FOCUSED MIDTERM

REPORT

October 15, 2007

San José City College

2100 Moorpark Ave.

San Jose, CA 95128

San José City College

Focused Midterm Report

 

 

Statement of Report Preparation

This Focused Midterm Report responds specifically to the WASC Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges’ Evaluation Team Report of December 13, 2006 – in which the team, headed by Dr. John Nixon, articulated the results of its assessment of the institutional Progress Report submitted by SJCC on October 15, 2006 and of its subsequent November 20, 2006 visit to the college. 

As recently appointed president of San José City College, I supervised the preparation of this focused midterm report in consultation with Accreditation Liaison, Dr. Patrick Gerster, as well as in dialogue with various members of the college community at large – most significantly with the Academic Senate, but also with representatives of management, the classified staff and the student body.  Chancellor Rosa Perez and Patrick Butler, the Chancellor’s Executive Assistant, provided significant input in relation to the shared recommendations which this report addresses.   Dr. Tim O’Hare, Vice President of Academic Affairs, was also an active and critical participant in the coordination, preparation, and writing of this report. 

I am pleased to provide evidence of purposeful collaboration and measurable college and district advances, with respect to all ACCJC recommendations.  A continuing spirit of cooperation between the Board of Trustees and SJCC has been consistently evident; clearer understanding of the appropriate delineation of college and district duties has become increasingly noticeable.  The Board has enthusiastically initiated and supported review of district policies and has continued to be engaged in regularly scheduled self-evaluation.

As for the singular, yet multi-faceted “College Recommendation,” the faculty and staff have remained appropriately committed to implementing the various provisions of the college’s strategic planning process. The College Planning Council has worked tirelessly to interpret, modify, and put into practice the goals, objectives, and timelines adopted by the college in 2002.  The college Finance Committee has created a completely new budget process and has implemented that process successfully.  Virtually all departments and divisions of the college understand the need to move to a culture of evidence and have cooperated in that transition through the development of data-driven program review documents.

San José City College’s institutional responses to the ACCJC recommendations has therefore led to significant constructive changes at both a college and district level.  These changes have occasioned renewed and increased collegial interaction between SJCC and its Board of Trustees, on the one hand, and have resulted in improvements in the internal operations of our college, on the other.  I am most gratified by these outcomes. 

On behalf of San José City College, I present this report to ACCJC with considerable pride and satisfaction, secure in the knowledge that we are faithfully addressing its concerns, and are thereby fashioning a future more favorable to our students.

Michael L. Burke

Dr. Michael L. Burke, President

San José City College

Progress Report on Shared and

College Recommendations

“Substantially Met”

Per reports submitted by the college and judgments rendered by the ACCJC Visiting Teams and by the Commission itself in a variety of communications, the college has been deemed to have “substantially met” the following recommendations:

Shared Recommendations (shared with Evergreen Valley College)

• Shared Recommendation #1:  The team recommends that the Board of Trustees limit its actions to establishing policies while delegating operational authority for implementing and administering Board policies to the Chancellor. (IV-B.1.j)  (EVC, Recommendation 17) 
• Shared Recommendation #2:  The team recommends that the District clearly delineate and communicate the operational responsibilities and functions of the District from those of the college and consistently adhere to the delineation in practice. (IV-B.3.a)  (EVC, Recommendation 18)
• Shared Recommendation #3:  The team recommends that the Board of Trustees systematically review and update its policies and practices on a regular basis.  (IV-B.1.e) (EVC, Recommendation19) 
• Shared Recommendation #4:  The team recommends that the Board of Trustees adhere to its policy of conducting regular self-evaluations (IV-B.1.g)  (EVC, Recommendation 20) 
• Shared Recommendation #5:  The team recommends that the College and the District act expeditiously and with due diligence to respond to recommendations made by ACCJC. (IV-A.4)  (EVC, Recommendation 15)     

 College Recommendations (specific to San Jose City College)

• Recommendation #2:  The team recommends that college and district leadership share, explain, and follow budget processes and terms so that policies and procedures are understandable by all constituencies with the intention of creating a common point of reference in the development of the college’s budget.  (Standard III.D.1.c, and D.2.d, e, f, and g) 
• Recommendation #3:  The team recommends that the college evaluate and reorganize its administrative structure for Instruction and Student Services to assure cohesive, appropriate, and adequate college leadership. (Standard IV.A.3, and A.5)  

Shared Recommendations

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the latest discussion of which – from October 2006, in which this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included in Appendix A to this document.

Recent Activity

The Board of Trustees and the Chancellor continue to meet regularly to help insure that the Board limits its actions as recommended by the accreditation team.  The Board’s role regarding such topics as hiring, ethics and meeting rules was examined at retreats in February of 2007.

In May of 2007 the Board approved a new format for their agendas which was developed by Vice Chancellor Ron Root and Chancellor Rosa Perez. This new format focused the discussions of the Board on matters of policy and placed on consent matters that traditionally might have resulted in Board discussions regarding the daily management of the district 

Last, the Board’s commitment to delegating the operational authority for implementing Board policies to the Chancellor is evidenced by their unanimous approval of a new multi-year contract for Rosa Perez, which is a clear indicator of the Board’s trust in the management’s day-to-day operations of the district.

Future Plans

The Board and the Chancellor will continue to meet on a regular basis to discuss the role of the Trustees in the formation of policy and the Chancellor’s responsibility for the administration of district operations.

The Board will hold yearly retreats which will examine, among other subjects, their progress in following the recommendations of the accreditation commission.

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the latest discussion of which – from October 2006, in which this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included in Appendix A to this document.

Recent Activity

The chancellor meets twice each month with an Enrollment Development and Student Success Workgroup that includes the presidents, the vice presidents, research and planning, marketing and ITSS to collectively establish plans to increase student retention and recruit new students, especially those from historically underrepresented populations.

In response to requests by the college’s management and staff, the district ITSS now develops its operational priorities after consulting with the college’s technology committees. The ITSS director also attends those college committee meetings.

An experienced Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services was hired in spring 2006.  The Vice Chancellor meets twice per month with the San Jose City and Evergreen Valley business officers in the interest of district coordination with the colleges and to continue work toward the delineation of operational responsibilities and functions noted as needing focused attention by the commission.  The Vice Chancellor has created a new budget model that grants greater budgetary authority to both colleges, and presented it to the district board of trustees in September 2006. The new model was implemented after that meeting and included the transfer of one million dollars to each college to be used for outreach and recruitment.

A Vice Chancellor of Human Resources was hired in summer 2006.  The new Vice Chancellor is working with a consultant to reorganize the human resources division to create more direct communication and support for the colleges and delineate the role of the college management from that of district management in the hiring processes.

District-wide committees have been meeting during the past two years to update, reorganize and rewrite both the Academic Affairs (lnstructional) and Student Services Policies and Procedures that will delineate and strengthen understanding of operational responsibilities and functions. 

The Chancellor developed 2006-2007 district goals in conjunction with the district Board of Trustees that provide framework and focus for the college’s priorities. (See Appendix C.)  These goals have been shared with the college community and other constituency groups. The college is incorporating these goals into the planning process.

In September of 2007 the Chancellor’s goals for 2007-2008, which had been developed in consultation with the constituency representatives, were discussed and formally approved by the board. These goals include implementing a new inclusive district budget process, improving ITSS services at the colleges, and completing the study of human resourced organization and procedures.  (See Appendix D.)

Future Plans

The chancellor will report to the board on the completion of her goals for 2007-2008.

The board will adopt, on the recommendation of the chancellor and staff, the new policies on Instruction and Student Services.

The new budget model will be implemented and the District Budget, Facilities and Technology committees will begin meeting.

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the latest discussion of which – from October 2005, in which this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included in Appendix B to this document.

Recent Activities

In the spring of 2006 the Board of Trustees appointed an ad hoc committee of Board members to meet with the Chancellor and district constituency representatives to recommend changes to the first two new sections of District Policies.

The Board committee reached, by consensus, agreement with the various constituency groups regarding the first three new sections of policy. These sections included Our District, the Board of Trustees, and the General Institution. These changes brought District Policies into compliance, per suggestions by the Community College League of California’s template, with Title V and with recent changes in the law. New sections also broadened the representational involvement in shared decision-making and affirmed the rights of the Academic Senates regarding academic and professional matters.

In the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007 the Board of Trustees, after a formal review by the constituency groups, formally approved the first three sections of District Policies.

The Academic Senates of the two district colleges began a series of meetings to update the Academic Affairs Policies section and the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services initiated work on a revised and updated section six of the policies, Business and Fiscal Affairs.

In the spring of 2007 the two Academic Senates approved the new Academic Affairs Policy and started a series of meetings with management and the various constituency groups to review and edit the draft language. The two Senates similarly began meeting in spring of 2007 with management to update and edit the Student Services Policy section of the District Policies.

Future plans

During the fall semester of 2007 the Board of Trustees will formally adopt the new district Academic Affairs Policies.

During the fall of 2007 the various district constituency representatives will meet and finalize the updating and reorganization of the Student Services Policies.

In late fall 2007 or early spring 2008, the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services will present the revised section six of the District Policies (Business and Fiscal Affairs) to the District Council in preparation for their distribution to the various constituency groups.

In the spring of 2008 the new Student Services Policies will be adopted by the board after review by the constituencies.

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the latest discussion of which – from October 2005, in which this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included in Appendix B to this document.

Recent Activities

Additional board retreats focusing on, among other subjects, the self- evaluation of recent board activities, were held in 2006 and 2007.  (See Appendix C.)

Future Plans

As it relates to specific issues, the Chancellor and Board will continuously work on referring appropriate items to the Chancellor.  Structured opportunities for reflection were included in the next Board retreat and other opportunities will be provided as needed.  The board will continue to self-evaluate on a yearly basis.

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the latest discussion of which – from October 2005, in which this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included in Appendix B to this document.

Recent Activity

Inasmuch as all Commission recommendations – save the single one upon which this midterm report is focused – have been “substantially met,” the college has demonstrated expeditious action and due diligence with respect to the responsibilities generated by its 2005 Self-Study and by subsequent Commission evaluations.  The preceding pages of this report in combination with the following comments on College Recommendations and with the immediately subsequent focused analysis provide evidence of that fact.

Future Plans

The Board of Trustees will continue to focus its activity on the establishment of district policy, delegating operational authority to the Chancellor and the colleges for implementing and administering those policies as well as for meeting the goals and priorities established by the Board.

Work on the clarification, codification, and updating of the District Policies will be continued.

The Board of Trustees will continue its now established practice of regular self-evaluation.

SJCC will maintain a continuous effort to develop (as new programs arise), implement, and assess student learning outcomes.  The college will continue to utilize SLO’s as the foundation of program review.

The SJCC College Planning Council will continue to implement and to improve the college’s recently devised integrated planning processes. 

The Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs and Student Services will continue their efforts to reorganize their divisions in order to increase effectiveness and provide greater service to students.

College Recommendations

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the latest discussion of which – from October 2005, in which this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included in Appendix B to this document.

Recent Activity

The college has continued to utilize the budget model included in its widely promulgated Institutional Planning Guide (see Budget-related portion of the Planning Guide in Appendix E) and that model itself has continued to afford the college increasingly improved opportunities to integrate institutional planning into its allocation and use of budgetary funds.  Likewise, the college has injected program review findings into its consideration of general budgetary matters and into the allocation of new full-time faculty positions – both procedures also mandated by the Institutional Planning Guide. 

The recently revitalized college Finance Committee has been markedly proactive in both developing the current budget model and applying it vigorously to the yearly formation of the college’s operating budget.

Following the recent departure of the college’s Director of Administrative Services, the institution was fortunate to obtain the services of California community college veteran Roy Stutzman – retired Vice Chancellor of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District – who will serve in an interim capacity while the search for a permanent head of Administrative Services is conducted and whose vast and broad experience will prove to be of enormous benefit as SJCC moves to integrate its planning and budgetary processes.

At the district level, the 2006 hiring of a new Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services – Ron Root, who formerly held a similar position at Santa Rosa Junior College – has resulted in a heightened level of district-wide discussion of budgetary matters, not only at Board of Trustee meetings, but in meetings of the District Council and in regular sessions of the district’s Business Officers.  Shortly after his arrival, Vice Chancellor Root developed and circulated a document entitled Planning and Budgeting: Improving the Process.  (See Appendix F.)  That document has been reviewed by the various district constituencies, especially the Academic Senates, and has been modified based on the input received from those groups.  The document points toward a de-centralization of district-wide budgetary matters with greater autonomy and responsibility for the two district colleges and presents a blueprint for the establishment of several district-wide committees (including a district-side Budget Committee).  The widespread discussion of Root’s Planning and Budgeting paper has already contributed to considerable clarification of budgetary processes in the district and promises to accelerate that growth of clarification in the future. 

Future Plans

The college leadership will again this year be relying on program review data and findings to determine which full-time faculty positions will be filled for 2008-2009.  The college Finance Committee has already established its calendar for development of the 2008-2009 institutional budget.  Programs and areas are preparing programs reviews to justify new budgetary requests; all sectors of the college will again be expected to adhere to the procedures outlined in the Institutional Planning Guide.

It is anticipated that the provisions of the district’s Planning and Budgeting: Improving the Process will be largely implemented during the 2007-2008 academic year.  Work on setting the memberships of two new district-wide committees – Facilities and Budget – has already commenced.

Progress since October 2004 in the meeting of this recommendation has been documented in the reports submitted by the college to the Commission, the October 2005 version of which – where this recommendation was deemed “substantially met” – is included as Appendix B to this document.

Recent Activities

Since the hiring of the two vice presidents (Academic Affairs and Student Services) in fall 2005, the structures of the two major divisions of the college have been evaluated and several changes in those structures have been implemented.

In Student Services, the new vice president has placed much emphasis on team building, holding regular staff retreats to promote greater collegiality and cohesion.  The recent retirement of a veteran dean has led to the appointment of an interim and to minor reorganization of duties and reporting responsibilities.  A major effort of the Student Services division has been focused on the development of a new Instructional Support Policies and Procedures Committee (ISPPC), a standing committee which will parallel the Instructional Policies and Procedures Committee (curriculum) and which will function as a significant tool in the continued assessment of divisional structure and of the reorganization of that structure.  The charge and by-laws of the ISPPC are being finalized at present.  Approval of the ISPPC will be an agenda item for the College Planning Council in Fall 2007.

In Academic Affairs, the new vice president was fortunate to inherit a cadre of five experienced and skilled deans, all of whom played vital roles in the day-to-day management of the college prior to the re-establishment of the vice presidential positions.  The divisions which report to the five instructional deans are logically arranged, but workloads are not evenly balanced in terms of scope, personnel, and responsibility.  The vice president and the deans have been gathering workload related data on the structure of the divisions with an eye to equalizing (to the extent feasible) the obligations of the deans while maintaining the coherence and integrity of the divisions themselves.

Between Student Services and Academic Affairs, some reassignment of programs has occurred.  Service Learning and the Honors Program have moved to Academic Affairs at this point in the realignment.  The two major divisions have also agreed to share responsibility for the new Umoja program, as they do for the currently existing and highly successful Puente program.

Future Plans

Since shortly after the arrival of the new vice presidents, Academic Affairs and Student Services have been scheduling monthly “joint” meetings to discuss matters of common concern and to promote continuing high levels of cooperation between the areas.  The meetings will continue into the future and will assume greater importance as the college focuses more on the recruitment and retention of a largely local student body which is becoming increasingly diverse and increasingly in need of a wide spectrum of intense and well-integrated services.

As the vice presidents become more acclimated to their positions and to the unique features of their areas, activities focused on understanding, reshaping, and maximizing the effectiveness of both the academic and student service divisions will continue and intensify. 

Focused Report on College Recommendation

“Partially Met”

Following its November 20, 2006 visit to San Jose City College, the ACCJC Evaluation Team – consisting of members Dr. John Nixon, Julie Slark, and Eva Kinsman – issued a report which accepted the college’s work and reporting in fulfillment of the two “shared” recommendations addressed in the October 2006 Progress Report, but judged the “college” recommendation found immediately below to have been only “partially met.” 

The recommendation:

The Evaluation Team’s assessment of the college’s progress in meeting the recommendation:

 

Evaluation Team Assessment

Shortcomings identified in the Evaluation Team assessment include the following:

·        the college has yet to address the specific goals and activities defined in the strategic plan

·        the college has yet to evaluate progress toward its strategic plan as presented in the 2001 document

·        the college has yet to update the strategic plan

·        the college has yet to identify institutional effectiveness and student achievement measures

·        thus, progress toward completing the planning cycle of the strategic plan implementation and evaluation continues to be a challenge.

The Evaluation Team charged the college to:

·        invigorate the strategic plan

·        invigorate comprehensive program review used for improvement

·        integrate the components of a complete planning cycle at program and institutional levels, with a focus on measures of institutional effectiveness and student achievement.

College Activities

As noted in earlier Progress Reports, the college established the following six goals for its Strategic Plan during its 2003-2007 planning cycle:

·        Organizational structure

·        Program improvement

·        Budget planning

·        Student service

·        Facilities infrastructure

·        Quality improvement

Three themes were to be woven into the activities undertaken to reach the strategic goals:

·        Cultural diversity

·        Campus relations

·        Technology

Specific goals established by the college within its strategic plan included the following:

1.      An initial and fundamental institutional goal was to revive the College Planning Council (CPC) and charge it to initiate strategic planning

a.      College leadership revitalized the CPC and made it responsible for initiating and implementing a strategic planning process, which included soliciting a broad cross-section of campus input and involvement.

b.      Between 2001 and 2003, the CPC surveyed campus constituencies using an inclusive process.  Survey results pointed to six strategic issues/goals including three themes.  After conducting forums to share these goals and themes, the CPC established work groups around each of the goals.  The groups refined and prioritized the goals and adopted a model involving Immediate Strategic Goals, Strategic Themes, and Subsequent Strategic Goals.

