ACCREDITATION '98

During October 13, 14 and 15, 1992, Saddleback College was visited by an evaluation team assigned by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The visit resulted in a report and specific recommendations which were endorsed by the Accrediting Commission in January, 1993, along with the commission's action to reaffirm the College's full accreditation for the maximum five-year period.

The accreditation process was a positive and constructive experience for the College, from the self study to the team visit and action by the Accrediting Commission. The College has elected to keep the Accreditation Report in the forefront of its annual evaluation and planning activities. It is utilized by all divisions, governance organizations and the College President's Council in assessing progress and in establishing annual goals and objectives. It is also a regular component of the College's annual report to the Accrediting Commission. The status of Saddleback College's responses to the recommendations contained in the 1992-1993 Accreditation Report follows.

Saddleback College's Midterm Report was accepted by the Commission. However, due to insufficient progress toward two of the focused issues raised by the accrediting team, the Commission requested a follow-up report to be submitted by April, 1997, documenting additional progress and changes accomplished toward those two critical areas of concern.

While the Self Study points to considerable tension between the College and the District, particularly in relation to perceived inequities in the budget allocation model, the Team concluded that the situation is aggravated by poor communication about the allocation model, limited understanding on the part of college personnel on how the model works and inaccurate information on how the budget process has been and can be changed.

Both the College and District have undergone a critical period of transition in leadership during the three years since the Accrediting Team's visit to Saddleback College. After a year's search, the new President and Chancellor began their administrative roles in Spring, 1994. The new leadership has renewed positive relationships and dissolved some of the tension between the two colleges and the District.

Much attention and effort have been devoted to modifying the District budget allocation model. The District Budget Committee has worked on numerous changes to streamline the budget process, such as reducing the committee size and reaching recommendations by consensus rather than by majority vote. Although many adjustments to the budget allocation model have been made during the past three years to offset areas of inequity, the committee must comprehensively study the allocation model itself. The previous tension noted by the Accrediting Team is the result of frustration at the College that believes it operates under an inequitable model, rather than the limited understanding of how the model works. The Chancellor has made a commitment to re-examine the model by contracting with a consultant to review the existing District allocation model and budget process. The District Budget Committee will continue to provide leadership in the consultation process regarding the revision of the budget allocation model and budget process.

At the College level, continued in-service will be offered for faculty, staff, and administrators so that the College community is knowledgeable and understands the changes which occur within the District allocation model and the budget process.

Follow-up Progress Report:

In Fall, 1995, through the leadership of the college presidents and the Academic Senate presidents, an ad-hoc committee composed of college administrators, faculty, and staff was formed to develop a different approach to the budget development process. After several months of meetings, in March, 1996, a new budget development process, bearing the full support of all College shared governance groups, was presented to the Board of Trustees, for approval. With the approval of the Board, the District and both colleges have successfully implemented the new process and it has been openly discussed throughout the College by the various shared governance groups, such as the Academic Senate, Classified Senate, Deans' Cabinet, and President's Council.

While both colleges continue to vie for resources to meet student needs, the level of discourse is now marked by openness and frankness. The divisiveness of prior years has been replaced by an understanding of the budget development process and regular reports by College representatives serving on the District-level committee to College shared governance groups.

Both personal and written communication need to be improved between the District and the College at all levels. All Groups should strive to improve communication through better dissemination of factual information, use of formal and informal communication links, and more use of shared governance opportunities to strengthen communication with all constituencies.

The Academic Senate at each college recognizes the need for better communication between the colleges and with the District. Beginning in 1993-1994, the College Academic Senate scheduled two joint senate meetings each semester to accomplish the following:

1. Enhance communication among faculty throughout the District.
2. Develop greater knowledge and understanding of the issues specifically related to each individual institution.
3. Address the academic and professional issues identified under AB 1725 shared governance which have District-wide implications.
   
   To further enhance the process of communication through shared governance, the joint Academic Senates were successful working with the colleges and District Trustees in developing and adopting a shared governance board policy. This policy, adopted by the Board during the 1994-1995 academic year, will help each college clarify and develop its own internal governance processes.

