Planning and Resources Committee

Now with the whole ball game in our (PRC's) corner--let's decide just how we should be using the this site--and what we want or need available to others. Time is of the essence and broad communication a must. Rich Womack

Dear Ross and PRC, (regarding your 26JAN12 meeting questions)

I’ll be there, and I’ll bring some bits specific to PRC to help in organizing what all you might need to do.

I spoke with Ross, and he suggested HR committee first look at streamlining effectiveness issues. HR Committee has a local committee at each site, so each site can list any difficulties and recommendations for improvement to be submitted to PRC.

I realize all your concerns on program prioritization and time you have for effectively reviewing information and offering input.

Here is the general run-down with program prioritization:
1. Program prioritization data needs compiled.
2. Program prioritization data needs to be reviewed by the working group. There are something like 40 programs that will need to be ranked, so this process will be long. I was told it seems as if this would take the working group focused on this task every day for a week in order to carefully complete the ranking process. PRC cannot be tasked with such a thing.
3. Over the next 3 weeks, CAC is reviewing program reviews submitted by program coordinators last summer/fall. That group has a simplified feedback form and will provide feedback to authors. The group will also be looking for important trends that need attention and making recommendations to Karen/Mariana for incorporation into the educational master plan. Those recommendations should also pass along to you all.
4. It seems at this point is where PRC comes in. You need the feedback/recommendations from CAC and you need to look at the ranking of the programs completed by the working group to review the process. You can make recommendations about the process and you can make comments on the ranking and any recommendations. Each time we complete process, we need a plan for improvement. That is where your recommendations for such things are valuable. Perhaps you don’t agree with some of the rankings. Perhaps a program is vital, but based on the criterion selected the program came out 35 out of 40...and though it is low in the ranking....common sense might tell you the program must go on. You might then deem a flaw in our criterion or realize had certain data been included that program would have instead come out number 2 out of 40...etc....
5. Finally, I realize that until steps 1 – 3 are completed...you can’t do your portion. I also agree with Womack, we don’t want to rush this part. The budget can always be re-adjusted to fit the education plan...but the education plan needs good data/good processes for its direction. At the same time, I need everyone involved in steps 1 – 3 working day and night...as this process can’t run weeks on end. We need data within the week. Then we need the working group focused a full week as their highest priority to get the ranking done...even if that means help and a working Saturday at this point. I feel we are walking the fine line between show cause and termination otherwise. Plans must be in place by the time the visiting team arrives, and these are simply the foundations for the plans.
I would recommend the strategic plan work come after the integrated educational plan is completed and the program prioritization process will also be adding much direction towards the strategic plan. I recommend focus on emergency, running out of time, accreditation issues, as without accreditation, a strategic plan will need changed drastically.

Governance Policy:
Some questions were about this:
The committee structure, number of committees, how committees are chaired, etc...has been changed, which is excellent. However, we are now in conflict with our governance policy. That is not terrible, policies always need to be reviewed, evaluated, and changed for improvement.

But, we now need to adjust this policy to reflect what we are currently doing, and also evaluate it for any other necessary changes. And, yes, the grammar/syntax and other blatant errors do need corrected (yeah for the English instructors on the committee). As this is on our website, and presented as evidence of our operations, and accreditation evidence in the March Report, it would be nice if it was a professionally done document with all the updated changes (already approved) reflected. And, you all can make any other recommendations to Cabinet for consideration. All new committee TORs will replace the old committee TORs and all committees have been asked, if theirs have not yet been approved, to finalize their TORs and pass them along to the President for approval.

This task shouldn’t be too onerous and can be completed while you are all waiting to receive the results from CAC and the program prioritization working group.

I’ll see you on Thursday for any more questions. --Frankie

Dear All,

See the word doc above, PRC Meeting ALO 26JAN12....for a larger list/clarification for discussion tomorrow. Feel free to delete the document, Ross. Thanks --Frankie

RE: Communication Plan---As I noted yesterday we must review the February 2010 Communication Plan. Inasmuch as the plan has the usual major goals (3)--with the standard outcomes for the goals--people responsible and a timeline. So the first matter at hand is seeing if the objectives have been met and met on time. All the stuff was supposed to be done is all 2010--someone must verify with the responsible people if indeed the stuff got done--and if not and still necessary--adjustments should be made. I am very surprise no one seemed to be howling that this plan must be looked at together with--Technology Plan--as well as the Instructional Plan (The Comm Plan does speak to best practices and student outcomes)--and the 2013 budget as well.