2.      Within the resulting college strategic plan, a primary goal was to reshape and improve the college’s Organizational Structure:

a.      The CPC reviewed the current administrative structure, including all standing committee structures, and updated all committee charges.

b.      The CPC revised the college Mission Statement.

c.      The CPC Identified the need for vice presidential positions and developed vice president job descriptions.

d.      The college then hired new vice presidents of Academic Affairs and Student Services, noting in their job descriptions the responsibility of revising the organizational structure of their divisions.

3.      An second significant goal within the strategic plan was to promote and to create a college-wide process for Program Improvement:

a.      College leadership charged the Instructional Policies and Curriculum Committee (IPCC) and the Academic Senate to create a program review process.  The result was a new data-driven process, Continuous Program Review (CPR), created by the IPCC and approved as a pilot program by the Academic Senate with an original suspense date of May 2007; in May 2007, CPR was approved for continuing use at the college, with the understanding that it was a “living document” subject to on-going review and revision. (See Appendix G.)

b.      In Fall 2006, the Academic Senate and the Vice Presidents (the two sources of recommendations to the president for new faculty positions) required that all areas requesting new full-time faculty positions for 2007-2008 submit CPR’s to justify their requests. A similar requirement has been put in place in Fall 2007.

c.      To assure a focused and unified effort, the college opted to integrate the goals of Quality Improvement and Program Improvement to produce a single overarching goal.

4.      A third major goal within the college strategic plan was to establish a transparent and data-driven Budget Process which clearly integrated planning priorities into the creation and allocation of the annual college budget:

a.      In response, the college charged the Finance Committee to work in cooperation with the Director of Administrative Services and the Academic Vice President to create a budget development process which could be integrated with CPR and with college planning strategies.

b.      The Finance Committee successfully created such a process (see Appendix F) and applied it to the development of the 2007-2008 institutional operating budget

c.      The process was subsequently integrated into the college’s Institutional Planning Guide, where it served as a template for the specification of additional data- and planning-driven processes (such as the establishment of new full-time faculty or staff positions and the utilization of one-time grant or government monies).

5.      Yet another basic goal within the institutional strategic plan was for the college to study and make recommendations concerning its Facilities Infrastructure:

a.      In response, the college charged the Facilities Committee, in cooperation with Robert Dias, the district Director of Plant Planning, Maintenance and Operations, to revisit the campus master plan in light of the need to plan for a new bond issue and to assure that construction and/or renovation of campus facilities served the contemporary student while responding responsibly to the generosity of area taxpayers.

b.      Results for the college have been nothing less than spectacular, with four new state-of-the-art academic and student service facilities constructed since 2000, with an additional new facility’s completion a short year away, with the finished renovation of a major classroom/office complex, and with the in-progress renovation of another structurally sound building destined to house one of the college’s strong Business and Service Careers divisional programs.

c.      The current work of the Facilities Committee and Director Dias is focused on the fate of the older 100, 200, and 300 wings, home to a variety of Career and Technical Education Programs as well as to the college Fitness Center, Dance Studio, etc.  A decision concerning the feasibility of renovating these structures will soon be made.

6.      Three interwoven themes were included in the college’s strategic plan:

a.      To assure that the strategic theme of Technology penetrated planning activities, college leadership charged the College Technology Committee (CTC) with the development of a comprehensive college Technology Plan.  A first version of that Technology Plan was finalized in 2006, but proved to be an overly ambitious and complicated document.  President Burke has recently charged the CTC with revising and streamlining the institutional Technology Plan for 2007-2009.  Meanwhile, the ongoing campus computer replacement policy included in the original Technology Plan was initiated and funded on a year-to-year basis in the spring of 2007.  Additional funding will be available to continue the replacement policy in 2007-2008.

b.      To assure that the strategic theme of Cultural Diversity penetrated planning activities, college leadership charged the Diversity Advisory Committee (DAC), under the leadership of the new Vice President for Student Affairs, to address diversity-related campus needs.  And, to assure a focused and unified effort, the college opted to combine Diversity and Campus Relations in a single interwoven theme.

7.      Following the submission of the college’s October 2006 Progress Report, the College Planning Council instituted an effort to review the original strategic planning document with a view to identifying those specific objectives within that original document that had yet to be addressed by the campus community.  The resulting slate of planning objectives (see below) was established in draft form in spring of 2007 and is currently serving as the major agenda item for the CPC as it projects its yearly activities. 

Goal 1-A.  Assess Institutional Effectiveness and Use the Findings to Plan and Implement Program Improvements for the Purpose of Achieving Academic Excellence

¨       Integrate strategic planning with actual program review

§         Identify common data elements to be included in program review for similar   

       types of programs (Instructional programs)

§         Revisit full program review process, its timeline, and calendar

§         Continue to identify and measure student learning outcomes

§         Develop the charge of the Instructional Support Services Policies Committee

       (ISSPC)

§         Convene ISSPC

Goal 2-A.  Assess Effectiveness of Student Services and Use the Findings to Plan and Implement Program Improvements for the Purpose of Achieving Academic Excellence

¨       Integrate strategic planning with actual program review

§         Identify data elements of program review

§         Identify Student Service areas to be assessed

Goal 2-B.  Improve Communication With Students

¨       Update student contact information in Datatel

Goal 2-C.  Improve Retention of First Semester Students

¨       Early alert system implementation

Goal 3-A.  Financial Needs Are Prioritized and Budgeted For

¨       Establish a financing plan for software, equipment, and support- especially for “soft (grant) funded” and "non-instructional" programs

¨       Increase student enrollment and retention to generate FTES

Goal 3-B.  The College will seek outside/additional/new funding to meet special needs

¨       Establish a prioritizing grant development efforts for the college

Goal 4-A.  Develop a Master Plan that will meet the current and projected future  facilities needs of the campus and provide for programmatic flexibility

¨       Update Campus Master Plan, construction timeline

¨       Develop use plan for renovated 100, 200, and 300 buildings

Goal 4-B.  Improve campus safety

¨       Investigate reactivation of campus safety committee

¨       Implement Disaster Emergency Preparedness plan

¨       Increase lighting in dark areas on campus

¨       Improve wheelchair access throughout the campus

¨       Maintain contact with neighborhood association

Goal 4-C.  Ensure adequate infrastructure support to provide for a positive campus image and safety

¨       Recommend campus standards for services (custodial, grounds, maintenance, police)

¨       Solicit green campus ideas and suggestions

 

Goal 5-A.  Improve communication and delineation of roles and responsibilities between the DO, campus, and EVC

¨       Develop a process to provide a campus voice on district committees

¨       Separation of curriculum (SJCC and EVC)

Interwoven Themes: Diversity, Campus Relations, Technology, Quality Improvement, and Campus Image and Impression

Difficulties

 

A shortcoming of the existing college planning process has been the inability of the institution to reach the point at which criteria could be devised and meaningful judgments rendered about overall “institutional effectiveness.”  Coupled with a lack of focus on student achievement and an inadequate (although useful) program review format, this failure to speak to the issue of institutional effectiveness, though not surprising, is clearly a matter requiring on-going attention.  The college must address these shortcomings:

a.      by developing a comprehensive, data-driven, and regularly scheduled Program Review process;

b.      by inaugurating a focus on Student Achievement, identifying criteria for such achievement, and devising appropriate measures of the same;

c.      by defining Institutional Effectiveness, determining the processes whereby such effectiveness is engendered, and establishing benchmarks to govern relevant activities and assessments.  

Two factors, in particular, have impinged upon the college’s ability to address the shortcomings described above.  The first factor is the lack of long-term executive leadership over a period of time bridging major portions of four successive semesters and an intervening summer.  That factor will be discussed in some detail under Future Plans below.

The second factor is potentially as problematic for the college as the absence of executive level campus leadership.  The college has experienced for many years a lack of reliable, accessible, and comprehensible data on matters as significant as student demographics, course enrollments, enrollment trends, budget patterns, student retention and attrition, student completion and success, productivity (WSCH/FTEF) ratios, etc.   Inadequate hardware, lack of appropriate training, and the questionable reliability of the administrative information system used by the college and the district appear to be the sources of this problem.  This factor, again, will be discussed in greater detail under Future Plans below.

Future Plans

1.      Access to reliable data

The district has recently recognized its inability at present to provide to its colleges the complete array of reliable and accessible data needed for strategic planning, program review, measurements of student achievement and institutional effectiveness.  Tracing the history of this problem, the district has discovered, among other factors, a lack of sufficiently powerful hardware to interact effectively with its administrative system and a dearth of appropriate training.  It has not, however, found that other colleges with similar systems are experiencing data-mining difficulties of a magnitude similar to its own.  In short, the problem seems to lie in the areas of hardware and staff training rather than with the administrative system itself.

In response to its findings, the district has, over the past two years or so, vastly increased the processing power available for the operation of its administrative system.  And, very recently, the district has taken proactive steps to establish a partnership with another member of the California community college system in order to draw upon that institution’s success in utilizing the administrative system which the two colleges hold in common.  There is every reason to hope that the district, and hence the colleges, are well on the road to a timely solution to the data generation problems which have rendered past efforts at effective planning challenging.

In addition, the district has within the past year established a very focused Office of Research and Institutional Effectiveness, currently staffed by a director and newly employed researchers, all of whom have expertise and experience in providing the varieties of data which the colleges require.  Dr. Bayinaah Jones, director of the office, has already reached out to the administration of both colleges, offering to assume a participatory role in the calendaring of comprehensive program review cycles at both colleges and making herself available to assist the colleges in the identification of data sets required for assessment and evaluation.  As with the progress in dealing with the district administrative system, there is every reason to believe that this revitalized office will provide significant assistance to the colleges in their efforts to adopt the culture of evidence and to move forward in their strategic planning processes.

2.    Stable college leadership

In January of 2006, Dr. Chui Tsang, then president of San Jose City College, resigned his office to accept the position of Superintendent/President of Santa Monica College in Southern California.  From January 2006 until March 2007, the college remained without a permanent president, drawing instead upon the services of two interim presidents and, in summer 2006, on the expertise of the two sitting vice presidents, each of whom served short terms as acting leaders of the college.  In March of 2007, the college was privileged to welcome its new – permanent – president, Dr. Michael L. Burke, most recently the chief executive officer of North Idaho College in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.  With the arrival of Dr. Burke, a long awaited sense of stability begin to permeate the college campus, as all constituencies eagerly anticipated both the desirable continuity and the renewed vigor that new leadership would bring.

Since his arrival a short seven months ago, Dr. Burke, though challenged by the demands and details of a new presidency, has entered enthusiastically into the life and the business of the college.  He has been active with or at least attended meetings of almost every standing committee on campus, not to mention sessions of the Academic Senate and the Associated Students.  By virtue of his office, Dr. Burke is a member of the College Planning Council, the standing committee to which most others report and which itself, in turn, reports to the president.  As an ex officio member of the group most intimately involved with the creation, promulgation, and implementation of the college’s strategic planning process, Dr. Burke has seen first-hand the current successes and shortcomings of that process and its products. 

Dr. Burke announced to the CPC as early as last spring that he was a staunch advocate of strategic planning and that he intended to initiate a new strategic planning process for the college.  His initial wish was to bring college constituents together during the summer months so that the process would be underway prior to the onset of the fall 2007 semester.  Unfortunately, summer scheduling for students, staff, and particularly faculty rendered such a plan impractical.

More recently, Dr. Burke has informed the CPC that he is in contact with a consultant who recently led SJCC’s sister college, Evergreen Valley, in a successful strategic planning process and that he plans to bring that consultant to the SJCC campus to meet and confer with the college community generally and with the CPC specifically.  Of particular interest in this regard is not only the consultant’s success at EVC, but also the opportunity for EVC and SJCC to develop a relatively common planning process, a district-wide goal encouraged by Chancellor Rosa Perez.   

Within a very short period of time, then, San Jose City College will embark upon a new and comprehensive strategic planning endeavor, one buttressed by the stability and leadership of a new president, leavened by the successes of the current process, and enlightened by the challenges of that process.

Update on “Planning Agenda” Items from the

2004 Self-Study Report

This Focused Midterm Report includes an institutional update pursuant to San Jose City College’s Planning Agenda section of the 2004 Self-Study Report.  Noted below are the advancements already accomplished with respect to these self-defined areas of institutional improvement over the past three years--between the occasion of their articulation in October 2004 and the submission of this October 15, 2007 report.

San Jose City College Planning Council members voted to reaffirm the College Mission Statement at their meeting on September 28, 2007. The mission is additionally scheduled to be revisited in depth this year as SJCC begins its initiative to develop a new strategic plan. The existing strategic plan and associated activities is expected to be complete this year. 

Mission Statement

The mission of San Jose City College is to prepare and empower students for success in a global multicultural society. Our primary focus is to foster student learning by providing continuous access to a wide range of comprehensive and flexible post secondary academic and occupational programs that prepare Silicon Valley residents of all ages and backgrounds for balanced and productive lives and successful careers. To reach these educational goals, the college provides the appropriate support services to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population.

To fulfill our commitment to student learning with appropriate assessment at each level, and to assist students in achieving their educational, employment, and life long learning goals, we offer the following:

·         Two year college degrees

·         Lower-division transfer and general education courses

·         Certificates

·         Basic skills instruction

·         English as a Second Language courses

·         Distance learning opportunities

·         Technology and career training

·         Economic development

·         Community services

·         Adult non-credit courses

Our mission is, and shall remain, in accordance with all legislation enacted by the State of California.

The Office of Research & Institutional Effectiveness (RIE) is a unit within the SJECCD housed at the District Office in San José.  In the past, research and planning comprised a smaller portion of a much larger unit, Educational Services.  The Office of Educational Services at the District Office was eliminated when the Vice Presidents were reestablished at the Colleges.  In the previous 3-5 years, the RIE Unit has experienced a significant level of downsizing.  With the increasing research-related requests from the ACCJC, the Board, the Chancellor and the college Presidents to provide more data with which data-driven decision-making is a natural end-result, RIE faces many challenges.

The unit’s active goal is to provide service.  Some of the college-specific charges include: program review, behavioral learning outcome measures, grant assistance, survey development and assessment, current/accurate/reliable updates to research reports, division/course/section rosters by physical classroom location, student demographic, retention/success/persistence.  To provide these services effectively, oversight and training, additional staffing, and resources are needed.

The RIE Office has five current staff members.  One is an academic manager—Director of Institutional Research.  Two are classified staff—Web Author and District Curriculum Coordinator – and an additional two are classified at the research analyst level.  There is no research analyst or research liaison assigned at either College.

The following goals and objectives address RIE’s intended research relationship with the Colleges specifically:

• Develop (in consultation) measurable growth bench-marks (based on an assessment of past performance)
• Train key stake-holders to use District’s research tools (Discoverer, Dashboard, Excel pivot tables for annual/term/at-census/daily reports)
• Manage research report updates (to include increasing office support staff, automating software tool functionality, and decreasing redundancy of tasks)
• Design user-friendly, locally meaningful reports and studies (as described/articulated by the key District/College leadership)
• Assist in the process of grant application development (ensuring measures include researchable indicators with realistic, reliable bench-marks for growth and ensuring sufficient time and resources are allocated to support continued research needs among the identified, grant-related data components)
• Represent research on College committees related to master planning (where you want to be), strategic planning (how you get there…by when…how will you know…identifiable indicators), program planning and program review
• Produce locally-specific briefs/bulletins for District-wide online dissemination
• Coordinate the test validation process for both Colleges (currently includes several of the State’s approved measurement instruments with a probationary and provisional status

There are 59 Research Related Reports in the office’s 2007-2008 District Office-Warehouse Inventory.  Seven reports are new to the Inventory this year and will require additional funding and some additional level of automation software to complete.  Almost half of the reports are in need of updating and some have not been updated within the last two or more years. 

New Research Documents (per the request of Chancellor/Presidents/Vice Presidents) to the 2007-2008 Inventory:

• Dashboard (requires ongoing updates)
• Pocket Profile (annual update)
• Revised Program Review (1-6 year cycles for ALL academic programs…may soon include several service programs, as well…and this will require an additional Program Review design)
• Research Bulletin (per term)
• Enrollment Report (annual update)
• Chancellor’s Annual Board Presentation, “Our Students, Our Community: Planning for the Future” (annual)
• The Annual Research Report (*may need to be delayed to 2008-2009)

While San Jose City College is habitually dedicated to the continuing improvement of learning options for students, since our last omnibus report to the Commission three learning options for students have especially matured—Peer-Led Team Learning, Service Learning, Career Pathways, and Learning Communities.

Peer-Led Team Learning

Peer-led team learning (PLTL) facilitates scientific discussion and debate among small groups of students (~6-8) on a weekly basis (~75 minutes/week) under the guidance of a trained peer leader (a student who recently completed the course or related course with a “B” or better grade and possesses good people skills).  PLTL workshops foster teamwork and oral communication toward the development of conceptual understating, reasoning and problem-solving skills because students are engaged in carefully crafted exercises. The PLTL model follows the best traditions of science, as it addresses diverse learning styles and opens new dimensions of teaching and other scholarly activities such as co-presenting with students at national and local conferences, honors projects, and more.  Perhaps because students who participate in PLTL workshops feel they have increased access to instructor and peer leaders, attitudes towards science have improved.  It also has served as an avenue to stimulate careers in teaching as well as other leadership opportunities, especially among our peer leaders. 

The impact of the PLTL program on students, leaders, faculty and institutions has been continuously assessed and evaluated for over a decade.  The results are clear and the enthusiasm for participating is high.  In 1999 SJCC began implementing PLTL in chemistry which was adopted and adapted into biology, physics and EVC’s nursing program.  Indeed, data at both campuses as measured by our office of research and planning has shown that workshop students are more successful than non-workshop students and retention is higher and thus our FTEs are increased.  Other assessment data include that from NSF-SALG (Student Assessment of Learning Gains) studies where student survey data indicated that the PLTL workshop helped them to:  work effectively with others, communicate ideas to others, make gains in understanding concepts and the relationship between concepts in chemistry, make gains in their ability to solve problems, feel comfortable with complex ideas, and communicate ideas to others.  From 1999-June 2007, PLTL workshops have been supported by numerous grants including more than four from the National Science Foundation, UC Santa Cruz’s Educational Partnership Center, California State Partnership for Excellence, Workshop Project Associate Grants, totally more than $300,000. 

