College of the Redwoods
Strategic Planning Committee Meeting
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Meeting Notes
Present: Utpal Goswami, Roxanne Metz, Jeff Cummings, Sheila Hall, Julie Morrison, Sidney
Larson, Carla Spalding, Angelina Hill, Steve Stratton, Pat Girczyc, Julia Peterson, Kathy
Goodlive, Tim Flanagan, Mike Butler-phone, Crislyn Parker - notes
Absent: Mary Grace Barrick, Ahn Fielding, Rachel Anderson, Anita Janis, Lee Lindsey, Geisce
Ly, Kerry Mayer, Chuck Snowden, Keith Snow-Flamer
1.

Call to Order
Meeting called to order at 3:06.

Review Notes from February 21
February 21, 2012 meeting notes were approved as stand.
2.
3.






4.

Review IEC Diagram of Institutional Plan Relationships
The diagram shows how plans are linked together. It does not and is not intended to
describe the integrated planning process.
After discussion, it was agreed to change the following:
o Change the forth tier boxes (top to bottom) from “planning” to “plan” for consistency
o Increase the font size of the diagram title “Institutional Plan Relationships” and alter
the wording to “Relationship of Institutional Plans”
Upon completion of the Strategic Plan, the Educational Master Plan(s) will be updated.
Program review and assessment are a process, impact unit plans, and do not belong in
this model. Three areas influence unit planning: Institutional planning, Program review,
and Assessment. Based on the review evaluations, resource needs flow through
functional committees. One diagram cannot answer all, but three might do so:
1) The Integrated Planning Model (how resource allocations are determined);
2) Relationship of Institutional Plans (how plans are linked);
3) How program review informs all of them
A “unit” is a functional department. The definition of a “Unit Level Plan” is the goal(s)
established for the next year(s), informed by the other planning processes; one part of
which is program review. Most committees are not reflected in this model. It should be
understood the flow between the units level and the educational master plan involve
various processes. The IEC is also not part of this model. It is an evaluating body. Their
evaluations go to the unit(s) being evaluating.
Mission and Strategic Plan arrows go down, but rest is circular: we develop a strategic
plan around the mission which informs the educational master plan. Planning then comes
from the ground up.
Strategic Plan Measures and Targets (added to agenda)
There was discussion about how measurable and actionable goals will be included in the
strategic plan. A sampling of indicators and targets was handed out an example only to
show how the goals and objectives in the plan will be measured. Planning Director
Roxanne Metz and IR Director Angelina Hill will work with the IEC to ensure
appropriate measures are included in the final strategic plan.
5.
Discuss Feedback from CR Community
o The goal on student learning should be number one. It is agreed to do so.
o The strategic plan needs to be in active voice.
o Rephrase language in the objectives of goal 3, 3.1 and 3.2 to read (for example):
students will be effectively evaluated and placed in appropriate areas of study.
o Suggested having four strong goals instead of five or six. The response to this is Goal
4 was separated because the mission clearly states “partner with the community.”
There was discussion that even credit courses are a “partnership with the
community.”
o Goal 4 focuses strongly on the Business Training Center. Suggestion to add a second
outcome under 4.1, such as “credit based career and technical will align with
workforce needs.”
o Change “business training center” to “the college” and create a business training
center as a separate objective. The response is that the Community wants the
business training side to be enhanced.
o Should workforce wording be added to Goal 3?
o Include mission language directly in Goal 3 – “Focus on Learners: Developmental,
Career Technical and Transfer Education;” and Goal 4 - “Focus on Learners:
Community Partnerships.”
o Re-word Objective 4.2 to include short term training needs.
o There was concern regarding students completing remediation within one year of
admission in the Outcome of Objective 3.4. The response is that the goal is to have
more students complete.
o Concern there is not enough mention of or should be more emphasis on transfer
addressed in Objective 3.2. Concern about Goal 3 and 4 being separate because both
focus on learners whether for credit or non-credit. The same concern for goal 5 and 6.
The response is that CR has nine key performance indicators, of which transfer is one.
Transfer will be fleshed out in the Educational Master Plan. The idea of the strategic
plan is to address areas that have a gap, such as basic skills: 80% of our first year
students are not college ready.
o Goal 3 will lead to dialog, but the concern is (the goal) might need to be more
inclusive of how we plan to meet this goal (“self-reflective dialog” reference ACCJC
Standard IB.1). We should look at the strategic plan from the standpoint of
accreditation. It should be very explicit. The 2009-2012 Allan Hancock College
Strategic Plan was referenced as having better language.
o Dialog should become part of Objective 2. In response, the technology master plan
will be revised when the Strategic Plan is complete; between the Educational Master
Plan and the Strategic Plan, all Standards will be covered.
o It was suggested the committee read the recommendations and the Strategic Plan and
re-consider having six goals. We are being asked to create a workable document,
which both meets accreditation standards and is attainable in five years.
o There was discussion whether to use the wording directly out of the report, and/ or
just be sure to use consistent language throughout all college plans.
o There was discussion on how to word Objective 2.4 without using the word
“analytic” in the outcome. The committee will revise it.
o Concern was also voiced on where Recommendation 2 (IB.2) is found in our current
draft. The response is all objectives, outcomes and measures will speak to that
recommendation. If our objectives are measureable, we meet the standard.
o Concern that Objectives 2.2 and 2.3 don’t meet the recommendation. The plan
should make it very clear. The response is if something is already part of institutional
culture, there is no need to strategize it. The point was made that conceptual pieces
need to be addressed as does the rubric; we should add what we do, because of the
criticism that personnel changes become procedural changes- this way it is clear to
all. The response to this is that in ACCJC’s “Guide to Evaluating Institutions”,
everything can’t be in the strategic plan.
o The recommendations state we need to include standards in the planning process, not
just the strategic plan. We need to be clear we are addressing the recommendations
sent to us. The response is that the minutes will show we discussed how best to
position the institution to document all the recommendations. The Accreditation
Oversight Committee suggested that sustainability is not in the strategic plan, but in
the calendar of evaluation.
o There was concern that the Goal 6, Advocacy, is too much. After discussion it was
agreed to merge this with Goal 5, Enhance Institutional Profile, and change language
from “...engages proactively...” to ...”we engage...”
5.




