Dean’s Council
Monday, January 19, 2011
8:00 – 9:00am
Health Occ Conference Room
Notes
Present: Utpal Goswami, Anita Janis, Geisce Ly, Pat Girczyc, Ahn Fielding, Rachel
Anderson, Mike Peterson, Maggie Lynch, Crislyn Parker-recording
1. Substantive Change
-Status of DE Substantive Change update from Maggie
• The plan is ready to submit. Maggie will send a copy to Dean’s Council members.
She noted that the college can only include classes that are already being offered at or
close to 50%
• Utpal will alert Jack Pond that we are going to submit substantive change for DE and
find out exact details on what is needed for the process.
• Regarding other possible substantive change programs/certificates, Utpal will let Jack
Pond know what has transpired between 2005 and now to determine what needs to go
through the substantive change process. For example, are programs such as solar
substantive change or an extension of CT.
2. Faculty Prioritization
• Utpal has sent out a list of 14 faculty requests, but received notice that some are
missing. He will take late arrivals to the Prioritization committee to decide if
including them is a violation of process.
• The faculty prioritization committee will meet Saturday, 1/22/11 at 9:30. They will
first agree on whether there is a need for an “other” (a shared interest category
mutually agreed upon by the committee) category.
• Current rubric categories: Replacement, Growth, New program/Discipline, FT/PT
Ratio and Program/Student Outcomes, with sub-categories under each.
• Previous dean’s meeting considered the following possible “other” categories: site
faculty, requests that support more than one program, and requests that support basic
skills or signature programs and programs with significant community linkages.
• Following completion of the prioritization process, unfunded positions will remain in
the “queue”, but subsequent requests showing need will need to be made; the list is not
automatic and the position doesn’t automatically move to a higher priority.
• The committee members include: Kerry Mayer, Todd Olsen, Cindy Hooper, Dave
Holper, Mark Winter and one unknown faculty, Utpal Goswami, Geisce LY, Anita
Janis, Mike Peterson, Rachel Anderson and Pat Girczyc. If there is no CTE faculty
representation, one interest will be CTE programs.
3. Program Revitalization Process
• The process is under consideration by ASPC and College Council. The issue to
restructure a program came up at a recent board meeting, but the question and concern
is how to do so when you don’t have a process
• What needs doing:
o Define what constitutes an at-risk program. Current BP/AP is driven by ed
code. Typically ed code provides only a minimum set of criteria and the
college can add additional criteria. Our current BP/AP doesn’t include the
issue of cost effectiveness: should there be a strict measure of trend – not
•
•
•
actual numbers but where numbers are going or should there be more issue of
student success
o a definition of statistical significance
o a definition of key performance indicators – where they are set. For example,
in CTE key indicators are in job performance; where in academics indicators
are in transfer; how to make fair across the board
Utpal would like to sort these issues through the ASPC, so there is no controversy or
challenges later
Anita and Geisce will submit to Utpal what they believe might be site at risk programs
Utpal urges the Deans Council to think about program revitalization and program
discontinuance as well as the new program process. CR can’t continue to approve
courses without considering costs
4. Next meeting: Wednesday, February 2, 8am, HO Conference Room