Program Review Committee
Friday, October 16, 2009
10am – 12:00pm
Boardroom
Present: Rachel Anderson, Dave Banducci, Steve Brown, Marjorie Carson, Toby
Green, Bill Honsal, Cindy Hooper, Maggie Lynch, Karen Nelson, Mike Peterson, Brady
Reed, Hillary Reed, Lynn Thiesen, Martha Davis, guest, Roxanne Metz, guest, Crislyn
Parker-meeting notes
Absent: Zach DeLoach, Anita Janis, Geisce Ly, Todd Olsen, Vinnie Peloso, Keith SnowFlamer, Cheryl Tucker
Meeting Notes
1. Approve Minutes from October 2 and October 7, 2009
 Move to table minutes of Friday, October 2 and Wednesday, October 7, to Friday 10/23,
pending clarification of inconsistencies.
 A recommendation was made to write formally to the Academic Senate Co-President for
faculty recommendations on the functional committees, in order to move forward.
2. Accreditation Visiting Team Agenda – Development of Themes
 The Accreditation Visiting Team (ACCJC) will be here on October 20 and 21, 2009.
 On 10/20/09 they will view evidence and meet with three Board members.
 The Program Review Committee will meet with the Team on Wednesday, 10/21/09 at
8am. Peter Blakemore will also attend to address curriculum issues.
 ACCJC asked for thirty minute meetings with 30 minute breaks between to collect
themselves and/or view evidence available in binders, portable files and via electronic
links.
 ACCJC will also meet with senior leadership, deans, directors and cabinet members and
will meet with the president separately. Mr. Barr specifically requested to meet with
Martha Davis/IR for an hour.
 Discussed whether PRC would like to develop themes for discussion, as was done at the
Deans/Directors meeting, or how we want to handle discussion, pending direction by
ACCJC.
 Discussion should revolve around the issues that might put us on warning or take us off.
 ACCJC will likely want to hear what is working right and what we think will happen to
demonstrate that we are progressing toward proficiency
 Discussed transparency and why MyCR has to be a “joinable site.” Maggie will send out
another email with steps on how to join and who to call if they have problems.
 Discussed that we can define and describe our expectations of the process; list what we
are doing and attempting to do. PRC keys into what said in the report.
 It was reiterated that SLO’s and PLO’s need to guide resource allocation. Suggested
getting guides from other schools (Los Positas College and Cabrillo College were
suggested) on how they use SLO’s, PLO’s and link assessment to their resource planning.
 PRC can only say this is what we have done, where we are and that we are working
through it; our theme is what have we done, where are we going and we as individuals
will be sure it gets done.
 ACCJC will not make a decision until January. An addendum will be submitted in
December. Peter Blakemore will attend the PRC meeting, to address curriculum issues
ACCJC might ask.
3. Integrated Planning Flow Chart – refinements:
 Put a box around Board of Trustee and bold.









Include Acronym and full title for all committees.
Legend for arrows- two way communication regarding any large items.
Change committee titles: remove “planning” from all committees. (Budget, Technology,
Facilities Committees). Functional committees incorporate program recommendations into
functional plans, at the CPC level. Master Plan meetings, in the past, have been separate, but
should not be. CPC’s job to look at all as conglomeration with the master plan. Each
functional committee has own plan, sends to CPC, who incorporates and moves on.
Correctly label Academic Senate.
PSP should not be the second major block (not a voting body) in the flow chart; it is a sorting
group and should be at the bottom as a supporting group.
Classified Council - correct title.
Clarification of the College Council functions.
Where SLO’s and PLO’s fit into this process; in other colleges, all planning revolves around
SLO’s, PLO’s and Program Review.
The current iteration has been approved based on changes, and it is a living document, subject
to review and revision.
4. Planning Support Team Updates
 PST is documenting gaps.
 Changing flow sheet to better reflect SLOs, PRC and the function of PST.
 Will continue to work on narrative portion
 Some questions came up regarding:
o What should be forwarded to functional committees and in what format? A
suggestion is to send the full review to committees with pages annotated that they
would focus on.
o How are functional committees expected to prioritize?
o How should functional committees communicate with one another, if needed?
o MC & Keith will work on tear out sheet
o PRC should talk about rubrics and elements integral to planning
5. Discussion of an Executive Summary Form
 Executive summary should be included with tear out sheets; should inform process.
 Forms and rubrics need to connect SLOs and assessment.
 Clarify what are “facilities” (include everything attached) and “equipment” (removable items).
6. Clarification of expectations regarding SLOs and PLOs. (ex: some programs provide
SLOs for every course, other programs provide for only one or two courses; does Student
Services, who also provides courses like Guidance, need to provide SLOs and assessment in
their reviews? Move to next meeting.
7. Discuss at what point the PRC request/require rewrite: Is it a subcommittee function
or an entire PRC function? Move to next meeting.
8. Discuss revision of Program Review Mission Statement and Charge
8.1 Review of Board Policy/Administrative Policy 122
8.2 Program Review Charge
Move to next meeting
9. Other:
 10/23 meeting Karen will amend exec summary and send out.
 Everyone should bring ideas for the exec summary to this meeting.