Postsecondary education has a tradition of broadly shared authority and responsibility. For an institution to serve its purposes and achieve its goals, each major constituency must carry out its separate but complementary roles and responsibilities. Institutional governance mechanisms provide the means through which policy is developed and authority is assigned, delegated, and shared in a climate of mutual support.

Standard 8A The Governing Board

The governing board is responsible for the quality and integrity of the institution. It selects a chief executive officer, approves the purposes of the institution, and responsibly manages available fiscal resources. It establishes broad institutional policies and delegates to the chief executive officer the responsibility to administer these policies. There is a clear differentiation between the policy-making function of the board and executive responsibilities. The board protects the institution from external pressures and provides stability and continuity to the institution.

8A.1 The board includes adequate representation of the public interest and the diverse elements of the population it represents. Arrangements provide for the continuity of board membership and staggered terms of office.

DESCRIPTION: There are seven members on the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. All board meetings are open to the general public. Each of the seven seats is voted on by the entire electorate within the district's boundaries. Elections for board members are held every two years, with staggered four year terms of office.

EVALUATION: By the nature of the electoral process and the population of Los Angeles, it is the electorate, not the board, that determines the adequacy of representation. The district includes a remarkable blend of ethnic and economic communities: rich, poor, white, black, brown, yellow, foreign born immigrants, new arrivals from other states, born and bred Angelenos, in all states of social and familial relationships. Currently the board is ethnically diverse and reasonably representative of the population that it serves. There are three women: one African-American, one Asian, and one Caucasian. There are four men: two Caucasian, one African-American, and one Hispanic-Asian.

A nonvoting student member, an African-American male, is currently serving on the board. The student board member is elected by the district student body annually in a special election conducted by the district on all of the campuses.

Board members are elected by the entire population residing within its boundaries. Thus board members must appeal to and represent more than a narrow interest held by one, unique segment of the general population.

As board meetings are open to the general public who are afforded the opportunity to address the board on issues of concern, the board is constantly aware of issues of import to the community it serves.

Of the seven seats on the board, four are elected at one, off-year election, and the remaining three at the next, off-year election. This election rotation scheme ensures both continuity and the opportunity for change in the make-up of the board.

PLAN: The college will (1) encourage voter registration among the staff and students of the college and (2) encourage voters in the college's service area to vote in the elections when board seats are on the ballot, thus increasing the representativeness of the college's service area population.

8A.2 Board policies include a statement of ethical conduct for its members. The board acts as a whole; no member or committee acts in place of the board. Board policy precludes participation of any of its members or any member of the staff in actions involving possible conflict of interest.

DESCRIPTION The board adopted a Statement of Ethics and Conduct on November 3, 1993, in response to recent accreditation studies done at other colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District (8.1). There is a written board policy that states that no committee or individual member of the board may act in place of the board of trustees (8.2). Conflicts of interest are prohibited by state law, and accordingly, board members are required to submit an annual report to the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding their personal finances.

EVALUATION: The notable absence of ethical conduct violations evidences that both the policies and the personnel of the board are in order.

PLAN: The members of the board will continue to maintain high expectations of themselves and of one another.

8A.3 The board is responsible for the financial soundness of the institution and ensures that the educational program and the physical facility plans are of high quality and consistent with institutional purposes.

8A.4 The board reviews and approves educational programs and ensures that programs, degrees, and certificates are of satisfactory quality, consistent with institutional purposes.

DESCRIPTION: AB 1725 clearly assigns this overall function to the board. The board has designed a system that encourages the colleges’ and the district's internal constituencies to participate in planning the budget, educational programs, and physical facility with the board giving final approval to these plans. Subcommittees of the board such as the Budget Committee and the Capital Assets Committee are actively engaged in this process.

Financial Soundness

As the district is a combination of large and small entities, there has been developed a formulaic approach to many elements of financial planning. Rules, regulations, and procedures for the distribution of available resources are approved by the board (CD.10). Additionally the board receives input from a faculty-based, districtwide budget committee and from district office and college staff in relation to budgetary questions and plans. The board also supports and accepts revenue and special projects that are funded from sources other than the general fund. The board encourages the development and implementation of revenue enhancement activities through the offices of the chancellor and the vice-chancellor of business services.

Educational Programs

The board has approved a review process for educational programs which includes both college and district curriculum committees and clearly gives faculty the major voice in the decisions on educational programs (8.3). Provision is made for review by the deans and vice-presidents, and these groups make recommendations on the proposals to the District Curriculum Committee. The process is designed to review recommendations for adding (1) courses already in the district database of courses to the list of courses a college can offer, (2) new courses, and (3) new programs. The board discusses and gives the final approval to these recommendations to ensure consistency among the campuses. Colleges have some maneuvering room in that experimental courses can be operated for one year without official approval.

Physical Facilities

The board is interested in the physical facilities of the colleges as indicated by its standing Capital Assets Subcommittee. The colleges are encouraged by the board to develop plans for physical facilities development and management. It also approves plans and accepts monies to upgrade and expand.

The board reviews the annual submissions of the district's five-year plan, which describes the capital construction the district is planning on during that cycle. Included in this plan is a list of projects, whether they are requesting funds for plans, construction, or equipment, and the amount being requested. The projects are prioritized through discussion by the vice-presidents of administration and at the cabinet level prior to inclusion in the five-year plan.

The board has been apprised of current capital outlay projects at Mission College such as the new library and land acquisition through presentations to the Capital Assets Subcommittee.


Financial Planning

Budgetary concerns generally overshadow everything else. All general planning for the financial management of the district ultimately must get some level of board scrutiny and approval prior to those plans being implemented. This includes income generation, division within the district of the state-to-district allocation, specially funded programs, categorical programs, capital assets management and financing, both at the district level and at the college level.

The board and the district administration are very aware that the state has limited resources. They have been active in lobbying the state chancellor's office and the legislature for assistance; these efforts have only been partially successful more in terms of making offices in Sacramento aware of the difficulties faced by the district. Both the chancellor and the board have supported the recent effort by the legislature to have a property tax, back-fill provision enacted into law. This would mean that community colleges statewide would not suffer reductions in mid-year to their budgets should state property tax revenue be less than projected during the state's budget preparation process.

Because the board is concerned about providing educational services to students who seek them, it is supportive of efforts to reduce the cost of the district office. In fact, over the last several years, there has been a reduction in this cost. However, the board is also aware that for reporting purposes to the state and for internal coordination, the district office is a necessity.

The board has actively encouraged investigation of the district's budget. One example of the results of this effort was in the summer and fall of 1993 when an additional $5 million was taken from several sources and redirected toward providing classes for students at the nine colleges. Also, the board has approved and implemented faculty proposals to review the number of people for whom the district pays health benefits; this, in combination with active negotiation with service providers, has resulted in more clearly defined health policies and a reduction in overall costs.

The board recognizes that although many budget problems still exist in the district, it has a continuing commitment to examining solutions that will allow the district to focus on its primary mission: teaching students.

The responsibility of the board for the financial soundness of Mission College is a matter of law. However, as federal and state funds continue to diminish, so does the board's ability to support necessary expenditures at Mission College. Ultimately, the issue becomes one of availability of funds.

The budget development process is one that involves many of the constituent groups within the district. These groups are involved in the planning process and are also able to address the board and the board's subcommittees. Final recommendations for board action are presented by the district chancellor.

In the face of an ectomorphic budget environment, Mission College finds itself increasingly dependent on outside funding for survival, because even though the college generated $11.8 million in state FTES funds for FY94-95 through the budget allocation process within the district, Mission received only $8 million as its operational budget for FY94-95. This is insufficient to meet a $10 million operating cost. The only way to balance the college's accounts at the end of the fiscal year is to utilize earned income from and chargebacks to specially funded programs. The wisdom in this is somewhat unclear.