The District and the College communicate mainly through the Chancellor's executive cabinet. The President serves as the representative for the College. Written and personal communication have not been on a regular basis. However, during Spring 1995, the Chancellor frequently communicated to the College community to update the District's financial status after the Orange County bankruptcy.

The most recent personnel changes in District and College, effective July, 1995, may catapult a much improved understanding and communication between the College and the District. The District Director of Planning, Research and Development assumed a new role as Saddleback College Interim Vice President for Instruction, and Saddleback College Dean of Continuing Education has been reassigned to the District Office as the Associate Vice-Chancellor. Both the College and District expect this new leadership will enhance communication.

Follow-up Progress Report:

Since the submission of the midterm report, the District and the College continue to be challenged to make significant improvement in both personal and written communication. It is recognized that major efforts must be undertaken to improve shared governance relationships between the two entities. To this end, the Board of Trustees plans to schedule a workshop on the topic of shared governance. After the conclusion of the workshop, the College community will be surveyed to ascertain its perspective concerning the satisfactory nature of District and College communication.

Perhaps the most serious problem at the College involves diversity and equity. Overt examples of hostility toward specific underrepresented groups were evident during the Team's visit, and goals for improving staff diversity are not being met. While much is being done to improve the situation for underrepresented students and staff, including the appointment of a District Affirmative Action Officer and the proposed addition of a multicultural graduation requirement, more must be done to remove all doubt that the College and its personnel embrace and support diversity and equity for all persons.

The College has experienced significant student demographic shifts in the past five years. The institution is in the process of responding to these changes. The hate incidents on campus during recent years have sounded serious alarms for the College to examine all aspects of curriculum, program offerings, institutional climate, and staffing that would perpetuate cultural and/or racial conflicts. The College has completed evaluation of policies, procedures, and personnel practices that have contributed to the racial conflicts. This process has resulted in an extensive list of activities and programs targeting an inclusive climate of embracing diversity and equity on campus. A selected list of examples of activities and programs implemented during the last three years are as follows:

