Top of Page


Meeting Notes
October 27, 2005
Review of 1st Draft
Several members expressed concerns about getting through the first draft; length and repetition were cited as reasons. No one had read through the entire draft.
Self-Study Themes
Lou suggested, and after discussion there was a consensus, that the self evaluation sections in the self study are where the standards address the themes outlined by the ACCJC. The themes are:

  • Dialogue
  • Student Learning Outcomes
  • Institutional Commitments
  • Evaluation, Planning, Improvement
  • Organization
  • Institutional Integrity

When possible, write-ups should include references to the college’s philosophy that student learning and institutional improvement drive each other.
Mission Statement
Doug commented on progress made by the college and the significance of the self evaluation and first draft. He pointed out that Standard I commented on reconsidering our mission statement in light of four cornerstone principals. Rockne wants to work on this as soon as possible to facilitate dialogue and to assist in planning the new campus. This is a great time to review the mission statement which was a formal recommendation in the last self study. 
Sara discussed the last mission review process headed by Joni Onishi. Pam asked that a wider discussion be considered that would include the four cornerstones. Mai asked that departments and programs be considered in this discussion. Marilyn asked for clarification about the process for a review of the mission statement. No one present knew if the college has an official process for review of the mission statement.
Program Review
Doug suggested Standard I address the current program review task/process.  He volunteered himself, Trina Nahm-Mijo, and Shawn Flood to be available upon request for interviews by authors of Standard 1. He reported that the initial set of Program Review reports are due November 14, 2005, the day of the progress report visit by the ACCJC accreditation team.
Next Step for Draft 1
When reading through the first draft, Steering Committee members should contact the respective standards directly if they have additional information, evidence, or documentation for a particular section.
Steering Committee Co-Chairs and editors will meet with standard chairs on November 10 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the draft. These meetings will replace the scheduled steering committee meeting.

  • Beth Sanders and Pam Hudson will meet with Standard 1 co-chairs (Mike Saito and Jim Yoshida) and Standard 2 co-chairs (Mai Wong and Joni Onishi).
  •  Jennie Padilla and Marilyn Bader will meet with the Standard 3 chair (Sara Narimatsu) and the Standard 4 chair (Lou Zitnik).

When able, each Steering Committee Co-Chair and appropriate editor will also meet with standards individually.
Self-Study Draft 2
The Self-Study Draft 2 is due January 30, 2006.
Descriptions should be relatively brief. The self-evaluation and planning parts should be written “thematically”.
The Steering Committee Co-Chairs are supposed to help with “thematic” writing or infusing themes into the writing as may be necessary.
Collection of all physical evidence and references cited in the document needs to begin. Hard copies are requested. The accredation librarian is Osh Larish.
Raw data, examples, charts or graphs should be included in the narratives only if it is specifically pertinent and referenced. A brief explanation of the data, example, chart, or graph should also be included.
Next Steering Committee Meeting
The next meeting of the full Steering Committee will be Thursday, December 1, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in the Manono Campus Conference Room 6A.