Program Review Committee
Friday, October 22, 2010
9:30 – 11:00am, Boardroom
Meeting Notes
Present: Keith Snow-Flamer, Utpal Goswami, Cindy Hooper, Rachel Anderson, Cheryl Tucker, Paul
Hidy, Vinnie Peloso, Hillary Reed, Toby Green, Karen Nelson, Mike Peterson, Todd Olsen, Brady
Reed, Melody Pope, Crislyn Parker - notes
Absent: Bill Honsal, Zach DeLoach
1. Budget Planning Committee (BPC) Ranking Strategy & Cabinet Approval
 The process for prioritizing budget needs was agreed upon by the BPC committee members.
 Rankings were maintained in priority order as submitted by division or department. All recent
requests for budget needs are in PDF format on the BPC site. This process was created as a
mid-year process to include what was overlooked or unknown in the budget planning process
from last spring, including, not limited to, program review. Next year this process will be more
refined. Faculty prioritization is not included in this process. The budget process begins in
November with budget assumptions for the following academic year. It is noted that if a request
is not funded this year, it will roll over into the process again next year.
 Evaluation and ranking protocol will follow these basic 5 steps (information is on the BPC
website):
1. Relationship to and relative importance of the request to the institutional strategic plan and
educational master plan.
2. Compliance with Federal, State and County mandates
3. Potential impact on student learning, institutional operations, service levels and
effectiveness/efficiencies
4. Availability of alternatives and potential for deferral
5. Funding history of the unit/area
 It must be noted this is a prioritization process subject to the final budget. If additional money
becomes available, allocations will be made to the different categories, from which rankings
within the categories will be considered. Measure Q items will be funded. A breakdown of
lump sums can be found on the Program Review site
 There is still concern about BPC funding of items that don’t come through the program review
process and data based channels (i.e. Jefferson school purchase). Utpal hopes to see
clarification of CR’s mission, vision, and strategic planning, with all decisions being linked to
these so this concern will be minimized. When these issues arise, there should be public
discussion, or hearings, before action is taken.
 Regarding the (current) final ranking form, it might help to re-term the “department” column to
better reflect the funding request (i.e. “DIEM” is not a department)
 There is still concern that when faculty leave or retire, funding and TLUs are re-allocated to
purposes other than instruction, creating a huge deficit
 There should be discussion on what is meant by “serving the students;” What obligation has
the higher priority: students who are already here versus students not yet here
2. Faculty Request Form for Program Review template (adapt approved rubric?)
 The current faculty prioritization document was mutually agreed upon by the Academic Senate
Co-presidents, will be in College Council Monday, October 25 and is anticipated to be
officially approved in November. The prioritization process will begin in December
 In terms of creating a temporary faculty request form for Program Review purposes, Utpal
believes it is safer to wait on the form until final approval. As this creates problems now,



program review authors should indicate faculty needs and in January, when a form is created,
there will be an addendum process to get faculty prioritization and hiring done by Feb.
However, there was agreement that something is needed by early November
Concern was voiced and discussion followed, regarding the rubric categorizations, “Growth
Position,” in terms of current budget restraints. It was suggested data such fill rates and high
demand, be included; (how to show, in the criteria, that due to budget concerns, we are pulling
back and enrollment data won’t necessarily show growth)
Requests for faculty will need to be tied to a clear mission, vision and strategy.
Clarification regarding Grant funded positions: when hiring grant-funded faculty for only a
specific amount of time, they are not included in the faculty prioritization process. If this
position is or becomes tenure track, the process has to be followed. This issue must be well
thought out when applying for grants that fund faculty positions.
3. Update: IPFC Coordination
 “Blue boxes” (Integrated Planning Functional Committees) met this week. They discussed the
holes in the “blue box” process: 1) staff requests 2) assessment – what happens and 3) ranking
process. A recommendation will be forwarded to cabinet to add a Staffing Committee (“blue
box”), to prioritize and rank non-faculty staffing requests. This committee will be headed by
the Director of HR, and include representatives from student services, technology services,
administrative services, facilities, the Managers Council, Del Norte and Mendo education sites
 The committee recommended adding classified representation, since they are the group most
directly concerned with staffing.
 A staffing process is not yet formed. The committee agree that all blue boxes should have a
common ranking system
 Regarding assessment information, once outcomes assessments are completed, they should be
forwarded to the PRC, who will summarize findings and forward to the appropriate vice
president for review. The VP’s will then work with departments to changes or corrections.
 College Council will discuss the issue of oversight of the integrated planning process
 Assessment committee page; hope to document public summaries by academic year; resources,
trainings; information and documentation; past team and student services assessment is
archived on this page;
 Utpal will put discussion on how to use assessment on the next Instructional council agenda.
Assessment is labor intensive; we need to consider developing policies and how to manage the
process. For example, Vice President’s want a condensed version, but departments need detail.
Utpal will share models used by other institutions.
4. Update: Addendums
 The Program Review Documents folder is available to all PRC members,
 Prior to the next meeting (November 5, 2010) the committee have access to submitted
addendums and at the next meeting will review and close the loop on the process
5. Update: Status of “Program definition” spreadsheet
 Tabled until the November 5, 2010 meeting: Who needs to go through Program Review
6. FY 2010 Program Review Notes
 Post Notes on the web prior to review by the PRC? No longer taking minutes. Notes can be
revised at a later date. (Unsure of the final decision)
7. Next Meeting, November 5, 2010