STANDARD IV: Leadership and Governancelamission.edu/accreditation/FINAL...

22�ACCREDITATION SELF STUDY 2007

STANDARD IV: Leadership and Governance

The institution recognizes and utilizes the contributions of leadership throughout the organization for continuous improvement of the institution. Governance roles are de-signed to facilitate decisions that support student learning programs and services and improve institutional effectiveness, while acknowledging the designated responsibilities of the governing board and the chief administrator.

IV.A. Decision-Making Roles and Processes

The institution recognizes that ethical and effective leadership throughout the organiza-tion enables the institution to identify institutional values, set and achieve goals, learn, and improve.

IV.A.1. Institutional leaders create an environment for empowerment, innovation, and institutional excellence. They encourage staff, faculty, administrators, and students, no matter what their official titles, to take initiative in improving the practices, programs, and services in which they are involved. When ideas for improvement have policy or significant institution-wide implications, systematic participative processes are used to assure effective discussion, planning, and implementation.

IV.A.2. The institution establishes and implements a written policy providing for fac-ulty, staff, administrator, and student participation in decision making processes. The policy specifies the manner in which individuals bring forward ideas from their constit-uencies and work together on appropriate policy, planning, and special-purpose bodies.

IV.A.2.a. Faculty and administrators have a substantive and clearly defined role in in-stitutional governance and exercise a substantial voice in institutional polices, planning, and budget that relate to their areas of responsibility and expertise. Students and staff also have established mechanisms or organizations for providing input into institutional decisions.

IV.A.2.b. The institution relies on faculty, its Academic Senate, or other appropriate faculty structures, the curriculum committee, and academic administrators for recom-mendations about student learning programs and services.

IV.A.3. Through established governance structures, processes, and practices, the gov-erning Board, administrators, faculty, staff, and students work together for the good of the institution. These processes facilitate discussion of ideas and effective communica-tion among the institution’s constituencies.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The most recent permanent college president oversaw the implementation of a new shared governance structure created by college constituents at the beginning of her tenure in 2001.


222 LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGE

Under that configuration, the president convened and chaired a shared governance committee called the College Council that oversaw budgetary and planning issues. The college president is a non-voting member of the council. The College Council meets monthly and its voting membership includes the chairs of the shared governance standing committees, administra-tors (who in most cases are resource persons for the standing committees), representatives from the Academic Senate, representatives from the AFT Faculty Guild and AFT Staff Guild, and a representative from the Associated Student Organization (ASO). Classified staff par-ticipation is on a volunteer basis. Currently, classified leadership appoints members from its constituency to each committee. Meetings are generally well attended by all constituent groups (except students), participatory, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act if applicable.

The intent of the College Council was to create an overarching planning body with broad, participatory membership. To that end, five standing committees were established with a sixth (Technology) added in January 2004. The standing committees each drafted a char-ter consisting of a statement of purpose, membership parameters, and objectives. (IV.A-1) All were authorized by the College Council to form ad hoc subcommittees or taskforces to achieve specific objectives. The five original standing committees formed in 2001 were Assessment and Planning, Resource Analysis, Institutional Effectiveness, College Advance-ment, and Staff Development. The membership of all standing committees was drawn from faculty, classified staff, and students. The chair, vice-chair, and recorder were elected from the committee membership and served a two-year term with the opportunity for re-election.

Los Angeles Mission College’s planning and resource allocation process implemented in 2001 was based on a shared governance model that involved the Assessment and Planning, Resource Analysis, and Institutional Effectiveness (the committee responsible for organizing and coordinating unit assessment or program review) Committees. Additional shared gover-nance standing committees (College Advancement, Professional Development, and Technol-ogy) were not directly involved in resource allocation. The intent of this constituency-based, participatory process was to provide channels of communication through which planning, resource allocation, and institutional improvement could be linked. The committee structure is shown in the 2001 Los Angeles Mission College self study. (IV.A-2) The charge of the Assessment and Planning (A&P) Committee was to evaluate and revise the college mission statement, goals, strategies, assessment and planning processes. It also was responsible for performing environmental scans, analyzing trends for long-range planning, coordinating, reviewing, prioritizing and validating all unit operational plans. The vice presi-dent of Academic Affairs served as its non-voting administrative resource person.

The purpose of the Resource Analysis (RA) Committee was to analyze all college resources (financial and non-financial) in terms of use and availability. The primary function of the Resource Analysis Committee was to identify funding sources for prioritized requests com-ing from the Assessment and Planning Committee. The vice president of Administrative Services served as its non-voting administrative resource person.



The Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Committee assisted in establishing standards of effec-tiveness (success indicators) for all units within the college. It developed models that are the basis for the unit assessment process. It assisted the unit with the process that leads to the writing of the unit assessment and established teams that validated each unit assessment. It submitted reports on the validation status of unit assessments to the College Council or other committees (as appropriate). The associate dean of Institutional Research and Planning served as its non-voting administrative resource person.

The purpose of the College Advancement Committee is to enhance Los Angeles Mission College’s image through marketing techniques and working with various constituencies in-cluding the public information officer, the Los Angeles Mission College Foundation, alumni, Associated Student Organization, and Student Services. The College Advancement Commit-tee ensures that marketing, public relations, and communications materials promote the goals of the college. The vice president of Student Services serves as its non-voting, administrative resource person.

The Professional Development Committee (previously Staff Development) provides faculty, administration, and classified staff the opportunity to maximize their professional and per-sonal development through a planned program of activities and resources that support the mission and goals of the college. Additionally, the committee ensures that opportunities for professional growth are made available to faculty, staff, and administrators under the guide-lines of AB 1725 (Ed Code 87150). The Office of Academic Affairs provides administrative support to this committee. (IV.A-1)

The College Council is the umbrella group for college shared governance. All six standing shared governance committees report to the College Council and are represented as follows: the committee chairs and administrative resource persons assigned to each shared governance committee each have a vote. Other members of College Council represent a designated col-lege constituency (such as the faculty academic senate, faculty and staff unions, and student representative).

