Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12
students it serves even as it considers competing opinions about what action to take. Most
difficult have been decisions to discontinue underperforming and underutilized academic
programs. Four such programs have been discontinued between 2007 and 2010, following
the Discontinuance Process that was recommended by the Academic Senate and adopted by
the Board of Trustees in 2001. Affected parties and their supporters protested to the Board,
and Board members have expressed how difficult it is to make any decisions to curtail
services, even when the data and faculty recommendations warranted it. (IV.B.8A). In two
cases, the Board agreed to reconsider the decision, and ultimately upheld its decisions for
discontinuance, even in the face of intense public pressure (IV.B.9, IV.B.10).
Another decision that brought out intense public discourse occurred at the beginning of the
selection process for the new CEO in early 2012. Some Hartnell faculty members, in
response to troubling reports they heard from faculty at another college, raised an alarm to
the Board about the consulting firm the District had hired to conduct the presidential search.
The Board took quick action to hold a special meeting, investigate the claims, and then
institute additional safeguards to ensure transparency and integrity in the process as it moved
forward with the search. Rather than succumb to public pressure, the Board asserted its
responsibility for a well-informed, transparent, and successful process (IV.B.11).
Board members are divided philosophically on some issues, and this becomes clear
particularly when they deliberate on contentious items. If a vote is divided, the dissenters
sometimes continue to speak out after a decision has been made. But, the Board as a whole
has worked through these issues to ensure that the majority vote is upheld and supported by
all. The Board has resorted to the sanctions of its ethics policy from time to time. (IV.B.12,
IV.B.13) At the end of each meeting, with whatever opposition that may have been
expressed, the Board supports that it acts as a body, rather than a collection of individuals.
Self Evaluation
Since 2007, the Board‘s professionalism and public conduct has improved significantly. It
operates as a well-informed, deliberative body. Board packets, which include supporting
materials for every consent, action, and information item on the agenda, are provided in
advance to every Board member and to the public, by posting on the website approximately a
week before each meeting, usually well in advance of the 72-hour requirement. The
superintendent/president is secretary to the Board and the superintendent/president‘s
executive assistant prepares the minutes and disseminates information to the Hartnell
community as well as to the Board. The president encourages Board members to read over
the materials ahead of time, and makes administrative personnel available to answer
questions and provide further background information when requested. This open access to
information is an appropriate and welcome change in practice that raises awareness as well as
expectations among Hartnell community members.
Board members receive training on the Brown Act regularly, either at on-site Board
development sessions (IV.B.14) or at workshops conducted by the Community College
League of California (CCLC) (IV.B.15) or others (IV.B.16).
Page 297