University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assembly Bill 1725: Redesigning the California community colleges governance

(USC Thesis Other)

Assembly Bill 1725: Redesigning the California community colleges governance

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 ASSEMBLY BILL 1725: REDESIGNING THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES GOVERNANCE by Antoinette Wheeler A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 1995 Copyright 1995 Antoinette Wheeler UMI Number: 9621645 UMI Microform 9621645 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA School of Education Los Angeles, California 90089-0031 This dissertation, written by Antoinette Wheeler under the direction o f hex..- Dissertation Committee, and approved by all members o f the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School o f Education in partialftdftllment of the requirementsfor the degree o f D o c t o r o f E d v c a t i o s *v 'Hate 'Dean Dissertation Committee trper son S mq= / . . Antoinette Wheeler Dr. Lawrence Picus ASSEMBLY BILL 1725: REDESIGNING THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES GOVERNANCE ABSTRACT Prior to 1988, the California Community College Districts were not required by law to implement shared governance. This dissertation titled Assembly Bill 1725: Redesigning the California Community Colleges Governance was designed to analyze the collegial concepts reflected in the 71 shared governance policy models in the California Community College Districts. In order to conduct the preceding analysis, a conceptual framework and instruments were developed to solicit qualitative and descriptive data to determine if the California Community Colleges shared governance models were: 1. Purely collegial 2. A combination of collegial bureaucratic 3. Or, collegial and political Of the 71 California Community College Districts, 63 districts or 88% submitted shared governance policy models for this study. Forty-nine (49) or 77% of the California Community College Districts shared governance models are collegial and 14 or 22% of the California Community College Districts shared governance models are collegial and bureaucratic. None of the districts reflected a collegial and political model. Based on the data obtained from the 63 California Community College Districts shared governance policy models, literature review and instruments used in the study, the following models are effective in meeting the shared governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725: a. Collegial Model b. Collegial/Bureaucratic Model DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to God, to Kelly, my daughter and Addie my mother. Thank you for your never- ending moral support, unconditional love and guidance throughout my life. The prayer "FOOTPRINTS" (modified) reflects my appreciation. One night a woman had a dream. She dreamed she was walking along the beach with the LORD. Across the sky flashed scenes from her life. For each scene, she noticed two sets of foot prints in the sand; one belonged to her, and the other to the LORD. When the last scene of her life flashed before her, she looked back at the footprints in the sand. She noticed that many times along the path of her life there was only one set of footprints. She also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in her life. This really bothered her and she questioned the LORD about it. "LORD, you said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand Why when I needed you most you would leave me." The LORD replied, "My precious, precious child, I love you and I would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you." ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A special acknowledgment to the chair of my dissertation committee, Larry 0. Picus, Ph.D., and dissertation committee members Richard Clark, Ph.D. and Maurice Ross, Ed.D. for their scholarly recommendations, guidance, support and encouragement. A true respect to Mr. Thomas J. Nussbaum, J.D., Vice Chancellor and General Counsel, for the California Community Colleges. Thank you, for sharing your wisdom and outstanding knowledge of Assembly Bill 1725. An appreciation to the following people and organi zations for their support in helping me to achieve my Doctorate of Education Degree: Mr. Sterling C. Franklin, J.D. Trustee, Rita H. Small Scholarship Fund Dr. Barbara Solomon, Vice Provost for Faculty and Minority Affairs Town and Gown Scholarship U.S.C. African American Scholarship U.S.C. School of Education Scholarship iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION......................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... iii LIST OF TABLES........................................vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 Background of the Problem ............ 4 Models of Governance ................... 10 Statement of the Problem.............. 16 Purpose of the Study................... 17 Methodology........................... 18 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 21 Historical Perspective ................. 22 Evolution and Legislative Parameter of Shared Governance ................. 24 Models of Governance in Colleges and Universities..................... 30 Collegiality and Organizational Theories............................. 54 Summary of Literature ................. 82 III. METHODOLOGY................................. 85 Research Design ....................... 87 Collection of Data..................... 88 Development of the Instruments ........ 89 Selection of Sample................... 91 Treatment of the D a t a ................ 92 IV. FINDINGS................................... 94 Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial Model .... 98 Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial/Bureaucratic M o d e l ..................................117 Shared Governance Characteristics Models Charts ....................... 126 Summary of Findings..................... 130 V TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Page V* SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 134 Summary................................135 The Procedure......................... 136 Selected Findings ..................... 137 Conclusions........................... 138 Recommendations ....................... 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 144 APPENDICES.......................................... 149 A. TRADITIONAL GOVERNANCE MODELS SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES THREE MODELS OF DECISION MAKING AND GOVERNANCE ..................... 150 B. IMAGES OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT ........ 152 C. THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIATION AND SIMILARITIES ON THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS . . 154 D. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL MODEL ............... 156 E. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL/BUREAUCRATIC MODEL . 158 F. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL/POLITICAL MODEL . . . 160 G. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 162 H. MEMORANDUM TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRESIDENTS .......... 164 I. SUMMARY OF THE (49) CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS COLLEGIAL MODELS .... 166 J. SUMMARY OF THE (14) CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS COLLEGIAL/BUREAUCRATIC MODELS....................................310 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Page K. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL MODEL— COMPLETED EVALUATION FORM...........................336 L. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL/BUREAUCRATIC MODEL— COMPLETED EVALUATION FORM ................. 340 Vll LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Rank Order of State Systems by Assessed Centralization Index (N=44) 45 2.2 Rank Order of the State Community College Systems Governance Structure ............... 46 2.3 Organizational Characteristics of Academic Organizations and More Traditional Bureaucracies .............................. 72 4.1 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial Governance . . . 127 4.2 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial/Bureaucratic Governance.....................................131 ABSTRACT Prior to 1988, the California Community College Districts were not required by law to implement shared governance. This dissertation titled Assembly Bill 1725: Redesigning the California Community Colleges Governance was designed to analyze the collegial concepts reflected in the 71 shared governance policy models in the California Community College Districts. In order to conduct the preceding analysis, a conceptual framework and instruments were developed to solicit qualitative and descriptive data to determine if the California Community Colleges shared governance models were: 1. Purely collegial 2. A combination of collegial bureaucratic 3. Or, collegial and political Of the 71 California Community College Districts, 63 districts or 88% submitted shared governance policy models for this study. Forty-nine (49) or 77% of the California Community College Districts shared governance models are collegial and 14 or 22% of the California Community College Districts shared governance models are collegial and bureaucratic. None of the districts reflected a collegial and political model. Based on the data obtained from the 63 California Community College Districts shared governance policy models, literature review and instruments used in the study, the following models are effective in meeting the shared governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725: a. Collegial Model b. Collegial/Bureaucratic Model According to Motimer and McConnell (1978), endorsement of the concept of shared authority does not dictate one particular pattern of governance. This analysis revealed the factors that were important and present in the California Community College Districts Models of shared governance: 1. Team work and open communication 2. Understanding and acceptance of the require ments of Assembly bill 1725 and the role of alternative governance in the California Community College Districts 3. Training in the area of Collaborative decision making 4. Institutional planning 5. Organizational flow chart 6. Evaluation component The result of this study should be used by the Vice Chancellor of General Counsel, Superintendents/Presi dents, Academic Senate, Administrators, Classified Staff and Associated Student Body of the California Community College Districts to design and implement campus-wide training in the area of shared governance pursuant to the mandates of Assembly Bill 1725. Such training should encompass: a. Group dynamics b. Participatory Management c. Innovative and visionary leadership styles d. Alternative education, organization, design and evaluation instruments e. Designing and developing curriculum/instruction and educational policies that will increase learning and productivity in the 21st century f. Staff development training should be followed by a structured debriefing session in which partic ipants will have the opportunity to dialogue and discuss methods of implementation xi "NOTHING WORTHWHILE WAS EVER ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT THE WILL TO START, THE ENTHUSIASM TO CONTINUE AND THE PERSISTENCE TO COMPLETE." Waite Phillips Hall School of Education University of Southern California 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The California Community Colleges face an unprecedented .challenge in the coming two decades, as California undergoes a major demographic, social, and economic transformation. The community colleges are at the center of this change, and the state's future as a healthy and free, diverse, and creative society depends in a major part upon the commitments expressed through and in the community colleges (Assembly Bill 1725, 1939). According to the Board of Governors for California, Community Colleges (January, 1989), Assembly Bill 1725 is a landmark legislation that provides new direction and support for California's community colleges. The afore mentioned Bill was authored by Assembly member John Vasconcellos and passed in January, 1988. Assembly Bill 1725 requires the district governing board to consult coilegially with the Academic Senate. "Consult Collegially" means that the district governing board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters through either or both of the following methods according to its own discrcrion; (1) Rely primarily upon the advice and judgement of the Academic Senate. OR (2) That the district governing board, or such representative as it may designate, and the representative of the Academic Senate shall have an obligation to reach mutual agreement by written resolution, regulation, or policy of the governing board effectuating such recom mendation (Assembly Bill 1725, 1988). This dissertation was designed to evaluate the 71 models of shared governance in the California Community Colleges. This study illustrated the collegial concepts reflected in the California Community Colleges Models of governance. Also, the study portrayed the concepts reflected in the governance models that characterize collegial and bureaucratic concepts or collegial and political concepts. The author designed a governance characteristic profile, which served as a coding method to evaluate and determine the concepts reflected in the 71 models of shared governance. The governance characteristic profile and coding method is outlined in the models of governance section. Pursuant to the Mandate of Assembly Bill 1725, 3 the concept of collegial governance must exist in the California Community Colleges. Assembly Bill 1725 shared governance regulations states: (1) The governing board of a community college district shall adopt a policy statement on academic freedom. This policy shall be made available to faculty and filed with the Chan cellor. The Academic Senate represents the faculty. The district governing board and the administration shall consult collegially with the Academic Senate regarding policies develop ment and implementation concerning academic and professional matters. Academic and profes sional matters entail: (a) District and college governance structures as related to faculty roles. (b) Curriculum, including establishing prereq uisites and placing courses within disci plines . (c) Degree and certificate requirements. (d) Grading policies. (e) Educational program development. <f) Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success. (g) Faculty roles and involvement in accredi tation and faculty professional develop ment. (h) Institutional planning and budget develop ment . In addition to the above, the governing board of a community college district shall adopt policies and procedures that provide district, college staff and students the opportunity to participate effectively in district and college governance. Background of the Problem According to Cohen and Brawer (1989 p. 93) numerous attempts to categorise governance and management have been made, most stemming from observations of university systems. Linear, adaptive, and interpretive systems constitute one set of categories. The linear are directly linked, the adaptive are responsive and the interpretive are more culturally based. Other models of governance have attempted to separate the collegial from the political, viewing both as different ways of sharing authority. A management science approach views governance as rational, focused on decision making. A different model for college operations uses the term organized anarchy as a way of describing an environment in which no individual or group has much influence. Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991, pp. 204-203), cite an organised anarchy is a loosely coupled system in which individuals and subunits within the organization make essentially autonomous decisions. Institutional outcomes are a resultant of these only modestly interdependent activities and are often neither planned nor predictable. Organized anarchies need structures and processes that symbolically reinforce their espoused values, that provide opportunities for individuals to assert and confirm their status. Nevertheless, it seems that most of the excessively analytical models that have been proposed to explain the workings of universities do not aptly cover the less complex community colleges. However, Cohen and Brawer (1989, p. 93) state that models must be constructed if the colleges are to be understood. The aforementioned authors offered three major models to explain why colleges appear as they do: (1) The Bureaucratic Model presents the college as a formal structure with defined patterns of activity that are related to the functions spelled out in law and policy decisions. The positions are arranged in the 6 shape of a pyramid, and each series of posi tions has specified responsibilities, compe tencies and privileges. This organization is held together by authority delegated from the top down, with persons at the top receiving greater benefits than those at the bottom; the lowest levels of the triangle are occupied by faculty and students. (Cohen and Brawer, 1989, Universities/College President School Superintendent Middle Managers Universities/ College Faculty Students Bureaucratic/Pyramid Model According to Peterson, Chaffee and White, (1991, p. 35) one of the most influential descriptions of complex organizations is Max Weber's (1947) monumental work on bureaucracies. Weber discussed the character istics of bureaucracies that distinguish them from less formal work organizations. In skeleton form he suggested that bureaucracies are networks of social groups dedi cated to limited goals and organized for maximum efficiency. Moreover, the regulation of a bureaucratic system is based on the principle of "legal rationality," as contrasted with informal regulation based on friendship, loyalty to family or personal allegiance to a charismatic leader. The hierarchical structure is held together by formal chains of command and systems of communication. The bureaucracy, as Weber described it, includes such elements as tenure, appointment to office, salaries as a rational form of payment, and competency as the basis of promotion. Weaknesses in the Bureaucratic Model: In many ways the Bureaucratic Model falls short of encompassing university and college governance, especially if one is primarily concerned with decision-making processes. First, the Bureaucratic Model tells us much about author ity that is, legitimate, formalized power but not much about informal types of power and influence, which may take the form of mass movements or appeals to emotion and sentiment. Second, it explains much about the organiza tions formal structure but little about the dynamic processes that characterize the organization in action. Third, it describes the formal; structure at one partic ular time, but it does not explain changes over time. Fourth, it explains how policies are established in the first place. Finally, it also ignores political issues, such as the struggles of various interest groups within the university and college. Baldridge (1971, pp. 8-12) states that the Political Model has several stages, all of which center around the policy-forming processes. Policies commit the organization to definite goals, set the strategies for reaching those goals, and in general determine the long range destiny of the organization. Policies are so important, people throughout the organ ization try to influence them in order to see that their special values are implemented. Policy becomes a major point of conflict, a watershed of interest group activity that permeates the life of higher education. Student riots cripple the campus, professors form unions and strike, administrators defend their traditional posi tions, and external interest groups and irate governors invade the academic halls. All of the preceding activities can be understood as political acts. The aforementioned emerge from the complex, fragmented social structure of higher education, which draws on the diver gent concerns and lifestyles of hundreds of miniature sub-cultures. These groups articulate their interest in many different ways, bringing pressure to bear on the decision-making process from any number of angles and using power and force whenever it is available and necessary. Once articulated, power and influence go through a complex process until policies are shaped, reshaped and forged from the competing claims of multiple groups (Baldridge, 1971) . 9 The Collegial Model, argues that academic decision making should not be like the hierarchical process in a bureaucracy. Instead there should be full participation of the academic community especially the faculty. (Peterson, Chaffee and White, 1991, p. 36). According to Baldridge (1971, p. 5), under the collegial management model concept the "community of scholars" would administer its own affairs, and the bureaucratic officials would have little influence. Baldridge (1971, p. 5) cites that the argument for a collegial organization is given strong support by the literature on professionalism, for it emphasizes the professional's ability to make his own decisions and his need for freedom from organizational restraints. Conse quently the argument is that a collegium is the most reasonable method of organizing the postsecondary education system. Mortimer and McConnell (1978, p. 8) state under a system of shared authority, the faculty and the adminis tration exercise effective influence on different matters. Faculty influence should be effective, on such aggregate issues as curricular, academic and faculty, personnel policies, and faculty economic matters, as well as, on procedures for deciding questions that affect individual faculty members, such as decisions on tenure 10 and promotion. However, endorsement of the concept of shared authority does not dictate one particular pattern of governance. According to Mortimer and McConnell (1978, p. 8), it should not be inferred that all forms of shared authority are comparable and have a similar effect on the quality of faculty/administration relations. Both collective bargaining and the delegation of decision making power to an Academic Senate are variants of shared authority, nevertheless, the substantive and tactical implications of each may be quite different. Models of Governance (1) Collegial Model: According to Rausch (1980, pp. 146-147), the collegial concept model denotes the idea of a community of scholars (i.e., administrators and faculty) jointly arriving at decisions collectively. The collegial concept model is largely a process of reaching a consensus, rather than decisions being based purely on the political majority rule. The preceding governance model allows everyone an equal voice in every decision. The collegial concept model can have considerable application at the department level. The aforementioned governance model 11 often can be an appropriate guide for the "managerial" style of the department chair person. Faculty members tend to see the Collegial Model as the ideal governance model that should be followed by administration and boards. However, Rausch (1980, p. 147) cites the Collegial Model is not universally applic able, but the preceding model of governance is effective if its assumptions are satisfied in building collegial partnership and promoting shared governance. (2) Bureaucratic Model: According to Birnbaum (1988, p. 107), within the Bureaucratic Model collegial interaction may still exist, but it becomes a characteristic of subgroups rather than the total group. To a great degree, campus constituencies find themselves isolated from each other, with neither a consistent culture of belief nor face-to-face communica tion through which to coordinate activity. Rules and regulations become the important mediators of interaction, and administrators become specialists in distinctive areas. Administrators spend little time with faculty and talk instead to other administrators and to 12 external nonfaculty audiences in state legisla tures, professional associations, and board rooms (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 107). Birnbaum (1988, p. 107) cites that col legial interaction may exist in the Bureaucra tic Model of governance. The Bureaucratic Model encourages the design of an educational hierarchy. This model of governance leads to the development of subgroup participation instead of total group participation. Accord ing to Education Code 53203, the governing board of a community college district shall adopt policies for appropriate delegation of authority and responsibility to its college and/or district Academic Senate. While in the process of consulting collegially, the Academic Senate shall retain the right to meet with or appear before the governing board, with respect to the views, recommendations, or pro posals of the senate. In addition to the above, faculty members are to serve on college or district committees, task forces, or other grounds dealing with academic and professional matters (Policy on Shared Governance in the California Community Colleges. 1989). 13 (3) Political Model: According to Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991, p. 38), the Political Model assumes that complex organisations can be studied as miniature political systems. Within this system there are interest group dynamics and conflicts similar to those in cities, states, or other political entities. Colleges and universities, like most other social organ izations, are characterized by fragmentation into interest groups with different goals and values. When resources are plentiful and the organization is prospering, these groups engage in only minimal conflict. However, they are likely to mobilize and try to influence deci sions when resources are tight. Thus, outside pressure groups attack, or internal groups try to assume command. Assembly Bill 1725 (AB 1725) recognizes that the academic milieu benefits, when the organizational cultural is approached from a Collegial Model. A Collegial Model contributes to the design of shared governance, thus, characterizing a participatory management style. As a result of shared governance, community colleges managers are viewed as less concerned with hierarchical relation ships. The job of management is to promote consensus 14 within the community, especially between administrators and faculty. In order to have adequately evaluated the 71 Models of Shared Governance, the author designed a governance characteristic profile. The above-mentioned distin guished the traits of a Collegial Model, Collegial/ Bureaucratic Model and Collegial/Political Model of governance. The governance characteristic profile served as a coding method to determine the concept(s) reflected in the California Community Colleges shared governance models. The governance models that are purely collegial are coded by a (C). The shared governance models that reflect collegial and bureaucratic concepts are coded (C/B). Lastly, the collegial and political models were coded (C/P). Governance Characteristic Profile (C) Collegial Model: (1) Reflects a holistic governance approach to organizational design. (2) Reflects governance from a global perspec tive and supports the development of visionary leadership. (C/B) (C/P) 15 (3) Reflects a governance flow chart, coupled with an evaluation process to ascertain the effectiveness of collegial governance. (4) Reflects scholarly participation in the academic milieu. (5) Reflects collegial decision based on total group participation and a consensus of an equal voice. Collegial/Bureaucratic Model: (1) Reflects a hierarchical governance. (2) Reflects traditional leadership. (3) Reflects bureaucratic decisions based on a formal system of standard operating proce dures, information flows horizontal and vertical. (4) Reflects, adherence to organizational pol icies, educational codes and AB1725 mandates. (5) Reflects, the development of a sub-group decision making process, instead of total group participation in decision making. Collegial/Political Model: (1) Reflects micro management leadership. (2) Reflects a non-holistic governance approach to organizational design. (3) Reflects a fragmented organizational flow chart. (4) Reflects a decision making process based on non-collegial participation. (5) Reflects non-compliance with the shared governance mandates outlined in Assembly Bill 1725. Statement of the Problem Prior to Assembly Bill 1725 (AB 1725), there was no express requirements that the Board of Governors develop guidelines or plans with respect to the Academic Senate and the role of the college staff and students in govern ance. Assembly Bill 1725 requires the board of governors to develop policies and guidelines concerning the Academic Senate, and standards in reference to the college staff and students in governance (Assembly Bill 1725, 1989). Thus, Assembly Bill 1725 shared governance regulations requires the governing board of a community college district to adopt policies for appropriate dele gation of authority and responsibility to its college and/or district Academic Senate. The governing board or administration are required to consult collegially with representatives of the Academic Senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional 17 matters. Consequently, while in the process of consult ing collegially, the Academic Senate shall retain the right to meet with or appear before the governing board with respect to the views, recommendations, or proposals of the senate. In instances where an agreement has not been reached between the governing board and the academic senate, existing policy shall remain in effect. Or where there is no existing policy, the governing board may act in order to adhere to legal, fiscal, or organizational mandates (Assembly Bill 1725, 1989). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to answer the follow ing research question: What are the factors that are important in a model of governance? To what extent are these factors present in the California Community Colleges shared governance models? In order to answer the aforementioned research question, the author evalu ated the California Community Colleges 71 models of shared governance. Pursuant to the Mandate of Assembly Bill 1725 and the literature review, the author designed a conceptual framework to ascertain if the shared govern ance models submitted to the Chancellor's office is: (a) Collegial Model (b) Collegial/Bureaucratic Model (c) Collegial/ Political Model. 18 The conceptual framework established a frame of reference. Thereby, affording the author the opportunity to illustrate the governance concept reflected in the 71 shared governance models submitted to the Chancellor's office. To complete this study, the following research ques tions were answered: (1) Which models appear to be effective in meeting the governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725? (2) How many of the California Community Colleges governance model reflect? (a) Collegial Model (b) Collegial and Bureaucratic Model (c) Collegial and Political Model Methodology The principle methodology used in this study was the implementation of an input evaluation. According to Issac and Michael (1990, pp. 10-13), input evaluation furnishes information about strong points and weak points of alternative strategies and designs for the realization of specified objectives. The method employed described and analyzed available human and material resources, 19 solution strategies, and procedural relevance. The input evaluation method offered assistance in supporting the author's evaluation of the California Community colleges 71 shared governance models. The preceding methodology enhanced the conceptual framework that the author designed to determine if the governance models submitted to the Chancellor's office are: (1) Collegial Model (2) Collegial/Bureaucratic Model (3) Collegial/Political Model The input evaluation method relates to decision mak ing in a change process (Issac and Michael, 1990, p. 13). Consequently, the aforementioned will enable the author to answer the research questions cited in the "purpose of the study" and recommend: (1) sources of support (2) solution strategies (3) procedural design for structuring the governance change activities in the California Community Colleges system. The research design for the study was descriptive. According to Issac and Michael (1990, p. 42) the descrip tive research design describes systematically a situation or area of interest factually and accurately. The author of this dissertation considered the inter-rater reliability factor in the evaluation of the California Community College Districts Shared Governance Models. Jaeger (1990) states that the reliability of a measurement procedure is the technical term for its con sistency. Although reliable measurement procedures are always desirable in research and evaluation, no measure ment procedure is perfectly consistent. 