The College Council was designed to serve as the principal decision-making body of the college. Recommendations from the college’s other shared governance committees are for-warded to College Council for consideration and approval. The College Council reviews and approves college plans, policies and recommendations from working committees. A review of the minutes of the College Council over the period 2001-2006 reveals the types of policy issues brought before the College Council. They include approvals of

College Facilities Master PlanFunds overbaseRecommendation to accept unit assessments (2002)Facilities use policy (2006)Revisions to college mission statementChanges to shared governance model (e.g., Technology Committee)Charter statements of shared governance committees



A typical agenda of a College Council meeting includes reports from the various shared governance committees and recommendations. In 2005, the Work Environment Committee began to report directly to the College Council. College Council generally meets once per month, but special meetings are sometimes called to address emergency or particular issues. As College Council meets in accordance with the Brown Act, meetings are open to the pub-lic, agendas are posted, and minutes are recorded and distributed.

In addition to College Council and the standing committees, other bodies play a role in col-lege planning and policy issues. These bodies include the executive staff (college administra-tors and managers), the faculty and classified staff unions and the faculty Academic Senate. There are five different unions that represent faculty, staff, and some administrators. The Aca-demic Senate is the organization whose primary function is to make recommendations with respect to academic and professional matters as defined in Title 5, Section 53200. The Cur-riculum Committee of the Academic Senate makes recommendations to the administration regarding curriculum, degree and certificate requirements, grading policies, and educational program development. Executive staff meets weekly. There are monthly meetings involving the college’s senior staff (president and vice presidents) and Senate E-Board, and bi-monthly meetings are held involving the faculty union chapter president and the college president.

The 2005-2008 AFT Contract introduced significant changes that required modification of the college shared governance committee structure. The leadership of the Academic Senate, in consultation with administration, has been working since fall 2005 (IV.A-3) to evaluate the shared governance process and modify the college committee structure. A planning retreat was held in April 2006 (IV.A-4) to discuss program review and models of shared governance. In fall 2006, a shared governance taskforce of the Academic Senate developed a proposal for a new governance committee structure, membership, and responsibilities and scheduled five campuswide forums to obtain input from campus constituents.

SELF-EVALUATION

Based on the design of committee structure, the institution’s shared governance committees from 2001 were established with the intent of ensuring broad participation by all constituent groups on campus. Faculty has a substantive leadership role in shared governance, serving as chairs and having a majority of members on most of the standing committees. Administra-tors participate in an advisory capacity as resource persons. A significant number of classi-fied employees have served on these committees. The college’s shared governance structure allows for student representation on all of the standing committees through the Associated Student Organization. In practice, however, student participation in shared governance has been inconsistent.

The three shared governance committees involved in resource allocation - Assessment and Planning (A&P), Resource Analysis (RA), and Institutional Effectiveness (IE) - initially functioned effectively and enjoyed enthusiastic participation. This was during the period in which the college enjoyed a healthy budget and sufficient financial resources (fiscal years 2001 and 2002). During this period, the focus of activities in the A&P Committee was the


225ACCREDITATION SELF STUDY 2007

prioritization of requests for funds over base and the RA Committee identified and made recommendations on the funding sources. Priorities were established by the A&P Commit-tee using a scoring rubric based on college goals and measurable objectives. (IV.A-5) The IE Committee developed and initiated a process for the unit assessment of academic disciplines in 2001. IE also developed a plan to conduct unit assessments for student services and other college units, but these plans were delayed for various reasons, including high turnover in administrator leadership.

In practice, decisions regarding the allocation (and loss) of resources were not linked to the unit assessment process. By 2002, only 54 percent of the academic disciplines had completed their unit assessments; however, by 2006, 74 percent had done so. Completion of unit assess-ments in other areas of the college was delayed even longer for various reasons as discussed earlier in the self study. While the completion of the unit assessment provided a means for planning and improvement within the units, it was not initially connected to funding. Fur-thermore, while the assessment tool contained a section for describing plans for improve-ment and how to measure their effectiveness, there was little follow-up. As a result, the cycle of planning, evaluation, and resource allocation was not linked. This contributed to the low participation in the unit assessment process, impeded its implementation to non-instructional areas of the college, and ultimately led to administrative decisions being made outside of the shared governance committee structure.

Additionally, the college planning structure was not able to adapt to the reduction in resourc-es that began in fiscal year 2003-2004. Planning for declining resources was not adequately addressed by Assessment and Planning or Resource Analysis since their focus had been primarily the allocation of over-base funding. Several budget reduction proposals were de-veloped by the administration, but these proposals were presented to the campus community without effective participation of the shared governance committees. In the absence of an effective governance process to make budget reduction decisions, other bodies and leadership groups (such as Executive Staff, the Academic Senate, and department chairs) assumed that responsibility.

The budget crisis had the effect of diminishing enthusiasm for and participation in the shared governance committees. At the college’s Shared Governance Retreat (April 2006), partici-pants expressed dissatisfaction with the operation of the college’s existing shared governance process. Participants, who mainly consisted of college faculty and administrators, agreed overwhelmingly that the shared governance process at LAMC was not well understood and not effective in college budgeting and planning. (IV.A-6) Moreover, faculty comments from the Fall 2006 "Flex-Day" Accreditation Workshops reflected the perception that the college’s efforts to create an inclusive, efficient system of shared governance have been plagued by poor communication among the standing committees and an administration that often acted outside of the shared governance structure.

The fact that the college has had inconsistent administrative leadership compounded these difficulties. There have been three college presidents and four vice presidents of Academic Affairs between 2005-2006. The budget crisis, the lack of linkages between planning, evalu-



ation, and resource allocation and the unusually high administrative turnover, were all impor-tant factors in the erosion of the shared governance process. Allegations of misuse of funds by an administrator and a lack of full disclosure of the budget further eroded confidence and participation of faculty and staff in discussions and committees. Moreover, fractionalization by the college faculty also contributed to a lack of faculty participation in shared governance committees. By the end of 2005, three of the six standing committees (A&P, RA, and IE) had stopped meeting on a regular basis.

The structure of College Council permits access of all campus groups as they are all repre-sented on College Council. Representation on the College Council is constituency-based, but there are no guidelines or references in the minutes as to how College Council members should function in their positions as members of this body. The College Council meetings are adequately well-publicized and members can request to have items and/or recommenda-tions placed on the meeting agenda. However, the role and/or functions of College Council members were not well-defined, and the committee did not develop a charter. The role of the college president as the de-facto chair of this committee is unusual. The fact that the college president chairs the College Council may have the unintended effect of limiting the indepen-dence of the committee and its value as an advisory body.