Unfortunately, this situation leads to unproductive conflicts and worries at the college. Complicating this are several underlying perceptual contradictions: (1) there is on one hand the need to get as much money as possible for any kind of program possible, regardless of return to or commitment of the college; (2) on the other, fund raising and special projects funded from outside are inherently wrong for a state-supported institution and are rightly viewed with suspicion and resentment; and (3) outside funding is essential to survival. This college, unlike its sister colleges, has tapped into many sources of money readily available to community colleges in the state. Many of these current sources of outside funds, however, award money for projects, which involve considerable cost and varying degrees of excess funds reassignable to cover regular college costs. Even though some of these funding sources are relatively automatic, there exists the possibility that the college may not be awarded grants in the future.

Needless to say, the budgetary problems of the state, the district, and college assume primacy in many areas where they should not.

Educational Programs

Curriculum develops from the campus level; once a program change has received campus approval, it proceeds to the district level for review and approval. While the program awaits approval from the District Curriculum Committee (DCC), the academic deans and vice-presidents have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposal.

The timeline for approval can be lengthy just because of the process. E-65, the governing policy and procedure for curricular matters, does specify timelines for action at the district level; it does not specify timelines for on-campus deliberation and action. For a course to be offered in the next semester, it must be approved at the local level not later than the second week of the semester preceding that in which the course will be planned to be offered. If a discipline wants to offer a course in the spring semester, that course must obtain college approval by the second week of the immediately preceding fall semester or there is no chance of that class being offerable in the planned semester.

There are a considerable number of requirements for classes depending on the nature and intention of creating the class. These requirements come from the state curricular regulations and district reporting requirements. Additionally these requirements are necessary for defining classes as belonging to general areas such as general education, transfer, and the like. Individual faculty are not always aware of these requirements, and this slows the campus approval process when courses are submitted in an incomplete format.

Physical Facilities

The board of trustees has hired a consulting firm at a cost of $400,000 to assist in the development of a district master plan. Although the board has approved working with a consultant in the past, little of the information in the final report was of any use in developing educational or facilities planning goals. The current consultant has worked with four campuses to date, emphasizing the need to identify realistic, reachable goals, and the importance of planning facility goals from educational goals.

The consultant has done some work at Mission College, but there is still much to be done. The Unit Planning Guides were prepared during the spring and fall, 1993. The work done after that raised several questions and is being revised as part of a recommendation for changes to the current policy-making structure of the campus.

In August, 1994, the board authorized a contract for the construction of the permanent Library and Learning Resources Center for Mission College, and several board members attended a groundbreaking held on September 29, 1994. The board is also committed to the acquisition of additional land to expand the campus by approximately twenty-nine acres.


Financial Soundness

From the district's standpoint, there are several cost-cutting proposals under discussion, including regionalization of services and a major retirement incentive. It is not yet clear how much these efforts can save. Streamlining of services is essential, and this is something in which the new district chancellor appears to be interested.

Educational Programs

The college will develop a training program for the Curriculum Committee and the faculty to better prepare them for the curricular change process, thus ensuring better prepared course approval documents, reducing the time for approval. The college Curriculum Committee will recommend that the District Curriculum Committee review the district curricular regulation, E-65, which was last revised in 1988.

The college encourages the development of a district master planning document which reflects the needs of each campus, both educationally and in the way of facilities.

8A.5 The board approves an effective organization which serves institutional purposes.

DESCRIPTION: The board has established an organization that is designed to serve the purpose of the institution (8.4). Positions, such as chancellor, vice-chancellors, directors, college presidents, vice-presidents, deans, and many more are positions that the board has deemed essential to successful implementation of the chief purposes of the district and the colleges. Periodically the board reviews the organization of the district and the colleges to determine the appropriateness of the structure, its effectiveness, and the levels of support necessary to allow the colleges and the district to best serve the students while complying with mandated regulations and the growing myriad compliance issues.

Additionally, the board has approved, in an overall sense, the systems through which the district operates. There are several major systems (budget, personnel, purchasing, accounts) and numerous sub-units within them. These systems define the procedures and actions that must be undertaken, enabling the colleges and the district to serve the students. These systems also are designed to provide audit trails and accountability essential for an organization receiving state and federal funding.

EVALUATION: There are many instances which support the need for the level of administration that currently exists in the district. There are numerous compliance issues that must be dealt with, and these appear to increase daily. For example, matriculation, articulation, student equity, gender equity, ADA issues, and sexual harassment issues have been raised as necessary action areas in addition to the normal and growing reporting requirements. There are many questions about how these issues can be dealt with in an era of declining resources and whether or not these items are diverting the purposes of the educational institution. However, there is also a serious need to evaluate the effectiveness of how these are being best implemented by the current structure.

PLAN: The college will continue to encourage the board to support changes that facilitate the purposes of the institution.

8A.6 After appropriate consultation, the board selects and provides regular evaluation of the institution's chief executive officer.

DESCRIPTION: Selection of a chancellor or college president is not an everyday occurrence; it happens infrequently. The board evaluates the chancellor and the college presidents. In consultation with the chancellor and college presidents, the period and type of evaluation is determined by the board. The chancellor and the college president agree on a schedule of evaluation that will enable the chancellor to provide guidance and conduct evaluation of the college president in a confidential and effective manner.

EVALUATION: CHANCELLOR It appears that this process works fairly well; that is, there have been no rumblings of discontent with the process.

PRESIDENT: While the description describes the ideal, what we have witnessed occurring frequently in our district is the administrative assignment of presidents rather than the selection of presidents by a campus-based committee. For example, while two colleges have had some say in the selection of their college presidents, the presidents at four of the colleges, including Mission, have been administratively assigned. This creates a sense of powerlessness and lack of involvement in the selection of the chief executive officer of the college.

PLAN: No recommendation for the selection process for a chancellor can be made, with one exception. The college will ask that in future, the board or the selection committee circulate at least the broad general criteria--skills or experience--that will be the basis of evaluation for the candidates for chancellor and consider comments generated. This will allow district employees an opportunity to participate in the selection process.

The college will encourage the board to develop a regular selection procedure for presidents, a procedure involving college staff.

8A.7 The board has a process by which its own performance can be assessed.

DESCRIPTION: The one formal process is the electoral process in which board members are elected as described in 8A.1. Many informal avenues exist for the board to assess its own performance. These include visitation to campuses for discussion with college personnel, participation in committees of the board, and the general consultation process, from which board members can develop a sense of how they are perceived.

EVALUATION: The current system of public accountability for the board members is that desired by the state and it appears to be as functional as any electoral process in the state. The difficulty is that in the electoral process, money and endorsements are key ingredients. Thus a large number of current board members were supported by the AFT union, and in an environment where the number of competing pressure groups is relatively limited, this is seen by some members of the community as being a little less than open and free. It must be said of the board members that they do maintain their independence, which is commendable.

Board members do not go to campuses enough for presentation or question and answer sessions with staff members or for more informal sessions. If these types of activities were to increase, they would be favorably received by the college employees and would lead to a changed perception of the board. The board is always viewed by college staff as ill-informed and distant, a perception enhanced by the board’s practice of trucking their own extraordinarily high-backed chairs to meetings held on campus.

PLAN: The college will encourage board members to come to the campus more frequently so that they may be in more frequent touch with the needs of the college.

8A.8 The board is informed about and involved in the accreditation process.

