Program Review Committee
Friday, September 10, 2010
9:00 am – 11:00pm
Boardroom
Notes:
Present: Rachel Anderson, Mike Peterson, Cheryl Tucker, Zach DeLoach, Karen Nelson,
Cindy Hooper, Utpal Goswami, Keith Snow-flamer, Bill Honsal, Vinnie Peloso, Toby Green,
Melody Pope, Brady Reed, Crislyn Parker – recording
Absent: Hillary Reed, Todd Olson
1. Discuss/Approve revised program review calendar and set committee meeting calendar:
 The committee reviewed calendar drafts created in spring, 2010, based on discussion
by the committee to slightly revise the program review time-line and clean up the
integrated planning process.
 Basically, program reviews will be due from authors in January – authors may begin
in November. This allows resource requests to be up front, instead after budget
planning has occurred. This year, divisions will complete an addendum to enter into
the final FY 2011 budget planning. The rational for this change: the program review
committee is charged to evaluate the program review process and make adjustments as
deemed necessary to improve process. The Committee reviewed last year’s cycle and
agreed upon the timeline change
 By end of December, first of January there should be a revised integrated planning
model, vetted by College council
 The updated 5-year annual and comprehensive calendar will be posted in
redwoods.edu and MyCR
 All program review calendars will be posted on inside.redwoods.edu and MyCR.
2. Discuss/Approve addendum update format:
 The addendum format categorizes needs in a manner which allows IR to populate a
database that can be easily accessed for tracking purposes.
 It was noted that “staffing” refers to non-faculty staffing needs; (tcp = approx total
cost per person). The committee decided a walk-through training for authors, deans
and PRC should be set up.
 Authors determine a “ranking” of high priority, medium priority or low priority, which
will be included in the overall database.
 A suggestion was made that the Program Review Committee should sign-off on
structure of the form; not boxes. The document will eventually evolve to meet with
needs of the functional committees. Also, rather than an “other” category, change to
“operational” or “operational/other”
 The addendum will be sent to the integrated planning committees for discussion
returned within 10 days. It was noted that the rankings from the summer integrated
planning groups need to be given to authors prior to completion of the addendum.
3. Link Program Review to Budget:
Completed over summer:
 Budget Planning Committee considerations were not primarily operational concerns.
In the past, the BPC did not take action on the operational side; hence the
prioritization and funding requests (Crislyn will send a copy of the forms used to

committee). 42 requests were submitted from operational areas (including some
instructional areas). BPC established a process, which takes all requests through
several layers of ranking. (The BPC pooled together some of the smaller dollar
amount requests into three major group requests for ranking.) The final ranking was
by an electronic voting process. The protocol of the integrated planning committees is
to maintain rankings, and the Budget Planning Committee to prioritize them. The
BPC will not rank a lower priority item ahead of a higher priority item. This
information will be posted on the Budget Planning Committee’s website (Friday or
Monday).
Function of the BPC is to rank the projects, not to fund. Funding is determined by
cabinet/president and available monies. Projects are funded in order of ranking until
the funding runs out. This ranking process does not include mandatory expenditures or
faculty.
4. Discussion composition of membership of the Program Review Committee:
 The committee discussed and agreed the Deans from the Mendocino and Del Norte
sites did not need to be on the program review committee; both sites have faculty
representation. There will be a total of 19 voting members when the committee is
fully appointed
5. Special topic: Gen Ed Comprehensive:
 Gen Ed will be on track with updated 5 year calendar
 Comprehensive includes two major components: GE and Liberal Arts
 Justine Shaw is overseeing Liberal Arts and it is under way
 GE component includes all faculty; writers have not yet been identified
6. Executive Summary Report-out to the Board of Trustees
 It was discussed and agreed that the Committee’s 2 page executive summary should be
presented to the board, as an information item, on what the committee did last year
and what and why any changes were made to the program review process
7. Full-time faculty prioritization
 The faculty prioritization process has not yet gone through the approval process.
Utpal put this on the agenda for a meeting with the Academic Senate co-Presidents,
Jeff and himself
 AB 1725 states that Faculty prioritization is by mutual agreement between faculty and
administration; it is up to the college to determine how mutual agreement works
8. Next meeting/next steps:
 Next meeting is 9/24/10 from 9:30 – 11:30; Subsequent meetings will occur every
other week for 1 hour
 Agenda items: 1) IPM process; 2) Demonstration of revised program review
templates (Zack will include standard deviation for retention in the template); 3)
Incorporating Administrative Services Program Review Process; and 4) Develop clear
agreed upon rubric for assessing programs