REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3pm – 4:30pm, LRC 107 Notes 1. Meeting called to order at 3:07pm. Present: Kathy Smith, Utpal Goswami, Jeff Cummings, Paul DeMark, Shannon Sullivan, Tami Matsumoto, Angelina Hill, Pat Girczyc, Dan Calderwood, Julia Peterson, Crislyn Parker‐ notes 2. Discussion Items 2.1 President Smith Charge/Direction to Committee:  Utpal reviewed the charge of the IEC, highlighting that the IEC does not develop the institutional plans, but appoints ad hoc committees for the strategic and educational master plan. The IEC is an oversight and review committee.  Because of the number of committees and overlap in duties, and because staff and faculty time might be used more efficiently, Kathy has begun discussions about conducting a review of all committees. She would like to know what all committees do, as well as the structure and processes of the IEC. Her vision is to have an oversight committee with membership of all chairs from planning committees that looks at the big picture; which is a charge of the IEC. Kathy wishes to be involved in discussions for oversight and revision of plans, where we move forward; and, as we implement them based on indicators, which are difficult to define and measure. The annual plan is how Kathy envisions bringing the elements of the Strategic and Ed Master Plans to fruition. She requested Paul facilitate completion of points of annual plan in the absence of a Director of Planning, Grants and Institutional Effectiveness. 2.2 Review of Committee Structure  The IEC can work on what demands are put on constituents and see whether the IEC requires more frequently scheduled meetings, to determine the efficiencies of how to do our work.  Kathy asked the history of having a faculty and administrator co‐chairs on many committees, being concerned with burden placed on faculty. The short answer was to assure transparency and shared governance, as well as communication. As the integrated planning model was revised, the co‐chair issue was not negotiable.  As part of re‐organization timeline, the IEC has been charged with creating a task force to review current non‐senate committees and processes, and make recommendations for change.  Tami Matsumoto will head this task force, along with Shannon Sullivan, Angelina and others as determined. This group will meet with Utpal and Keith to provide a structure for the task force prior to the summit. 2.3 Oversight of Planning Processes  Discussion within the committee included that, given the current institutional plans, does the college have a reasonable chance of addressing them. The IEC will review where the annual planning documents could use improvement, such as clarifying steps that need to be taken to reach the results (developing a summer bridge for basic skills was noted as an example). The IEC will re‐look at how the annual plan can give direction.  It was noted that ACCJC is looking for the integration of planning and budget; what our plans say our priorities are, and are we putting funds where we say the priorities are. 
There was discussion on how to keep goals at the front and motivate everyone to come together and feel good about moving forward. Positive reinforcement of the progress we have made so far might be one solution.  Some discussion on whether to include annual committee surveys in the planning summit. Angelina will send an email reminder that this will be coming, to have in time for inclusion in the IEC year‐end report. Also a suggestion, with student success requirement looming, to discuss ways to tailor assessment around the student’s view of success, via a survey. 3. Standing Agenda Item: Status Check of Planning Process  Follow up on functional committee self‐evaluations, for use by the IEC as part of the year‐end report. 4. Planning Summit  The committee agreed to host the third annual planning summit on Saturday, April 6, from 9am to 1pm, location to be determined. While everyone is invited to attend, participation by the chairs from the functional committees is expected.  It was mentioned that CR has not truly integrated planning, but has integrated our processes. The original summit intent was to review processes, which would take about two to three hours to accomplish. A session would be needed to discuss plans. After discussion, it was agreed the summit format should follow the same process as last year: demonstrate the cycle of plans, review, then document the conclusions drawn, and return to the IEC or other specifically designated entity for follow‐up.  Possibly, one result of the summit can aid in determining how to combine committees. 5. Completion of the 2013‐14 Annual Plan  The annual planning document is/should be a template, the collective action plan(s) that everyone shares, for planning in all areas, and must tie to the Strategic and Ed Master Plans.  IEC discussed briefly discussed the need to complete the 2013‐14 annual plan, integrate the other institutional plans into all annual plans, and include steps to accomplish this. 6. Other/Future Agenda Items  Other discussion included how to articulate to the district at large that we are improving and give them positive feed‐back. This is captured in the IEC annual report, but needs to be communicated in a more digestible way. One forum suggested is the monthly newsletter sent by Paul DeMark. Adjourned Next Meeting: Wednesday, February 27