October 5, 2026

RAPP Meeting Minutes  
10 a.m.-11:20 a.m.  
MLC 255 Hybrid Mtg.  
October 5, 2026  
 
Summary 
The meeting opened with introductions and a review of RAPP’s charge and meeting norms. 
During review of the prior meeting minutes, Dean Debbie Lee requested clarification of the description of lottery funds, noting that the articulated response in the September 28, 2026 meetings minutes was too broad. Today’s minutes are now amended to include appropriate links in last week’s minutes including a clearer reference explaining allowable uses of lottery funds and basic-needs funding. The minutes were then approved with those amendments. Tri-Chair and Vice President of Instruction Ram Subramaniam led RAPP in a broad conversation about the Program Review process and feedback loop.  

Program Review  
Tri-Chair Subramaniam reviewed a draft proposal of Program Review and how it responds and connects with RAPP, the Faculty Prioritization Committee (FPC), Budget Advisory Committee (BAC), Program Innovation & Vitality Optimization Team (PIVOT), and College Council. The diagram presented was an illustration regarding the flow of information and the decision-making process among the various groups.  Subramaniam explained that program review feedback would the following: return from RAPP to the program, inform FPC when a program requests a faculty position, inform BAC when a program requests resources, and potentially result in a referral to PIVOT when deeper consideration of program expansion, modification, vitality, or related issues is warranted.  

Under the new proposed process, programs submit Program Review to RAPP, RAPP then evaluates and provides feedback back to the programs. Both Program Review submission and evaluation response could be utilized by BAC and FPC. Programs that want to request a faculty position would need to submit a separate form (to be finalized by RAPP this year) directly to FPC. BAC will inform FPC and RAPP of the number of faculty positions available for hire. FPC would review the request along with criteria and priorities established by RAPP for that hiring cycle. FPC's recommendations return to RAPP and then proceed through the governance process to College Council for final decision and communication to programs that initiated the faculty request. RAPP committee members emphasized that the diagram should use language such as “recommended/not recommended” rather than “granted/not granted,” since FPC does not make the final hiring decision.  Additional discussion regarding budget and resource requests distinguished between the overall budget determination regarding how many faculty positions may be hired in a particular year and individual program resource requests, such as equipment, lottery funds, or other budget augmentations. 

RAPP's Role 
An important theme was that RAPP influences the process primarily upstream rather than redoing the work of its subcommittees. RAPP establishes the criteria and priorities and provides substantive Program Review feedback that FPC and other committees use in their deliberations. Questions arising during RAPP's review of a program may still be sent back to the program for clarification. Communication with programs should generally be coordinated through the RAPP tri-chairs rather than individual review teams contacting programs independently. 
The feedback-loop diagram will be revised to: 
Show recommendations returning from the committees to RAPP; 
More clearly show College Council and the President in the decision-making sequence; 
Clarify when departments are notified; 
Distinguish recommendations from final decisions; and 
Better illustrate the relationship among RAPP, FPC, BAC, and PIVOT. 

Program Review Process Redesign 

The goal is to establish one consistent college-wide process for reviewing Program Reviews, while allowing different Program Review templates for Instruction, Student Services, Academic Support/Collegewide Services, and Equity and Engagement.  The proposal was to have Program Review  transition from a 3-year to a 5-year cycle, with each program completing one full review within the five-year cycle. The five-year schedule is intended as a framework rather than an absolute restriction and is proposed in part to aid in workload and improve quality. The redesigned process is intended to reduce the volume of reviews in any single year so reviewers can spend more time meaningfully evaluating each program. The broader goal is to remove unnecessary “busy work” rather than continually adding institutional processes. A program could be moved off cycle and required or permitted to conduct a program review earlier if circumstances warranted it.  A five-year cycle would still allow programs to complete multiple program reviews during a typical institutional accreditation cycle. The group agreed that five years is a reasonable starting point and can be reconsidered later.  

Annual Updates 
There was substantial discussion about what programs should do during the four years when they are not completing a full program review. There was strong support for making the annual update very short and focused. Previous annual updates had become nearly as cumbersome and felt like full program reviews. A prospective annual update might ask only a few questions, such as, what progress has been made toward previously identified goals, what significant changes, developments, or new circumstances have occurred since the last review, or is there anything new that should inform planning or resource requests? 
The annual update should use a structured template, potentially with word limits, to prevent it from becoming another lengthy report. A draft annual update form will need to be developed in RAPP this year. Discussion ensued about whether annual updates require a full RAPP review. The preliminary recommendation was that they would not receive the same full RAPP review as a five-year program review, although the precise review pathway still needs to be developed.  

Relationship Between Program Review and Faculty Hiring 
Members raised concerns about whether a five-year program review cycle could create problems when a program needs to request a faculty position in a year when it is not completing its full review. The discussion clarified that a program does not have to be in its Program Review year to request a faculty position. FPC would consider several sources of information including: the faculty position request, the most recent full Program Review, the most recent annual update, RAPP's feedback; and the priorities/criteria established by RAPP for that year's faculty hiring process.  
The faculty position request should also provide a mechanism for programs to explain new circumstances that may not have existed when the most recent Program Review was completed. Some committee members voiced support for maintaining the expectation that faculty requests generally demonstrate an ongoing need reflected in the program's planning history rather than appearing for the first time in a hiring request.  
A related philosophical point emerged—Program Review should not become primarily a resource request document. Its principal purpose should be reflection, assessment of program health, continuous improvement, and identification of needed adjustments. Resource requests should be informed by Program Review but remain a related process.  

Program Inventory and Five-Year Schedule 
The draft currently identifies approximately 88 programs across Instruction, Student Services, Academic Support/Collegewide Services, and Equity and Engagement. Members identified that the list needs additional review because some new programs may be missing, some programs currently listed may no longer exist, and some departments contain multiple distinct programs that should receive separate Program Reviews. 

Next Steps 
The proposed Program Review process was a discussion and no action was taken. The discussion was intentionally treated as an initial presentation of a draft, rather than a formal first read. Members were asked to take the proposed program review feedback loop and process back to their constituent groups and gather feedback. The next meeting will focus on the feedback collected. The proposal would return through a formal first-read/second-read process in RAPP. Members were asked to review the program review inventory list with their constituency group to identify additions, deletions, or corrections.  

Attendees: Ram Subramaniam, Lisa Ly, Veronica Acevedo Avila, Farhad Sabit, Michele LeBleu Burns, Manisha Karia, Mari Acob-Nash, Thomas Bailey, Patricia Del Rio, Debbie Lee, Adriana Garcia, Jamie Pelusi, Michelle Hernandez, Tim Shively, Christina Wright, Ka Chun Wong, Kathy Nguyen, Alisa Omeragic, Mallory Newell. 
 
Absent: Garrett King, Cecilia Hui, Glynn Wallis. 
  
Guests: Mallory Newell 

RAPP Voting Members: Ram Subramaniam, Lisa Ly, Veronica Acevedo Avila, Farhad Sabit, Michele LeBleu Burns, Manisha Karia, Mari Acob-Nash, Garrett King, Patricia Del Rio, Thomas Bailey, Debbie Lee, Adriana Garcia, Jamie Pelusi, Michelle Hernandez, Tim Shively, Cecilia Hui, Christina Wright, Glynn Wallis, Ka Chun Wong, Kathy Nguyen. 
  
RAPP Advisor: Alisa Omeragic