May 20, 2025

Attendance, Voting Members:

Erick Aragon, Sam Bliss, Jayme Brown, Sushini Chand, Alicia De Toro, Nazy Galoyan, Lydia Hearn, Michelle Hernandez, Simon Kang’a, Garrett King,  Kyle Krawez, Alan Ma, Eric Mendoza, Rob Mieso, Mallory Newell, Tim Shively, Erik Woodbury, Christina Wright

Absent: Sushini Chand, Adrienne Hypolite, Alicia Mullens, Martin Varela

---

Approval of Minutes from May 13

Minutes approved.

---

Updates to Mission, Vision and Institutional Core Competencies

The College Planning Committee has been taking this draft through the shared governance groups as part of the 7-year accreditation and institutional planning cycle. The College Planning Committee is a shared governance group that's advisory to the college council. The committee’s goal was to reaffirm the college’s commitment to the current vision and mission statement. They were also reviewing to align the accreditation standards with the new standards for the next 7 years. 

One of the areas that they found lacking was a focus on quantitative reasoning. The committee proposed two options to the Academic Senate that came back with a third option. (slide 3)

The highlighted area in slides 5 and 6, adds a commitment to equity to the current mission and the proposal of a sixth institutional core competency for quantitative reasoning.

The Academic Senate ultimately chose option 2. 

RAPP committee members were encouraged to share this update and get feedback from their shared governance groups. 

RAPP should refer to the college's mission and guiding principles when they review the personnel requests and program reviews. 

The College Planning Committee will be taking this draft to the Classified Senate, the EAC. The goal was to take a final version to the College Council for approval at the June meeting.

---

Group work on personnel requests

Each small group has a batch of new assignments in their respective folders. The goal was to complete at least two reviews per meeting. This will leave 2 meetings at the end of the quarter for large group discussion.

The groups were reminded to take into consideration the senior staff comments and rankings in their reviews.

The responses to questions from the review groups have been updated.

The small groups continued with their review work in breakout rooms.