Home

1. A comprehensive strategic plan needs to be developed by the college that should include program review, a specific plan of action of how it will address all that is required to fully implement the new Library and Learning Resource Center, and how it will address similar building projects in the future.

The history of planning at the college includes a 1990 master plan produced with the help of the consulting firm, The Sage Institute, a 1994 master planning effort produced with the consultants, Maas, Rau, and Taylor, a 1996 master plan called Odyssey 2001, produced by college faculty and the college ICAN planning committee, and the 1998 mission statement and goals that are the result of an effort assisted by two consultants from the Executive Service Corporation. Most recently the campus Planning Committee with the assistance of a new Associate Dean of College Research and Institutional Development has modified the mission statement and goals to make them more measurable and added strategies and key indicators to each goal.

In the 1999-2000 academic year three events at the college occurred simultaneously that significantly moved the planning process forward. They include the hiring of an associate dean of research with expertise in assessment and planning, the appointment of a permanent president with experience in planning and institutional effectiveness measures, and the attendance at three consecutive California Assessment Institutes by college faculty and administrators. These three occurrences conjoined to produce a decision among several constituencies to steer the planning effort towards an assessment and planning process that would, it was hoped, finally integrate a means of ensuring effectiveness in every segment of the college. By the fall semester of 2000 this effort was advancing on all fronts.

In that semester, the college planning committee authorized the purchase of Plan Builder (now Quality Builder), a planning software that assists functional units within the college to write measurable objectives based on the college goals. The goals are then tied to specific performance indicators so that planning is influenced by an evaluation of the outcomes of the objectives. At the same time the planning committee approved a statement describing the assessment process at the college, a set of assumptions about assessment and planning, and the strategies and performance indicators themselves. 

At the time of this writing the college is making its first trial run using the process and the software by allocating Performance for Excellence funds to units who have made plans written in measurable terms using Quality Builder. Plans are also underway to produce the first planning document, tied all resource allocation, using Quality Builder, by the 2000-2001 academic year.

The history of the dialogue between WASC and the college on the subject of planning includes the 1995 Self Study and the Commission response, the 1997 Midterm Report and the response, and a 1998 Progress Report and, again, the response. In each case the college documented its progress on planning and the Commission, in return, urged that more progress be made.

With the current adoption by the college of an Assessment and Planning process and the adoption of software to assist in assuring that all units conform to the process, the college has made significant gains in assuring the Commission of its commitment to planning. The college may now be considered to be among the leaders in the State in assuring institutional effectiveness.

2. The district and college need to ameliorate the disparity that exists between full and part-time faculty ratios in order to better meet the needs of the college's diverse students.

In the Midterm Report, the college stated that it planned to hire more full-time faculty as funds enabled. The District was quoted as stating that no additional funding would be provided to the college for this purpose, but that the new budget allocation formula under consideration would provided needed flexibility. In the commission's response to the Midterm Report, the recommendation as stated above, was not addressed further. It would appear the commission was satisfied that the college would make progress toward the 75/25 ideal ratio as the fiscal situation allowed.

Standard Seven of this Self-Study addresses this concern again, six years later. It asserts that the college remains woefully short of full-time faculty. The budgetary concerns of the last several years have been alleviated by several factors, including a new allocation formula, as predicted. The new permanent president has made progress toward the 75/25 ideal a high priority and has pledged to make measurable progress each of the next three years. Five full-time hires are planned for the spring semester of 2001 and another five for the fall. This will improve the ratio by eight percent.

3. The district and the college need to develop a long-term fiscal plan to properly provide for an appropriate level of college and district reserves and to publish and disseminate this information widely.

The Midterm Report somewhat inadequately responded to the recommendation on fiscal planning since it was written at a time of budgetary shortfall in the district as a whole. The commission's response to the report was that despite the college's commendable efforts at obtaining external funding, college and district budget planning remained an area that required immediate attention. Subsequently, the college's Progress Report, fortunately, was able to report that in July of 1998, the district had begun a process of reform and decentralization in response to the substantial financial problems. 

The reform effort included a new budget allocation model. The college, under the new model, was able to end that year with a budget surplus. Long range fiscal planning at the college, as reported in Standard Nine, has now become practicable. As the assessment process takes hold, financial planning will be tied to measurable objectives and assessment outcomes.