6.


7.
Refine Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
The strategic plan is living document; goals and objectives can be re-evaluated and
changed.
Our plans should be seen as action items with measureable goals: once our goals are
established, measurement indicators will be attached. IR is working on a template for the
IEC scorecard. There will be an expansion of that down to the unit level. The goals will
drive everything below it.
Changes from the community feedback discussion are as follows: Goal 3 (Focus on
Learners) and 4 (Contribute to Lifelong Learning and Workforce Development) will
become Goals 1 and 2; Goal 1 (Fiscal and Operational Sustainability) will become Goal
3; Goal 2 (Technological Relevance) will become Goal 5; Goal 5 (Enhance Institutional
Profile will remain Goal 5. Goal 6 (Advocacy) will be merged with Goal 5.
Changing goal descriptors to active language as follows:
o Goal 1, Focus on Learners will read: “College of the redwoods employs programs,
services, and organizational structures to meet the needs of learners and ensure
student success.”
o Goal 2, Contribute to Lifelong Learning and Workforce Development will read:
“College of the Redwoods provides, in partnership with the community, training and
education to contribute to the economic vitality and lifelong learning needs of the
community.”
o Goal 3, Fiscal and Operational Sustainability will read: “College of the Redwoods
pursues strategies that will lead to fiscal and operational sustainability.”
o Goal 4, Technology Relevance will read: “College of the Redwoods develops
infrastructures and adopts best practices to take advantage of current and emerging
technologies to support the learning environment and enhance institutional
effectiveness.”
o Goal 5, Enhance Institutional Profile will read: College of the Redwoods engages in
activities and initiatives to elevate the college’s profile in the community.”
Timeline and Next Steps
The revised document will be sent to the committee members for review, and delivered
to the board on the day of the meeting.
Next meeting: March 20, 3p – 5p. The committee will address public comment and
discuss revisions.
Adjourn