21 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature examines the Historical Perspective, Evolution and Legislative Parameters of Shared Governance, Models of Governance, Collegiality and Organizational Theories and their relationship to Assembly Bill 1725 and shared governance. According to Cohen, Brawer and Associates (1994), shared governance, at its most basic level means power sharing. In many locales, the community college govern ing board retains the final decision by affirming or, in some cases, simply rejecting undesirable recommendations emanating from the shared governance system. The recent reforms in California have stipulated that local boards and local academic senates must jointly agree on policies governing the college. This change is true power shar ing. Shared governance contains positives and negatives as a system of governance. If trustees focus on the negatives such as the tedious, lengthy, and difficult nature of the process, the lack of recognizable account ability for decisions, and role confusion, they may resist or subvert the concept. If trustees appreciate 22 the positives such as the empowerment of participants, the development of collegial relationships, and the shared ownership of policies as a motivating force, they may actively embrace and guide the move to a shared governance system. Shared governance simply means collegial decision making. Historical Perspective Brint and Karbel (1989) state that the origin of the public junior college as a distinct organizational form, can be traced directly to William Rainey Harper, of the University of Chicago. He persuaded Chicago area high schools to introduce college-level courses. Thus, after many years of fruitless lobbying by Harper among these high schools, J. Stanley Brown, the principal of Joliet High School, began to work on a plan to expand his school's curriculum to include college-level courses. Brown's move was apparently influenced not only by his personal association with Harper, but also by Harper's offer to grant Joliet students advanced standing at the University of Chicago. In 1901 Joliet Junior College opened its doors, with much fanfare, as the country's self-proclaimed first independent public junior college. According to Cohen and Brawer (1989) the Junior College was often an adjunct of the local secondary 23 school, the institution was usually administered by the high school principal or by a designate responsible to the principal. The local school board took up junior college affairs as part of its regular responsibilities. As the colleges separated themselves from the local school districts, the newly established boards of trustees similarly concerned themselves with budgetary matters an the selection of presidents who would keep the staff content and the college running smoothly, or at least keep the problems from becoming apparent to the public. Nevertheless, as long ago as 1931, when Eells wrote his book on the junior college, he noted that the areas of governance and administration were too varied and comprehensive to be treated completely. Although boards of trustees and administrators may have been able to govern without apparent conflict, issues of financing, staff morale, and conformity with state laws have always been present (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). Therefore, not surprising, the early governance structure of the commun ity colleges borrowed much from the public schools, resulting in a hierarchical structure with the chief administrator at the top and the faculty somewhere below. During the 1960 and early 1970s, community college 24 leaders argued strongly, and with some success, for a shared authority model of governance. Evolution and Legislative Parameters of Shared Governance In the American system of Federalism, education is a function left largely to the states. In California, the State Constitution charges the legislature with the pri mary responsibility to establish a public school system (Nussbaum, 1995). As early as 1651, the legislature acted to meet this responsibility by creating a highly decentralized and flexible structure for delivering public education. The early actions of the legislature entrusted the responsibility for establishing and running the schools to local school districts and locally elected trustees. The legislature did very little to dictate the manner in which these schools were to be run or how the elected public officials were to exercise their power. The trustees were given broad power not only to establish schools, but also to generate the revenue (through taxing authority) to operate them. Subsequently, as local governmental agencies, and governing boards operated in response to the general public; unfortunately, there were no formal mechanisms or mandates requiring these boards 25 to involve their staff and students in the exercise of their authority (Nussbaum, 1995). The first statutory authorization for what has become community college education was enacted in 1907, when the legislature authorized high schools to offer postgraduate courses of study which were to approximate the studies prescribed in the first two years of college. In 1921, the legislature provided for the organization of separate junior college districts (Nussbaum, 1995). Since the community colleges originated through the K-12 system, the junior colleges had very little in the way of shared governance in the early years. The govern ing boards started with broad power, including the power to tax, and there were few limits on these powers. The local boards operated in response to the general public, and within the parameters of a relatively small body of statutes enacted by the legislature. The extent to which faculty, staff, and students were involved in governance was decided at the discretion of the governing board. However, over time, the legislature stepped in to protect the interest of employees and students. Never theless, had shared governance been a part of the local district's organizational structure, then employees and students would have been afforded the chance to partici pate in the decision making process. 26 The first major legislatively-prescribed shared governance mechanism for employees came with the enact ment of the Winton Act in 1965. The Winton Act was adopted for the purpose of improving personnel management and employer relations in the school and colleges, the Winton Act allowed for employees to join and be repre sented by organizations of their choice. The scope of representation included all matters relating to employ ment conditions and employer-employee relations, includ ing, but not limited to, wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The responsibility of the school or college district was to "meet and confer" with representatives of employee organizations. Under this obligation to "meet and confer" governing boards were bound to freely exchange information and proposals, and they were bound to make a conscientious effort to reach agreement. Nevertheless, governing boards retained the ultimate legal authority to make the final decisions with regard to all matters (Nussbaum, 1995). In 1977, the legislature required governing boards to establish a seat for a nonvoting student trustee. In 1984, this requirement was extended to authorize boards to give students the right to make and second motions, and the right to be compensated. By 1984, the legisla ture had acted to further involve students in district 27 governing boards by requiring such boards to enlarge their membership to include a nonvoting student member. The advent of the student trustee did not signifi cantly affect the evolution of shared governance in the community colleges. Since students were nonvoting, and since their role could be enlarged only at the discretion of the governing board, the change simply had the effect of helping the voice of the students to be heard. A student representative did not require governing boards to share authority to engage in separate bilateral negotiations (Nussbaum, 1995). In 1988, the legislature enacted AB 1725, a reform measure with a number of components, some of which pro foundly affected the direction of shared governance in the system. At issue for the legislature was how to frame the responsibilities of local boards, as well as, the Board of Governors in implementing mechanisms for shared governance at the local and state level. The Board of Governors, as well as, most trustee and adminis trative groups argued that a traditional approach of collegiality in higher education ought to be applied. Under this approach, the legislature would remain relatively silent on the particular shared governance mechanisms, and would simply direct the local boards and the Board of Governors to implement policies that 28 provided for the participation of faculty, staff, and students. The Academic Senate and other faculty groups argued that the traditional collegial approach was not enough. They argued that many governing boards and administrators had been ignoring their academic senates and rejecting their work and recommendations. Some districts were not allowing senates to fulfill policy making roles that were appropriate for higher education faculty (Nussbaum, 1995). Nevertheless, after much debate and controversy, most of the community college organizations and interest groups working on AB 1725 compromised for a policy which provided for the traditional collegial approach in general, but which had specific directives regarding the role of academic senates. The legislature created shared governance roles for academic senate that borrowed from, and were parallel to those provided in the collective bargaining process. The legislature went beyond the traditional collegial approach and required governing boards and academic senates to jointly agree on certain policies before they could be adopted by the governing board (Nussbaum, 1995). As to the basic mandate to implement a traditional collegial approach, the legislature required the Board of 29 Governors to adopt/ Education Code Section 709 01 (b)(1)(E) which states: Minimum standards governing procedures estab lished by governing boards of community college districts to ensure faculty, staff, and stu dents the right to participate effectively in district and college governance, and the oppor tunity to express their opinions at the campus level, and to ensure that these opinions are given every reasonable consideration, and right of academic senates to assume primary respon sibility for making recommendations in the area of curriculum and academic standard. In addition to the aforementioned AB 1725, Education Code Section 70902 (b)(7) requires governing boards to adopt procedures to ensure that faculty, staff and stu dents participate effectively in district and college governance. Corson (1960) states that the beginnings of faculty participation in governance in American colleges and universities, unfortunately, have never been traced with care and thoroughness. Nevertheless, evidence of the faculty's role in governance does exist. For example, since the early eighteenth century, the faculty at Harvard formed what has been described as the "immediate government." Therefore, since the early 1800s the faculty has constituted a body authorized to exercise substantial powers granted it by the corporation. At Yale, starting with the presidency of Jermiah Day (1817- 30 1646), strong precedents were established that all ques tions connected with educational policy would be decided in a meeting of the faculty, and that no faculty member would be appointed without the consent of the faculty of which he was to become a member. Similar to what occurred at Yale, Thomas Jefferson, when he established the University of Virginia, stipulated that members of the faculty would have substantial freedom in determining courses of study and maintaining discipline, and as a group broad authority to make decisions about educational programs and membership on the faculty. These and other precedents set a tradition that has influenced the governance of American colleges and universities since those early days (Corson, 1960). Models of Governance in Colleges and Universities According to Mitchell, Grant and Rossa (1992), the keys to shared governance at Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo, California are: (1) Structures and Processes (2) Planning (3) Budget (4) College Plan 31 (5) Educational Practices and Policies (6) College Operations (7) Consultation (8) Evaluation Mitchell, Grant and Rossa (1992) state that shared governance, is the collegiate counterpart to participa tory management. Participatory management includes the institutional structures and processes for decision making and communications that engage an institution's faculty, staff, and administrators in governing the organisation collectively. Shared governance can be developed and effectively implemented at any educational institution, if care is taken from the beginning to understand, nurture, and maintain the integrity of the process. Shared governance requires a change in the way that faculty, staff, students, administrators, and the Board of Trustees view decision making. All must be willing to let go of notions that place decision making in the province of a central authority. They must accept the notion that all college constituents have a stake in the decisions of the organization and share in the responsibility involved in making them. Those in positions of power need to let go of their concentrated authority, and those newly participating need to look at 32 problems and solutions from a college-wide perspective (Mitchell/ Grant and Rossa, 1992). Part of the required disposition for shared govern ance is a willingness to agree to reach agreement. Par ticipants must be willing to make a commitment to reach a resolution, to come to a consensus when the time or situ ation calls for it. The aforementioned allows an honest effort to incorporate everyone's beliefs while ensuring that there will be general support for final decisions even if complete agreement of all parties cannot be reached (Mitchell, Grant and Rossa, 1992). Successful shared governance process, depends on a willing "suspension of disbelief,” the abandonment of commonly heard neutral obstacles such as: "It can't possibly work"; "the administration would never give up that much power"; "Faculty don't have the big picture." All parties must agree to work within the system with the assumptions that shared governance will work, and that it is an ever-evolving process (Mitchell, Grant and Rossa, 1992). Shared governance depends upon trust that is best built upon positive experiences with the process and a sincere conviction that the advantages of having the best minds collectively steer a course for the college far outweigh any disadvantages. According to Flanigan's (1994) survey, in order to more effectively manage the evolutionary process of shared governance, the Board of Governors and local college districts might want to consider the following: (1) Consolidate the various parties of interest into a single, institutional shared governance or advisory council. Faculty would be joined by administrators, classified staff and stu dents to comprise a single body which would make final recommendations regarding shared governance issues to the CEO and Board of Trustees. (2) Limit institutional committees to no more than ten members which include appropriate balance and representation of committee members from administrators, faculty, classified staff, and students. Groups larger than ten are inclined to divide into subgroups and become unmanage able . (3) Develop and implement professional development activities to enhance the team facilitation, conflict management, decision-making, and leadership skills on all campus-wide commit tees, including the institutional advisory council and academic and classified senates. 34 This training process would focus on creating team cohesiveness by building group trust, identity, mutual cooperation, and shared values. Flanigan's (1994) survey conducted in November of 1993, measured perceptions regarding: (1) the statewide faculty governance role since AB 1725 and (2) the impact and barriers of this reform relative to academic and pro fessional matters. According to the results of this survey, within the community college system, faculty have become more involved in the governance process in both the traditional areas such as curriculum, grading policies, and graduation requirements and nontraditional areas such as governance structures and institutional planning and budgeting relative to academic and profes sional matters. Most college districts use either "rely primarily upon" or "mutual agreement" to consult collegially. However, in processes for institutional planning and budget development, administrative control is still perceived by Academic Senate Presidents to be strong (almost 40 percent). Respondents of the aforementioned are generally satisfied with current levels of faculty involvement in academic and professional matters, except for the areas of governance and institutional planning and budgeting. In these two nontraditional areas, faculty are less sat isfied and appear to want a higher level of involvement. In terms of impact, both CEOs and Academic Senate Presidents indicate that faculty involvement on institu tional committees has increased. Despite this increased involvement, both also agree that the levels of coopera tion, trust, and shared values, quality of committee meetings, and quality of committee reports and recommen dations to the Board of Trustees have not changed much with shared governance. Academic Senate Presidents see distrust between faculty and administration and the lack of faculty release time and faculty interest as three key barriers to the strengthening of the faculty role in shared governance. Both CEOs and Academic Senate Presidents agree that personal agendas and “we/they" mentality represent additional major impediments. Since the implementation of Assembly Bill 1725 in 1988, the shared governance process has evolved to vary ing degrees within the community college system. While this evolution is continuous, its' direction in the indi vidual districts and colleges is enhanced and altered by the college leadership and participation of its adminis tration, faculty, classified staff, and students. 36 The results of this survey imply that the faculty role in shared governance has increased in both the traditional and nontraditional areas of academic and professional matters. These results also indicate that despite increased faculty involvement, the level of trust between faculty an administration/Board of Trustee and the quality of committee meetings and reports and recom mendations to local Boards are not perceived to have changed much. There appear to be two elements that adversely affect the successful implementation of faculty govern ance within local college districts. They are: (1) "balkanization" of the decision making process whereby shared governance slows down and fails to meet the immediate needs of a rapidly changing environment and (2) special interest groups of administrators, faculty, and classified staff which have a tendency to focus more on their needs than on the global needs of the college community (Flanigan, 1994). Giles (1986) states that the governance structure that can best promote excellence in education services and accountability to the state and local taxpayers, is one of shared governance in which the legislature, the Governor, the Board of Governors, District Board of 37 Trustees, Community College Administrators and College Faculty have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. (1) Legislature and Governor: Should focus on deciding the broad mission of the colleges, expectations of the colleges, and determining the finance mechanism and appropriate revenues. (2) Board of Governors: Should provide leadership, direction and general oversight to local dis tricts through establishment of state priori ties, formulation of state policy, development of a state budget, establishment of minimum standards and program review and approval. (3) Locally-elected Boards of Trustees: Should be responsible for operating districts, local planning and policy formulation, setting prior ities for local education programming, budget development and personnel administration. (4) Community College Administration: Should be responsible for creating and promoting a cli mate of shared governance. Implementing pol icies approved by the Board of Trustees, setting long and short term educational goals, and maintaining fiscal stability, academic integrity. 38 (5) College Faculty: Should participate in efforts to define priorities and plan for the achieve ment of the educational institution. The pre ceding is reflected in a shared-culture domain which is characterized by an environment where administrative and faculty influences are balanced. According to Cohen, Brawer and Associates (1994), balanced power in a shared culture leads to joint responsibility and authority. Faculty and administrators build a common history based on long-enduring assumptions, values, and beliefs that are communicated through the organization's rituals, activities, and practice. Creativity, innovation, and risk taking play key roles in a shared culture domain. Efforts to relate faculty and adminis trative behavior to well articulated institu tional priorities promote a supportive, family like atmosphere (Cohen, Brawer and Associates, 1994) . 39 Strong Shared Culture Domain Model High Quality Source: Cohen, Brawer, and Associates (1994) Garrett (1990), shows that forty-nine states in the United States have one or more public two-year post secondary institutions. South Dakota is the one state that does not have a system of publicly supported two- year post-secondary institutions. There is a wide range in the patterns of Community College governance across the state “There are nearly as many approaches to the operation of a system of two-year colleges as there are states" (Garrett, 1990). The primary difference among state systems is in the manner in which they are organ ized and in the degree of authority and control held by the state-level board and subsequently, by the local boards. Some state systems are decentralized, with local boards that have substantial authority, while other 40 states have shifted varying degree of control to the state level. In these latter states, local boards, if they exist at all, serve a perfunctory role. Between these two extremes, there are local and state boards that share governance responsibilities. Garrett (1990) conducted a study to identify the governance structures that currently exist among com munity college systems in the United States. Garrett's (1990) study shows that by operationalizing the concept of centralization, and establishing empirically the degree to which each state community college system is centralized or decentralized, future studies can use these assessed degrees of centralization to establish the effectiveness of varying governance structures. Garrett (1990) stated "if we can measure degree of centraliza tion, we can make more rigorous comparative and histor ical studies possible." The purpose of Garrett's (1990) study was twofold. First, a set of indicators of centralization and decentralization of state community college system governance was developed. Second, the degree to which the governance structure of each of the 49 state community college systems in the United States is centralized or decentralized was assessed. Garrett contacted the Chief State Community College Officer of each of the 49 state community college systems 41 seeking factual information about the governance func tions of his or her state system of community colleges. The Chief State Community College Officers were surveyed through a mailed questionnaire. The Chief State Com munity Officers who did not respond by the stated deadline were telephoned and encouraged to complete and return the questionnaire. A total of 45 questionnaires were returned, representing a 91.8% response rate. However, the centralization index for one questionnaire could not be assessed because a number of the 29 scale items were left blank. Representatives of the following states did not respond to the survey: Alaska, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. Since South Dakota does not have a state system of community colleges, a total of 45 states are represented in Garrett's (1990) study. Garrett's (1990) study ascertained the overall degree of centralization or decentralization of the governance structure of respective state community college system, numerical values were assigned to each function of the degree indicators. For each of the 29 centralization scale items in the questionnaire, the response could be categorized on an integer continuum scale. For each of the 29 functions, the indicators of centralization were assigned a high numerical value, 42 while the indicators of decentralization were assigned a low numerical value. The response to each function question equated to a numerical value. The centraliza tion index represents the sum of the numerical values assigned to the response to each of the 29 centralization scale items in the questionnaire. This score was used to rank state systems according to their respective central ization indexes, a low score reflected a decentralized governance structure and a high score reflected a centralized governance structure. Based on the numerical values assigned, pursuant to the response categories in the questionnaire, the pos sible range of index values that could have been obtained ranged from 2 9 to 118. Twenty-nine (29), indicated a highly decentralized governance and 118, indicated a highly centralized governance structure. However, the results of the summation of response for state systems indicated a range from 40 for Missouri to 107 for Connecticut. Therefore, based on the assessed central ization indices, no state community college system can be considered as absolutely centralized or decentralized. The average assessed centralization index was 74, which is approximately equal to the mid-point of 73.5 on the centralization continuum. Based on the mid-point of the range of the centralization continuum, all state systems with an assessed centralization index below 73.5 are considered to be decentralized. All state systems with an assessed centralization index value greater than 73.5 are considered to represent a centralized governance structure. Seven states were assessed a centralization index value equal to or less than 50. The seven states were: Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. A total of five states obtained a centralization index value equal to or greater than 100, these states were, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky and Nevada (Garrett, 1990). Table 2.1 summarizes the Index Values for the 45 states with valid responses. Overall, more governance structures of state com munity college systems are decentralized (54.5%), rather than centralized (45,5%). Further, disaggregating Garrett's findings, the largest proportion of state system were found to be centralized (29.5%), followed by moderately decentralized systems (25%). Two state systems (4.6%) were classified as being highly central ized, these states were, Connecticut (107, index value) and Hawaii (105, index value). In addition to the pre ceding, three state systems (6.8%) were classified as being highly decentralized: Idaho (41, index value), 44 Table 2.1 Rank Order of State Systems by Assessed Centralization Index (N=44) Rank Order of State Index Value Connecticut 107 Hawaii 105 Delaware 102 Nevada 101 Kentucky 100 Minnesota 99 Alabama 99 Indiana 99 Rhode Island 98 Colorado 98 Virginia 95 North Dakota 94 Tennessee 94 Georgia 92 Vermont 90 Maine 87 Utah 81 Oklahoma 80 Wisconsin 75 Washington 74 North Carolina 72 Wvomincr 72 45 Table 2.1 Rank Order of State Systems by Assessed Centralization Index (N=44) (Continued) Rank Order of State Index Value Massachusetts 72 South Carolina 71 California 71 Arizona 70 New Jersey 67 New York 63 Illinois 62 Ohio 62 Montana 60 Texas 58 Maryland 57 Florida 56 Iowa 56 Oregon 52 Mississippi 51 Arkansas 50 Pennsylvania 49 Kansas 48 New Mexico 48 Idaho 41 Michigan 41 Missouri 40 46 Michigan (41, index value), and Missouri (40, index value), Michigan (41 index value), and Missouri (40, index value) (Garrett, 1990). (See Table 2.2) Table 2.2 Rank Order of the State Community College Systems Governance Structure Classification of Governance Structure Index Value Total n Percent Highly Decentralized (29-43) 3 6.8 Decentralized (44-58) 10 22.7 Moderately Decentralized (59-73) 11 25.0 Moderately Centralized (74-88) 5 11.4 Centralized (89-103) 13 29 .5 Highly Centralized (104-118) 2 4.6 TOTAL 44* 100.0 ♦Sources excludes Louisiana. (Garrett, 1990) In 1988 Gulassa examined shared governance in the Foothill/DeAnza Community College District. Foothill/ DeAnza's success in implementing shared governance is attributed to the following: (1) The District's move from participative to shared/collaborative governance, (2) The District's Budget and Policy Development Group (BPDG) creating a climate of excellence, (3) Foothill/ DeAnza shared governance structure is based on Team building, mutual respect and equal voice for all con stituents, (4) Decisions pertaining to budget and policy development are arrived at collaboratively, and (5) Idea integration is used as the primary means of dealing with intragroup conflict. The BPDG, includes representatives from the student body, faculty union, minority staff association, directors of human resources and plant services, as well as, college presidents, deans, and senate representatives. Draper and Van Groningen (1990) outlined collabora tive governance structures for success for the California Yosemite Community College District. The authors state that those campuses which already have a significant level of shared governance and employee participation in decision-making list a number of benefits which are substantiated by the literature. The most frequently mentioned are: (1) Greater understanding and acceptance of decisions. (2) Greater identification with decisions and more intense commitment to their implementation. 48 (3) Greater understanding of objectives and commit ment to achieving them. (4) Increased meeting of employee needs for self- identity, autonomy, achievement, and psycholog ical growth. (5) Group application of pressure on dissenters to accept, or at least outwardly comply with, decisions when the decision arises from a par ticipatory process. (6) Promotion of cooperation, mutual understanding, team identity, and coordination. (7) Opportunities for conflict resolution even in cases of divergent objectives, through consul tation and joint decision-making. (8) Benefits from use of the expertise and analyt ical skills of individuals throughout the organization. (9) Leadership training for faculty. Draper and Van Groningen (1990) state there are, disadvantages to shared governance which must be addressed. Certainly, procedures followed to implement shared governance should be designed to avoid or at least minimize these potential problems: 49 (1) The time-consuming nature of participation, for the decision-making itself, as well as, for the various groups involved (including administra tors ) . (2) The potential exclusion of middle managers from decisions made through shared governance com mittees, resulting in managers that are unin formed about matters they will be called upon to implement. (3) The making of decisions by individuals with limited expertise. (4) The removal of faculty form teaching and class ified staff from their duties, if substantial release time is required. (5) The financial and educational costs of shared governance. (6) Destruction of accountability due to diffused responsibility (a potential result of group decision making). (7) Limitations on leadership opportunity among administrators who have been hired to lead. (8) Unrealistic and unmet expectations among participants if the board or CEO finds it necessary to reach decisions contrary to that arrived at through the group process. 