College Council did approve recommendations from the Resource Analysis Committee for funds over standard allocations. In addition, the council received information from com-mittees, administrators, and the College Project Manager (CPM) on issues such as financial health of the college, enrollment targets, the college’s physical master plan, bond construc-tion activities, and needed capital improvements. These presentations served to facilitate the flow of information about campus issues to campus constituencies. College Council meetings were held in accordance with the Brown Act, were appropriately publicized, and typically well attended. This body was inclusive of all campus constituencies/interests and allowed input from these constituencies to be received and voiced. This input came mainly from the shared governance committees and also from individual members of the College Council representing their constituencies. Thus, College Council did adequately serve as an informa-tion clearinghouse and as an appropriate forum for disseminating information on a variety of college issues.

In the shared governance framework, resource allocation involved mainly two shared gov-ernance committees: Resource Analysis (RA) and Assessment and Planning (A&P). The resource allocation recommendations which came through the governance process were debated and were then voted on by the College Council. This committee was originally intended to play a key role by defining areas of focus for the college, approving prioritization of unit plans, evaluating the assessment process, and determining whether activities required continued funding. (IV.A-7) However, in practice, the College Council did not perform these functions nor did it engage in the process of developing institutional priorities, which would have provided direction for the work of the various shared governance committees. The lack of clearly defined institutional priorities weakened the role of other committees in the shared governance process and contributed to the lack of effectiveness of this structure in addressing resource allocation issues.



PLANNING AGENDA

See I.B.1 planning agenda.

IV.A.4. The institution advocates and demonstrates honesty and integrity in its relation-ships with external agencies. It agrees to comply with Accrediting Commission stan-dards, policies, and guidelines, and Commission requirements for public disclosure, self study and other reports, team visits, and prior approval of substantive changes. The in-stitution moves expeditiously to respond to recommendations made by the Commission.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The college has had relationships with a substantial number of federal, state, and local agen-cies over the period 2001-2006. During this period, the college has been the recipient of number of federal and state grants and programs (Title V, Student Support Services/TRIO, Veterans Administration), which have required that it meet accountability requirements with regard to record keeping, budgeting, and programmatic content. The college has also com-plied with state and federal accountability requirements in the areas of funding for vocational programs (VTEA), staff development, and technology funding (TTIP). In spring 2005, the college’s noncredit program was audited by the Office of the State Controller and the college was found to have been out of compliance with the education code and to have overreported its noncredit enrollment. (IV.A.4-1) As a result of this investigation, the college’s noncredit FTES (full-time equivalent student) base (and apportionment) was reduced and it ceased to offer certain noncredit classes.

Los Angeles Mission College has cooperated with the Accrediting Commission requirements. It has submitted interim and midterm reports in a timely fashion. In addition, it has responded to and acted upon previous accreditation team recommendations. The college has appointed appropriate college personnel to serve in leadership roles in the current self study and has or-ganized this effort via the formation of committees to examine each standard and to provide oversight to the process. The college has engaged in extensive preparations and activities to involve all segments of the college community in the current self study process.

SELF-EVALUATION

Los Angeles Mission College has complied with regulatory and accountability requirements from over 25 federal, state, and local agencies. It has filed accountability reports in a timely manner and has worked cooperatively with external agencies’ requests. The college has been proactive in requesting reviews of some of its grant programs by Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) internal audit and external auditors so as to ensure that its finan-cial and programmatic controls are in compliance with agency requirements. Moreover, program managers and administrators overseeing grants have attended training to understand and comply with accounting and reporting requirements. The overreporting of noncredit FTES led the LACCD and college to develop a rigorous policy (IV.A.4-2) and more accu-rate reporting system for noncredit enrollment so as to be in complete compliance with the requirements of the California Education Code and state regulations. With the exception of



its noncredit program, for which the college was severely penalized and which it has worked diligently to remedy, the college has displayed a high level of honesty and integrity with re-gard to its relationships with external agencies. The college has made significant progress in addressing the recommendations made by the visiting accreditation team in 2001. PLANNING AGENDA

No recommendations at this time.

IV.A.5.The role of leadership and the institution’s governance and decision-making structures and processes are regularly evaluated to assure their integrity and effective-ness. The institution widely communicates the results of these evaluations and uses them as the basis for improvement.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The previous permanent college president, 2000-2005, initiated a process to evaluate the shared governance standing committees in 2005. In this process, committee chairs and co-chairs analyzed the operations of their committees in terms of membership composition, attendance, charge, communications, and overall functionality. This review coincided with the adoption of the new faculty union contract, which mandated certain committees in each college’s governance model. This led to an effort to implement revisions to the governance model in fall 2005, which occurred at several meetings of the College Council. A special meeting of College Council was held to discuss the current committee structure in the col-lege’s shared governance model. (IV.A-2) This was done with the objective of improving its functioning and aligning the shared governance committees with those that were contractu-ally specified through employee agreements. However, the departure of the college president in November of 2005 delayed the implementation of any changes.

In April 2006, under the new interim president, a collegewide retreat was held to evaluate the structure and functions of the current shared governance model. The focus of the retreat was the integration of planning and budgeting and the appropriate governance framework for accomplishing this objective. Models from other colleges were presented and discussed. The departure of this interim president in June 2006 again delayed any modifications to the com-mittee structure and budget and planning process. After the arrival of the current president in July 2006, a shared governance taskforce was formed, and it is in the process of revising the present shared governance model.

SELF-EVALUATION

While committees performed a self-evaluation in fall 2005, a systematic review of integrity and effectiveness was not regularly conducted by each of the standing shared governance committees. The inconsistency of administrative leadership and fractionalization among the faculty and staff hindered the progress of the on-going evaluation. The need for permanent faculty and staff to create and engage in a robust system of shared governance that can sur-vive administrative turnover and internal conflict is evident.



PLANNING AGENDA

• The College Council will develop processes for the regular and systematic evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity of its shared governance committees by fall 2008.

IV. B. BOARD AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION

In addition to the leadership of individuals and constituencies, institutions recognize the designated responsibilities of the governing board for setting policies and of the chief administrator for the effective operation of the institution. Multi-college districts/sys-tems clearly define the organizational roles of the district/system and the colleges.

IV.B.1. The institution has a governing board that is responsible for establishing policies to assure the quality, integrity, and effectiveness of the student learning programs and services and the financial stability of the institution. The governing board adheres to a clearly defined policy for selecting and evaluating the chief administrator for the college or the district/system.

