Redwoods Community College District
Meeting of the Educational Master Plan Committee
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Lakeview Room
Present:
Allen Keppner, Keith Snow-Flamer, Melissa Green, David Bazard, David Seda, Joe Hash,
Jason Leppalouto, Justine Shaw, Chris Gaines, Martha Davis, Jim Sylvia, Michael Thomas,
Pat Girczyc, Mike Wells
Others Present:
Karen Nelson, Cheryl Tucker, Crislyn Parker, Zach Deloach, Roxanne Metz, Paul DeMark,
Michael Viera (CCBT-phone), Julie Hatoff (CCBT-phone), Geice Ly (Mendocino – phone)
Not Present:
None
1. Announcements, Additions, and Adjustments to the Agenda
a. Zach Deloach from the IR department was introduced to committee.
b. No additions or adjustments to the agenda
2. Review/Approve Minutes for October 22, 2008
a. Minutes were reviewed and approved
3. Discussion of combining Education Master Plan and Facilities Master Plan
(Keith Snow-Flamer)
a. Allen notes the discussion of the rationale for combining the EMPC
(Educational Master Plan Committee) and the FMPC (Facilities Master Plan
Committee). It was recommended by our consultants to do so.
b. Keith notes he was absent at the last meeting and he asked what was the
rationale behind this move. He asked Michael V. to comment on why this
should be done.
c. Michael noted Deborah Shepley, CR’s facilities consultant, both of them
recommend that to keep the planning process moving forward that the two
committees need to be joined together. When looking at an EMP (Education
Master Plan), the college needs to look at the facilities to make these plans a
reality. What facilities will be necessary to house those educational goals.
Another important feature is keeping both committees on track in terms of
timelines. Recommends these two plans be worked on by the same peoples,
thus just one committee.
d. Keith asks for feedback regarding the idea being brought forward last week.
e. Dave B. noted some people wanted to complete service by being on the FMPC
and others have expertise in the field of facilities.
f. The FMPC has not yet met.
g. Allen suggests discussing the pros and cons of combining the committees. To
date combining committees would create one large group and possibly
complicate meeting times and rooms. Also the FMPC needs to do site visits at
all campuses.
1
h. Mike V. provides more background and notes there are two phases in the FMP.
The first year of the plan is a general level, in which there is an IPP- Initial
Project Proposal, noting FTES and current use of rooms/campus areas. The
second year is a more detailed and includes a FPP- Final Project Proposal,
noting a re-evaluation of space and the designing of new buildings is in the
second stage.
i. Pat G. notes the EMPC meetings currently are not working meetings. She
notes that if the EMPC and the FMPC combined and split up into small groups
and then reported back to the large combined group maybe it would work. She
notes too much time is spent talking and not enough doing. She feels it is too
easy to get off track.
j. Melissa G. suggests the FMPC becomes a subcommittee of the EMPC.
k. Dave B. discusses the blending of both calendars and how the EMPC and the
FMPC are off on their calendar deadlines. Dave notes there is already a lot on
the EMPC’s plate.
l. Keith notes there are no strong objections to the combining of the two groups,
mainly logistics. Suggests working out the logistics and how the FMPC is
dependent on the EMPC. Validates Pat’s comments on working and moving
forward, not talking too much.
m. Dave B, does not understand the difference if FMPC is a subcommittee of
EMPC and not a combined group.
n. Keith notes a subcommittee still co-works and collaborates although they are
independently operating; varies on logistics.
o. Pat G. envisions 2 workgroups of 7 people getting things done separately and
combining to collaborate. Working parallel but still collaborates as a whole.
Have a working group!
p. Allen notes issues with where and how a combined group would meet with so
many people.
q. Both committees have large tasks, how to structure that.
r. Michael T. questions the chicken and the egg. Let’s look at the education we
want to provide and then how the facilities can accommodate that education.
Implies a sequence, one then another, EMPC then FMPC.
s. Keith agrees, EMPC has work done in draft form by December, and the FMPC
has work done in draft form in January. Notes Deborah Shepley is doing
facilities consulting work in October-December. If targets are met, this should
work.
t. Justine S. wants to know where division chairs tasks went on the calendar, they
are gone.
u. Keith notes it has been formatted and names have not gone on.
v. Roxanne M. notes both groups stay separate doing their varying tasks and
combine later when needed (in January). Stay separate until then.
w. Dave B. and Pat G. second Roxanne’s idea.
x. Consensus on staying separate and cross reporting until January when they are
needed to formally combine.
2
y. Michael V. notes Deborah Shepley will be using fusion data (square footage
data) and crunching numbers against growth and FTES. He notes the process
will be okay to stay separate until January.
z. Allen asks Julie H. and Michael V. what FTES is sustainable and not quick fix.
Notes CR has been here before and would affect planning.
aa. Michael V. notes an enrollment management plan to maximize the potential
we currently have. It’s our (CR’s) choice where we want to expand new
programs or improve programs.
bb. Allen notes we have done this before “chased the numbers” and it is a quick
fix, it is not sustainable. What are the indicators for sustainable growth?
cc. Julie notes ways to increase retention and persistence such as: one unit courses,
increase senior enrollment, increase older student population, and high school
students are down.
dd. Martha notes high school graduation enrollment rates are down, higher
numbers of students are under prepared for college level courses and BSI is 810% of courses and is rising and is lower than the state.
ee. Cheryl T. wants to know if this information would fit better into Section 7 #2
on growth in the calendar.
ff. Allen just wants to make sure we look at sustainable long term growth.
gg. Pat G. feels the evaluation and feedback piece is never addressed in the master
plan.
hh. Again it is made clear the merge of the EMPC and the FMPC is not yet
occurring. We are staying separate but parallel.
ii. Dave B is concerned about the large amount of people in the group and if the
FMPC will be scaled down in size.
jj. A decision was made to contact the FMPC, see when they meet and if they
share data the EMPC will share data.
