|
Speaking of the Senate by John Queen, Academic Senate President |
 |
||
|
The technical assistance report from the team from the Community College League of California (CCLC) and the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) has been circulating on campus, and I thought I would address its analysis and recommendations. Dr. Levy and the Senate invited the team to do a presentation and offer advice on effective participation in governance, a service that the two organizations routinely provide upon request from community colleges from around the state. One obviously important conclusion of the report is that the college is currently characterized by a pervasive sense of mistrust between faculty, staff, and middle-level management on the one side and the Board, the president and the senior staff on the other. A second is that the extent of this mistrust and the difficulties in shared governance are problems for our upcoming accreditation. Specifically, the report says if we hope to have our “accreditation reaffirmed,” we need to take action on the recommendations that the team made. That phrase “accreditation reaffirmed,” by the way, does not necessarily mean “accreditation lost.” Reaffirmation is the best outcome for an already accredited college. The commission can decide to put the college on warning or on probation or on show cause (i.e., show the cause why the college should not have its accreditation removed), or remove accreditation. So to say that accreditation might not be reaffirmed is not the same as saying that the college will lose accreditation. On the other hand, we do want the best possible outcome for accreditation, so it is one more good reason to take the report seriously and act on its recommendations. Now it is true that the technical assistance team was only here for a day, and it is possible to dispute some of the details of the report, but I think we can use the report as a rough gauge of how we appear to outside people knowledgeable about community colleges. It would appear then essential to respond to the recommendations that the report made. 4 Main Recommendations There were four main recommendations: 1) to engage an outside facilitator to provide training in team building and communications among the college leadership; 2) to conduct an audit of current governance practices with a view to their conformity with current state laws and regulations; 3) to promote a culture of respect; and 4) for the Board to continue with “annual development activities that review the roles and responsibilities of the board within the legal structure of participatory governance.” Dr. Levy and I have already made inquiries about facilitators, and hopefully we can accomplish this recommendation before the end of this semester. The second recommendation to audit existing practices is in fact in process. The Campus Executive committee has been reviewing dozens upon dozens of Board policies over the last 2½ years, comparing existing Board policies to CCLC suggestions and our general understanding of shared governance as delineated in AB 1725. (AB 1725 refers to a bill that reformed the community colleges in 1988 and embodied the principle of shared governance—although that term never appears in the legislation. You can access the law at http://www.faccc.org/ADVOCACY/bills/historical/ab1725.PDF. The first 8 pages are the Legislative Counsel’s Digest and provide an overview.) This recommendation was made because the team perceived a disconnection between our current governance practices and AB 1725. This was the part of the report that most concerned me when I first read it. I contacted Mark Wade Lieu, the ASCCC president who co-conducted technical assistance with Scott Lay of the CCLC, and asked him to elaborate. He said their main concern is that we do not have a Board policy that specifies how the Board and the Senate will consult on the “ten-plus-one” policy areas (again, from AB 1725—see the accompanying box). Here too, we are already in process with meeting this recommendation. Campus Executive has been considering precisely such a policy (proposed Board policy 8510, “Local Participation in Decision-making,” which also aims to specify the relationship between the Board and the Guild, CSEA, administrators, and students). Ironically, Campus Executive decided to table this policy until we consulted with the technical assistance team about the meaning of the terms “rely primarily” and “mutually agree,” which specify how the Board and Senate will consult on each of the ten-plus-one areas. Now that the team did a presentation on those terms, the Senate Executive is crafting a proposal on whether we will mutually agree or rely primarily in the policy areas. This will be brought to the Senate and then Campus Executive. In sum, we should have such a policy this semester. The third recommendation is to foster a culture of respect. This is a goal much to be desired and does not automatically follow from the execution of the other recommendations. It will involve a good faith commitment on the part of all the constituencies on campus. The good news along these lines is that the report also reveals the positive impression that the team had of the college. The strong participation, involvement and connection of the various constituencies of the college were noted, as was the desire of these same constituencies to resolve current problems. I noticed something similar from the faculty perspective last semester with the survey on Standard IV (i.e., the accreditation standard on governance). While the full-time faculty were critical of how the various parts of the college were working together and the communication skills of the president, simultaneously they vigorously supported the statement that “governance works effectively.” In sort, we may in fact be closer to achieving this recommendation than might appear at first blush. As for the fourth recommendation, annual reviews by the board of its roles and responsibilities, the board could easily incorporate this into its annual retreat. This could lead to interesting conversations not only among themselves (including the student trustee), but also between them and the administration, the Senate, the Guild, and CSEA. For example, a discussion of what distinguishes micro-management from legitimate policymaking could benefit all sides, if conducted in a spirit of good will. The burning question is, of course, what is to be done? The Senate has already discussed the report, and a Senate electorate meeting will also address it. I assume that the Senate will then pass a motion to implement the recommendations and that motion will be taken to Campus Executive and then the Board. The use of a facilitator, ongoing activities to build a sense of community, the continuation of the discussion and analysis of board policies (and administrative regulations) in light of AB 1725, and board development activities all seem likely proposals. We can then all tap into that vibrant and positive tradition of shared governance of which we are so justly proud to accomplish these goals. We of course need to acknowledge the turbulence of the past couple of years, but then turn the page to a new chapter in the college’s history.
A note on the accreditation process As my discussion of the technical assistance report makes clear, accreditation casts its shadow over much of what we are doing today. As of this writing (March 20), the first drafts of the various sections of the self-study are due. Teams of faculty, administrators, staff and students will then review these sections. Also participating in the review will bemembers of the accreditation steering committee (made up of members of those same constituencies). A second draft is due in early May and, after preliminary review by the reviewers and the Standards committees from the fall, the self-study will be circulated among the four standing committees (Academic Affairs, Administrative Affairs, Student Affairs, and the Campus Executive committee), the Senate, and campus-wide town halls and blogs. In June, we expect to bring to the Board of Trustees a draft that should be substantively very close to the one the college will adopt. Formatting, the addition of graphics, and stylistic polishing will proceed in the summer and into the fall. It is possible a third revision will be circulated in the early fall. The Board will consider the final draft at at least two of their meetings and it should go to the printer at the beginning of December. If there are any significant developments at the college between early December and the site team’s visit in mid-March, we will supply them with an update. & |
|||
