Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 parties could not agree on the issue of whether academic chairs could perform faculty evaluations. With no deans, and faculty chairs not performing evaluations, the evaluations of part-time faculty became backlogged. Academic chairs was declared a dead issue. The Academic Affairs Office was reorganized again in fall 2011, bringing back several dean positions. This, too, met with difficulty, as the college now faced a fine for coming short of its 50% obligation. Although it successfully obtained an exemption, at the end of that school year, in response to budgetary issues and concerns about both the 50% law and its faculty obligation number (since two of the new dean positions were quite ably being filled by faculty in interim roles), the college eliminated three of the new dean positions it had just created. These changes and the diminishing resources to apply to non-faculty positions have made regular evaluations of part-time faculty a challenge. EVALUATION OF CLASSIFIED STAFF All classified staff (CSEA, L-39, and confidential staff) are evaluated periodically by their supervisors, according to written criteria that includes the assessment of performance of assigned duties, the quality and quantity of work, working relationship and attitudes, organizational and team relationships, work habits, and attendance. Employees are evaluated on the basis of the specific job duties listed in an employee‘s job descriptions, and the evaluations must be based on the personal knowledge and observation of the supervisor. (except that the CSEA evaluation allows a supervisor to use the knowledge of appropriate third parties if substantiated by the supervisor). Probationary employees are evaluated at least twice before the end of their probationary period. For CSEA, this period is nine months, for confidential and L-39, the period is 12 months. Thereafter, employees are evaluated at least once every two years. The evaluation procedures for the CSEA (article 7 of the CBA) and L-39 (article 31) are substantially similar. The classified staff evaluation procedures require that the supervisor and employee meet to discuss the evaluation and for the supervisor to give specific recommendation and direction to the employee. If a plan of improvement or assistance is warranted, the supervisor and employee develop the plan together. Both the employee and supervisor sign the evaluation, and employees are given a copy of the evaluation at the evaluation meeting. A copy is placed in the employee‘s personnel file. A process exists for employees to appeal all or part of an evaluation to the next level manager. The evaluation results in ratings on each of the seven criteria that range from ―Unsatisfactory/performance deficient‖ to ―exceeds expected standards.‖ Two classified groups have are rated on a five-point scale. Through the bargaining process, the CSEA‘s tool was recently changed to a three-point scale. For probationary employees, the evaluation will include a recommendation regarding continued employment. Page 196
Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 If a supervisor determines that an employee‘s upcoming evaluation will be unsatisfactory, the supervisor must issue a 90-day notice of unsatisfactory performance with a work improvement plan, specifying what aspects of the employee‘s performance are deficient, and what concrete steps must be taken to bring performance up to a satisfactory level. Such an evaluation requires a follow-up review in no more than 90 days for permanent employees. An HR Specialist, who notifies managers when their evaluations are due, and the Associate Vice President of Human Resources review all performance evaluations. This allows them to advise and assist supervisors and the employees with their plans and goals for improvement. This also allows HR staff to identify areas where further training of employees or supervisors may be warranted. Many supervisors have received formal training on how to conduct effective performance appraisals, but more training is needed, particularly since many managers are new. A workshop is scheduled for the fall. EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATORS A written process for evaluating administrators that called for peer evaluations, professional growth reports, and supervisory observations and reports was employed at <strong>Hartnell</strong> until 2007. In that summer, a new president came to <strong>Hartnell</strong> and was challenged with reenergizing the entire college around the task of fixing the college‘s accreditation issues, which were many. In keeping with her hands-on, personal style, that president evaluated administrators using a thorough, thoughtful narrative, tying performance assessment and areas for growth to the institutional mission. During the last several years, the college has experienced a substantial turnover of the administration, especially at the senior levels. Moreover, as the college has dealt with the state‘s budget issues by sometimes asking administrators to absorb job duties of another area, or to combine two or more areas into a single, new role, administrators have sometimes served without the benefit of a written job description that includes the temporary assignments. These conditions have made it challenging to perform regular manager performance assessments. A new management evaluation process is under development, and will be implemented by spring 2013. EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT Pursuant to Board Policy 2435, adopted Nov. 11, 2011, the superintendent/president is annually evaluated by the Board of Trustees. The evaluation shall consider the requirements contained in the CEO‘s contract of employment, and shall take stock of the CEO‘s contributions to the well being of the college, acknowledge good performance, and suggest areas in which performance may be improved. The current president began his employment on July 1, 2012, and is not yet scheduled to be evaluated. The current Board did evaluate the previous president on a regular, annual basis. Page 197
Page 1 and 2:
H A R T N E L L C O M M U N I T Y C
Page 3 and 4:
Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
BSI Improvement (%) Institutional S
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 197: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Approximately $9.7 million or 21% o
Page 253 and 254:
The college meets this standard. Pl
Page 255 and 256:
levels that support the college’s
Page 257 and 258:
III.D.1.b Institutional planning re
Page 259 and 260:
Assumptions are reviewed during the
Page 261 and 262:
The institutional planning and asse
Page 263 and 264:
The audit report includes a managem
Page 265 and 266:
financial decision making process i
Page 267 and 268:
III.D.3.a The institution has suffi
Page 269 and 270:
and restricted funds; and to demons
Page 271 and 272:
Planning Agenda None. III.D.3.d The
Page 273 and 274:
III.D.3.g Contractual agreements wi
Page 275 and 276:
III.D.4 Financial resource planning
Page 277 and 278:
Standard III D: Evidence III.D.1 Ha
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331:
show all

Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?