Document 12370892

Redwoods Community College District
Meeting of the Coordinated Planning Council
Wednesday, March 13, 2009
1:00pm-2:30pm - Board Room
Tony Sartori, Chris Romero, Pam Kessler, Martha Davis, Jose Ramirez, Steve Stratton, Mike Wells, Sheila Hall, Tracey
Thomas, Doug Edgmon, Debbie Williams, Lynsey Parker
Cheryl Tucker
Not Present:
Carol Mathews, Geisce Ly, Judie Hinman, Keith Snow-Flamer, Tim Flanagan
1. Announcements/Additions/Adjustments to Agenda
A. No announcement or adjustments
2. Review/Approve Minutes for February 17, 2009
A. Change date to Feb 17th
B. Section 8, d, i – Strategic plan data was supposed to be brought back to committee but is not on current
i. Martha advises data to strategic plan has been updated on the web except employee survey, no
ii. Bring back as an agenda item after data has been reviewed
iii. Jose would like to see information before it come back on the agenda
C. Spelling correction to spelling of Meraki on Pg 2 section e, vi
D. Pam would like answer to question on section 5, d
i. Tony asks committee if they walked away from last meeting with impression that Feb 27th
meeting would be more of a presentation.
ii. Tony suggests addition to minutes
E. Pam would like Pg 2, #4 clarified as to what student union $10.5 mil was for
F. Minutes to be sent to committee members when they are completed, separate from agenda.
i. Recording can be made available to all if necessary
ii. Minutes are from a month ago and would be easier to receive the minutes sooner after meeting
G. Table minutes for approval at next meeting
3. Report on Progress of Revising Educational Master Plan (Martha)
A. At EMPC meeting it was proposed that EMP be parsed out to one sub-committee for each section of
EMP. Each committee would look at possible revisions to those sections.
B. IR has gone over EMP to fine tune the data in each section and to make sure data is consistent from
section to section.
i. None of the meaning has been changed
ii. Made changes from the WIKI
iii. Made own changes and cited sources for information so people would know where information
and data came from.
C. Edited EMP, revisions and some comments, is available on IR website as a Word Document that is
available in “markup” that shows all edits done IR
i. This IR version was originally going to be used to make further revisions, but will not be used
after all, is just available for use where needed.
D. Martha is working on sub committee for section 4, 5 and 6. They have met and are using revised IR
document for rewrite.
E. Comments and changes are all cited and viewable in the document
F. Direction of committees after each section is revised.
i. A decision has not been made.
ii. Email was sent to “All” in order to collect further feedback on draft of EMP that will be used for
iii. It is understood that EMP committee will revise each section, then preamble and conclusion
would be examined after all sections are finished. Then the “feel” of the document will be looked
at as a whole, then expecting to send document back out for further comments before sending on
to cabinet.
G. A concern of the EMP Committee was that the document is very specific in some areas and very general
in other areas. EMP might be too specific, but it may not have been feasible to do it any other way.
Martha notes that the Facilities Master Plan is very general, but EMP is much more specific. Many of the
small details are not as important to the document as the larger general picture.
H. Next meeting scheduled for EMP
i. EMPC decided not to meet next week in order for sub-committees to meet and make revisions
after the final date to submit feedback for revision. The following Wednesday after spring break
will most likely be the next EMP meeting.
I. Unsure of what form the EMP document will be in May.
J. There is a window of opportunity to make comments on EMP Draft.
K. Pam asks about how institutional effectiveness will be evaluated based on scorecard, a comment at the
end of a draft of the EMP document.
i. Was this information available before the Wharfinger meeting?
1. yes it was available
ii. What will be the criteria by which the college is scored?
1. Access-FTES used to measure access
2. Success- ARCC used to measure success
iii. Pam asks for explanation of what the cohorts were from Martha’s presentation at Wharfinger.
1. Martha explains that ARCC cohorts are different from IR cohorts, and there are different
cohorts for each indicator in ARCC.
2. Cohorts were started 2000-2001 first time freshman and how they did through the years.
iv. What classes are in Basic Skills cohorts, vocational, etc.
1. Martha explains basic skills are courses 2 levels below transfer (Eng 350 is part of Basic
Skills according to ARCC, Eng 150 is not)
2. Chancellor’s office decides which classes are Basic Skills, vocational, etc.
3. Vocational courses have a vocational code, and then are counted up as completion rates
and success rates.
4. CR is compared to peer groups at other colleges are similar to us.
v. The data CR is going to use to rate ourselves:
1. FTES = access
2. ARCC = success
vi. Cohorts are not just basic skills, everything is measured, and each year an indicator is added (this
year was ESL)
vii. Tony suggests if you want information added to EMP to give feedback and comments. Tony
wants this committee to forward any questions to the head of the EMP subcommittees or through
the other comment options.
4. Update on Program Review and Assessment findings of Fred Trapp (Cheryl)
A. Program Review and Assessment meeting on Wednesday was for the purpose of mapping the process for
program review.
B. Pam asked if Dave and Mike had been included in this meeting
i. Cindy and Vinnie were chosen to be in committee because they are also in PR and information
can be passed on.
C. Four areas of concern
i. Data within PR to be provided to faculty. The template for each program review with data already
present would be provided.
ii. “Chain of command” - instead of program review committee having to send it back for simple
issues, have PR more complete when they are received by program review committee, more
“checks and balances.”
iii. Recommendation instead of doing annual PR, have them occur once every 3 years.