DESCRIPTION: The board certifies accreditation reports prior to submission to WASC, but it has not been their practice to read them. This year, the college accreditation liaison officer along with the college president will make a brief report to the board on the self-study report prior to the board signing the self-study report.

The college accreditation liaison officer has written to the college president, the district chancellor, and the president of the board of trustees, eliciting their participation in the preparation of the document (8.5). Accordingly, separate meetings were held with the board president and with the chancellor, wherein the college president, the accreditation liaison officer, and two college staff members working on Standard Eight did have an opportunity to exchange ideas and question the board president on items that would be of assistance to completing Standard Eight.

EVALUATION: College staff are grateful for the opportunity to have had a conversation with the board president and the chancellor about issues relating to Standard Eight because there has been no other contact between the board and the accreditation process. There is no apparent involvement beyond review and endorsement. It is clear that a greater degree of involvement is what the commission views as essential to the accreditation process.

PLAN: The college will develop a proposal to the board that delineates their involvement in the accreditation process to the extent that the commission would like it to be.

8A.9 In multicampus systems, division of responsibilities and authority between the system office and the institution is clear; system policies and procedures are clearly defined and equitably administered.

DESCRIPTION: The board has established a structure for managing the district that includes both staff and line authority at both the district and the college levels (CD.18; 8.5).

EVALUATION: All board rules apply to all locations in the district and are equitably administered. A system of checks and balances with multiple approvals exists. Yet, the current division of responsibilities between the district office and the college leaves something to be desired. Frequently it appears that there are many overlapping functions. While it is clear that the district is a reporting agency to the state, and that the district needs to draw upon the colleges that compose it for information, it is not clear that there needs to be (1) apparently endless repetition of tasks or (2) cumbersome systems that allow for major time delays in accomplishment of essential tasks. Examples illustrating these are abundant in the areas of accounts receivable, budget changes, personnel and payroll, and purchasing. The district office that handles accounts payable divides its work alphabetically; if the person handling one of these subdivisions is on jury duty, vacation, or is out ill, then that set of work sits. Budget changes must get not only many approvals on campus, the approval process begins once again when the paperwork arrives at the district. Personnel and payroll is such a mysterious and cumbersome process that campus personnel often have little idea of where in the process the paperwork for an employee is. Purchasing requires that the person or office submitting paperwork to purchase an item get three bids and that when the purchase documents reach the purchasing agent the paperwork is typed all over again, and the bid process is begun again. This type of duplication is a constant source of frustration to the internal and external customers of the district. All policies and procedures are written.

District staff do provide assistance to college personnel when policies are unclear and the campus needs or wants to do something. All rules are equitably administered.

There are many advantages to multiple approvals before moving things ahead for processing. However, once an item has obtained necessary college approvals, be it curricular, budgetary, or staffing related, there are serious questions as to the absolute need for another series of multiple approvals at the district level. Some groups, which have no standing in the organizational structure or in code, have taken it upon themselves to become the self-appointed approvers of action. An example of this is that now that the district has a hiring freeze in place, the college presidents, with the vice-chancellors, and one presumes the concurrence of the chancellor, have decided that they will approve, districtwide, any and all requests to fill positions, despite the fact that there are established procedures for accomplishing this and that there is a districtwide hiring freeze. If nothing else this is a serious breech of organizational integrity.

There is no training of personnel that provides them with concrete, operational information and the reason for the work.

PLAN: The college will recommend to the chancellor that the current systems, rules, policies, and regulations be reviewed and changed to bring them in line with the support function that they should serve and that the use of technology be more heavily relied upon to speed processes that are not an end in themselves but should be supporting the primary purpose of the organization, teaching students. The college will review its own operations to determine where it can be more efficient and productive in the support of the primary purpose of the organization, teaching students. The college will recommend that formal training be instituted for employees at the district and at the colleges. This training will center on the concepts of Continuous College Improvement.


8B.1 The chief executive fosters appropriate communication among the governing board, staff, and students.

DESCRIPTION: The chancellor informs board members of the issues, the accomplishments, and the problems of the district as they occur and provides board members with information that facilitates informed board decisions. The chancellor has frequent meetings with all the college presidents. The vice-chancellors meet with the appropriate college vice-presidents at least monthly. The unions and the Academic Senate meet with the chancellor periodically, and both attend board meetings, presenting issues.

EVALUATION: Because the chancellor serves at the discretion of the board and in view of the fact that the district had only two chancellors during the first twenty-four years of operation, we assume that the lines of communication are clear.

PLAN: The college will recommend that board members conduct more on-campus visits just for the purpose of gathering information. All efforts to be sure that communication is open and honest should be undertaken. Electronic formats of information distribution should be studied and then implemented.

8B.2 The chief executive has ensured that college policies and procedures are clearly defined, known to the college community, and equitably administered.

DESCRIPTION: All board rules, policies and procedures are written and distributed to all the district offices and colleges in the system. Staff at the college level are aware of the specific board rules that apply to their area of work. All board rules, policies and procedures are equitably administered by a system that involves multiple reviews and signatures at both the college and district levels.

As board rules, policies, and procedures are made or revised, they are made available in writing to all offices at the district and college level that perform functions pertinent to the board rule.

EVALUATION: In general, there appears to be compliance with board rules, policies, and procedures. These are generally accepted as the way things are done. In large part this is because those who oversee a particular function usually have a significant role in designing and writing the new or changed board rules, policies, and procedures. There is a general belief among district and college employees in the principle of equitable administration of the rules.

PLAN: No plan is needed.

8B.3 The chief executive efficiently manages resources, implements priorities controlling budget and expenditure, and ensures the implementation of statues, regulations, and board policies.

DESCRIPTION: The district chancellor is charged by the board, and is expected by the employees of the district, to carefully and fairly manage the strained resources of the district, establish priorities for budgeting and expenditures, and uphold the legal limitations placed on the district by state and federal laws.

EVALUATION: While all of the responsibility to manage the district fairly and uphold laws falls upon the chancellor, he does not act in a vacuum. He is advised by various bodies: the vice-chancellors, the college presidents, the Academic Senate, the unions, and various representative committees. Often these groups do not coordinate their actions and plans, causing friction or at least dilution of efforts. The chancellor frequently finds himself with many opinions, able to satisfy none.

The chancellor must carefully and fairly manage the strained resources of the district. This is an exceedingly difficult task to accomplish. The needs of the campuses, both for classes and services for students and for the physical needs to carry these out, are tremendous. There are numerous groups within the district who have become the self-appointed guardians of resources, initially for good reasons. While some benefits have accrued from this scrutiny, it has more often lead to pitting groups against one another and a stymieing of change. This has led, in the case of the district’s budget, to a formulaic approach that on the surface might seem to be fair, but that is so structured that it pits college against college, with each entity within the district frequently called upon to justify its existence.

Establishing priorities for and controlling budgeting and expenditures leads to situations wherein areas of the district are underfunded. This results primarily from the practice of allocating funds according to FTES, which makes no adjustment for fixed costs. By way of example, within the internal budgeting procedures of the district, Mission College is seriously underfunded, operating at a $10 million level and funded by an $8 million budget. This is not the case at the other colleges in the district. If a college incurs a deficit, that deficit must be repaid; such is the case with Mission College. The difficulty with this is that this college is in no position to repay the deficit it incurs, which happens despite relatively close scrutiny of the controllable expenditures. When queried about mitigation of this, the chancellor has not been able to provide clear guidance. In point of fact, there is little that the chancellor can do to control expenditures if educational services are delivered in the manner in which they have been traditionally. To illustrate the futility and confusion evident in the district, even the chancellor, in his first speech, has called on the district not to focus so intensely on budgetary problems, but rather to concentrate on doing what it does, teach students. One wonders if this does not in fact obfuscate the issues.