50 According to Draper and Van Groningen (1990), shared governance will not be a simple process to implement, nor will one district's successful model necessarily be transportable to another without substantial changes to meet new situations. However, goodwill, thoughtful people, a willingness to risk new approaches, and the ability to admit problems exist can go far toward estab lishing a positive shared governance environment for board members, managers, faculty and staff. The central objective to shared governance should be the creation of a climate where energy is devoted to solving crucial educational tasks and not to turf battles over governance. In order for shared governance to work, there must be trust. This is the critical component in the shared governance process. But trust can be in short supply a districts which have developed a "we/they" mentality, or the "management/labor" approach. A district with the preceding history will increase the difficulty of the already demanding task of implementing AB 1725 unless means can be found to re-establish mutual trust (Draper and Van Groningen, 1990). A recent statewide Academic Senate meeting offered some "notes on ideas to develop trust": 51 (1) Be open. (2) Do not underestimate others' intelligence. (3) Respect others ideas and opinions. (4) Do not break confidentiality. (5) Do not ask for input if you won't use it. (6) Do not focus on the few people who make problems. (7) Do not generalize from those few either. (8) Beware of stereotyping. (9) Do not assess blame. (10) Beware of the issues: turf, territory, isola tion . (11) Do not make assumptions. (12) Urge collection of information at an early stage. (13) Do not play games. (14) Do not hoard information. (15) Interact, gain familiarity. (16) Do not get defensive. (17) Be consistent, honest, fair. (18) Make decisions in the interest of the students. If mutual trust is a key component of the definition of shared governance, then appropriate staff development for everyone involved in the shared governance process is crucial for maintaining the mutual trust environment. 52 Training staff in conflict resolution and positive communication skills can pay ample dividends. If people understand the process and their role in it, they can focus on the task at hand rather than having to stumble along hoping someone will let them know what's going on. Seminars, in-district workshops, even outside consultants may all be useful in developing a team that can spend more time on task and less on process (Draper and Van Groningen, 1990). Collegial governance is a long and cherished tradi tion at MiraCosta College (1990). The college is one of the state’s leaders in shared governance, and its commit ment to collegiality has been sustained by a governing board, administration, faculty, classified staff and student body. Educational institutions, are among the oldest democratic bodies in the world. The Academic Senate of Mira Costa College (1990) is committed to collegial governance. Collegiality means shared governance within the parameters of law and historical practice. Mira Costa College's (1990) Governing Board is empowered by law to adopt rules and regulations for the college. Proposals placed before the Board, are developed in board-based forums. Essentially, each segment in the college that has expertise and responsibility in a 53 particular area is charged with developing policies and procedures related to that area. The college, (Governing Board, students, staff, administrators, and faculty) has unique, yet overlapping responsibilities and authority. No issue is exclusive to only one segment, and several segments may be involved in developing policies and procedures on a given subject. However, the Board is the ultimate authority at the college and has ultimate accountability (Mira Costa College, 1990). The collegial process at Mira Costa (1990) rests on a bedrock of commitment to freedom of information and its' timely dissemination, and to mutual respect, trust, and openness at the college. The collegial process at Mira Costa not only conforms to the state governing codes, but also empowers all people of the college. Thereby, committing all participants to embrace the super ordinate goals of the college. Empowerment comes with a cost. It is the responsi bility and obligation of each member of the faculty, administration, and Board to participate in the collegial process. All must arrange their schedules so as to facilitate the collegial process and to participate in a reasonable number of hours of policies and procedures development work. All must be cooperative with and open to the consultation process. At the same time, each 54 segment of the college must recognize and duly respect the unique expertise and authority of the others. Collegial governance is a cooperative endeavor, its' success depends upon all individuals accepting their responsibilities. In this way the college will fulfill its potential as an educational institution dedicated to academic excellence and community service (Mira Costa College, 1990) . Collegiality and Organizational Theories Collegiality embraces the decision making process from a holistic perspective. Faculty, staff and students are afforded an opportunity to actively participate in the design, endorsement and implementation of educational policies that will govern their academic milieu. Colleg iality or holistic decision making is the counter-part to shared governance, The involvement of faculty, staff and students in the design, endorsement and implementation of academic policies reflects the college or university management style. The collegiality denotes the organizational theories that have been adopted by the academic environ ment . 55 This section of the review of literature will address the following: Collegiality and Participatory Management, Bureaucratic Management and Political Management. The organizational form and size of a community college is an important variable. The organizational structure characterizes the significant differences between pubic institutions and private junior colleges. The organizational make-up appears to be related as much to size as to control. Most public colleges in the nation are organized within single districts. A Board of Trustees, either elected locally or appointed by a governmental agency establishes policy for the institution and employs a Chief Executive Officer. Subsequently, vice-presidents or deans manage business affairs, student personnel, academic instruction, and technical education. The above characterize the administrative structure of public colleges. In most colleges, the department chairpersons report to the dean of instruction or vice-president for instruction. However, in larger institutions, assistant superintendents and division deans may be added to manage detailed operations under each of the main functions (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). 56 The multi-unit independent district, dates from the 1930s, with Chicago and Los Angeles as early examples. There were ten multi-unit independent districts in 1964, forty in 1968, sixty-six in 1980, and seventy-two in 1987. Multi-college districts operate with a central district organization headed by a president or chancellor and staffed with research coordinators, personnel admin istrators, business managers, and numerous others respon sible for overall academic, fiscal, and student services (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). Multi-unit districts are far more complex, struc tured, and formalized than single-college districts. Those who advocate centralizing administration generally stress greater economy and uniformity of decisions. Nevertheless, at its' best, a decentralized structure encourages campus initiative and creativity, allows each campus to respond to the community and students more rapidly, fixes responsibility at a lower structural level, fosters the development of leadership among campus administrators, and enhances staff morale by a greater degree of local participation in decision making (Cohen and Brawer, 1989). According to Cohen, Brawer and Associates (1994), community colleges are managed in a collegial manner. Within this frame, organizations are viewed as 57 collectives with organizational members as their primary resource. The emphasis is on shared governance, human needs, and on how organizations can be tailored to meet the needs of its' members. The collegial frame pictures colleges and univer sities as communities of scholars, who, by virtue .of their professional expertise and a shared value system, control organizational goals. The collegial frame is useful for understanding stable organizations, or organ izational sub-units, in which preferences are developed by consensus through interaction. As a result of shared governance, community college managers are viewed as less concerned with hierarchical relationships. The job of management is to promote consensus within the community, especially between administrators and faculty. Cohen and Brawer (1989) in a quixotic plea for the colleges to become shared learning communities they posit a collegial model: Instead of being at the bottom of a pyramid, faculty and students are part of a community of equal partners. Authority is not delegated downward as in the bureaucratic model; rather, trustees share their authority with students and faculty, as well as with administrators. Students and faculty members communicate directly with the board rather than through the president. 58 The collegial model is based on group process, the concept of community, the sharing of authority, and the making of decisions within a framework of participation and consensus. Cohen and Brawer (1989) described bureaucratic, collegial, and political models and argued that governance can best be analyzed by means of a structure involving periodic examination of goals, staff, and various aspects of the institution. In addition to the preceding, governance can be classified as bureaucratic, participatory, and conflict models. However, the style or model of governance has less influence on results than "the quality of care and maintenance the system receives" (see Appendix A B, and C). Appendix A outlines the simi larities and differences of traditional governance models and Appendix B focuses on images of leadership and man agement under the three models of governance. Finally, Appendix C illustrates the effect of differentiation and similarities on the governance process. Organizations that endorse a participative manage ment style share decision-making authority with subordin ates. The degree of sharing can range from the manager's presenting a tentative decision that is subject to change, to letting the group or subordinate participate in making the decision. The preceding is sometimes 59 called the "we" approach, participative management involves others and lets them bring their unique view points, talents, and experience to an issue. Partici pative management is strongly emphasized today because of the trends toward down-sizing, employee empowerment, and the building of collaborative teams (Plunkett and Attner, 1994) . Subsequently, a consultative and democratic approach works best for resolving issues that are affected by decisions which support them, more enthusiastically when they participate in the decision making, than when decisions are imposed on them. Before subordinates can be brought into the process, mutual trust and respect must exist between them and their managers. The subordinates must be willing to participate and trained to do so. People need training in rational decision making. They must also possess the related skills and knowledge needed to cope with the problems they are expected to solve. It takes time to give people the confidence and competence needed to make decisions. Managers must have the time, means, and patience to prepare subordinates to participate. When employees participate they devise solutions that they feel they own. The sense of ownership increases 60 employees commitment to making the solution work {Plunkett and Attner, 1994). Participatory management is consistent with American ideals of equality, democracy, and individual dignity. Participatory management can improve motivation, perfor mance, and satisfaction of subordinates. Powers and Powers (1983) state: (1) Under participatory management, subordinates understand and accept decisions better. When subordinates are anxious about the implications of decisions, participation gives them oppor tunities for catharsis and chances to protect their interest. (2) Participation leads to greater identification with decisions and to greater commitment to implement them. (3) Participation increases understanding by sub ordinates of both objectives of decisions and plans to achieve them. Subsequently, implemen tation of decisions and modification of plans are easier as a result of participatory manage ment . (4) Task motivation is increased by participation because through participation subordinates understand that effort will be rewarded and that lack of effort will lead to negative outcomes. (5) Participation is consistent with the needs of mature subordinates for autonomy, achievement, self-identity, and psychological growth. Auto cratic leadership does not meet these needs, it tends to cause frustration, resentment, and apathy. (6) When group decisions are the result of legiti mate decision making processes, the group applies social pressure to dissenters to accept, or at least comply with the decisions. (7) When groups cooperate in solving common prob lems, mutual understanding, team identity, and coordination are strengthened. (8) When subordinates and their managers have different objectives, consultation and joint decision making provide opportunities for resolving conflicts and increasing acceptance by subordinates of decisions. 62 (9) Because participation utilizes expertise and analytical skills of subordinates, as well as leaders, it can result in better decisions. The key to moving power downward in an organization is a manager who is willing to allow employees to influ ence a number of the decisions that affect their day-to- day work life (Lawler, 1992). The choice of a decision-making approach is not dichotomous. Rather, decision making is either auto cratic or democratic, or it is best thought of as a continuum. At one end of the continuum is pure top-down decision making, in which an individual in authority simply makes a decision and announces it to others. At the other end of the continuum, is total democratic decision making, in which all individuals who will be affected by a decision, debate it until they reach a consensus on a decision. In between, these two ends of the continuum are various levels of participative and autocratic decision making. For example, in consultative decision making, the manager or leader gets input from those who are going to be affected by the decision, but ultimately makes the decision himself or herself. In representative decision making, a task force or small group convenes to make the decision for the rest of the 63 organization. This group may make its decision through consensus or a simple majority vote (Lawler, 1992). As a general rule, the more participative the deci sion making process, the higher the acceptance of the decision, by those people who are affected by it and the higher their satisfaction. Also, the more participative the process, the longer the time to make the decision and, in many but not all cases, the higher the quality of the decision. High-involvement organizations are designed and managed in a number of ways that support most decisions being made in a participative manner or being delegated to line-level employees. Unlike the work force in the traditional organization, where individuals do not receive information, the work force in a high-involvement organization is not only ready to participate in most decisions, they expect to participate (Lawler, 1992). Also, relevant to participative decision making is the degree to which those involved in the decision making process can be counted on to rise above their narrow self-interest and arrive at the decision that is best for the organization as a whole. Thus, the design of a high- involvement organization should help assure that most individuals will be committed to the success of the organization. This is contrary to an organization where 64 decisions are made in a traditional top-down way. A traditional decision making organization results in the organization's credibility and integrity being ques tioned. On the other hand, participative decision making is consistent with the core values and principles of a high- involvement organization (Lawler, 1992). The word bureaucracy is so burdened by connotations or rigidity, waste, and lack of human concern, that merely mentioning it in the context of college life almost always provokes responses ranging from helpless shrugs to cries of outrage. A useful discussion of the college as a bureaucracy must therefore begin by using the word in a descriptive and analytical, rather than a pejorative sense. Bureaucratic structures are estab lished to efficiently relate organizational programs to the achievement of specified goals. When behavior is standardized, the activities and processes of organiza tions are made more predictable, so that the organization can become more efficient and effective (Birnbaum, 1988). The core of bureaucratic management is seen to be decision making, and the President of the college or university is expected to be a rational analyst who cannot only calculate the most efficient means by which goals can be achieved, but also design the systems of control and coordination that direct the activities of others. He or she is also cast as a heroic leader, able to articulate noble values and goals, to solve the most complex problems, to energize and motivate people, and to direct an efficient and effective organization. Essenti ally much of the organization's power is held by the hero, and great expectations are raised because people trust him or her to solve problems and fend off threats from the environment. Bureaucratic structures ration alize the hero role. By legitimating leaders, they assume some of the aura of heroes, so that merely by the nature of their office, they have more influence. As a heroic leader, Presidents can justifiably accept credit for significant institutional advances whether or not he or she caused them, but at the same time he or she risks being blamed for failures that cannot be explained (Birnbaum, 1988). Bureaucrats are concerned with planning, directing, organizing, staffing, controlling, and evaluating. They control activity by making decisions, resolving con flicts, solving problems, evaluating performance and output, and distributing rewards and penalties. Good bureaucrats collect and analyze the right data in the right amount, follow organizational processes and systems, and follow the orders of their superiors. 66 Better bureaucrats even anticipate these orders, thereby- making directives less necessary (Birnbaum, 1988). The distinctive value of a bureaucracy is that administrators need not do all the work of the institu tion. They may empower others to do it through the concept of delegation of authority. In the academic bureaucracy, the right to make authoritative decisions stems initially from a charter or legislation approved by civil government. Assembly Bill 1725 (Education Code 53203) gives the Board of Trustees the powers, rights, and privileges that are incident to the proper govern ment, conduct, and management of the college, and they may make and ordain, as occasion may require, reasonable rules, orders, and by-laws not repugnant to the constitu tion and laws of the state. The legal authority given to the trustees then serves as the basis for the delegation of specific authority by them to the President. However, the President has neither the time nor the expertise to do everything, and the bureaucratic struc ture is designed specifically to enable him or her to expand the influence of his leadership by delegating some of his authority to subordinates. As long as the person receiving an order from a superior believes in the legit imacy of the rule of law that provided for the delega tion, that person is likely to expect to receive such 67 orders and to be predisposed to accept them. However, we know through our experiences that not all orders are obeyed. To understand why, it is necessary to examine the idea of authority from an organisational, rather than a legal, perspective, we must consider the following: A subordinate is said to accept authority when ever he permits his behavior to be guided by the decision of a superior, without indepen dently examining the merits of that decision. Nevertheless, when exercising authority, the superior does not seek to convince the subor dinate, but only to obtain his acquiescence. (Birnbaum, 1988) Authority is no longer defined by the power of the person giving an order, but instead by the willingness of the person receiving it, to accept it. In essence, the subordinate defines the area in which orders will be accepted without concern for what those orders are, and the authority relationship exists only within that area and not outside. This area in which the subordinate will accept orders has been called the "zone of indifference" (i.e., the subordinate is indifferent as to whether the superior orders A or B). For example, faculty accept the right of administrators to call meetings, and they are usually indifferent to when they are scheduled. Never theless, a dean who calls weekly meetings on Friday afternoons would quickly discover that faculty would not attend. Therefore, it is the faculty, not the dean, who 68 would decide which directives would be obeyed (Birnbaum, 1988). The understanding of the nature or authority has significant implications for the application of the bureaucratic model to colleges and universities, since professionals have relatively narrow zones of acceptance. Essentially, the greater the professional level of insti tutional staff members, the less effective bureaucratic controls will be in coordinating their behavior. The above denotes why bureaucratic controls are usually less influential in dealing with faculty than in dealing with administrators (Birnbaum, 1988). Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991) have suggested that colleges and university governance may be more fully understood by applying the Bureaucratic Model. The authors have pointed out some of the characteristics of colleges and universities that fit Max Weber's (1947) original description of a bureaucracy. They include the following: 1. Competence is the criterion used for appointment. 2. Officials are appointed, not elected. 3. Salaries are fixed and paid directly by the organization rather than determined in "free- fee" style. 69 4. Rank is recognized and respected. 5. The career is exclusive; no other work is done. 6. The style of life of the organization's members centers on the organization. 7. Security is present in a tenure system. 8. Personal and organizational property, are separated. Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991) are undoubtedly correct in believing that Weber's paradigm can be applied to universities. Subsequently, the bureaucratic factors involved in university administration exist among the following: 1. The university is a complex organization under state charter, like most other bureaucracies. This seemingly innocent fact has major conse quences, especially as states increasingly seek to exercise control. 2. The university has a formal hierarchy, with offices and a set of bylaws that specify the relations between those offices. Professors, instructors, and research assistants may be considered bureaucratic officers in the same sense as deans, chancellors, and presidents. There are formal channels of communication that must be respected. There are definite bureaucratic authority rela tion, with certain officials exercising author ity over others. In a college or university the authority relations are often vague and shift ing, however; no one would deny that they exist. There are formal policies and rules that govern much of he institution's work, such as library regulations, budgetary guidelines, and proce dures of the college or university's senate. The bureaucratic elements of a college or university are most vividly apparent in its' "people processing" aspects, such as: record keeping, registration, graduation requirements, and a multitude of other routine (i.e., day-to- day activities that are designed to help the modern college or university handle its masses of students. Bureaucratic decision making processes are used, most often by officials assigned the responsibility for making routine decisions by the formal administrative structure. For example, there are admissions procedure, 71 handled by the dean of admissions; procedures for graduation, routinely administered by designated officials; research policies, supervised by specified officials; and financial matters, usually handled in a bureaucratic manner by the finance office. Table 2.3 summarizes the difference between academic organizations and more traditional bureaucracies. Bureaucracies, according to Weber, have well articu lated policies which were impersonally and uniformly applied by officials, both to employees within the organization and to clients outside the organization. For the sake of organizational continuity and for the purpose of achieving uniformity of action, bureaucracies maintained elaborate records to detail the transaction of the organization (Scott, Mitchell and Birnbaum, 1981). The history of the United States has given avid support to Max Weber's idea that bureaucracies are indispensable for the mass administration required in modern industrial societies. Bureaucracies provide the leadership for elaborate cooperative endeavor. They multiply skills through specialization and enrich human culture through creativeness. Although bureaucracies have been used to serve the interest of tyranny and have stifled creativity through demands for conformity, Table 2.3 Organizational Characteristics of Academic Organizations and More Traditional Bureaucracies Academic Organizations (Colleges & Universities) Traditional Bureau cracies (government agency, industry) Goals Ambiguous, contested, inconsistent Clearer goals, less disagreement Client service Client-serving Material-process ing, commercial Technology Unclear, nonroutine, holistic Clearer, routin- ized, segmented Environ mental Predominately professional Predominately non professional Relations Very Vulnerable Less Vulnerable Summary image "Organized anarchy" "Bureaucracy" Source: (Peterson, Chaffee and White 1991). nevertheless, bureaucracies are an important part of modern social development. Bureaucratic leadership is essential if any progress is to be made in solving the difficult problems noted above. However, the manner in which bureaucracies function will probably change signif icantly. For example, there is less reliance on 73 authority in the traditional sense and more on participa tive techniques (Albers, 1974). A political system, according to Rausch (1980), is a system of interactions on the part of individuals or groups to influence the authoritative decision makers (in higher education these are faculty senates, presidents, boards of trustees, vice-presidents, and so on) to render decisions in accordance with their value systems or preference, particularly as they relate to the allocation of resources. The preceding is similar to the wider American political society in which any group who wishes to achieve a certain objective rallies support for that objective and thus tries to influence decision making bodies to allocate the necessary resources. The political governance concept is really a conglomeration of many that can be seen as a continuum. At one extreme is organized anarchy, in which the various interest or political groups pursue their own roads, with little regard for the needs and situations of others or of the institution as a whole. They do so within the overall institutional framework of laissez faire, where neither interferes with the activities of the other. For a decision to achieve acceptance, however, it must be of such a nature that it does not seriously offend or hurt the interests of any one of these groups, since each of 74 them can effectively obstruct or limit the implementa tion of the decision. While they have little power to achieve a positive decision in their favor, each can effectively veto any actions they oppose. In such an environment, the manager or administrator is primarily a catalyst who seeks to stimulate those ideas with which he or she identifies. Otherwise he or she passively partic ipates in the process by selecting or generating ideas that appear appropriate for the institution and then stimulates interest among those who can benefit from these ideas. Thus, enough support can sometimes be developed, so an idea may avoid being blocked by one of the interest groups (Rausch, 1980). At the other extreme of the political governance concept is what could be referred to as the "institu- utionalized governance process," where highly formalized governance bodies have emerged with codes spelling out their powers and limitations. These generally are faculty senates and student governing bodies, as well as, administrative councils. In an institutionalized govern ance process, these well defined bodies provide the steps and the environment in which decisions are made on issues that are submitted either by members of any of the con stituencies or by the administration itself (Rausch, 1980 ) . 