ACCREDITATION '98

The Board of Trustees operates in concert with the California Education Code, Title 5, and the California Code of Regulations to determine its own government and the organization and operation of the District (Ref. 10.1). Board Policy 103, Membership of the Governing Board, defines the number of Board members as seven (Ref. 10.2). The qualifications for office, election, term, vacancy, and compensation are consistent with California Education Code, Section 72425. The governing Board is an elected independent policy-making body which also includes a participating student trustee elected by the student body.

According to responses to the 1997 Institutional Effectiveness Survey (IES) (Ref. 10.3), one third of the respondents believed that the Board of Trustees includes adequate representation of the public interest and the diverse elements of the population it represents. Although the Board majority claims to represent the public interest, there is a widespread perception that their actions serve to further personal agendas. The Board of Trustees operates within policy and written guidelines but has recently circumvented effective past practices as in the hiring of the President of Irvine Valley College (IVC). Since the last accreditation reaffirmation, disagreement and disharmony among the Board and the District and the two colleges has increased. Board meetings have erupted into forums where the Board tolerated discriminatory and defamatory language. As a result, the Academic, Student and Classified Senates presented resolutions urging the Board to stop the bigotry and hateful speech at Board meetings. The Board has taken action to regain control of its meetings and to move the public comment forum towards the end of the agenda, however, there is still dissatisfaction with the Board, resulting in a strongly negative work environment at both District and College levels.

The Board of Trustees approves College curriculum and policy by its annual approval of the College Catalog. There are Board policies and effective practices in place that protect the integrity of the institution which ensures high-quality instruction and an appropriate number of class offerings. The Board of Trustees is responsible for the control of all of the funds of the District.

The District Budget Development Committee is responsible for major budget policy direction, with which the Board has been in agreement. Responses to the May, 1997, IES suggest that over 50 percent of the respondents did not believe that the Board of Trustees effectively ensures the financial soundness of the District and its two colleges (Ref. 10.4). In December, 1997, the State Chancellor's office put the District on a Level 2 financial watch. Members of the College and community have openly criticized the Board of Trustees, noting that although the Board is operating within the letter of Board Policies, it is not acting in a manner consistent with the spirit of the Board Policies nor with effective past practices.

The Board of Trustees establishes policies and implements them in a timely fashion. The Governing Board regularly evaluates its policies and practices, and revises them when necessary.

Since the last Board election, there has been criticism from many members of the College community over perceived incongruities in Board-approved policy. In altering the components of the Irvine Valley College (IVC) Presidential Search process, for example, the Board of Trustees effectively minimized input from faculty and staff and shifted the weight of the decision-making process to itself. The Board, in this matter, did not honor the committee process established for hiring, a process which preserves the essentials of shared governance. There is also a perception that when the Board has sought College input in matters of consequential changes, it has frequently been at times when faculty are least likely to be available, such as winter or spring break or during the summer.

The Board of Trustees selects and evaluates the chief executive officer. The appointment of other major academic and administrative officers is consistent with the District administrative hiring policy (Ref. 10.5).

In the past, the Board of Trustees has adhered to established policy in its practices. However, the current Board majority has changed its practices and generated much-publicized criticism of its actions.

Faculty and staff are concerned about their lack of input into hiring decisions. For example, on December 10, 1997, the Board of Trustees approved a two-month sabbatical for the retiring Chancellor and appointed an acting Chancellor in conflict with meeting protocol of the Brown Act. After some public furor, on December 17 the Board called a special meeting to reaffirm the appointment, consistent with Brown Act procedures. In question also are the administrative reorganization carried out in July, 1997, (with no College input), the appointment of the Acting President of Saddleback College (with no College input), and the appointment of the Acting Vice Chancellor for Educational Services (with no College input). Questions have also been raised about the criteria used for selecting and appointing acting administrators. Recent decisions are perceived to be highly political and swayed by individual interests.

At its meeting on March 23, 1998, the Board of Trustees changed its long-standing hiring policy for senior administrators to include Vice Presidents. More important, the process and participation methods were altered to shift the weight of the decision-making process to itself.