There are many legal limitations placed on the district by state and federal laws. Authority for overseeing these falls to the district office, specifically the offices of general counsel, human resources, and budget. The general counsel reports to the chancellor, as do the vice-chancellors of human resources and finance. One of the problems that the district faces is the increasing number of regulations relating to employees, students, and operations. It seems that the federal government, the state legislature, and the state chancellor’s office are increasingly fond of establishing well meaning regulations with no funding to carry out these initiatives. Often these regulations necessitate additional expenditures or diversion of scarce resources in attempts to comply. One example is the issue of student equity. This issue appeared to come suddenly out of nowhere; it requires colleges to undertake research about student access and student success within programs based on representation from the service area. This has placed a burden on the college, which has no full-time researcher, to redirect resources of student services and academic affairs to focus on the issue. In this area, as in others, the college has received no assistance from the district office.

PLAN: The college will continue to participate in district-level discussions on budget, expenditures, and legal and regulatory requirements. The college will continue to make its needs known to committees and persons in a position to determine budget allocations. The college will keep the chancellor informed of the impact of decisions made at a district level on the ability of the college to implement those decisions. The college will follow the instructions of the general counsel, human resources, and business services on legal and regulatory matters.

8B.4 The chief executive supports an effective affirmative action policy for staff and students.

DESCRIPTION: Reporting directly to the chancellor is the district affirmative action officer. This person assists the chancellor and the board to draw up affirmative action goals. At each college and at the district office there is a local affirmative action officer. The district and local affirmative action officers evaluate all hiring procedures for compliance with affirmative action principles. They prepare yearly evaluative reports about the progress of the district in meeting affirmative action goals.

EVALUATION: Under the direction of the chancellor, the district affirmative action officer supports an active and effective affirmative action policy for the district. The board is on record stating its commitment to affirmative action guidelines and goals. Yearly the district affirmative action officer evaluates the composition of the district employee body for ethnicity and gender representation in all positions and categories of employment. This information is made available to the board and the colleges.

The representativeness of the faculty is a serious issue. AB 1725 and the district's faculty hiring policies call for a faculty representative of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the adult population of the state. This is a relatively new definition in the scope of the hiring of most of the existing full-time faculty. The largest single demographic group among the full-time faculty is Caucasian males. While it can probably be said that from a gender viewpoint there is some degree of representativeness, it most certainly cannot be said that other historically underrepresented groups make up the faculty of the district in proportion to their representation in the general adult population of the state. Then again, when most full-time faculty were hired, this was not a concern. This situation will probably not change much until there are more open faculty positions to hire against. There has been movement in this area, however. During hiring, committees are made aware of representativeness issues, and college presidents, who finalize the hiring of full-time faculty, are acutely aware of this issue.

Representativeness is not just a faculty issue, however. Nonteaching office staff tend to be overwhelmingly female; crafts staff, including custodians, and college police tend to be overwhelmingly male. Custodial staff tends to be African-American or Latino. These divergencies also deserve attention.

State mandates on student equity forced each college to prepare a report during the fall 93 semester. Only three student equity plans in the entire state were judged by the state chancellor's office as satisfactory, none of them were from the Los Angeles district. In the case of Mission College, while the statistical analysis was well done, and received favorable notice from the state, all other aspects of the document submitted one year ago were found unacceptable, primarily for want of a plan. This can be directly attributed to an unaware administration and nonexistent support from the district office to the colleges. In fact, because of recent faculty urging which came about when the state reported to the college on its student equity plan submission, the administration is now seeking the assistance of a committee of faculty in devising a plan and an evaluation system for student equity.

Gender equity is an issue that affects the college in many ways, not all immediately visible. For example, in these times of incredibly tight budgets, the college is faced with implementing Title IX regulations on sports programs. Already the college has added a female golf team, female cross country, and softball. These additions place an increasing strain on the budget of the college which, as described in 8A.3, falls dismally short of supporting the institution. Gender equity is also an issue in the distribution of Carl D. Perkins VATEA Act monies from the state level. Mission's gender equity coordinator for several years has just this fall moved to another college, and the college is without a gender equity coordinator. The former coordinator organized and presented several forums or speakers each year on topics of concern to gender equity.

Staff diversity issues are meekly dealt with by the staff diversity committee. There has been, until this year, a strict and constrictive interpretation of the purposes of staff diversity. The current college staff diversity coordinator seems to have a more realistic and cooperative view of staff diversity issues and activities. The staff diversity committee at the college meets two to four times a year. It is seeking to support positive activities that will increase the awareness of diversity issues particularly as they relate to employment.

PLAN: The college has no plan.

8B.5 If the institution is part of a state system the chief executive establishes and maintains an effective working relationship with the state system administration.

DESCRIPTION: The chancellor and vice-chancellors are in frequent contact with the state chancellor's office.

EVALUATION: The system appears to be satisfactory.

PLAN: No plan is intended by the college.

Standard 8C Administrative Services District

The administration is organized and staffed to provide leadership which makes possible an effective teaching and learning environment for the achievement of institutional purposes and goals.

In the Los Angeles Community College District, Administrative Services is responsible only for business services, not teaching and learning environment.

8C.1 The administration supports a decision-making process which is timely and which involves persons in the process who will be affected by the decision.

DESCRIPTION: The district holds bimonthly cabinet meetings, attended by the chancellor, vice-chancellors, college presidents, and senior staff.

EVALUATION: The process works relatively well in that people at the lower levels have input into decisions and policies. Decisions are finalized at the district. The process, however, is slow. It is not uncommon for one year to be spent in approving a new class, a budget change to take eight weeks, and hiring of full-time employees to take three months. For example, in the case of faculty hiring, the district academic senate established a committee of faculty from the colleges who have worked for three years to develop the series of policies on full-time and part-time faculty hiring, equivalence, administrative hiring, etc. This committee has worked with the academic vice-presidents to develop this policy.

The classified restructuring plan developed by the classified personnel commission and the AFT Classified Guild took several years to accomplish.

Curriculum is begun at the college level, from individual faculty through the college curriculum committee. After college approval, an item proceeds to the district curriculum committee and then to the board for finalizing approval.

These examples illustrate that the process of decision-making includes persons who will be affected by the decisions.

PLAN: The college has no plan for the district.

8C.2 The administration provides leadership and encouragement to the faculty in the improvement of instruction through methods such as the issue of classroom research, educational technology, and innovative methods of instruction.

DESCRIPTION: Although it once did, at the present time, the district Educational Services Division does not provide leadership in the improvement of instruction through methods such as classroom research, educational technology, and innovative methods of instruction.

EVALUATION: It is unclear whether this lack of a districtwide effort in the area of instructional improvement is good or bad, a help or a hindrance to the learning experienced by students who attend district colleges. What is clear is that whatever instructional improvements or innovations being undertaken in the district, they occur at the local level, often without an organized support structure. Some element of support for innovation is necessary, but it must emanate from the chancellor and be locally controlled and disbursable.

PLAN: The college will recommend that, rather than centralizing innovation under the district, the district establish (1) a method of internal publicity about innovations that individual instructors are using and (2) locally-operated, conceptually-dedicated funds clearly identified as supplemental to existing allocations to be used to pilot emerging technologies and innovations in instruction.

8C.3 The administration assures [sic] that institutional research is conducted and that the results are provided to the faculty and the governing board.

