DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

A Board of Trustees, whose members are elected at large by eligible members of the public for four-year terms of office, governs the Los Angeles Community College District. Voters choose three members at one election and four members at another two years later. The Board elects the president and vice president for one-year terms at the annual organizational and regular meeting. A student member is elected annually in accordance with Article X, Chapter II of the Board Rules (10.1).

The Board sets policy by establishing Board Rules (Chapter VI, VII) (10.2) based on California statutes such as Title 5, and by doing so, it oversees the academic standards and fiscal practices of the college. The Board receives regular reports from the district chancellor, ensures oversight through regular program review, and periodically reviews Mission College's self-study reports. In addition, the chancellor, who is the Board’s designee, evaluates each college president annually and then submits those reviews to the Board. Under the provisions of Chapter XVIII (10.3), the Board relies on the District and College Academic Senates to monitor the curriculum.

The Board of Trustees regularly revises and updates the Board Rules based on actions at its monthly meetings. Most recently, at its meeting on April 12, 2000 (10.4), the Board approved the revised and updated Decentralization/Restructuring Policy for the district and its nine colleges. The chancellor, who is the Board’s designee in the area of overall assessment of the total district’s operation, also has made a concerted effort to empower the college presidents in this area with respect to their institutions.

The Board selects and evaluates both the chancellor, based on the employment contract and in accordance with state regulations, and the college presidents, according to Board Rule 10308 (10.5). The Board appoints all other officers according to the procedures outlined in the Personnel Guide (10.6).

The Education Code governing community colleges, Section 70902 (10.7), defines the duties of the Board of Trustees, and Chapter II, Article III of the Board Rules (10.8) outlines these duties. The Board conducts an annual review of its performance. However, according to the district's self-study, no formal orientation procedure is in place for new Board members.

A Board sub-committee on accreditation reviews reports and progress on college self-studies and reports to the full Board. The district is directly participating in the Multi-College Pilot Project (10.9) involving the accreditation process currently underway at Mission, Pierce, and Valley. The three self-study teams prepared a matrix of questions (10.10) to which the district responded, and it has prepared its own self-study that was used as a reference in Mission's self-study.

SELF EVALUATION

Since the voters elect the Board, continuity of membership beyond the staggered terms is not guaranteed. However, history shows the voters often re-elect trustees to additional four-year terms, so continuity does in fact occur although the election process ensures that new trustees may be brought on board.

However, trustees are not elected by region, so the public may not feel they are adequately represented. Historically low voter turnout in trustee elections may be the result of this and a general lack of interest in community college governance. Faculty and staff unions have a concomitantly powerful role in the support of their endorsed candidates, so union members' interests are therefore well represented.

According to the district self-study, "…the LACCD (Board of Trustees) has realized diverse representation as to gender, ethnicity, and geographical location. Additionally, district-wide elections generally provide for greater policy objectivity, versus a more specific geographical focus associated with a trustee district type set-up." It goes on to state that, "Pending legislation may require board members to be elected by trustee districts. The District has taken a position not to oppose this legislative action."

College faculty and staff (11.11) perceive the Board to be weak in both leadership and effectiveness in ensuring high quality programs at the college. Only 21% of faculty and staff believed that the Board was effective in ensuring high quality educational programs and services at the college (FSS, #88). Similarly, only 16% of faculty and staff perceived the Board to be providing effective leadership and direction to the college (FSS, #89).

The high percentage of neutral responses to both of these statements (44% and 49%, respectively) may indicate that college faculty and staff are unaware of or lack sufficient information to evaluate the Board's performance in these areas.

The Board recently agreed upon new procedures for the approval of programs and courses. According to the district self-study, "During the 1999-2000 school year, E-65 (10.12), Curriculum Approval: Standards and Procedures underwent significant review and revision. The responsibility for faculty oversight in the development and approval of curriculum, which includes ensuring the quality of new courses, was delegated almost entirely to the colleges" (10.13). These procedures, when implemented, will allow Mission to control the development of its own curriculum based on the needs of its constituencies. While this local autonomy can be seen as an advantage because the process will be more flexible, it places more responsibility on the campus Curriculum Committee to work competently.