A revelation of The Organization Assessment for South Orange County Community College District (commissioned by the Board during Spring, 1997) was that problems with the issue of trust within the organization were paramount. The report states (p.24) that ,"There is little evidence of trust anywhere in the organization - the climate has become divisive - decision making and communication processes are suffering." (Ref. 10.6) A subsequent Board Development Retreat in July, 1997, focused more on the guiding principles for the District reorganization than on how the Trustees could build trust in the organization.

The Board of Trustees is a seven-member Board appropriate in size for the SOCCCD. The Board set new District boundaries in 1995 to equalize representation among its members. The Board of Trustees has an established code of ethical conduct. (Ref. 10.7)

The Board has acted in a manner consistent with published Board policies and administrative regulations. The hiring process for the President at IVC, however, was not in keeping with the full-time administrative employment procedures outlined in the Employment Procedures Manual (Ref. 10.8) and both colleges criticized the Board's action in this matter. Subsequently, the Board revised those procedures (Ref. 10.9). The new procedures have been extended to include the hiring of the Vice President and provide for increased Board participation at all levels of the executive hiring process. The new procedures have effectively minimized participation by shared governance units in the hiring of District and College executives.

In December, 1996, the Board seated two new members. During January, 1997, all members of the Board participated in an orientation program, during which the Board of Trustees Orientation Manual (Ref. 10.10) was distributed and discussed. Periodically new documents are added to the Board Orientation Manual. The Vice Chancellor, Educational Services has compiled a policy manual and program for new member orientation and governing Board development.

The Board of Trustees Orientation Manual and workshop, along with Board participation in the Community College League of California's state-wide new trustee orientation, have been important development tools for the Board.

The Vice Chancellor, Educational Services is designated as the technical representative to each college for the duration of the self study process. The Board of Trustees is apprised of the status of the accreditation process by the Vice Chancellor.

At the November 17th, 1997, Board meeting, the Chair of the Saddleback College Accreditation Reaffirmation project presented a status report to the Board and invited their participation in reviewing the draft document at weekly Steering Committee meetings. The report was well received. Following this, the Chair also sent an invitation to all Board members, via e-mail, reiterating the request for participation in the process. Only one Board member responded.

The College has enjoyed a long tradition of effective leadership by its Presidents. Historically, the College President has provided effective leadership, goals, and plans for Saddleback College. On December 16th, 1997, the current Saddleback College President announced his resignation to the Board of Trustees.

"In the Fall of 1994, at the direction of the President, Saddleback College initiated a process of strategic planning. The goal of this endeavor was to engage the campus community in an effort to develop significant recommendations that would provide direction for the institution through the year 1999. Many individuals, working many hours, sought input from faculty, students, staff, and community members. After due deliberation, recommendations were crafted and submitted for consideration by a steering committee. This committee reviewed and analyzed all findings and recommendation, sought input from shared governance groups, and completed its work." (Ref. 10.11) The Strategic Plan was submitted to the Board.

In the past six years, Saddleback College has had five changes in Presidential leadership. Having enjoyed a relatively stable ten-year period up to that point, the College has had to undertake creative operational adjustments with each new President and presidential administrative style. Forty-four percent of those responding to the May, 1997, IES believed that the President at that time provided effective leadership and direction for the College (Ref. 10.12).

The College has systems in place to manage resources and control the budget and expenditures, including the College Budget Committee and other major College committees which evaluate and discuss fiscal matters. The President's Council is a forum in which administrators and staff regularly discuss budget issues and the implementation of state laws and regulations and Board policies.

In practice, the College's Budget manager reports directly to the President in weekly meetings and as often as necessary, otherwise. The President receives recommendations from the various College committees and reviews them in President's Council. The College President attends District meetings weekly, e.g., the Executive Staff Meetings where any changes in fiscal regulations and/or policies are discussed. The President receives financial information directly from the state as well.

