Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12
Planning Agenda
None.
IV.A.5
The role of leadership and the institution’s governance and decision making structures and
processes are regularly evaluated to assure their integrity and effectiveness. The institution
widely communicates the results of these evaluations and uses them as the basis for
improvement.
Descriptive Summary
The Resource Allocation Committee (RAC) invited participation of all committees in a
comprehensive self evaluation in Fall 2011 (IV.A.79)). Committees were asked to analyze
their accomplishments, impediments to success, and to make recommendations for
improvement. Some common themes emerged: the scope of the shared governance
committees was too broad for the committee members to grasp; and more clerical support
was needed to ensure that information is disseminated in a timely manner. The RAC is
evaluating its own organization and performance and summary recommendations will be
vetted through the same process the shared governance committee structure was originally
developed.
The Board of Trustees conducted its own self evaluation process in BP 2745 and reported its
findings at the November 2011 Board meeting (IV.A.80). The evaluation instrument is
included in the Board packet for that meeting (IV.A.81). The policy specifies that this will be
done annually.
The college organizational structure has been subject to much modification since 2008.
During the 2007-8 academic year, a shared-governance ―transformation committee‖ worked
with consultants to develop a structure intended to be more efficient and responsive than
what preceded it (IV.A.82). Subsequently, internal reorganizations of student services,
business office, human resources, and the academic affairs areas were enacted. The student
services reorganization has been evaluated through the program review process (IV A 83).
The Academic Affairs area was restructured, effective Fall 2011, in response to the need for
administrative functionality that had been lacking in that area. These changes were made
after considerable input was sought from faculty and staff affected by these changes.
Self Evaluation
From the outset, some of the committees were more active than others. In their self
evaluations, members reported some common concerns: scope of work of the four
Page 289