The district has implemented or is in the process of implementing many of the other decentralization elements in the Decentralization/Restructuring Policy, primarily in the areas of education services and curriculum. Additionally, efforts are underway to provide the colleges with more direct jurisdiction involving contracts under $100,000. The computer systems upgrade program currently underway is another key component toward providing the colleges with greater degrees of local autonomy.

As a result of meetings that took place for the self-study pilot program, district personnel realized that the colleges did not understand the decentralization policy. To remedy this, the district issued a series of reports detailing the current and proposed effects of decentralization (10.14).

In its self-study, the district states that "…the Rules and Regulations are sometimes confusing when compared with other policy and procedure documents that exist such as Personnel Commission Laws and Rules, collective Bargaining Agreements, Business Procedures, Personnel Guides, and processing forms." The self-study also states that some policies have not been reviewed in a timely manner.

The Board developed a new procedure in the spring of 2000 for the selection of college presidents that allows for more community and faculty involvement. This included a strong effort to increase the quality of the pool of candidates. The new president of Mission was the first president selected using this process, and the college community experienced the process as more inclusive and effective.

Since some have questioned the consistency and thoroughness of the evaluation processes in the past, the district has instituted a new process for evaluating district administrators, including the college presidents. According to the district self-study, "an outside consultant is brought in to conduct personal interviews to ascertain goals and objectives and (conduct) interviews with campus and LACCD constituency groups' performance perceptions of these administrators."

According to the responses that the district provided to the matrix questions (10.15), the Board approved a form for self-evaluation in 1996 although it only recently initiated the process. The district self-study asserts that the governing parameters set forth in the Education Code and in its own internal rules and regulations provide the checks and balances necessary for effective compliance with standards for governing boards.

However, some problems have surfaced during the decentralization process when the Board made decisions on participatory governance concerning academic and professional matters that were contrary to Title 5. The state chancellor's office also required the Board to rescind several decisions due to the lack of participation on the part of the District Academic Senate (10.16).

Although no plans for orienting new Board members are in place, the Board recognizes that it needs such a plan.

Mission prepared its self-study report for this standard by incorporating the answers provided in the district self-study and the answers to the matrix questions. The chancellor is acting as liaison in keeping the Board informed about the pilot program’s progress. A number of meetings with the three colleges' administration, the self-study teams, and the district administration, including the chancellor, have taken place. These have led to remarkable documents clarifying the decentralization process and other matters (10.17). The raised level of communication between the district and the colleges in matters pertaining to the standards is seen as a positive outcome of the Multi-College Pilot Program. The college recommends that these discussions continue.

B. Institutional Administration and Governance

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

Under the current reporting structure, providing information to the president occurs in four formal ways. First, the president holds weekly informational meetings with her executive staff (the three vice presidents and all deans) to discuss campus topics, delegate authority over appropriate issues, and follow-up on past issues.

Other ways include consultation with the bargaining agent as the contract requires, consultation with the Academic Senate as Title 5 requires, and meetings of the President’s Council, a participatory governance committee that replaced the Mission President’s Coordinating Council (MPCC) and is composed of members representing constituent groups on campus and the chairs of standing committees (10.19). Currently, the standing campus committees advise the president through the President's Council. In addition, the president has an open-door policy. A new campus organizational chart displays the college’s reporting structure that takes effect in the spring of 2001 (10.18).

The president is also involved in the Assessment and Planning Committee (10.19), which has established a new mission statement for the college and seven goals designed to help the college achieve its purpose. The committee is now furthering the new assessment and planning process (10.20).

Following a period of severe budget cutbacks and declining enrollment, careful enrollment management (increasing WSCH/FTE) has allowed the college to experience accelerating growth and, as a result, near maximum utilization of existing facilities, specifically during prime scheduling hours. For these reasons, the physical expansion of the college is a priority. The president is leading the development of a facilities master plan (10.21) as part of the overall assessment and planning process described in Standard 3.

