1. PLANNING COMMITTEE COORDINATION:

2. ACCREDITATION UPDATE: A brief update on the status of the Self-Study 1^st Draft. Ed Buckley

4. MID-YEAR REPORTS: A brief update by the Component Administrators on the progress of their 2001/2002 Component and All Component Goals.

5. INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN UPDATE: An on-going update on the development of the integrated master plan.

Distribution: Agrella, Bergfelt, Boatsman, Buckley, Butcher, Drake, Eaton, Flyswithhawks, Friedman, Garrison, Granderson, Groninga, Hunnemeder, Johnson, Lindley, LaFollette, Lynch, Mann, Mercer, Navarrette, Root, Sweitzer, Wakefield

Absent: Eaton, Hunnemeder, Lindley, Mercer and Wakefield

Guests: Will Baty & Ken Fiori

1. PLANNING COMMITTEE COORDINATION: Activity reports from the co-chairs of:

a. Academic Senate: Senate recently reviewed the Technology Master Plan and approved the Global & Environmental Studies GE requirement and had an indepth discussion regarding the proposed English Pathway. The discussion included redefining the Cut Scores and noting the differences between prerequisites and Advisories on courses.

b. Budget Advisory Committee (BAC): Looks forward to working with STEP on the strategic enrollment project.

c. District Facilities Planning Committee (DFPC) Next meeting is on February 14^th.

d. Educational Planning and Coordinating Council (EPCC): EPCC approved revised cut-off scores for English and College Skills. EPCC is in process of establishing residency requirements for certificate programs.

e. Strategic Enrollment Planning Committee (STEP): Is in process of developing Strategic Enrollment Plan. Sub-committees have been assigned tasks and due dates.

2. ACCREDITATION PLANNING UPDATE: Ed provided an update on the status of the Self-Study 1^st draft. He indicated that Component Administrators may want to consider incorporating suggested plan material in their respective 2002-03 goals. The steering committee is encouraging participation at the February 13^th review forums at both Santa Rosa and Petaluma Campuses.

4. P4E SURVEY OF LOCAL INVESTMENTS OF PARTNERSHIP FUNDS: Ron Root reviewed the Board report which is the college’s response to the Chancellor’s survey on local investments of Partnership for Education funds.

7. DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM: Curt Groninga reviewed some of the Five Year Capital Outlay planning assumptions. He indicated that the projected enrollments and existing space inventory describes how much need capacity for lecture, laboratory, office, library and media services space may be needed. He hopes to combine, into one document, the key elements of the Strategic Capital Projects Plan, additional facilities planning initiatives emanating from the Integrated Master Plan and the existing Five Year Plan into a new capital outlay program. He further indicated the College will submit a Final Project Proposal (FPP) for the Plover Conversion Project and updated planning information for the Library and the Petaluma Phase II projects.

(page break)

PRESENT: B. Flyswithhawks, M. Grossman, M. Bond, R. Ward L. McCauley, M. Connell, D. Gooch, M. Pierce, A. LaRue, D. Tolks, G. Granderson, P. Goebel, B. Hinkle, D. Munton,K. Messina, M. Ludder, P. LoCoco, D. Campagna, W. Neel, G. Allen, Don Fischer,

ABSENT: E. Sikes, Doug Fisher, B. Croteau

GUESTS: I. Egli, K. Guzman, D. Smith, S. Fuller, K. Boatsman, B. Turner, B. McClure, M. Thompson

1. Michael Eurgubian would like the senate to be aware that students are asking instructors to change final exam dates. He considers this problem to be rampant.
2. Michael Ludder formally thanked Brenda and Marshall Connell for promoting Outlook availability for adjunct faculty.
3. Marshall Connell invited faculty to the Art Department's Gallery showing called Solace. She announced the Arts and Lectures events for February.
4. President's Report: B. Flyswithhawks said that Marsha Connell worked diligently on Outlook for adjunct faculty and thanked her. Brenda sent a memo to Chairs encouraging them to have Outlook available to adjunct faculty and she will be going to DCC to address them on this issue. A button and pamphlet on Measure A was distributed. Brenda encouraged senators to volunteer during Academic Senate Night on Thursdays during the month of February. Contact Dianne Smith at Ext. 4612.
5. K. Guzman said that the Accreditation Self Study is on the web, on Outlook and at the libraries for review. Public forums are scheduled for February 13.