75 The political model as a guide to governance in higher education has considerable merit. The aforemen tioned represents a pluralistic situation involving student councils who represents all kinds of students (i.e., part-time or full-time students, evening students, graduate students, and other kinds of student organiza tions. The political model involves administration and faculty organizations, such as faculty senate and faculty unions, these groups use influence and pressure to affect decisions. In addition to the above cited, there are other kinds of employee organizations representing administrative/clerical people, security and maintenance staff, cafeteria workers or housing people, etc. All of these groups obviously have values and needs for which they seek satisfaction (Rausch, 1980). College governance systems are analogous, in many ways, to those of a municipal government. However, a campus political system may not be as fully developed and structured. Nevertheless, larger institutions whether they are private or public, and older institutions usually have more fully developed systems, which resemble those of actual governments. Rausch (1980) states it should be noted that the word political is not used here in a negative sense. It is merely used as a term to describe what some believe to be reality. The collegiate decision making process is a highly fluid one in which decisions are made largely as a result of the ebb and flow of political groups as they compete with each other for scarce resources. Deciding the ground rules under which decisions will be made is the fundamental political process in which exercising power, consolidating power, or affecting a change in the power relationship can help an individual or group obtain satisfaction of its' claim or demand. Koontz, O'Donnell and Weihrich (1980) state politics has been defined as the art of the possible. Good managers must be sensitive in their decision making to what they can do. It is not enough that a decision be logical and point to the best way of reaching a goal. The beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices of people must often be taken into account. The political environment of decisions rest largely on communication and is favorable when all those involved are well informed about their particular area. While the "need to know" has limits, the limits should be set as broadly as company or national security and the cost of information will permit. Furthermore, political problems of decision making often disappear with widespread participation in planning. The widest possible 77 participation may encompass consultation and or contribution of analyses. Recently, the idea has been advanced by some scholars that the participative approach, which is well known as a useful and motivational device, might be expanded. Participation is therefore, seen as going beyond consulting and advising and becoming an actual sharing of the decision making process. Some even see this as the ultimate socialization of enterprise opera tions, with the traditional decision making role of manager being superseded by participant control. Hence, Koontz, O'Donnell and Weihrich (1980) cite that the more intelligent managerial decision makers will tend to rely increasingly on greater participative influence, not only from subordinates but also from the social groups and forces outside a department or the entire enterprise. Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991) state the politi cal model focuses on policy-forming processes, because major policies commit an organization to definite goals and set the strategies for reaching those goals. Policy decisions are critical decisions. They have major impact on an organization's future. Thus, in any practical situation, it may be difficult to separate the routine from the critical, for issues that seem minor at one point, may later be decisive, or vice versa. In general, 78 however, policy decisions bind an organization to impor tant courses of action. Since policies are so important, people throughout an organization try to influence them to reflect their own interest and values. Policy making becomes a vital target of interest group activity that permeates the organization. With policy formation as its' key issue, the political model operates on a series of assumptions about the political process, such as: 1. To say that policy making is a political process does not say that everyone is involved. On the contrary, inactivity prevails. Most people, most of the time find the policy making process an uninteresting, unrewarding activity. Policy making is therefore, left to the administrators. This is characteristic not only of policy making in universities, but of political processes in society at large. 2. People who are actively engaged in fluid partic ipation, move in and out of the decision making process. Rarely do people spend much time on any given issue. Decisions, therefore, are usually made by those who persist. This normal ly means that small groups of political elites govern most major decisions, for they invest the necessary time in the process. Colleges and universities, like most other social organizations, are characterized by frag mentation into interest groups with different goals and values. When resources are plentiful and the organization is prospering, these interest groups engage in only minimal conflict. But they are likely to mobilize and try to influence decisions when resources are tight, outside pressure groups attack, or internal groups try to assume command. In a fragmented, dynamic social system, conflict is natural. It is not necessarily a symptom of break-down in the academic community. In fact, conflict is a significant factor in promoting healthy organizational change. The pressure that groups can exert, places severe limitations on formal authority in the bureaucratic sense. Decisions are not simply bureaucratic orders, but are often negotiated compromises between competing groups. Officials are not free simply to issue a decision. In stead they must attempt to find a viable course acceptable to several blocs. 80 6. External interest groups exert a strong influ ence over the policy making process. External pressures and formal control by outside agencies, especially in public institutions are powerful shapers of internal governance processes. According to Peterson, Chaffee, and White (1991), under the political model, the leader is a mediator or negotiator between power blocs. Unlike the autocratic academic president of the past, who ruled with an iron hand, the contemporary president must play a political role by pulling coalitions together to fight for desired changes. The academic monarch of yesteryear has vanished. The political interpretation of leadership can be pressed even further, for the governance of the univer sity more and more comes to look like a "cabinet" form of administration. The key figure today is not the presi dent, the solitary giant, but the political leader surrounded by his or her staff, the prime minister who gathers the information and expertise to construct policy. It is the "staff," the network of key adminis trators, that makes most of the critical decisions. The college and university has become much too complicated for any one man or woman, regardless of his or her 81 stature. Cadres of vice-presidents, researchers, budget officials, public relations, and experts of various stripes surround the president, sit on the cabinet, and help reach collective decisions. Expertise becomes more critical than ever and leadership becomes even more the ability to assemble, lead, and facilitate the activities of knowledgeable experts (Peterson, Chaffee and White, 1991) . Therefore, the president must be seen as a "states person," as well as, a "hero-bureaucrat." The bureau cratic image might be appropriate for the person who assembles data to churn out routine decisions with a computer's help. In fact, this image is fitting for many middle-echelon officials in the college and university. The states person image is much more accurate for the top administrators, for here the influx of data and informa tion gives real power and possibilities for creative action. The states person is the innovative actor who uses information, expertise, and the combined wisdom of the cabinet to plan the institution's future; the bureaucrat may only be a number manipulator, a user of routine information for routine ends. The use of the cabinet, the assembly of expertise, and the exercise of political judgment in the service of institutional goals, all contribute to the new image of the states person 82 leadership; which must complement both the hero leader and the collegial leader (Peterson, Chaffee and White, 1991). (See Appendix B for a summary and comparison of the three basic images of leadership and management that have just been described). Summary of Literature The literature review has examined various dimen sions of the historical perspective, evolution and legislative parameter of shared governance, models of governance, collegiality and organizational theories and their relationship to Assembly Bill 1725 and shared governance. The review indicated four major findings: 1. The origin of the public junior college as a distinct organizational form can be traced directly to William Rainey Harper, of the University of Chicago (Brint and Karbel, 1989). The public junior college govern ance structure has a direct correlation to secondary schools. 2. Prior to Assembly Bill 1725 being enacted in 1988, California Community Colleges governing Board of Trustees were not required to promote 83 collegial decision making via shared governance with faculty, staff and students. However, as early as 1800, the faculty has always consti tuted a body authorized to exercise substantial power in decision making and policy development in areas pertaining to education and academic personnel matters. 3. Trust, sharing information, staff development training, institutional planning, budget, educa tional practices and policies, consultation and evaluation are major key components in the implementation of shared governance. Staff development training is essential in order for participants to actively participate in the governance process. Researchers, in the area of governance has demonstrated that the concept of shared governance can be successfully imple mented. In addition to the above overall public community colleges tend to be decentralized (54.5%) rather than centralized (45.5%) (Garrett, 1990) . 4. Participatory management approach is cited by organizational scholars as a useful motivational device which promotes the actual sharing of the decision making process. Also, the educational 84 leader of today, personifies transformational leadership. The preceding, complement both the hero leader and the collegial leader. Thus, the governance of the university or college more and more look like a cabinet, the key figure is not the president, but the educational leader who is surrounded by experts (i.e., administrators, faculty, staff and students). The review of the literature establishes the evolu tion of Assembly Bill 1725 and the impact that various management styles will have on collective decisions or power sharing. The review of the literature shows that in order for shared governance to occur, the educational leader must use information, expertise and the combined wisdom of the governance cabinet to plan the institu tion's future. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The primary purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the factors that are important in a model of governance? 2. To what extent are these factors present in the California Community Colleges shared governance models? 3. Which models appear to be effective in meeting the governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725? 4. How many of the California Community Colleges governance models reflect: (a) Collegial Model <b) Collegial and Bureaucratic Model (c) Collegial and Political Model A review of the literature revealed that the follow ing components are key factors in a model of governance: 1. Staff development training in educational prac tices and policy development and the governance 86 process, pursuant to the mandates of Assembly Bill 1725. 2. Institutional planning. 3. Budget. 4. Consultation. 5. Evaluation. The models of governance in the California Community Colleges display some or all of the key factors listed above. According to the literature review, governance can exist in a Collegial Model, Collegial/Bureaucratic Model and Collegial/Political Model of governance. Motimer and McConnell <1978) state that it should not be inferred that all forms of shared authority are compar able and have a similar effect on the quality of faculty and administration relations. Both collective bargaining and the delegation of decision-making power to an Academic Senate are variants of shared authority, never theless, the substantive and tactical implications of each may be quite different. Furthermore, Rausch (1980) found that the Collegial Model is not universally applicable, but the preceding model of governance is effective if its' assumptions are satisfied in building collegial partnership and promoting shared governance. Birnbaum (1988) shows that within the Bureaucratic Model collegial interaction may still exist. Peterson, Chaffee 87 and White {1991) suggest that in a political model, fragmented, dynamic social system conflict is natural. It is not necessarily a symptom of breakdown in the academic community. In fact conflict is a significant factor in promoting healthy organizational change. Research Design The basic approach of this research was an analysis of the shared governance policies of the 71 California Community College Districts. The study was conducted in order to evaluate the collegiality of the college govern ance models. This study consisted of an input evalua tion. According to Issac and Michael (1990), input evaluation furnishes information about strong points and weak points of alternative strategies of specified objectives. It was assumed that pursuant to the mandate of Assembly Bill 1725, the colleges are establishing educational policies that support a shared governance and Collegial Model. However, it was the intent of this work to solicit quantitative and descriptive data that could be used to ascertain if the governance models were purely collegial, or if they represent a combination of Collegial and Bureaucratic Models or Collegial and Political models. Collection of Data 88 The data for this study were derived from three sources: 1. Related literature and research of the histor ical perspective, evolution and legislative parameters of shared governance, models of governance in colleges and universities and collegiality and organizational theories and the application to Assembly Bill 1725. 2. The Governance Characteristic Profile Check lists and the Governance Characteristic Profile Summary and the Recommendations form (See Appendix D, E, F, G and H). 3. The California Community College District Shared Governance Policies (See Chapter 4). The Superintendents and Presidents for the California Community Colleges were apprised of this study during the California Community College League Conference. In order to conduct the analysis of the college shared governance models, the college CEO's submitted their governance policies to the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Office. Subsequently, the policies were forwarded to the author for an analysis. Development of the Instruments To analyze the shared governance plans, the author of this dissertation, designed Governance Characteristic Profile Checklists and the Governance Characteristic Profile Summary and Recommendations forms. These forms were tied directly to the general plan of the research model and were constructed to secure data needed to determine the governance characteristic of a: (1) Collegial Governance Model (2) Collegial/Bureaucratic Governance Model (3) Collegial/Political Governance Model The Governance Characteristic Profile Summary and Recom mendation forms were developed to summarize the analysis of the shared governance policies (See Appendix D, E, F, and G for a sample of the Governance Characteristic Profile Summary and Recommendation forms). These instru ments were used to determine the governance profile of the shared governance models. Prior to the development of the research instruments, the author of this disserta tion engaged in the following activities: (1) A literature review was conducted in order to acquire pertinent information regarding 90 collegial governance and the public community college system. (2) Consulted with the author of the legal compo nent of Assembly Bill 1725. (3) Consulted with scholar(s) who have conducted extensive research in the area of alternative governance. (4) Consulted with the President of the California Community College Academic Senate, Academic Senate Presidents in the California Community College system, community college Presidents, administrators, staff and students. Finally, the author considered her professional experi ence in shared governance in the community college system. (5) Attended the California Community College League Conference. During the meeting that was hosted for new and current Superintendents and Presidents, the author of this research study was available to answer questions. The above activities provided the author of this disser tation with critical information which was taken into account when the research instruments were being developed. 91 Selection of Sample The initial step in answering the research questions was an analyses of the 71 California Community College District shared governance policies. This study was endorsed by Mr. Thomas J. Nussbaum, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel for the California Community Colleges. Mr. Nussbaum, authored the legal component of Assembly Bill 1725. He is recognized as the "guru'' of Assembly Bill 1725. Initially the author met with Mr. Nussbaum to discuss the dissertation topic. Mr. Nussbaum indicated that the study would be a major part of the systems review of Assembly Bill 1725, shared governance require ment. As a result of this meeting the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Office mailed a memorandum (See Appendix H) to all the community college Superintendents and Presidents requesting that they submit their shared governance policy to the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Office for a policy analysis, as part of the system's review of AB 1725. Upon receipt of the shared governance policies, copies were sent to the author. A total of 63 or 88% governance policies were submitted to the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Office. Follow- up telephone calls were made to the College Superinten dents and Presidents who did not submit there shared governance policies. However, additional policies were not submitted to the Vice Chancellor's office. The analysis of the shared governance policies submitted for this study revealed: (1) Sixty-three districts or 88% submitted govern ance policy models for this study. (2) Forty-nine (49) or 77% of the California Com munity College Districts governance models are collegial. (3) Fourteen (14) or 22% of the California Commun ity College Districts governance models are collegial and bureaucratic. (4) None of the districts reflected a collegial and political model. Treatment of the Data Descriptive data were used on the collected data. Issac and Michael (1990) state that descriptive research describes systematically a situation or area of interest factually and accurately. The descriptive data outlined the number of collegial, bureaucratic and political characteristics of each model. After which, the govern ance models were coded (C) for Collegial Model, (CB) for Collegial and Bureaucratic Model and (CP) for Collegial and Political Model. The summary of the shared 93 governance characteristics and the coding of the governance models can be reviewed in Chapter IV and the Appendix section (C) and (D). 94 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This study was designed to analyze the collegiality of the 71 governance policy models in the California Community Colleges. In order to conduct the preceding analysis, a conceptual framework and instruments were developed to solicit qualitative and descriptive data to determine if the California Community Colleges governance models were: 1. Purely collegial, 2. A combination of collegial bureaucratic, or 3. Collegial and political. Chapter IV analyzes the data obtained from the Conceptual Framework, Instruments, Literature Review and the Cali fornia Community College Districts Governance Policy Models. This chapter is organized to answer the research questions in the same sequential order as presented in Chapter I. Of the 71 California Community College Districts, 63 districts or 88% submitted governance policy models for this study. Forty-nine (48) or 77% of the California 95 Community College Districts governance models are collegial and 14 or 22% of the California Community College Districts governance models are collegial and bureaucratic. None of the districts reflected a collegial and political model. The following California Community College Districts did not submit shared governance policies models: 1. Citrus Community College District 2. Compton Community College District 3. Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 4. Hartnell Community College District 5. Kern Community College District 6. Los Angeles Community College District (however Los Angeles Mission College submitted a govern ance policy model and the analysis denotes that the policy is Collegial) 7. North Orange County Community College District 8. West Hills Community College District To complete this study, the following research questions were answered: Research Question 1: Which models appear to be effective in meeting the governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725? Based on the data obtained from 96 the 63 California Community College Districts Governance Policy Models, Literature Review and Instruments used in the study, the following models are effective in meeting the shared governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725: a. Collegial Model b. Collegial/Bureaucratic Model According to Motimer and McConnell (1978) endorsement of the concept of shared authority does not dictate one particular pattern of governance. This analysis revealed the factors that were important and present in the California Community College Districts Models of Governance: 1. Team work and open communication 2. Understanding and acceptance of the requirements of Assembly Bill 1725 and the role of alterna tive governance in the California Community College Districts 3. Training in the area of collaborative decision making 4. Institutional planning 5. Organizational flow chart 6. Evaluation component 97 Research Question 2: How many of the California Community Colleges governance models reflect: a. Collegial Model b. Collegial and Bureaucratic Model c. Collegial an Political Model The data obtained from the research study indicate that there are: * Forty-nine <49) Collegial Models * Fourteen (14) Collegial and Bureaucratic Models * Zero (0) Collegial and Political Models The author believes as a result of AB 1725 shared governance regulations, many of the California Community Colleges have avoided a governance model that appears political in structure and governance. However, the Literature Review does cite that conflict within an organization can be perceived as a sign of growth. In order to determine the characteristic of the shared governance policies, the author of this disser tation analyzed each of the sixty-three (63) district's (number of community college districts who participated in the research study) shared governance policies using the following research instruments: 98 (1) Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial Model. (2) Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial/Bureaucratic Model (3) Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial/Political Model Each of the above checklists outlined five (5) character istics of the respective governance model. None of the shared governance models displayed Collegial/Political model characteristics. The following information will define the characteristics listed in the Collegial Model and Collegial/Bureaucratic profile checklist. In addi tion to the above, samples of California Community College Districts shared governance policy models will be illustrated to demonstrate the correlation between the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklists and the California Community College Districts Governance Models. Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial Model Characteristic A: Reflects a holistic governance approach to organizational design. Definition of Characteristic A: Organizations that reflect a holistic governance approach to organizational 99 design, subscribe to transformational leadership and collaborative decision making. Essentially all viable constituents in the education environment are consulted with prior to confirmation of education policies. The above cited addresses: • Collaborative decision making • Visionary leadership • Open communication The following community college districts character ize Collegial Model characteristic A: (1) Barstow Community College District's Governance Policy cites in order to insure its' success, every one shares in the responsibility of acting jointly so that the College speaks to the community with one voice. The above maintains stability and contin uity, and effectively fulfills its stated mission. (2) Cerritos Community College District's Shared Governance Policy cites the Board of Trustees recognized the importance of providing faculty, staff and students the opportunity to participate effectively in state, district, and college govern ance. 100 (3) Chaffey Community College District has had a long history of Collegial governance. The major components of the college's governance model are: a. Faculty Senate b. Classified Senate c. Student Campus Council d. Committee Structure e. Communication Groups f. Planning/Coordination/Problem Solving Groups (4) Coast Community College District's Shared Governance Policy cites the spirit of shared govern ance is that decision making should be decentralized and delegated to the most appropriate local sphere of influence and expertise whenever possible. (5) Contra Costa Community College District's Governing Board recognizes that one of the basic principles of governance in higher education is that authority derives not only from the powers vested in governing boards and their staff by laws, but also from the knowledge and experience possessed by the faculty, staff and others. 101 Characteristic B: Reflects governance from a global perspective and supports the development of visionary leadership. Definition of Characteristic B: Global educational shared governance models are designed to meet the demands of the 21st century. The preceding governance models encompasses visionary leadership and the involvement of internal and external constituents in developing education policies. Characteristic B addresses: • Empowering education constituents to look toward the future when developing education policies • Organizational staff development activities in order to strengthen constituents collaborative decision making skills • Developing shared governance teams The following community college districts character ize Collegial Model Characteristic B: (1) Palomar College District's shared governance structure has benefitted from the substantial efforts of groups and individuals who have con tributed to its design. The District's governance model is not a static plan; rather it is expected that fine tuning over time will enhance Collegial 102 governance at Palomar College. The governance plan attempts to: a. Provide appropriate representation for each constituent group. b. Delineate committee responsible and report ing relationships. c. Establish the appropriate number and size of committees. d. Insure that operational matters are handled appropriately. e. Establish a framework for short-term and long-range strategic planning processes with goals and objectives for the future and plans for achieving them. f. The district's governance model does not address or interfere with department/ division organization or managerial struc ture . (2) According to Coast Community College District successful shared governance depends on a combina tion of several factors: a. Effective communication. b. A working committee structure. 103 c. Shared involvement in decision making which employs the collective thinking of persons best able to make decisions. d. An active spirit of teamwork and recogni tion that involvement in shared governance is part of one's responsibilities regard less of one's role on campus. (3) El Camino Community College District's Shared Governance Model has improved communication flow throughout the college organization. {4) San Jose— Evergreen Community College District's Shared Governance Policy for students (Section 5035) cites the District shall provide appropriate means to strengthen student's knowledge and understanding of governance. In order to increase students preparedness, and to foster greater self confidence in student leadership roles. The District will provide in-service training and orientation which will be conducted at the beginning of each academic year for the purpose of building trust, fostering teamwork, and preparing for mean ingful participation in the governance process. (5) San Mateo County Community College District Shared Governance Policy cites the College Council 104 shall develop, and advise the college administration on the implementation of, a shared governance train ing program for faculty, staff, administrators and students. By participating in the program, individ uals should, at a minimum, acquire or enhance skills in: a. Problem solving and decision making {par ticularly consensus decision making) b. Conflict resolution c. Effective meeting management facilitation, and participation d. Data gathering and analysis e. Basic budgeting and accounting Characteristic C: Reflects a governance flow chart coupled with an evaluation process to ascertain the effectiveness of Collegial governance. Definition of Characteristic C: Shared governance or collaborative decision making will restructure the organizational flow chart. Communication flows vertic ally and horizontally. Authority is delegated to constituent groups who are acknowledged as experts in their profession. Therefore, the organizational chart will reflect the governance structure for planning and policy development. In addition to the above, 105 organizations must determine the effectiveness of the implementation of their shared governance model. Thus, it is imperative that evaluation instruments are developed and periodic evaluations are conducted to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the governance model. The above addresses: • Accountability • Research in the development of evaluation instru ments • Innovative organizational flow charts The following community college Districts character ize one or both of Collegial Model characteristics: (1) Feather River Community College District's internal governance process contains the following: a. A strategic planning committee which guides the development and implementation of a strategic planning process. b. The District's Strategic Planning Committee includes in-house training, development of planning assumptions, identification of major problems and remedial activities, priorities, and departmental objectives. c. The Strategic Planning Committee institu tionalizes the planning process and ensures 106 constituent support for the planning pro cess . (2) Marin Community College District's Governance Policy cites that the maintenance of the governance system is important. Conscious monitoring of the system is essential to its' effectiveness and preventative maintenance assures its continued successful progress. In order to achieve this type of awareness, the system will be evaluated every two years by a review council. (3) Mendocino-Lake Community College District's governance regulations cite that the purpose of the governance process at Mendocino-Lake College is to provide for an orderly and effective means for developing college policies that recognizes the appropriate role for each participant group as envisaged by statute and college policy. The District's governance model flow chart describes how policy recommendations are initiated, what group or process has primary responsibility for development of the recommendations, how groups are consulted as part of policy development, and what groups must be a party to a decision or the policy. 107 (4) Mt. San Antonio Community College District's flow diagram and process of shared governance is described in the following manner: a. Campus committees, the Academic Senate, the Classified Senate, the Associated Students, managers, divisions, departments or indi viduals may submit items to the College Advisory Council for its' consideration. b. Items forwarded to the College Advisory Council which are academic and professional in nature may be discussed by the College Advisory Council, but must also be sub mitted to the Mutual Agreement Council for Mutual agreement. c. Academic and professional items which obtain mutual agreement will be forwarded to the President. d. Non-academic and professional items will flow from the College Advisory Council to the President with a recommendation. e. Either the College Advisory Council or Mutual Agreement Council may refer items back to the following groups or individuals (i.e., Academic Senate, the Classified Senate, the Associated Students, managers). 