I believe the ALO asked IPRO to look at it and update. FROM ALO

"As for the communication plan...I have never received a courtesy response from IRPO. Yes, we are always to review all plans for effectiveness, quality, and improvement. I would invite Ross to ask Mr. Hicks, directly, if data analyses will be done and used to drive discussions regarding our communication plan, and if so, when he might plan to come in to PRC for purposes of presenting data and involving your dialogue towards drawing conclusions and plans of action towards continuous quality improvement in communications. I fear, the only data specifically collected and compiled thus far is raw data generated by the surveymonkey website on the “satisfaction surveys”....data which is fully invalid (survey access was not controlled). Time would be needed to compile qualitative data from discussions, but could be used to drive improvements. However, I am speculating. IRPO should be directly dialoging with your committee on this plan. I would ask your committee chair to bring up this question during the council of chairs meeting with the president on Friday".

Also to be reviewed would be the Appendix A--Policy on Communication-which under procedure has a list of fourteen points that could almost be called tasks. these need to be looked at to see if changes need be made. Appendix B is about Governance Policy and Appendix C The Communication Matrix--we must see that those matters-manuals--reports etc..are done and there are the vehicles for communication. Appendix D--the Contact Information is a piece of cake--replace Spensin and Jean--with the new folks. Also exchange Spensin's picture for a nice one of Dr. Daisy--:)---

Chair-as the ALO said--bring these matters to the attention of the Great Council of Chairs--I mean an updated or at least current Communication Plan--seems the least we should do--Given Communication is where we have been dinged for "quite some time" -:) Rich Womack

Chair: The ALO has offered the needed help on the Communication Plan but did we get bead on the timeline for the Program Priority Review in that Great Council of Chairs confab Friday?

Good Morning Chair Ross and Committee:

I sat in yesterday's meeting with the Program Priority Review group headed by a no nonsense Director of Academic Programs -Karen Simion. The majority of the programs were not rated by the majority of the group--This was to be done yesterday--all programs rated and then prioritized into 1/3rds Karen explained that there was nothing to do at the meeting. Please see below the magnitude of their tasks. Recall too there are programs with no Program Reviews Too we were not on-line due to the power for State comments or rebukes as the case may be.

Karen allowed very little time for excuses--most bellyaching was cut short with " Well it must be done or we had best beginning looking for a job" --approach. (She sort of gave them a new priority to think about :)) Any strategy that would further delay the process was firmly rejected. At last even holdouts admitted that Thursday night would be the last sakau outing until Monday! PRC--it is full time two (2) day job--Karen holed up for three (3) days this week to do hers.

I have sent along her crisp memorandum to her people. What impacts PRC is the following

1) All prioritization ratings on all programs must be in for a 8:00 (7:00 Chuuk and Yap) Tuesday February 21st. ---and a meeting will commence and last until the work is done. This will be in quantitative form--explaining with numbers (hopefully based on numbers :) Data!
2) Director Simion will begin a qualitative report--words :) and explain the numbers--justifications, explanations, recommendations, data used etc. She will begin that report immediately after Tuesday's meeting and "God willing and the creek don't rise" finish it sometime likely Wednesday --or Wednesday night .
3) She will be sending it--to us as soon as she finishes.
4) We all need to read it Prior to the Thursday 2/23 4:00 PRC Meeting We can not waste time asking questions that are obviously in the report.
5) Director Simion should be invited so meaningful questions can be proffered and further explanations can be given
6) DECIDE WHAT TO DO -the chair has been attending the Grand Poobah Council of Chairs and may have some guidance for us--there is a Board of Regents Meeting--within a week or so of our meeting and I heard they will want to see this --with our recommendation?
7) Prepare ourselves for additional work and difficult timelines.

Rich Womack

the time to enjoy wasting time, is not wasting time..