DESCRIPTION: The Los Angeles Community College District Office of Research and Planning which reports to the vice-chancellor for Educational Services is responsible for providing all internal and external research and analysis for a district enrolling over 95,000 students, employing over 6,000 persons, having a yearly budget of over one-third of a billion dollars. In this context, it is simultaneously ludicrous and profound that the only office in the district responsible for research and analysis is a small one, consisting of a director, a senior research analyst, two full-time research analysts (one of whom is on leave), two staff assistants, and a secretary. The district Office of Attendance Management, consisting of three additional persons, is appended to the district research office.

The district office has been instrumental in providing publications with fundamental enrollment statistics, periodic information almanacs with historical trend data, and various ad hoc reports. Every two to three years, the district office conducts student surveys, designed in collaboration with administrators and researchers from the individual colleges. The distribution of the results of these surveys is problematic since there are not always clearly defined research offices at the colleges. As a result, the research publications usually end up in the offices of persons who do not distribute them to faculty and administrators who can make use of them.

Beside the monumental inadequacies due to sheer size and environmental complexities, the district research office is not in a position to provide appropriate information that the colleges require. The physical proximity to the chancellor, vice-chancellor, and trustees exerts a powerful influence on the priorities of the work that the office of research undertakes. The overriding priority is district oriented. Combine this with an administrative computing system still mired in archaic third generation hierarchical language systems, and it is wholly evident why campuses, faculty, and local administrators are unable to find assistance from this district function. Because this situation has persisted so long, and the campuses' specific needs, so poorly addressed, even if the size of the staff were more in line with other large districts nationwide (Johnson County [KS], Miami-Dade [FL], or Maricopa [AZ]) it is doubtful that the campuses would establish a trust factor that would allow this office to be of assistance.

EVALUATION: It is apparent that the current system, in which the primary research office is located at the district, overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of raw data and requests, is nonfunctional insofar as institutional research is concerned. This office can only in standardized ways respond to the emerging needs of the campuses. Ad hoc querying ability is nonexistent now.

In order to obtain data required for outcomes assessment, accreditation, for annual student equity reports, program review, applications for grants and outside funding, and other activities, the college needs a permanent institutional research capacity and appropriate means for distributing information to those who want it. With Title III Strengthening Institutions funding, we are putting an institutional research data system on-line. Results from this system have already been used on an ad hoc basis for a number of reports and queries. The system cannot be fully automated and will require a position to maintain the existing databases to develop reports and query the system on issues not foreseen presently.

PLAN: The college will recommend that the district as a whole rethink its position on institutional research. A more responsive research capability on each campus is essential, and the college will recommend that the district fully establish and support on-campus research and that the district office focus on what it does now while assisting the researchers on campus.

8C.4 The administration is organized and staffed to reflect institutional purposes, size, and complexity, and to provide economical and effective management.

DESCRIPTION: Reporting to the district chancellor are the vice-chancellors of education services, human resources and business service, the director of information technology, and the district legal counsel. Also reporting to the chancellor are the nine college presidents.

EVALUATION: It is probably more accurate to say that the district is organized and staffed to fulfill its compliance and contractual obligations, which it does. The new chancellor, however, has indicated a strong commitment to leading the district in developing policies and programs that will improve student access and success. If he is to be successful in this endeavor, there will have to be considerable research and staff support from district. District purposes of this sort would reflect college purposes as indicated in the college mission statement and throughout this document.

PLAN: Specific plans have not been published, but they will grow from the chancellor’s Perspective (CD.7).


8B.1 The chief executive fosters appropriate communication among the governing board, staff, and students.

DESCRIPTION: The college president uses a weekly bulletin to foster communication throughout the campus. Additionally, he meets regularly with the AFT chair and Faculty Senate president to handle faculty concerns, with the administrative staff to discuss the administration of the campus, and with the president of the Associated Students Organization on student-related matters.

EVALUATION: The college president supports the work of college organizations such as MPAC and the Academic Senate as well as the classified organizations. He chairs the PAC and occasionally attends Senate meetings. He serves as a college representative on the Chancellor's Cabinet and speaks before the board of trustees on behalf of the college. He communicates educational policy and the aims and objectives of community college education to faculty, students, and the public by writing and speaking to the media.

PLAN: The college will work with the new president to continue the open communication fostered during the past administration.

8B.2 The chief executive has ensured that college policies and procedures are clearly defined, known to the college community, and equitably administered.

DESCRIPTION: The president ensures that college policies are clearly defined through a weekly Bulletin and through minutes of MPAC and its standing committees. Other documents where college policies are defined include the handbooks for faculty, students, and classified employees.

EVALUATION: The college president and other administrators advocate and follow the policies and procedures of the district and modify these to apply to the Mission College campus. While many processes and procedures are slow and there is duplication of effort, the structure is well known and supported by the college administration.

PLAN: No plan has been developed.

8B.3 The chief executive efficiently manages resources, implements priorities controlling budget and expenditures, and ensures the implementation of statutes, regulations, and board policies.

DESCRIPTION: The president actively participates on committees and boards that have access and authority to distribute funds, such as the Commission on Legislation and Finance, the committee to implement the Perkins' Act (vocational funds), Partnership 2000, and Amnesty International. He uses the recommendations of MPAC to create strategies for implementing priorities to control budget and expenditures. And he establishes guidelines for the administrative staff in the implementation of statutes, regulations, and board police.

EVALUATION: Through the efforts of the president, the college has received approximately $1 million per year in external funds, from Amnesty, Partnership 2000, and vocational funds. These funds have been needed to supplement the minimal level of funding received through the state allocation process. The more traditional funding sources such as the Perkins' Act (vocational funds) are shrinking, however, and other sources need to be identified to replace them. Encouraging broad participation and innovative change within the governance structure of the college as a means of improving access and focusing on the student as learner is also a primary concern of the president.

PLAN: As chairman of the CCLC Commission on Legislation and Finance, the president will support programs and policies that will result in increased levels of funding for the college. He will continue to inform the board of trustees and work with the new chancellor to ensure implementation of statutes, regulations, and board policies.

8B.4 The chief executive supports an effective affirmative action policy for staff and students.

The college is bound by the district's policies and guidelines for both affirmative action and staff diversity. The college has an affirmative action officer, who reports directly to the president, and who is the president's representative as chair of the staff diversity committee.

EVALUATION: The college president administers the district affirmative action policy and encourages staff diversity in hiring. He encourages and supports activities to educate faculty, staff, and students about diversity. He supports the affirmative action officer in conducting and evaluating discrimination complaints for satisfactory resolution. He is a member of the Districtwide Affirmative Action Committee.

PLAN: Support of a fair and reasonable affirmative action/staff diversity policy will be a primary goal of the campus.

8B.5 If the institution is part of a state system the chief executive establishes and maintains an effective working relationship with the state system administration.

DESCRIPTION: The president spends considerable time working with the state system administration. Moreover, he has assigned a faculty member significant release time to maintain liaison between the state system and the college.

EVALUATION: Although this working relationship has not solved all of Mission’s problems, it has produced remarkable results. The president and his assistants have recently sealed an agreement with the state to get funding to acquire an additional twenty-nine acres adjacent to the college.

PLAN: New plans may be developed as we now have a new president.

8C.1 The administration supports a decision-making process which is timely and which involves persons in the process who will be affected by the decision.

DESCRIPTION: The college's decision-making process utilizes a system of committees, councils, senates, and organizations to disperse information, to formally discuss issues, and to attain concentaneity. The Mission Planning and Advisory Council meets monthly wherein issues are brought forth through its standing committees, or at the president's option.

EVALUATION: The process is still in transformation. The standing committees are still working on procedures and establishing clear guidelines for moving issues through the committee structure and MPAC. Size and format should be unified. The size of MPAC limits its abilities to be little more than a reviewing body.

PLAN: The new president is carefully evaluating the existing decision-making process and will plan adjustments that he deems necessary.