1. A consultant was contracted to provide a series of campus-wide dialogues called "Face to Face" following one of the most disturbing hate incidents in 1993. The sessions focused on the healing process, as well as planning agenda, for the College in dealing with the issue of racial harmony.
2. A Consulting Team was contracted in 1994 to assess the existing curriculum and program offerings relating to cultural diversity. The team made specific recommendations for developing a cross-cultural studies program.
3. The College adopted the cultural diversity graduation requirement in 1993. New courses, such as Ethnic Women's Issues, Ethnic Voices in Literature, and The Mexican American in Contemporary Society have been offered regularly, adding to an extensive list of existing courses satisfying the new requirement.
4. The Cross Cultural Studies program was established in Fall, 1994, with a 60 percent coordinator and part-time support staff. An active advisory committee with College-wide representation was instrumental in establishing budget, program focus, and curriculum development for the program. Several new courses were developed, such as Cross Cultural Studies 1 and 2 and Asian American Culture in the United States. Saddleback College now offers an associate degree in Cross Cultural Studies. The program has enjoyed widespread support, especially from the Associated Student government.
5. The College has renewed its pledge to support diversity in the appointment of a College Staff Diversity Officer, who oversees all College hiring committees to assure compliance with affirmative action guidelines.
6. The College co-sponsored the community-based conference "Building Bridges to the 21st Century Celebrating Diversity" in June, 1995, focusing on multiple aspects of race, gender, and religious diversity. Faculty, staff, and students actively participated in the conference.
7. The College established the Student Equity Committee chaired by the College Staff Diversity Officer to address the process of developing a long-term plan relating to diversity and the implementation of the College Equity Plan.
8. Disability Awareness Day has become a regular event on campus since 1993, helping students gain understanding of the world of disabled persons.
9. The Associated Student Government sponsored and participated in numerous events which promoted a more inclusive campus climate. A few examples follow: The first International Fair, the two-week Multicultural Experience, and the Native American Pow-Wow.
10. Faculty Development programs, with a focus on embracing diversity, have been increased since 1992. A few examples follow: Rainbow Voices - multicultural experiences in diverse voices, Humanities Hour - Guest Speakers with prominent writers such as Rudolfo Anaya, and the workshop on Women Voices across Cultures.
11. The Academic Senate, in an effort to keep the issue of cultural diversity in the forefront of our institutional dialogue, developed and adopted a resolution as a statement of philosophy against prejudice and racism in Fall, 1994. Resolution 26 was presented to the President's Council and the Board of Trustees. The Senate funded the framing and replacement of more than twenty-five large copies of the resolution and is currently working with all divisions to display this resolution throughout the entire campus.
12. A District Director of Affirmative Action Programs was hired in 1991. The Office of Affirmative Action institutionalized a comprehensive program of regular training sessions with topics such as affirmative action programs and policies, sexual harassment identification and prevention, Americans with Disability Act, updates on legislation and guidelines, and search committee orientations. Sexual Harassment training is provided to students. Progress was made toward diversity hiring. The total ethnic minority hiring rate has increased from 32.8 percent for 1992-1993 to 43.75 percent for 1993-1994.
13. The Orange County Human Relations Commission was contracted to conduct an in-depth assessment of institutional climate in 1993. The College has begun to implement some of the recommendations. A Human Relations Council for the College was formed in 1994 to channel community energy and learning opportunity, and as a crucible for exploring and addressing communication issues, cultural misperception and insensitivity, and better understanding. The council includes a wide range of community members.
14. A Gay and Lesbian Committee was formed in 1993 to provide a forum for addressing issues with regard to sexual orientation.
15. NEH funding was secured for an Institute entitled "Latin American Literatures and Cultures: Self and Society" for 25 faculty participants in 1995 and another very successful two-year NEH-funded Faculty Development project called "Building Bridges: A Study of the Literatures of China, Japan and Latin America" involving 26 faculty members across the disciplines in 1992.

Follow-up Progress Report:

Since the submission of the midterm report, there have been no reports of hate incidents on campus. The President of the College has provided leadership by repeatedly affirming his expectation that all faculty, staff, and students openly support diversity and equity for all persons. The College has committed to conducting an annual survey of the entire College community for purposes of ascertaining the level of acceptance for diverse persons. Results from the first survey will be available April, 1997, and they will be closely reviewed. Should there be findings that show a lack of support for diversity and equity for all persons, an action plan will be developed and implemented to address this finding.

Conduct and respond to the results of an assessment of the institutional climate as it relates to general student satisfaction and the perception of the environment for students from underrepresented and diverse groups.

During the Spring and Fall, 1993, numerous hearings seeking and receiving student input to the College were conducted. The Vice President for Instruction, along with the Dean of Student Development, facilitated discussion groups, lecture presentations and student workshops to give both form and content to the hostility exhibited and felt by some underrepresented groups on campus. Consultants from the University of California, Irvine as well as other community colleges, were retained in order to better understand specific issues and lay the groundwork for implementing programs and curriculum designed to ameliorate and mitigate former and existing problems. During 1994, the Orange County Human Relations Commission was contracted to conduct assessment studies on institutional climate. A Final report was submitted with specific recommendations. As many of the examples stated in the response to the Accrediting Team Focused Issue #3, the College has taken extensive action to address the issue. It will be an on-going endeavor for the College community to create a campus climate that is conducive to unity in diversity.

Develop and implement an institution-wide initiative to demonstrate that college personnel embrace and support equity and diversity, both in spirit and in deed, and that members of the College and District family share the desire to eliminate racial and other diversity conflicts.

