Dean’s Council
Monday, February 2, 2011
8:00 – 9:00am
Health Occ Conference Room
Present: Mike Peterson, Rachel Anderson, Pat Girczyc, Utpal Goswami, Geisce Ly, Anita
Janis, Maggie Lynch, Ahn fielding
Notes:
1. Program Discontinuance and Revitalization Process:
 The draft documents have gone to the Academic Standards and Policies Committee,
but the processes requires mutual agreement
 The current Program Discontinuation draft (A/P 4021), calls for a two-year process.
The caveat is to have processes in place for early identification of programs in trouble,
so at the end of two-years the program can be discontinued and not become a fouryear cycle. There are five bullet points for identifying at-risk programs. There was
discussion that key identifiers in these bullet points need definition and there should
also be more specificity in the bullet points. Utpal noted that enrollment will not be
relevant for the next few years, as it will be controlled by administrative and budget
actions, not student trending. He suggested three main points should guide
discontinuance: program relevance, meeting (or not meeting) outcomes, or the
program is unsupportable (too costly to run).
 There was discussion as to what exactly the Program Review process provides and
what the role of Program Review should be in the discontinuance process. It was felt
that currently program review does not directly point to at-risk programs, but all the
data for last five years is available. The Program Review Committee would just need
to refine existing rubrics
 It was discussed consideration for programs that cycle should be included, i.e. real
estate
 Also discussed that Program Review should look at programs based on the criteria
identified in Academic Policy, which will already have Dean and faculty buy-in. Once
identified, a secondary committee should determine the risk-level of the program
 Closure – Utpal will see how the Program Review process plays out this year and we
will have discussion in late March and/or April about what will be done next year.
Utpal asks the Deans to think about how to navigate this process
2. Discussion Budget Reduction Choices
 Clarification (#4 of Critical Issues/Areas of Focus Regarding Budget Development
list): there will be no changes made to contractual obligations outside of negotiations;
any proposed changes will be done through the negotiation process
 It was noted that Standard III includes developing a process for budget in long range
planning
 The has been a consistent push to funding new programs through Fund 15, but Utpal
feels Fund 15 is one-time monies that should truly be used for one time
issues/projects. Once a program is started, it has continuing costs
 When in growth mode some things are desirable, but in restricting times the college
needs to have a financial plan to see it through until it can move to a growth model


There was discussion on whether, linking creation of a new program to discontinuing
another program, as being budget neutral and would this be good policy for non
growth times.
This led to discussion on curriculum approval: should course approval be based on
budget considerations based on criteria, rather than just continually approving courses.
If faculty want to approve a new course, apply it to program objectives, needs and get
rid of another one
3. Summer TLU’s
 The College is committed to offering courses in summer. The concern is interest in
Del Norte and Mendo - how many courses, are there enough faculty doing online
courses, and schedule more online through the centers than at Eureka. Per Maggie
that has typically been the case
 A concern about how FTEs are distributed was discussed. Distribution of FTES will
be a calculation of profitability. Utpal would like to see one class have both
components: face to face and online for one section (lecture capture). When allocating
TLUs Mendo and DN can provide a decent number of courses, to serve not only that
area, but all areas.
 The response, when noted that Mendo can’t broadcast but only has the capability to
receive, that if we can pipe in, we can pipe out; it is just a matter of equipment
 Tegrity live is good solution and there was discussion if that can be used. We have a
two-week time line to decide what to do.
 100 sections is the target for sites; 80 – 100 sections will be spread across the district.
Regarding summer TLUs, right now the district is at 8400 TLUs and some are part
time, some are full time. This doesn’t include summer funding. We will borrow from
next year.
 Utpal reminded that we will cut 250 FTEs; about 100 sections next fiscal year. He
noted that the smaller sites can’t be impacted too much, but there will likely be some
impact
4. Dean Report-outs:
 Tabled at this time
Meeting adjourned at 9:10am
Next meeting, Wednesday, February 16, 8am, Health Occ Conference Room