City College of San Francisco - California Competes

THEME VI
Evaluation of the Shared Governance System. The evaluation of the Shared Governance System, designed
by the College Advisory Council in collaboration with the Office of Research, Planning and Grants, is an
exemplary assessment of the degree of trust, collegiality, and inclusiveness among the participants of the
Shared Governance committees, who represent all of the major constituencies of the College. The Shared
Governance System has been evaluated three times since its inception in 1993. Each evaluation indicated
a stronger climate of trust and collaboration, while identifying needs for improvement, such as improving
the “efficiency in moving new or updated policies and procedures through the Shared Governance System
for approval,” as well as “real and meaningful participation from committees.” The most recent Shared
Governance evaluation, conducted in 2004, was the most comprehensive to date, utilizing a multiplemeasures
approach, including: (1) an online survey of all participants on Shared Governance committees
over the past three years (including questions that directly addressed issues of inclusiveness, such as
whether committee members “speak regularly at meetings” and “are uncomfortable with expressing
opposing views”); (2) three listening sessions held at two campuses, attended by faculty, administrators,
staff, and students; and (3) a structured self-study framework of issues for discussion of four basic areas
of inquiry: inclusion of College constituencies, effectiveness of the governance system, efficiency of the
governance system, and alignment of the governance system with College goals and objectives. Responses
to all of the forms of inquiry were used to inform discussion in four representative College organizations:
the Academic Senate, Classified (Staff) Senate, Administrators’ Association, and Associated Students.
Student participation in Shared Governance committees has not been consistent, however, largely due
to changing class and work schedules which conflict with committee meeting dates. Therefore, student
participation in the Shared Governance evaluation processes has been limited. In fact, the Associated
Students organization chose not to participate in the online surveys or self-study discussions, citing
inadequate exposure to and knowledge of the Shared Governance System and the roles of its committees.
One of the recommendations that emerged from the evaluation process that attempts to remedy this
issue is for stronger mentoring of new Shared Governance committee members, students in particular.
Recommendations for improvement of ongoing operations reflected the need for improved clarity of
the Shared Governance System itself—committee functions, tracking of issues through the system, and
standardization of committee meeting protocols. Recommendations for new initiatives focused on the
needs of Shared Governance participants—the need for mentoring new members, reassigned time for faculty
committee chairs, notification of supervisors of an employee’s appointment to a Shared Governance
committee, and an annual letter from the Chancellor to all College employees and students inviting
their participation in and reaffirming the critical importance of the Shared Governance System at CCSF
and the roles they play in that process.
Public Input
The College’s 2003-04 Facilities Master Planning process was exemplary in its outreach to the community
and inclusion of public input. The College placed ads in the major dailies, neighborhood papers, and
ethnic press; mailed postcards to over 40,000 neighborhood residents; and mailed letters to neighborhood
organizations, inviting them to participate in listening sessions and public hearings that took place
throughout the Master Planning and Environmental Impact Reporting (EIR) processes. Copies of the
Master Plan and EIR were provided through the main public library and the CCSF website. Community
residents and members of neighborhood associations were encouraged to voice concerns, questions, and
recommendations about the Master Plan proposals and EIR. Residents of the Sunnyside neighborhood,
which borders CCSF, voiced their appreciation of the opportunity to be heard, as they have been generally
most affected by increases in student traffic. Public opinion was also sought regarding support for Bond
Measure A in 2001. Polling conducted by a professional research organization of 600 likely San Francisco
voters found that the voters agreed overall that CCSF’s mission of education was extremely important to
San Francisco. Throughout the course of the telephone survey, attitudes in support of the bond measure
ranged from 69 percent to 73 percent. The bond measure passed in November 2001, with the support of
72 percent of the voters.
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
335