Historically, the College has utilized an appropriately-sized administrative structure. On July 16, 1997, cited as a cost-saving measure, the Board of Trustees transferred five Saddleback College Deans (four to IVC, one elected to return to the classroom). In Spring, 1998, the College administrative structure was further reduced. In spring of 1997 there were 15 Dean positions. There are eight Dean positions projected for Fall, 1998.

These moves have had a pronounced impact on the administrative structure at Saddleback College which serves over 20,000 students and meets the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse population. Since the last Board election, the previous ratio of administrators to students (1 to 1,000) has been significantly reduced (1 to 1,500) by approximately 27 percent. The July, 1997, administrative reorganization by the Board has left the remaining administrators with exponentially increased responsibilities, jeopardizing the educational goals of the institution. The reduction in administrators at Saddleback College is perceived overall as being too severe. The reorganization critically impacts the effective day-to-day operations of the divisions and compromises the ability of the remaining Deans to effectively manage classes, provide appropriate educational services to students, and complete timely faculty evaluations. Deans are managing divisions in which they have no academic expertise, resulting in problems with hiring committee participation, faculty evaluations, and student advocacy.

The administrative and classified leadership employees are evaluated semi-annually during the first two years of employment, annually during the third and fourth year, and biannually thereafter as stated in the Administrative and Classified Leadership Handbook (Ref. 10.13). All position descriptions are on file in the District Office of Human Resources.

College administrators have the breadth of experience and education to perform their administrative responsibilities effectively. Since the administrative reorganization in July, 1997, however, the span of administrative responsibilities has been greatly increased and administrators may have little or no practical experience in their new areas of responsibility. The Deans remaining at Saddleback College now spread their administrative expertise very thinly over several more divisions and instead of being "subject specialists" with direct knowledge of the subject matter covered by their divisions, they must now practice more as "generalists," resulting in the problems noted above.

Most Saddleback College administrative officers were appointed to their positions through a selection process based on academic preparation in a field related to their assignment. Most of their training as supervisors and managers came through on-the-job experience.

At the time of the last accreditation, Saddleback College had 12 deans assigned to the academic divisions and Counseling and Learning Resources. Following the July 16, 1997, administrative reorganization, there were nine Deans with assignments that did not necessarily relate to their academic preparation. By action of the Board of Trustees the assignments of the Deans were changed. Four Saddleback College Deans were reassigned to Irvine Valley College. Workloads of the reassigned Deans were distributed to five of the remaining Deans. For example, the Dean of Physical Education and Emeritus lost his Emeritus assignment and was assigned the Fine Arts Division as well as Physical Education. The Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences was also assigned the Liberal Arts Division and the Human Services Program. This increased his management responsibilities from 21 to 52 full-time faculty and from 79 to 203 part-time faculty.

Administration is involved in the decision-making process at Saddleback College through the Dean's Cabinet and the President's Council. Administrative concerns are forwarded to the District and Board of Trustees through the College President and the South Orange County Administrators Association.

By action of the Board of Trustees early in 1997, all District academic administrators were given notice of non-renewal of their contracts, setting the stage for extensive administrative reorganization. On July 16, 1997, the Board of Trustees reorganized the District academic administration with no administrative or College input. Those actions fostered instability and an erosion of trust that resulted in a negative impact on the morale of College administrators and the College community as a whole. There is a general sense that changes were made disproportionately, with Saddleback College Deans having unrealistic added responsibility while IVC Deans have considerably less. Since the July 16th administrative reorganization, additional administrative changes have been made.

Historically, the faculty has played an important role in institutional governance. According to Board Policy 2001.1, the Governing Board delegates to the Academic Senate the right to represent the faculty, to give advice to the Board and to make judgments in the areas of curriculum development (through the Curriculum Committee), degree and certification requirements, grading policy, educational program development, policies relating to student preparation and success, faculty roles in District and College governance, faculty roles in the accreditation process, faculty professional development, program review, institutional planning and budget development, recruitment and hiring of faculty personnel (through hiring committees), and any other matters mutually agreed upon between the Board and the Academic Senate. The Full-Time Academic Employees Hiring Policy (1994) (Ref. 10.14) states clearly the role faculty play in the recruitment and hiring of full-time faculty. The faculty have also participated in shared governance through the Academic Senate and its committees, and through District-wide committees.