The Minutes of January 16, 2002 was approved.

1. The Teacher Academy - I. Egli reported that the Teacher Academy is a teacher preparation program with the goal of recruiting diverse students into the field of teaching and expanding the number of successful transfers of students to teaching and credential programs at the upper division level.
2. EPCC - R. Ward reported that EPCC had tended to the development of policy for the Associate Degree, finalizing the fall 2002 start date for the implementation of Area I; reviewed and approved changes in the cut scores for College Skills Math and English; several updates on accreditation and curriculum; and they are looking at the status of the majors. They are now reviewing and discussing residency issues for certificates; they are looking at possible restrictions for credit/no credit options.
3. Budget Advisory - The Budget Advisory report was distributed.

1. The motion to accept the proposal for the Environmental/Global Studies Requirement was approved.

1. Prerequisites and Advisories on Courses - B. Turner reviewed prerequisite and advisories. Prerequisite is a condition of enrollment that a student is required to meet in order to demonstrate current readiness for enrollment in a course or educational program. Advisory means a condition of enrollment that a student is advised, but not required, to meet before or in conjunction with enrollment in a course or educational program. Co-requisite means a condition of enrollment consisting of a course that a student is required to simultaneously take in order to enroll in another course. He said placement tests can not be used as a substitute as prerequisite satisfaction.
2. Redefining the Cut Scores - KC Boatsman said the cutoff scores for English placement tests have remained very close to what they were in the past. They have been applied to the new revised curriculum. The cutoff scores were approved by EPCC on January 24, 2002. EPCC also approved the recommendation that students be allowed to retest once per semester. Brenda questioned how EPCC was able to approve the cutoff scores before the curriculum changes were approved by the Curriculum Committee.
3. Review 100 level courses across the curriculum - B. Flyswithhawks said that SRJC received notification from the Chancellor's Office that we were out of compliance with regards to our English pathway. A committee was formed and has proposed the following English Pathway. English 302 (previously 100A), English 100 (previously 100B) and English 1A would change in the fall 2002. B. McClure said if the proposal is accepted student progress would be reviewed over a two-year period. Some changes will be that all English prerequisites and advisories below the 1A level will change. Students will receive 4 units of English credit toward graduation. Students will not be able to take their English courses consecutively. English 357 will no longer exist. Students can challenge placement in an English class. Brenda requested that this come back to the Senate after the Curriculum Committee reviews the proposal.
4. Perfecting the Hiring Process: Screening & Selection Recommendations - M. Thompson distributed notes from the first meeting of the Chancellor's Task Force on Equity and Diversity along with the web address to access the proposed revisions to Title 5. She said faculty participation is needed at the Job Faire in January/February each year. The Staff Diversity Committee will meet February 28^th. K. Furukawa said the following question has been added to the application for faculty, management and classified: "Please explain how you are qualified to understand and be sensitive to the diverse academic, socioeconomic, cultural, disability, and ethnic backgrounds of California Community College students." We are asking that they attach additional pages with this response to be included in a cover letter.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM

PRESENT: LuAnn Campbell, Jay Carpenter, Mike Ceser, Curt Groninga, Bob Flores, George Grijalva, Julie Muzzatti, Gordon Shimizu.

ABSENT: Lamont Royer, Frank Zwolinski

1. NEW IDEAS, CONCERNS, ISSUES: Julie reviewed previous DFPC’s agenda suggestions & indicated the next step will be to prioritize suggestions.. It was also suggested to prioritize maintenance and remodeling projects. A walking tour of the campus in order to visualize projects and sites was proposed for the DFPC’s March meeting .

2. ACCREDITATION UPDATE: Julie reported that the Standard Eight Accreditation teams’ 1^st draft is posted on the web and bulletin board. Curt congratulated the Accreditation Team’s effort in producing an excellent document. He suggested members look closely at the recommended plans.