IV.B.1.a. The governing board is an independent policy-making body that reflects the public interest in board activities and decisions. Once the board reaches a decision, it acts as a whole. It advocates for and defends the institution and protects it from undue influence or pressure.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) is comprised of nine colleges. Each college is responsible to the district chancellor and, ultimately, to an eight-member Board of Trustees, in accordance with Education Code sections 70902 and 72000. Seven of the eight LACCD Board members are elected districtwide by eligible voters to four-year terms. Trustee elections are held on a staggered basis, with three or four seats being filled every two years. At their annual organizational meeting, Board members elect a president and vice president to serve one-year terms. The eighth trustee position is filled by a student, who has an advisory vote. In compliance with Board Rules (IV.B.1-1), a districtwide student election is held annually to select the student trustee for a one-year term.

The independence of the Board of Trustees as a policy-making body is guaranteed by the fact that its membership is elected at large across one of the most demographically diverse urban areas in the United States. The Board’s odd-year election schedule gives Board races greater visibility on the ballot but also results in lower voter turnout. Board meetings are held both at the district’s central office downtown and at each of the nine college campuses during the academic year. They are publicized and open to the public. The trustees meet approximately twice a month to consider and vote on policy. All nine college presidents, District Office senior staff, representatives of employee unions, a representative of the District Academic Senate, and students sit at the resource table.


2�0 LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGE

All rules and regulations specific to the LACCD must be approved by these elected represen-tatives of the community. On all matters deemed to be academic and professional, the Board has agreed either to rely primarily on the advice of, or to reach mutual agreement with, the District Academic Senate. For the creation of collective bargaining agreements with the six unions representing employees in the district, the trustees delegate authority to the chancellor and his human resources team to bargain in good faith. The Board has sought to ensure that the college has operated with continuous leadership. The chancellor and the Board appointed Dr. Jose Leyba to serve as interim president following the departure of Dr. Adriana Barrera in fall 2005 (to a District Office position). The chancel-lor and the Board also appointed Mr. Ernest Moreno, the president of East Los Angeles Col-lege, to serve as interim president for the 2006-2007 academic year, following an unsuccess-ful presidential search. The Board and the chancellor evaluate the college president yearly with a third-year comprehensive evaluation.

Any member of the community can address the Board of Trustees with his/her concerns and requests about individual colleges. This provides an important mechanism for the public discussion of college issues. However, as a general rule, the Board defers to and supports campus-level decision making.

SELF-EVALUATION

As officials elected at large, the Board of Trustees represent the interests of a broad range of constituencies. The Board members work together collegially to support the interests of the district. The Board takes an active role in advocating for the interests of the colleges and the students they serve and in defending the colleges from undue interference. Board mem-bers regularly meet with state lawmakers and educational leaders to promote legislation and other initiatives aimed at improving college access for students and for securing funding for special projects. The Board played a central role in promoting the Proposition A (2001) and Proposition AA (2003) bond initiatives that provided LACCD colleges with more than $2 billion in much needed capital construction funds. Recently, several Board members also worked closely with key district organized labor groups to raise funds to establish a district-wide Labor Studies Center in honor of Dolores Huerta. The Board has also recently played a significant role in responding to community pressures in relation to specific resource and personnel issues. For example, Board members have on several occasions united to support college facilities master planning decisions that were made through sound shared governance processes, despite the opposition of some community-based interest groups. The Board has also recently resisted public pressure to interfere in educational planning decisions made at Los Angeles Mission College that involved the re-structuring of academic departments. PLANNING AGENDA



2��ACCREDITATION SELF STUDY 2007

IV.B.1.b. The governing board establishes policies consistent with the mission statement to ensure the quality, integrity, and improvement of student learning programs and services and the resources necessary to support them.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The Board of Trustees exercises oversight of the college’s educational programs by means of Board Rules and Administrative Regulations that establish standards for graduation, set policies for curriculum development, and detail the faculty’s role in educational matters. Board policies in relation to the curriculum approval process are articulated in Chapter VI of the Board Rules. (IV.B.1-1) (10.2) The Board’s role in ensuring the quality of the college’s academic offerings are further explained in Administrative Regulations E-64, “Procedures for Development and Approval of New Programs,” (10.3) and E-65, “Curriculum Approval: Standards and Procedures.” (10.4) The central role played by the district and college Aca-demic Senates in relation to “all academic and professional matters,” including educational program and curriculum development, the establishment and maintenance of educational standards, and the supervision of all academic courses and programs is clarified in Chapter VII of the Board Rules “Academic Senate and Board of Trustees Shared Governance Policy.” (10.5)

The Board is directly responsible for guaranteeing the college’s integrity and financial health by periodically reviewing and approving the college’s mission and vision statements and by requiring regular reports from the college president on the college budget. An independent audit of the district’s financial statements and accounting practices is made annually by an outside agency. Through district administrative offices, the Board is also responsible for overseeing compliance with all federal, state, and local policies in relation to student financial aid and other special fiscal programs.

SELF-EVALUATION

During the past six years, district administrators, the Council on Academic Affairs, and the District Academic Senate have worked to streamline procedures for the approval of academic programs and courses. As part of this effort, Administrative Regulation E-65, “Curriculum Approval: Standards and Procedures,” has been revised to decentralize the curriculum ap-proval process and to empower local college faculty. A new policy on emergency equivalen-cies has also been adopted to facilitate the hiring of adjunct faculty (Board Rule 10305 and Personnel Guide B 342). In addition, the district has recently adopted a series of new Board Rules mandating program review, biennial review of vocational programs, program viability review, and program discontinuance processes at the college level (Board Rules 6801—6803.1). These and other aspects of decentralization allow local college academic programs to be more responsive to local stakeholders. In 2005, the Board also formed an ad hoc com-mittee, consisting of district and college representatives, to promote student success. PLANNING AGENDA




IV.B.1.c. The governing board has ultimate responsibility for educational quality, legal matters, and financial integrity.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The Board of Trustees monitors the educational quality of all LACCD programs through its Committee on Planning and Student Success. This committee addresses all issues related to educational effectiveness, student achievement, and educational program support. In addi-tion, it oversees the accreditation process and reviews and comments on college accreditation reports. In conjunction with the Chancellor’s Office and District General Counsel, the Board is apprised of and assumes responsibility for all legal matters associated with the operation of all nine campuses. It has three lawyers on staff and hires other counsel to take on specific tasks as needed. The Board’s District Budget Committee bears responsibility for monitoring all aspects of district and college finances. SELF-EVALUATION

