Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12
Self Evaluation
The Board adopted ethics policy 1055 with clearly-defined sanctions in 2007 (IV.B.51).
Board members clearly attempt to hold each other accountable for their behavior, and make
public efforts to enforce their policy.
The implementation of an ethics policy with sanctions, a self evaluation process, and an
agendized schedule of monthly study sessions has worked to clarify expectations of
appropriate Board activity and to document progress in a transparent manner.
The college meets this standard.
Planning Agenda
None.
IV.B.1.i
The governing board is informed about and involved in the accreditation process.
Descriptive Summary
Board Policy 3200 (IV.B.52) affirms the Board‘s commitment to high-quality education and
services and to the processes embraced by the ACCJC that support continuous improvement
at Hartnell College. Specifically, the policy requires the superintendent/president to ensure
the Board is fully informed and engaged in the accreditation process.
The Board has been fully involved in and informed of the accreditation process, and has
incorporated that concern into its monthly meetings. At a special meeting of the Board on
July 21, 2007, the Board developed four goals, the first of which was to affirm accreditation.
Progress on the goal was part of the president‘s report to the Board at every meeting
thereafter until accreditation was, in fact, reaffirmed. These goals were on the Board‘s
meeting agendas from September 2007 through April 2009. (IV.B.52A) Since that time, the
Board has continued to receive updates, though they have been given at longer than monthly
intervals.
The Board‘s August 23, 2011 development workshop—its second scheduled meeting for that
month--was a study session on accreditation, the Institutional self evaluation, and the Board‘s
role in accreditation. (IV.B.53) Among the exercises conducted at this meeting was the
completion of a survey, contained in a PowerPoint presentation, that quizzed trustees on their
knowledge of the accreditation standards. One outcome of this workshop was a renewed
sense of commitment to continue the policy review.
Page 306