1. Is “every 3 years” in line with ACCJC regulations
a. Yes is, we did it annually to get things organized
iv. Instead of PR being so much devoted to resource allocation, have that be part of budget and have
PR be reflective of quality
D. Has there been feedback from the PR subcommittees?
i. Cheryl responds that meeting was to map out the process and major areas of concern
ii. Feedback would be important to better improve the process
1. There are 4 members from PR committee
E. April 1st CR accreditation response report is due and there will be a visit sometime after, no specific date.
F. Fred Trapp meeting with Susan Nordloff
i. Discussed Program Review and Assessment
1. Went over items that need to be included in a PR to reflect success and viability of the
2. How to integrate learning outcomes into PRs; student outcomes vary from subject to
certificate. These would be Program Learning Outcomes in a Program Review
ii. Assessment Team and Fred Trapp are meeting on March 27th
iii. Is Program Learning Outcome is defined?
1. It has not yet been fully defined
2. There is a difference between course learning outcomes and what a student brings out of
a program
3. Will they be different from each program?
a. Yes they will be different
b. Martha gives example: when someone gets and Admin of Justice degree they are
tested with national exam – this would go a long way in defining Program
Learning Outcomes
iv. Tony explains that program learning outcomes with GE program review and GE program
outcomes are going to be brought to March 27th meeting with Fred Trapp along with other outside
accreditation issues -----in the future CPC wants to be sure to enable this type of assessment- if it
is not done, then we will go
v. Martha says data comes from program themselves
5. Review Vision Statement Feedback, Identify Next Steps (Sheila)
A. Some information was gathered about vision statement through the WIKI, some comments at Wharfinger
meeting, and the EMP Blog. Committee will need to reconvene to revise the statement
i. Possibly keeping vision more future oriented and condensed
B. Tony comments that at EMP Retreat that George made comments on mission statement, unsure if this
was supposed to be in regards to the vision statement
i. Doug comments George made some comments on Mission statement online
C. Pam worked to change some of the language of Vision Statement
D. Pam is concerned that some of the mission/vision statement feedback is that we should not be doing this
at all and wonders if we should consider why we are having so much trouble.
E. Doug explains that it should be present tense, but future oriented.
F. Vision committee should get together one more time, revise, and bring it back to CPC
G. Make sure definition of vision statement is the same in all places.
6. Identify plans to improve communication between CPC and other groups
A. Identify groups to report out to CPC and Schedule
i. Steve appoints himself to report to CPC from all Technology Groups
ii. EMP and FMP, Diversity and Student Equity, Staffing, CTEA, Basic Skills, Enrollment
Management, Budget planning, Ad-hoc to strategic planning
B. CPC and subcommittees should be communicating, it is currently very limited.
C. CPC needs
D. First page of EMP and what CPC is – should be an item for the agenda – far more ambitious description
of CPC that what we are – “the lead committee at the college tying everything together”
E. Tony knows budget advisory committee has met, senate presented, maybe CPC should also
F. Planning Committee is creating a calendar as to what is happening in committees, planning support team
can assist in getting presentations from other committees
G. Decisions are being made, things are happening, but CPC is not part of those decisions.
i. Can’t make decisions without information from other committees
ii. Tony states sometimes we don’t know what info we will get or how to make a decision, and if we
do make a decision where does it go
iii. Mike comments that to resolve problem with the decisions CPC should be making, we need to be
part of the process
iv. There is not communication on campus that allows CPC to be involved with what is going on
throughout the campus.
H. Start by getting reports from other committees
i. Start with Budget Advisory committee.
ii. CPC should be more pro-active in receiving reports from sub-committees
I. When should the committees report to us?
i. They should report to us before a decision is made
ii. Other groups/people to get reports from
1. Ahn Fielding
2. Enrollment Management
3. Senate
4. Budget Committee to report at next meeting if possible
J. In January the president was invited to explain how he sees decision making at CR, and the lack of
communication K. Will sub-committee groups be reporting to CPC? They
i. Tony will talk to Keith
L. What will be done with current PR, and how will information be analyzed and what is most important.
i. It would be a disservice to authors and all working on PRs if nothing is done with them
ii. Need to group information together, find themes, and look at how to move forward and analyze
the information and make recommendations
iii. Recommendations need to be made for the timeline and the preliminary budget for next year
M. CPC should scale down what committee is and focus and do a good job on specific areas
i. Should really look at who CPC is and what can realistically be done within the committee
ii. CPC has had “scope magnification” – a lot to accomplish
N. Identify representatives of CPC to report to other groups
i. Tony – Senate
ii. At this time CPC should not report out to other groups until more information is brought into
iii. Possibly report out to groups that put CPC there
7. Identify Process of prioritizing planning needs communicated through
Program Review
A. When PR began, process was broken up into committees – good for identifying specific requests
but they can’t see the PR as a whole and analyze themes
B. What do we do with this years PRs to make them meaningful
i. There is a database that will reflect resource items that were asked for
C. How do we analyze PR
i. This may be too large of a scope for CPC
ii. Suggestion to have subcommittees report to CPC
D. Doug suggests get common themes from PRs and move that forward
E. Pam asks when decisions are made, who do we recommend it to?
i. Should be recommended to all
F. Rating chart makes it
i. Author hasn’t been given formal notice the action they should take as recommended by
G. Concern that CPC is not making recommendations and that departments and divisions are
moving forward with items that possibly should have gone through CPC first
8. Approve CPC Meeting time for 2nd and 4th Friday 3-4:30 or 1-2:30?
A. Identify Agenda Items for Next Meeting
B. Explore location options, plan next meeting for 3-4:30PM, will check other rooms for availability
Next Meeting Friday March 27th, 3-4:30 PM Boardroom
Minutes submitted by:
Lynsey Parker
Ext 4273