Another area of concern for the president is the need to increase ties with the community in the service area of the college. The Community Advisory Council, a committee of community members, administration, faculty, and staff, meets every quarter. The president is also an active member of business and service organizations in the community and meets one-on-one with many representative community members.

In regard to resources and expenditures, Board Rules, Title 5, district regulations, and various other statutes guide the president in implementing policies. The president delegates to the vice president of administrative services the authority to carry out fiscal policy decisions. The vice president of student services carries out policies related to student support services, and the vice president of academic affairs implements policy decisions related to the instructional program.

The current administrative structure consists of a president, three vice presidents, three deans, and two associate deans. Other administrative components at the college include faculty on assignment to oversee special programs, such as Project Accelerated College Education (PACE), Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS), Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSP&S), the Child Care Center, and other specially funded programs (Title III, One Stop, Foster Care, etc.).

The president attempts to make an effective teaching and learning environment possible by providing leadership while staying within the governance structure of the college. By consulting with different constituent groups, the president attempts to expand programs, add classes, and arrange creative scheduling within the current structure and limited resources.

Minimum qualifications for administrative positions are the result of consultation between the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the appropriate statewide organization of administrators, the local board, and the campus. Typically, educational administrators must possess a master’s degree with varying years and types of experience. Job announcements contain references to the duties and responsibilities of college administrators (10.22).

The campus organizational chart outlines the duties and responsibilities of each administrator while the campus governance chart provides the role of administrators in the governance of the institution. The Board determines the selection process and publishes it in the Los Angeles Community College District Board Rules and the Personnel Guide.

A participatory governance document created and approved in August of 1996 under Title 5 is currently in place (10.23). To some degree, this document defines the role of the Academic Senate in governance. However, an active Academic Senate comprised of 12 senators elected for two-year terms and representing the faculty clearly provides input into the governance structure of the college. Also included in the document is specific institutional support for faculty participation, such as release time. The Agreement between the Los Angeles Community College District and the AFT College Guild (10.24) defines the role of the union.

The faculty is organized into departments composed of one or more disciplines. Article 17 of the Agreement (10.25) defines the role of the department chairs, which includes playing a substantive role in program and curriculum development, scheduling, hiring of faculty, evaluating faculty, and providing budget oversight.

Faculty members participate on a wide range of committees with varying degrees of influence on governance. The administration primarily relies upon the Academic Senate Faculty Hiring Committee and the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee for the implementation of appropriate policies under Title 5.

All standing committees (10.26), including Assessment and Planning, have charters written with Title 5 in mind. These specify committee membership, which includes faculty, staff, and student representation. The Classified Senate (10.27) represents a coalition of all classified employees in governance issues where various staff guild bargaining agreements allow. Staff members representing unions participate on appropriate policy, planning, and special purpose committees.

For students, the new Student Handbook (10.28) states that the Associated Students Organization (ASO) provides a means of student/faculty interaction and, by implication, the means for student involvement in campus governance.

SELF EVALUATION

The appointment of a permanent president at the college has aided in the elimination of a number of long-standing governance issues. Most importantly, the president is leading the college toward significant progress in adopting the new assessment and planning process.

Survey results pertaining to the college president reflect the experiences of the previous occupant of this position. Faculty and staff (10.29) had a positive perception of the college president's ability to foster good campus-wide communication [49 percent favorable, FSS #90]. However, perceptions of the president's leadership were only 36 percent favorable, [FSS #91] and perceptions of management skills were only 35 percent favorable [FSS #92]. These results are not too surprising given the temporary nature of the previous president's position. However, as evidenced by the high percentage of neutral responses to these questions, faculty and staff may be either unaware of or lack sufficient information to evaluate the president's performance in these areas.

