept
C.L.E.P.
5.2 c
International Baccalaureate
International Baccalaureate (I.B.) is an educational foundation that was founded in 1968 and is
located in Geneva Switzerland. It offers educational programs to students from the ages of 3-19
at three academic levels. In 2006 Time Magazine described the Diploma Program (college prep.
level) as, “a rigorous off-the-shelf curriculum recognized by universities around the world.”
The Diploma Program (while covering specific discipline areas) incorporates an Extended Essay
requirement involving an in depth study and research approach, a Theory of Knowledge
component requiring critical examination of perception, emotion, language, and reason; and a
Creativity, Action, and Service component involving experiential learning and applying
knowledge in projects and service outside the classroom.
Institutions who desire to utilize I.B. instruction go through an extensive (and expensive)
application process. If approved, instructors in this program undergo professional development.
The curriculum is purchased from I.B. Students pay a fee for each exam they take from I.B.
Currently, there are approximately 3,300 schools in 140 countries using I.B. at various levels
involving about 900,000 students. McKinleyville High is one of those schools offering I.B.
English, Foreign Language, History, Physical Science (Physics and Chemistry), Life Science
(Biology), Mathematics, and Fine Arts.
(Student fees for student exams can be waived in the same manner as for A.P. exams.)
6.1 a
Budget Planning Committee – Draft For Discussion
Prioritization Process/List
9-22-2011
Thank you for serving on the Budget Planning Committee.
Brief history of budget planning processes:
•
•
•
•
•
Prior to 2008, the Financial Advisory Committee provided recommendations.
To improve constituent participation, an integrated planning process was developed
which included the change to the Budget Planning Committee (BPC).
In general, the BPC receives and prioritizes funding requests from functional planning
committees, such as Technology and Facilities, and other sources.
BPC is the point where the various prioritized lists from the functional committees are
brought together and prioritized from an “All District” perspective.
In 2010-11 BPC produced a district wide prioritized list of funding recommendations.
Tweaks for 2011-12 process:
•
•
Identify a short list of “required” or “mandatory” requests and pull those from the
prioritization list and separately report those items with the Committee’s final
recommendations. BPC can recommend a different funding amount or other change?
To create a clearer feedback loop, BPC will review the results of its recommendations
from the prior year and ensure that constituent groups are also in-the-loop on actions
related to last year’s recommendations.
Budget Planning Committee 2011-12 Planning Agenda:
The Budget Planning Committee supports the District’s mission by gathering a broad
constituency of members to the committee to accept, review and prioritize budget funding
requests from planning committees across the District. The Committee acts as a central review
function, so that funding requests are viewed in totality and across the District, so that crossdependencies are considered, and so that a balancing of interests is obtained in the final
prioritized funding recommendations to the President/Superintendent.
During the 2011-12 year, the committee will focus on refining existing review processes, for
example, to identify funding priorities that have a mandated or required component. The
committee will review the results of its actions from the prior year to “close the loop” on its
activities. The committee will work identify any requests that might possibly be accomplished
with other sources, such as grant funds or that might be accomplished without additional funding
1
6.1 a
Budget Planning Committee – Draft For Discussion
Prioritization Process/List
9-22-2011
and will communicate back to constituent groups on its recommendations for all funding
requests. The committee will maintain an active web site with meeting notes, attachments, etc.
Review the Committee’s Charge for 2011-12:
Functions of the Budget Planning Committee
1. Assists in the development of budget assumptions and reaffirms revenue projections by VPA to be
presented to the board every spring.
2. Assists in the development of preliminary budget.
3. Reviews all mandatory cost categories for accuracy and cost efficiency.
4. Reviews the prioritizations presented by constituency groups (Integrated Planning Functional
Committees (IPFC), (Program reviews) and develops rank order from funding (without altering IPFC or
program review priorities) [these are request due to the planning function].
5. Reviews requests for resources from budget managers and develop rank order for funding [these are
requests due to operational functions] .
6. Develops an institutional rank order for funding by combining requests from IPFC’s and budget
managers.
7. Assists in the development of the final budget by establishing incremental funding plans should the
state funding vary from the assumptions.
8. Conducts budget hearings as necessary to receive constituency/departmental input on budget requests
9. Conducts a mid-year budget review (typically February) and recommends necessary reallocation of
funds during the current year
10. Develops long term (3-5 years) budget strategies and maintains a long term budget plan from
unrestricted general fund.
11. Develops and recommends policies/procedures for effective budget planning and control.
Evaluation and Ranking Protocol
1. Compliance with Federal, State and County mandates.
2. Relationship to and relative importance of the request to the institutional strategic plan, educational
master plan and program reviews.
3. Potential impact on student learning, institutional operations, service levels and
effectiveness/efficiencies.
4. Availability of alternatives and potential for deferral.
5. Funding history of the unit/area.
6. Degree to which delay will cause larger expenditures in the future and the degree to which annual
operating expenditures will be reduced as a result of approving the request.