The ultimate responsibility for policies and decisions impacting all nine colleges lies with the Board. Over the past six years, the Board of Trustees, the district administration and the AFT Faculty Guild have worked together to address past accreditation concerns related to college funding and to secure the financial future of the nine LACCD colleges. The District Budget Committee (DBC), for example, was reconstituted in 2003 to assure broader faculty and staff participation. Under its guidance, allocation procedures and policies were revised to reflect more accurately the needs of each college’s educational programs. Board, district, and Guild cooperation has also resulted in positive ending balances and a growing districtwide contin-gency fund, another result of Board and district involvement in overseeing the fiscal health of the colleges. The Board was instrumental in promoting two major bond measures, which have provided more than $2 billion for capital construction projects that will directly benefit the district’s instructional programs. PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.1.d. The institution or the governing board publishes the board bylaws and policies specifying the board’s size, duties, responsibilities, structure, and operating procedures.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The duties and responsibilities of the Board of Trustees are defined externally by the State Education Code (Section 70902) and internally by the Board Rules (Chapter II, Article III) (10.9). The chancellor and general counsel also play an important role in this monitoring process. District Board rules have been published and updated and are available on the dis-trict website.


2��ACCREDITATION SELF STUDY 2007

SELF-EVALUATION

The Board has published information related to its size, responsibilities, structure, and oper-ating procedures. This information is readily accessible on the LACCD website. PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.1.e. The governing board acts in a manner consistent with its policies and bylaws. The board regularly evaluates its policies and practices and revises them as necessary.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The process for the adoption of Board Rules and the Administrative Regulations (IV.B.1-2) that support them are outlined in Chancellor’s Directive Number 70, “Districtwide Internal Management Consultation Process.” These rules and regulations established through the consultation process are subject to regular review and revision by district administrative staff to ensure that they remain appropriate and effective. Revisions are reviewed and considered for adoption during the Board’s regular monthly meetings. The Board relies on the chancel-lor and the college presidents to ensure that all Board Rules and Administrative Regulations are implemented uniformly and effectively across the district.

SELF-EVALUATION

The Board of Trustees consistently acts in accordance with established Board policies. When constituents bring issues to the Board’s attention, policies are discussed and revised as needed. For example, when it was brought to their attention that Board Rules prevented adjunct faculty members from serving on a college presidential selection committees, the Board voted to allow participation by adjunct faculty. Working collaboratively with the Dis-trict Academic Senate, the Board revised district hiring procedures to comply with the State Minimum Qualifications for all faculty positions. The Board also revised districtwide faculty hiring policies to streamline procedures and give campuses direct control over their own hir-ing processes. The Board is also engaged in developing a process for the regular, automatic review of all policies and regulations. PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.1.f. The governing board has a program for board development and new member orientation. It has a mechanism for providing for continuity of board membership and staggered terms of office.



DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

Over the past two years, the Board, through the Chancellor’s Office, has instituted an ori-entation process for new members and has engaged in a series of all-day retreats devoted to self-evaluation and agenda setting. These annual retreats, involving the chancellor, other key district personnel, and, when appropriate, the college presidents, are intended to assist the Board in the process of strategic planning and institutional goal setting.

While there is no formal guarantee of continuity of leadership within the Board, the stagger-ing of Board elections does provide some margin of coherence (Board Rule 2101). In ad-dition, the fact that Board incumbents are frequently re-elected to their positions provides a measure of continuity to district governance.

SELF-EVALUATION

Most current Board members have served for several years and incumbents are commonly re-elected. PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.1.g. The governing board’s self-evaluation processes for assessing board perfor-mance are clearly defined, implemented, and published in its policies or bylaws.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

On June 28, 1995, the Board adopted a formal policy on self-evaluation. The Board periodi-cally used the 18-item self-evaluation “checklist” included with this policy over the next de-cade to evaluate overall Board effectiveness. In July 2000, Board members also participated in a special one-day self-evaluation retreat, during which they worked with district adminis-trative staff to clarify their goals and objectives and to discuss new directions and evaluate current district practices.

In June 2005, the Board again reviewed and amended its self-evaluation process, this time expanding it to include additional feedback on its performance from college presidents, district senior staff, and union and faculty senate representatives who regularly attend Board meetings as members of the “Resource Table.” Using this revised process, the Board con-ducted its most recent self-evaluation on October 18, 2006, incorporating input from these sources. A formal report of this evaluation, offering both the Board’s own self-assessment and the summarized evaluations of Board constituency representatives, was made available to the public and discussed during open session at the Board meeting at Los Angeles Mission College on September 21, 2005.


2�5ACCREDITATION SELF STUDY 2007


SELF-EVALUATION

The Board has an appropriate self-evaluation process for assessing its performance and im-proving its operations. PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.1.h. The governing board has a code of ethics that includes a clearly defined policy for dealing with behavior that violates its code.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The Board of Trustees adopted a formal Statement of Ethics and Conduct on November 3, 1993, outlining principles that the trustees must abide by in relation to fulfilling their du-ties, including the need to serve the public interest, to represent the interests of all LACCD students, to avoid conflicts of interest, to maintain an institutional atmosphere that promotes open inquiry and debate, and to respect the letter and intent of the Brown Act.

Board members further adopted a Statement of Ethical Values on October 12, 2005, which requires each member of the Board to adhere to values of trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, reliability, and loyalty (Board Rule 2300.1). The statement is accessible on the LACCD website.

SELF-EVALUATION

The Board has a clear code of ethics established in Board Rule 2300.10. During their annual retreat in fall 2006, Board members addressed the issue of developing a policy for dealing with infractions of this code. A formal policy is expected by the end of February 2007. PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.1.i. The governing Board is informed about and involved in the accreditation pro-cess.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

In spring 2000, the district completed its first formal self study as part of the Multi-College Pilot Project undertaken in collaboration with the ACCJC (10.11). This district self study was subsequently revisited and revised in 2002. Since the initial Multi-Campus Pilot Project, the Board has taken a much more pro-active role in the accreditation process. In response to ACCJC recommendations, the chancellor created the position of Chancellor’s Liaison for In-stitutional Effectiveness to coordinate Board activities related to college accreditations and to assist colleges involved in the accreditation process with coordinating their self study efforts.