3. CORE PLANNING COMMITTEES UPDATE: Curt noted that the IPC is very much focused on the Integrated Master Plan. Business Services and Administrative Services will build their response(s) to the proposed Educational Master Plan and the Student Services Master Plan.

4. CAPITAL PROJECTS PLANNING: Assuming the passage of Measure A, the college’s first decision will be to look at the development of a physical master plan for each campus and educational site including Shone Farm. Additionally, the College will need to address the construction of the Library, a parking solution and the development of a "replacement facility" to cover the loss of 35,000 square feet of relocatables. Preliminary Design drawings for Baker Hall Remodel has been contracted with RMW, with occupancy expected by next Fall. Bob Flores commented on Student Services discussions on the Plover conversion, mentioning students need for increased bike & motorcycle parking & larger lockers.

5. INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN UPDATE: Curt explained the "ingredients" of The Integrated Master Plan and it’s future role in serving as the ultimate document in integrating the Educational and Student Services plans. Business Services and Administrative Services will respond to these two plans with facility- related needs, resulting in the Integrated Capital Outlay Plan. The Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan will be an expanded document based on this process of The Integrated Master Plan.

6. SHONE FARM FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS: The Fatal Flaw Analysis produced positive results; SRJC can construct up to a 50 million-gallon reservoir. A meeting between SRJC and the Town of Windsor will take place this week to begin project discussion. The "Rich Thomas" modular will be constructed by the beginning of the Fall semester.

7. LIBRARY PRELIMINARY PLANNING UPDATE & EIR REPORT: The State Board of Governor’s is recommending inclusion of $26,500,000.00 in the 2003-04 Budget which could result in the construction of the Library commencing in mid-Summer 2003. The Administrative Services Office has received notice to submit a Final Proposal on the Plover Library Conversion Project by 5/1/2002.

8. PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER COMPLETION: A Notice of Completion is being filed this week and a Dedication date for the PSTC is set for June 6, 2002. SRJC has agreed to clean up the LG Firing Range site, with the Sheriff Department taking possession.

9. CURRENT PROJECTS UPDATES:

1. Shone Farm Facility - Addressed in Item #6.
2. Parking - Nothing to Report
3. Five-Year Plan/Capital Projects - Addressed in Item #4.

1. DAC – George Griljalva reported that the State Accreditation Committee Results are expected soon. DAC is currently updating ergonomic data.
2. Heritage Facilities- Nothing to Report
3. Health and Safety – Mike Ceser reported the EH&S Dept. has hired and trained a student to perform zone inspections.

Distribution: Luann Campbell, Jay Carpenter, Mike Ceser, Bob Flores, George Grijalva, Curt Groninga, Julie Muzzatti, Lamont Royer, Gordon Shimizu and Frank Zwolinski

 (page break)

• For certificates of 1 to 6 units, all units must be taken at SRJC
• For all others, students must take at least six units or 50% of the units required for the certificate, whichever is greater.
• Exceptions, including allowing fewer units in residence or identifying substitutions for duplicate courses taken elsewhere, may be granted by the program faculty. However, programs may not require more units than those established in this policy.

Committee Membership for 2001- 02: Ed Buckley, Terri Frongia, Kris Futrell, Reneé LoPilato, Jim Rose, Noel Adams, Karen Kellam, Peg Ellingson, Joan Scarborough, Rosemary Ward, Hyemin Ro

Greg Granderson

(page break)

2. The Mission Statement per se (i.e., the concise, general statement) should be reorganized and consistently formatted in a manner which emphasizes that the Mission Statement is the distinctive foundation charter, whereas the accompanying Statements of Commitment are presented in a manner that indicates their secondary and complementary function. The appearance of the Mission Statement and Statements of Commitment should be uniform in style and format wherever it appears, so as to be recognizable and deliver a consistent message.

3. The Mission Statement (along with its Statements of Commitment, when appropriate) should continue to be prominently displayed and circulated throughout the college community, in order to maintain familiarity with the colleges raison d etre, and to encourage an awareness that what the college does is in keeping with its intentions.

1. The Mission Statement could be stronger and more precisely relevant if it contained references to various unique characteristics of the community that the college serves. However, this is not recommended at this time, in the belief that SRJC is, appropriately, open to all, encompassing multiple, diverse populations.