Saddleback College has undergone an extensive evaluation of policies, procedures, and personnel practices that have contributed to the hate incidents toward under-represented and minority groups. Commencing in 1993, the College administration, with the assistance of the Academic Senate, Associate Student Government, and numerous unaffiliated individuals, has undertaken College-wide hearings, discussion groups, workshops, and sensitivity training sessions. Although the process is by no means over, there have resulted some very positive outcomes from the effort. In Fall, 1994, Saddleback College institutionalized a Cross Cultural Studies program. With a dedicated coordinator and permanent assignment of space, the Cross Cultural Studies program has done an exhaustive study of both curricular and extra-curricular activities at the College. Saddleback College now offers an associate degree in Cross Cultural Studies.

In addition, the College has renewed its pledge to support diversity by the appointment of a College Staff Diversity Officer who coordinates with the District Affirmative Action Office to assure compliance with affirmative action guidelines and other training activities. Under the direction of the College Staff Diversity Officer, faculty, staff, and students are encouraged to attend conferences focusing on issues of affirmative action.

Along with serious attention being paid to curriculum and staffing, numerous student-based activities have been organized which focus on issues of race, gender, diversity, and equity. One of the campus-wide initiatives is the establishment of the Saddleback College Student Equity Committee. With representation across the campus, this group was first formed in 1993 to develop and implement the student equity plan.

The Academic Senate worked closely with the Office of Instruction and students in developing a proposal and areas to use existing curriculum for ethnic and cross-cultural course offerings. An outside consulting team was hired to accomplish this task and to make recommendations regarding the implementation of a cross-cultural program. The program was established in 1993 with faculty, classified, and fiscal support. Goals and objectives have been developed along with specific cross-cultural courses.

The Academic Senate is to be commended for taking leadership in the development of a public position statement of philosophy against prejudice and racism. The resolution was adopted in 1994 and was presented to the President's Council and Board of Trustees. The Senate funded the framing and placement of more than twenty-five large copies of the resolution and is currently working with all divisions to display this resolution throughout the entire campus.

At the District level, there is also a new initiative under the coordination of the District Director of Affirmative Action to collaborate on a unified effort toward diversity issues. For example, working closely with Irvine Valley College and the District, Saddleback College sponsored a very successful conference, "Building Bridges to the 21st Century Celebrating Diversity," in June, 1995. Saddleback College also actively participated in the District-wide study with the Orange County Human Relations Commission with faculty, staff, students, and community members, focusing on issues of hate and the mitigation of potential hate crime.

To lessen conflict, decrease the waste of resources and better serve the community and students, the College should join with Irvine Valley College in urging the District Office to expand and support efforts to provide more coordination in areas that will improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the District's overall programs and services.

Although no formal committee structure has been established between Saddleback College, Irvine Valley College and the District to "lessen conflict and decrease the waste of resources," Irvine Valley College and Saddleback College increased communications under new leadership of two new college Presidents, District Chancellor, Academic Senate Presidents, and Classified Leadership. For example, both colleges and the District cooperated in the new telephone registration system, held joint Senate meetings, and jointly investigated prerequisite enforcement and equipment needs. Currently, both colleges and the District are engaged in discussions on possibilities of combining specific programs to be more cost effective. In addition, both colleges and the District internally reorganized leadership roles. It is anticipated that with this new shifting of leadership, multiple steps will be taken to formalize protocols for District-wide cooperation in decision-making.

Coordinate the planning and budget allocation systems to insure that planning and College priorities have a direct influence on resource allocation.

The budget allocation model within the District still remains an issue. Although Saddleback College has been successful in persuading the District Budget Committee of some inequities with the model, there still remain disagreements as to how the two colleges should receive compensation, absorb cost of living adjustments from bargained agreements, and so on. The District Chancellor has been authorized to contract for a consultant to review the existing District allocation model for 1995-1996.

As an institution which depends for its resources on the local tax base, the College finds it difficult to plan for a projection of external resource allocation. Historically, the College has operated under an expenditure-based model. In 1995-1996, the College expended approximately 90 percent of its allocation on resources for personnel. The College Budget Committee will investigate alternative allocation models for the remaining discretionary funds in order to capitalize on existing limited resources for maximum planning priorities. The budget allocation process, driven by the College's Master Plan, will match with priorities for facilities and educational program needs.