2
6.1 a
Budget Planning Committee – Draft For Discussion
Prioritization Process/List
9-22-2011
Integrated Planning Functional Committees (IPFC) priorities should not be altered without
sufficient justification; Priorities from various IPFC’s will have to be rank ordered; The
Institutional rank order will contain requests from IPFC and operating units; Committee may
decide to categorize requests and priorities according to various expenditure categories and
recommend levels of funding for various categories of expenditures.
Membership
VPA - 1
VPI (EMP chair) - 1
VPSD (EMC Chair) - 1
IPFC chairs - 3
Manager/Director - 2
Faculty - 6 (Eureka 2, Del Norte 1, Mendocino 1)
Classified - 1
Student - 1; ex-officio-2(non-voting)
Meetings held each year as determined by the BPC, but at least monthly from October to May;
possible additional budget hearings in spring.
Tentative Timeline
July-Sept: Incremental funding plan for the final budget
Oct-Nov: Policies for effective budget planning and control
Nov: Training for budget managers and AOAs
Dec-Jan: Budget assumptions for next year’s budget
Feb: Mid-year Review of current year’s budget
Mar-April: Budget Hearings, preliminary budget
May-June: Tentative Budget and incremental funding plan
July-Sept: Retreat, Long term plan, Final budget
3
6.1 a
Budget Planning Committee – Draft For Discussion
Prioritization Process/List
9-22-2011
Review 2011-12 Membership:
Lee Lindsey - Co-chair
Keith Snow-Flamer - IPFC Enrollment Management
Steve Stratton - IPFC - Technology
Tim Flanagan - IPFC - Facilities
MaryGrace Barrick - Managers Council Representative
Sharrie King - CSEA Representative
Vacant - Student Representative
Martha Racine - Mendocino Education Center Representative
Anita Janis - Del Norte Education Center Representative
Bob Brown - Co-Chair
Dan Calderwood - Faculty
Michael Dennis - Faculty
Tami Matsumoto - Faculty
Carla Spalding - Controller - Ex. Officio
Ken Strangfeld - Director, Accounting Services - Ex. Officio
4
FY 2010-11
Final BPC Rankings
Note 1: Abbreviations
CT=Classroom technology
DT=District Technology
FE=Furniture and Equipment
OP=Operations
Note 2: Rankings
Column A = Interim district ranking
Column B = Subgroup ranking
(CT2 = #2 rank in CT, FE1 =#1 rank in FE)
Rankings preserve subgroup rankings
District IPFC
Rank Rank Department
6.1 b
as of 1/12/11
CT, DT, FE are Integrated Planning
Functional Committees (IPFC)
Subgroup without numbers are projects
incorporated after subgroup rankings were
completed.
Note:
Shaded items have not been funded
Funding
Project/Initiative
Cost
Cumulative
Current
Total
Funds
Construction Measure Q
Fund 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OP1
Maintenance
Maintain Sewer Plant to (new) stringent standard
$53,530
$53,530
Redevelopment
x
OP2
Maintenance
A/C for server room (current one 30 yrs old)
$10,000
$63,530
Redevelopment
x
OP3
Instruction
Accreditation
$32,500
$96,030
11
12
13
OP4
Maintenance
Gas Monitor for confined Spaces (OSHA)
$1,500
$97,530
OP5
Maintenance
Consultant for Sewer System
$12,160
$109,690
Redevelopment
x
OP
Maintenance
Ramp and Railing for DN
$10,000
$119,690
Block Grant
x
DT1
District Technology
Document Imaging System
$100,000
$219,690
OP6
101 corridor/Comm/Eco Dev
Mckinleyville Mandatory
$16,477
$236,167
OP
DIEM
DIEM
$50,000
$286,167
CT1
Classroom Technolgy
Computers, Whiteboards
$10,000
$296,167
FE1
Furniture & Equipment
Chairs
$10,547
$306,714
Construction of
Acad Bldg
$200,000
$506,714
Budget Transfer as
part of $200,000 for
Spring TLU
$35,000
$541,714
OP
Instruction/Enrollment Management
Addl TLU for Spring and Summer
DT2
District Technoogy
PC's and controllers
DT3
District Technology
Wireless Routers
$7,000
$548,714
15
CT2
Classroom Technolgy
Computers, ELMO
$11,500
$560,214
16
17
DT4
District Technology
Servers
$30,000
$590,214
OP7
Arcata Instructional Site
Security Staff
$9,782
$599,996
18
DT5
District Technology
Network Devices
$20,200
$620,196
19
CT3
Classroom Technolgy
Misc Classroom Technology
$11,620
$631,816
20
DT6
District Technology
24 port switches
$7,300
$639,116
21
22
CT4
Classroom Technolgy
Computers, ELMO
$10,000
$649,116
OP8
Health Occ
EMT Instructor Aide
$3,129
$652,245
23
OP9
Administration of Justice
Maintain Police Academy at Last years level
24
25
FE2
Furniture & Equipment
OP10 Communication & Marketing
OP
District Technology
OP11 Maintenance
CT5
DT7
Classroom Technology
District Technology
$50,487
$702,732
Desks, Tables, Chairs
$6,480
$709,212
Hard Drive to run commercial Xerox machine
$1,635
$710,847
$100,000
$810,847
Temp Electrical Maintenance Specialist (16 weeks)
$16,000
$826,847
Clickers, Internet, ELMO
24 port switches
$12,000
$12,660
$838,847
$851,507
PC Replacement
Measure Q
Project
Tech Fund
Fund 15
Block Grant
14
26
27
28
29
Amt. TBD
Source
x
x
$162,000
x
Bond Technology
Budget
Bond Technology
Budget
Bond Technology
Budget
x
x
x
Bond Technology
Budget
Bond Technology
Budget
Bond Technology
Budget
Bond Technology
Budget
$38,000
Budget Transfer as
part of $200,000 for
Spring TLU
Construction of
Admin Bldg
Bond Technology
Budget
x
x
x
x
x
x
FY 2010-11
Final BPC Rankings
Note 1: Abbreviations
CT=Classroom technology
DT=District Technology
FE=Furniture and Equipment
OP=Operations
Note 2: Rankings
Column A = Interim district ranking
Column B = Subgroup ranking
(CT2 = #2 rank in CT, FE1 =#1 rank in FE)
Rankings preserve subgroup rankings
District IPFC
Rank Rank Department
30
FE3 Furniture & Equipment
31
OP12 Maintenance
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
6.1 b
as of 1/12/11
CT, DT, FE are Integrated Planning
Functional Committees (IPFC)
Subgroup without numbers are projects
incorporated after subgroup rankings were
completed.