Since 1999, twelve faculty from chemistry, biology, physics, English, and Nursing have implemented PLTL in the courses that they teach/taught.  The courses include introduction to chemistry, general chemistry, organic chemistry, introduction to general, organic and biological chemistry, Microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology, General Physics (2A, 4A, 4B), English 1A and nursing (111 and 112 at EVC).  During that period of time more than 167 peer leaders were hired at SJCC.  From Fall 2001 to Spring 2007, 910, 660, and 111 chemistry, biology and physics students, respectively, participated in discipline-specific PLTL workshops.  Program leaders are anticipating continued institutional support for this effective program in science and are hoping to expand it further into English, math, the tutor center, PUENTE, and the reading and writing center. 

Success stories and testimonials:   Seven SJCC students who participated in PLTL workshops were offered UC Santa Cruz’s Karl Pister $20,000 scholarship.  Six out of the seven were also peer leaders and accepted the scholarship.  The one who declined the scholarship choose to attend UC Berkeley.  Eight students who participated in PLTL workshops were offered paid UCSC ACCESS summer research opportunities; two declined.  Approximately 50 SJCC students co-presented at conferences ranging from National American Chemical Society Meetings to NASA/AMES Regional Learning Communities.  Nearly all of the program’s peer leaders successfully transferred to four-year institutions or programs including pharmacy, physical therapy, and nursing.

Service Learning Program

At the beginning of the Fall 2007 semester, San Jose City College celebrated the 10^th anniversary of the Service Learning Program.  Begun in Fall 1997, the program has been offered for 20 semesters and to date 4,902 students have competed a project and have served 59,776 hours in the community, on and off campus.  In addition to enhancing their classroom learning, Service Learning students have made a significant contribution to building community by linking in-class study to real-life experiences.  Over these many years, the college has been privileged to witness immediate transformation in students in multiple service learning venues:

·        Accounting students helping the poor and elderly complete their tax returns each spring

·        ESL students helping fellow immigrants pass the citizenship test

·        Psychology students mentoring emotionally-challenged youth

·        Formerly homeless students returning to serve in the shelters that housed them

·        Math students and immigrant engineers winning raves as tutors in the Math Lab

·        ECE students getting hands-on experience in the classroom or day care center

·        Nutrition students serving food in shelters and senior centers or teaching nutrition to elementary school students

·        CIS students teaching elders how to use computers and access the Internet

·        College students returning to volunteer at their elementary school or adult education classroom

·        Sociology students working with parolees or in the women’s jail

·        Communication studies students tutoring in the Disabled Students Program or assisting in the adapted physical education classes in the pool

·        English students writing about Alzheimer’s while serving at Alzheimer’s Activity Center or in a nursing home

·        Immigrant students getting hired for their first US job at the site where they served

·        Immigrant professionals putting their skills to great use at The Tech Museum of Innovation or in a school

·        Reading students reading to seniors or to young children

·        Construction tech students building houses for Habitat for Humanity

·        Ethnic studies students delivering food baskets to HIV-positive clients

·        A history student tutoring elder immigrants reporting: “They called me ‘teacher.’”

The Service Learning Program’s most precious resources are the community partnerships the college has established over the years.  These currently number over sixty, offering students numerous choices.

Regarding the San Jose City College Service Leaning Program at large, since 2004 participation numbers have remained fairly consistent, with over 400 students signing up and close to 4000 hours being served and some 25 faculty offering service learning in some 50 sections each semester.

Spring 2007 Semester Totals

# Faculty:                                            22

#Courses:                                          25

#Sections:                                          45

#Students Completing Hours:         271

#Students Advised:                          411

#Certificates Awarded:                    220    

#Hours Served:                                 3,952

Career Pathways Program

SJCC received a grant from the Robert S. Johnson Foundation in partnership with Work2Future, the local Workforce Investment agency, to offer a career-oriented learning community for students who need to work on math, reading and writing skills in preparation for one of the College’s career training programs. Eligible students can receive financial aid, transportation assistance, lunches, and housing. Former foster youth are a target population and have been encouraged to apply. The pilot program was launched spring of 2007 and City College will be offering courses and services to a second cohort of students in spring of 2008. 

Perhaps the largest single step City College has taken in terms of "Improved internal and external communication" has been to move the marketing position from the District to the colleges and then to create a full-time position at SJCC (as of July 1, 2006). This relocation has allowed marketing and outreach to function and work, for all practical purposes, as a single unit on a day-to-day basis.

The college’s internal communication has been improved in the following ways

1)     Eight kiosks and one television screen which are managed by the marketing department have been installed. These screens are updated weekly to give new information to students on classes, events, and support services.

2)     With the assistance of Tech Support, marketing has purchased a ListServ software which allows College Marketing to provide updates to all students via emails which are sent out weekly.

3)     College Marketing has created an internal newsletter (Pawprints) which is printed quarterly and updates staff and faculty regarding news, milestones, programs and student and employee achievements.  Pawprints is 12 pages, full-color, and printed with the assistance of the college Reprographics Department. 

4)     The physical location of the marketing department on campus has allowed a great increase in collaboration. The Marketing Specialist is now on the Executive Team and meets also with the Associated Students and Student Affairs on a weekly basis.

The institution’s external communication has been improved in the following ways.

1)     Advertising has been expanded to include the Spanish and Vietnamese languages.

2)     The use of collateral pieces (handouts, trifolds, etc) has been expanded to include the Spanish Language (with Vietnamese next).

3)     The physical location of the marketing department on campus has permitted increased budget collaboration, which in turn has allowed for more effective use of operational dollars by reducing duplication of effort and concatenating budgets to achieve greater effect. This year, for instance, billboards and busses were added to our regular campaigns.

4)     The Marketing and Outreach Offices have dramatically increased their presence in the community. Representatives now regularly attend meetings of local neighborhood groups and have forged partnerships with local faith-based organizations.

5)     Outreach, conducted out of the Student Services division, has financed four new billboards in the community (two in English, and one each in Vietnamese and Spanish), has initiated bus advertising, and is conducting parent/college workshops in various languages at the college, local high schools and community centers.  Additionally, Outreach is preparing a SJCC Binder, which will showcase both academic affairs and student services, for distribution to twenty-one public, private, alternative, and charter high schools in the San Jose area.

6)     The ListServ software also has an email list of 20,000 community members to whom event and deadline updates are sent in the form of an online newsletter.

As a manifestation of City College’s institutional understanding that strategic planning, the need for measurable student learning outcomes, and program review need be institutionalized across the broad landscape of both instructional and students affairs, the Student Services sector of the college has recently articulated a “Vision for Student Affairs and Services” which now serves to guide improvement and performance in this realm.

In addition to its recently articulated vision statement, the Student Affairs & Services Division uses the established academic/instruction CPR model to review counseling guidance curricula and to request additional counseling positions.  With regard to evaluating programs, Student Affairs & Services is currently modifying another college's program review form to use as a template while also developing common data elements for a final document that can be used across the Division.

Finally, the Instructional Support Services Policies Committee (ISSPC) was recently established by the College Planning Council (CPC).  The charge of the committee is to assist, counsel, and make recommendations with regard to Program Review and other reports regarding instructional support services in the Student Affairs & Services division.  Some of the responsibilities include the following:  prepare the schedule for program review; guide program review teams (the team each department or program assembles to conduct the program review) in the completion of their reports; read and evaluate program review; make recommendations to the appropriate Student Affairs & Services program; submit acceptable program reviews to the president of the college and other appropriate governance groups; and request periodic progress reports from the program review teams and departments on student learning outcomes, and program recommendations and goals.

Recently hired Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Anita Morris, initiated a revision of the district’s and college’s hiring procedures during the summer of 2007, beginning with administrative recruitment and hiring procedures.  The draft of the revision is currently under review by the Chancellor’s Executive Team.  The objective of the revision is to provide clarity for all aspects of the recruitment and hiring process, including:  philosophy and general principles, identification of vacant positions, development of the job announcement, recruitment, application process, selection committee appointment and membership, selection committee orientation, application review, interview process, screening criteria, and final approval of the process as a whole.  The goal is to streamline the recruitment and hiring process in a way that is thorough and in compliance with legal mandates, while erecting no unnecessary barriers to completion of the process in a timely manner. 

In February 2007 the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District revised its policies and procedures for the evaluation of administrative personnel—with special emphasis regarding diversity in the Administrator Evaluation Process. To better effectuate its policy on Diversity the new evaluation instrument requires, among other things, that all administrators be evaluated on their ability to perform their duties in a culturally proficient manner. 

The administrator evaluation addresses the District’s policy on cultural diversity in the academic environment, and is designed to evaluate an administrator’s ability to promote academic excellence, foster cultural, racial, and human understanding, and to promote cultural proficiency at both an individual and institutional level.  The evaluation is also designed to evaluate an administrator’s ability to provide positive role models for all students, and to create an inclusive and supportive educational and work environment for employees, students and the local community.

Specifically, in regards to diversity and cultural proficiency, all administrators will be evaluated on the following:

1.      Communication – The ability to communicate in a culturally proficient manner and to conduct discussions on how they may work towards meeting the Districts diversity goals.

2.      Leadership – Leadership in supporting, enhancing, and/or facilitating the District’s commitment to diversity and cultural proficiency.

3.      Professional Knowledge and Expertise – Participation and provision of training and development activities designed to support a diverse work and learning environment. Development of culturally proficient curriculum, student services and management practices.

4.      Team Work – Demonstrating sensitivity to the diverse needs and abilities of others. Working to increase the diversity of District employees.

5.      Administrative Skills – Conducting administrative duties such as committee assignments, contracting, development of policies and procedures, development of programs, evaluating employees, supervision and other general administrative duties in a culturally proficient manner.

Following upon the successful completion of a mandated 2006 Summer Institute for all district administrators, Chancellor Rosa Perez directed Vice Chancellors Anita Morris and Ron Root, and interim Associate Vice Chancellor Romero Jalomo to plan, organize and coordinate monthly training sessions covering a variety of management topics for all District administrators during the 2006-07 academic year.  The third Friday of each month was selected for the monthly training sessions which were mandatory for all district administrators.  The dates, topics, and presenters selected were as follows:

9/15/06     SJECCD-CSEA Contract Review        Donna Williamson

10/20/06   Mediation Training, Part I                       Meg Sanders and Kate Jones

11/17/06   Mediation Training, Part II                      Meg Sanders and Kate Jones

12/15/06   Mediation Training, Part III                     Meg Sanders and Kate Jones

1/19/07     Emergency Preparedness                     Pat Jocius

2/16/07     Open

3/16/07     Administrator Evaluations                      Arturo Ocampo

4/20/07     Workers Compensation Review           Cheryl Miller

                  Personal Services Contract Review     Ron Root

5/18/07     Mandated Cost Review                          Six Ten Consultants

The first administrative training of the 2006-07 academic year, “Understanding and administering the CSEA contract” was conducted by Donna Williamson (of the Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore law firm).  This workshop covered the following topics: CSEA contract review; EERA/scope of bargaining; management rights; union rights; past practice; grievances/interpretation of the labor agreement; and employee representation rights.  Many new administrators to the district mentioned the usefulness of the training.  There were a total of 60 administrators who attended this training session.

The second, third and fourth training sessions addressed related aspects of the mediation process and was hosted by representatives of the Santa Clara County Office of Human Relations.  Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, the importance of small group interaction and the 25-hour requirement for mediation training, it was decided that all district administrators would be divided into three cohort groups (of no more than 25).  Each group was urged to complete the three-day training as a cohort.   There were a total of nine mediation training workshops (3 groups x 3 sessions) hosted by Meg Sanders and Kate Jones.  The first workshop addressed an overview of the mediation process and was attended by 52 administrators.  The second workshop addressed communication skills and was attended by 50 administrators.  Forty-nine administrators attended the third and final workshop that focused on conflict resolution. 

Prior to the fifth administrative training of the year, a select number of managers and supervisors were notified in advance of their required attendance for emergency preparedness training on January 19, 2007.  This fact should be noted since there were 34 administrators in attendance for the training from an overall total of 47 eligible participants.   A follow-up to this training session is anticipated later this year.

Due to a district holiday on 2/16 and the annual ACCCA conference on 2/23, it was decided not to offer administrator training during the month of February.   On March 13, 2007 at the monthly meeting of the SJECCD Board of Trustees, Associate Vice Chancellor Jalomo presented information on the 2006-07 administrator training schedule, topics, and feedback to date.  He reported on the partnership between the office of Research and Institutional Effectiveness and Human Resources in coordinating the training.  It was noted at the district board meeting that the leadership of the Faculty Association requested to be included in a future training session to review aspects of the SJECCD-AFT contract among other topics. 

On March 16, 2007, Arturo Ocampo provided the sixth administrative training session addressing the revised SJECCD administrator evaluation procedures.  Included in his presentation was an overview of the evaluation timeline, a review of evaluation definitions, an introduction and review of all forms to be used and a follow-up discussion on cultural proficiency skills for administrators.  A total of 42 administrators attended this session.  Several participants commented positively about the group exercise and several others suggested covering this topic again early in the 2007-08 year (prior to October).

On April 20, 2007, there were two administrative training workshops offered:  Worker’s Compensation by Cheryl Miller (Keenan and Associates) and Personal Services Contract Review by Ron Root.   The Worker’s Compensation presentation included an overview of the evolution of the state system, a review of the system intent, figures on SJECCD claims and amount paid, a comparative analysis of SJECCD workers comp claims for 2004-05 and 2005-06, and an overview the workers comp reporting process.   Feedback from this presentation indicated that there were many questions regarding the cost of workers comp claims against the district and additional questions regarding the proper actions to be taken once a supervisor or administrator acknowledges an accident involving a district employee during work hours.

The Personal Services Contract workshop included a review of updated contract procedures and guidelines by Ron Root.  Specific attention was devoted to contract guidelines and approval authority, district procedures on independent contractors, and several forms required by the California Employment Development Department.  There were a total of 53 administrators who attended the 4/20 administrative training.  Evaluation feedback from this presentation was positive and several managers noted that they especially appreciated the updated procedural information regarding the revised process for completing personal services contracts.

Participation Summary

There were a total of 80 managers, supervisors, and, in some instances, confidential employees who were eligible and/or were contacted to participate in the monthly administrative training sessions.  In excess of 60% of eligible participants attended more than half of the available training sessions, with almost 30 individuals missing no more than a single session of the seven offered.

Almost immediately upon his inauguration as permanent President at San Jose City College, President Michael L. Burke assumed leadership for advancing emergency preparedness and campus safety.  In concert with the college’s Professional Development Days (PDD) inaugurating the 2007-08 academic year, President Burke presented the following emergency preparedness procedures improvement plan:

• He announced that campus safety would be one of his primary goals for 2007-08 and that it was included in the Individual Action Plan he will submit to Chancellor Perez.

• He has mandated that copies of ALL Incident Reports (police reports) be routed to him personally from Campus Police for his review and analysis.  Chief Ray Aguirre now contacts the president directly regarding all serious incidences.  The president discusses all campus safety trends and issues on a regular basis with Vice Chancellor Ron Root.
• At the Fall 2007 PDD, the president hosted a plenary session on Campus Safety, which included Chief Ray Aguirre, District Director of Facilities Robert Diaz, and Dean of Counseling Claudia Consigny, and at which the need to have a safe and secure learning environment on campus was the primary focus.
• The president will be working directly with Marty Kendall of the Teaching and Learning Center to create a schedule of workshops on campus during 2007-08 in response to issues raised at the PDD plenary session on safety.
• President Burke organized and led a campus “walkabout” at night during July 2007 to assess the lighting levels on campus.  Included in the “walkabout” were five female members of the campus community along with the consultants who are completing the Lighting Upgrade.  The group made numerous suggestions concerning:     

Ø      Lighting levels in remote areas of campus

Ø      Trees and shrubbery around buildings

Ø      Lighting standards and fixtures

Ø      Parking lot lighting levels

Presently, these recommendations are being reviewed and will be implemented where possible.

• Subsequent to the “walkabout,” the president met with the lighting upgrade consultants and reviewed their plans for the campus; he will continue to discuss lighting issues with Robert Dias.
• As a member of the Chancellor’s Executive Team, President Burke participated in a visit to a local security firm that manufactures emergency alert devices for college campuses.
• The SJECCD has authorized a complete Safety and Risk Assessment through a consulting firm (Emergency Management Consultants, Inc.).  When an Emergency Operations and Preparedness Plan is adopted by the District, the president will initiate a campus-based training plan to assure that faculty, staff, and students are fully advised as to their roles in emergency preparedness.
• As noted at the September meeting of the College Planning Council, President Burke will be reactivating the Campus Safety Committee sometime during the Fall Semester of 2007.

In accordance with the State Chancellor’s office Technology II Goals, as well as with one of the College’s stated planning agenda items of Fall 2004, City College’s email system emphasizes the critical need for students’ ACCESS and EQUITY.  Access means more than access to data, video, and library information or to the Internet.  It is understood by the college community to mean that the college is obliged to see that students are able to utilize technology to facilitate interactions in classrooms, labs, libraries, learning resource centers, offices, and workplace and/or the home. 

Some five years ago the president of San Jose City College made it his priority that email should be available to all our students to promote communications between the students as well as our faculty and staff in the compliance with the Technology II Goals of the State Chancellor’s Office.  Over a period of approximately two year, the college’s Business Services Director developed a partnership with one of our local businesses (Google) and formulated a Memorandum of Understanding that provided free email to all of the college’s registered students.  The MOU was developed, and a legal business agreement between the district and Google fashioned and forwarded to the San Jose Evergreen Community College District Board of Trustees to be formalized.  This innovative public/private partnership agreement was featured in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The Google team and the SJECCD technical team developed an interface that the SJECCD technology staff could administer and implement.  The login naming convention was agreed to so as to encourage City College students to utilize single sign-on, which mirrored the existing protocols of the college’s “WebReg” and “WebCT” on-line courses – specifically, that utilize the first two letters of their first name, and the first two letters of their last name, and the last four digits of their “student ID” number.  This provided a user-friendly environment for students inasmuch as it simulated a single sign-on and simple login instructions right into the front page of the SJCC Website for easy access.