108 f. All items submitted to the President will be discussed by the President and his/her cabinet for further input and recommenda tion . g. Any committee may establish subcommittees consisting of its' membership or others to carry out functions for which the committee is responsible. h. Ad hoc committees may be established to accomplish a particular task, but should usually be in existence no longer than one calendar year. i. The shared governance process will be reviewed annually by the College Advisory Council. (5) Napa Valley Community College District's Shared Governance Policy regulations cite the College Coun cil will conduct a biennial evaluation of the com mittee structure of non-academic and professional committees and make recommendations to the College President and Board of Trustees of their findings and recommended changes no later than May 15. The District's categories of committees are as follows: 109 a. Faculty Senate Committees established through the constitution and By-laws of the Faculty Senate. b. District Standing Committees established through state mandates, or by the Board, College President, or College Council. c. Ad Hoc Committees established by the Col lege President, the Faculty Senate, or the College Council for no more than one year to address or study a particular area. d. Contractual Study Committees established on an as needed basis through the collective bargaining process. e. Task Forces— Ad Hoc Committees created by the board, the College President, the Faculty Senate, or the College Council to meet specific institutional purposes. Characteristic D: Reflects scholarly participation in the academic milieu. Definition of Characteristic D: According to Assembly Bill 1725, shared governance regulations as defined in Title V, Section 51023, the Governing Board of a community college district shall: 110 a. Adopt a policy statement on academic freedom, which shall be made available to faculty and filed with the Chancellor. b. The above policies shall address the role of Academic Senates and faculty councils in the community college district. The above addresses: • Academic Freedom • Mutual respect of colleagues • Acknowledgment of AB 1725 Regulation The following California Community College Districts characterize Collegial Model Characteristic D. (1) Mira Costa Community College District's Board of Trustees recognizes the Academic Senate Council as the body which represents the Academic Senate in Collegial governance relating to academic and pro fessional matters, as well as, personnel issues involving Senate members. The Board of Trustees acknowledges the definition of academic and profes sional matters to mean the following as defined in Title V of the California Administrative Code: a. Curriculum, including establishing prereq uisites and placing courses within the disciplines Ill b. Degree and certificate requirements c. Grading policies d. Educational program development e. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success f. District and college governance structure, as related to faculty roles g. Faculty roles and involvement in accredita tion processes, including self study and annual reports h. Establishing policies for faculty profes sional development activities i. Processes for program review j. Processes for institutional planning and budget development k. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the Governing Board and the Academic Senate (2) Monterey Peninsula Community College District's Academic Senate represents the faculty in making recommendations to the administration and to the Governing Board with respect to academic and profes sional matters. The Governing Board shall rely pri marily upon the recommendations of the Academic Senate regarding academic and professional matters. (3) Palo Verde Community College District's Colleg ial Governance Board Policy 6011 cites it shall be the policy of the District's Board to embrace the concept of Collegial governance and to establish procedures to ensure faculty the right to partici pate effectively in Collegial governance in partic ular areas where they have the responsibility and expertise as specified in Title V regulations. Nevertheless, the Governing Board is the ultimate authority in all areas as defined by state laws and regulations. (4) Pasadena Community College District's Shared Governance Policy 0300.10, cites the Faculty Senate shall represent the faculty of the college and shall develop policy recommendations on academic and professional matters through collegial consul tation with the administration of the college and the Governing Board. (5) Peralta Community College District's Governing Board recognizes its obligation, under Title V regu lations, to "consult collegially" with the faculty senate on "academic and professional matters." The Governing Board further recognizes that, under Title V regulations, it may choose to "consult collegially through the option of "mutual agreement" or the 113 option of “relying primarily on the advice and judgment of the senate when considering "academic and professional matters.'1 The Governing Board chooses when it is necessary to "consult collegi ally" with the Academic Senate on "academic and professional matters." The above can occur through the option of “relying primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate." In making this choice, the Governing Board rejects the option of "mutual agreement" as a basic approach. How ever, the Governing Board reserves the right to use the “mutual agreement" option in specifically desig nated instances. Characteristic E: Reflects collegial decision based on total group participation and a consensus of an equal voice. Definition of Characteristic E: Collegial decision is characterized by sharing of authority and collabora tive decision making. According to Assembly Bill 1725, Title V, shared governance regulations sections 51023 (faculty), 51023.5 (staff) and 51023.7 (students) the Governing Board of a community college district shall adopt policies and procedures that will provide the above constituents the opportunity to participate effectively in district and college governance. 114 The above addresses: • Equal group participation • Creating an environment whereby shared decision making is welcome • Sharing authority The following community college district's charac terize Collegial Model Characteristic E: (1) According to Cabrillo Community College Dis trict Governing Board Policy 2130 (faculty role in governance), the District will consult collegially with the Cabrillo College Faculty Senate when adopt ing policies and procedures on academic and profes sional matters. Cabrillo Community College Dis trict's administrative regulations cite that the President/Superintendent or his/her designee or the Faculty Senate President or his/her designee is responsible for the initiation and facilitation of appropriate collegial consultation on "academic and professional matters." The District's Board Policy 2140 (staff role in governance) and Board Policy 2150 (student role in governance) cite the Presi dent/Superintendent or his/her designee is respon sible for the initiation of the appropriate opportunity for staff and student participation in 115 the development of college policies and procedures that have or will have a significant effect on them. (2) Desert Community College District's committee structure is a primary mechanism for faculty/ staff, and student participation in the governance process. The appointment of faculty members to serve on com mittees, to form committees, task forces, or other groups dealing with academic and professional matters, are made in consultation with the Presi dent or his/her designee, by the Academic Senate. (3) El Camino Community College District used Total Quality (TQM) techniques to brainstorm issues related to the shared governance structure. Accord ing to El Camino Community College, the District's shared governance model consists of: a. Establishment of a College Council, made up of participants from all the various campus constituencies, whose scope will be insti tutional planning, budget development, and the development/revision of campus-wide policies and procedures. Membership on the College Council will be faculty, students, Classified staff and managers. The College Council is chaired by the College President. The three Vice 116 Presidents, the Director of Personnel and the Director of Research, Planning and Development will be ex-officio members of the College Council. (4) Long Beach Community College District's Shared Governance is a method of collegial interaction in which the Board of Trustees, administration, faculty, classified and support staff, and students participate in the decision-making process and in which consensual agreement regarding issues is a paramount goal. (5) Los Rios Community College District's govern ance policies cite shared governance is a collabor ative goal setting and problem solving process built on trust and communication. Participation in shared governance should be broad-based. The par ticipants are faculty, classified staff, students and administrators. The District's shared govern ance policy cites that two or more separate con stituencies can have shared accountability for decision/recommendations. 117 Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist for Collegial/Bureaucratic Model Characteristic A: Reflects a hierarchical govern ance . Definition of Characteristic A: Bureaucratic struc ture reflects a traditional hierarchical governance. The governance model is designed to adhere to state or federal laws, organizational programs and goals. Power sharing can be limited, nevertheless, this does not take away from the efficiency of the organization. The above cited addresses: • Organizational efficiency based on traditional standards • Policies based on standardized procedures • Final decisions are executed at the hierarchical level The following community college districts character ize Collegial/Bureaucratic Model A: (1) Allan Hancock College District's Shared Govern ance Policy cites consensus will not always be pos sible and the Governing Board, as the entity holding the institution in trust for the community, has the 118 ultimate responsibility to act on behalf of the college district. (2) Antelope Valley Community College District's Shared Governance Policy cites that the Board of Trustees shall be represented by the members of the Administrative Cabinet, as designated by the Presi dent, in all shared activities. The participation of the Academic Senate and members of the Adminis trative Cabinet, as designated by the President, in a shared governance committee or process constitutes the provision for "mutual agreement with the Govern ing Board as articulated in Section 53203 of the California Education Code. (3) Butte Community College District recognised that the rights and responsibilities of the Board of Trustees are derived from the Education code of the State of California. The Board delegates its' authority and designates the Superintendent/Presi dent and such representative^) as he or she may designate, to implement its' policies on governance. (4) The San Diego Community College District's Shared Governance Policy cites except in unforsee- able, emergency situations, the Governing Board shall not take action on matters significantly affecting staff and the student unit unless it has 119 provided staff and students an opportunity to participate in the formulation and development of those matters. (5) According to College of the Redwoods District, the Board of Trustees has final responsibility and authority for college policies and procedures. The Board charges the President with the responsibility for governance of the institution, in turn, the President creates a structure and a systematic process for decision making which allows for the effective participation of faculty, staff, and students. Characteristic B: Reflects traditional leadership. Definition of Characteristic B: The core of traditional leadership centers around the Governing Board and the President of the college or university. Essenti ally, only authority delegated by law is relinquished. The President is perceived as the hero and people trust him or her to do what is best for the educational insti tution. The preceding addresses: • Traditional Leadership • Traditional Organisational Structure • Limited Power sharing 120 The following community college districts character ize Collegial/Bureaucratic Model B: {1) Allan Hancock Community College District's Governing Board shared governance policy cites the District's Board has ultimate responsibility to act on behalf of the District. (2) Antelope Valley College District acknowledges the participation of the Academic Senate and members of the Administrative Cabinet, as designated by the President. However, the Board of Trustees shall be represented by the members of the Adminis trative Cabinet, as designated by the President, in all shared governance activities. Characteristic C: Reflects bureaucratic decisions based on a formal system of standard operating proce dures, information flows horizontal and vertical. Definition of Characteristic C: In a formal organi zation system individuals are cognizant of the organiza tions operating procedures. In order for standard proce dures to remain intact, everyone must receive pertinent information and be willing to accept it. The above cited addresses: • Organizational chain of command is clearly reflected in the district's flow chart 121 • Organization's efficiency is based on standard procedures • Organization is monitored by written policies The following community college districts character ize Collegial/Bureaucratic Model C: {1) Allan Hancock Community College District Board Policy cites when consensus cannot be reached, the Governing Board has the ultimate responsibility to act. However, such action should be taken only after every effort has been made to resolve the mat ter collegially. Board action should only occur in unusual circumstances and for compelling reasons. When the above conditions exist, the Board's decision will be accompanied by a written explana tion to the parties involved. Characteristic D: Reflects adherence to organiza tional policies, educational codes and AB 1725 mandates. Definition of characteristic D: California Community College Districts are governed by Title V Education Codes. Assembly Bill 1725 shared governance regulations are cited in sections 51023 (faculty), 53200 (Academic Senate), 51023.5 (staff), 51023.7 (students) and 53203 (Powers). In addition to the above, the Community College Districts have established 122 organizational policies that are reflected in their districts shared governance model. The district's organizational policies denotes their interpretation of Title V shared governance regulations. The above cited addresses: • Educational policies and code of ethics are adhered to. • The District's governance structure reflects state and federal laws. • Constituents are recognized within the frame work of the law. The following community college districts character ize Collegial/Bureaucratic Model D: (1) San Bernardino Community College District is committed to the idea of shared governance as assured in Assembly Bill 1725. The District ack nowledges the rights and responsibilities accorded to all parties within the District to participate effectively in District governance and supports the establishment of procedures whereby faculty, staff and students are ensured of appropriate consulta tion on matters affecting them. The District recognizes the responsibility of the Governing 123 Board and the Academic Senates to "consult collegially" when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters as delineated in Title V. (2) San Francisco Community College District's shared governance policy cites that the Board of Trustees embraces the concept of shared governance as a fundamental policy of the college, while retaining its own rights and responsibilities as the ultimate authority in all areas defined by state laws and regulations. The District's Board of Trustees state procedures shall be established to ensure faculty, staff, and students: a. The opportunity to express their opinions and to ensure that these opinions shall be given every reasonable consideration; and the right to participate effectively in college governance. (3) San Joaquin Delta Community College District's shared governance policy recognizes the Academic Senate as the official representative of the teach ing staff of the District. The Academic Senate advises on matters of academic and professional concerns as cited in section 53200 through 53205 of Title V of the California Administrative Code. 124 In addition to the above, the District's shared governance policy cites that classified employees and students will participate in the governance process. Classified employees, will review all proposed policies and procedures or changes in policy and procedures which includes negotiable matters or existing contracts prior to their adoption or implementation. (4) San Luis Obispo County Community College Dis trict's Shared Governance Policy cites faculty, staff and students will be provided with opportun ities to participate in the formulation and devel opment of district and college policies and proce dures . (5) According to the Board of Trustees of Santa Barbara City College, the District is committed to Collegial governance as a fundamental policy of the college in academic and professional matters as specified in Title V of the California Education Code (E.C. 53200). Collegial governance involves the participation of administrators, faculty, staff and students in college planning and the development of policies and procedures by which the college is governed and administered. 125 Characteristic E: Reflects the development of a sub-group decision making process, instead of total group participation in decision making. Definition of Characteristic E: A sub-group decision making process involves the input of certain group(s). The above process does not address the partic ipation of all groups who will be effected by the dis trict's policies. Assembly Bill 1725 shared governance regulations 51023 (faculty), 51023.5 (staff) and 51023.7 (students) cite that districts shall adopt policies and procedures that provide faculty, staff and students the opportunity to participate effectively in district and college governance. The above addresses the following: • Governance policies did not reflect express language of total group participation. • Governance structure may affect team building. • Only powerful group(s) are involved in decision making. None of the California Community College District's shared governance models reflect characteristic E. 126 Shared Governance Characteristics Models Charts The following shared governance characteristics models charts will illustrate the California Community College Districts Collegial Models and Collegial and Bureaucratic Models, The shared governance character istics models charts will reveal the collegial charac teristics and the Collegial/Bureaucratic characteristics of each district's governance policy models. The letters displayed in the shared governance characteristics models charts, under the columns titled collegial and Collegial/. Bureaucratic coincides with the letter description on the Governance Characteristics Profile Checklists. Please refer to Appendix (D) to review the Collegial Model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist and Appendix (E) for the Collegial/ Bureaucratic Model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. Also, refer to Appendix (I) for a summary of the (49) California Community College District's Collegial Models and Appendix (J) for the (14) California Community College Districts Collegial/Bureaucratic Models. 127 Table 4.1 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial Governance Collegial Collegial/Bureaucratic Districts Characteristics Characteristics 1. Barstow A,D,E D 2. Cabrillo A,D,E D 3. Cerritos A,D,E D 4. Chaffey A, D, E D 5. Coast A,B,C,D,E D 6. Contra Costa A, D, E D 7. Desert A, D,E A, D 8. El Camino A,B,C,E D 9. Feather Rivers A,C,D,E D 10. Glendale A,D,E A, D 11. Grossmont- A,D,E A, D Cuyamaca 12. Lake Tahoe A,D,E D 128 Table 4.1 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial Governance (Continued) Collegial Collegial/Bureaucratic Districts Characteristics Characteristics 13. Lassen A, D, E A, D 14. Long Beach A, D, E D 15. Los Rios A,C,D,E A, D 16. Marin A, C, D, E D 17. Mendocino Lake A,C,D,E A,D 18. Merced A, D, E A,D 19. Mira Costa A, D, E A, D 20. Monterey- Peninsula A, D, E A, D 21. Mt. San Antonio A,C,D,E A, D 22. Napa Valley A,C,D,E A, D 23. Palo Verde A,D,E A, D 24. Paloraar A, B ,E A, D 25. Pasadena A, D, E A, D 26. Peralta A,C,D,E A, D 27. Rancho Santiago A,B,C,D,E A, D 129 Table 4.1 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial Governance (Continued) Collegial Collegial/Bureaucratic Districts Characteristics Characteristics 28. Redwoods A,C,D,E A,D 29. Rio Hondo A, C, D, E A, D 30. San Bernardino A, C, D, E A, D 31. San Francisco A, C, D,E A,D 32. San Joaquin A, D, E D 33. San Jose- Evergreen A,B,D,E A, D 34. San Luis Obispo a ,d,e D 35. San Mateo AfBfCfD/E A,D 36. Santa Barbara A, D, E D 37. Santa Clarita A,D,E A, D 38. Sequoias A f C f D f E D 39. Sierra Joint A,D,E A, D 40. Siskiyou A,D,E A, D 41. Solano A, D, E E 42. Sonoma A,B,D,E D 43. Southwestern A,C,D,E none 44. State Center C,D,E D 45. Ventura County A,D,E D 46. Victor Valley A,D,E A,D 130 Table 4.1 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial Governance (Continued) Districts Collegial Characteristics Collegial/Bureaucratic Characteristics 47. West Kern A, D, E D 48. West Valley A,C,D,E D Mission 49. Yuba A, D,E D Summary of Findings The following is a summary of the major findings reported in Chapter IV and appearing in the same sequence as the questions appear in the statement of the problem: 1. Based on the data obtained from the sixty-three (63) California Community College Districts govern ance policy models, the data revealed that the fol lowing models are effective in meeting the shared governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725. The above cited addresses and analysis of the formal organizational structure. 131 Table 4.2 Characteristics of Shared Governance Plans in Districts with Collegial/Bureaucratic Governance Collegial Districts Characteristics Collegial/Bureaucratic Characteristics 1. Allan Hancock A, D, E B,C,D 2. Antelope Valley A,E A, B, D 3, Butte D A, D 4. Chabot- D A, D Las Posita 5. Fremont-Newark D D 6. Gavilan E A, D 7. Imperial D D 8. Mt. San Jacinto D A,D 9. Riverside D D 10. Saddleback D D 11. San Diego E A,D 12. Santa Monica D D 13. Shasta-Tehama- D D Tri Joint 14. Yosemite D D 132 a. Collegial Model b. Collegial/Bureaucratic Model * None of the District's shared governance models reflect a Collegial/Political model Motimer and McConnell (1978) states endorsement of the concept of shared authority does not dictate one particular pattern of governance. 2. The analysis revealed the factors that are important and were present in the California Commun ity College District models of governance are: a. Teamwork and open communication b. Understanding and acceptance of the require ments of Assembly Bill 1725 and the role of alternative governance in the California Community College District c. Training in the area of collaborative decision-making d. Institutional planning e. Organizational flow chart f. Evaluation component The data obtained from the study indicates that there are: a. Forty-nine (49) or 77% collegial governance models in the California Community College Districts 133 b. Fourteen (14) or 22% of the California Com munity College Districts models are Collegial/Bureaucratic c. There are zero (0) Collegial/Political Models 6. The California Community College Districts Col legial Models and Collegial/Bureaucratic Models governance characteristics charts, illustrate the shared governance models Collegial and Collegial/ Bureaucratic characteristics. The preceding exemp lifies that pursuant to the mandate of Assembly Bill 1725, shared governance has been implemented in the California Community College Districts. 134 CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Assembly Bill 1725's, shared governance requirements boldly embraces the concept of alternative governance in the academy milieu. In order to adequately prepare educational organizations to meet the demands of the 21st century, it is imperative that educational leaders embrace innovative and visionary leadership concepts. Education is a business. Therefore, all stakeholders (i.e., faculty, staff, students and administrators) must be involved in problem solving, institutional/budgetary planning and policy development. By allowing, education al stakeholders to contribute to the pride of responsi bility for quality, educational leaders are acknowledging the professional expertise in the education environment. Thereby, contributing to the development and empowerment of tomorrow's leadership ("our students.") This chapter presents the major findings and conclusions of this study. Recommendations to assist in the continuous development of shared governance have been formulated from the review of literature, the findings, 135 and the California Community College Districts governance models. Summary The fundamental purpose of this study was to evaluate the collegiality of the California College Districts 71 governance models. More specifically, the purpose of this study was to ascertain if the Districts governance models are: 1. Purely collegial 2. A combination of collegial and bureaucratic 3. Or, collegial and political This study sought answers to the following questions: 1. What are the factors that are important in a model of governance? 2. To what extent are these factors present in the California Community College Districts shared governance models? 3. Which models appear to be effective in meeting the governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725? 136 4. How many of the California Community Colleges governance models reflect: a. Collegial Model b. Collegial and Bureaucratic Model c. Collegial and Political Model The Procedure The data for this study was derived from three sources: 1. Related literature and research of the histor ical perspective, evolution and legislative parameters of shared governance, models of governance in colleges and universities and collegiality and organizational theories and the application to Assembly Bill 1725. 2. The Governance Characteristic Profile Check list and the Governance Characteristic Pro file Summary and Recommendations (See Appendix D, E, F, and G). 3. The California Community College Districts Shared Governance Policies. The Superintendents and Presidents for the Cali fornia Community Colleges Districts were apprised of this study during the California Community Colleges League 137 Conference. In order to conduct the analysis of the Districts shared governance models, the colleges CEO's submitted their governance policies to the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Office. Subsequently, the policies were forwarded to the author of this dissertation for analysis. Selected Findings Descriptive and quantitative data were used to describe the collegiality of the shared governance models in the California Community College Districts. Selected findings pertaining to the data from the California Community College District's governance policy models are presented as following: 1. Data obtained from the study indicates: a. Forty-nine (49) Collegial shared governance models in the California Community College Districts b. Fourteen (14) Collegial and Bureaucratic shared governance models in the California Community College Districts. Conclusions 138 This study's findings led to the following conclusions: 1. The California Community College Districts have been effective in meeting the requirements of the law and in developing a shared governance policy for their district. 2. The descriptive and qualitative data shows that the California Community Colleges Districts Collegial Models and Collegial/Bureaucratic Models reflect collegial characteristics and Collegial/Bureaucratic characteristics. 3. Factors that are important in a governance model are: a. Team work and open communication. b. Understanding and acceptance of the require ments of Assembly Bill 1725, and the role of alternative governance in the California Community College Districts. c. Training in the area of collaborative deci sion making. d. Institutional planning. e. Organizational flow chart. f. Evaluation component. Recommendations 139 Based on this study's findings and conclusions, as well as, the results of the analysis of the 63 California Community College districts shared governance models the following recommendations are made: 1. This study has provided descriptive and qualita tive data that illustrates the following govern ance models are effective in meeting the shared governance requirements of Assembly Bill 1725: a. Collegial Model b. Collegial/Bureaucratic Model The result of this study should be used by the Vice Chancellor of General Counsel, Superintendents/ Presidents, Academic Senate, Administrators, Classified Staff and Associated Student Body of the California Community College Districts. To design and implement campus-wide training in the area of shared governance pursuant to the mandates of Assembly Bill 1725. Such training should encompass: a. Group dynamics b. Participatory Management c. Innovative and visionary leadership styles d. Alternative education organization design and evaluation instruments e. Designing and developing curriculum/ instruction and educational policies that will increase learning and productivity in the 21st century. f. Staff development training should be fol lowed by a structured debriefing session in which participants will have the opportunity to dialogue and discuss methods of implemen tation . The Vice Chancellor of General Counsel's Office should consider presenting staff development training in shared governance by way of telecom munication. In order to promote continuity in collaborate decision/skill building techniques the author of this dissertation recommends that all staff development training sessions presented by the Vice Chancellor of General Counsel's Office be video taped. The staff development tapes should be housed at the State Chancellor's Office and serve as an initial introduction in the develop ment of a Technological Shared Governance Loan Library. The Technological Shared Governance Loan Library will assist Community College Districts in California and throughout the United States in the following manner: a. Community College Districts will strengthen their shared governance model. b. Community College Districts could design and implement a shared governance model in their district. c. Community College Districts could introduce shared governance cross training to the Academic Senate, staff, students and managers. d. Community College Districts Governing Board could engage in alternative governance cross training. e* Community College Districts could develop distance learning courses in the area of collaborative decision making. This study's results indicated that some districts have not developed or implemented shared governance. The descriptive and qualita tive data solicited from this study can greatly aid those districts in developing and implement ing shared governance policy. This study's results should be used by the Cali fornia State Legislators, Board of Governors and the Chancellor's Office to monitor the effec tiveness of Assembly Bill 1725, in introducing alternative and collegial governance in the California Community College Districts. An effort should be made by the California State Legislators, Board of Governors and the Vice Chancellor of General Counsel of the California Community Colleges to evaluate the fiscal impli cations to the districts in implementing shared governance. This study analyzed the formal organization structure of shared governance {i.e., shared governance districts policy models). An effort should be made by the Vice Chancellor of General Counsel Office to visit the sixty-three (63) districts campuses cited in this study to assess the informal organizational structure of shared governance. In order to determine the colleg iality of the informal structure and the corre lation's with the formal organization's shared governance models. 