Responses to Recommendations
PAGE 10 OF 10
Recommendation Ten
Committee Membership
Dr. Joan Smith, Co-chair, Executive Vice President of Student Learning
Karen de la Pena, Co-Chair, Associate Professor of Business
Larry Barrett, Associate Professor of Physical Education
Joan Beem, Professor, Director of Nursing
Aurora De La Selva, Professor, Counseling; Coordinator, EOPS
Dr. Karen Gorback, Coordinator, Community Education
Luke Drew Hall, Professor of Geography and Geology
Alisa Moore, Esq., Public Information Officer
Recommendation Ten
The College take immediate steps to reestablish a relationship of integrity with the Commission by ensuring that it is accurate in all communication with the Commission and that it follows the process outlined for development of college reports. (1996 Standards 2.8, Guide to Institutional Self-Study and Reports to the Commission, page 3, Participation of the Self Study, and page 38, Midterm Report)
Response
A. Background
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western
Association of Schools and Colleges, reviewed the institutional study
report of Ventura College and the report of the evaluation team that
visited Ventura College on March 19-21, 2002, and acted to accept the
report and place Ventura College on warning. It was the view of the
Commission and the visiting team that the College did not take seriously
its responsibility to the Commission for thoughtful and thorough response
to the previous recommendations. The Commission also indicated that
Ventura College’s report did not accurately present a description
of college programs and services as required by Commission standards.
Additionally, the Commission found that Ventura College did not have
wide-spread participation in the preparation of the 2002 Report, and
stated that many sections appeared to have been copied directly from
the College’s 1998 Mid-Term Report, and that, therefore, the
Commission had little information about the College’s progress
since 1998. Finally, with respect to reporting, the Commission noted
that Ventura College prepared the final version of the report in late
January 2002, after submitting inaccurate drafts to the Commission.
The Team Report of 2002 made nine recommendations. The Commission added
a tenth recommendation to its final report of June 2002, which is cited
above in full, and has as its primary focus, “…. to reestablish
a relationship of integrity with the Commission…”.
B. Committee Work
Given the serious, substantive concerns raised by the Commission’s
addition of this Recommendation to the findings in its report from the
2002 abbreviated visit, a separate campus committee was established to
review these issues and address the concerns.
The Recommendation Ten Committee met several times, discussed the history
that gave rise to the recommendation, and worked to create a scenario
that would document the seriousness with which they approached the issue
raised by the recommendation.
The Committee decided to:
• Communicate with each committee that had been assigned a standard or a recommendation to review for the 2003 Report,
• Remind the committees of their responsibilities in the preparation of the Report,
• Define “integrity” for the members of the committees,
• Ask their support in documenting their commitment to wide-spread participation in the creation of the report
• Confirm what went wrong last time in order to avoid those problems this time
• Confirm with the Executive Vice President’s Office that any communications with the Commission or the visiting team members would be clearly documented, and that
• Each step of the accreditation process would be supported by documentation showing that the campus had appropriate opportunity to participate and provide input (given the short time line for report preparation)
The Committee reviewed the Webster’s definition of “integrity” which is “adherence to moral and ethical principals; soundness of moral character; honesty” – the Committee then interpreted that definition as including the following behaviors, as appropriate to the Accreditation process:
• Communicating with clarity
• Being accurate and truthful
• Providing follow-through
• Encouraging participation and interaction
• Providing access to information
The Committee felt that the best way to document the integrity (as defined above) of the chairs and team members who were working on the 2003 Report was to collect their minutes and attendance records from their respective committee meetings. The committees that were formed to study the standards and recommendations were asked to keep records of the attendance at each of their meetings (R 10.1) and minutes of the topics discussed during those meetings, (R 10.2) in order to document for the Commission the level of Ventura College’s commitment to compliance with the Commission’s standards, policies and requirements.
This same information is reported in the Standard Two committee’s progress report, particularly in the portions relating to Standard 2.8, and the two committees had some overlapping members.
C. Campus Participation:
The Recommendation also instructed the College to use specific guidelines
in the preparation of this report in order to properly prepare the Report
and to confirm that the College was using the same procedures for the
2003 Report that the Commission expected to see used. So that the Accreditation
work would be done correctly, and to document the attention the College
has given to the concerns raised by the Commission:
• Each committee was provided with copies of the guidelines specified in Recommendation Ten.
• Each committee was provided with copies of the portions of the 1996 report, the 1998 Mid-Term Report and the 2002 Report and Supplemental Report relevant to their Standard or Recommendation.
• The 2003 Progress Report is the result of 20 participating committees whose sign-in sheets reflect a wide diversity of staff, faculty and management participation, and whose minutes reflect a depth of issues discussed and questions debated which was not present in the preparation of the 2002 Report.
• The committee co-chairs met regularly as a group, during the period of report preparation, with the Executive Vice President and often with the Academic Senate President, in order to confirm the importance of broad, campus-wide participation in the review of accreditation issues and the creation of their respective reports (R 10.3).
• The Accreditation Co-Chairs prepared Accreditation Updates that were distributed campus-wide by email and by hard copy (R 10.4).
• Upon completion of the first draft of the 2003 Report, the draft report that resulted from the committees’ work was widely disseminated, discussed, reviewed, corrected and then re-issued in a final version. Copies of the draft were made available in hard copy to all of the full-time and part-time faculty, to the members of all shared governance committees and planning committees, by email distribution to the entire campus community (including classified staff) and on the College web site for the entire district and the community to review and contribute to. The final version remained available on the web site (http://www.venturacollege.edu/accreditation/), easily located with a link in the center of the College home page.
• Copies of all comments, supporting documents and committee membership lists have been made available for review by anyone who asks through the office of the Executive Vice President.
The Standard Two Committee, the Recommendation Ten Committee, and the entire team involved in the preparation of the 2003 Progress Report have taken the recommendation of the Commission to heart, and have strived to meet the expectations of the Commission to the very best of the ability of Ventura College as a whole. We request that the visiting team and the Commission note that we have worked on a very short time-line, having had less than three months to prepare this report for the team, then get it published and approved by the Board of Trustees and to the team in time for their visit. We know of no other way to re-establish trust with the Commission than to verify the wide-spread participation of faculty, staff and managers, as well as student participation, in the preparation of the report, and to attempt to substantiate the depth of analysis undertaken in every aspect of the report.
D. Summary
The Recommendation Ten Committee strongly believes that the process utilized
in the preparation of the 2003 Progress Report has addressed all institutional
integrity issues cited by the Commission. It is hoped that this Recommendation
will now be put to rest.
Recommendation Ten List of Documents
| R 10.1 | Attendance Records of Committees |
| R 10.2� | Minutes of Committee Meetings |
| R 10.3 | Minutes of Co-Chairs Committee Meetings |
| R 10.4� | Accreditation Updates |
Ventura College, 4667 Telegraph Road, Ventura, CA 93003 (805) 654-6400