Responses To Recommendations

Committee Membership

Co-Chairs
Richard Goff, Academic Senate President, Professor of Criminal Justice
Dr. Larry Calderón, College President

Classified Senate
Angie Marquez, President, Executive Assistant, Office of President
Terri Taylor, Vice President, Accounting Tech I, Fiscal Services
Barbara Hall, Secretary, Area Representative, Administrative Assistant I, Arts & Sciences Division
Ginnie Atmore, Treasurer, Fiscal Budget. Tech.
Connie Baker, Area Representative, Campus Data Specialist
Robin Douglas, Area Representative, Supervisor, Child Development Center
Connie Drusen, Area Representative, Word Processing Operator
Norann McDaniel, Area Representative, Account Tech II, Bookstore
Members:
Sandy Hajas, Supervisor, Learning Resources
Deborah McDaniels, Media Services Specialist
Alisa Moore, Esq., Public Information Officer

Associated Students of Ventura College (Student Government)
Fenix Pleitez, President
Doreen Juarez, Vice President
Robert Hawkes, Treasurer
Cynthia Mendoza, ICC Chair
Jenny Carroll, Alpha Gamma Sigma Representative
Amanda Fowler, Cal Sac. Representative
Adolfo Solovio, MECHA Representative
Lark Vasquez, Public Relations Director
Richard LaPaglia, ASVC Advisor, Director, Student Activities Specialist II

Academic Senate
Rebecca Santillan Hull, Vice President and President-Elect, Professor, Counseling
Dr. Joyce Mason Evans, Treasurer, Professor of American Indian and Women’s History
Kathryn Schoenrock, Secretary, Adjunct Professor of Business
Octavio Sifuentes, Past President, Professor, Associate Librarian

Ventura College Foundation
Mary Keating, Executive Director

Recommendation Two

The college should classify the charge and composition of the Council for Institutional Development with respect to its role in governance and its relationship to all governance groups in the institution particularly the Academic Senate in matters of the faculty rule (sic) in governance and the planning process. (1996 Standards 3B.1, Standards 10B.5, 10B.6, 10B.9, 10B.10)

Response

The College President and the Academic Senate President co-chaired the task force assigned to respond to this Recommendation.
Commencing in July 2002 a series of meetings were held between the College President, Academic Senate President, Academic Senate Executive Committee, College Executive Vice President and the President’s Executive Team to revisit the charge, membership and purpose of the Council for Institutional Development (CID) (R 2.1).

A. Background
The newly appointed College President initiated an assessment of the College’s planning process in 1995-96. The President worked with the existing College administration, student body organization, Classified and Academic Senates to determine what functional mechanisms were in place that assisted in directing institutional goals and resource allocation.

The group had two goals: to identify the common direction(s) of College constituents and their visions for the future of the College, and to identify and develop the institutional plan in order to improve institutional communication and cohesion, develop a realistic perspective and balance short and long-term college goals. They sought to establish criteria for making strategic decisions about programs and sought requisite funding in order to determine the efficacy of those decisions in achieving college goals. The question was, “How well did the process work?”

The answer was, “Not too well.” Results of the above assessment and analysis by the College President revealed that the College historically was generally governed by administrative fiat. Viable and vestigial institutional traditions, immediate needs and crisis management seemed to serve as the basis for determining the College’s decision-making and direction. Institutional decision-making and implementation was driven by vested interest motives generally related to the goals of teaching and student services. The College appeared to be a loosely formed confederation of vested interests and allegiances of convenience to achieve these interests. This was the College’s culture at the time.

It seemed as if the majority of faculty, classified staff, and students who were not represented in the College’s decision-making processes simply did their jobs, took their classes and “dealt with” decisions from administration. Despite such organizational dysfunction, the College was able to maintain its reputation for quality education and student success due to the commitment of faculty and classified personnel to meet student needs and maintain program viability in their own areas.

Strategic planning, the process used to engage the College community in shared governance through ad hoc and standing committees, was not widely used nor understood as a part of College culture. Clearly, a new College culture for planning and decision-making was needed.

Forging a college culture of inclusive participation in shared governance and the decision-making process has not been easy and is still in progress. The Ventura County Community College District (VCCCD) and the American Federation of Teachers, Local 1828 (AFT) had engaged in difficult contract negotiations which tended to polarize faculty and administration into a “we-them” situation. The college Academic Senate was still working to gain consensus as to what shared governance really was under AB1725 and its 11 points.

The College’s Classified Senate was marginalized by not having a legal device, such as AB1725, to require their participation in shared governance and perhaps by a strong bargaining unit which may have perceived a viable Classified Senate as potentially usurping the classified bargaining unit’s authority as sole negotiator of classified employees’ working conditions, salaries, and benefits. In any event, classified staff’s participation in shared governance has historically been tepid.

What to do? To redefine the College planning process and make it more inclusive, the President’s Cabinet developed a mechanism that would be charged with facilitating broad-based institutional discussion in order to develop a strategic planning process (R 2.2). The Council for Institutional Development (CID) was created in Spring 1996 to serve as such a forum to advise the College President.

In the college climate of the late 1990s, CID was viewed with skepticism by many faculty, classified staff, and students, but embraced by some. It has alternatively been viewed as tokenism, a forum of “yes people,” and as an opportunity for interested participants to affect college planning and direction. It has been challenging to develop CID as it was envisioned. In fact, the vision for CID has changed and evolved. Although the CID is not yet what the College is capable of, it has come a long way and functions at a higher level than it had previously. It is a “think tank” of individuals from a broad spectrum of college organizational units brought together to provide perspectives from across the campus.