Note:
Shaded items have not been funded
Funding
Project/Initiative
Tables, Chairs, Stools
Lifting/rescue Tripod
Cost
Cumulative
Current
Total
Funds
$6,891
$4,000
$858,398
$862,398
OP13 Athletics
Coaching Stipends
$10,000
$872,398
OP14 Instruction
Articulation Officer
$25,000
$897,398
32 Passanger Bus ($20,000 for 5 years)
$20,000
$917,398
Grant writer (contract)
$24,000
$941,398
OP
Facilities
OP15 Foundation/TRIO/Upward Bound
OP
Facilities
Spray Booth Water Bath for EKA
$150,000
$1,091,398
$17,820
$1,109,218
$150,882
$1,260,100
Crew Vehicles for inter campus travel
100 amp Distribution Panel for Driving simulator
$60,000
$12,000
$1,320,100
$1,332,100
OP Maintenance
OP20 101 corridor/Comm/Eco Dev
Asphalt Slurry Coat for DN
Mckinleyville discretionary budget
$70,000
$21,700
$1,402,100
$1,423,800
OP Maintenance
OP21 Instruction/Enrollment Management
Exterior Lighting for DN
Addl TLU for Spring and Summer
$15,000
$150,000
$1,438,800
$1,588,800
OP22 Learning Resource Center
Supplemental Instruction (Coordinator, SI Leaders)
$81,500
$1,670,300
OP23 Student Services-BSI initiative
30 summer concurrent enrollment sections
$36,000
$1,706,300
OP24 IR/HR
Consultant for Title III closeout & AMD group
$10,400
$1,716,700
OP25 Career Center
Restore Job Market budget
$14,237
$1,730,937
Replace Exterior Doors in DN
$7,500
$1,738,437
OP26 Maintenance
Platform man lift for light fixtures
$9,000
$1,747,437
OP27 Career Center
Acquire database
$4,512
$1,751,949
OP28 Student Services-BSI initiative
Eureka--BSI Jump start program
$24,000
$1,775,949
Marquee Sign EKA
$35,000
$1,810,949
$8,500
$1,819,449
OP16 Automotive Technology
Restore budget for Instructional Support
OP17 Instruction/Enrollment Management
Addl TLU for Spring and Summer
OP18 Maintenance
OP19 Administration Of Justice
OP
OP
Maintenance
Facilities
OP29 Del Norte Center
Printing Budget to match actual expenditures
OP30 Student Services-BSI initiative
Del Norte--BSI Jump start program
$24,000
$1,843,449
OP31 Maintenance
All Terrain forklift
$30,000
$1,873,449
Exterior Painting in MC
$35,000
$1,908,449
OP32 Student Services-BSI initiative
Hoopa--BSI Jump start program
$24,000
$1,932,449
OP33 Instruction
District faculty/staff professional growth pool
$15,000
$1,947,449
Exterior Painting in DN
$28,500
$1,975,949
OP34 Student Services-BSI initiative
South Fork--BSI Jump start program
$24,000
$1,999,949
OP35 Bus Pass Program
Spring 2011 Bus Pass Program
$75,000
$2,074,949
OP36 Student Services-Campus Life
Campus life activities
$67,014
$2,141,963
OP37 Del Norte Center
Carpet Cleaning Machine
$3,500
$2,145,463
OP38 Del Norte Center
Restore custodial/laundry
$3,000
$2,148,463
OP39 Foundation
Part time development/outreach manager
$40,000
$2,188,463
OP40 Del Norte Center
Part time coordinator Pelican Bay Initiative
$57,900
$2,246,363
OP
OP
Maintenance
Maintenance
Source
Construction Measure Q
Fund 41
Measure Q
Project
Tech Fund
Budget Transfer K Snowflamer
x
x
Redevelopment Mendo
x