The MPCC and its standing committees, which had been the college governance structure in effect since 1997, had been established based on concepts necessary to participatory governance at that time, but by the end of the 1999 academic year, it had become ineffective. Faculty and staff give low ratings to the effectiveness of MPCC in ensuring the quality of educational programs and services [26 percent favorable, FSS #88] and in providing leadership and direction to the college [25 percent favorable, FSS #89]. However, according to the high proportion of neutral responses (over 45 percent) relating to these functions, most faculty and staff are not sufficiently informed to have an opinion.

The new president carried out an analysis that indicates reports from standing committees necessary for the MPCC to act as an advisory body were often neither given nor available. Many times the committees could not act due to a lack of quorum and members frequently canceled meetings. Record keeping was uneven and for some standing committees nonexistent.

The president, as part of the assessment and planning process, proposed an alternative participatory governance structure (10.30), which the MPCC unanimously approved on November 13, 2000 (10.31). While the reporting structure remains essentially the same, due to the requirements of an assessment policy, decision-making is substantially different. All planning decisions will be based on measurable objectives tied to performance indicators. No units in the college are exempt from this. A basic assumption is that all resources will be allocated in the process. The President's Council, the body that replaces the MPCC, will have the ultimate responsibility to review priorities, but decisions will be based on agreed-upon criteria that stem from the mission and goals of the college.

The president is also assessing the relative distribution of authority among the vice presidents. Without a permanent college president, the vice president of administrative services has had to make many decisions affecting other divisions in the last few years. Budget crises have caused a shifting of authority and responsibility to that office. As a result, instead of educational planning, budget has driven many decisions at the college.

Although the Office of Academic Affairs has been attempting to expand programs, add classes, and arrange creative scheduling, the recent leadership style of the office, according to interviews conducted by the standard committee, had been marked by ineffective consultation with department chairs and discipline representatives. These policies have contributed to some discontent among regular faculty as nearly 33 percent of regular faculty disagree or are neutral with regard to having a substantial voice in matters of educational programming, hiring, and other matters of college policy [FSS, #48]. In the area of budget planning, only 17 percent of the regular faculty respondents to the survey agree that the college budget, under the leadership of the Office of Administrative Services, is responsive to emerging instructional requirements [FSS, #29].

The new assessment and planning process will require each administrative unit to write measurable objectives. These objectives must focus on the college mission and goals and will presumably lead to improvement in both areas. As of this writing, the college needs to hire a vice president of academic affairs, but the new vice president will be a participant in the development of new administrative objectives.

Because administrators frequently come from the faculty ranks, they often lack formal management training. In addition, the culture of the district often encourages administrators to move from one campus to another, which results in a high rate of turnover at individual colleges. This makes it difficult to effectively complete evaluations. However, the district plans to implement a new procedure for administrative evaluation by January 2001. The new administrative contract contains an evaluation policy for campus administrators.

Since the responsibilities of administrators appear to change frequently, no document clearly defines their duties. The new assessment and planning process can be used to systematically assess decision-making, which could lead to more defined roles.

According to the faculty and staff survey, 72 percent of all employees believe their participation in participatory governance is never, rarely, or sometimes effective. This figure remains consistently high (over 65 percent) for each employee group, with the exception of administration [FSS, #87]. This indicates a substantial disaffection for the participatory governance procedure in effect at the time of the survey. Again, the lack of consultation on many academic and professional matters has been a recurring problem. The new president, however, appears to be committed to participatory governance. A new participatory governance document needs to be written and approved.

While the survey does not indicate widespread discontent with the current departmental system, 25 percent disagree that this system is an effective form of management [FSS, #26]. The basic structure is not unusual for moderate-sized colleges in the district, but problem areas do exist. For example, one department has only one full-time faculty member. Others have only a few, and in some cases, the disciplines within a department have little or no educational affinity with one another (10.32). In such situations, the effectiveness of evaluations and interdisciplinary educational planning is questionable. In some cases, factors other than the effective management of the college determined the makeup of current departments. The Academic Senate, in consultation with administration, should revisit the organization of the departments using discipline affinities and effective management as criteria.

