Program Review Committee
Friday, January 25, 2012, 9am – 11am
New Boardroom
Notes
Present: Utpal Goswami, Keith Snow-Flamer, Brie Day, Cheryl Tucker, Barbara Jaffari, Jon
Pedicino, Vinnie Peloso, Dana Maher, Steve Stratton, Rachel Anderson, Jeff Cummings, Tanya
Smart, Mike Cox, Erik Kramer, Hillary Reed, Anita Janis-phone, Roxanne Metz-visitor, Crislyn
Parker-notes
1. Approve January 18, 2013 meeting notes:
 Approved
2. Assign Data Blocks for Members Review of Data and Narrative (see grid below)
 There was agreement to assign three committee members for each date; one each to review
sections 2 (data), 3 (assessment), 4 and 5 (planning)
 Section 4 Planning may not include previous plans. Section 5 needs a review to be sure it
matches to annual, strategic and education master plans.
 Assessment: suggestion to view the assessment reports for matching information. The
PRC will only verify, not evaluate, assessment quality.
3. Faculty Requests for February 9, 2013 Faculty Prioritization Process
 Update: All requests will go to the prioritization committee for initial ranking, to the
Budget Planning Committee and finally to the President for final approval.
 If there is no faculty to initiate a faculty request, the Dean/Director can do so.
4. Administrative Services Reviews, Plus
3.1 Business Office
3.2 Maintenance
3.3 Payroll
3.4 Safety/Security
3.5 VP-Admin Services Area
3.6 Community & Economic Development
3.7 Institutional Research
Institutionally, the service area reviews reflect major themes: 1. Closing the books; 2. Loading
the budget; 3. Linking planning (section 5) and resource requests (section 6). 4. Including and
commenting specifically on district wide perspectives.
5. Other
 The PRC will note, for future reviews, to check service area reviews against the annual,
strategic and education master plans.
 All reviews should be sure to encompass district-wide data and perspectives.
 Many reviews do not include a relationship to planning. The resource section must be
linked to planning (maybe PRC can revise template slightly to facilitate this).
 The PRC would like detail relating to recurring costs; specifically, the use.
 The PRC year-end debrief will include guidelines for next year based on this year’s PRC
experience. There seems to be confusion on the requests for operational budget: the intent
is that expenditures fall into two categories: planning or an increase for operational needs.
 There was confusion of the two bolded areas for narrative, following section 2.9. Many
authors thought this related to labor data and did not respond. This will be clarified for
next year.
 Unsigned reviews will be re-submitted to the VP for signature.
6. Future Agenda Items
Next Meeting: Friday, February 8, 2013, 9am, Boardroom
Spring 2013 Instructional Program Review Committee Calendar:
Date
2/8/13
2/22/13
3/8/13
3/22/13
4/12/13
Grouping
Addiction Studies,
Academy of Justice
Behavioral & Social Sciences
Dental Assisting
ECE
English
Fine Arts
Fire Tech
Forestry/English/Natural Resources
Health, PE, Athletics
Humanities
LVN
Math
Marine Science Technology
Paramedic
Physical Science
RN
Agriculture
Auto Tech
Business/Econ
Business Tech
CIS
Construction Technology
Digital Media
Drafting Tech
Historic Preservation
Manufacturing Technology
Welding Technology
Water/Wastewater
Hospitality, Restaurant, Culinary Hospitality
(plus any other)
4/26/12
Executive Summary?
31 Total plus three from Presidents Office
Section 2 – Data
Section 3 – Assessment
Sections 4&5 - Planning: consistent from annual, strategic and ed
Member
Dana-Assessment
Cheryl-Data
Steve-Planning
Jeff-Planning
Hillary-Data
Mike-Assessment
Rachel-Data
Brie-Assessment
Barbara-Planning
Vinnie-Assessment
Jon-Data
Utpal-Planning
Tanya-Planning
Keith-Assessment
Anita-Data