Make fundamental revisions to the program review methodology to increase its objectivity and provide a more rigorous and credible foundation for the assessment of quality and effectiveness in program offerings.

The College has instituted a Master Planning Steering Committee to address College-wide issues. One of the subcommittees, Balance of Programs and Education Plan, will define the existing balance of instructional programs as related to transfer and general education, occupational education, remedial (pre-college)/developmental education, and life-long learning/non-credit education. The subcommittee will study the existing programs offered by the College and recommend a three-year educational plan to the governance units of the College. The timeline for the completion of the report in Spring, 1996.

Another subcommittee is the Program Review Committee. It has the specific function of designing a data structure that will show the ranking of each of the institutional programs related to multiple criteria, evaluating the programs against the College philosophy, and making recommendations to the College governance groups.

Both of these subcommittees have submitted preliminary reports to the Steering Committee during Spring, 1995 with a target date for completion sometime during Spring, 1996. The Board of Trustees will eventually review all of the findings and authorize implementation upon its approval. The full report should be complete and be included in the next accreditation self study report.

Engage in an active, comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction that includes student evaluations in all programs and surveys of employer satisfaction with the performance of students from occupational programs.

The Saddleback Community College District Academic Employee Master Agreement currently does not require that student evaluations become a part of any faculty evaluation procedure (Article XII: Faculty Evaluation Procedures, Section 1-D). However, student evaluations are routinely completed in classes taught by associate faculty and are reviewed by the home division administration. The results of the evaluation are also made available to the associate faculty member.

Other faculty and program evaluations are conducted individually by faculty or by departments. For example, monitoring student satisfaction with respect to the quality of instruction, provided by the more than 90 associate faculty in the Emeritus Institute is an important evaluation process. Emeritus students participate in such formal evaluations each semester. Additionally, the Counseling and Special Services division routinely evaluates student ratings of Counseling Services and Orientation/Advisement sessions in terms of satisfaction, usefulness, and quality. Changes for improvement are made accordingly.

All academic employees are evaluated on a regular basis as described in the District Academic Employee Master Agreement. The evaluation procedures are thorough.

Include more evidence in the curriculum of sensitivity to an acknowledgment of student diversity.

Starting with the 1994-1995 academic year, the interdisciplinary Cross Cultural Studies program began at Saddleback College with the opportunity to achieve an associate degree with a specialty in Cross Cultural Studies. The program is currently pending state approval. The focus of the program is on the history, literature, and cultures of African Americans, Asian Americans, Chicano/Latinos, and Native Americans. There are forty-three courses listed in the 1995-1996 Saddleback College Catalog that offer students the selections for the 21 units needed to complete an associate degree in Cross Cultural Studies.

Since 1992, the area of cultural diversity has been added to the graduation requirement which mandates that all associate degree candidates must have one course that fulfills the Cultural Diversity requirement. Each division has reviewed its course offerings toward the fulfillment of the cultural diversity requirement. New courses have been developed such as Sociology 6 (Asian Americans in the United States), Sociology 18 (Ethnic Women Issues), and Psychology 16 (Psychology of Prejudice). Sensitivity has also been heightened to include topics related to diversity in existing curriculum and programs.

Develop and implement a comprehensive computerized student management system that supports the efficient delivery of student services and produces accurate data to assist with student services and college long-range planning.

During the last three years, Student Services has worked with the District Information Resources office mainly on the Telephone Registration system. Although a comprehensive computerized student management system has not yet been developed or implemented due to lack of available funds, service delivery in several student services areas has been enhanced. Some examples follow: adding EOPS student data files to the VAX system, computer networking for counselors to assess student information, computerized scheduling of counseling appointments, partial component tracking for matriculation services, automated placement with multiple measures, automated registration block, and automated matriculation status update.

