Program Review Committee
Friday, January 27, 2012
10:00 a.m., BOARD ROOM
Present: Rachel Anderson, Cheryl Tucker, Justine Shaw, Steve Stratton, Pau Hidy, Mike
Cox, Dana Maher, Angelina Hill, Zach DeLoach, Vinnie Peloso, Crislyn Parker - notes
1) Meeting called to order at 10:10
2) Updates
a. PRC Membership Changes:

PRC still has no classified representation

Todd Olson is unable to continue on the committee due to class conflicts
b. Administrative Services Template:

Student services templates were tweaked to be more in line with instructional

Administrative services are finalizing their template and needs. PRC co-chairs
agreed to have this group submit their program reviews later in the spring. Our
streamlined process allows for changes to the author calendar.

Crislyn will move the IR and Technology Services due date to Group 5, March
th
5 .
3) Communications Regarding Non-Compliant Programs:

During the discussion on what should be a more formal communication process
for non-compliant programs, the committee agreed that if units have template or
data problems, notifying the PRC is sufficient, and the due date will be changed.

Deans will receive an email of reviews due by Thursday noon, every Monday,
and are asked to remind authors of the due date.

If reviews are not submitted by Thursday noon, or no word sent to their Dean or
the PRC of problems, delays), the following steps will occur:
o
First, an email to the Dean asking he/she follow-up
o
If still no response, a more sternly worded, follow-up email to the author
copying the Dean
4) KPI Summaries for 1/27/12 Reviews for Group 1

Addiction Studies

CIS

CT-General, Cabinetmaking

CT – Woodworking, (it is noted that HPRT {Bill Hole} was not included in this
review. Fine woodworking is Mendocino based and Laura Mays is program
oversight.)

Digital Media

Drafting Technology

DSPS

It was decided to make a note on the KPI form when check-list boxes are not
completed.

One committee member will pull up the data sets while the committee evaluates
each program review. Authors do not have to address data unless it is grossly out



of the norm, whether a successful program or not.
It was asked if there is a process where we can compare programs to other CA
colleges. There is no way to easily do so by program, but might be possible with
some basic skills courses. Per Angelina, Datamart 2 might have more discipline
information.
It is noted that Service areas want comments on how services could be improved
and the PRC will put these in the “other” area.
A future revision to the template will be to include an advisory committee
category.
5) Other/Next Meeting Agenda Items:


Furniture and Equipment has completed the prioritization and submitted to the
budget planning committee (BPC). The budget committee is working on a rubric
and will use the same process as last year.
Roxanne will be posting/linking prioritizations to a web page. Crislyn will send
the link to the PRC.
6) Adjourn