143 8. An effort should be made by the author of this dissertation to conduct post doctoral studies and continue to develop and refine the present research methodology in order to retrieve statistical data to determine the possible correlation's between decentralized governance models in the California Community College Districts and the CSU and the UC system. BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, Sacramento. (1992) . Toward a model academic adminis trator evaluation policy. Adopted November 7, 1992 (ED 354017) . Acebo, Sandy. (1992). The team as hero: A paradigm shift in college leadership. Leadership Abstracts. 5, 1-10. Albers, Henry, H. (1974). Principles of management: A modern approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Baldridge, J. Victor. (1971). Academic governance research on institutional politics and decision making. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Bennis, Warren and Nanus, Burt. (1985). Leaders the strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Birnbaum, Robert. (1988 ). How colleges work the cyber netics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brint, Steven and Karbel, Jerome. (1989). The diverted dream community colleges and the promise of educa tional opportunity in America, 1900-1985. (1st ed.). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. California Community Colleges, Sacramento. Board of Governors. (1992 ). AB 1725: A comprehensive analysis. ED 324084) . California Community Colleges, Sacramento. Board of Governors. (1992 ). The basic agenda: Policy directions and priorities for the nineties. (Revised July, 1992). (ED 351070). Carter, Edith H. (1988). Community College Journal for Research and Planning. VI, 1 & 2, (ED 318530). 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY {Continued) Cohen, Arthur, M. and Brawer, Florence, B. (1989). The American community college. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cohen, Arthur M. and Brawer, Florence, B. and Associates. (1994). Managing community colleges a Handbook for effective practice. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Corbin, Lynda R. (1990). The Form. VII (Summer, 1990). (ED 324053). Corson, John J. (1960). Governance of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Draper, Brice and van-Groningen, Tom. (1990). Collabor ative governance structures for success. The California and Yosemite community college district experience. (ED 3446909). Flanigan, Patricia, K. (March, 1994). From educational reform to change: California community college model for faculty governance. Ca: University of La Verne. Garrett, Rick, L. (1990). Degree of Centralization of Governance of State Community College Systems in the United States, 1990. Community College Review, 20, 1. Giles, Ray. (1986). Community College Governance: Three Reform Recommendations. A position paper. (The California community College Trustee's Response to the First Draft of the Reassessment study of the Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education). Sacramento: California Community Colleges Trustees Association. Gonzales, Frank, S. (1989). Implementing total quality management at El Camino College. (ED 356827). Green, Madeleine, F. (1988). Leaders for a new ERA strategies for higher education. New York: American Council on Education and MacMillan, Inc. Gulassa, Cy. (1988-1989). Collaborative Governance in the Foothill/De Anza Community College District. Management Report. 3., (ED 322965). 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) Ingram, Richard, T. and Associates. (1993). Governing public colleges and universities. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Issac, Stephen and Michael, William, . (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation for education and the behavioral sciences, (2nd ed.). San Diego: EdITS Publishers. Jaeger, Richard M. (1990). Statistics a spectator sport. (2nd ed.). Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc. Koontz, Harold, O'Donnell, Cyril and Weihrich, Heinz. (1980). Management. (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Lawler III, Edward, E. (1992). The ultimate advantage creating the high involvement organization. San Fran cisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Majette-Daniels, Baji. (Summer, 1990). The Forum. VII, (ED 324053). Marsh, David. (1992). School leadership and instruc tional improvement. I and II (Compilation of readings for a USC Doctoral Course). Mira Costa College, Del Mar, California. (1990). The relationships among the governing board, the superin tendent/president, and the academic senate in collegial governance at Mira Costa College and the Mandate of AB 1725. (ED 34082). Mitchell, Grace, N., Grant, Ann B. and Rossa, Marilyn. (1992). Shared governance: Keys to a successful process. Leadership Abstracts. 5, 1-10 . Mortimer, Kenneth, P. and McConnell, T. R. (1978). Sharing authority effectively. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Nussbaum, Thomas J. (1992). Too much law...Too much structure: Together we can cut the Gordian Knot. (ED 354049). 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) Nussbaum, Thomas, J. (1995). Evolving Community College Shared Governance to Better Serve the Public Interest. Unpublished monograph. Peterson, Marvin W., Chaffee, Ellen, E. and White, Theodore H. (1991). Organization and governance in higher education. (4th ed.). Massachusetts: Ginn Press. Phi Delta Kappan. (January, 1994). 75, 5. Plunkett, Warren, R. and Attner, Raymond, F. (1994). Introduction to Management. (5th ed.). Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Powers, David, R. and Powers, Mary, F. (1983). Making participatory management work. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Inc., Publishers. Rausch, Erwin. (1980) . Leading groups to better decisions; A management in institutions of higher learning. New York: Lexington Books. Roueche, John E., Baker, George, A. and Rose, Robert R. (April, 1989). Shared vision transformational leader ship in American community colleges. Washington, D.C.: The community College Press American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Scott, William G., Mitchell, Terrence R., and Birnbaum, Philip H. (1981). Organization theory a structural and behavioral analysis. (4th ed,). Illinois: Richard D. Irwin. Vaughan, George, B. (1985). The community college in America: A short history. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Vaughan, George, B. and Associates. 91992). Dilemmas of leadership decision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. White, Kenneth, B. (1990). The Implementation of State mandated Program Review: A Case study of Governance and Decision Making in Community College. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. (ED 326117). APPENDICES 150 APPENDIX A TRADITIONAL GOVERNANCE MODELS SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES THREE MODELS OF DECISION MAKING AND GOVERNANCE Traditional Governance Models Similarities and Differences Three Models of Decision Making and Governance Bureaucratic Collegial Political Assumption about structure Social Hierarchical bureaucracy Community of peers Basic theoretical foundations View of decision making process Cycle of decision making Unitary: integrated by formal system Weberian bureaucracy, classic studies of formal systems "Rational" decision making; standard operating procedures Problem definition; search for alternatives; evalua tion of alternatives; cal culus; choice; implementa tion Unitary: integrated by peer consensus Professionalism literature, human- relations approach to organization Shared collegial decision: consensus, community partici pation As in bureaucratic model, but in addi tion stresses the involvement of pro fessional peers in the process Fragmented, complex professional Feder ation Pluralistic: passes different interest groups with divergent vales Conflict analysis, interest group theory, community power literature Negotiation, bargain ing, politiical brok erage, external influence Emergence of issue out of social context interest articulation conflict; legislative process; implementa tion of policy feed back Source: Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991, p. 42). APPENDIX B IMAGES OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT UNDER THREE MODELS OF GOVERNANCE Images of Leadership and Management Under Three Models of Governance Bureaucratic Collegial Political Basic Leadership Hero Technical problem "First among equals" Statesman Political image leadership management solving skills Interpersonal dynamics strategy, inter personal dynamics, coalition Management "Scientific management" Management by con Strategic decision Expectation very high: people believe sensus making the hero-leader can solve Modest: Leader is Modest: Leader problems and he tries to developer of con Marshalls political play the role sensus among professionals action, but is con strained by the counter efforts of other groups Source: Peterson, Chaffee and White (1991, p. 44). APPENDIX C THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENTIATION AND SIMILARITIES ON THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS The Effects of Differentiation and Similarities on the Governance Process View of Human Nature Strategies Used for Support Strategies Used for Control Result Differen tiation Difference in people and structures Technical ration ality in response to task demands Decentralization Line and staff selection Reward system Participative strate gies lead to substan tive due process some changes in power dis tribution Similarities Attempts to overcome differences caused Organizational rationality in response to problems of coordination and cooperation Committees linking positions communi cation channels rules and procedures Formalized strategies lead to procedural due process Source: Scott, Mitchell and Birnbaum (1981, p. 319). APPENDIX D GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL MODEL 157 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC Profile Checklist B. C. D. E. Collegial Model: A. Reflects a holistic governance approach to organi zational design. B. Reflects govern ance from a global perspective and supports the devel opment of visionary leadership. C. Governance flow chart which illus trates team build ing. Coupled with an evaluation pro cess to ascertain the effectiveness of collegial governance. D, Scholarly par ticipation in the academic milieu. E. Collegial deci sion based on total group participa tion and a consen sus of an equal voice. Name of College District(s) ______ 158 APPENDIX E GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL/BUREAUCRATIC MODEL 159 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC Profile Checklist Collegial/ Bureaucratic Model: A. B. C. D. E. A. Reflects a hierarchical governance. B. Reflects tradi tional Leadership C. Bureaucratic deci sions based on a formal system of standard operating procedures, infor mation flows hori zontal and vertical. D, Reflects adher ence to organiza tional policies, educational codes and AB 1725 mandates. E. Reflects the development of a sub-group decision making process, instead of total group participa tion in decision making. Name of College District(s) ______ Recommendations Evaluator _______ 160 APPENDIX F GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL/POLITICAL MODEL 161 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC Profile Checklist Collegial/Political Model: A. B. C. D. E. A, Reflects micro management leadership. B. Reflects a non- holistic governance approach to organizational design. C. Reflects a fragmented organiza tional flow chart. D. Reflects a decision making process based on non-collegial narticination. E. Reflects non- compliance with the shared governance mandates outlined in Assembly Bill 1725. Name of College District(s) _______ Recommendations Evaluator _______ 162 APPENDIX 6 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS NAME OF COLLEGE:_______________________________ DISTRICT(S):___________________________________ EVALUATOR: ________ _____________________________ Date:___________________/_____/_____ SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATIONS: APPENDIX H MEMORANDUM TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRESIDENTS California c o m m u n i t y c o l l e g e s I IC7 NiNln U«in O 91B1 * fO lt> +4H7i; November 15, 1954 TO; Superintendents and Presidents - ‘Tf\em 1 1 * t ’ ■ — FROM: Thomas J/Nussbaum Vice Chancellor and General Counsel SUBJECT: Shared Governance Policies Synopsis: Please send the Chancellor's Office a copy of your district's shared governance policies for faculty (academic senate), staff and students. The Chancellor's Office, with the assistance of a graduate student doing a dissertation on community college shared governance, plans to analyze these policies as part of the system's review of AB 1725. Your cooperation in sending copies of your shared- governance policies will ensure that all or most colleges are included in the analysis. R esponse Requested/Date: Please send copies of the shared governance policies to Tom Nussbaum Vice Chancellor and General Counsel California Community Colleges 1107 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814-3607 C ontact Tom Nussbaum (916)445-4826. cc: David Merles Ernie Leach APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF THE (49) CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS COLLEGIAL MODELS 167 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Barstow College(s): Barstow Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Barstow Community College District Colle gial Governance Policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D, E and Collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix Section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. <1) Barstow Community College District Collegial Governance Policy state administrators, faculty, staff, and students at Barstow College, recognize their common interest in the success and well-being of the College. In order to insure its success, everyone shares in the responsibility of acting jointly so that the College speaks to the community with one voice, maintains stability and continuity, and effectively fulfills its stated mission. The above characterize collegial Model concepts A and E. (2) The Barstow Community College District Council is an organization through which the collegial governance system of the College is coordinated. The council may provide consensus recommendations to the College 160 President and/or Administrative Cabinet on matters of college-wide interest and concern and will make collec tive decisions for recommendations that require Board action. The basic function of the Barstow College Council is to serve as: a. the oversight body for the development and coor dination of strategic institutional planning b. the budget committee c. the oversight and reviewing body for College Council documents or processes d. the campus group to receive information on recommended policies to the Barstow Community College District Board of Trustees from the Academic Senate or administration The membership of the Barstow Community College District Council is: a. the President b. five administrative team members c. four faculty members d. two classified members e. two students f. two Classified management g. two certificated management 169 The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E. (3) The Barstow Community College District's Academic Senate is primarily responsible for: 1. Defining, evaluating and implementing policy in the following academic and professional matters: a. Curriculum b. Degree and certificate requirements c. Grading policies d. Educational program development e. Standards or policies regarding student prepara tion and success f. Faculty rules and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports g. Insuring, through the Staff Development Committee, the quality of faculty development activities h. Processes for program review i. Hiring and evaluating peer faculty within the established College procedures j. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the Governing Board and the Faculty Senate 170 2. Participating in the governance of the College in the Following ways: a. Representing the faculty on the College Council b. Participating in College committees as appropri ate The above cited characterize the following: collegial model concept D and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (4) The Barstow Community College District's Classified Staff is primarily responsible for: a. Insuring the high quality of support services for students, instruction, and administration b. Insuring the quality of physical plant and grounds maintenance c. participating in institution-wide decision making processes through representatives on the College Council d. Developing continuing in-service training oppor tunities for classified staff through the Staff Development Committee e. Participating in College committees, as appropriate The Barstow Community College District's Student Senate, operating under its Constitution, is primarily responsible for: 171 a. Insuring the existence and health of a valid system of representative student government b. Providing feedback to the College regarding concerns and issues instructional, student services or administrative nature c. Accepting responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of curricular programs d. Participating in College Council The above cited characterize collegial model con cepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Barstow Community College District's shared govern ance model is collegial (C). Barstow Community College District's shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteris tic Profile checklist, Literature review and Barstow Community College District's Collegial Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 172 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Cabrillo College(s): Cabrillo Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Cabrillo Community College District Governing Board policy 2130, 2140 and 2150 reflect collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix Section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Govern ance Characteristic Profile. (1) Cabrillo Community College District Governing Board Policy 2130 (Faculty Role In Governance) cite Chapter 97 3, Statutes of 1988 enacted a new structure of governance for the California Community College system. In accord with this directive as implemented by Adminis trative Code, Title 5, it shall be the policy of the Cabrillo College Governing Board to consult collegially with the Cabrillo College Faculty Senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters. Cabrillo Community College District's admin istrative regulation state that the President/Superin tendent or his/her designee or the Faculty Senate President or his/her designee is responsible for the 173 initiation and facilitation of appropriate collegial consultation on "academic and professional matters," as follows: a. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and planning courses within disciplines b. Degree and certificate requirements c. Grading policies d. Educational program development e. Standards or policies regarding student prepar ation and success f. District and college governance structure, as related to faculty roles g. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self study and annual reports h. Policies for faculty professional development activities i. Processes for program review j. Processes for institutional planning and budget development, and k. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the Governing Board and the Academic Senate 174 The appointment of faculty members to serve on college committees, task forces, or other groups dealing with academic and professional matters shall be made, after consultation with the President/Superintendent or his/her designee, by the Faculty Senate. Notwithstanding this subsection, the faculty's collective bargaining representative may seek to appoint faculty members to committees, task forces or other groups. The above characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. (2) According to Cabrillo Community College District's Board Policy 2140 (staff role in governance), Classified staff shall be represented for this purpose by the recognized bargaining unit and administrative, man agement and confidential staff through established staff councils and committees (Faculty and academic staff roles are addressed under another Board policy). The Board directs the President/Superintendent to provide staff with opportunities for participating in the formulation and development of college policies and procedures, and in those processes for jointly developing recommendations for action by the Governing Board, that the Governing Board reasonably determines, in consultation with staff, policies that will have a significant effect on staff. The policies and procedures of the Governing Board will 175 ensure that the recommendations and opinions of staff are given every reasonable consideration. Except for unfore seeable, emergency situations, the Governing Board will not take action on matters significantly affecting staff until appropriate opportunity for consultation has been provided. The preceding characterize collegial model concept A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (3) Cabrillo Community College District's Board Policy 2150 (Student Role in Governance) states the Cabrillo College Student Senate is recognized as the representative body of students to offer opinions and to make recommendations to the administration of the college and to the Governing Board with regard to policies and procedures that have, or will have a significant effect on students. The selection of student representatives to serve on college committees, task forces, or other governance groups shall be made after consultation between the President/Superintendent or his/her designee and the Student Senate. The President/Superintendent or his/her designee is responsible for the initiation of the appropriate opportunity for student participation in the development of college policies and procedures that have, or will have a significant effect on students, such as: 176 a. Grading policies b. Codes of student conduct c. Academic disciplinary policies d. Curriculum development e. Courses or programs which should be initiated or discontinued f. Processes for institutional planning and budget development g. Standards and policies regarding student prepar ation and success h. Student services planning and development i. Student fees within the authority of the District to adopt, and j. Policies and procedures pertaining to the hiring and evaluation of faculty and staff k. Any other policy/ procedure or related matter that the Governing Board determines will have a significant effect on students. Except in unforeseeable, emergency situations, the Governing Board will not take action on matters signifi cantly affecting students until appropriate opportunity for consultation has been provided. The above cited mirror collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. 177 Cabrillo Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Cabrillo Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature review and Cabrillo Community College District's governance policies 2130, 2140 and 2150. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 178 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Cerritos College(s): Cerritos Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Cerritos Community College District Board of Trustees statement of shared governance reflects collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Govern ance Characteristic Profile. (1) Cerritos Community College District's Board of Trustees, in accordance with Section 53200 to 53204 of Title V of the California Code of Regulations, adopts the following statement of policy, which delegates authority and responsibility over certain academic and professional matters to the Cerritos College Faculty Senate: a. The primary function of the Faculty Senate of Cerritos College District is to make recommenda tions to the administration and the Board of Trustees of Cerritos College with respect to the development and implementation of policy regarding academic and professional matters of the college. The academic and professional matters referred to above include, but are not limited to, the following: • Curriculum, including establishing course content and prerequisites, and placing courses within disciplines • Degree and certificate requirements • Grading policies • Educational program development • Standards and policies concerning student preparation and success • College governance structure, as related to faculty roles • Faculty involvement in the accreditation pro cess, including self-studies and annual reports • Policies for faculty professional development activities • Processes for program review • Processes for institutional planning and budget development • Selection, evaluation and retention of faculty 180 • Other academic and professional matters as may be mutually agreed upon from time to time between the Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate. In addition to the above, each Board Member, faculty member, classified staff person, administrator and student of Cerritos College has a vested interest in ensuring that the college fulfills its mission of pro viding quality education to the people of the Cerritos Community College District. The fulfillment of that mission is best accomplished through cooperative effort, trust, mutual respect, and the sharing of responsibil ities. The aforementioned characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (2) Cerritos Community College District Board of Trustees Student Shared Governance Policy state that the Board of trustees, recognizing the importance of provid ing students the opportunity to participate effectively in state, district, and college governance, shall in accordance with Section 51023.7 of Title V of the California Code of Regulations, adopt the following minimum standards: Students shall be provided an opportunity to participate in formulation and development of district and college policies and procedure that have or will have a significant effect on students. This right includes the opportunity to participate in processes for jointly develop ing recommendations to the governing board regarding such policies and procedures, such as: • Grading policies • Codes of student conduct • Academic disciplinary policies • Curriculum development • Courses or programs which should be initiated or discontinued • Processes for institutional planning and budget development • Standards and policies regarding student pre paration and success • Student services planning and development • Student fees within the authority of the dis trict to adopt • Any other district and college policy, proce dure or related matter that the district governing board determines will have a sig nificant effect on students. 182 The governing board shall give reasonable considera tion to recommendations and positions developed by students regarding district and college policies and procedures pertaining to the hiring and evaluation of faculty, administration and staff. The above cited characterise collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Cerritos Community College District shared govern ance model is collegial (C). Cerritos Community College District shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Character istic Profile checklist, Literature review and Cerritos Community College District's shared governance policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 183 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Chaffey College(s): Chaffey Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Chaffey Community College District's shared governance policy denotes collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Chaffey Community College District has had a long history of collegial governance. The major components of the college's governance model are: a. Faculty Senate b. Classified Senate c. Student Campus Council d. Committee Structure e. Communication Groups f. Planning/Coordination/Problem-Solving Groups The District utilizes a problem-solving collabora tive orientation approach to negotiations which fits the shared governance model. 184 The Faculty Senate and the Classified Senate and Student Campus Council, through their representation on the college's Policy and Budget Development Committee, reviews and recommends district policies and develops the college's annual budget. Each recommends appointments from its membership to college governance committees. The role of the Faculty Senate is to participate effec tively in the formation of college policy with respect to academic and professional matters. The rights and responsibilities of the Faculty Senate derive from the California Administrative Code Title 5. The Chaffey College District's Faculty Senate is, by law and custom, the primary means for the expression of faculty views and of participating in recommendations on academic and professional matters (Section 53200(c) of Title 5). The Senate is a formally defined component (AB 1725) of the overall governance structure of the college and is a mechanism of collegiality in governance. In support of the Faculty Senate the administration provides: • A .70 reassigned time for the Faculty Senate President; • Office and meeting space; • Secretarial support; 185 • Annual budget; • A formal place on the Governing Board agenda, as well as, a seat at the administrative table during Board meetings. In accord with Title 5, section 53200(c): • The college's Curriculum Committee is chaired by a faculty member on a .5 reassigned time, with secretarial support. • Program review is facilitated by a faculty member. • Faculty, staff, and professional development is conducted by a faculty member on reassigned time supported by a college wide committee. • Accreditation Self-Study: As part of the Board's commitment to shared governance, primary respon sibility for the college's 1992 accreditation was delegated to the faculty. The coordination of the college Self-Study for accreditation under the new standards of the accrediting commission was shared by a faculty member on reassigned time, and a faculty member was a chair of seven of the eight standards. The above cited characterize collegial model concept A, D. E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. 186 (2) Chaffey Community College District Classified Senate is an official governance body approved by the Governing Board to primarily: • voice the classified viewpoint on college issues and, • involve classified staff in campus committees which review and recommend policies and proce dures . In addition to the above, the role of the Student Campus Council of the Associated Students of Chaffey College is to provide for the material, social and governmental welfare of the students of Chaffey College, within the limits of the policies and regulations specified by its constitution and bylaws, and by the Governing Board. The above cited mirror collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Chaffey Community College District shared governance policy is Collegial (C). Chaffey Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature review and Chaffey Commun ity College District's Collegial Governance Policy. 