Beginning Fall, 1995, a scantron-based tracking system will be instituted. The Dean of Counseling and Special Programs and the Dean of Admissions and Records plan to resubmit a Title III grant in 1997. With telephone registration now expanded and functioning, Student Services will begin to work with the Information Resource office during the coming years toward the development and implementation of a comprehensive student management system.

Identify and provide the amount of administrative leadership required by the EOP&S and DSP&S programs to offer adequate support for those students with most need.

Both EOPS and DSPS staff, with the participation of generalist counselors, served on committees in addressing issues on the leadership structure required for adequate administrative support. Beginning in 1991, EOPS had a 50 percent coordinator filled by generalist counselor reassigned time. DSPS has also hired a permanent 50 percent coordinator. Since 1992, the College has committed to support additional coordinator time during summer as mandated by state guidelines. Both programs express needs of additional administrative support. During 1995-1996, an interim plan is being implemented to provide additional administrative time for both DSPS and EOPS programs. The Matriculation office has been released from the responsibility of the Dean of Counseling and Special Services, thus allowing more time to provide additional administrative support to EOPS and DSPS programs. Matriculation has been reorganized under the Student Development division. The College will review the effectiveness of this plan during the coming year and propose changes accordingly. The Vice President of Student Services will consult with the affected Student Services areas to determine a permanent plan.

Develop and implement a comprehensive student service program review and plan.

No formalized effort exists in the development and implementation of a comprehensive student service program review and plan. The Student Services Committee, chaired by the Vice President of Student Services, plans to develop a framework for student services program review beginning in Fall, 1995.

Review and strengthen current staff evaluation policies and practices to align them more closely with current state-approved practices and make them more job-specific and goal directed.

Evaluations of classified staff have been conducted in the manner prescribed by the collective bargaining agreement. The evaluation form is provided to a supervisor who completes the form and passes it on to the dean of the division or other appropriate administrative personnel. Once returned, the employee is shown the evaluation by the supervisor and comments and questions are dealt with at that time. The evaluation sheet is not job-specific although goals can be brought forth and achieved during the next evaluation period. The Classified Senate will work with CSEA to improve the evaluation policy and procedures.

Review and strengthen hiring policies to focus on the goal of greater ethnic diversity among staff.

Hiring policies at the College have stressed greater ethnic diversity among the staff. Staff members are trained (voluntarily) in these issues and serve on all hiring committees to insure that mandated guidelines are followed. Since the Affirmative Action Program was not institutionalized until 1991, there still exists the perception of affirmative action as an obstacle in the process for hiring the best qualified candidate, rather than a means to achieving equity. Further training is needed to help the College community understand the hiring process under the state Affirmative Action guidelines. The District Affirmative Action Officer has played a major role in assisting all areas of the College with ongoing training of participants in all areas of Affirmative Actions issues (i.e., sexual harassment and racism).

Since associate faculty provide the largest pool of potential full-time faculty, bring the policies and procedures for hiring associate faculty more in line with those used for employing full-time faculty.

The full-time faculty selection procedure was carefully reviewed and revisions completed in 1994-1995. A representative committee to revise the associate faculty selection procedure will be formed during the 1995-1996 year.

Given the frequently expressed need in the Self Study for additional classified support staff and the limited financial resources to satisfy this perceived need, undertake a comprehensive review of the current assignment and potential for reassignment of human resources on the campus.

The Master Planning Group has a committee dedicated to the issue of staffing. This committee has been charged with creating a five-year plan for the staffing of the College. Different areas of the College are being reviewed to equalize staff needs. After the study is complete, financial and contractual issues must be addressed to fulfill any changes recommended.

Review the current staff development program to ensure that it addresses the needs of all staff for renewal, updating skills and upgrading programs.