The chancellor’s liaison works closely with the Board of Trustees Planning and Student Suc-cess Committee which, as part of its charge, monitors the accreditation self study processes of the nine colleges and reviews their final self study reports. Through this committee, the Board works to ensure that accreditation recommendations are addressed effectively and appropriately by the colleges. Regular reports on each college’s progress are made to the Student Success Committee. (IV.B.1-3) In addition, colleges are required to submit their midterm and update reports to the committee for review before they are forwarded to the AC-CJC. During site visits, Board members meet directly with accreditation visiting teams and respond to their questions and concerns and participate in other special forums, meetings, and receptions.

As part of the Board’s newly instituted “Study Session” series, Board members recently par-ticipated in a workshop that introduced them to the history of the student learning outcomes (SLOs) and assessment movements and learned about ACCJC expectations in relation to the identification and assessment of SLOs for institutional improvement.

The Chancellor’s Office and the Board’s Planning and Student Success Committee have also played a more direct role in college accreditation efforts by sponsoring several districtwide workshops for steering committees and standards chairs. Drawing on the expertise of past self study chairs and key ACCJC staff members, these day-long workshops have brought ac-creditation team members together to share information and discuss challenges. For example, in preparation for the previous college accreditations, a day-long workshop was held at West Los Angeles College featuring a presentation by ACCJC staff on how best to approach the new accreditation standards. More recently, the three Valley-side colleges held a day-long retreat in May 2006 to compare planning agendas and discuss the division of district/college functions. Throughout the self study process, the Accreditation Liaison Officers and faculty chairs meet regularly with the chancellor’s liaison to coordinate efforts and compare best practices.

SELF-EVALUATION

Through the active oversight provided by the Board’s Planning and Student Success Com-mittee, district colleges have engaged in more positive and productive accreditation processes since 2001. Over the past six years, all district colleges have participated in new rounds of accreditation, and all have emerged with positive evaluations by visiting teams. More impor-tantly, the accreditation self study process at all district colleges has become much more pro-active, collaborative, and collegial than in past years. District colleges are now approaching accreditation self studies as essential elements in their strategic planning and institutional goal setting processes and are using accreditation as an occasion for addressing serious insti-tutional issues. PLANNING AGENDA





IV.B.1.j. The governing board has the responsibility for selecting and evaluating the district/system chief administrator (most often known as the chancellor) in a multi-col-lege district/system or the college chief administrator (most often known as the presi-dent) in the case of a single college. The governing board delegates full responsibility and authority to him/her to implement and administer board policies without board interference and holds him/her accountable for the operation of the district/system or college, respectively. In multi-college districts/systems, the governing board establishes a clearly defined policy for selecting and evaluating the presidents of the colleges.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with Board Rules, the Board of Trustees bears primary responsibility for selecting and evaluating the performance of the district chancellor. The selection process for the chancellor and other key administrative positions typically involve national searches conducted by hiring committees comprised of representatives of all stakeholder groups. The Board evaluates the chancellor’s performance annually.

In keeping with the provisions of the Education Code (70902d), the Board of Trustees del-egates authority to the chancellor, gives him the autonomy to make decisions without in-terference, and holds him accountable. (Board Rules 2202, 2304.12, 2314.20, 2404, 2407, 2407.11, 2407.12, 2408, 2409.11, 2409.11, 2414, 2418.11, 2419, 2500.10, 2500.12, 2500.13, 2501.11, 2502.11, 2605.10, 2901, 2902, 3001, 3003, 4001, 4006, 5300, 5201.10, 6800, 6802).

The Board shares responsibility with the chancellor for hiring and evaluating the perfor-mance of district vice chancellors, college presidents, and the general counsel (Board Rule 10308 and Personnel Guide). Search committees for all of these positions involve represen-tatives of all relevant constituencies, including faculty, students, and staff. Hiring committees for all CEO positions also include community representatives. In accordance with the Brown Act, contracts of employment and compensation for these positions are approved by the Board in open session. The chancellor conducts regular evaluations of the college presidents in accordance with Board Rules (procedures adopted October 27, 2000) and makes recom-mendations to the Board on the renewal of college presidents’ contracts.

SELF-EVALUATION

New hiring procedures implemented by the Board in 2000 have increased community and faculty involvement in the selection of college presidents. In the past, there has been some question about the consistency and thoroughness of the evaluation process of district admin-istrators and college presidents. However, a new process was adopted five years ago that mandates the hiring of an outside consultant to facilitate the evaluation of key administrative personnel by means of interviews with relevant college constituency groups. This process appears to have worked well over the past three years and will continue to be used in future evaluations. A similar consultant-led process has also been adopted by the Board for the periodic evaluation of the chancellor.


PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.2. The president has primary responsibility for the quality of the institution he/she leads. He/she provides effective leadership in planning, organizing, budgeting, selecting and developing personnel, and assessing institutional effectiveness.

IV.B.2.a. The president plans, oversees, and evaluates an administrative structure organized and staffed to reflect the institution’s purposes, size, and complexity. He/she delegates authority to administrators and others consistent with their responsibilities, as appropriate.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

During the period from 2001 to 2006, there were three presidents at Los Angeles Mission College. Dr. Adriana Barrera served as the college’s permanent president from July 2001 to November 2005. Dr. Jose Leyba was appointed interim president in December 2005, suc-ceeding Dr. Barrera who had accepted a District position. Dr. Leyba served until July 2006, when Mr. Ernest Moreno, the permanent president at East Los Angeles College, was appoint-ed interim president. Mr. Moreno was appointed by the district chancellor to serve a one-year term. The administrative structure has varied over the tenure of the three college presidents. The following tables summarize the history of the administrative positions at the college.

Since 2000, there have been five vice presidents of Academic Affairs. This position was filled by two temporary administrators in the 2005-2006 academic year and a new appoint-ment beginning in July 2006. Also, since 2001, there have been three vice presidents of Student Services (two regular status and one temporary position) and three vice presidents of Administrative Services. In 2002, two administrative positions—one dean of Academic Affairs and the associate dean of Student Services—were eliminated as a result of the district chancellor’s directive to reduce administrative staff. In the 2005-2006 academic year, one dean position in Academic Affairs remained vacant due to budgetary considerations. In 2005, an assistant dean was added in Academic Affairs, primarily to oversee the college’s Title V grant.