187 Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 188 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Coast College(s): Coastline Community, Golden West and Orange Coast Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Coast Community College District shared governance policies reflects collegial model concepts A, B, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Coast Community College District's shared governance policy state all members of the campus community (Students, faculty, classified staff, and administrators) work together to create a stimulating environment in order to strengthen teaching and learning. To this end, all constituencies are committed to an open, honest community where freedom of expression and partici pation are uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed. The district cites the spirit of shared governance is that decision making should be decentralized and delegated to the most appropriate local sphere of influence and expertise whenever possible. 189 Each campus constituency has unique yet overlapping responsibilities and authority generated by law and each constituency's professional expertise. Each must recog nize and respect the unique expertise and authority of the others. As much as possible, the individual interest of all constituencies must merge into consensus for the good of the college as a whole, and especially for the needs of the students. The success of any policy depends upon its widespread acceptance. That acceptance occurs through the process of consensus. The means more than a mere rule by majority or a final decision by an adminis trative authority. It means that significant objections by a constituency should be accounted for in the process and general agreement shall be reached whenever possible. Present policies have presumption until consensus is reached. Subsequently, delays that avoid appropriate changes are counter-productive. Coast Community College District states there is a commitment required for decentralizing authority to the most appropriate local level. Shared governance is not a right that can be passively acquired. It must be actively and vigilantly pursued. All those who wish a voice in shared governance are encouraged to seek profes sional development relevant to enhancing their expertise as makers of policy. 190 According to Coast Community College District successful shared governance depends on a combination of several factors: • Effective communication • A working committee structure • Open access • Mutual respect and trust among all members of the campus community • An active spirit of teamwork and recognition that involvement in shared governance is part of one's responsibilities regardless of one's role on campus • The recognition that each constituency shares the responsibility to foster involvement by the other three • Fostering creativity and risk taking • Shared involvement in decision making which employs the collective thinking of persons best able to make such decisions and those affected by them. The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A, B, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (2) The Board of Trustees of the Coast Community College District recognizes the Academic Senate(s) as the 191 representative of the Faculty in making recommendations to the administration of the college and to the governing board of the District with respect to academic and pro fessional matters (Title 5, 53200(b). The Coast Community College District is committed to shared governance and views its faculty as a rich professional entity with both knowledge and expertise in developing policy and procedure. The Board views Academic Senate(s) input as essential in the development of its policies dealing with academic and professional matters. The Board of Trustees of the Coast Community College District, or such representatives as it may designate, will rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate(s) in developing policies involving the following academic and professional matters: a. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines. b. Policies for faculty professional development activities. The Board of Trustees of the Coast Community College District, or such representatives as it may designate, will reach mutual agreement with the representatives to the Academic Senate in developing policies regarding the following academic and professional matters: 192 c. Degree and certificate requirements d. Grading policies e. Educational program development f. Standards or policies regarding student prepara tion and success g. District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles h. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports i. Processes for program review j. Processes for institutional planning and budget development in instances where the Board of Trustees and the Academic Senate(s) cannot reach mutual agreement, existing policy shall remain in affect unless continuing with such policy expose the District to legal liability or causes substantial fiscal hardship. In cases where there is no existing policy, or in cases where the exposure to legal liability or substantial hardship requires existing policy to be changed, the governing board may act, after a good faith effort to reach agreement, but only for compelling legal, fiscal or organizational reasons (Title 5, 53203(d)(2)). When mutual agreement is not reached on an academic or 193 professional matter, the Academic Senate(s) may place the issue on the Board of Trustee's agenda through the Chan cellor's office. The above characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (3) The Associated Students of Coast Community College District is recognized throughout California and the United States for having the most comprehensive community college student government and leadership skills program. It is dedicated to Students Serving Students and offers unlimited opportunities to students who want to participate in a dynamic leadership develop ment program. This is accomplished by allowing students to participate in decision making, in shared governance, by serving on campus, district, and statewide committees along with faculty, staff, and fellow students. Accord ing to Coast Community College District, a review of existing mechanisms and practices of state and local governance, consultation, discussion, and research on the general topic of student participation in governance led to the conclusion that fulfillment of certain conditions are requisite if students are to participate effectively. Those conditions include: • A community of interest. Broadly stated, stu dents share an interest in receiving a quality 194 education. Methods for building a true com munity of interest are needed, including effective ways in which to communicate about and share responsibility for governance. • Continuity of relationships. Continuity is maintained by a concept of sharing subscribed to by the faculty, staff, and administration, by the establishment of viable student struc ture and services, and by sufficient training and counseling of student leaders. • A collective whole. Student bodies have not been successful in uniting and focusing their separate perspectives and procedures to the extent required to provide strong direction and authority to a group of representatives and to enable students to rely on the recom mendations of those representatives. Given the diversified character and immense size of the community college student population, this is difficult to attain. Yet, nevertheless, a necessity for effective participation of students in governance exists. • Committee appointments. The Associated Stu dents Board of Trustees or the designees shall develop a procedure for appointment of students 195 to committees with oversight by college offic ials and shall review this procedure annually. • Leadership and administrative support. Without well-trained, continuous leadership and estab lished administrative support, a student body is unlikely to participate effectively in any form of governance. • Vision. The final prerequisite to effective student participation is a sense of perspec tive and appropriate context and a view to the institution's or system's longer-term future. This includes a sense of continuity, of going beyond immediate concerns, and of including considerations other than the institution's in formulating opinions and developing recommenda tions . As Coast Community College District's shared governance policy states, from the above discussion, a number of themes emerge for encouraging greater partici pation by students in community college governance at the state and local levels. These themes are reflected in four general planning goals: • Enhancing access to governance mechanisms • Improving accountability 196 • Improving the quality and effectiveness of repre sentation • Improving communication and coordination These goals provide a framework for planning that builds upon the strength of the present while encouraging inno vations for the future. The above cited mirror collegial model concepts A, B, C and E. (4) Coast Community College District shared govern ance policy states classified staff participation in shared governance shall include: e College and district encouragement and support of classified staff to participate in shared govern ance . • Recognition of the need for all college constitu encies to participate in the decision making pro cess . • Opportunities for classified staff to participate in the formulation and development of district and college policies and procedures and in those processes for jointly developing recommendations for action by the governing board that have or will have a significant effect on classified staff. 197 • Participation made possible by support from supervisors that allows and encourages classi fied participation in ways such as: a. Adjusting workload, exercising flexibility, and substitution when possible. b. Release time, compensatory time, and/or overtime pay. c. Offering incentives for committee involve ment . d. Cross training programs. • Classified staff representation and participation on district and college committies. • Classified staff committee members selected by classified employees. • The right of the classified staff to participate in the activities of classified organization (such as the existing bargaining unit and other such bodies) for the purpose of providing oppor tunities for classified staff to express their views. • Orientation to committee participation. • The process of consensus. The success of any policy depends upon its widespread acceptance. While decisions may take longer through this process, they are better decisions because 198 there is broad commitment to their successful implementation. The preceding characterize collegial model concept A and E. Coast Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Coast Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature review and Coast Community College District's shared governance policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 199 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Contra Costa College(s): Contra Costa, Diablo Valley, Los Medanos Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Contra Costa Community College District denotes collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Contra Costa Community College District's Governing Board recognizes that one of the basic principles of governance in higher education is that authority derives not only from the powers vested in governing boards and their staff by laws, but also from the knowledge and experience possessed by the faculty, staff and others. Both sources of authority are vital to the development and implementation of sound educational policy. The Board directed the Chancellor and College Presidents to initiate the process with the appropriate groups to develop recommendations for an institutional governance model that meets the law and intent of AB 1725 for the colleges and the District. According to the Districts, the colleges will review its current 200 governance structure in light of AB 1725 to reach agree ment with faculty, staff and students on a governance model with the following parameters: • Each of the colleges will be able to develop a governance model that may be unique to its in stitution, but will meet the law and intent of AB 1725. • The colleges governance model must be supported by all constituent groups of the colleges and the College President. The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (2) Contra Costa Community College District shared governance policy states a District-wide task force will be formed with representatives of the leadership of the Academic Senate, Classified Senates, associated student organizations and District Council representatives to develop a recommendation for a District-wide governance structure which meets the law and intent of AB1725 and is supported by all constituent groups of the District and the Chancellor. The aforementioned characterize collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. 201 (3) The District's Board will consult collegially with the Academic Senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters as defined in Title 5, Section 53200(c). The Board, or such representatives as it may designate, and the representa tives of the Academic Senate shall have the obligation to reach mutual agreement by written resolution, regulation, or policy of the Board effectuating such recommendations. The Board recognizes that the Academic Senate is estab lished in order that the faculty have a formal and effective procedure for participation in the formation and implementation of District and college policies on academic and professional matters and, as the represen tatives of the faculty, has as its primary function that of making recommendations to the administration of the college and to the Governing Board of the District with respect to academic and professional matters. While in process of consulting collegially, the Academic Senate will retain the right to meet with or appear before the Board with respect to the views, recommendations, or proposals of the Senate. The above cited characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (4) Contra Costa Community College District's Board will consult collegially with the Classified Senates or 202 equivalent when adopting policies and procedures that it determines are likely to have significant impact on staff. Staff will have the opportunity to participate effectively in formulating District and college policies, and in those processes for jointly developing recommenda tions for action by the Governing Board that the Board determines, in consultation with staff are appropriate in accordance with approved institutional governance partic ipation structures and procedures for staff. The Board will ensure that the recommendations and opinions of staff are given reasonable consideration, and it will take action on matters significantly affecting staff until it has provided staff an opportunity to partici pate, except in unforeseeable, emergency situations. The above cited mirror collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (5) The Board will consult collegially with the associated student organizations as the representative bodies to offer opinions and to make recommendations with regard to policies and procedures that have or will have a significant effect on students as defined in Title 5, Sections 51025(b) and (c). Students will have the opportunity to participate effectively in formulating District and college policies, and in those processes for jointly developing recommendations for action by the Governing Board. The Board will ensure that at the District and college levels, recommendations and posi tions developed by students are given every reasonable consideration, and it will not take action on matters significantly affecting students until it has provided students an opportunity to participate. The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Contra Costa Community College District's shared governance policy is collegial (C). Contra Costa Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature Review and Contra Costa Community College District's shared governance policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con culsion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 204 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Desert College(s): College of the Desert Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Desert Community College District Shared Governance Policy denotes collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. <1) According to Desert Community College District's shared governance policy, Assembly Bill 1725 enacted a new structure of community college governance in part through strengthening the role of faculty, staff, and students. In order to ensure the faculty, staff, and students of Desert Community College District the right to participate effectively in District and College Governance, the Board of Trustees will establish proce dures in accordance with the provision of AB 1725, Title V, and the Directives of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The above cited mirror collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. 205 (2) The District's Board will consult collegially with the Academic Senate when adopting policies and pro cedures on academic and professional matters. The Board, or such representatives as it may designate, and the representatives of the Academic Senate shall have the obligation to reach mutual agreement by written resolu tion, regulation or policy of the Board effectuating such recommendations. The Board recognizes that the Academic Senate is established as the voice of the faculty, ensur ing that the faculty has a formal and effective procedure for participation in the formation and implementation of District policies on academic and professional matters. As the representative of the faculty, the Senate has as its primary function that of making recommendations to the administration of the college as the designee of the governing board with respect to academic and professional matters. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (3) Desert Community College District's committee structure is a primary mechanism for faculty, staff, and student participation in the governance process. The appointment of faculty members to serve on committees, to form committees, task forces, or other groups dealing with academic and professional matters, shall be made in consultation with the President or his designee, by the 206 Academic Senate. The Board of Trustees acknowledges the concept of collegial governance as a fundamental policy of the College while retaining its own rights and respon sibilities as the ultimate authority in all areas defined by State laws and regulations. The Board of Trustees has the right and responsibility to exercise the final decision on all recommendations. The aforementioned characterize collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Desert Community College District's shared governance policy is Collegial (C). Desert Community College District's shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Character istic Profile checklist, Literature Review and Desert Community College District's Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 207 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: El Camino College(s): El Camino Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: El Camino Community College District Shared Governance Policy reflects collegial model con cepts A, B, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) El Camino Community College District uses Total Quality (TQM) techniques to brainstorm issues related to the shared governance structure. According to El Camino Community College, the District's shared governance model consists of: • Establishment of a College Council, made up of participants from all the various campus constit uencies, whose scope will be institutional plan ning, budget development, and the development/ revision of campus-wide policies and procedures. Membership on the College Council will be fac ulty, students, classified staff and managers, 208 and chaired by the college President. The three Vice-Presidents, the Director of Personnel and the Director of Research, Planning and Develop ment will be ex-officio members of the College Council. • Establishment campus-wide of three "area coun cils" under each of the Vice-Presidents to include instruction, Student and Personnel Services and Administrative Services. Member ship on the area councils would include constit uent groups as appropriate to the scope of each area council. • Establishment of "Division Councils" in both instructional and non-instructional divisions that would constitute groups within each division. • Refinement of the current committee structure for El Camino College with new terminology for Committees, Sub-Committees and Task Forces to bring consistency to functions and the reporting of each committee at El Camino College. Each and every committee will now report to a sub committee of either the College Council or the Area Councils. 209 • The District's shared governance model addresses the importance of separating day-to-day opera tions and procedures from campus-wide policy and procedure development. • The District's shared governance model improves communication flow throughout the college organi zation . The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A, B, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (2) El Camino Community College District's shared governance evaluation process (named Committee on Commit tee) evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the District's shared governance process. The functions and responsibilities of the Committee on Committees are as follows: • reports to the College Council • annually updates the El Camino College Committee Handbook • monitors council resource support • reviews council/committee self-evaluations • develops master calendar Finally, each committee provides a written evalua tion of its performance which includes a statement of its goals, accomplishments/results, level of participation 210 and effective communication. The Committee on Committees consider opportunities for oral input and disseminate information to divisions and departments to encourage participation. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D and E. El Camino Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). El Camino Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature Review and El Camino Community College District's Shared Governance Policy, Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 211 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Feather River College(s): Feather River Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Feather River Community College District reflects collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B or the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Feather River Community College District's internal governance process contains the following units and duties: a. Cabinet: Receives and deliberates on policy recommendations from any and all groups, obtains constituent opinions and advises the President as to policy recommendations, to serve as a sounding board for college wide initiatives, and provides communication within the college. b. Accreditation Coordinating Committee: Organizes, monitors, and supports the institu tion's continuing self study and accreditation process. Strategic Planning Committee: Guides the devel opment and implementation of a strategic plan ning process including in-house training, devel opment of planning assumptions, identification of major problems and remedial activities, pri orities, and departmental objectives. Strategic Planning Committee institutionalize the planning process and ensures constituent support for it. Academic Policies Committee: Recommends policy (joint agreements) to the Academic Senate for any/all AB 1725 mandated areas except curriculum areas. Academic Senate: Representatives of the faculty, make recommendations and consult collegially with the administration and the local governing board. • Consult collegially for the area "curricu lum, " including prerequisites and placing courses within discipline shall mean that the governing board will develop policies relying primarily upon the advice and judg ment of the Academic Senate provided that: * Such process will be subject to 53203(d)(1) of the Board of Governors regulations. 213 f. Consult collegially for all other academic and professional matters shall mean that the governing board will develop policy after the Superintendent/President and representation of the Academic Senate shall reach mutual agree ment by written resolution, regulation or policy of the governing board effectuating such recommendation. g. The Board, Superintendent/President, and Academic Senate will review these methods of consulting collegially after one (1) year to determine their effectiveness. The above cited (1 through g) characterise collegial models concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Feather River Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Feather River Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance characteristic Profile checklist, Literature Review and Feather River Community College District's Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 214 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Glendale College<s): Glendale Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Glendale Community College District Governance Policy denotes collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Glendale Community College District's Govern ance Policy mission statement cite governance is a process involving faculty, administrators, classified staff and students in deliberations regarding day-to-day and long-range planning and policies for the college. These deliberations lead to recommendations which the Superintendent/President carries forward to the Board of Trustees for final action. The district's philosophy governance state governance is the democratic process utilized on campus in decision making procedures. Successful governance creates an environment of awareness on campus by having each constituency represented throughout the process. According to Glendale Community 215 College District, to be effective, governance must exhibit the following characteristics: a. capacity to establish directions and goals b. react to internal and external stimuli c. move with diligence and time lines d. provide the campus community with an annual cycle of planning and budgeting The district's governance process is designed to establish the goals, priorities, and objectives of the college. The exercise of administrative prerogatives must reflect these aims in order to perpetuate an environment of mutuality and trust. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E. (2) According to Glendale Community College District, principles of governance is: a. The Board of Trustees has final responsibility and authority for college policies and proce dures; any individual may address the Board regarding these policies and procedures. b. The Board of Trustees charges the Superinten dent/President with the responsibility for governance of the institution; subsequently, the Superintendent/President creates a structure and systematic process for decision making. The campus governance structure is charged with making recommendations on issues affecting the institution. These recommendations normally travel from subcommittees to standing commit tees. Standing Committees discuss and review the recommendations prior to sending recommended actions forward to Campus Executive Committee, which is chaired by the Superintendent/Presi dent, who in turn is charged with carrying the approved recommendations forward to the Board of Trustees. The college recognizes the role of collective bargaining in certain aspects of policy develop ment and implementation. The college recognizes the Academic Senate's primary responsibility for making recommenda tions in areas of curriculum and academic stan dards (AB 1725). The membership and interrelationships of commit tees gives the governance structure preeminence in the decision making process. Broad participation from all segments of the campus is encouraged; all four campus constituencies (administrative, faculty, class ified, students) are represented on most governance committees. Each constituency represented on a committee appoints their own representatives, taking into account not only the needs of the constituency, but also the broader need of the college. Any governance subcommittee, through minutes which are forwarded to its respective Standing Committee, can make recommendations to Campus Executive. The college community as a whole is made aware of the governance process and has access to it through constituency representation. A consis tent effort is made to keep the campus informed through the publication and distribution of the Governance Update, with the Consent Calendar attached and through posted information on the governance bulletin board, which is located in the Administration Building. Governance is facilitated by communication, timely and appropriate notice of meetings, public deliberation, full campus participation and published records. 