Program Review Committee
Friday, November 6, 2009
10am-12pm
Board Room
Minutes
Present: Keith Snow-Flamer, Marjorie Carson, Rachel Anderson, Lynn Thiesen, Geisce
Ly, Cynthia Hooper, Todd Olsen, Hillary Reed, Bill Honsal, Vinnie Peloso, Dave
Banducci, Steve Brown, Karen Nelson (ex officio)
Others Present: Cheryl Tucker
Absent: Maggie Lynch, Crislyn Parker, Mike Peterson, Brady Reed



Questions asked about what is due by Friday, November 13th regarding assessment
forms for the follow up addendum. It was decided to have assessment forms emailed
to faculty and staff, and letting them know what is needed.
Cindy remembers that the forms must be completed in November for the ACCJC
follow-up report.
Rachel will send out an email to faculty regarding assessment forms
Add items to agenda: IPM narrative
PRC/IP calendar
1. Approve Minutes
Not available.
2. Integrated Planning Model
 IPM sent to CPC and Cabinet for comment. Revisions were suggested and a new
model proposed
 Old plan noted as too complicated: why is CPC reanalyzing information; they noted a
lack of budget connection; model considered too confusing and complicated
 New suggested plan simplifies the planning process
 Old model is unclear who does the evaluation of student achievement data.
 Why is the PRC reviewing student services? Separate them out: Instruction will
review program effectiveness; Student Services will review FTES and student
achievement data
 Administrative reviews efficiencies
 All reviews should go to Budget Planning Committee (BPC)
 All priority requests go to BPC
 CPC role is strategic planning, goals and objectives
 New model must note that decisions made from Cabinet need to provide feedback to
District noting varied decisions
 Add legend with communication arrows
 The new suggested IPM is radically different from PRC version and it appears the
BPC is making all the decisions































The following questions were asked about the PRC IPM diagram: Why should CPC
redo work already completed by the PRC/PST and IPC’s?
In the new model executive summaries and rubrics sent to BPC- leads decisions to be
made by PRC members who have experience and knowledge with PR’s
CPC asked why, if the PRC looked at the data and made priorities, send to them again
for review
Faculty co-chairs are still on the BP, FMP and HR committees in the new model
It is frustrating to see student services and instructional separated in the new model
PRC outcomes assessment will have to start from scratch on membership if a new
model enacted
There is a misunderstanding of the role of CPC, which is strategic planning in old
model
BPC and subsets (master planning ) all in one box
Add continuous loop to the new model?
It was expressed that as messy as the PRC model was, it made sense
Comments were made about the assessment workshop, that CR makes this process
sustainable and efficient. We can define it as we see fit
In the old model, PR flow should dictate PR information all the way to the BOT
It was noted the new model fragments the district
Where does faculty have a voice and where is the shared governance in the new
model?
Statement that the BPC operated on assumptions in the past. BPC should operate
under guidelines from PRC and EMC
It was expressed that constituent groups are all on committees in the new model
New connections to PRC and EMC were suggested in the new model
Desire to put CPC back into the new model
Discussion of old model ensued. Questions to the old model: what are the functions
of the assessment committee and educational master plan?
Expressed and emphasized that CR needs to stop talking and start moving on
planning
Comments on integrated planning, assessment committee, what do they do? Who are
they?
Comments that it is unclear what the functions of the IPFC’s are
It was suggested that the PRC combine both models
Mixing and matching: short term and long term planning; CR needs to combining
short and long term planning
Action planning connecting PR’s and SP data was discussed
Develop a hybrid model was suggested again
It was decided that the PRC will stay with the old model with minor revisions as
follows:
Scratch College Council; CPC is a smaller box; a direct line from IP’s to cabinet
Master plan committees stay as they were
Vote on the PRC IPM model- voted and approved with noted minor changes
A concern about finding enough faculty to fill IP committees




CPC is getting information from IPC’s for EMP and SP (information only in model)
Discussed the objective of the executive summary for integrated planning
committees and the District at large
Need draft a narrative for the revised IPM as to changes suggested
Open Forum Discussions
3. Next Steps on Rubric Development
 Rubric subcommittee to meet next week
4. Operating Agreement Changes
 Voting members to 21
 Change all “ground rules” to rules
 Capitalize “annual” in page 2
 Compressive to comprehensive page 2
 Be sure all perspectives are heard (page 4)
 …Revisions will be filed for periodic updating (page 4)
 (Page 3) voting members to include Deans of Mendo and Del Norte
 Mission statement, 2nd sentence: …committee reviews annual/comprehensive
program reviews that provide the foundation…
 Page 3: list faculty detail, as we have administrative detail
 District to CR (page 5)
 Question: are so many administrators on the PRC necessary?
5. Approval of the Executive Summary- voted and approved with changes noted
 Remove word comprehensive in “objective”
 Discussion of the word “program”; math is not a program; physics is not a program
(use of word programs is a common descriptor). Decided to keep common language.
 Discussion of program review language in the IPM narrative
6. Begin Developing Executive Summarization- not completed
 Addiction Studies, Administration of Justice, Agriculture, Anthropology/Sociology,
Art, ASN-Nursing
Future agendas to have action items and discussion items
Revisions to IPM to be on next agenda
Updates from the rubric committee