City College of San Francisco - California Competes

STANDARD I
objectives. In addition, the College planning and
budgeting procedures involve both “top down”
and “bottom up” processes—an annual plan is
designed to drive the development of objectives
at the program, site, and cost center levels, while
these units work toward developing objectives
that meet specific needs of the students they
serve. The annual planning process identifies
operational and developmental objectives
designed to stimulate initiatives articulated in
the Strategic Plan; however, planning at the
cost center and site level must take into account
ongoing initiatives and produces the majority
of the operational objectives. Therefore, the
“top down” objectives in the Annual Plan are
not always thoroughly integrated into the “bottom
up” objectives created at the program and
cost center level. However, this bi-directional
planning process serves to adequately support
ongoing initiatives while successfully maintaining
a delicate balance between the establishment
of a clear direction for all College units and the
flexibility required for individual units to address
specific needs identified in the field. The planning
and budgeting process culminates with
the development of an annual Management
Plan that clearly articulates objectives and
related initiatives at the major cost center and
institutional levels. [Ref. 1]
The College has developed a system for comprehensively
assessing the progress on its annual
Management Plan at the program, site, cost
center, and executive management levels.
[Ref. 3] This system includes mid-term and
end-of-year reports that provide specific evidence
of progress and an evaluation of the amount of
progress that has taken place. These reports provide
the executive administration and the Board
of Trustees a foundation upon which they can
evaluate the effectiveness of the institution and
provide a basis for guiding future planning and
initiatives. However, the Standard 1 Work Group
found that the evaluation of the end-of-year
reports should be used to assess the extent to
which the Annual Plan has been implemented
and the objectives accomplished. In addition,
the evaluation of the Annual Plan, based on the
end-of-year reports, should be more thoroughly
integrated into the Shared Governance planning
and budgeting processes to promote a reflective
dialog among campus constituencies and plan
improvements as indicated by the evaluation.
In addition to the Strategic Plan, the
Implementation Schedules, and the annual
planning and budget cycle, the College has
also developed an Educational Master Plan that
contains Technology and Library Master Plans.
[Ref. 7] Each of these plans is designed to
operationalize long-term planning within their
respective areas. The Educational Master Plan
addresses instruction, learning assistance, library
services and student development services. These
plans represent the long-range objectives for
each unit based on its mission and specific functions.
[Refs. 11, 12] Broad-based reflective dialog
is an essential feature of the College’s Shared
Governance policies and procedures, as well as
the institution’s approach to dealing with special
initiatives and the assessment of institutional
effectiveness. For example, the Academic Senate
has responsibility for recommending institutional
policies in academic and professional matters.
Committees with broad-based membership from
faculty, staff, and administration serve as forums
for discussing and evaluating improvement
initiatives and policies. Committees and subcommittees
such as Academic Policies, College
Curriculum, Student Preparation and Success,
and Basic Skills debate issues and make recommendations
in compliance with procedures
established by the Academic Senate. The Senate
may then make recommendations to the
Chancellor and Board of Trustees. Other constituencies
are also represented by deliberative
bodies such as the Classified Senate, the
Administrators’ Association, and the Associated
Students.
There are also several College-wide committees,
with representation from all campus constituencies,
which provide a forum for the
consideration of broad-based institutional issues.
The College Advisory Council (CAC) and the
Planning and Budgeting Council (PBC) are two
influential College-wide bodies. The CAC acts as
a clearinghouse to determine the appropriate
process for addressing issues and then provides
the final review for procedures, other than
acdemic and professional matters, as defined by
state code and local Shared Governance policy
prior to implementation or submission to the
Board of Trustees. The PBC is charged with
developing the Annual Plan and making
recommendations on budget allocations to
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
97