Table 1



Table 2

Kelly

Table 3

In July 2006, President Moreno assigned two administrators from East Los Angeles College to Los Angeles Mission College to fill the vacant vice president of Academic Affairs posi-tion and a dean position in the Academic Affairs division. In addition, he created a temporary dean position in Student Services. Currently, the vice president of Academic Affairs is sup-ported by two deans. The vice president of Student Services is currently supported by one


dean, a temporary position added in July 2006. The vice president of Administrative Services is supported by a facilities director; the associate vice president of Administrative Services position was eliminated in 2005 as a result of a cost-savings plan.

The president directly supervises the dean of Research and Planning and Information Tech-nology, the compliance officer, and the public relations director. All presidents have conduct-ed weekly meetings with their executive staff (vice presidents, deans, and selected classified managers) to discuss operational and policy issues. The president works directly with the individual vice presidents to address areas of particular concern and delegates authority when appropriate. Additionally, the president conducts the final interview for the hiring of all pro-bationary faculty members, administrators, and program directors.

SELF-EVALUATION

There have been a significant number of changes in administrative leadership between 2001 and 2006. The lack of administrative continuity has impaired the ability of the institution to plan, organize, budget, and assess the college’s effectiveness. Changes in administrative staffing have not been based on an evaluation of college needs but instead have occurred in response to the district chancellor’s directives and budgetary concerns. The lack of adequate and permanent staffing in Academic Affairs has contributed to a lack of institutional history, uncertainty, and ineffective planning.

PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.2.b. The president guides institutional improvement of the teaching and learning environment by the following:

• Establishing a collegial process that sets values, goals, and priorities• Ensuring that self-evaluation and planning rely on high quality research and

analysis on external and internal conditions• Ensuring that educational planning is integrated with resource planning and dis-

tribution to achieve student learning outcomes and• Establishing procedures to evaluate overall institutional planning and implemen-

tation efforts

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The previous president, who led the college from 2000 to 2005, participated in the estab-lishment of processes designed to guide the college in improving the institutional planning. Through her participation in the College Council and consultations with the Academic Sen-ate, she delegated the tasks of revising the college’s mission and goals statements and of writ-ing the college’s Educational Master Plan. She was also instrumental in providing direction to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and Assessment and Planning Committee, which respectively were charged with the task of developing general education student learning outcomes and guiding resource allocation.



All presidents have been directly and extensively involved in the development of the col-lege’s Facilities Master Plan. The presidents have collaborated with external consultants, governmental agencies, community groups, and campus constituencies in developing and implementing this plan and have been extensively involved with overseeing the college’s Proposition A/AA capital improvement projects. The previous permanent president also recognized the need for technology planning at the college and formed a college taskforce to initiate the development of the college’s Technology Master Plan.

All presidents have relied heavily on data and analyses provided by the Research and Plan-ning Office. They have directed the college’s Research and Planning Office to develop data, analyses and projections to assist with planning and to inform policy discussions.

The presidents have participated in shared governance processes as the chair of the College Council in order to integrate institutional planning with resource distribution. They are mem-bers of the District Budget Committee, a standing committee of the LACCD. To enhance communication and collaboration with campus constituencies, the presidents also have met in monthly consultation with the Academic Senate President, AFT Faculty Guild Chapter President, and AFT Staff Guild Chapter Chair.

SELF-EVALUATION

During her tenure, Dr. Adriana Barrera, led and actively participated in developing the Fa-cilities Master Plan. She was also involved in supporting the development of the college’s Educational Master Plan, Technology Master Plan and General Education Student Learning Outcomes. During this period, values and goals were established by various bodies on cam-pus, but overall institutional priorities were not clearly identified. All presidents have relied on research information and analysis to inform planning processes. However, the linkages between planning, resource allocation, and student learning outcomes were not effectively developed. Although there were ad hoc attempts to evaluate progress in the various plans, the college did not develop a comprehensive review cycle and reporting mechanism to evalu-ate planning progress. This was due, in large part, to shortcomings of the shared governance planning framework described earlier in this standard.

PLANNING AGENDA

See planning agenda in Standard I.B.4.

IV.B.2.c. The president assures the implementation of statutes, regulations, and govern-ing board policies and assures that institutional practices are consistent with institu-tional mission and policies.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

All college presidents are regularly informed regarding Board Rules and regulations at the bi-weekly Board of Trustees meetings, Chancellor’s Cabinet meetings and the Board of Trustees’ annual retreat. All presidents have used meetings of their senior staff and College



Council to disseminate information and to ensure that institutional practices are in alignment with policies, statutes, and administrative regulations at all levels of the organization (fed-eral, state, district).

In 2001, the college president hired a full-time compliance officer, a position that had for-merly been part time. The compliance officer investigates complaints, conducts training for faculty and staff on a number of topics (such as the prevention of sexual harassment), and trains individuals to serve as EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) representatives on col-lege hiring committees. SELF-EVALUATION

The presidents have participated in district level committees and activities which have al-lowed them to communicate governing Board policies, statutes, and regulations to college leadership and ensure that college practices are aligned with institutional goals and priorities. The presidents have also had frequent communication with district senior staff, the Board of Trustees, and other college presidents ensuring that practices at the college level are consis-tent with the mission and policies of the Los Angeles Community College District.

PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.2.d. The president effectively controls budget and expenditures.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

College presidents have worked closely with the vice presidents of Administrative Services in developing the college’s annual operational plan and annual budget. They have also worked closely with the vice presidents of Academic Affairs to ensure that the college’s En-rollment Management Plan is consistent with district enrollment targets and that instructional staffing is at an appropriate level. Since the last self study, the college secured two major grants: Title V (Hispanic Serving Institutions) and Student Support Services (TRIO). These grants have helped to provide funding for developmental activities that may have otherwise reduced the funding available for current operations.

Over the period 2001-2004, the college operated with either a balanced budget or modest sur-plus. In 2005-2006, the college experienced a large revenue reduction (mainly due to disal-lowance of FTES in certain noncredit classes) and increased personnel expenses that contrib-uted to a budget deficit. The college is also expected to run a deficit in 2006-2007.

College expenditures and income are monitored continually through weekly review of expen-ditures by the Office of Administrative Services. In addition, monthly and quarterly financial reports are required by the District Operations Division and at meetings of the District Bud-get Committee and Chancellor’s Cabinet. The college community is informed of budgetary issues at meetings of the College Council. At these meetings, either the vice president of Ad-



ministrative Services or the Resource Analysis Committee Chair typically provides a budget status report.

