Dean’s Council Retreat
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
10:00am – 3:00pm
Retreat Notes
Present: Utpal Goswami, Geisce Ly, Jeff Cummings, Rachel Anderson, Pat Girczyc, Joe Hash, Anita
Janis, Crislyn Parker-notes
1. Assessment Committee Oversight
 The assessment process is faculty driven, implementation has administrative oversight. How
assessment will be implemented and what the dean’s responsibilities are was discussed. The
first step is to have it included in the contract. Another step would be to have it automated
and mapped. Utpal suggested a template and steps for assessment, based on the frequency of
courses offered. For example:
Step 1 Courses offered:
Every Semester
Once a Year
Once Every Two
SLO sequencing each semester
Years
over two year period:
4 SLOs
SLO 1,2,3,4
1&2, 3&4
1, 2, 3, and 4
6 SLOs
1, 2&3, 4, 5&6
Step 2
 Faculty member submits report; also submits numerical/quantifiable data.
Step 3
 Department chair, assessment liaison, or area coordinator reviews determines if whether
everything is fine, or there is a need for discussion. If fine, the report is filed; if there is a
significant discrepancy, dialog is initiated.
Step 4
 Assessment drives dialog. The assessment committee meets to identify relevant themes for
institutional discussion (not issues that can solved at the division/dean level.
 It is noted that there are two levels of assessment: 1. Students are evaluated on skill sets based
on the learning outcomes; 2. SLOs are evaluated on a periodic basis (two-year cycle).
Step 5
 A check process will need to be implemented ensuring the previous steps are being completed
and where assessment fits into the planning process.


It needs to be determined where the site deans fit into assessment process, how to manage the
process to ensure reports are submitted, and determine where discussion needs to happen-on
the institutional level or discipline/dean level. We are creating a culture of acting on needs as
determined through documented assessment.
If institutional imperatives are identified by a group, then they should have the ability to
submit requests through the planning committee (BPC) via the VP or site dean, but must show
the tie-in to the education master plan or strategic plan.
2. Dean’s Job Description/Workload Balance
 To be discussed
3. Strategic Hiring Plan
a. How are positions defined as critically in need of replacing and prioritized.
1. In Utpal’s experience, position requests are submitted at the Dean’s level and above.
Currently, there is no filter for faculty requests. A process hierarchy should be established
requiring requests go first to the Deans, the Vice President, then to cabinet prior to going to
the board. A living list of the status of position requests should be kept.
2. This will be a standing agenda item for Dean’s Council. Requests can be part of planning or
for operational need.
b. CSEA Vacant Positions:
 Kathy will address how these will be managed. The classified positions need to be
reviewed to identify what requires doing and what can be shifted.
1. Prioritizing staff needs: ideally there will be a hierarchy of positions, so a vacancy
in a higher position will be prioritized over a lower one.
2. Strategic Hiring:
 When tenure track positions open, due to attrition (death or resignation), the position is
automatically filled (unless there is no reason to fill it). Routine paper work and signatures
are still required.
 New faculty positions go through the faculty prioritization process (if a position has not
been filled within 2 years, the position is lost). Retirement replacement positions go
through the prioritization process.
 The deans would like to be informed of the framework and context of the strategic
hiring plan, and timelines in which positions are filled or denied.
4. Existing Vacancies (discussed above)
5. Program Revitalization and Discontinuation
 This will be discussed in detail in the June 27 meeting. We need a program initialization
process as well as the revitalization and discontinuation. Discussion is needed on when a
program is identified as failing, who makes the hard decision to put it on hold or discontinue?
6. Leadership CTE Programs without Lead Faculty
 Some discussion on whether Forestry and ECE should go to CTE. Also, consider shifting
Addiction studies to CTE or Health Occupations.
7. Summer Staffing at Mendocino and Del Norte
 Utpal will get a sense of what Kathy would like to do.
