Redwoods Community College District
PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC)
Friday, January 28, 2011, 10am, Boardroom
NOTES
PRESENT
Vinnie Peloso, Paul Hidy, Toby Green, Zach DeLoach, Bill Honsal,
Mike Cox, Cheryl Tucker, Utpal Goswami, Rachel Anderson, Todd
Olsen, Keith Snow-Flamer
MEETING
Called to order at 10am.
LINKING
PROGRAM
REVIEW TO
BUDGET
•
In order to link program review directly to budget, it was discussed
and agreed by the present members that budget requests be collated
and submitted to the Budget Planning Committee (BPC) through the
Program Review Committee (PRC). The PRC budget subcommittee
will complete this by the end of March, to be included in tentative
budget which goes to the board in April. Zach will parse information
to the Budget sub-committee upon completion of the last group of
program reviews (3/25/11)
SUBCOMMITTEES
AND
ASSIGNMENTS
•
•
•
•
Paul Hidy will move from Assessment to Trends committee
Mike Peterson was nominated as lead for Trends subcommittee
Karen Nelson nominated as lead for the Budget subcommittee
Cheryl was nominated and accepted for lead of the Assessment
subcommittee; Toby Green will assist
ROLE OF
PROGRAM
REVIEW IN
ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES
•
Utpal introduced this topic to the PRC for future consideration. His
perspective is that assessment is discipline and faculty based, and
the role of the PRC should be whether or not assessment took place.
Evaluating and acting upon course-level assessment belongs to the
Assessment Committee and faculty and disciplines involved. The
PRC will move toward program-level assessment and Utpal sees the
PRC as having vital role in new programs and program
discontinuance.
The PRC will keep the current process but in April continue the
discussion on how to streamline the assessment piece
Justine would like to have the Assess committee present for this
discussion. Crislyn will work with Justine to set a meeting with the
PRC and Assessment Committee
•
•
VETTING
FACULTY
REQUESTS BY
PROGRAM
REVIEW
COMMITTEE
•
•
•
Utpal reported out on the Saturday, 1/22 Faculty Prioritization
process. They ranked 15 positions which have been shared with the
Academic Senate and other pertinent committees.
Since faculty requests are part of the program review addendum,
Utpal would like all requests to come to PRC for review and sign off
as valid before submitting to the Faculty Prioritization Committee.
In the future, the faculty request form will be embedded into
program review document
PRC will not be prioritizing, just vetting faculty requests based on
•
UPDATE ON
STATUS OF
INTEGREATED
PLANNING
RESOURCE
REQUESTS
•
•
•
Open discussion
•
•
program review data.
Discussion included whether the PRC should submit their priorities
for faculty hire or include in executive summary the argument for
faculty hiring. It was agreed that PRC has a role in the process and
there will be further discussion on what exactly that role and the
process will be
Keith reported that the resource requests completed last year have
been through the process. Some were funded up to about $900,000
through various funding. Fall semester addendums have been
ranked by the Tech, Facilities, Equip & Furniture planning
committees and sent to the BPC
Utpal brought up the question of how to get operational needs into
budget process? He clarified that he was looking at anticipated
expenses that arise in the normal course of operations and how to
get them into the budget process; making sure they are included.
For example, our needs include more than equipment and furniture,
but personnel and operations. Last fall when ranking began we
created ad-hoc process for people to submit operational needs
outside of the PR process. Is this something in which we need to
have a transparent process by which people request operational
needs?
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee met last fall and the new
committee is meeting Thursday, February 3, to discuss two agenda
items: Institutional Planning BP/AP draft forms and narrative that
goes beyond integrated planning to institutional effectiveness,
possible measures of institutional effectiveness, possible constituent
survey, and an IEC planning agenda.
The committee agreed not to norm the sub-committee rubrics, after
discussion on this topic. Cheryl noted that as long as we agree on
operational definitions then the process should work
Regarding the Comprehensives workload issue, it was noted that
only the AA degrees are at issue. The disciplines involved in the
GE Comprehensives, will do annuals
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, February 4th, at 10am, in the
Boardroom
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30am
SUBMITTED
cp