8C.2 The administration provides leadership and encouragement to the faculty in the improvement of instruction through methods such as the issue of classroom research, educational technology, and innovative methods of instruction.

DESCRIPTION: The former college president did lead and encourage to some degree. He was knowledgeable of the innovative trends in instruction and involved faculty in area workshops and related activities in an attempt to promote the results of their studies.

EVALUATION: But classroom research and the promotion of educational technology has suffered primarily for want of funding.

PLAN: The college plans to encourage the faculty to develop instructional methods and techniques that will be compatible with the Learning Resource Center, which will become operational in the fall of 1996. Although funding will cause limitations, it is anticipated that enrollment growth, the cost of which is less than the revenue that it generates, will leave additional funding for these activities.

8C.3 The administration assures [sic] that institutional research is conducted and that the results are provided to the faculty and the governing board.

DESCRIPTION: This point is addressed at length in 8C.3--District, p 135???

8C.4 The administration is organized and staffed to reflect institutional purposes, size, and complexity, and to provide economical and effective management.

DESCRIPTION: The college's administration consists of seven academic administrators, five classified managers, and a number of faculty/supervisors. The current staffing is consistent with the enrollment of the college. Recently, an associate dean of student services transferred to another institution, and that position was absorbed by reassigning duties between Student Services and Academic Affairs.

EVALUATION: The size of the administrative staff including supervisors appears to be adequate to supervise the institution; however, as the institution grows in complexity and diversity of mission, the management structure could have serious limitations.

There are areas of concern in regard to the ability of the staff to provide adequate leadership in planning and in the areas of Student Services and Academic Affairs. Los Angeles Mission College is unique in that it participates in extensive economic development activities, which consume the majority of the time of one of the deans of Academic Affairs.

THE PLAN: The administrative and supervisory structure will continue to be evaluated, and as the enrollment of the institution grows, the size of administration and supervision will be adjusted accordingly to meet the operational needs and long-term planning needs.

8D.1 The faculty have established and participate in an effective academic or faculty senate or, in the case of private colleges, a formal process for providing input in institutional governance. This faculty organization is able to carry on its responsibilities for academic and professional matters at the college. The college provides support to the faculty to enable it to meet its responsibilities. Appropriate delegation of authority takes place from the local governing board.

DESCRIPTION: The faculty of Los Angeles Mission College have established an Academic Senate. The body is composed of elected representatives from the clusters. Officers are elected at large from the faculty as a whole. The senate meets once each month. The executive board of the senate is composed of the elected officers, and the district academic senators. The president of the senate facilitates communication on the twelve issues of faculty concern that are described in AB 1725.

This body is fully able to carry out its responsibilities at the college. The senate is recognized as the only official body on campus that can speak for the faculty on academic and professional matters.

The college supports the senate in that it provides an amount of released time that enable senate officers to pursue senate business, and also provides the senate with supplies, reprographics, and postage.

There is not yet either an agreement between the district board and district academic senate. The college administration and the academic senate have recently signed a governance agreement.

EVALUATION: The Academic Senate at Los Angeles Mission College conforms with the prevailing belief of the faculty that leadership is best when consensus is established, when all points of view are heard, and when it can delegate authority to committees and act as a coordinating body to carry out recommendations.

The senate takes leadership roles in curriculum, hiring of full-time faculty, and other issues of concern to the faculty. There are five standing committees of the senate: curriculum, hiring, elections, constitution, and academic rank. Faculty are elected to serve on these committees.

For almost a year the Senate worked preparing a governance document that represents the role of the Senate in college governance. It was difficult to obtain agreement because of differing perceptions among the senators of the appropriate role of the Senate in college affairs. These differences also include the issue of release time for faculty.

The president and vice-president of the Senate are meeting regularly with the college president. This is a new development this year. In the past, the senate president has met on a catch-as-catch-can schedule with the college president who was frequently away from the college. How well the intention of meeting with him will work out is yet to be seen. It should be noted that both the senate president and the college president express hope that this more structured approach to meeting will improve communication. The college president has begun this year to include the president and vice-president of the senate in his executive committee meeting. These two faculty members join with the vice-presidents of academic affairs and administration and the dean of students in periodic meetings with the college president. This is seen as a positive move in that the senate now not only has direct access to the college president but is part of a joint decision-making process. One of the advantages of including the vice-president of the senate in these discussions is that the person will also be cognizant of issues.

One of the difficulties that the Academic Senate has experienced over the years is that it frequently passed motions that were ignored by administration. One probable cause of this was that the motions were not always clearly thought through, leading to inappropriate or unclear motions. For this year, the Senate has instituted the resolution process. The maker of a motion must prepare his or her thoughts in the form of a resolution, clarifying in the "whereas" section the reasons for the motion. A resolution is placed before the senate and is voted on at the following senate meeting. This allows time for independent thought, comment from the constituencies that the senators represent, even a general faculty forum to discuss the issue if needed. The resolution process should help clarify senate input into the operation of the college and thus strengthen the body.

One other difficulty that the Academic Senate faces is that it appears many times that the senators themselves do not want responsibility for decisions, and frequently call for not only a senate vote on something but also a vote of the entire faculty on that same issue. A case in point is the recent debate over the cluster system. There are some members of the faculty who have been making a reasoned, written argument that the college consider changing the way in which it is organized. This is opposed by others among the faculty who have responded verbally to these suggestions. The item has come up for discussion at the last several senate meetings of the fall 94 semester, and has been an issue on which a faculty forum has been held. The purpose of these discussions has been to educate both senators and the general faculty members. It is important to remember that senators are elected from the clusters as their representatives. At the last meeting of the Academic Senate, it was repeatedly suggested that after the vote on this issue at the December senate meeting that the entire faculty vote on this issue. This is an apparent rejection of responsibility on the part of the Senate. Also, in the past, when the president of the Academic Senate has written to faculty or to the college president, individual faculty members have questioned the authority of the senate president to do so until such time as the president has consulted all the faculty, and most specifically, those making the complaint. It would then appear that the legitimacy of the Senate is an issue to be resolved and that its ability to make decisions of importance and the ability of the elected officers to do their work representing the faculty is in question by the very people whom the senate represents on academic and professional matters.

PLAN: It is clear that the faculty must decide on the role of the Senate: to wit, whether it is a social organization where heated, non-binding debate takes place or a representative body empowered to act on the behalf of faculty without seeking absolute consensus of the entire faculty on every issue before it can act.

8D.2 The role and responsibility of the faculty, through its academic senate or faculty organization, is clearly defined in written policy.

DESCRIPTION: The Senate does have a constitution, revised in 1984, which defines the role of the Senate, election to the Senate, responsibilities of the Senate officers, subcommittees of the Senate, and membership in the faculty association (8.6).

The Senate has not adopted an ethics policy.

EVALUATION: In most areas the lack of a written policy has not noticeably affected the role or participation of faculty in the governance of the college. Faculty members are active on campus committees, and their voices are often the pragmatic ones. When appointed to a committee by the senate, or elected to one of the standing senate committees, faculty generally well represent the senate and its position.

There has been a reluctance on the part of the faculty to formally adopt an ethics statement. The concept of the faculty adopting the AAUP ethics statement has floated for several years at Mission College, brought up by individual faculty members and administration alike. It is not at all clear why there is this reluctance; perhaps it is because the faculty perceive themselves as (1) behaving in an ethical manner already and wondering about the wisdom of codifying something that exists de facto, or (2) being already overregulated and are concerned that having a written ethics statement will bring additional regulation and its attendant problems and bureaucracy, or (3) being under siege from all sides and angles and worrying about the possibility of an ethics policing role for each other or some nonfaculty person. While either, or some combination, of these may be the case, it would be most beneficial to the faculty if the issue were put to rest by the adoption of a policy statement on ethics.