Faculty members take part in a number of participatory governance committees and take this responsibility seriously: 100 percent of regular faculty indicate that participation in shared governance is part of their professional responsibility (FSS, #44). Although 76 percent of regular faculty [FSS, #43] maintain that they are appropriately involved in curriculum and course planning, the college needs to evaluate the effectiveness of this involvement, primarily through the Curriculum Committee.

This committee meets only once per month, and technical review, rather than leadership and direction in matters of curriculum development, has dominated the discussions. As evaluated in Standard 4, the process needs to be evaluated and refined. In another area, the Faculty Hiring Committee must adhere to the established Academic Senate procedure as evaluated in Standard 7.

The Classified Senate plans to increase its participation in college governance as a result of its reorganization in 2000. Currently, according to their charters, some of the shared governance committees already include classified staff as voting members. However, the restructuring of the committees will redefine this role and make it more effective.

The ASO currently does not have adequate support from the college in the form of faculty advisors. The organization has primarily attracted students who have the time to participate, which excludes commuter and working students from becoming involved. In addition, the college does very little to inform students of the advantages of participation even though the ASO is the only means by which students can involve themselves in college governance. The college must increase communication with students as to the advantages of participating in college governance. Further, it must increase support for student governance (see Standard 5).

C. Multi-College Districts

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

As chief executive officer, the chancellor implements Board policies and administers operations district-wide. The chancellor accomplishes this through direct and frequent interaction with the college presidents and through developing and presenting specific initiatives and programs to the Board of Trustees. The most current examples are the comprehensive district-wide systems upgrade project (10.33) and the revised Decentralization Policy (10.34).

Generally, the assessment of the chancellor’s leadership depends on the results of the initiatives and the overall functioning of the district. Additionally, the Board of Trustees evaluates the performance of the chancellor as set forth in the chancellor’s employment contract.

The Board has delegated to the chancellor the responsibility of ensuring that the district maintains and exercises appropriate leadership, management, and adherence to district goals and objectives. The primary source for oversight is the chancellor's ability to ensure compliance and accountability. The chancellor submits periodic financial reports to the Board and also conducts annual reviews, self-studies, and periodic program reviews of district operations.

Board Rules (10.35), Administrative Regulations (10.36), and the Decentralization Policy are written documents that provide organizational parameters. At the individual colleges, the presidents have the autonomy and authority to determine their administrative organization and staff. The district self-study recognizes the legislative parameters governing its operations as well.

According to the district self-study, most of the district’s operations exist to support college operations. Collaborative procedures between the district and the colleges include, in particular, the Budget Allocation Model (10.37), the Codes for Student Conduct (10.38), and the implementation of Board Rules. Only a few isolated external compliance matters are specific only to the district, such as payroll, contracts, procurement, legal, personnel services, information technology, and insurance. The district assesses its effectiveness through audit reports and the new process of conducting a self-study that is the result of the Multi-College Pilot Program.

The Board receives regular reports from faculty, staff, student representatives, the college presidents, and the chancellor. The district also provides numerous reports pertaining to the areas of finance, personnel, and student and enrollment characteristics to assist the colleges in their operational and educational determinations. Various committee functions allow for participation and sharing of information among the colleges and the district, such as the Cabinet, the Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs Council, the Vice Presidents of Administrative Services Council, and various deans’ councils. The mainframe computer system, or DEC, enables college personnel to access student and other pertinent information related to operations and enrollment management. In addition, the courier service, email, fax, and telephone systems allow for prompt exchange of information.

The Board establishes all district-wide policies. The district is responsible for operational planning and implementation in accordance with the Chancellor's Directive Number 70: district-wide Internal Management Consultation Process and for overseeing the financial management of the central office and the nine colleges (10.39).