According to responses to the May, 1997, IES, the faculty appeared to be divided on question of whether the then President supported and provided opportunities for shared governance within the College (Ref. 10.15). This division could be attributed to a number of reasons. Although the faculty participate more fully in shared governance at the College level, some felt that the President's hands were tied by actions of the Board. The perception that there is no real credence given by the Board of Trustees to the shared governance process may filter down to the perception that the same holds true at the College level.

An established Academic Senate exists and its role in institutional governance is clearly defined. The faculty is represented in policy-making through its representatives in the Academic Senate. This body provides input on issues relating to institutional governance and it has a substantial voice in these matters. Board Policy 2100.1 (Ref. 10.16) delegates to the Academic Senate the right to represent the faculty and the right to give advice and make judgments which will be the Board's primary reliance in a large number of academic, educational program, hiring and governance areas.

Board Policy 2100.1 (Delegation of Authority to the Academic Senate) states that, "- the governing board and/or its designees will accept the recommendations of the academic senates regarding academic and professional matters as itemized -". Many faculty feel that although the Board has acted within the letter of Board Policies, it has not acted with the spirit intended by those policies nor with past practices. The Saddleback College Academic Senate and the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate have sought intervention from the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges and from the Community College League of California in regards to diminished shared governance/collegial consultation on both campuses.

The College has provided institutional support for faculty participation in governance in a number of ways. There is reassigned time provided for the Curriculum Chair, the General Education Chair, the Faculty Development Chair, and for the Academic Senate officers. A budget is provided for expenditures, travel and supplies. Office space is maintained for the Academic Senate and Faculty Development functions. Minimal classified support staff is provided to assist with secretarial duties.

There have been significant reductions in the level of institutional support for faculty participation in governance. For example, the Board of Trustees reduced reassigned time for the leaders of the Academic Senate from 15 Lecture Hour Equivalent (LHE) to 6 LHE a semester. The LHE's for the Faculty Development Chair and for the Curriculum Committee Chair were also reduced.

With the ratification of the new faculty contract, reassigned time has been abolished by the Board in favor of stipends for Academic Senate officers, Faculty Development Chair, Curriculum Chair, General Education Chair and both the Accreditation Chair and Editor. This will severely impact the ability of faculty serving in these positions to effectively participate in the shared governance process. Reassigned time provided faculty serving in these positions time to effectively participate in the shared governance process. Reassigned time provided faculty the means to reduce instructional commitments while also being able to participate in the decision-making processes at the College. The stipend model will require those serving in leadership positions on committees not only to completely fulfill their instructional duties, but in addition, to spend a great deal of extra time (albeit paid) attending to Committee commitments. With faculty putting in 15 hours of preparation, 15 hours of instruction, five office hours and one committee hour per week, there is precious little time left to take on the additional commitment of committee leadership and even fewer faculty who would wish to do so.

The Classified Senate, formalized in 1984, represents the classified staff in College governance matters. The Classified Senate President is a voting member of the President's Council, and is a non-voting representative at meetings of the Board of Trustees. Classified Senate members and California School Employees Association (CSEA) members serve on various College committees and are also included in District meetings, such as the Chancellor's Cabinet. CSEA represents the District-wide classified staff in collective bargaining.

Individual Deans and directors of divisions officially support the role of the Classified Senate and its participation in College/District-wide committees, but in being reluctant to allow staff sufficient time to attend committee meetings the District and the College do not in fact encourage Classified Senate members to participate in organized leadership. Apathy is a major problem affecting the Classified Senate, with average attendance fewer than ten per meeting. The conflict between the District and the College regarding the roles of the collective bargaining unit and the Classified Senate has created confusion for individual employees. Some of the classified staff feel that the lawsuit brought by CSEA against the District has compromised Classified Senate participation.