PLAN: The Senate will appraise the current constitution and begin the necessary revision processes if changes are needed. The Senate will adopt an ethics statement.

8D.3 The role and participation of the faculty on various policy-making, planning, and special purpose bodies is clearly stated in written policy.

DESCRIPTION: There appears to be no written policy delineating the role of faculty on policy-making, planning, and special purpose bodies. There are some cases where written committee definitions include specific numbers of faculty; in many cases, however, this is often done informally and by general consensus. To the extent that this represents a general commitment of the faculty and the college to faculty involvement in policy-making, planning, and special purpose bodies it is laudable.

Faculty make up the single largest group on the matriculation, budget, petitions, student grievance, and curriculum committees, all of which have campuswide implications. The new student equity committee, still in formation, will have a faculty chair, and probably a majority of faculty serving on it.

The Mission Planning and Advisory Council (MPAC) is viewed by many employees on campus as the major policy making body on campus. There is a definition of MPAC, its roles, and its make up. Faculty have the largest single block of votes.

EVALUATION: One problem more pressing than the role of faculty on committees, however, is the lack of coordination among major campuswide governing committees. It is frequently the case that each committee operates independently and undertakes its own agenda with little understanding of the other needs of the college and with little understanding of its own needs for coordination with other committees. This is a source of constant conflict, wonderment, and frustration for faculty and staff alike as they attempt to accomplish their work with students. To this end, two faculty members have developed a proposal, Improvement: Continuous And Neverending (ICAN), which has recently been instituted. The purpose of ICAN is to meld the master plan, program review, accreditation, and other interests and concerns of a collegewide nature into workable plans and assessment that have definition and support from all major functions on the campus. It will, in effect, become the primary means of coordination and policy recommendation on campus, subject to the approval of MPAC, the president, and the Academic Senate. It is populated by the chairs of the curriculum, campus development, information technology, staff development, student equity, and budget committees; by the presidents of the Academic Senate, the Classified Senate, and Associated Students Organization; by the college president; and by representatives of Academic Affairs, accreditation, Administrative Services, and Student Services.

With the growing number of issues reaching the Senate, lack of adequate housing for the Senate and its records is a serious concern.

PLAN: We plan to continue the current de facto system and make adjustments or write definitions only in those cases where there is a absolute need for such. The college will provide the Academic Senate with a permanent office space.

8D.4 The faculty have and exercise a substantial voice in matters of educational program, faculty personnel, and other matters of institutional policy which relate to their areas of responsibility and expertise.

DESCRIPTION: The faculty does have and exercises a substantial voice in matters relevant to educational program, faculty personnel, and institutional policy related to their area of expertise. This is accomplished through the committee structure involving the Council of Instruction, the Curriculum Committee, ICAN, Hiring Committee, PAC, and Staff Development, to name a few. The Schedule of Classes is developed by discipline-specific faculty working through the cluster chairs who coordinate with the Office of Academic Affairs. The recently signed governance agreement between the Academic Senate and the President delineates the substantial role the faculty has in the governance of the college.

EVALUATION: The college structure provides ample opportunity for the faculty to participate in matters concerning academia. However, the number who actually participate is small. The same names reoccur from committee to committee.

PLAN: The college will develop a process to ensure that all programs and activities will undergo a program review over the next five years.

8D.5 It is considered part of each faculty member's professional responsibility to participate in committees and the governance structure of the institution.

DESCRIPTION: The faculty is expected to participate in committees and the governance structure of the institution. The contractual obligation for participation is clear in the Agreement, Art. 32; 13, 6c. There are a number of committees and councils that faculty can choose from, in which to participate in planning and governing the college. Faculty represent the largest contingency on most campus committees. The Academic Senate, the governing body of the faculty, has broad representation from the three clusters.

EVALUATION: As is generally seen in most organizations, a few carry the weight of the entire structure. As this is a small college and an even smaller full-time faculty than that in most colleges, it makes it even more difficult for the active faculty to carry out compliance issues, not to mention pursing concerns beyond compliance. Although participation of particular faculty members in committees and governance is apparent, there has never in the history of this college been any measurable attempt to enforce the obligations of Article 32, 13, 63. This lack of enforcement has led to an increasing sense of frustration on the part of those who agree to carry the responsibilities for the entire college. For many years, this has been a problem.

PLAN: Because the Agreement addresses the issue of faculty participation in committees, an effort will be made to include this in the peer evaluation process. The adoption of an ethics statement by the Academic Senate will also provide an additional emphasis.

8D.6 Where appropriate, there exists a workable written delineation of functions between the bargaining agent and the senate.

DESCRIPTION: The Agreement and the Academic Senate Constitution define the functions of each organization. There is no additional written delineation of functions. It is very clear that the AFT is to address issues concerning working environment and employment conditions, whereas the Academic Senate is to address issues concerning academic matters.

EVALUATION: Nonetheless, it is not clear to many faculty what the difference in the roles of the collective bargaining agent and the Senate actually are. At the local level, successful efforts have been made to establish a good working relationship between the two groups.

PLAN: At this point there is no burning need to develop a written delineation of functions.

8D.7 (For multi-college systems only.) If the system is served by a system or district senate, the relationship between the college and the district senate and the relationship between the district senate and the governing board are clearly defined.

DESCRIPTION: The president and three district representatives of the college Academic Senate attend monthly meetings of the District Academic Senate. The president of the Academic Senate also attends monthly meetings of the District Senate Executive Committee. The District Academic Senate serves as the official voice of the combined faculties of the district on academic and professional matters. This body does not, however, deprive any individual academic senate of its right of direct access to the chancellor or board of trustees.

EVALUATION: This relationship works relatively well at keeping the local senates appraised of the actions of the board and chancellor. For example, if a trustee proposes a board action that is not, in the opinion of the senate, in the best interest of the colleges, the district senate through its president will suggest changes and or compromises. This system is time-consuming, but often effective. The district meetings are rotated among the various campuses resulting in long commutes at times. Communication is also a problem as there is so much material to disseminate.

PLAN: The district senate is working to redefine its function. The district senate is also planning to institute regular meetings between the college senate presidents and the chancellor and his cabinet. The district senate is planning to institute a quarterly publication which will focus upon education and political matters of concern to faculty and academic senates.

8E.1 An organization of support staff personnel, if established, has well-defined responsibilities and functions.

DESCRIPTION: The support staff at Mission College consists of approximately 100 classified employees, filling a variety of job classifications, developed and maintained by the Personnel Commission of the Los Angeles Community College District. The positions have well-defined responsibilities and functions, with appropriate assignment in all aspects of the college, from Plant Facilities to the President's Office, by clerical, custodial, staff and management personnel.

The Los Angeles Community College District has recently approved a Classified Restructuring Plan, which was initiated in an effort to update the classification structure and to provide equitable salary relationships among the classes within the structure.

EVALUATION: The college staff are well trained and cognizant of the duties of the positions for which they have been hired. The ability to keep up with changing processes and methods of doing business, as a result of automation and technology, is limited because of funding and limited number of staff.

The Classified Restructuring Plan, when implemented, will impact a significant number of classified personnel at Mission College through title changes or salary adjustments. In the past year, some members of the clerical staff participated in a series of staff development workshops, and several support staff attended a self-help group which meets once a month to discuss problems and successes on the computer.

PLAN: The college, with funds from staff development and staff diversity, will hold six workshops a year for classified personnel to support increased proficiency and understanding of the student as client and of new processes and procedures, such as the role of Admissions and Records staff relative to telephone registration.