1. The Mission Statement, including the Statements of Commitment, should routinely be addressed when making presentations to the Board of Trustees concerning any new projects, proposals, etc. This would have the effect of making the Mission Statement an operating directive from the Board.

1. Continue to engage the entire college community in ongoing review and revision of the Mission Statement.
2. Create opportunities for more timely revisions in response to changes in the educational environment. (Explain expectation on timing: i.e. .On annual

IPC Accreditation Plans

Page Two

basis, Institutional Planning Council will review for any possible significant changes in educational environment which may suggest a need for an immediate review (and possible revision) of the Mission Statement.

3. Encourage more active involvement in the review and revision process at all levels of the college community (e.g., a checklist format for responses to proposed revisions, to make it quicker and easier for respondents to express a substantive opinion.)

4. Conduct a survey of faculty, students and classified staff regarding their awareness of, consideration of, and/or reliance on the Mission Statement when determining how they perform their respective functions within the college community, i.e., where it fits into the management process. This could be done online to facilitate participation.

2. By Spring, 2003, the Institutional Planning Council will work with appropriate institutional support offices to create an inventory list of key planning documents and reports, including a description of the document or report, the usual distribution, and how to access it.

IPC Accreditation Plans

Page Three

1. The Institutional Planning Council will evaluate putting the planning process on a two-year cycle for the purpose of setting institutional goals and evaluating accomplishment.

2. By Spring 2003, the Institutional Planning Council will align the next cycle of institutional goals with the college mission, assuring that the main purpose statements of the mission are supported by goals.

3. By Spring 2003, the Institutional Planning Council will identify key indicators that the college will use to evaluate how successful the college is in attaining its mission and purposes.

4. In an ongoing cycle consistent with the planning cycle, the Institutional Planning Council will evaluate how well, and in what ways, the college has achieved its mission and purposes and will report its findings to the college as a whole.

1. By Spring 2003, all component administrators will strengthen the goal setting process by increasing emphasis on measurable outcomes, both qualitative and quantitative

.2. By Spring, 2003, Academic Affairs will strengthen their planning processes by adding documentation of accomplishment of departmental goals and objectives where appropriate.

1. By Spring 2003, the Institutional Planning Council will reconsider the way in which it identifies priorities for improvement, considering using the Integrated Master Plan as the mechanism for identifying priorities.

1. By Spring 2004, key resource allocation committees . faculty staffing, classified staffing, and facilities and equipment allocation -- will utilize the Integrated Master Plan as a major factor in making resource allocation decisions. (Note the District Facilities Planning Committee and Board Facilities Committee already do this.)

IPC Accreditation Plans

Page Four

2. By Spring 2004, the president of the college, in consultation with the other component administrators and Institutional Planning Council, will define how budget allocation decisions are related to the priorities established by the Integrated Master Plan.

1. Beginning in the spring of 2003, the Institutional Planning Council will evaluate institutional effectiveness at the conclusion of each planning cycle. Institutional effectiveness is herein defined as .the ability of an institution to match its performance to established purposes as stated in its mission and goals.. IPC will report its findings to the college community as a whole.

2. After completion of the first Integrated Master Plan in Spring 2002, the component administrators will be responsible to review and modify their own planning processes as needed in a cycle consistent with the planning cycle.

No Standard Seven Plans were directly linked to the Institutional Planning Council

8.5 Plan

1. It is recommended that Santa Rosa Junior College begin immediately the development of a comprehensive physical campus master plan for the Santa Rosa Campus and each other educational center. This new comprehensive district-wide master plan for physical development should be considered the focusing document in the college's efforts to plan and prioritize the building

IPC Accreditation Plans

Page Five

and remodeling that will commence should the bond issue be successful. Said plan should address all programmatic, departmental, and facilities needs, envisioning these needs ten years into the future. It would be expected that such a plan could be ready for use by Spring of 2003. The definition, articulation and documentation of objectives for the physical growth of the campus must be an important and integral component in effective stewardship of SRJC resources.

No Standard Ten Plans were directly linked to the Institutional Planning Council