Program Review Committee
Friday, December 16, 2010
11:30 – 12:30am
Boardroom
Meeting Notes
Present: Utpal Goswami, Vinnie Peloso, Keith Snow-Flamer, Paul Hidy, Rachel
Anderson, Karen Nelson, Todd Olson, Cindy Hooper, Mike Cox, Mike Peterson,
Cheryl Tucker; Bill Honsal; Brady Reed; Crislyn Parker – recording, Trish Blair, guest
Absent: Toby Green, Melody Pope, Hillary Reed, Zach DeLoach
1. Discuss issues related to completing comprehensive program reviews:






It was noted right off that the Self Study visiting team made it clear we need to
complete a process, learn from the process and then make changes as
needed
Liberal Arts degree programs need to complete comprehensive program
reviews. These have never been done and the college needs to make it’s best
effort to be in compliance; learn and demonstrate later what we learned by
reviewing and noting improvements that will be made in the future
Two issues:
1) Working with a comprehensive review template that is less than ideal,
confusing
2) The lack of clarity in the MOU regarding area coordinator program
review responsibilities and work load
The MOU wording is as follows: “area coordinator duties include, but are not
limited to…..coordinating program review at the discipline level.”
The meeting today is to determine how, as an institution, we navigate people
through this process:
1) MOU to CRFO (Utpal in January): discussed that we should get the
MOU clarified prior to having this meeting, but the purpose today is to
explore compliance and/or the need to change the comprehensive
review timeline. Establish the process we will take when the
negotiations are complete
2) Comprehensive timeline can be changed If we move forward with the
current template, we can solicit feedback on what needs changing and
how to improve the comprehensive template and process.
The committee agreed:
o Not to change the template, but complete the process, learn from the
process what changes need to be made (also suggested by the self
study visiting team)
o Move the Liberal Arts comprehensives to a Group 6 and have the due
date in late March, allowing time for work load negotiations. Student
Services comprehensives are already completed and will not be
changed on the calendar
o Change the author calendar
o Annual reviews currently, not part of the liberal arts comprehensives,
will move forward per the timeline.
The committee decided that an email will be sent to all regarding the following:
 The comprehensive program review has two elements of concern: the quality
of template and the work load issue.
 If an agreement can reached regarding the area coordinator workload, liberal
arts comprehensives will move forward with the current form (even though it is
less than perfect) and the due date will be pushed to later in March.
 If negotiations fail to come to agreement regarding workload issues, all those
disciplines involved in the liberal arts comprehensives will have to complete an
annual review.
 The PRC is committed to reviewing the templates based upon what we will
learn by completing the current process. Your input in how to improve the
process will be valuable to the PRC.
 There was discussion about the assessment component for comprehensives
and program learning, which has been completed, but never really moved into
the comprehensive program review process.
 If we do the comprehensives this year, we have 3 to 5 years to revise
templates and processes, and resolve issues before comprehensives are due
again. It is far perfect, but if we move through the process, we have the
opportunity to learn and correct what is needed for improvement.
 Per Utpal, after this year, the process will be determined by the PRC and
author feedback, not by one or two individuals. Governance is put trust into
the committee, go through channels for approval and commitment for the next
comprehensive process
 One of the issues is to determine what data is necessary for comprehensives;
too much is included, all yielding the same conclusions
Debrief: Report from Dr. White and Self Study Visiting Team
 Utpal’s observations:
o The team was concerned about how we format the report. Utpal feels
that the documents will be in ACCJC format and is the least of our
issues.
o The larger issues are the institutional issues:
o The lack of institutional research (signals we are not devoting resources
to SLOs, assessment, etc.);
o Codify the governing structure, so people know how decisions are
made, and if there is disagreement, where it occurs and how
disagreements will be resolved
o Institutional effectiveness overall picture; if and how the Educational
Master Plan is connected to Mission, Vision, Values, and how all are
connected to Student Learning objectives.
o What are our plans for sustainability? ACCJC will be looking for fiscal
sustainability and long term infrastructure planning.
o More specific detail on planning agendas in terms of what will be
accomplished, when (timelines) and who will be charged with getting it
done.
o Is the institution committed from top to bottom on processes? Is the
communication flowing?