8E.2 The role of the support staff in various governing, planning, budgeting, and policy-making bodies is made clear and public.

DESCRIPTION: Support staff bargaining constituencies were represented on the committee that was formed to accomplish the Classified Restructuring Plan.

The support staff is represented by the AFT Technical and Clerical Unit, the Building and Trades Council, Safety and Police Unit, Classified Management Association, and the Supervisory Unit. Representatives from each of these units are voting members of MPAC and various subcommittees (Budget, Campus Development, Information Technology).

In 1990, a Classified Senate was developed with the support of the faculty and administration and began defining itself and its role in the governance of the campus.

EVALUATION: The support staff is well represented. However, there is a certain divisiveness implicit in the number of bargaining units involved. The Classified Senate was developed as an umbrella organization which could provide unified leadership on the various policy-making, budget, and planning committees of the campus.

In December, 1993, the Senate was relegated to a social organization by the AFT Technical and Clerical Unit. Although the Senate has continued to support the needs of the college, this decision put barriers in the way of a unified organization which could be the voice of the classified staff.

PLAN: There is strong support for the bargaining agents to rethink their position with regard to the Classified Senate, both for Mission College and for the district.

8E.3 There exists a well-developed program of staff development for the support staff.

DESCRIPTION: The staff development committee has become more active in providing on-campus activities for the support staff of the college. In the last two years, through its efforts, several programs have begun: Connections, a program of instruction relating to customer satisfaction and support; Continuous College Improvement, a program to enhance meeting and team skills directly related to college goals; and English Language Writing Skills, designed to improve the grammar and basic writing skills of the support staff. Several other avenues for staff development are open to college support staff: attending noncollege seminars, and attending annual support staff conferences sponsored by the district.

EVALUATION: In the past, there were more limited staff development activities available to the support staff. Part of this was due to the staff development activities, and monies, being focused on attendance at conferences by faculty and administrators. In the last three years, the Staff Development Committee has changed its policies, limiting to 30% of its allocation the total spent on conferences, and devoting the remaining monies to on-campus activities. Support staff are now represented on the Committee, and comprise one-third of the Committee membership. All of this has increased support staff interest in and attendance at staff development activities. Over the past three years, the Staff Development Committee undertook numerous on-campus activities, and in all of them support staff participated, including activities designed for the faculty’s Instructional Improvement Activities obligation.

Four sections of the Connections program have been attend by thirty-six of the support staff. Connections is a packaged program designed to increase the institution’s sensitivity to students as the consumers of our services. All who participated received certificates. Satisfaction surveys from the participants indicate that over ninety percent of the staff enjoyed and learned from the program, and recommended that the program be continued.

The Staff Development Committee has recently begun a Continuos College Improvement program. One twenty-four hour training program has been held, with eighteen college employees attending the training. In this, support staff comprised half of the participants. Without exception, the support staff indicated to the Staff Development Committee that they learned much about meetings and team work from the Continuous College Improvement program and that they would recommend it to others.

In response to requests from support staff, the Staff Development Committee developed and conducted an English Language Writing Skills workshop. Approximately twenty support staff attended. For some it was a refresher course, while for others it was a real learning experience. Participants learned rules and conventions of writing, including sentence development, paragraph development, punctuation, and other important topics designed to improve their ability to work with the reports and letters they must accomplish as part of their jobs. This program also appears to have been well received by those attending, and there has been a request to have a follow-on session.

Additionally, over the past year, opportunities such as the Mosaic Workplace series, learning strategies, and others have been held on campus in which support staff have participated.

Two years ago the Staff Development Committee supported the beginning of the Mission Users’ Group (MUG) to bring together, monthly, people using computers in the workplace so that they could learn new things and learn from each other about computers. This group met successfully for about a year, and since then has not met. It appears that the problem is that no one person highly knowledgeable in computer use and issues was directly focused on making the MUG a success, despite efforts to involve the computer science faculty and lab staff.

The Staff Development Committee has also funded off-campus training programs for individual support staff members. However, because the focus of the committee is on providing training on campus, there are not many opportunities available for support staff to go off campus for training.

These efforts do indicate a need for more on-campus activities for support staff to attend to improve their knowledge base, both generally, professionally, and job-specifically.

PLAN: The Staff Development Committee will develop follow-on training in these areas:

The Staff Development Committee will, in designing these activities, consider:

The Staff Development Committee will survey the support staff to determine their needs vis-à-vis activities that will attract and satisfy the needs of support staff for professional development activities.

Standard 8F Students

8F.1 A student governing body, if established, has well-defined responsibilities and functions.

DESCRIPTION: The student government at the college consists of three branches: the Executive Board, the Executive Senate, and the Supreme Court. The Executive Board consists of the ASO president, ASO vice-president, ASO treasurer, and the ASO secretary. The Executive Board meets with the Executive Senate of the ASO which legislates all resolution, bylaws, and codes which govern the organization.

The Executive Council is made up of ten senators, selected by the Executive Board. The council's purpose is to provide student representation in all areas, including, but not limited to, issues affecting students and the community.

The Supreme Court of the judicial branch of the ASO consists of four justices and one chief justice. The Supreme Court presides and interprets ASO constitutional laws and regulation. This body is empowered to render judgment arising from disputes and questions brought forth by ASO members.

EVALUATION: The ASO presently seems to be in a state of disarray. Members have not attended meetings of bodies that they are assigned to, and the president intends to resign. Their administrative leader, the associate dean of student affairs, has recently transferred to another college.

PLAN: Because of a recent reorganization of the administration of Student Services, the dean of Student Services will now be more directly involved than previously in the ASO. He will soon be submitting to the president a new plan for the revitilization of the organization.

8F.2 The role of students in various governing, planning, budgeting, and policy-making bodies is made clear and public.

DESCRIPTION: The Associated Students Organization receives funding from voluntary student fees. These funds are the income that make up the budget. Funds are budgeted for ASO operations, supplies, conferences, services, as well as providing funds for clubs and special events on campus. Examples of special campus events include the President's Honors Reception, commencement, and special ethnic and multicultural activities. The ASO has one or two representatives on the following college committees: Budget, Curriculum, MPAC, Campus Development, Accreditation, Staff Diversity/Affirmative Action, Crisis Intervention, Council of Instruction, ITAC, Master Plan, and Work Environment.

EVALUATION: The student governing body has well defined responsibilities and functions. The role of students in various governing, planning, budgeting, and policy-making bodies is not always clear and not necessarily public. On some committees students have a voice but no vote. On other committees students do have one or two votes which, while limited, is a milestone toward the concept of shared governance. Many instructors are reluctant to give students input on major college decisions as there is concern that the vision of the students is limited by their experience and the fact that their stay at the college will be very short in comparison to the long range effect of the decision. Many students are unaware that they can be involved in student government and others that are cognizant of the process do not feel that they have the time to give nor want to be involved or do not see that they have anything to contribute. There is a general lack of involvement of the faculty and staff in clubs and other ASO activities.

PLAN: A strong ASO Executive Board must inform the student government of their options for participation so more students can choose to be involved. The college needs stronger support by the faculty and staff for student activities such as sponsors for clubs and involvement in student activities. The ASO is also looking into the possibility of mandatory ASO fees in order to better support and promote the activities of the organization.

Works Cited

8.1 Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. Statement.

of Ethics and Conduct.

8.2 Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees Policy on Authority of Individual Board Members.

8.3 Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees, E-65.

8.4 Los Angeles Community College District. Organizational Chart.

8.5 Jones, David E. Various Memorandums [[[locate]]]]

8.6 Los Angeles Mission College, Academic Senate Constitution