Prior to full implementation of the new student email system, the SJECCD technical staff had conducted a test to upload about 5,000 users for the first semester.  The technical staff further conducted more tests to enhance email uses and uploaded additional accessories that could be used between students and instructors: Chat, Calendar, Blog and Book Search.  Currently, there are about 20,000 user accounts that have been established and about 20 percent that are actively using their SJCC email accounts.  The relative lack of student activity in campus email is the byproduct of the numerous other “free” email systems – such as Hotmail, Yahoo, and free AOL – that compete with SJCC email.  For the college email system to be fully successful, the college must decide if it wishes to mandate that SJCC email system will be the only mode of communication supported between students and the campus.  In the interim, the SJCC/Google student email system is fully functional and is fully supported by the Campus Technical Support department.

As per its now-institutionalized method of operation, all resource allocations which arise from the budget development activities of the college Finance Committee will be considered in the context of current program reviews.  This operational imperative was clearly articulated at the Finance Committee’s May 21, 2007 meeting and, via the minutes of that meeting, widely promulgated on campus so as to  “encourage faculty to do program review (CPR) early in the fall semester [2007] so the Finance Committee can have the CPR during its budget discussions.”

Finance Committee members visited the various college Division Meetings held on August 30^th, 2007 in conjunction with the opening meetings of the 2007-2008 academic year, dramatizing that program review has become the sine qua non of resource allocation via the committee.  Finally, as per its meeting agenda for October 1st, 2007, the Finance Committee is in discussion and action specific to determining the “Standards for 07-08 budget decisions.”

Via informational memo from Special Assistant to the Chancellor, Patrick Butler, on September 6, 2007 an updated summary of our District’s progress regarding   revision/updating of District Board Policies is here provided:

Fall 2005

·        The Governing Board Agreed to use the Community College League’s suggested organization template for our Board policies.

·        Chancellor’s office converted our district’s current policies into a digital format from 800 pages of paper documents.

·        Chancellor’s Office organized the District’s current policies in accordance with the League’s template.

Spring/Summer 2006 

·        The Governing Board appointed an ad hoc committee of Board members to meet with the Chancellor and district constituency representatives to recommend changes to the first two new sections of sections of Board Policy.

·        The Board committee reached, by consensus, agreement with the various constituency groups regarding the first three new sections of Policy. These sections included Our District, the Board of Trustees and the General Institution. These changes brought our Policies into compliance, per suggestions by the League’s template, with Title V and recent changes in the law. New sections also broadened the representatives involved in shared decision-making and affirmed the rights of the academic senates regarding academic and professional matters.

Fall 2006/Spring 2007

·        The Governing Board, after a formal review by the constituency groups, formally approved the first three sections of Board policy.

·        The two academic senates (SJCC and EVC) initiated a series of meetings to update the Academic Affairs (Instructional Policies) section.

Spring 2007

·        The respective academic senates of SJCC and EVC approved the new Instructional Policies and inaugurated a series of meetings with management and the various constituency groups to review and edit the draft language.

·        The two academic senates and the various constituency groups began a series of meetings with management to update and edit the Student Services section of the Policies.

·         The San Jose City College Academic Senate and the Evergreen Valley College Academic Senate, after consultation with management and the various constituency groups formally approve the final (Version P) draft of the instructional Policies and send them to the Chancellor.

Summer 2007

·        A draft of the new Student Service policies is reviewed by the constituency groups

·        Representatives of the Academic Senate meet with the Chancellor to discuss the proposed new Instructional and Student Service Policies

·        The Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services presents the Revised Section Six (Business and Fiscal Affairs) the District Council in preparation for their distribution this fall to the various constituency groups.

The college has received a number of grants that help to support San Jose City College students in a variety of ways.  These grants have come from state and federal agencies as well as private foundations.  Altogether the college received approximately $1,847,000 in grants in academic year ’06-’07.  Some of these grants are described below.

·        Santa Clara County Construction Careers Association Grant from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office provides a pipeline for individuals to pursue careers in the Building Trades and Construction industry. The biggest hurdle to entering an apprenticeship program appears to be lack of math skills.  Thus, among other grant supported activities, SJCC is developing two kinds of construction math courses.  The first will be a construction math refresher that will prepare students with limited or rusty skills to pass the apprenticeship qualifying exams. The second course, hands-on Construction Math, will provide construction math skills identified as crucial for success on apprenticeship exams and in entry-level careers in construction.   This grant is a two-year grant for academic years 2006 through 2008.

·        A grant from the U.S. Department of Education provided funds to create a Global Education Opportunities program, starting with Vietnam.  City College now teaches both 1A/1B and 2A/2B level Vietnamese language courses, Conversational Vietnamese and offer courses connected to Vietnamese culture and history, as well as the Vietnam War.  In January 2007 the college took 23 students to Vietnam for a study abroad experience.  All but a few of the students received scholarships to travel abroad.  The trip had significant impact on their lives as expressed in their reflection papers.

·        An AmeriCorps Grant to the college supports students’ efforts in helping the community with disaster preparedness.  For students who plan careers in this area, the experience is very helpful.  For others, it builds communication and interpersonal skills.

·        The Career Pathways for Foster Youth Grant from the W.S. Johnson Foundation through Work2Future offers a pre-collegiate level career oriented learning community for students who need to work on math, reading and writing skills in preparation for one of our career training programs.

·        SJCC receives funds from the Workforce Initiative Network/California Work Opportunity Responsibility to Kids Program.  This is a state-mandated program funded by the Department of Social Services in Santa Clara County.  This program is intended to provide Temporary Assistance to Needy Families with children.  This grant allows the college to provide services to CalWORKs students in helping them to become self-sufficient and off cash aid permanently.  The grant provides childcare, books and supplies, transportation, counseling, academic assessment, access to the Second Harvest Food Bank, laptop loaners for one semester, job placement, and work experience/work-study positions.

·        San Jose City College has also received several foundation grants for the student health center that provide medicines, shots, and smoking cessation assistance.  Keeping our students healthy also keeps them in class focused on their studies. 

·        A Grove Foundation Grant provides support services for students coming from high school who are pursuing career programs.  Students receive scholarships to attend, and the college receives funds for counseling them and providing special activities.

·        The Robert N. Chang Charitable Foundation Grant gives up to $7,000 in scholarships per student per year for two years to SJCC students who are transferring to baccalaureate institutions.  They also provide a small amount of funding to administer the program.  Thus far, 41 students have been offered scholarships and 20 have completed their baccalaureate degrees.

Conclusion

San Jose City College has more than 75 years of successful operation in support of the educational needs of its various communities.  It is a rapidly evolving learning community rooted in a strong academic tradition with a desire continually to reshape itself so as to keep pace with ever-changing educational practices and community needs. 

The San Jose City College community has expended every effort to satisfy, over the past three years since the submission of its 2004 Self-Study Report, the admittedly legitimate concerns of the ACCJC, as represented and presented so ably by Dr. John Nixon and his Evaluation Team colleagues.  Although the college has not achieved a perfect score of satisfactory results, the growth within the institution itself and particularly in its ability to serve its students has indeed been remarkable.  The college is indeed grateful to the Commission and to the Evaluation Team for enhancing its capacity to speak in meaningful ways to the needs of its students and its local communities.

The college acknowledges and appreciates its continuing educational partnership with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges in the process of self-regulation – the most effective means of assuring institutional integrity, effectiveness and quality.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:      Accreditation Progress Report,

October 2006                                              41

APPENDIX B:      Accreditation Progress Report,

October 2005                                              43

APPENDIX C:      Board of Trustees Retreats                       53

APPENDIX D:      Chancellor’s Goals,

2006-2007                                                   55

APPENDIX E:      Board Priorities and Chancellor Goals, 2007-2008                                                  57

APPENDIX F:      Institutional Planning Guide

(Sections on Integrating Planning and Budgeting)                                                              60

APPENDIX G:      Planning and Budgeting,

Vice Chancellor Ron Root                         66

APPENDIX H:      Continuous Program Review                    83

APPENDIX I:        SJCC Budget Development Process       86

The Board of Trustees has been diligent in public session and has informed individuals, including the public, that they have restricted their authority to that of being a policy-making body.  No instances of board members transcending policymaking boundaries have occurred since the last site visit.  A review of board agendas demonstrates no interference with the Chancellor’s operational authority for implementing Board policies.  A recent evaluation of the Chancellor clearly demonstrates the Board’s unanimous support for her role as the district Chief Executive Officer.

Notably, the Governing Board has held workshops directly pursuant to its proper policy role in District affairs.  A Board Retreat with the Chancellor, held May 13, 2006, devoted multiple hours to topics related to the issues raised by the Commission in its Shared Recommendations.  (See Appendix A.)

An ongoing committee on Policies and Procedures is also at work additionally and specifically defining the Board’s role vis-à-vis the work of the Chancellor and the colleges.  Additionally, significant work has ensued regarding Board Policies and Procedures, most particularly Conflict of Interest Procedures as duly noted in Appendices B and C. 

In addition to work noted with regard to Conflict of Interest procedures, a review of Business policies is well under construction (as noted later in this report).  Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services Ron Root has created a potentially far-reaching document on Planning and Budgeting: Improving the Process (Appendix D) and the Human Resources policies process has begun under the new HR Vice Chancellor.  Collectively, then, the range and depth of the District-wide policies related to Board activity has been both proactive and significant.

In addition to the actions noted in the October 15, 2005 progress report, an experienced Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services, Ron Root, was hired in Spring 2006.  The Vice Chancellor meets twice per month with the San Jose City and Evergreen Business Officers in the interest of District coordination with the colleges and to continue work toward the delineation of operational responsibilities and functions noted as needing focused attention by the Commission.  He has created a new budget model that grants greater budgetary authority to both colleges.  An experienced Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Anita Morris, was hired in Summer 2006.  She has begun to reorganize the Human Resources division to create more direct communication and support for the colleges.  Finally, an Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Institutional Effectiveness, Romero Jalomo, was hired in Summer 2006 to establish a more supportive role with college Vice Presidents than the previous oversight function.  In all, the district is initiating a review of all systems and processes in 2006-07 to validate and correct proper lines of authority and function that will help improve communication, operational responsibilities and processes.

Recently retired Associate Vice Chancellor, Jon Kangas, has been secured as a short-term consultant by the district, specifically to help advance the district’s work in delineating responsibilities and functions vis-à-vis the district and the colleges. In addition, a district-wide committee is continuing its work of reviewing both Academic Affairs and Student Services policies and procedures that will delineate and strengthen understanding of operational responsibilities and functions.  Documentation of its important, ongoing work is therefore and herewith duly noted—with the draft status itself in testimony to the district’s and the college’s ongoing efforts--specific to important work especially in the areas of Academic Affairs Policies and Academic Affairs Procedures.    

As documented above, over the last number of months, appreciable effort by both the District Office and the constituencies of the San José City College campus has been expended toward more careful delineation of Academic Policies and Academic Procedures pursuant to a more clearly understood delineation of authority and responsibility—and subsequent division of labor--between college and district operations.

Post March Activities

The board has already begun the process of evaluating policies, under the direction of the Vice Chancellor and Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Planning and especially by means of “The Board Policy Committee” (AKA Governing Board Ad Hoc Committee for Policy Manual Reorganization/Revision), comprised of 3 Board members, and representatives from the Faculty Senate, the Classified Senate, the Associated Students, and MSC (the Management, Supervisory & Confidential Organization). The first two sections of the policy manual related directly to board activities were discussed via bi-weekly meetings throughout the summer of 2005 and are almost completed as of time of this report.

The remaining policies to be updated were delegated to members of the policy review committee during the summer of 2005 and recommended revisions will include a comparison between the CCLC model policies and the current district policies.  This will facilitate the ability of the various committees to review and update these policies on a continuing basis.

The resulting documents are in turn being presented to the committees charged with updating instruction, HR, business, and general institutional policies during current Fall 2005 semester.  Student Services, which has already updated their policies, are now putting them into a format that parallels the CCLC template/model policies.

We expect to have completed the update of all policies by June 2006.   The policies directly related to the Board have been approved and the Student Services policies are planned to go to the board for approval in the Fall Semester 2006.  All remaining policies are expected to go to the Board prior to June 30, 2006.

The Board Policy Review Committee currently is exploring various processes for determining the most effective and efficient method that will allow for both the systematic and ongoing review of board policies.  At this point, the Research and Planning Office has the most extensive expertise for maintaining—and maintaining consistent review—of these policies.  However, SJECCD is also looking at districts that have been recommended as maintaining model processes and procedures.

Analysis

The committee process for updating all policies is both well underway and well organized.  Specifically, the Board Policy Committee met eight times. The first two sections that relate directly to the board have been updated by the Board and approved, and—as noted the remaining policies are all organized for review by their respective committees and all should be updated and approved by June 30, 2006.

March Report:  Progress

Historically, the Board has conducted a self-evaluation annually.  Nonetheless, the inclusion of this recommendation in the report created an additional effort to supplement this evaluation with work on the issue of micromanagement.  Cindra Smith facilitated such self-evaluation sessions in both May and November of 2004. The Board has already participated in a facilitated Board self-study session on micromanagement as part of self-evaluation.  The Board continues to reflect on the results of this session and is working to apply the new information to its behavior.

Post March Activities

The Board met with Barbara Beno in Closed Session in the spring of 2005 to better understand this recommendation.  During this past academic year, the Board conducted a two-part self-evaluation.   In addition, the Interim Chancellor made recommendations for three (3) board development topics/sessions for the 2005-06 academic year so as to sustain such self-evaluation on a continuing basis.  The Interim Chancellor also is expected to include in her summary and recommendations, specifics suggestions for improvement borne of her experience during her interim tenure.  The results of the district mapping process will serve as an instrument for continuing evaluation and will inspire a follow-up district mapping survey to be conducted during the 2005-06 academic year that can be compared with the results of the 2003 survey.  The results related to Governance and Administration will be used for on-going evaluation by the Board.

The Board conducted a mid-year self-evaluation with respect to Boardsmanship, appropriate Closed Session processes, and micro-management in October 2005. 

The Chancellor and Board met in a retreat in August 2005 to further clarify the role of the Board and Chancellor to discuss and plan evaluation activities. 

Plans

As it relates to specific issues, the Chancellor and board will continuously work on referring appropriate items to the Chancellor. Structured opportunities for reflection will be built into the next board retreat and other opportunities will be provided as deemed additionally necessary. 

Analysis

The board had two workshops with Cindra Smith, discussed its role in closed sessions, and has reflected on its role as part of the August, 2005 Chancellor Evaluation Retreat.  Additionally, critical issues with respect to Boardmanship and micromanagement were analyzed at its October self-evaluation meeting.

The Board-initiated scheduled session with Barbara Beno to gain insight into the Commission’s expectations is further evidence that the Board is taking the Commission’s recommendations seriously and is clear evidence of its continuing efforts toward sustaining a clear focus on policy.

March Report:  Progress

After the Accreditation Team visited in October, the college responded to the recommendations regarding re-organizational structure before the end of December.  New college-based positions for Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs were included in this process.  Job announcements for the two positions were posted by Human Resources on February 15, 2005.  The College Council updated its Mission and Strategic Plan and established its integrating timeline before the end of December.

The College Council made recommendations that related to faculty vacancies prior to semester break.  Actions that shape the college were done within the context of the college priorities and budget considerations.  The College Council began its series of presentations from planning groups and grant proposals in February and will continue throughout the budget cycle.  Student Services created their learning outcomes by the end of December along with surveys to assess them. 

Post March Activities

Ten new faculty positions were authorized and 9 were eventually hired during the March-to-October progress report period, and a reorganization plan put into place and activated, largely via the College Planning Council and as charged by the president.  San Jose City College has permanently filled both vice president positions.  Many discussions in various venues have taken place outlining the role of District HR and the campus.

Concerted training efforts were offered related to learning outcomes.  Student Services staff have undertaken a concerted effort to develop and communicate student-learning outcomes (SLOs).  Activities were staged at he College’s Instructional Improvement Days, September 1 & 2, for faculty and staff to learn more about SLOs, and have time specifically allocated to develop both outcomes and assessment criteria within their departments and disciplines.

In response to the accreditation recommendations, the board has held two study sessions on micromanagement with Cindra Smith from the CCLC. The board has put accreditation on its agendas as a routine item and is keenly interested in seeing to it that WASC be satisfied with the level of responsiveness from our District.  Through August 31^st, 2005 Board members held and participated in seven Board Policy Committee meetings with three more scheduled.  The Committee includes constituent groups to rewrite board policies that relate directly to the board and its conduct.  A process and adopted timeline are underway to update all policies using the CCLC, matrix/model policies as a base line. 

Plans

The College Planning Council will continue to refine the ways that it implements the integrated planning processes.  Program reviews scheduled to be done this academic year will be reviewed by CPC in fall 2005 and the resultant recommendations duly considered in the budget setting process for FY 2005-06.  A continuous effort will be sustained to implement Student Learning Outcomes and their direct assessment.  Student Services will complete their assessment of student learning, tabulate the results, reflect on what they find and make changes accordingly. We have already seen improvements as a result of Student Services self evaluation: This September, financial aid checks, for example, were delivered to students before the first day of classes for the first time. 

The new Chancellor already has made a commitment to work with the board to clearly define their policy-making role in concrete terms.   She scheduled a day long Closed Session with the Board on August 27^th to discuss her evaluation and the respective roles of the chancellor and the board.   The new Chancellor’s assessment, supported by the Board of Trustees, is that there has been a failure on the part of previous executive administrators to communicate effectively with the Trustees on critical areas, a failure to provide the Board with needed supportive documentation, and a failure to adhere to Board policies and values, resulting in Board mistrust and a sense of responsibility for making administrative decisions.  The Board asserts, for example, that the 2001 Accreditation Report that had been developed and adopted had not been provided to the Board nor submitted to WASC.  However, if this were in fact true, the Commission itself would never have accepted the report since all such reports require District Board approval as a condition of referral and acceptance by WASC.  In this sense, this Board assertion has not been—and cannot be—substantiated. 