Classified staff actively participate on the Staff Development Advisory Committee along with representatives from faculty and administration. The advisory committee makes global decisions that affect all groups represented. Moreover, the staff development program is reviewed extensively every year by the Classified Senate Executive Council. The staff is surveyed to ascertain strengths and weaknesses of current staff development methods and offerings. With the addition of the Innovation and Technology Center at Saddleback College in Fall, 1994, a central location is now available for staff members to receive up-to-date training to upgrade as well as learn new computer skills. New methods of communication are explored using newly developed technology. The staff development program is carried out aggressively to bring more opportunity to a greater number of staff members. As a result, the number of participants in various staff development activities reached the highest level of participation during the past year.

Establish a centralized process to avoid duplication of costly media hardware and software, including those attached to discipline areas, and to ensure that purchased systems are compatible.

Learning Resources has been attentive to the need to maximize available resources and avoid costly duplication of equipment and services. Standardization of equipment specification standards have been established. In 1993-1994, Learning Resources was allocated separate money to purchase equipment for the campus. In 1994-1995 two committees were established to set criteria and determine priorities for the purchase of both replacement and new equipment. In the coming year, equipment centralization will be addressed again by Deans and area managers.

Address the potential impact of additional facilities on future staffing needs for maintenance and support operations.

To address the impact of additional facilities on future staffing needs for maintenance and support operations, a major restructuring of these functions on a District-wide basis was accomplished. The restructuring of these functions was accomplished by decentralizing the maintenance functions from the District offices and reassigning all maintenance functions to the College level. Each college is now responsible for all maintenance, operations and support services.

To address the specific needs of Saddleback College, the Maintenance, Operations, and Support Services Department was recently reorganized to increase organizational flexibility and accountability. One additional supervisor was added to the organization to easily accommodate any potential increase in staffing. All supervisors now have clear areas of responsibility and accountability for themselves and the staff that reports to them.

Establish a long-range plan for equipment replacement.

During 1994-1995, the Equipment Replacement Committee, with members from representatives of the President's Council, was formed to determine criteria for distributing $300,000 for equipment, with requests that totaled over $1 million. The committee allocated funds based on the number of students affected, direct benefit to students, and whether the division or office had received significant funds in the past. A point system with set cutoffs was implemented in ranking all the requests. The Technology Committee also met with the Equipment Replacement Committee to combine lists of equipment. Although the outcome was not satisfying to everyone, a system for determining allocation priority for equipment has been initiated. The committee will use the same system for 1995-1996 and will continue to refine the process for clearer and more objective guidelines.

Communicate information on the status of the facilities master plan and the process for implementation to all levels of the campus community.

To facilitate the sharing of the facilities planning process with the entire College community, the Facilities Subcommittee of the Master Planning Committee was established. The Facilities Subcommittee is chaired by the Director of the Maintenance, Operations and Support Services Department and is represented by all College constituencies. The committee is instrumental in the establishment of facilities and maintenance priorities.

Work with the District's other college, the Chancellor and the Board to develop long-range District plans that result in budget guidelines and considerations that appropriately reflect the varied program expenditure demands between the two colleges.

The College has continued to develop non-deficit funded budgets and has always operated within resource allocation limits. Furthermore, the College has not ended the year in a deficit situation.

The make-up of the District Budget Committee was revised in the 1994-1995 year with recommendations made for the 1995-1996 budget development process. The committee was reduced in size and the recommendations were reached by consensus, rather than by majority vote. However, the committee could not come to consensus on the final budget allocation and it was referred to the Chancellor. The current FTES (Full Time Equivalent Student) driven District budget model has been studied thoroughly and is fully understood by Saddleback College representatives who actively engage in the discussion regarding budget process and the allocation model. The model is still not perceived to adequately recognize the differences between Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College. The revenue based model primarily takes into account FTES, not other revenue based items such as COLA, hold harmless provisions, and growth caps.

The Chancellor has taken action this year to address the budget allocation model by contracting with a consultant to review the model. The College expects the District to provide more direction and coordination in the budget discussion process.

Attempt to increase harmony between the District and college budget allocation processes by examining the difference in the models and the basis for the perceived inequities.