4. Review revised Education Master Plan outline and revised Education Master
Plan Calendar (Keith Snow-Flamer)
a. Review and update of the calendar. Original date was noted in the
accreditation report and the revised date is when it will be complete. We are
slightly off but still on track. We should hit our target of having a draft by mid
December.
b. The other handout is the outline. What Keith found after reworking the outline
with Roxanne M. and Dave B. was certain portions became redundant or were
no longer useful so they were removed or cut and pasted elsewhere. Overall
the document was streamlined and makes more sense.
c. Keith sent emails to certain people who were supposed to complete certain
sections, if not those emails are going out very soon. Hopefully a final rough
draft of sections 3-4 will be done by next week. Section 7 will be discussed in
depth today.
d. Martha notes portions are missing. Keith notes to email Roxanne M. with
those portions. Martha notes that the data task force information will
eventually go to the EMPC.
e. Dave B. wants to know how the data will be presented, with graphs, with
discussion, how? Martha notes a combination of discussion and graphs.
3
f. Allen notes we will get a mix of information and it is a draft, we will work
with it. The committee will be synthesizing the data provided and feed it into
indicators and measuring tools.
g. The data task force has been receiving all information from IR and will provide
it to the EMPC.
h. Allen notes again all the data will come to the EMPC quickly, the time to work
is beginning.
i. Keith discusses we should all play around with Section 7 today.
j. The discussion of section 7 and its goal have changed with the remolding of
the outline and calendar. Some people’s names have been removed since they
didn’t fit into the outline perfectly but their work is still required. We need to
flush out what is going into this section and how it will be accomplished.
k. Justine notes she is unsure about when and what is being asked of her and
other divisions and departments are still unclear. She would like to know what
is requested of her before it is too late and those issues can’t be completed.
l. Keith notes some language and guidelines will be constructed for divisions and
department chairs.
m. Allen notes the issue of what is a program was brought up again.
n. Roxanne notes there are multiple definitions of programs varying on the
context. There is the Chancellor’s office definition, a SLO (student learning
outcomes) definition which is an individual definition, a program review
definition which varies by discipline and many more, such as experience,
ACCJC’s definition (coherent educational experience), completing a degree or
certificate, credit/no credit.
o. Dave B. discusses all programs (not just academic) need to be reviewed by the
program evaluation process. Everyone in every department/divisions of the
campus should contribute and understand how things are going to be analyzed
and utilized for the EMPC. He also reminds this is a long term vision/plan for
CR.
p. Melissa G. questions if distance education should be separated from other
programs
q. Michael T. notes Section 7: Evolving directions- notes this section might want
to be more about processes and not programs. Notes how programs have come
and gone in many cycles. Sounds like a process for programs and programs.
r. Pat G. notes we must look at processes over programs. What is the process for
prioritization? We need to look at processes
s. Roxanne notes Section 7 is about both processes and programs. She notes the
CPC has discussed their role in relation to master planning and sees the work
of the EMPC and the FMPC being folded into the CPC’s work in the future.
See’s the EMPC and the FMPC as ad hoc groups. EMPC is doing planning in
the sense of a verb, not a noun. Then using it, revising and revisiting it as
needed.
t. Michael notes Section 7 must be a little specific but more about processes.
u. Dave B. notes Section 7 must be sustainable. Notes we don’t have processes
for program discontinuance and revitalization. Notes it will be process and
4
program based. Discusses how program review was considered punitive and
died in previous years due to lack of processes and systematic evaluation.
v. Chris discusses the Jim Collin’s model. A pyramid model with base camps
from 2008 to 2020. At each base camp you paint a picture of what CR will
look like. In 2020 we have a clear picture of what CR, staff, students etc will
look like, and each step you take back gets fuzzier. And next year will be very
clear, the first three years should be pretty clear. As time goes on and
processes change, the summit may change, but the point is the process of
constantly revising your process.
w. Dave B. seconds that it is processes and programs.
x. Julie H. notes the processes are more valuable than programs because
programs will change. Process is more important than goals. She also notes
our accreditation status, CR needs both.
y. Michael V. agrees with Julie H. He notes CR needs a culture of planning, to
create a culture of evidenced to reinforce college planning
z. Julie H. notes CR needs growth to pay for what we want to do. Need to get a
process down first and then fix it. Need to start working. There is no perfect
ideal right now, we need to just get it down.
5. Extending 11/12 meeting to three hours
a. Extension from 1-4 in the boardroom.
b. Goal of the meeting is to take the data and bases, targets, indicators and
measuring tools and evaluate it. Creating planning assumptions/directions.
c. Justine S. and Michael W. and David S. cannot come due to times constraints.
d. Meeting is changed from 12-3 instead of 1-4
6. Keith discusses agenda item issues for next week
a. Will have rough drafts of Sections 3-4 next week
b. Asks committees permission to have Chris Gaines speak about the green
conference he attended.
7. Process Check In
a. Review of the process and function of our meetings
b. The positive(what worked well), negative(what didn’t work well) and delta (
what would we do differently)
c. The Positive: timelines, comparisons of timelines, portions are completed,
progress is being made
d. The Negative: hear from all committee members, the Lakeview room, sound
issues-people not being heard
e. The Delta: no Lakeview room, make sure phone people can hear us,
refreshments for the 12th, food, chocolate, set up microphones
Closing of the EMPC meeting
Minutes Submitted by:
Karen Nelson
Planning Support
Ext. 4273
Karen-Nelson@redwoods.edu
5