The new Chancellor and the Board are satisfied that their respective roles and duties will fall into the expected, appropriate categories and have made a commitment to seek future training from CCLC and legal counsel regarding compliance with Accreditation Recommendations, the Brown Act and appropriate Boardmanship.  The Board will also meet quarterly, pursuant to Chancellor evaluations, to insure that there is confidence and clarity in Board/Chancellor/Campus relationships and functions, so that the Chancellor is accountable for the goals and priorities as approved by the Board.

The Chancellor will work with the new HR director, once hired this academic year, to update and clarify the hiring procedures with special attention to the documentation required to show that candidates have met the minimum standard for cultural proficiency.

Analysis

San Jose City College has made extraordinary progress on the major recommendations put forward by the commission.  Additionally, such substantive changes were made with extensive college involvement with campus constituencies.  Accordingly, between receipt of the June 28^th Action Letter and the Progress Report due date of 15 October, (which compromised collaboration by including the summer hiatus of almost all faculty) the college has taken the recommendations very seriously and responded proactively.   The results validate this assertion.  Action has been taken on each and every recommendation of the commission.  For its part, the Governing Board has made clearly documented attempts to address the recommendations related to it.  

In the last six months, much progress has been made to be proactively responsive to the previous recommendations made by the Commission.  Much work remains to be done to strengthen the role of the college presidents and to provide greater transparency in the budget allocation process, roles and functions of the district office, and a more collegial management style by the Chancellor’s office.  The board has asked that a standing item on their board agenda focus on receiving an accreditation update from the colleges.  The Interim Chancellor made complying and addressing every recommendation by the Commission a priority during her brief tenure and conveyed this repeatedly to the board, colleges, district, and the community.  However, from a college perspective, even greater work is needed in the area of board development and the distinction between policy-making and managing.  This has, and will continue to provide, the greatest challenge. 

March Report: Progress

The Board Budget Subcommittee had held open sessions to solicit input about budget priorities and to help the Board determine the levels of budget cuts that were imposed by the district and executed by the colleges.  The Board Budget Committee, based on the colleges’ and district input then established the level of budget cuts to be approved by the full Board in a public session.  The Board Budget Committee and the Board as a whole established guidelines about what priorities should be considered when the colleges made their cuts.  For example, student services were to be spared as much as possible.  The college strategic planning priorities were also organized around the board priorities.  College budgets were then developed in relationship to the college mission. 

Post March Activities

City College hired a Director of Administrative Services, Mike Renzi, on March 21, 2005, as a replacement for Mike Calegari, who has moved to District Office Business Services operations.

The respective colleges were accorded autonomy for budget cuts within the guidelines stated by the Board.  The Board Budget Committee carefully considered the budget reductions submitted by the colleges.  As it was, the totals were short of the established goals.  The committee was made aware of the impact the final push toward the target would have and based on that information, along with a better state budget for 2005-06 and resolution of labor contract negotiations, the overall budget reduction target was lowered from $2 million to $1.75 million.  After considerable input from the respective college communities, the Board adopted a final budget cut figure that the college has met.   Student Services were spared for the most part. 

Especially in the interest of achieving greater budgetary transparency, Mike Hill, the District Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services, held a student forum on the SJCC campus on March 31, 2005. Students were given an update on the state of the system budget, and the amount of potential cuts the Board had directed. Students had an opportunity to provide input regarding their interests and priorities in the context of ongoing budget cuts. An update on the State budget as it related to community college funding was provided at the April 12 Board meeting by then Interim Chancellor, Sylvia Andrew.   There were subsequent Board Budget Subcommittee meetings in July and July attended by some of the members of the college Finance Committee members.

For its part, the SJCC College Finance Committee continued to meet every two weeks through the effective end of the Spring Semester (May 9th) to review criteria for budget decisions, review proposed ongoing reductions to budget, and develop a prioritized list of recommendations to propose to the President. In addition, the committee worked on making certain that the budget processes, policies, and procedures were systematically communicated to the collective campus. For example, a campus forum was held expressly for this purpose on February 16, 2005, and a 90 minute follow up presentation was made to the campus during the college’s mandated April 8th Instructional Improvement Day. This presentation and discussion, led by Mike Renzi and members of the SJCC Finance Committee, focused on how the budget is currently developed at SJCC, the role of the SJCC Finance Committee and the Board Budget Subcommittee, and the steps being taken toward making the process more “inclusive and transparent.” The presentation can be viewed at \\sj-the-bank under Finance Planning Committee in the Presentations folder. Over 30 people attended, having had several concurrent sessions to choose from. The proposed CPR form, to be used for annual program review, was presented with an explanation as to how the finance committee and others would use the results to inform planning and resource allocation.  The Finance Committee recognizes that it should improve its timeline so that the College Planning Council has adequate review time before recommendations are present to the Board Subcommittee.

Board of Trustees Budget Sub-Committee

The purpose of the Board Budget Sub-Committee is expressly to provide a consistent forum to keep the campus community—and the College Finance Committee—regularly informed of its recommendations to the full Board, and to also be informed of the Board’s strategic priorities in relation to resource allocation by the District. 

These meetings have been attended by both Presidents, both Directors of Finance/Administration, the Vice Chancellor of Administration, and membership of the Finance Committee and the CPC. The topics discussed range from the macro analysis of the state funding model allocation to the District to awareness and strategic discussion of future trends critical to District and campus budgetary planning.

The College Planning Council has been apprised of the work of the Finance Committee with updates at each meeting through May, and then again with the advent of meeting (September 9^th) for the Fall ’05 Semester, via systematic briefings directly from the SJCC Finance Committee Chair who also sits on the College Planning Council. On May 20^th, The College Planning Council voted to approve the recommendations for budget reductions developed by the Finance Committee.  An excerpt from the CPC minutes reads: “We approved the recommendations with a caveat:  further budget cuts should have no adverse impact on the ability for a program to function.  The CPC specifically advocates for continued funding for WebCT support and no additional cuts to the TLC budget.”

Finance Committee Work

The purpose of the Finance Committee (FC) is to provide the CPC, Academic Senate, and the College President with fiscal recommendations from findings generated by the quadripartite campus constituent membership groups in relation to the college budget process, and to provide the campus community at large a venue to address factual issues in relation to resource allocation. Recent work of the Finance Committee exemplifies the new clarity of operations which now inform the College budget process.  The Finance Committee, since March, has discussed the following goals in relation to the campus level budget process: (1) Realigning and fine-tuning the campus budget recommendation process with the Campus Planning Council (CPC); (2) Re-Communicating with the Campus its stated goals and fiduciary responsibilities; (3) Establish and recommend a campus-level apportionment process / formula in line with the program review and FTES goals; and (4) Recommend the realignment of funding resources in accordance with Accreditation Recommendations, capital improvement strategies, and Campus goals.  Currently, agenda items and minutes are being kept in the \\sj-the-bank\Finance Planning Committee public folder which in the interest of transparency is accessible to the entire campus community.

1. Realigning and fine- tune the campus budget recommendation process with the CPC: Since March the committee has learned that an adjustment between its recommendation timeline is needed, so as to be more in accord with the CPC’s strategic timeline. At the first meeting of the Finance Committee this September, the members discussed the need to remand its recommendations to the CPC much earlier than it did last Fiscal year (from March to May) so that (A) the FC has time to respond to any questions or issues presented by the CPC or the campus; and (B) that the FC’s recommendations can be incorporated within the campus budget development schedule in time for Board adoption and State reporting. A major accomplishment by the FC is its newly-refined ability to seek campus feedback and openly address issues and deficiencies in order better to meet the needs of the campus community. A specific example would be the FC’s request that fiscal issues be submitted to the committee no later than November of each year in order to provide enough time for review within the budget process’ evolving chronological schedule.

2. Re-Communicating with the Campus its stated goals and fiduciary responsibilities: The FC formally re-stated its charge and fiduciary responsibilities to the campus in order to re-establish a clear understanding—at the very beginning of the academic year --that the committee meets and decides in an open and collaborative fashion, designed to meet the best interests of the campus.

3. Develop and recommend a campus- level apportionment process / formula in line with the program review and FTES goals: The FC discussed the need for a campus level funding model based on a fair budgeting methodology mirroring FTES generation. The FC’s recommendation of determining campus resource allocation will be in line with #2 above, in that the methodology will be a factor (out of many) in mutual sympathy with the strategic goal planning process and the full program review process.

4. Recommend the realignment of funding resources in accordance with Accreditation Recommendations, capital improvement strategies, and Campus goals: This fiscal year, the FC is charged with providing the campus with recommendations pursuant to determining the allocation of capital improvement funding. The funding process will be in line with #3 along with long-term campus goals for growth.

In accordance with a process consistent with #3 and #4 above, and as the 2006 FY budget stabilizes, the FC will provide recommendations to the CPC to address a residual $102,000 permanent budget reductions directed by the District for FY2006.

An example of how our campus budget process has improved is typified by a mistake made regarding the WebCT support position and the ensuing process that evolved to ensure that the mistake is not repeated.  The WebCT support was originally financed through soft money; however, the SJCC Finance Committee at large was not aware of this and believed the position to be ongoing.  Using existing governance groups, however, a plan was developed during the spring semester to continue providing support to faculty at a significant reduction in cost under a release time scenario specific to the recognized instructional technology expertise of a full-time faculty member (Heidi Kozlowski).   The Finance Committee has now developed a process that will ensure that all programs with discretionary funding be required to submit a CPR (Continuous Program Review) form to the Finance Committee before mid-November of each year.  This will ensure that the budget allocations are clear and transparent.  Such a clarification of process does indicate that the College is making very effective good faith efforts toward accomplishment of the tasks setout by ACCJC.  Such efforts have elicited much grass-roots support—emblematic of “transparency”—from the campus at large.

While the SJCC Finance Committee is well regarded and has made significant progress toward affecting the recommendations of the ACCJC, this is a new committee and each of the last two years have forced dramatic improvements over the previous year.  We are confident that we can continue to improve, but some members of the committee are particularly concerned with the text of the ACCJC’s recommendation.  Our district has an unusual organizational structure.  We have a District Office (DO), which is organizationally distinct from each of the colleges.  It gives each of the colleges their budget target each year.  While Mike Hill, who works in DO has provided a one page list of ways to communicate with him and informally influences the district budget, there is no official committee practicing shared governance whose charge includes budgetary policy at the DO.

The ACCJC college recommendations concerning the budget are most easily understood if we assume that the ACCJC is not aware of the power of the DO over the college budget.  Therefore, some budget recommendations from the ACCJC toward the colleges really must be addressed by the creation of a committee with a quadripartite body whose charge affects the DO.  Some members of the SJCC Finance Committee are concerned that it may be impossible for the SJCC finance committee to accomplish the letter of all of the ACCJC recommendations without such a change.

A full-time instructional technologist had been hired three years ago via grant funding to assist faculty to develop skills in presenting on-line instruction. The grant funding terminated last year, and the College Planning Council and Finance Committee lobbied for and received campus support from the President to continue the position during the 2004-05 academic year. Because of the severity of cuts to be made for 2005-2006, however, the campus is unable to continue support of that specific position.

The Finance Committee feels that the college has made particularly good efforts toward achieving the recommendations of the ACCJC.  They also feel that the District Office determines budget decisions, there is need for a District Finance Committee that acts on and is responsive to the campus budget committee.  On the occasion of the College’s Accreditation Report and site visit, there indeed was not major concern regarding the campus process, which has been a strategic plan priority work in progress for two years, but rather an issue of how decisions are made by the district prior to wide college involvement. To that end, the College Finance Committee has made recommendations to Vice Chancellor Mike Hill and the Board Budget Committee that a district finance committee be formed to provide input and campus influence to ultimate influence district office finance recommendations.

On 4/11/05 the College Finance Committee reviewed draft policies and procedures for determining allocation of block grant or “one-time” money, funding new programs, reducing or eliminating funding, and allocation of positions and office space. The committee reviewed these documents at their May 9 meeting and recommended that those related to finance be forwarded to the College Planning Council and the Academic Senate from the Finance Committee for consideration. In addition, they discussed the CPR process and planning documents, and agreed to pilot the process this semester for the allocation of VTEA dollars for next year. The committee also reviewed the budget process calendar at that meeting.

On May 5 the Governing Board Budget Subcommittee reviewed recommendations from the college president on the budget reductions the college was able to effect. At that point in the process the college was unable to meet targeted reductions in excess of a half million dollars ($596,000) yet simultaneously—as per Commission directives--also provide funding for two vice presidents and support staff from the list of proposed reductions.  Clearly, the college found it challenging to both deal with state-mandated budget cuts while also achieving Accrediting Commission mandates to expend considerable additional funds in order to achieve College Recommendations.  In the aggregate, the two mandates constituted approximately one million dollars in budgetary adjustments in the context of but a few months.  Final recommendations for budget reductions from the Finance Committee were approved by the College Planning Council on May 20 and sent to the President for action.  Such cuts were achieved with little reduction to college services.

A major issue also discussed at the May 5 District Budget Committee meeting focused on the redirection of funds from SJCC to our sister college in the District, Evergreen Valley College, under the rubric of “Equalization,” to fund their growth. Michael Hill made a proposal that the Board reduce the targeted reduction of each college, that SJCC be allowed to fund their VP positions and/or reach reduction targets through faculty vacancies (as the college is well above its faculty obligation number), and that the Board allocate $100,000 (one-time funds) to EVC to address the SJCC/EVC budgetary split/”Equalization” issue.  This recommendation was approved by the full board at their June meeting.

In the interest of improving both critical constituency input and budgetary literacy regarding the development of College budgets, the following transparency initiatives with respect to the campus-based portion of the budget development process were inaugurated:

• Financial Interviews With Deans & Directors (March to April)

In March, the new Director of Finance and Administrative Services interviewed each Dean and Director for purposes of (1) present the current fiscal year budget balance of the respective division; and (2) to solicit fiscal information so as to ascertain the respective needs of each department and division. As a result, most Dean and Directors were able to provide a summary of resources needed in order to help provide the Director of Finance a measuring point for ascertaining the fiscal divergences between the amounts allocated to each division, versus the division’s actual fiscal needs.

• Faculty Interviews

The Director of Finance and Administrative Services had several informal meeting with various faculty members to discuss the college budget process. It became evident that many faculty members did not have a clear understanding of the state funding model, the internal district allocation model, and/or how the college earns revenue to support its yearly budget. The Director of Finance, Finance Committee, and the CPC jointly developed a “Program Review and Budget Planning Process Training Presentation” for the September IID (a continuation from the April IID presentation) in order to help address this issue. Based on attendance and feedback this workshop was well received by both faculty and staff.

• Budget Planning Process Training Presentation

The Director of Finance and Administration and CPC member, Nancy Gressley, have provided workshops to campus constituents in order to help achieve a common point of reference toward understanding how resource allocation is determined at the college level. Presentations such as that recently held on Wednesday, September 28^th, demonstrate openness and collegiality and an opportunity for staff to ask questions regarding resource allocation and campus funding. Members of the CPC and the Finance Committee were present to help answer questions raised by participants. Workshops were held during the lunch and dinner hour for the highest level of participation, and more are planned.  The presentation is broken down into four parts: (1) Program Review; (2) State Funding Model; (3) the District Internal Funding Allocation Model; and (4) the funding allocation of the College and understanding class size. The presentation foils are accessible from campus in the Finance Committee’s public intranet folder ( //sj-the-bank).

1.   Program Review: Elements of program review are re-introduced to the campus community to establish the connectedness of needs assessment and budget planning. Several departments have volunteered to be part of piloting the new “program review” and “continuous program review” process.

2.   State Funding Model: This section provides an overview of the state’s funding model with the objective to provide the campus a clear how the college generates funds based on student enrollment, and how the FTES allocation model affects year-to-year funding. The effect of the overall state budget on educational budgeting is covered, including a discussion of growth allocation and budget shortfalls and payment timelines.

3.   The District Internal Funding Allocation Model: This section is presented to help campus constituents understand the adopted convention of the District allocation model, and how the allocation model affects the campus relative to strategic planning.

4.   The SJCC College Funding model:  This section provides an analysis of how the state and district funding models work in relation to the College’s fiscal obligations. Relationships between class size, apportionment, and revenues are once again discussed in the context of an overall instructional budget and planning. Rationales for cancellation of low enrolled sections are presented as a means of increasing efficiency, so that we can maximize resources.

At the end of the presentation, a brief survey was conducted to ascertain if the presentation was helpful to those who attended. Responses have been especially positive, with many asking to continue with such training so that both staff and faculty are fully aware of how the funding structure, chronology, and deployment works. The goal of future presentations will be to continue increase budgetary transparency and understanding of (a) the relationship between resource allocation and program review; (b) the campus committees’ relationship to the strategic decision making process; and (c) to provide an forum for the exchange of ideas with respect to the implementation of resource allocation to achieve campus strategic goals.

• Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services Meetings

Meetings between the two college Directors of Finance/Administrative Services, the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services, and the District Fiscal Services Director have been established to address issues raised by the Board, relay campus needs to the District Office, and address plans and priorities of the District as they relate to the campuses. Information from the campus is solicited by Director of Finance/Administration to also share at this meeting in order to keep the District informed relative to campus strategies of FTES generation and to express general expectations of District support. Information exchanged at these meetings is shared with the Campus leadership and with the Finance Committee.

Analysis

The open budget sessions held by the Board and its response to lowering the budget cuts by $500,000 made the cuts much more manageable for the colleges.   From the District Office point of view, the statistically disproportionate budget cuts taken by the District compared to the colleges were taken into consideration in the context of the large instructional budgets on the campuses.  This analysis helped protect the instructional mission of the colleges.  The colleges were given autonomy to organize their budget cuts once their level of cuts was established.  The Board and executive leadership heard and understood the factors facing the colleges in reaching the necessary reduction targets.  Consensus had it that the process worked.  People were heard and reasonable decisions were made.  As a result, the implementation went smoothly with little post facto comment.

The FC has begun systematically to articulate its dedication to campus communication regarding budgetary processes via meeting in open forums, continuously circulating committee minutes to the campus, and it providing training using the IID and “brown bag” forums facilitated by the Director of Finance/Administration.