The role of students in College governance is stated in both the College Catalog (Ref. 10.17) and the Schedule of Classes (Ref. 10.18). Student representation is encouraged and sought on virtually all College committees. The Associated Student Government (ASG) is approached for input on proposals that have significant impact on students. In Board meetings, the Board of Trustees will ask the ASG President whether or not students were consulted. Since the last accreditation visit, the ASG President has been provided a seat at the table during regular Board meetings, with opportunities to provide input, respond to Board inquiries, and present monthly reports.

The Board of Trustees' decision to provide a seat at the table for the ASG President has increased the voice of the students and prompted the solicitation of additional student input. Students are active participants in College governance as demonstrated by ASG participation in College committees, by action taken by the ASG, and by ASG financial support of various College activities. There is, however, an ongoing challenge to find interested student representatives for various levels of participation.

In conjunction with the Board of Trustees, the chief executive officer defines goals, develops plans and establishes priorities for the institution. The Chancellor holds Board sessions which provide for an organized opportunity to review and establish District goals. This process allows for discussion in open session with all the various interests of the College and District. The process, too, can lead to a closer working relationship with the Board of Trustees. These meetings have led to changes and have helped the District consolidate its goals and directions for the future. The Board approved the Educational and Facilities Master Plan (through 2000) in May, 1996.

The District is the central point for resource allocation. Saddleback College recommends the organization and distribution of financial resources to the Chancellor and to the Board through the District-wide Budget Committee. The District also ascertains that statutes, regulations, and Board policies are in place and are considered in the daily operations of the colleges.

Although the chief executive officer provides effective leadership according to roughly 31 percent of the respondents to the IES (Ref. 10.19), approximately 34 percent disagreed with this statement, and 28 percent of the College community didn't have enough direction to answer this question affirmatively.

The District has a history of effective leadership in the Chancellor's Office. The statutes, regulations, and Board Policy are effectively implemented. The District has an elaborate budget allocation model that distributes the District's funds by formula. The model is governed by a three-layer committee process. In December, 1997, the District was notified by the State Chancellor's Office that the District's reserves were below the minimum recommended three percent. The SOCCCD was then declared a Level 2 on the State Chancellor's watch list.

According to the respondents to the IES, many disagreed that the Chancellor manages resources, implements budgets priorities and budget allocations to all units of the District in accordance with the statutes, regulations, and Board policies (Ref. 10.20). The majority of respondents did not have enough knowledge to answer this question.

Board policy 2001 directs the Chancellor to organize the necessary committees to assist in the operation of the District, and it directs the college Presidents to organize college committees as needed. All matters called to the Board's attention, "by District personnel or students shall be presented through the Chancellor."

Frequently, District solicitation of input from College constituencies does not allow adequate time for complete participation by all shared governance units.

The District provides information management, human resources, and business services, including purchasing and receiving, to the College.

There are some problems in easy access to District statistical/research information. This problem will be addressed, however, when the new information management system is implemented.

The District Public Information Officer was transferred to IVC as a result of the down-sizing of the District's administration and a consultant was hired to provide public relations services for the District. At the March 23, 1998, Board of Trustees meeting the Board created a new position for a District Public Affairs Officer.

The loss of a District spokesperson resulted in the elimination of the Board Meeting Summaries, the quarterly District Newsletter, and an immediate resource for the press. With the installation of the new District Public Affairs Officer, the flow of information from the District to the College community will be reestablished.

From 1992 to 1997, the District employed a consultant, under the administrative direction of the Vice Chancellor, Educational Services, to review and update Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on a regular basis. In addition, all review and revision of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations are processed through the College and District shared governance network, as identified in the Shared Governance Leadership Handbook (Ref. 10.21). Board Policy and Administrative Regulations are currently reviewed and updated by the Vice Chancellor, Educational Services.

The District-wide Board Policy and Administrative Review processes are thorough and inclusive, but they are very slow. A process that can facilitate change in a more expedient manner would better serve the District.

Back to the Accreditation '98 Home Page