Program Review Committee
Friday, October 23, 2009
10am – 12:00pm
Boardroom
Meeting Notes
Present: Rachel Anderson, Dave Banducci, Steve Brown, Marjorie Carson, Toby Green, Bill Honsal,
Cindy Hooper, Maggie Lynch, Todd Olsen, Vinnie Peloso, Mike Peterson, Brady Reed, Hillary Reed,
Keith Snow-Flamer, Crislyn Parker-notes
1. Brief Review of the Accreditation Team Visit
 Individual Program Review Committee members take-a-ways from the Accreditation Team
Visit:
o Program Review Committee is leader
o The scope of the College Council now is to be sure that every constituent group has a
chance to see policies and procedures
o The Team wanted to know how we are getting Assessment out to the campus at large
and how will we begin the discussion of student achievement and integrate this
campus-wide.
o It is necessary to make sure we communicate openly at ALL committee meetings and
that all processes are open.
2. Program Review Mission Statement and Charge
2.2 Mission:
 Program Review committee leads and facilitates authentic assessment.
2.3 Charge:
 Mission statement and charge should be on first page and include a values statement.
 Charge needs to be broader, including student success, achievement, challenges.
 PST will draft a new charge for review.
2.1 11:03am - Operating Agreement (values, decision making process), (draft from PST):
 Pages 1 and 2 need to include language to describe the integrated planning flow chart.
 A motion to add the Director of IR as a voting member resulted in thirteen ayes, one nay.
 Zach will remain a non-voting member as IR researcher
 Motion to accept membership as stated in draft resulted in unanimous ayes.
 Check actual Board Policy for co-chairs.
 A motion to include faculty as co-chairs (two administrators and two faculty co-chairs)
resulted one aye and 13 nays; the motion was defeated.
 Committee attendance policy - absences will be discussed further. (note: Nikiya McWilliams
is officially no longer on committee)
 Comments should be sent to Keith and Karen Nelson and will be included by Monday in a
revised document.
3. Executive Summary Form
(Discussion of two forms: executive summary for integrated planning and author summary.)
 There was discussion whether two summaries were necessary; one for authors and one to go to
the integrated planning committees. Since transparency is required, what the PRC determines
should go to should go to authors, planning, everyone.
 Suggested to go back to a single form with nine (9) dialog boxes. As a committee it won’t be
punitive, but will be a means of assessment.
 Suggested there could be feedback to authors before it goes to the functional committees and it
can be noted if there was disagreement between author and Program Review Committee.
 PRC calendar should build in time for PRC and authors to dialog (in January) to see how
Program Review is connected to planning.

PST will combine the form for review; put in the process box of integrated planning and
summary will be forwarded in the timeline to the functional committees.
3.1 Finalize the form
 Title Integrated Planning Functional committee spelled out?
 Tabled to next revision
3.2 Finalize summarization process – tabled to next meeting
4. Integrated Planning
4.1 Cabinet Feedback on the Model
 PRC-approved original flow chart sent to cabinet for approval
 The model has changed based on previous discussions: moved PST out of mainstream;
cabinet and college council switched, because Council is the oversight for the process – the
checks and balances committee (hoping to create trust and transparency); functional
committees listed as separate functions; removed academic senate because they are
represented in all planning groups; IR is part of PRC, Enrollment Management – everywhere
but facilities and Human Resources; Operating agreements for each committee include
communication; the one way arrow shows communication out to college as a whole, not just
each group.
 Give the functional committees a title/header for clarity?
 Committee likes most current model based on suggested changes.
4.2 Planning Committee leadership-tabled
4.3 Summarization of PST meeting
 PST met with some of the integrated planning committee chairs and will meet more next week
and prioritize based on a rubric system. Since PR is versed in the language, they should
suggest a sample rubric and let planning committees decide. Since rubics need to be uniform;
PST will work with one member of each PRC sub-committee to draft rubrics.
 Should there be a member of Program Review Committee on each functional committee?
5. Other
How to facilitate discussions on incorporating student achievement district-wide
 Keep It Simple – what, why, how (like a teacher) in small group settings.
 Felt IR non-responsive when there are questions as to accuracy of data.
 There are some difficulties with the form, because it is locked.
 IR needs to be at the service of the faculty more; there needs to be more open door and
trust between faculty and IR.
 Zach is supposed to be an official member of the committee. IR’s role is to define and
support the data – why it is there, what it means, (what it is capable of telling someone
without interpreting the data).
 For transparency – once PR has everything together (mission, flow chart etc) have it all at
convocation and explain to entire district what is happening.
 IR Director should be part of PRC; there should be a clear identification of the role as a
critical part of the process; maybe have IR hold workshops.
Announcement:
Friday, Oct 30, 8am – 9:45 Assessment workshop, open meeting; 10am – 3pm Assessment, FM 100
Note: Minutes from October 2, 7, and 16, 2009 will be included on the next PRC agenda.