8. Review of Fall Schedule
 To be discussed at the June 27 meeting.
9. Develop Action Plans based on the Strategic and Educational Master Plan
 This will begin after we get better handle on planning.
10. Institutional Planning Process
 Recommendation 2 will identify where assessment fits into the planning model. (See attached
draft of the updated model). The flow is linear, with the understanding that once a decision is
made at cabinet level, it will be reported out; no reverse arrows. If we can arrive at this
model, flex days can be used to complete discussions about assessment.
 Much of the assessment will automatically go back to program review or the deans for
resolution. If it can’t be sorted through the division/dean level, it goes to cabinet.
Participatory governance principles say decisions are to be resolved at the lowest possible
level.
 Prioritization of needs will be based on how they relate to the strategic and educational master
plans.
 Resource requests can come through people of authority.



The centers will be considered as divisions and can make operational requests. In an ideal
prioritization process, it will be known the request came from Del Norte or Mendocino
because of strategic imperatives or as a matter of parity.
Divisions should prioritize needs within their divisions first. Faculty prioritization can also be
done within division levels prior to submission; especially in declining enrollment and budget
years.
There large amounts of dollars for faculty professional development travel, but no allocation
for Dean’s to visit various campuses, which would be a relatively small amount well spent for
collaboration.
11. Streamline Program Review
 A program review “division” model will be developed, including blocks for the following: 1.
Trends (FTEs, graduation data from the programs in the division); 2. Assessment (including
how many SLOs assessed, etc.); 3. Progress Update on Previous Year’s Goals, including
funding and status; 4. Action plans for the next year (unit level planning, based on strategic
and education master plans), to feed institutional planning; 5. Resources.
 Rachel recommends doing this by GE blocking (i.e. social sciences together, humanities
together, etc.). The biggest difficulty will be dividing divisions into logical groupings.
 Comprehensive program reviews will address where/how programs inform degrees. The
question to ask is how this discipline ties into other disciplines (or services).
 IR will produce an agreed upon institutional data which can be attached if deemed necessary.
The PRC won’t need to look at data detail; it will be commented on by divisions.
 The trends section will show if a program is headed toward trouble. Mapping will be
backward from the education master plan; what is needed to move the institution forward.
The PRC will enforce that resource needs are tied the EMP or SP before recommending.
 Conversation will evolve on benchmarking based on key performance evaluators.
 The dean’s council meet with the PRC in July to update program review templates. (Utpal
will answer questions on what data will be available).
12. Other:
 Budget – what strategies can help with budget issues? Note: Current voter polls show
positive voter response (for the needed tax initiative) at only around 53%. The biggest
challenge will come in the fall, scheduling for 4500 FTEs.
a. Do we have too many GE courses “in the name of” that could be reduced. Any cuts
will result in full classes and wait lists.
b. Move some basic skills courses to community ed. Some students won’t take feebased courses.
c. “Vulnerable” programs could be reduced to a limited number of courses or maybe
moved to community ed: for example, culinary, water/wastewater.
d. A good review of the program revitalization and discontinuation policy needs doing.
c. Retiring faculty disciplines need to be considered.
d. Geisce noted that Marine Science might be delayed for the time being because there
is no full time faculty to oversee.
 Dean’s will direct CRFO concerns and issues to Utpal who will bring up in cabinet.
Meeting Adjourned
Planning Model
1
Assessment
Process
6/13/12
Vice
Presidents
Deans
Assessment
Committee
Planning
Program
Review
Cabinet
PR Resources
Committee
2
Operational
Staff-other
Staff-faculty
Vice
Presidents
Deans
Faculty
Prioritization
Committee
Flow is linear. When comes to the end, it is understood once decisions are made at the cabinet level, they go back. No reverse
arrows. 1Assessment: many problems can be solved at the dean/division level and will not need institutional dialog.
2
Centers resource requests will be operational in nature. If they want a new program, they will have to go through AP steps.