The President’s Cabinet adopted the following guidelines for the development of CID’s operation (R 2.3):

• Campus-wide departments/functional areas would be engaged in CID for reaction and input as part of the recommendation and discussion processes (R 2.4)
• CID reviews/discusses campus input
• Task forces chartered as needed for in-depth study of issues
• Task force recommendations are reviewed for possible implementation by shared governance bodies and administrative committees
• President’s Cabinet considers all recommendations made by CID to the President for potential decision making
• Decisions are made by the College President
• Implementation of all decisions is accomplished through administrative and shared governance processes

B. Outcomes Resulting From the Establishment of the Council of Institutional Development
Several critical events have occurred as a result of the implementation and utilization of CID that continue to provide strategic focus for the College. Included among those outcomes are:

1. An institutionally adopted “Institutional Vision Statement” consistent with the mission of the College (R 2.5).
2. An institutionally adopted set of “Institutional Values” upon which the College Plan is built (R 2.6).
3. An institutionally adopted statement of “Institutional Practices” by which the College holds itself accountable (R 2.7).
4. An institutionally adopted set of “College Goals” and strategies to frame the activities initiated by each unit of the College (R 2.8).
5. A commitment to ongoing planning and a self-renewing planning cycle (R 2.9, 2.10).
6. A commitment to fostering the “Teaching and Learning” climate which reflects on the College’s institutional values and practices (R 2.11).

In August 2002, after the start of the Fall 2002 semester but before the first meeting of the Academic Senate, the Senate’s executive committee and the College President reached agreement on the following issues related to the existence of CID:

• Concurrence on the value of CID as a forum for open discussion and input to the College President on all non-personnel matters related to the operation of the College
• Affirmation concerning the membership of CID as a representative body of the College’s functional areas
• Affirmation concerning the need to formally appoint all faculty members of CID through the Academic Senate
• Affirmation concerning the separation of CID’s role from matters particularly related to the role of faculty in governance and institutional planning
• Affirmation from Classified Senate and Associated Student Body is needed.

These issues were taken before a regularly scheduled meeting of the Academic Senate and adopted in September 2002 (R 2.12).

As part of an on-going effort to enhance classified staff’s participation in College governance, several nascent steps have been taken in the current academic year.

The newly elected President of the Classified Senate has met with the campus union steward and engaged in discussions with the classified union president to delineate and define the role of the Classified Senate. This had not been clearly defined in the past, which resulted in one of the district senates becoming involved in issues that are the exclusive right of the classified union. The consequences of that Senate’s actions were severe and served to weaken the role of the Classified Senate as a shared governance body within the college district. As a result of ongoing communication, the relationship between the two entities is now cordial and supportive. Although the purviews are different, there is agreement that both share a common goal – to promote and enhance the professional well being of classified staff. The improved relationship has had a positive effect on classified staff and has allowed the Ventura College Classified Senate to have a greater voice and recognition within the governance structure. It is well known by administration and faculty that the College would be ungovernable without the input, guidance, and good will of its classified staff. Historically, such input has been informal and on a case-by-case basis. The challenge now is to formalize classified staff’s input through the Classified Senate.

Building on this opportunity, administration has increased participation of classified staff in ad hoc and standing committees at the College. The Classified Senate President continues to have a standing appointment to President’s Cabinet and the Council for Institutional Development. More must be done until classified staff feel that their non-union related views and opinions are listened to, valued, and incorporated, as appropriate, in planning for the College. There is still a long way to go to maximize the benefit of classified staff’s input for the overall good of the College. The Academic Senate is participating in this inclusive effort.

In October 2002, the Classified Senate President and the Academic Senate President presided over an historic joint meeting of both senates to exchange concerns and reach common ground regarding the non-union impacts of the unprecedented state budget crisis on faculty and classified staff, and their ability to provide class offerings and student services.

The result of this historic meeting was that both Senates learned of serious concerns each had. In addition, a resolution was prepared acknowledging the impact of the state budget crisis (as it was then), admitting the necessity of certain cuts necessary to keep the College afloat, but urging careful consideration and inclusiveness in determining such fiscal efforts (R 2.13).

C. Assessment of Progress Made
The College has made progress in clarifying the charge and composition of the Council for Institutional Development. The roles of all governance groups including students, Academic and Classified Senates with respect to institutional governance have been affirmed. In particular, the Academic Senate’s role as it relates to the institutional planning process has been defined and affirmed by formal action of the Academic Senate to appoint faculty members to serve on CID. The President will inform the campus in writing regarding the role of CID upon completion of the Educational Master Planning Process.

Recommendation Two List of Documents

R 2.1	Task Force Minutes
R 2.2	Council for Institutional Development Purpose
R 2.3	Council for Institutional Development Organizational Charge
R 2.4	Council for Institutional Development Membership
R 2.5	Ventura College Vision Statement
R 2.6	Ventura College Institutional Values Statement
R 2.7	Ventura College Institutional Practices Statement
R 2.8	Ventura College Goals
R 2.9	Ventura College Strategic Planning Process Cycle
R 2.10	Ventura College Strategic Decision Making Process
R 2.11	Ventura College Plan 2000-2003
R 2.12	Ventura College Academic Senate Minutes September 2002
R 2.13	Board of Trustees Minutes/Joint Resolution/Jan. 14, 2003

 

---

PAGES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10