In 2004-2005, the college found it necessary to reduce staff as a result of a projected budget deficit. The president was able to develop an employee transfer program to ensure that col-lege employees impacted by this reduction could transfer to vacant positions within colleges in the district. She held a number of college forums and met with affected employees and their representatives to discuss this action.

SELF-EVALUATION

The presidents have actively participated in and were informed of college fiscal operations. In addition, all college presidents have made efforts to regularly inform the college commu-nity of the institution’s fiscal status. The district funding formula provides the foundation for the distribution of state funds and guides a fiscal course of action by prioritizing the need to maintain a level of FTES production to ensure the college receives a base level of income. It also motivates the college to increase enrollment to capture growth money. In fiscal year 2005-2006, the college had a deficit that was caused by both a decline in enrollment and increased instructional expenditures. The current president is addressing this issue at several levels including evaluation of expenditures, increase in outreach efforts, and establishment of a Budget Committee. Los Angeles Mission College is required to adhere to government code, multiple labor agreements, and merit system rules and regulations, which greatly re-strict the president’s ability to control budgetary expenditures. Furthermore, the LACCD is revising its budget allocation model to address structural disadvantages in the current alloca-tion model for small colleges.

PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.2.e. The president works and communicates effectively with the communities served by the institution.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The college created a position for a Public Relations Specialist in 2001 to address external and internal communications problems at Los Angeles Mission College. The Public Relations Office has assisted the president in better communicating with the communities served by the institution through publication of a “President’s Newsletter” (2001-2002) (IV.B.2-1) and “Mission College Dot News,” (IV.B.2-2) an online news magazine (2003-2005) recognized in 2005 as “best online newsletter” in the state among community colleges. The president’s goals and messages were conveyed regularly in both newsletters to internal and community audiences. Presidential goals, as well as campus activities and college accomplishments, also are reported regularly through the college Web page, “News and Events,” which averages about 80 hits per day during the academic year.



The presidents have also communicated information about the progress of the college’s building and renovation program through publication of the “Campus Improvements” news-letter, distributed internally and to the community.

Upon his appointment in July 2006, President Moreno established a new communication ve-hicle, the “Our Mission” newsletter, which is sent quarterly to all employees, approximately 1,000 community and civic leaders, elected officials and friends of the college, as well as to 5,000 residents of neighborhoods surrounding the college. President Moreno also initiated the publication of a weekly campus newsletter to improve communication and awareness of college activities.

In his short tenure as president, Mr. Moreno has followed the lead of Presidents Barrera and Leyba in establishing an excellent relationship with the two newspapers that regularly cover the college, the Los Angeles Daily News and the San Fernando Sun. Both newspapers have carried major profiles of the president, focusing primarily on the goals he has set for Los Angeles Mission College.

President Moreno is committed to sustaining the progress made in recent years by the Los Angeles Mission College Foundation, a support group consisting of 12 civic and business leaders. In 2003, the Foundation sponsored its first annual food and wine festival. The event, which raises scholarship funds for deserving students, has grown in size each year and brings approximately 300-400 community members to the campus. Upon his appointment in July 2006, President Moreno indicated that a priority will be to sustain the recent successes of the Foundation. To this end, he has asked the dean of Development from East Los Angeles Col-lege to share with the leadership, practices which have made East’s Foundation a success.

All presidents have regularly attended meetings of a number of community organizations including the Sylmar Neighborhood Council and Sylmar Women’s Club. They have also participated in several forums at which the college sought community input on its Facilities Master Plan. The presidents have maintained open channels of communication with area political representatives and organizations. SELF-EVALUATION

The presidents have cultivated close ties with community leaders, political representatives, and local area media to better understand and address community needs. They have also de-veloped effective mechanisms to communicate with the communities served by the college.

PLANNING AGENDA


IV.B.3. In multi-college districts or systems, the district/system provides primary leader-ship in setting and communicating expectations of educational excellence and integrity throughout the district/system and assures support for the effective operation of the colleges. It establishes clearly defined roles of authority and responsibility between the



colleges and the district/system and acts as the liaison between the colleges and the gov-erning board.

IV.B.3.a. The district/system clearly delineates and communicates the operational re-sponsibilities and functions of the district/system from those of the colleges and consis-tently adheres to this delineation in practice.

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

The Los Angeles Community College District is comprised of the District Office and nine colleges. The general framework for these functions is dictated by the Education Code, Board Rules, Administrative Regulations, and district and college policies. However, district and college relationships are complex as these relate to operational functions and responsibilities and have evolved over time.

Six years ago, the district participated in a pilot program organized by the ACCJC aimed at clarifying lines of accountability and authority in districts with multiple colleges. Known as the Multi-College Pilot Program (MCPP), this effort involved representatives from Valley, Pierce, and Mission—the colleges that participated in the self study process during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 academic years. Members of the steering committees of each college’s accreditation teams met independently and with ACCJC representatives to explore issues of districtwide authority and accountability. These meetings led to the creation of a matrix of 417 questions, which were posed to district administration, the Board of Trustees, the District Academic Senate, and AFT Faculty Guild leadership. Answers helped the colleges define lines of responsibility and respond more effectively to the accreditation standards.

In 2001-2002, the MCPP effort continued with the next set of LACCD colleges involved in accreditation self studies—City, Trade Technical and East Los Angeles. Representatives from each school met to coordinate activities and improve accreditation efforts on their campuses. At one inter-collegiate meeting, ACCJC Associate Director Darlene Pacheco gave an overview of accreditation and a review of the original MCPP matrix (IV.B.3-1) and at another, participants heard presentations and learned about the district’s role in accreditation. (IV.B.3-2)

As a result of these meetings, a “Functional Map” (IV.B.3-3) was developed to clarify district and college responsibilities, delineating whether functions outlined in accreditation stan-dards were the responsibility of the district (administration and Board of Trustees), the nine LACCD colleges (administration or local Academic Senates), or a districtwide body (the AFT, District Academic Senate, or districtwide committees). The map was reviewed and critiqued by members of accreditation steering committees involved in the three City-side accreditation self studies in 2002-2003 and was adopted by the district and Board of Trustees as an accurate representation of lines of accountability. In fall 2004, this draft was circulated again to further refine the delineation of functions in light of the new ACCJC standards.


STANDARD IV: Leadership and Governancelamission.edu/accreditation/FINAL...

Documents

Transcript of STANDARD IV: Leadership and Governancelamission.edu/accreditation/FINAL...