In the district self-study (Standard Nine, C.4) there is a statement that they anticipate an ending balance for the 1999-2000 fiscal year approximating $38.3 million. They state that approximately $18.5 million of this belongs to the colleges. In the district response to the matrix questions posed in the Multi-College Pilot Program, a 4% contingency reserve is budgeted for the same fiscal year.

4. The college needs to define its governance groups and clearly describe their functions, purposes, and limitations of authority, their interrelations and goals and widely disseminate this information.

The Midterm Report by the college focused on the reorganization of the cluster/departments as a response to the commission's recommendation. There was also a statement about the college decision-making process in which the planning committee at the time (ICAN) had recommended a review of all standing committees and their reorganization. There was to be a shared governance committee called the Mission Planning and Coordinating Council to replace the former Mission Planning and Advisory Council. There was discussion of the shared governance agreement and some examples of the proposed process to work as it was conceived. A detailed account of the organization of the Academic Senate was presented. Absent was a discussion of other governance committees and their functions. The Commission responded that the report was vague and that the "formidable task of defining the shared governance process is deemed essential."

The ensuing Progress Report clarified several issues and reported progress in each area. By 1997, the discipline organizational structure (the cluster system), which had been little understood for many years, was finally transformed into a conventional department structure with departments designed to contain disciplines with common educational goals. The reporting structure for faculty was made more logical as a result. In order to define the roles of governance committees, a task force was appointed. The shared governance committee was re-titled the Mission President's Coordinating Council (MPCC). Its membership was defined and a charter written. The standing committees were re-established with their membership and charters for each were written. The planning committee, (ICAN) was re-organized into three committees, College Evaluation, Institutional Accreditation, and Master Planning. For the last three years, the governance structure has functioned under this plan.

With the appointment of a permanent president, the governance structure has again being re-examined (see Standard 10). Two factors have motivated this. One, the establishing of an assessment and planning process has made it imperative that the planning committee include the functions of assessment and two, the lack of effectiveness of MPCC and the Budget Committee, among others, indicate a need for further reform.

The Commission requested that information on two issues mentioned in the Progress Report be included in the self-study:

The outcomes of the current discussions on the reorganization of college/district functions and relationships.

Evidence that the district has achieved fiscal stability and has achieved an appropriate discretionary operating reserve.

1. The outcomes of the current discussions on the reorganization of college/district functions and relationships.

The Multi-College Pilot Program, in which Mission, Valley and Pierce colleges have been participating, produced a matrix of questions covering all aspects of the district/college relationships with regard to every Standard. Over 400 questions were presented to the Chancellor in February 2000. At that time all involved were made aware that there was a fundamental lack of understanding of the decentralization process then underway. The Chancellor immediately directed the district division heads to create a detailed report on their newly defined functions as a result of decentralization. These papers, in turn, were turned into a series of functional maps that specifically detail the various district/college relationships. The district also answered the matrix questions soon thereafter and the answers together with the maps form a highly revealing and detailed analysis of the outcome of decentralization at the time of this writing. A third source of information on decentralization is provided by the district's self-study.

2. Evidence that the district has achieved fiscal stability and has achieved an appropriate discretionary operating reserve.

The Final Budget for the district dated August of 2000 in the section entitled Overview, page seven, subsection four, specifically enumerates the fact that there is a 4% operating reserve. The district self-study under Standard Nine, B. 2 indicates that in fiscal 1999-2000 there is an ending balance of $38.3 million. $18.5 million of this amount is located in the college budgets. In C.4, the district states, "In the adopted budget allocation model, the district has a plan to increase its contingency reserve to 5% within the three-year period. The contingency reserve fund is only available to use for emergency or catastrophic events and must be approved by 5 of the 7 Board members.

In section B.3 the district states, "The District is responsible for the retirement of bonded indebtedness and repayment of all long-term liabilities. The "General Long-term Debt Account Group" (Reported on Audited Financial Statements, June 30,1999-audited by Price Waterhouse Coopers L.L.P.) accounts for the District’s long-term debt and manages long-term portions of employee vacation benefits; workers’ compensation claims payable, and insurance premiums payable.