Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 Academic Senate, the standing committees of the Senate. RAC, in turn, makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees. The committees are inclusive and represented by appropriate constituencies, and the appropriate administrators are active on each. For example, the membership of Program Planning and Assessment includes the chief officers of Academic Affairs and Student Services, representatives of the Classified Senate and union (CSEA), Academic Senate and union (HCFA), and Student Senate. In addition, the Academic Senate has established the following Standing Committees: Curriculum; Faculty Full-Time Hiring; Tenure Review; Sabbatical; Faculty Development, and the Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment (SLOA) Committee. The SLOA Committee has merged with the Program Planning and Assessment Committee in the interest of improved communication and efficiency. (IV.A.17 ) The respective senates take responsibility for appointing members to three-year terms, while the superintendent/president appoints administrators. Committee chairs are elected by committee members. Membership on the Academic Senate standing committees is somewhat more restricted, with the requirement of faculty chairs and the participation of administrators limited to those in instructional roles (IV.A.42). INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Since the comprehensive site visit of 2007, Board policies regarding shared governance have been revised. Board policy 2005 was revised in 2007; it states that the Board will rely primarily on the Academic Senate when developing policies and procedures regarding academic and professional matters (IV.A.43). Board policy 2010 regarding the Classified Senate was revised in 2008 and designates participation of classified employees in decisions regarding their status and working conditions (IV.A.44). A similar assurance regarding shared governance is included in BP 2015 regarding the Student Senate organization (IV.A.45). The policy provides students the opportunity to participate in college policy as it pertains to grading, code of conduct, disciplinary policies, curriculum, course or program initiation or discontinuance, institutional planning and budget, student preparation and success, student services and student fees. Reports from the three Senates are standing items on the agendas of business meetings of the Board of Trustees. (IV.A.46) SUBSTANTIAL VOICE IN INSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING Although most members of the shared governance committees are appointed by the Senates, RAC membership includes union representatives, in recognition of the fact that many of the issues that come before the RAC are subject to bargaining. The decisions regarding the budget gap of $4.9 million is a case in point. (IV.A.47) Changes were made in facilities usage and management, hiring, semester schedules, lab offerings, categorical program review, health insurance and overall operating costs. Concessions on health insurance, furloughs, and salary reductions required the consent of the bargaining units; their full Page 279
Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12 participation in the analysis was critical to their ability to explain these needs to their constituents. The decision to not offer summer school in 2010 also required the support of all members of the community because of the significant impact on students and staff. (IV.A.48) RAC has also devoted much attention to administrative reorganization and faculty hiring. RAC received reports from focus groups and provided input to, and ultimately recommended, a reorganization of the Academic Affairs area that included the hiring of four deans (IV.A.49). In the past two years eleven faculty members have been hired, and RAC has accepted the recommendation from the Full-Time Faculty Hiring Committee for a three-year hiring goal of twenty-one faculty (IV.A.50). That number arose from the full-time faculty obligation number and the demographics of current faculty. For the 2012-2013 academic year, RAC has solicited program reviews from academic areas, from the information technology (IT) area, and from Student Services. In consultation with the Financial Information Subcommittee (FIS), RAC will analyze available resources, requests for next year and for long-range needs, and recommend allocations. Self Evaluation When the Academic Senate recommended the reorganization of the shared governance structure, it identified sixteen different committees, one of which had never met. The Senate concluded that the committee structure was too diffuse and that a more streamlined structure would be more responsive and foster communication. The task force to develop the new structure was deliberate in its inclusion of faculty, staff, and students in its work. Emphasis was placed on the work itself, the guidance of planning documents, and the importance of clerical support to document the work. To date, the shared governance process has responded to urgent problems (e.g., budget deficit, canceling Summer 2010 classes) more than it has dealt with routine operations of the college. As a consequence, participants in shared governance have expressed concern that they are more attuned to (and deployed for) crisis management than with strategic planning. In July 2010, RAC held a retreat at which a planning calendar was proposed, including scheduled reports from the shared governance committees (IV.A.51). The work of the committees never became integrated into the work of the areas; the shared governance process is still working to establish this connection. An evaluation process was initiated in Fall 2011 and recommendations arising from its findings are forthcoming. The college partially meets this standard. Planning Agenda Review and implement recommendations from the committee self evaluations. A shared governance retreat is planned for November 2012 with participation from faculty, classified staff, students, and administrators. The recent history of the shared governance structure and its implementation, its assessment, and the roles of shared governance and administrative procedures will be addressed. Page 280
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:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
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 285: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
Page 331: Institutional Self Evaluation - 12-
show all

Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?