From an external standpoint, the district’s outside auditor (Price/Waterhouse & Cooper) is the primary tool for the assessment of effectiveness. The auditor conducts an external audit of the district’s financial operations and related operations on an annual basis and presents it to the Board at a public Board meeting. The controller’s office keeps copies of past audit reports. Internally, the primary role of the District Budget Committee is as an advisory council to the chancellor and through the chancellor to the Board of Trustees. The committee includes representatives from presidents, faculty, staff, and administration from the various colleges. Staff members from the district office also serve as resources to this committee.

SELF EVALUATION

According to the survey, faculty and staff have low ratings of the chancellor's ability to foster good communication [21 percent favorable, FSS #90], provide leadership [26 percent, FSS #90], and effectively manage resources [21 percent, FSS #91]. However, based on the high proportion of neutral responses relating to the chancellor's responsibilities, over 50 percent on average, most faculty and staff are not sufficiently informed to have an opinion.

After a period in which an interim chancellor served the district, the appointment of the current permanent chancellor has stabilized leadership. The operations and reporting structures for the entire system are currently changing with respect to both the district office and the delegation of responsibility to the individual colleges. The chancellor is working closely with both the Board of Trustees and the college presidents to implement the decentralization and reorganization plans for the colleges. Mission College has experienced significant improvement in increased autonomy and flexibility in managing curriculum and finances. As an example, faculty viewed the recent procedure for selecting the permanent college president as a positive process because it was much more inclusive.

In some areas, the delineation of operational responsibilities and functions of the district and those of the college are precise and clear, and in other areas, primarily due to the implementation of decentralization, the district is still reviewing and refining the process. As part of the Multi-College Pilot Program, the creation of the functional maps (10.40) spells out and defines more precisely the responsibilities of the district and the colleges. These are currently in draft form and are being reviewed to serve as working documents for the district and colleges. According to the district self-study, "a detailed operational definition of decentralization is still needed."

The district states that it provides support services consistently and equitably to all colleges. However, through its funding allocations, each college determines specific operational and educational priorities that may vary to some degree from college to college. Mission endorses the district's systems upgrade project. No process currently in place assesses the effectiveness of the services that the district provides.

While the Internet has provided faster communication between the district and the college, failed planning at the district level frequently frustrates electronic communications. The district firewall, absolutely necessary to the security of student and personnel records and management, is often counterproductive to the use of the Internet by the academic side of the college (see Standard 6). The district has scheduled the replacement of the e-mail system and must plan to provide sufficient resources to support the new software and technology.

According to the district's self-study, its Internal Management Consultation Process has been effective; however, it needs to be updated and revised. In addition, although planning occurs in a variety of ways, no specific, systematic, or ongoing mechanism exists whereby the chancellor and Board collaborate on strategic planning. With respect to the District Budget Committee, the same self-study indicates that questions have arisen as to its level of authority (see Standard 9).

The chancellor has endorsed the assessment and planning process that Mission College is currently adopting. The college recommends that if it is successful in creating a systematic process for establishing measurable objectives and performance indicators for planning and uses the results to improve the college, then the district should adopt a similar model for its own planning.

PLANNING AGENDA

21. In college governance, decision-making that involves all financial resources, human resources, and educational programming will result from the assessment and planning process, which is based on the assumption that every decision must stem from the college mission and goals. The reporting structure and lines of authority, including relative responsibilities, will be widely participatory, will be clearly defined, and will adhere to the tenets of Title 5. Improved communication and consultation between faculty and administration will be a high priority.

22. Each administrative unit will use the assessment and planning process to write measurable objectives with performance indicators. The college will use the outcomes to improve administrative functions. Existing processes for the evaluation of all administrators will be adhered to and will focus on quality management practices. The college will implement staff development for administrators in effective management practices. Finally, the college will define and publish administrative functions and responsibilities for each position.

23. The Academic Senate, in consultation with administration, will evaluate, plan, and implement a reorganization of the departments using discipline affinities and effective management directly related to the college mission and goals as criteria.

24. The college supports the district putting in place a systematic process that assesses the effectiveness of all of its functions. The college encourages the chancellor and the Board to use the outcomes of such a process to improve district and Board functions and to use the process to collaborate with the college in strategic planning.