The District Budget Committee was reconfigured for 1994-1995 to include only key personnel from each of the college's respective governance groups. The change has increased the committee's efficiency by reaching recommendations by consensus and allowing leadership of governance groups to access more detailed information regarding the budget model. Ultimately, however, consensus for a final budget recommendation was not possible because of the inequities in allocations between the two colleges.

The District budget development process remains well-documented and is fully understood by the College personnel working on the District Budget Committee. The fundamental problem remains that the College does not agree with the revenue based formula, particularly since the two colleges are very different. As a new and growing institution, the sister college has been designed around a revenue based model that does not cap growth, does not fund COLA, and does not have a hold harmless clause for revenue declines. On the other hand, Saddleback College is a large and well established institution, not operating under the revenue based model, not easily adaptable and not wishing to change just to meet the revenue requirements of the model. The College has been placed in a difficult disposition to operate since the adoption of the new revenue based model in 1986-1987. In addition, the College's allocation continues to be expenditure based, with 90 percent of resources committed to personnel for 1995-1996. The allocation model remains to be a critical factor in the gap between the colleges and the District.

It is necessary for the District to provide more leadership and coordination to facilitate the process for reviewing and revising the budget allocation model. Since the Chancellor has authorized the contracting of a consultant to study the allocation model as a neutral party, it is anticipated that alternative approaches to budget allocation can be adapted to provide equity for both colleges.

Work with the Vice Chancellor for Financial Services and the Institutional Research Director to examine the long-range projections and budget implications of the local tax base that is currently providing additional resources to the District.

The College embarked on a master planning process during the 1994-1995 fiscal year. The District is starting a District master planning effort in the 1995-1996 fiscal year. The College intends that once the planning is complete, the budget allocation process will follow the College goals. The District and College budget allocation processes have been examined on an ongoing basis by the College Budget Committee, as well as by all shared governance groups. They would have to change its identity and philosophy to be able to compete for resources on an FTES basis with its sister college.

The College has worked with the Vice Chancellor of Fiscal Services to determine the long-range projections and budget implications of the local tax base. This is a difficult projection to make and previous County projections have been inaccurate. Additionally, from a College perspective, to project budget situations more than twelve to eighteen months in advance is difficult, due to the volatility of both income and expenditures. In the last two years, income and expenditures have been influenced by unknown factors such as specialized property tax income (Teeter funds), changes in the core property tax base, collective bargaining agreements, and retirement incentives, for which the College has no responsibility or input. The College needs to sharpen futuring and plan more strategically.

Whenever funding permits, consideration should be given to locating the District Office away from the College. In the interim, the possibility should be explored of renaming the District to avoid confusion with the College.

The District Chancellor has investigated alternative locations for the District Office. Although the relocation plan can provide optimum system-wide advantage operationally, the cost of the additional facility is a major concern. With the recent Orange County bankruptcy, the plan has been temporarily put on hold for future consideration.

The Board of Trustees should define and implement a formal system of Board self-evaluation.

As of this date the Board has not yet completed a form for self-assessment, however, this year the board has scheduled two retreats with the Chancellor and other selected staff members along with a facilitator, who is not part of the District staff, to develop boardsmanship and to assist in the interrelationships among the Board. The Board has two meetings scheduled to further develop the skills required for the smooth operation of Board meetings. It is the intention of the Board in the 1995-1996 school year that an instrument for self-assessment be the outcome of these retreats.

The Chancellor should continue to seek and create new opportunities to open and strengthen dialogue with College constituent groups.

The Chancellor meets regularly with the College President in his weekly cabinet meetings. Although both Academic and Classified Senates are included in the Board Docket Meetings, there is a growing concern that the absence of representation from both academic and support staff in cabinet discussions reduces opportunities for open and direct dialogue with College constituent groups.

The District needs to assume more leadership in coordinating the efforts of its colleges, especially in those areas that significantly impact its students and residents of the District.

The new Chancellor and the two new college Presidents have initiated leadership in coordinating both colleges. Discussions around future partnership on selected programs have been welcomed.

Back to the Accreditation '98 Home Page