Attending: John M. Crisp, Mike Gadell, Homer Garza, Noe Guerra, Dolores Huerta, Mattie Marcum, William Mareth, Mary Peña, Jim Pierce (Chair), Lisa Welch.

Not Attending: Vickie Natale.

Agenda: Chair Jim Pierce announced that, due to time constraints, the Steering Committee's review of the Financial Resources draft will be moved to Tuesday, November 2.

Review of the Educational Program Draft: Lisa Welch led the Committee through a review of the second part of the Educational Program draft, during the course of which the following points were raised:

• A number of surface errors were pointed out and duly noted.
• In imperative #37: The Committee agreed not to list all of the degrees in the third paragraph; to move the smaller chart to imperative #35; and to delete the larger chart.
• In #38: The Committee agreed that the College is out of compliance with regard to oral communication and the basic use of computers, but in compliance with regard to reading; the response will be rewritten to reflect the change.
• In #39: The Committee agreed that the recommendation is too vague and that it should focus on the problems with the preprofessional programs. The reference to the general descriptions in the Catalog will be deleted, since the general descriptions don't define majors. The definition of a major is the specific courses required for a major, as well as the number of hours.
• In #40: Start the response with the second paragraph and concentrate on the issue of "adequacy," treating it as a professional judgment issue, particularly as determinations are made by the Curriculum Committee and the chairs. The finding will be changed to Compliance with a Suggestion to produce specific degree plans for the pre-professional majors.
• In #44: Delete significant portions of the fifth paragraph and rewrite the third sentence in the paragraph.
• In #45: Dolores Huerta suggested rewriting of this response, noting any redundancy or repetition.
• In #46: Delete the chart.
• In #47: Delete the chart.
• In #48: The last paragraph of the response needs to be rewritten to make its idea fit with the rest of the response.
• In #50: Rewrite the response in the direction of synthesis and concision.
• In #51: The Committee agreed that the response has too much detail; it will be rewritten to provide one paragraph to describe the process and one to provide the example.
• In #52: Rewrite for concision.
• In #53: Rewrite for concision.
• In #54: Delete the chart, simply listing the names of the colleges.
• In #57: Rewrite to indicate the lack of compliance in the Tech-Prep areas, but compliance in Dual Credit. TheTech-Prep noncompliance issues are lack of written procedures for evaluation of the high school courses and no evidence that faculty credentials have been evaluated. Modify and abbreviate the chart.
• In #59: Rewrite in the direction of concision and make the response consistent with the response in #57. Dual Credit will be left in the response to indicate what it is, but it will be left out of the noncompliance finding.

Next Meeting: The Steering Committee will meet again on: Wednesday, October 27 at 2:00 p.m. in VB-170. The Committee will take up the review of must statements #61 through #83 in the Educational Program draft.

Minutes prepared by John M. Crisp.