Dean’s Council
Thursday, November 2, 2010
11:00 am – 12:30pm, Boardroom
Present: Utpal Goswami, Pat Girczyc, Mike Peterson, Geisce Ly, Rachel Anderson, Ahn
Fielding, Crislyn Parker – recording, Keith Snow-Flamer, Anita Janis (½ time)
Absent: Maggie Lynch
1. Review Proposed Revision of Mission/Vision (attachment)
Does this Vision statement meet CR needs? Discussion included:
 Vision should be a picture of the future, (see the definition on the draft: Vision-What
we hope to be in the future). This current draft Vision statement is short but not
visionary.
 Dean’s Council agreed upon this alternative: College of the Redwoods will be an
innovative learning community where lives are(will be) transformed
 The group agreed the term “innovative” infers several meanings; for example, we will
be changing and growing to meet both student and community needs
Does the Mission statement meet CR needs? Discussion included:
 Mission statement is too long
 The draft statement includes redundancies and makes promises we are not always
able to keep. “…all levels of learners…” should be removed. Mission is
important, particularly when money is tight and when money is tight we can’t
serve everybody
 Dean’s Council agreed upon this alternative: College of the Redwoods Mission is
to provide a high quality of transfer education, career and technical education
and developmental education that focuses on student learning and success. CR
partners with the community to contribute to the economic vitality and lifelong
learning needs of the area it serves
There are too many values. The goal is to limit to six. Values statements are supposed to
guide how we do things, not what we do. Discussion included changing to the following:
 We value putting students first
 We value educational excellence and innovation
 We value ethical behavior
 We value honesty
 We value environmental awareness
 We value commitment to community
2. Course Rotation Sequencing:
a. Composition of Formal Announcement (what are the expectations?) of minimum
rotations:
 Courses/areas not troubled by course cancellations don’t need to submit a
minimum rotation. But, information needs to be available for scheduling in areas
with problematic courses. Small programs, need sequencing (a commitment was
made to the program). Utpal’s interest is to be sure the courses needed are offered
for students to complete their goals. He is interested in which course(s) in the
sequence are problematic, i.e. regular cancellations, low enrollments, etc.
 This allows (CR) to look at program completion and insure students can complete
in a two year period (or 3 year, if so determined). This could feed into program
revitalization and dismissal. Given historical numbers, CR will make a
commitment to offer the course(s), every year, semester, two years or whatever. It
allows us to prioritize the cancellation process, by our commitment to offer: in
effect, customizing cancellations by class need. It will expedite schedule planning
to have this knowledge up front
b. How to Best Collect Information
 These minimum sequences will be discussed in Instructional Council, as well
 Utpal would like to see a fall course column for odd year and even years; a spring
column with odd year and even years; and a fifth column for justification
 Justification why we are committing to offer the course. This can include past
history, student outcomes, or a specialized area that is a community need, to give
some examples
 These sequences should be done by area coordinators
4. January Flex Dates: What is Happening in Divisions
a. English has activities planned in Lakeview 1/13 and 1/14
 Definitely associate faculty for Saturday, 1/15
 We need focused ideas for all sites:
1) Mission and vision activity
2) Sessions to kick-off development of the new strategic plan – opportunity for
input into process;
 Utpal is a co-chair of the new strategic planning committee and will send an
announcement soon. Geisce emphatically requested strategic planning explained
by drafting a document which shows all committees and how everything comes
together, connects. This is also a conversation taking place at the accreditation self
study meeting(s)
 Planning process will be a future Dean’s Council agenda. Utpal would like
everyone present for this discussion, no phone conferencing.
5. Adding Sections:
 Chancellor’s office requires a 5201 FTEs base, which CR must meet. Current
estimate is 5070 FTEs. Jeff, Keith and Utpal discussed what would be the best
process to achieve 5200 FTEs and what to do for summer. We would like to increase
FTEs by 100-150. There is nothing to be gained by overshooting the target because
we will not get funded
 The plan is to release 10 sections released up front and 10 will be held in reserve.
Most of the funding is to Eureka, but some to DN and Mendo. Per discussion, we will
add one GS 6, so that leaves 9 sections (44 – 46 TLUs) for the spring schedule
 It was noted the cuts last week were done programmatically, versus by site
 We can now add sections because the President realized we are under FTEs, and he
found funding by moving money around.
 Utpal would like to spend some time with deans to review discretionary budgets; he
will aggregate the numbers to get a better picture; CP will set up individual meetings
with Utpal and the Deans this week/next week (1 hour each), to review discretionary
budgets and look at the bigger picture for budgeting.
6. Other
Next Meeting: Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 11:00a – 12:30p