Plans

A budget calendar is produced each year as the budget development cycle is initiated.  Recommendations for modifications to the SJCC budget development calendar will be presented to the College Planning Council at its second October meeting.  A memo is issued giving guidance to the colleges on budget development, and a calendar is included along with the Board priorities.  If known, any special instructions are provided such as state or Board mandates.  As information is learned, budget development updates are provided to the colleges.  Presentations are made at a number of structured venues to communicate important financial information of FTES, current year operation of costs and projected funding for the subsequent year.  Periodically, the public review of long-term financial issues is conducted to look beyond the immediate time frame so that adjustments can be made before problems develop. 

SAN JOSÉ/EVERGREEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

San José City College    *    Evergreen Valley College

REVISED 5/11/06

Rosa G. Perez Chancellor   4750 San Felipe Road San Jose, CA 95135-1599 Phone: 408-274-6402

GOVERNING BOARD RETREAT

A Closed Session Meeting of the Governing Board of the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District is scheduled as follows:

Saturday, May 13, 2006                                                                                                     4750 San Felipe Road

District Office, Conference Room                                                                           San Jose, California 95135-1599

AGENDA

7:30 a.m.          I.    CALL TO ORDER – District Conference Room

                              PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

                              PUBLIC COMMENTS:

                                    Announcement and Public Comments Regarding items to be

                                    Discussed in Closed Session (Government Code §54954.5)

(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Board.  Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. )

7:31 p.m.          II.   RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION – District Office Conference Room

A.      Public Employee Performance: Chancellor’s Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957)

12:00 p.m.                      B. Lunch will be delivered.

12:30 p.m.          III. OPEN SESSION – District Office Conference Room

A.   Public Comments:

(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Board on any item not on the agenda.  Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes.  The law does not permit Board action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances.  If Board action is requested, the matter can be placed on the next agenda.  All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.)

B.   Consultation Contract (Placeholder) – Maria Fuentes

                          IV.      ADJOURNMENT

4/22/06 mnl                                                                           

Revised 5/10/06

SAN JOSÉ/EVERGREEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

San José City College    *    Evergreen Valley College

REVISED 5/11/06

Rosa G. Perez Chancellor   4750 San Felipe Road San Jose, CA 95135-1599 Phone: 408-274-6402

GOVERNING BOARD

Special Board Meeting

A Special Meeting of the Governing Board of the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District is scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

San José/Evergreen Community College District

District Conference Room – District Office

4750 San Felipe Road

San Jose, California 95135

AGENDA

5:00 p.m.       I.    CALL TO ORDER –District Conference Room

                              PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

                              PUBLIC COMMENTS:

                              Announcement and Public Comments Regarding Items to be

                              Discussed in Closed Session (Government Code §54954.5)

                              (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to                          address the Board.  Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes.)

II.   PUBLIC SESSION – District Conference Room

A.     Brown Act and Ethics Training for Trustees

By Ms. Mary Hernandez, LLP

                          III. ADJOURNMENT

1/05/07                                                           

RGP:mnl

San Jose/Evergreen Community College District

Chancellor Goals 2006-2007

Rosa G. Perez, Chancellor

1. Focus on the final selection and incorporation of new executives into our District and review areas that need to be strengthened based on both the accreditation reports and the Chancellor’s Significant Issues Survey
• Hire SJCC President and Associate Vice Chancellor of Institutional Effectiveness
• Structure team building efforts with new executives
• Finalize new organization chart and also develop systems/process maps to be reviewed with shared governance groups
• Authorize a review of HR under our new Vice Chancellor
• Develop a plan of action for ITSS that includes negotiations with Datatel for training and programming support; implement a District ITSS Committee
• Assist the colleges in the preparation for the October Accreditation Revisit

2. Provide leadership for the educational strategic planning that is based on student and community needs and strengthen the District’s direction and support to the colleges in meeting the needs of our immigrant and low income communities.  Continue to foster stronger partnerships with K-12, social service agencies, universities, civic groups and businesses that share our core social justice values

·         Restructure District Research and Planning to support colleges’ program review and educational planning with the goal of improving student retention and success

·         Work with consultant Pia Moriarty on assessing the profile, needs, interests and concerns of our current and potential immigrant students and also to initiate a project on popular education

·         Continue program development to increase the education of immigrants in job training and begin to coordinate the efforts of IBP, WIN, and the colleges to accomplish this goal

·         Initiate a study of non-credit options and develop a strategic relationship with our adult schools to transition immigrant students to postsecondary coursework

·         Continue to work on school partnerships and pipeline work

·         Finalize a relationship with the high school districts to serve those students who do not succeed in passing the high school exit exam

·         Initiate a relationship with the School of Medicine at Stanford for the encouragement of students to enter health care professions

3. Complete a review of the facilities master plan to link it to the educational priorities and plans of the colleges.   Provide oversight for the bond funded projects and complete the planning of the District land use project

·         Continue to move forward on Land Use Determination

·         Continue to work on move of District Office

·         Create a feasibility plan for a Milpitas Educational Center

·         Decide on future location for the Law Enforcement Academy

·         Incorporate the analysis provided by consultant Mike Maas into the strategic plans for the colleges and the district

·         Review facilities plans vis-à-vis educational mission and cost effectiveness to the colleges

·         Implement a District-wide Emergency Preparedness Plan

·         Implement a District-wide Master Plan for Security

4. Provide support for the implementation of a budget process as identified in the accreditation recommendations and that begins to link budget allocation to student needs and Board priorities

5. Continue to provide professional development for administrators and managers to strengthen their skills and abilities to provide leadership for our students and employees

6. Implement a revised evaluation process for managers and supervisors that includes expectations and standards for cultural proficiency

7. Foster a culture of consultation and communication with community based leaders and promote this value in our district

·         Promote a legislative agenda that is in line with our Board’s values

·         Support legislation on SB 160, State Dream Act, concurrent enrollment

·         Promote Federal advocacy of the Dream Act

·         Strategize on connections with new Mayor and efforts to be San Jose-centered

·         Explore the improvement of the role of our Foundation in generating grants and scholarships

8. Develop a pilot program for international student recruitment and global education that is linked most directly to the communities we serve, starting with Southeast Asia

9. Support the continued development of our Board of Trustees

·         Continue training on various aspects of boardsmanship

·         Provide training for our Board on cultural proficiency and popular education

·         Assist the Board with identifying an appropriate number and scope of subcommittees

·         Encourage our trustees to identify greatest contributions that they individually can make to District at this time

Adopted September, 2006

Board Priorities and Chancellor Goals for 2007-08

1. Update Vision, Mission, Values for the District

2. Complete the revision of Board policies, paying special attention to the review of the District’s Administrative Services Policies and Procedures (Chapter 6) through the shared governance process, and provide training as necessary to ensure appropriate implementation. Note: the former Policies manual is dated November 21, 1967.

3. Design an annual strategic workplan for the District administration.

4. Implement the new budget model, including allocations to the colleges, that link both enrollment targets and student success targets.  Train administrators as necessary to ensure success in linking college and district planning and budgeting processes.

5. Develop a sustainability plan for Chancellor/Board of Trustees approval that addresses waste recycling, carpooling, campus energy use, and green architecture.

6. Improve campus safety, security, and student wellness:

a.       Establish and equip emergency preparedness centers at each college and the District Office, and provide comprehensive employee training on emergency preparedness procedures.

b.       Finalize a safety and security plan that proposes:

1.      Use of bond funds to improve campus lighting

2.      Use of bond funds to incorporate technology into a process that protects district property from vandalism.

3.      Use of Criminal Justice students to establish a cadet program aimed at providing escort assistance during evening hours to students, employees and visitors.

4.      A bicycle patrol program to improve our community policing efforts.

c.       Review adequacy of student health services, including mental health counseling, services to students with disabilities, and evaluate current policies on student health fees

d.       Increase student awareness of safety and security measures at our colleges

7. Invest in the development of the Foundation to support its new mission:

a.       Assist the Foundation in implementing its new three-year strategic plan.

b.       Write policies and procedures for the Foundation.

c.       Advise the Foundation on updates to its Master Agreement with the District   and its by-laws.

d.       Create a new endowment fund for student scholarships and book grants for low-income students from excess revenues generated by the operations of the district bookstores.

e.       Seek funding for a multicultural leadership institute at one of our colleges

f.        Hire an Executive Director for the Foundation

8. Improve services delivered by ITSS:

a.       Review the district-wide organization and distribution of IT resources and develop a plan to maximize IT services incorporating the tools needed to provide for high quality instructional technology, excellent support services to meet student and employee needs, strong qualitative analytical tools to help assess our investments in student success and the infrastructure required to serve the mission of the District.  Be prepared to invest in external experts to assist in the accomplishment of this goal.

b.       Define and implement a training plan for the following software applications:

1.      People Admin (employment applicant tracking)

2.      Analytic Systems (new Windows-based budgeting software)

3.      Datatel Admissions/communications management

4.      Web CT 6.0 (course management)

5.      A new approach (yet to be determined) to the existing Timekeeper software.

6.      Discoverer (data mining/reporting)

7.      WebReg (WebAdvisor) 3.0

8.      Barracuda (SPAM)

9.      Benefac (HR benefits)

c.       Develop a long-range plan to bring VoIP to the campuses to enhance the current PBX system that has no more capacity for expansion.

d.       Install a new MIS reporting system and enrollment management tools

9. Create Board adopted priorities and guidelines for community partnerships related to opportunities for educational collaborations, including a formal plan for a Milpitas Center.

10. Plan and implement new District purchasing processes that encourage more minority- and women-owned companies and proprietorships to do business with the District.

11. Design and implement a Basic Skills plan, using funds made available through the State Chancellor’s Office, setting benchmarks for student learning, research and staff development.  This plan will incorporate themes that address cultural competence, immigrant education, and popular education pedagogy.

12. Formalize a relationship with the local adult schools with renewed articulation agreements and support services that transition students to our colleges.

13. Increase the participation of Latinos in ESL by 3%

14. Increase the retention of historically underrepresented students coming directly from local high schools in the first semester of the freshman year by 5%

15. Increase the retention of students of color, especially Latino, in elementary algebra by a percentage which is based on an analysis of historical trends.

16. Increase the persistence of students of color, especially Latino, from elementary Algebra to Intermediate Algebra, by a percentage which is based on an analysis of historical trends.

17. Increase the participation and completion of students of color in workforce programs.  Objectives to be determined after analysis of current participation and success rates.

18. Develop a plan for coordinating workforce education in the district that incorporates the contract education services provided by IBP. 

19. Increase the number of workforce programs offered in the district by four, including programs containing courses that are taught in languages other than English in order to provide workforce opportunities for residents in our community that have heretofore not been served.

20. Assess the quality of services and the comprehensiveness of educational opportunities available to evening students.

21. Complete an analysis of staffing and standards of excellence for the Office of Human Resources

22. Develop a responsible plan for managing retiree health benefits by working with a

steering committee to define and implement a GASB 45 compliance plan to address the accrued unfunded liability for these benefits.

INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING GUIDE CONTENTS ·         SJCC MISSION STATEMENT ·         COLLEGE PLANNING COUNCIL ·         GUIDELINES AND PROCESSES FOR INTEGRATING PLANNING AND BUDGETING
	I.    Preparation of the Annual Budget       A.   Guiding Principles Program Review and Resource Allocation will be linked: ·          Requests for resource allocation or resource redirection will only be considered if current program review self-studies are on file. (See Addendum IV.)  Upon request, programs will be provided with current information to update their program self-study. ·          Self-study narratives will give programs the opportunity to clarify any issues regarding numerical information (e.g., unusual changes in enrollment, expenditures, etc.). ·          Requests involving new programs or more than a single program and requests which fall outside existing program frameworks shall be accompanied by a division area review and/or planning document.  (See Addendum IV.) ·          Where no full-time faculty are employed in a department or program, part-time faculty will be funded to perform program review in a timely fashion. Criteria that should be used (not in priority order): ·          Changes in a major funding source by a division of the College. ·          A major new responsibility required of a division of the College, such as creation of a new department, maintenance of substantial new equipment, or need to adhere to new regulations. ·          A significant change in educational methodology by a discipline, such as the need to incorporate new technology. ·          Changes in enrollments across Divisions (WSCH), or overall headcount for college-wide services (counseling, library, admissions and records, etc.). ·          Changes in casual staffing needs. ·          A program’s “value and quality” (as determined by a program review process) in relation to its ability to accomplish its mission and goals. (Benefit vs. Cost) ·          Services and resources which enhance retention and student success. ·          Price changes due to inflation, affecting the purchasing power of divisions in the College. (Lower priority than the above principles.) Criteria that should NOT be used: ·          Some money should go to each of the funding areas identified in the Guidelines. ·          The money should be equally distributed among the divisions and programs in the College. B.   Procedures ·          Upon the recommendation of the Finance Committee, the college has adopted the attached decision-making timeline and process.  In accord with the approved timeline, the administration will solicit prioritized budget requests from Deans, Supervisors, and the Finance Committee. ·          Department and program budget requests will be presented by faculty and staff to the appropriate Deans and Supervisors: o         Requests should be written and justified in terms of campus needs, campus goals, and the “Guiding Principles.” o         Every program should have a 1/2 to 1 page summary of their program review document to show how financial need connects to program plans and needs. o         Every “project” funded through the resource allocation process should have a summary of how program review (or related document) supports the budget allocation. o         Deans and Supervisors will submit budget proposals to the appropriate Vice President ·          Within a parallel timeline, general campus budget requests (which shall include justifications based on campus goals, strategic planning, and program reviews similar to the department and program requests) will be solicited from campus constituencies and prioritized by the Finance Committee ·          Where technology needs are concerned, the College Technology Committee (CTC) will make recommendations to the Finance Committee and to the administration. ·          The Vice Presidents and the Finance Committee will exchange and review their respective budget requests, each making recommendations as appropriate to the other. ·          The Vice Presidents will prepare a proposed budget to be submitted to the Director of Finance and Administration, who will provide required data, categorization, formatting, and organization. ·          The Finance Committee will on a yearly basis approve criteria that should be used by the Director of Finance in the preparation of the yearly budget. ·          The Finance Committee will submit its recommendations to the CPC.  The CPC will review the Finance Committee proposal and will submit its recommendations to the Director of Finance and Administration, who will provide required data, categorization, formatting, and organization. ·          The Director of Finance and Administration will submit a unified college budget proposal to the College President and the Executive Team. ·          The College President will consult with the College Planning Council and will provide a rationale of how the proposed budget (program/department and general campus) meets campus goals and “Guiding Principles.” The CPC will present suggestions and recommendations to the President. ·          Following opportunities for review by deans/directors and standing committees as well as for public comment, the College President will approve a final budget and submit that budget to the Chancellor.
	II.    Allocation of ONE TIME MONEY       (if responsibility not previously assigned) A.   Guiding Principles Program Review and Resource Allocation will be linked: ·          Requests for resource allocation or resource redirection will only be considered if current program review self-studies are on file. (See Addendum IV.)  Upon request, programs will be provided with current information to update their program self-study. ·          Self-study narratives will give programs the opportunity to clarify any issues regarding numerical information (e.g., unusual changes in enrollment, expenditures, etc.). ·          Requests involving new programs or more than a single program and requests which fall outside existing program frameworks shall be accompanied by a division area review and/or planning document.  (See Addendum IV.) ·          Where no full-time faculty are employed in a department or program, part-time faculty will be funded to perform program review in a timely fashion. Criteria that should be used (not in priority order): ·          The specific annual goals for the allocation of one-time funding which are established by the Finance Committee in consultation with the campus community. ·          “Modern instructional equipment and methodology” and basic instructional needs should be a high priority. ·          Projects that attract and retain students over the long run should have priority over those which do not. ·          Both large and small projects should be considered, including requests related to division needs and requests for replacement of out-of-date equipment. ·          Projects undertaken should be done completely and thoroughly so that they will have long term, continuing value to the College. If needed, money from various sources should be combined to successfully complete a project. ·          Projects should be chosen that benefit the maximum number of students in credit classes, programs, or services. ·          Money should only be spent on equipment and technology that we can properly install, maintain, staff, and provide proper training to use. ·          Projects should be defined and developed in consultation with the end users. Criteria that should NOT be used: ·          Some money should go to each of the funding areas identified in the Guidelines. ·          The money should be equally distributed among the divisions and programs in the College. B.   Procedures     ·          The Finance Committee will develop a decision-making timeline and will solicit funding requests from Deans and Supervisors. ·          Faculty and staff will present funding requests to Deans or Supervisors, who will review requests with the appropriate Vice President. o         Funding requests should be written and justified in terms of campus needs, campus goals, and guiding principles.  o         Every program should have a 1/2 to 1 page summary of their program review document to show how financial need connects to program plans and needs. o         Every project funded through the resource allocation process should have a summary of how program review (or related document) supports the budget allocation. ·          Deans and Supervisors will submit requests to the Finance Committee, which will review and develop a proposed list of allocations.  In the absence of a Dean or Supervisor, the Finance Committee will consider requests made without Dean or Supervisor approval. ·          The Finance Committee will submit its recommendations to the College Planning Council, which will review and develop a proposed list of allocations. The College Planning Council will submit its recommendations to the College President, who will make final allocation decisions.
	III.   Guidelines and Procedures for Funding/Establishing New Programs Program Review and Resource Allocation will be linked: ·          Requests for resource allocation or resource redirection will be considered only if required data-driven planning documents/division area reviews are submitted. (See Addendum IV)  Individuals or departments submitting new program requests will be provided with current relevant planning and research information. ·          Planning documents will give individuals or departments the opportunity to clarify any issues regarding numerical information (e.g., unusual expectations re enrollment, expenditures, etc.). ·          Where no full-time faculty or staff is employed in a division or department which is proposing a new program, part-time faculty or staff will be funded to perform program review in a timely fashion. ·          Any new academic (or counseling) program must be formally approved by the Academic Senate before it is funded The following guidelines and procedures are recommended for the funding of new programs: ·          Departments, divisions or program areas identify new programs, significant program expansions, or other initiatives, which would be viable, and meet emerging student needs.  This identification will be based on program review, changing demographics or workforce needs, developing technologies, etc. ·          Program review data will be provided by the requesting department, division, or program and will be applied in the decision-making process.  (See Addendum IV) ·          Funding sources will be identified using the budget planning processes of the college and the district. ·          Funding allocation would follow the normal “Procedures for Preparation of the Annual Budget.” ·          Following review and/or approval (as appropriate) by the Instructional Policies and Curriculum Committee (IPCC) and the Academic Senate, proposals for possible changes in programs and services are submitted for review to the appropriate Vice Presidents. ·          Summary notes should be included showing the impact of proposed changes on campus/student needs, campus and district goals, and consistency with the “Guiding Principles for Allocation of Ongoing Budget.” ·          With this information, the Vice Presidents will develop a proposed list of budgetary modifications which will be recommended to the College President.
	Where academic or counseling programs are involved, the College President will consult with the Academic Senate before they are announced or funded and will provide a rationale for the proposed changes, the probable impact on students, and consistency with college and district goals.  The approval of any such programs must be formally made by the Academic Senate.
	IV.   Guidelines and Procedures for Reducing or Eliminating Programs This procedure will be parallel to the one for providing funding for new programs.  Where academic or curricular programs are involved, the College President will provide for the Academic Senate an explanation of how savings will be utilized to better serve student needs (in accord with relevant program review results) or, if appropriate, when funding restorations will be implemented. Any reduction in or elimination of funding which leads to termination of programs will include a plan and timetable for the phasing-out of such programs.
	V.  Determining New Full-Time Academic Positions A.   Guiding Principles Program Review and Resource Allocation will be linked: ·          Requests for faculty position allocation or faculty position redirection will only be considered if current program review self-studies are on file. (See Addendum IV) Upon request, programs will be provided with current information to update their program self-study. ·          Self-study narratives will give programs the opportunity to clarify any issues regarding numerical information (e.g., unusual expectations re enrollment or expenditures, etc.). ·          Requests involving new programs or more than a single program and requests which fall outside existing program frameworks shall be accompanied by a division area review and/or planning document.  (See Addendum IV) ·          Where no full-time faculty are available in a department or program, part-time faculty will be funded to perform program review in a timely fashion. Criteria that should be used: ·          Areas of the College do not “own” faculty positions; vacant positions revert to the College for possible reassignment. ·          Departments with a high part-time/full-time faculty ratio should have priority over departments with a low ratio. ·          Departments with increasing enrollments should have priority over departments with decreasing enrollments. ·          Highly “viable” programs should have priority over less viable programs.  “Viability” should be determined by program review and should include such issues as assurance of future enrollments, availability of facilities, and provision of proper staff support. ·          Departments needing full-time faculty to address health/safety/legal requirements should have priority over programs having lesser such need. ·          Established departments with no full-time faculty and viable newly proposed departments should have priority over departments with existing full-time faculty. ·          Departments which do not have available part-time faculty should have priority over departments which do have available part–time faculty. ·          Departments should exhaust the possibility of reassigning other (possibly under loaded) full-time faculty to department before being authorized to proceed with full-time hire.  Such reassignments should be consistent with contract provisions. Criteria that should not be used: ·          Whether or not the productivity of a department (measured in WSCH/FTE) is high or low.  Departmental productivity may properly be used in determining the number of sections of classes offered and whether or not to continue a program, but productivity should play a much lesser role in deciding what portion of classes in a department should be taught by full or part-time faculty. ·          The number of years a department has been making a request for a full-time hire. ·          Recent retirements/resignations/reassignments of full-time faculty in a department. B.   Procedures ·          The District office communicates to the campus the number of available positions early in the fall semester.  ·          The College President, Vice Presidents, and Deans estimate additional positions that might become available due to unannounced retirements and/or resignations. The number of available positions is communicated to the Academic Senate. ·          The Vice Presidents ask their Deans for prioritized requests for positions (by department and based on program review data).  (See Addendum IV) ·          The Academic Senate similarly solicits requests from its constituents for positions, again based on program review data. ·          The Vice Presidents develop a proposed list of approved positions using Division and Academic Senate requests and the “Guiding Principles for Determining New Full-time Teaching Faculty Hires.”  Any deviations from Academic Senate requests shall include justification which should be delivered to the Academic Senate prior to the presentation of final recommendations to the College President. [If, later in the academic year, new faculty needs emerge due to an unanticipated vacancy, the Division Dean or Vice President may request a replacement. It will include a rationale for immediate replacement.] ·          The College President makes final decisions, in consultation with the Academic Senate President, which are forwarded to the district Chancellor. Note that all new academic and counseling programs must have the approval of the Academic Senate.
	VI.   Determining New Contract Classified Staff Positions A.   Guiding Principles Program Review and Resource Allocation will be linked in the allocation of Contract Classified Staff positions: ·          Requests for classified staff position allocation or redirection will only be considered if current program review self-studies are on file. (See Addendum IV)  Upon request, programs will be provided with current information to update their program self-study. ·          Self-study narratives will give programs the opportunity to clarify any issues regarding numerical information (e.g., unusual levels of student need for assistance or unusual patterns of expenditures, etc.). ·          Requests involving new programs or more than a single program and requests which fall outside existing program frameworks shall be accompanied by a division area review and/or planning document.  (See Addendum IV) Criteria that should be used (not in priority order): ·          Areas of the College do not “own” classified positions – vacant positions revert to the District for possible reassignment to either College or to the District Office. ·          Available positions should be evaluated in terms of health/safety/security issues. ·          Available positions should be evaluated in terms of where money is currently spent on casual labor/comp time/overtime. ·          Available positions should be evaluated in terms of College mission and goals. ·          Available positions should be evaluated in term of program review information. ·          Available positions should be evaluated in terms of program viability. ·          Available positions should be evaluated in terms of workload: o         If a position is eliminated, reallocate or eliminate the workload; o         If a position is available, consider allocating to areas where work load is high; o         Weigh the creation of new positions with the redistribution of work. o         Adhere to union contract rules. B.   Procedures ·          Classified staffing requests should be submitted to the Vice Presidents or to the Director of Finance and Administration, who will make classified staffing recommendation to the College President.  ·          Recommendations should be based on the Guiding Principles for Determining New Classified Staff positions and the classified union contract.  The Vice Presidents and the Director of Finance and Administration should also solicit input from affected faculty, classified staff, and students. ·          Management should meet and confer with the union(s) on changes in classified staff positions as required by the contract(s). ·          The College President will make the final classified staffing decisions based on input from the Vice Presidents and the Director of Finance and Administration.
	VII.  Allocation of Work Space A.  Guiding Principles To ensure that space is allocated equitably and meets the needs of the College and to maximize the utilization of space. ·          Full-time faculty, classified staff, and administrative offices shall be allocated according to the nature and content of the job.  Full-time faculty shall be assigned a private office whenever possible. ·          People working in similar programs, areas, or disciplines shall be located in physical proximity, if practicable. ·          An employee shall have no more than one office. ·          Adjunct faculty will be provided workspace. ·          When new buildings are constructed the allocation of full-time faculty offices shall take into account a faculty member’s seniority. B.  Procedures ·          Division Deans, using the Guiding Principles, shall have authority to designate office spaces equivalent to the number of full-time faculty in the division. ·          Unmet need for full-time faculty space shall be resolved by negotiation among Division Deans. ·          When additional office space is needed, those offices unoccupied for a semester or more by employees on Professional or Staff Development Leave or for some other reason may be temporarily allocated by the employee’s supervisor to other employees. ·          The President and Vice Presidents shall have authority to resolve conflicts for administrative offices. ·          The President and Vice Presidents shall allocate office space for other groups only after the allocation of office space for faculty, classified staff and administrators.

PLANNING AND BUDGETING:

A NEW PROCESS

SAN JOSE/EVERGREEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

June 2007  

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations and processes contained in this document are intended to respond to the Accrediting Commission’s recommendations to improve the District’s linkages between its planning and budgeting processes. In the pages that follow, an effort is made to define a new process that clearly links planning and budgeting while presenting a framework that encourages all employees to assist the Chancellor and Governing Board in defining a vision for the future and setting the appropriate goals and objectives. The model begins with a foundational statement of principles and moves to a well-defined deliberative process that empowers the Board to exercise its statutory authority to govern the organization.

At the heart of this proposal are recommendations for two new Governing Board Committees and two new District-wide committees. The proposed new committees are a District Budget Committee and a District Facilities Committee, and they will make recommendations to the Chancellor via the District Council.

In addition, two new Governing Board committees are proposed: a Board Finance Committee and a Board Facilities Committee.

This new committee structure along with defined budgeting procedures are intended to move the colleges and our district into a new period of unprecedented success.

BUDGETING PRINCIPLES

The new planning and budgeting system seeks to demonstrate the following principles:

1. The policy and governance roles of the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees in approving the allocation and use of district funds are clearly defined and understandable to the district at large.

2. The Board of Trustees vests in the Chancellor the authority and responsibility to implement the approved annual budget while exercising its appropriate oversight responsibilities.

3. The budgeting process must be transparent in design and application to include the district’s compliance with the 50% law, the 75/25 ratio for full time and adjunct faculty, and other required standards established by the state.

4. The budgeting process promotes the accomplishment of institutional goals and objectives, utilizing clearly defined metrics to evaluate outcomes whenever possible. There should be flexibility within clearly defined limits in this process to allow for changes and redeployment of funds.

5. Each college president, working within the college’s shared governance process, has full authority to propose a college budget to the Chancellor and Board of Trustees. Each college will ensure that an open and accountable process is developed to include the college budget committees as well as other relevant constituencies, incorporating clear guidelines and adequate training for those involved.

6. Each college will be held accountable for implementing its budget, with technical assistance provided by the District Office.

7. The process encourages communication and participatory governance at all organizational levels.

8. Resource allocation must include the stakeholders who participate in determining the relative contributions of the various programs toward college and district goals and objectives, including but not limited to enrollment growth or decline.

9. Carryover of unexpended discretionary account budgets is permitted for each college and the District Office (DO), for one year only. Any unexpended funds at the end of the fiscal year must re-circulate through the college budgetary processes to ensure open and transparent decision-making; those processes may permit a division/program to carry over unexpended funds for one year. There is to be no continuing pool of unrestricted funds at the college level.

10. Any new programs and collective bargaining provisions approved by the Governing Board must be accompanied by adequate funding to the colleges to implement them.

11. All indirect overhead revenue associated with a grant or categorical program accrues to the college receiving the revenue. No indirect overhead is allocated to the DO unless required by the granting agency, or agreed to with the college.

12. All District-wide strategic plans empower each college, through its budgetary processes, to define, prioritize and fund its own needs within guidelines established by those strategic plans.

13. The budget process emphasizes planning first, and then budgeting, rather than being reactive to fiscal circumstances or environmental exigencies. Sound fiscal management requires the use of available resources to carry out the agreed upon budgetary plans and priorities of each campus and the district.

14. All offices and programs must be the subject of a program review process. Those which are not part of the college must be reviewed according to a methodology recommended by the District Budget committee and approved by the District Planning Council. This review would include board initiatives and all offices and departments.

PLANNING/BUDGETING MODEL

The budget model illustrated on the next page reflects the proposed process for annual budget development and is described more fully in the next section. The following recommendations will require changes to current practice at all levels of the district organization, but they are necessary to clarify and define how the planning and budgeting process unfolds.

General Fund Revenue

1. In consultation with the District Budget Committee, the Chancellor shall recommend that a prudent General Fund reserve be set aside as the first step in the budgeting process, based on reasonable and generally accepted levels.

2. A set aside of funds for any new Board-initiated programs shall be included in the annual District budget proposal as the second step. To the extent possible, these initiatives will be shared with the District Budget Committee for review and comment prior to any decision to include them in the district budget.

3. The Chancellor shall allocate the remaining projected General Fund revenue (Fund 10) between the colleges and the District Office (DO), based upon the advice of the District Budget Committee using financial and program metrics, and based upon the Governing Board’s goals.

Restricted Revenue

1. Each college shall retain all indirect overhead revenue earned from restricted fund sources. Each campus budgetary process will ensure the indirect overhead is reviewed and allocated in an open and transparent manner.

2. State and federal restricted funds granted to the District as a whole shall be apportioned between colleges according to fund source criteria. For instance, if prior year headcount is used to determine the District’s appropriation from a state grant, then prior year headcount shall be used to allocate the funds between colleges (including indirect overhead).

3. A college that has separately applied for grant funds will receive all grant funds without a chargeback for District Operations.

4. Exceptions to the above guidelines may be necessary as determined by the Chancellor’s Office in consultation with the constituency groups for several reasons including the following: there is a clear opportunity to achieve significantly greater efficiency or effectiveness from the funds; there is a need to address staffing dysfunctions caused by the revenue distribution method; the grant already specifies the amount that is to be allocated to each college.

5. Revenue from private sources, from grants, and from leasehold income that can be ascribed solely to a particular college’s initiatives and activities shall accrue to that college alone. Examples: vending income, lease revenue for communications towers, facility rental, designated gifts to the SJECCD Foundation, etc.

Establishing Separate College and District Office Budgets

Within the constraints defined above, the colleges and the DO shall have the authority to propose their own budgets to the Chancellor for approval and submission to the Board of Trustees. The Tentative and Adoption budgets will contain distinctly separate budgets for the two colleges and the District Office. The District Office budget shall contain a section for functions that report directly to the District Office such as the IBP, the child care facilities, and the bookstore.

Each college and the DO shall define for the Chancellor and Board of Trustees its planning/budgeting model for the allocation of its total revenue. The current college planning models are included in the appendix to this report.

Accompanying the authority of the colleges and the DO to develop and recommend their own budgets will be the responsibility to implement and monitor those budgets systematically. The colleges and DO must exercise appropriate budgetary oversight to ensure that their budgeted revenues are expended according to the plan and are not over-spent. Any requests to exceed their Board-authorized budget total within a fiscal year must be recommended by the Chancellor to the Governing Board for approval. Excessive carryover in the DO budget shall also be subject to review and comment by the colleges, and may be re-apportioned to the colleges upon the direction of the District Budget Advisory Committee, and approval of the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees.

From time-to-time, unforeseen circumstances may result in excessive cost increases or State revenue reductions. This will require collaborative discussions between the colleges and the District Office to develop a collective budget strategy for review by the district stakeholders prior to consideration by the Chancellor and Board of Trustees.

Governing Board Authority

To appropriately exercise its statutory oversight role, it is recommended that the Board of Trustees establish two main standing committees that will focus on most major issues associated with the district’s planning/budgeting processes. The two recommended standing committees are as follows:

Board Finance Committee

These are open meetings and shall be announced and minutes published in accordance with Brown Act guidelines.

The Board Finance Committee has the following principle responsibilities:

            Review the annual budget proposals for the Tentative and Adoption budgets.

            Review the annual independent auditor’s financial statements.

            Review district cash flow requirements

            Review the annual independent auditor’s performance audit on Measure G

            Review the timing and implementation of general obligation bond sales.

            Perform other financial oversight responsibilities as delegated by the Governing Board.

Board Facilities Committee

These are open meetings and shall be announced and minutes published in accordance with Brown Act guidelines.

The Board Facilities Committee has the following principle responsibilities:

            Review the district’s capital outlay master plan

            Review the district’s land use proposals

            Review the progress on district capital projects

            Review the district’s plan for scheduled maintenance

            Other capital project oversight responsibilities as delegated by the Governing Board.

New District-Wide Committees

One of the principle concerns raised in both college accreditation self-studies related to the lack of coordination in systems planning functions, and the disconnection between the college planning processes and the development of the district budget. Most major functional areas were included in this concern, including academic and student services planning, technology planning, etc. To ensure that there is an appropriate linkage between planning and budgeting district-wide, the following Chancellor’s Advisory Committees are established:

1. District Budget Committee

2. District Facilities Committee

Full descriptions of the make-up and function of these committees are included in the following sections.

District Council (DC)

In addition to the district advisory committees, it is proposed that one advisory committee be formally established as a District Council (DC). This Chancellor’s advisory committee is designated as a “council” to distinguish it as having an even broader scope of interest than the district committees. The DC will be called upon to coordinate, integrate, and review the activities of other District-wide committees or groups in the District, and to help insure that appropriate channels of communication remain open between the colleges, the DO, and all district and campus-based committees.

The District Council shall be responsible to coordinate the planning processes throughout the district. It shall articulate a vision for the district reflective of its mission, and develop district long-range goals for consideration by the Chancellor and Governing Board. This shall be accomplished through a collaborative process involving all sectors of district and college operations. In this capacity, the DC shall recommend planning priorities to the college presidents and the Chancellor.

Authority of Academic Senates

It is very important to note that this proposed planning/budgeting model is intended to complement and never conflict with the role or powers of the Academic Senates as defined in California Educational Code, Title V or District Policy and Procedures.

Authority of the Bargaining Units

The district budget and planning process must include all collective bargaining groups because negotiations include wages, benefits, and working conditions. Involvement by bargaining agents is critical in any budgetary planning process. Therefore, this document considers the exclusive bargaining agents as full participants in the budgetary process of the District.

Conclusion

The district is uniquely poised at this time to effectuate significant reform in its planning and budgeting processes. The culture of evidence found in the accreditation self-studies compels the district to adopt a fresh approach, and the Governing Board and Chancellor have demonstrated their readiness to move ahead. The District must demonstrate to the Accreditation Commission that it has made meaningful and verifiable progress in linking planning and budgeting, while clearly defining the roles of the Governing Board, the constituency groups and the Administration in the process.

The model proposed in this paper calls for a considerable change in current district practice. However, the model defines a dynamic process that is not “etched in stone.” Every employee will be accorded the privilege of participating in the district’s shared governance process. While the model will necessarily evolve over time, the district must hold to the principles cited earlier if it intends to develop and sustain the highest quality community-based programs and services possible within the funding constraints imposed by a state-controlled financing system.

ATTACHMENT A

SAN JOSE/EVERGREEN DISTRICT’S

PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

The accreditation process conducted during the past two years has revealed the need to restructure the manner in which SJECCD performs its planning and budgeting functions. At its meeting on January 11-13, 2006, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, acted to accept the report of the evaluation team, removing the district’s Warning Status at both colleges and reaffirming the district’s full accreditation status.

However, this action was taken with the requirement that the district complete certain actions to be reflected in a Progress Report filed with the Commission no later than October 15, 2006. San Jose City College responded to three primary recommendations that are cited in the first section of this paper on page ii. Evergreen Valley College must respond to eight recommendations including the following:

·         To meet the objective of providing effective facility planning that ensures student achievement and learning, the college needs to adopt an integrated planning structure that incorporates a cycle of planning, resource allocation, and assessment relative to academic program needs and facility development.

·         Integrate the college technology master plan into a comprehensive strategic plan for the entire college. Combine the objectives of the technology plans of the two colleges into a District Technology Master Plan.

·         The team recommends that the Board of Trustees limit its actions to establishing policies, delegating operational authority for implementing and administering Board policies to the chancellor.

·         The team recommends that the District clearly delineate and communicate the operational responsibilities and functions of the District from those of the colleges and consistently adhere to this delineation in practice.

This section will describe in more detail how San Jose/Evergreen Community College District will link it planning processes to the District’s budget, including how the process of budgeting flows through the year, how the colleges’ participatory governance structures influence budget decisions, and how the District’s Master Plan will influence the framework for budget decisions.

OVERVIEW OF SJECCD’S PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS

SJECCD has made some improvements in its planning and budgeting processes since the accreditation review in 2004. However, the emphasis of the recent evaluation team upon continuing this improvement provides an incentive to review and propose new process for the district’s planning and budget procedures.

Defining the District Budget Reserve

What amount should be set aside by the Governing Board as a “prudent” district fund reserve? Factors that should be considered in this decision include the following:

1. Continuity of programs and services should be assured during times of broad swings in State allocated funds. The State is notorious for its swings in appropriating funds to educational agencies, and the district can only protect its operations from a similar plight if it has an adequate reserve to smooth out the revenue fluctuations.

2. Reserves should serve to avoid or minimize reductions in force during periods of inadequate State funding. Lay-offs always create bitterness and conflict in an organization, which then has a major impact on the district’s ability to provide high quality services to the community.

3. Cash flow must be adequate to pay bills on time. Again, the State creates major problems in this arena due to an Attorney General’s ruling several years ago prohibiting the allocation of State funds until the Governor has signed a budget into law. Since it is not unusual for the State to go all the way through summer before a State budget is adopted, the district must have sufficient reserves to carry it until then. In addition, SJECCD’ S revenue comes predominantly at two points in the year (December and April) when local property tax collections are distributed by the county.

4. Reserves must be adequate to satisfy State regulations. The California Chancellor’s Office places a district on its “watch list” if reserves fall below 5% of total budget. If reserves fall below 3%, a district must take aggressive steps defined by the State to improve its reserve. In both instances, unwanted publicity results, negatively affecting the community’s perception of district quality.

5. A well-defined reserve establishes a benchmark for determining the amount of funding available for budgeting purposes. Often, public educational agencies engage in heated debates over the matter of how much General Fund reserve should be set aside from consideration for district budget needs or salary schedule augmentations. A clear Governing Board policy that defines a reasonable and prudent reserve allows the budgeting and negotiating processes to progress in a much more timely and orderly fashion.

It is proposed that the District’s reserve be established by Board policy as a benchmark target defined as a percentage of the annual budget. Revenue in excess of this percentage is available for budget development including contract negotiations.

Budgeting Transfers

Each year, the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services must build into the budget mandatory and non-mandatory transfers to other funds to cover activities that are approved by the Governing Board. Examples of mandatory transfers include payments into the district’s self-insurance funds covering benefits for both current employees (dental and vision plans) and retirees (health plan). Non-mandatory transfers are few in number and typically determined by Board policy, such as providing support for the Child Development Centers.

It should be noted that significant transfers (changes from the Adopted Budget) are proposed to the Governing board during each fiscal year. These transfers shall be clearly labeled with the account numbers as well as the title and division of the funds involved. In addition, at the end of each fiscal year the Governing Board will be provided with an account of the sum total of all approved budget transfers. These transfers shall also be used to adjust “Fifty Percent Law” and “75-25” reports to the State accounting and State Chancellor’s offices.

Budget Calendar

While the planning process involves activities throughout the year, it tends to start with the beginning of classes each fall semester and it ends in late spring with the printed fall schedule and the adoption of goals and objectives for the next year.

The budget calendar is also cyclical, but it can be viewed as a calendar year process beginning in January with the announcement of the Governor’s budget recommendations for the next fiscal year. The planning processes conducted through the fall begin to converge into budget plans in the spring, especially after the Governor’s May Revise is issued in the middle of May. The Tentative Budget is adopted by the Board of Trustees in June, and the Adoption Budget is approved in September following the finalization of the State budget. The annual budget process closes with the report of the independent financial auditor to the Governing Board in December or January regarding the previous fiscal year’s final revenues and expenditures.

The Tentative Budget serves as an interim spending plan to allow the district to continue operations through the summer months while the Legislature is completing the State budget. However, the Tentative Budget often sets in place a spending plan for the coming year that does not change substantially with the Adoption Budget. Each month during the year, the Board of Trustees is asked to approve requests to amend the adopted budget to recognize new federal and state special purpose grants as well as local contract revenue. Additionally, the Board takes action on hundreds of personnel changes during the course of the year, all of which have an impact on budgeted resources.

Linking Planning and Budgeting: Defining Committee Roles

Given the complexity of the district, one of the most important aspects of the planning/budgeting model is a clearly defined district-wide and college-based committee system. It is essential that the committee system perpetuate a coordinated flow of information that informs all employees in the district community, and involves them in the development of action plans.

A properly constructed committee system will exert a strong influence on the allocation of budgeted resources. There should be clearly defined opportunities for all employees and students to influence the budget development process by participating directly or indirectly in the system of district and college committees. The following committees are proposed at the district level to promote the necessary communications essential to the planning process:

• District Council

• District Budget Committee

• District Facilities Committee.

Attachment B contains a proposed scope of duties for each committee.

District-wide committees will address overall planning and governance issues, establishing parameters in which college level planning will occur. It will be in the colleges where most academic planning takes place, and it will be in the colleges where planning is linked to student outcomes evaluation processes.

Therefore, each college must define and implement a clear planning process that defines the roles of college committees and ensures that information flows across the college and to/from the district-wide committee structure. Enclosed as Attachment C are the current models of each college’s planning process.

Linking Planning and Budgeting: Loose Connections

There appears to be broad acceptance in the district that the allocation of budget resources should be linked to goals and objectives established according to a planning process. Establishing those goals and objectives, and defining the metrics used to measure their accomplishment, is a huge challenge for the district office and for each college.

The information provided in this document provides the framework for a new approach to the district’s planning and budgeting processes. In addition to the principles set forth in the Executive Summary, the following areas will need attention as the model is implemented:

• There must be a broad understanding of the district’s budgeting process among all stakeholders.

• The means by which an employee engages himself/herself in the district and college planning processes must be clear.

• As district and college strategic initiatives are created, they must be widely communicated.

• The criteria used to determine budget decisions must be clear.

• There should be certainty about how feedback on budget decisions occurs.

• All district line-item budgets will be available on-line to all district staff.

• Hard copies of the District’s line-item budgets will be provided to each member of the Governing Board and all District representative groups.

• An “actual line-item budget” will be made available after the end of each fiscal year which will clearly indicate changes due to transfers during that year.

Engaging all employees in the district’s planning and budgeting processes through a system of committees requires commitment on the part of many employees and a willingness on the part of managers and supervisors to enable their staff to participate.

ATTACHMENT B

DISTRICT-WIDE PLANNING COMMITTEES

The following committees are proposed for district-wide planning. Each committee will determine its calendar, agenda, and how, in accordance with this document, to disseminate its recommendations.

Each committee will review its scope of duties during its first year of operation and make any recommended changes to the District Council and the District’s various representative groups for review and recommendation to the Chancellor and Governing Board. Each committee will publish its agenda district-wide via e-mail at least 72 hours before they meet and will send out their draft minutes district wide by e-mail in a timely manner.

DISTRICT COUNCIL (DC)

This advisory committee to the Chancellor is distinguished as a council to reflect its overall responsibility for coordinating district-wide planning, including coordination of district policy development and the district-wide committees. The council must have direct representation from the other district advisory committees in order to ensure appropriate linkages with the other planning processes within the district.

The Academic Senates of each college are represented as well as AFT local 6157, CSEA Chapter 363, MSC and the student governments. This permits a constant flow of information between the colleges and the district office, and across all planning activities of the various entities and constituency groups.

The duties of the council shall include the following:

·         Articulate a vision of the future for the district, reflective of its mission.

·         Develop a set of long-range goals for the district through a collaborative process involving all segments of the district.

·         Collect, analyze, maintain, and disseminate institutional planning data.

·         Develop planning assumptions.

·         Develop planning priorities.

·         Coordinate implementation of district planning priorities through district-wide committees.

·         Review and coordinate the functioning of the colleges via the council representatives.

·         Coordinate the review of all proposals for district policy changes to ensure that all appropriate constituencies have had adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes.

·         Advise the Chancellor and Governing Board concerning all of the above.

DC Membership (19)

Chair: Chancellor

College Presidents/or their representatives (2)

Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services

Vice Chancellor, Human Resources

Facilities Director

ITSS Director

6 full-time faculty (2 appointed by each Academic Senate; 2 appointed by FA, AFT 6157)

6 Classified staff appointed by CSEA, Chapter 363

Students (2) One per campus

DISTRICT BUDGET COMMITTEE

The DBC serves as a Chancellor’s advisory committee and is also advisory to the District Planning Council (DC) on fiscal matters pertaining to the district planning process. It has the responsibility for coordinating budget planning in a manner that assists the district in maximizing its fiscal resources in the pursuit of the district’s mission. The committee’s responsibilities include, but are not be limited to, the following:

·         Establish an annual budget planning calendar.

·         Review State budget actions by the Governor, Legislature, and the State agencies, and propose, when appropriate, institutional positions on funding issues for consideration by the DPC and the Chancellor to convey to the State during annual budget development.

·         Recommend district fiscal priorities.

·         Review and recommend district procedures for the distribution of funds between the campuses, district office and other district operations.

·         Inform the district community on overall budget matters, including the identification of key indicators of the district’s economic health.

·         Evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed institutional plans and other policy-level actions.

·         Review college initiatives when they have a significant impact on the district as a whole.

·         Identify patterns of change in the district’s operating environment that may have a significant impact on budget planning or fiscal operations.

·         Identify potential areas for analysis on cost savings or effective use of resources.

·         Participate in the design and implementation of plans for acquiring additional district resources.

·         Advise the Chancellor and the DPC in fiscal matters affecting the district as a whole; inform the district community of any such matters.

Membership (18)

Chair: Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services

Faculty (6) (2 appointed by the FA, AFT 6157 and 2 from each Academic Senate)

Classified Staff (6) appointed by CSEA, Chapter 363

Administrators (3)

Students (2) One per campus

DISTRICT FACILITIES COMMITTEE

The DFPC is an advisory committee to the Chancellor and the DPC and provides advice on the need, rationale, and functions of new construction and rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of district educational and support facilities. It serves as a forum for the sharing and exchanging of important information relevant to district-wide facilities planning issues, and it also has responsibility to review and recommend improvements on matters pertaining to the campus and D.O. plans for disaster preparedness. The Director of Plant Planning, Operations and Maintenance utilizes the advice from the committee for updating the district’s five-year capital outlay program, annual deferred maintenance program and other general project plans.

Membership (16)

Chair: Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services

College President (2)

Executive Director, Plant Planning, Operations and Maintenance

Director, Information Technology Service & Support

Associate Vice Chancellor, Institutional Effectiveness

Faculty (4) (2 appointed by each academic senate)

Classified Staff (4) appointed by CSEA, Chapter 363

Students (2) One per campus

ATTACHMENT C

THE COLLEGE BUDGET PLANNING PROCESSES

ATTACHMENT D

JOINT TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE MEETINGS

These meetings would include the membership of the campus technology committees, the District ITSS Director and/or his/her representative(s).

These would be open meetings and would take place once per semester. More frequent meetings may be held at the request of the ITSS Director and with the agreement of the college technology committee chairs.

The agendas of these meetings would be drafted and agreed to by the two technology chairpersons and the Director of ITSS. Minutes of the meetings shall be published in a timely manner to all district staff. The meeting places would alternate between the two campuses.

Not all the membership of both technology committees would need to attend these meetings as they would operate by consensus and will serve primarily as a forum for the exchange of information and the evaluation of proposals from the ITSS management.

San Jose City College Program Review Process May 20, 2005 One of the six strategic planning goals at San Jose City College is to more clearly define program improvement and to establish a clear process for review of all instructional (includes librarians), counseling and instructional support service areas. Currently, program review occurs formally for the instructional programs and departments every five years.  These reviews have been staggered over this period.  Up to now, counseling and the instructional support programs / departments have not been part of this process. The College Planning Council (CPC) is recommending two program review processes that encompass all areas of the institution:  the regular program review traditionally conducted every five years and a small version called continuous program review (CPR) conducted as needed. The period would be less than five years and would be determined by the Dean in consultation with the Academic Senate.  This continuous process would allow every area an opportunity to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, lesson the cumbersome nature of the 5-year review, address the needs of the programs, and give support documentation for the budget process.  The intent is to establish learning outcomes for all programs and to coordinate these outcomes with the budgetary process. Currently the Instructional Policies and Curriculum Committee (IPCC) reviews curriculum and instructional programs, but there is no parallel committee for counseling and the instructional support programs.  The CPC proposes the establishment of a new standing committed called Instructional Support Services Policies Committee (ISSPC) to review such programs.  The creation of the ISSPC is subject to agreement with the Academic Senate and consultation with the classified and union representatives. The process for Program Review/Continuous Program Review is: Instructional, counseling and instructional support areas conduct either a program review (every 5 years) or a continuous program review.  Reports submitted to IPCC (instructional) or ISSPC (counseling and instructional support) for review. Recommendations generated from review submitted as informational items to appropriate committee (finance, technology, facilities) and CPC. Input from these committees reviewed by IPCC or ISSPC. Recommendations from IPCC are submitted to Academic Senate for approval. After approval by the Academic Senate these recommendations are sent on to the Vice President of Academic Affairs, the President and then the Chancellor. Recommendations from the ISSPC concerning counseling are sent on to the Academic Senate for approval and are then sent on to the Vice President of Student Services, the President and then on to the Chancellor. Recommendations for other instructional support areas follow the same process, except that they are sent to the Academic Senate for information and discussion before they are passed on to the VP. Note: This procedure depends upon the approval of the structure and charge of the ISSPC by the Academic Senate.

PROGRAM REVIEW Program review ·         Assesses performance and recognizes academic excellence ·         Provides for identification of weak performance and allows for improvement ·         Functions as component of campus planning for utilization of resources and increases quality of instruction and services. Program Review also meets the accountability mandate and demonstrates systematic planning but this should not be the primary focus. Program review provides answers to hard questions.  It evaluates program quality by weighing enrollment and outcome information against the context of the college.  In context of educational planning, scarce resources, and growing student populations compel us to focus on difficult questions: Which program or service requires additional staff, equipment, or budget? Which programs or services are organized in such a way that they must be reconstructed to more effectively meet student needs? Which programs or services as determined by an appropriate process, are not needed and by their presence, are preventing the development of needed programs and services? Planning should drive the budget: the budget should not drive planning.  The establishment of legitimate goals and the coordination of program review with the budgetary process are essential. Both qualitative and quantitative factors need to be considered in program review. Qualitative factors may include assessment of the learning environment, including facilities, financial resources, instructional equipment, and the impact of class size on student success and the ability of the program to meet the students’ needs.  Quantitative factors have value in the context of a comprehensive review and may include items such as access, enrollment, persistence, transfers, graduation, successful course completion, grades, and other numerical pictures for analysis. The Academic Senate of California Community Colleges also resolved that the following issues be considered in program review. Class size and its effect on instructional quality The appropriate mix among transfer, vocational, basic skills, and noncredit courses Consideration of the quality of instruction as well as issues of productivity Facilities consideration Connecting the outcomes of program review with college and district budgets Contribution to the community based on student success in job placement

CONTINUOUS PROGRAM REVIEW  [CPR]

(Approved by the San Jose City College Academic Senate, May 2007)

Date________________________________             Faculty/Staff___________________________

Program_____________________________                    Dean_________________________________

[Please identify as concisely as possible the department, area, etc. that is being reviewed.]

Program-level Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Goals Ø        Reasonable Ø        Attainable Ø        Measurable Develop programmatic Student Learning Outcomes based on program goals from previous Program Reviews or new goals that have developed since the last review. Are there specific questions that need to be asked of the program?  Do these outcomes address the mission of the college?
Program Analysis -- Needs/Concerns Ø        Short-term (e.g., budgetary enhancement) Ø        Long-term  (e.g., full-time faculty or staff position)        What are the needs of the program and the concerns of the faculty and staff and what is the evidence to back up these needs and concerns? How do the needs and concerns relate to program SLOs and to general college and district goals?
Assessment Criteria Ø        Reasonable Ø        Attainable Ø        Measurable Specific Data Requested ·          Number of faculty and staff employed by the program ·          WSCH/FTEF ration (or comparable data for non-instructional programs) ·          Enrollment or use trends ·          Student persistence rate ·          Student retention rate ·          Student success or satisfaction data ·          Program completion rate ·          Workforce and/or employment trends ·          How is the program perceived by business, industry, and universities?
Resources to Respond to Needs/Concerns What resources are available and what is needed? Ø        Financial          Ø        Facility              Ø        Equipment Ø        Human resources Ø        One-time funding
Financial Implications Ø        What are the financial implications?                                                        Ø        So far as finances are concerned, what will happen in the future?    What is needed to successfully implement the plan? (e.g., classified staff, equipment, supplies, space)
Analyses and Action Ø        What are the results of the data gathered? Ø        What are the outcomes and did you meet the goals established? Ø        Conclusions and Recommendations