218 1. Each governance subcommittee and each govern ance standing committee is expected to take action minutes. Each subcommittee is charged with forwarding those minutes to their respec tive standing committee and to the governance office. In turn, standing committees are charged with review and action on minutes received from their respective subcommittees. Consequently, standing committees final actions are forwarded, via minutes, to the governance office for inclusion in the Consent Calendar and to Campus Executive Committee for recommenda tions to the Board. The above mirror collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Glendale Community College District's Governance Policy model is collegial (C). Glendale Community College District's shared governance model analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Glendale Community College District's Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 219 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca College(s): Cuyamaca and Grossmont Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARYi Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community college District's shared governance policy state that the Governing Board or its designee(s) shall consult collegially with repre sentatives of the Academic Senate of Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges to reach mutual agreement in the development of policies and procedures on academic or professional matters. In the development of policies or procedures, after consultation with the administration of the colleges/district, the Academic Senates may present their views and recommendations to the Governing Board. In instances where agreement is not reached, existing policy shall remain in effect unless continuing such policy exposes the District to legal liability or causes 220 substantial fiscal hardship. In cases where there is no existing policy, or in cases where exposure to legal liability or substantial fiscal hardship requires existing policy to be changed, the Governing Board may act, after a good faith effort to reach agreement, for compelling legal, fiscal, or organizational reasons. The above reflects collegial model concepts A and D and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (2) Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's shared governance policy state it shall be the policy of the Board to provide opportunity and encouragement for classified staff to participate effectively in District and college governance. Classified staff shall be provided with opportunities to participate in the formulation and development of District and college policies and procedures through membership on appropriate District and campus committees. In development of policies or procedures, after consultation with adminis tration of the colleges/district, the classified senate and the classified bargaining representatives may present their views and recommendations to the Board. The above mentioned characterize collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (3) Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's shared governance policy cite it shall be the policy of 221 the Board to provide opportunity and encouragement for students to participate effectively in District and college governance. Student government representatives shall be provided with opportunities to participate in the formulation and development of District and college policies and procedures that have significant effect on students, through membership on appropriate District and campus committees. In the development of policies or procedures, after consultation with administration of the colleges/district, the campus student government may present their view and recommendations to the Board. The above mirror collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District's Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 222 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Lake Tahoe College(s): Lake Tahoe Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Lake Tahoe Community College District's shared policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Lake Tahoe Community College District's shared governance policy cite the Academic Senate, organized under the provisions of the Title V, Regulation 53200, is an organization formed with the primary function to represent faculty, counselor, and librarians in making recommendations to the administration and the Governing Board of the District with respect to academic and professional matters. The Governing Board will consult collegially with the Academic Senate when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters, such as: • curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within the disciplines 223 • degree and certificate requirements • grading policies • educational program development • standards or policies regarding student prepara tion and success • district and college governance structures/ as related to faculty roles • faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self study and annual reports • policies for faculty professional development activities • processes for program review • processes for institutional planning and budget development • making recommendations for certain committees • hiring of new academic faculty • other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the District Govern ing Board and the Academic Senate The above characterize collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (2) Lake Tahoe Community College District's shared governance policy will provide staff the opportunity to participate in the formulation and development of 224 District and College policies and procedures and in those processes for jointly developing recommendations for action by the Board of Trustees that the Board of Trustees reasonably determines, in consultation with the staff will have a significant effect on staff. Except in unforeseeable emergency situations, the Board of Trustees shall not take action on matters significantly affecting staff until it has provided staff an opportunity to participate in the formulation and development of those matters through appropriate structures and procedures. The policies and procedures of the board of Trustees shall insure that the recommendations and opinions of staff are given every reasonable consideration. The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. (3) Lake Tahoe Community College District will provide students the opportunity to participate effec tively in College governance in the following manner: a. Students shall be provided an opportunity to participate in formulating College policies, as well as, in those processes for jointly developing recommendations for action of the governing board that have or will have a sig nificant effect on students. Except in unforeseeable emergency situations, the Governing Board shall not take action on a matter having significant effect on students until it has provided students with an oppor tunity to participate in the formulation of the policy or the joint development of recommenda tions regarding the action. The Associated Students of Lake Tahoe Community College District is organized as the official body representing the College's enrolled student population. The selection of student representatives to serve on college committees, task forces or other governance groups shall be made after consultation with the Superintendent/President and or the Vice President, Academic Affairs and Student Services by the Associated Students of Lake Tahoe Community College. Policy or process that has or will have a sig nificant effect on students shall include the following: • Grading policies • Codes of student conduct • Academic disciplinary policies • Curriculum development 226 • Courses or programs which should be initiated or discontinued • Processes for institutional planning and budget development • Standards and policies regarding student pre paration and success • Policies for hiring and evaluating faculty, administrators staff • Student Services planning and development • Student Fees within the authority of the Dis trict to adopt • Any other related matter/decision that the Board of Trustees determines will have a sig nificant affect on students. The aforementioned characterize collegial model con cepts A and E and colleqial/bureaucratic model concept D. Lake Tahoe Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Lake Tahoe Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature review and Lake Tahoe Community College District's Collegial Govern ance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 227 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Lassen College(s): Lassen Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: March, 1995 SUMMARY: Lassen Community College District's shared governance policy denotes collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) The Board of Trustees of Lassen Community College District state faculty, staff, and students will have the right to participate effectively in District governance. Shared governance shall be exercised primarily, but not totally, with the Academic Senate, Associated Student Body, and organization(s) recognized by the board as representing staff. The District will consult collegially with the Academic Senate in the areas of curriculum and academic standards. Academic and pro fessional matters means the following policy development and implementation matters: a. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites b. Degree and certificate requirements 228 c. Grading policies d. Educational program development e. Standards and policies regarding student pre paration and success f. District and college governance structure, as related to faculty roles g. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self study and annual reports h. Policies for faculty professional development activities i. Processes for program review j. Processes for institutional planning and budget development and k. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the governing board and the academic senate. Items 1 through k characterize collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (2) Lassen Community College District's Board of Trustees shall consult collegially with the Associated Student Body on policies that have or will have a "significant effect on students" including the following: 229 a. Grading policies b. Codes of student conduct c. Academic disciplinary policies d. Curriculum development e. Courses or programs which should be initiated or discontinued f. Processes for institutional planning and budget development g. Standards and policies regarding student prepar ation and success h. Student services planning and development i. Student fees within the authority of the dis trict to adopt j. Any other district and college policy, procedure or related matter that the district governing board determines will have a significant effect on students. Items 2 through j, characterize collegial model concepts A, D, E and collegial/bureaucratic model con cepts A and D. (3) Lassen Community College District's Board of Trustees shall adopt policies that provide college staff the opportunity to participate effectively in college governance. At minimum, these policies shall include the following: 230 a. Definitions or categories of non-faculty posi tions or groups of positions that compose the staff of the college which the Board officially recognizes. b. Formulation of College policies that the Board determines, in consultation with the staff, are likely to have a significant impact on the staff. Items 3 through b, characterize collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/bureaucratic model con cepts A and D. Lassen Community College District's shared govern ance model is collegial (C). Lassen Community College District's shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Character istic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Lassen Community College District's Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 231 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Long Beach College(s): Long Beach Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Long Beach Community College District's Governance Policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Long Beach Community College District shared governance is a method of collegial interaction in which the Board of Trustees, administra tion, faculty, classified and support staff, and students participate in the decision-making process and in which consensual agreement regarding issues is a paramount goal. The District defines shared governance as a collaborative goal-setting and problem-solving process built on trust and open communication. The process involves representatives from appropriate college groups who engage in open discussion and timely decision-making in areas of district policy development and implementa tion. They are limited to areas other than those 232 specifically restricted by legal and policy parameters. In areas where decision-making is shared, there must also be shared accountability. Shared governance is predi cated upon the sincere commitment of all participants. Shared governance is made a reality through the process that includes shared decision making and the delegation of responsibility in appropriate areas. The Board recog nizes the Academic Senate as the body which represents the faculty in collegial governance relating to academic and professional matters as defined in Title 5 of the State Code of Regulations. The Long Beach Community College District employs multiple structures, policies and activities to ensure consultation and shared governance. In addition to the above, the District's Governance Committee reviews the governance structure of the college. The Governance Committee is especially interested in ensuring that everyone at the institution understands the governance processes that enable faculty, staff, administrators, and students to carry out their separate but complementary roles and responsibilities. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts a, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. 233 Long Beach Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Long Beach Community College District's governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklistt Literature Review and Long Beach Community College District's Collegial Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 234 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Los Rios College(s): American River, Consumnes River and Sacramento City Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: Apri1, 1995 SUMMARY: Los Rios Community College District's policies and regulations pertaining to shared governance mirror collegial Model concepts (A, D, C, and E and collegial/bureaucratic Model concepts (A and D). Please refer to the Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial Model and collegial/ bureaucratic Model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Los Rios Community College District's shared governance policies cite shared governance is a collab orative goal-setting and problem solving process built on trust and communication. Participation in shared govern ance should be broad-based. The participants are faculty, classified staff, students and administrators. The District's shared governance policies outline principles of accountability, measurable performance criteria, time lines, definitions of roles, clear evaluation of standards, which exist within a legal and fiscal framework. Los Rios Community College District's 235 shared governance policy cite that two or more separate constituencies can have shared accountability for decision/recommendations. The above characterize collegial model concepts A, D, C, and E. (2) Los Rios Community College District's shared governance policy cite at its discretion, the Board or its representative may assign additional areas of responsibilities to the District Senate which have been determined by mutual agreement to lie within the ten areas of Senate responsibility under Title 5, section 53200. Also recognizing that the work of the District must continue against a background of time lines and deadlines produced by legislation, state and federal agencies and the general welfare of its primary clients, the District Senate affirms that the board clearly retains the right to act without the benefit of recommen dation if the responsible recommending body fails to perform or fails to perform in a reasonable timely way (the above characterize collegial/Bureaucratic concepts A and D. Los Rios Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Los Rios Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance 236 Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Los Rios Community College District's Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 237 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Marin College(s): College of Marin Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Marin Community College District's Board Policy denotes collegial Model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's disserta tion for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) Marin Community College District's Board Policy cite any system of governance is dependent upon the coop eration and collaboration of all its components to func tion effectively. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts and it is the interdependence of those parts that is important to the success of any effort of the whole. According to the Board's policy, members of the College community need to respect each other's profes sionalism and encourage trust and a sense of team work. Marin Community College District has established a participatory, advisory system of governance which includes a commitment to participation from all segments of the college community in making recommendations for the policies and procedures that govern the college. 238 However, it should be understood that all recommendations are advisory to the President and the Board of Trustees who hold the final decision making authority. In addi tion to the above, conscious monitoring of the governance system is essential to its effectiveness and preventative maintenance assures its continued successful progress. In order to achieve this type of awareness, the system will be evaluated every two years by a review council. The above characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E. (2) Marin Community College District's tripartite governance system fulfills the requirements of the California Education Code as specified in AB 1725 (section 70901 paragraph E) which reads: governing boards of community college districts (will) ensure faculty, staff, and students the right to participate effectively in district and college governance, and the opportunity to express their opinions at the campus level and ensure that these opinions are given every reasonable consideration, and the right of academic senates to assume primary responsibil ity for making recommendations in the areas of curriculum and academic standards. The District has established two standing committees of the Academic Senate since 1989. The Academic Standards Committee and the Curriculum Committee, each have primary responsibility to make recommendations regarding academic standards and curriculum to the President. Both of these 239 committees consist of representatives of faculty, classi fied support staff, students and management. The above cited characterize collegial model concept D. Marin Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Marin Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Marin Community College District's Collegial Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con- clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 240 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Mendocino-Lake College(s): Mendocino Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Mendocino-Lake Community College District's Shared Governance Policy and Administrative Regulation reflect collegial model concepts A, D, C and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the coliegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) The Mendocino-Lake Community College District Board of Trustees charge their designate, the Superinten dent/President and/or his designees, to be responsible and accountable for consulting collegially with represen tatives of the Academic Senate, classified, student, and management/confidential groups for the purposes of devel oping policies for Board approval as delineated by the provisions of AB 1725 Consultation with Academic Senate and other District Constituent groups. The purpose of the governance process at Mendocino College is to provide for an orderly and effective means for developing college policies that recognizes the appropriate role for each 241 participant group as envisaged by statute and College policy. Any member of the administration, faculty, staff or student body may suggest a new District policy or policy revision. Such suggestions should be forwarded by the individual to that group structure or process that either has a responsibility to the individual as a con stituent or has primary responsibility for the develop ment of policy on the issue. A faculty member, for example, may choose to introduce their policy suggestion at the Academic Senate or to any other group that would be expected to have responsibility for policy develop ment. Since democratic principles lie at the heart of shared governance, it is expected that the policy suggestions of individuals do not progress to a final decision without the support of recognized governance groups. In addition to the above, the District's governance model flow chart describe how policy recom mendations are initiated, what group or process has primary responsibility for development of the recom mendation, how groups are consulted as part of policy development, and what groups must be party to a decision on the policy. The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A, D, C and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. 242 Mendocino-Lake Community College District's Shared Governance Policy and Administrative Regulations model is collegial (C). Mendocino-Lake Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature Review and Mendocino-Lake Community College District's shared Governance Policy and Administrative Regulations. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 243 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Merced College(s): Merced Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 19 95 SUMMARY: Merced Community College District's shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D, Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile. (1) The Governing Board of the Merced Community College District supports the concept of shared govern ance as defined in AB 1725 and encourages its implemen tation. The District cites that the governance policy depends on mutual trust, commitment, cooperation, com munication and consultation by faculty, classified staff, students, management staff, administration and the Governing Board. The District's governance procedures are written by the administration in consultation with all other constituencies as mentioned above to provide for the implementation of shared governance and policy development in the Merced Community College District. These procedures are subject to review by the Governing 244 Board at any time. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept A and D. (2) In accordance to the Provisions of Title V, Section 53200-53204 (consulting Collegially with the Faculty Senate), the District's Governing Board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters through either or both of the following methods according to its own discretion: 1) Relying primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Faculty Senate; or 2) That the district Governing Board, or its repre sentative^) as it may designate, and the repre sentatives of the Faculty Senate shall have an obligation to reach mutual agreement. For the following items, the Board of Trustees will rely primarily upon the advice of the Faculty Senate: 1) Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines; 2) Degree and certificate requirements; 3) Grading policies; 5) Standards or policies regarding student prepar ation and success; 245 8) Policies for faculty professional development activities. For the following items, the Board of Trustees will come to mutual agreement with the Faculty Senate: 4) Educational program development; 6) District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles; 7) Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports; 9) Processes for program review; 10) Processes for institutional planning and budget development; 11) Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the Governing Board and the Faculty Senate. The above items are numbered to be consistent with Title V, Section 53200. The preceding information char acterize collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Merced Community College District's shared govern ance model is collegial (C). Merced Community College District's shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and 246 Merced Community College District's Collegial Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 247 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Mira Costa College(s): Mira Costa Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Mira Costa Community College District reflects collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Mira Costa Community College District welcomes the concept of collegial governance as a fundamental policy of the College, while retaining its own rights and responsibilities as the ultimate authority in all areas defined by state laws and regulations. The District's policy cite that collegial governance is defined as the collaborative participation of appropriate members of the College in planning for the future and in developing policies and recommendations under which the District is governed and administered. Each constituency of the College which has responsibility and expertise in a particular area participates in the development of policies and procedures relating to that area. Such 248 participation will bring together multiple segments of the College in instances where policies and procedures affect employees and students. It is the responsibility and obligation of members of the faculty, administration, and Governing Board to participate in the collegial process. The Board also provides the opportunity and encourages classified staff and students to participate in the process. The District's standing committees and employee councils of the College shall be structured to include appropriate representation by faculty, admin istrators, and classified employees when matters being considered are within their purview. Student represen tation shall be included on such groups whenever appro priate and possible. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Mira Costa Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Mira Costa Community College District governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Mira Costa Community College District's Collegial Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 249 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Monterey Peninsula College(s): Monterey Peninsula Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 19 95 SUMMARY: Monterey Peninsula Community College District's Shared Governance Policy 2010 reflect collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Govern ance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Monterey Peninsula governance policy 2010 cite that the Governing Board is committed to the participa tion of faculty, staff and students in District and college governance while retaining its own rights and responsibilities as the ultimate authority in all areas defined by state laws and regulations. The District has established policies which assure faculty, staff and students participation in shared governance as defined in the Education Code and Title V. The preceding character ize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Monterey Peninsula Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). 250 Monterey Peninsula Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Monterey Peninsula Governance Policy 2010. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 251 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Mt. San Antonio College(s): Mt. San Antonio Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Mt. San Antonio Community College District's Shared Governance Policy 875, denotes collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Mt. San Antonio Community College District's Shared Governance Policy 875, cite that the governing board embraces the concept of shared governance as a fundamental policy of the college, while retaining its rights and responsibilities as the ultimate authority in all areas defined by State laws and regulations. Each constituency of the college which has responsibility and expertise in a particular area shall participate in the development of policies and regulations related to that area. Such participation will bring together multiple segments of the college in instances where policies and regulations affect staff across divisions and depart ments. College standing and ad hoc committees shall be 252 structured to include appropriate representation by faculty, management, classified staff, and students, when matters considered are within their purview. The faculty and administration shall reach mutual agreement on issues academic and professional in nature and shall adhere to Title 5, subchapter 2, Academic Senates, Section 5300- 53204. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Mt. San Antonio Community College District's Shared Governance Policy 875 is collegial (C). Mt. San Antonio Community College District's governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Mt. San Antonio Community College District's Shared Governance Policy 875. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. Napa Valley Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Napa Valley Community College District's Shared Governance Policy D1140. Recommendations: Noted in the recommendations/Con- clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 253 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Palo Verde College(s): Palo Verde Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Palo Verde Community College District Collegial Governance Board 6011 denotes collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (1) Palo Verde Community College District Collegial Governance Board Policy 6011 cites it shall be the policy of the District's Board to adopt the concept of collegial governance and to establish procedures to ensure faculty, staff, and students the right to participate effectively in collegial governance in particular areas where they have the responsibility and expertise as specified in Title V regulations. While retaining its own right and responsibilities the Governing Board is the ultimate authority in all areas as defined by state laws and regulations. The Board of Trustees of the Palo Verde Community College District recognizes the definition of "academic and professionals matters" as stated in the Title V regulations. the above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. 254 Palo Verde Community College District Collegial Governance Board Policy 6011 is collegial (C). Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 255 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Palomar College(s): Palomar Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Palomar Community College District Governance Policy (83-9881) denotes collegial model concepts A, B, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteris tic Profile. (1) Palomar Community College District's governance policy (83-9881) cites it is in the spirit of collegial- ity, cooperation and collective effort that the responsibility of governance is undertaken at Palomar College. The purpose of the Palomar College governance structure is to share the responsibilities of governance and to involve faculty, staff and students appropriately in the planning and operation of the college. The District's committees exist to formalize collegiality, facilitate communication, develop effective plans and processes and to provide input to guide the college towards its goals. The District's governance structure is organized on two levels, Planning and Operational. This two-tiered governance plan reflects the need for both long range planning and immediate decision making. Planning committees typically address issues which affect the entire campus and have long-term implications. These committees are not to be encumbered by day-to-day opera tional issues. The responsibility of these committees is to develop strategies, concepts and policies which reflect the purpose of the college and chart its course for the future. Operational committees are those charged with developing policy and procedure affecting the routine operation of the college. These committees exist as a result of law or Board policy or as deemed function ally appropriate by the administration. Task assigned to operational committees are relatively narrow in scope, but are guided by goals established at the Planning level of the governance structure. The above mentioned charac terize collegial model concepts A, b, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Palomar Community College District's shared governance model is collegial (C). Palomar Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Palomar Community College District's Governance Policy (83-9881). Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con elusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 258 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Pasadena College(s >: Pasadena Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Pasadena Community College District Shared Governance Policy 0300, 0300.10, 0300.20, 0300.30 and 0300.40 denotes collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's disser tation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Pasadena Community College District, it is the policy of the Pasadena Area Community College District Board of Trustees to encourage the participative role of faculty, staff, management, and students in District and College governance through an ongoing consultative process. In matters relating to curriculum, academic and professional matters, the Board or its designees shall consult collegially with the Faculty Senate. The Board affirms the right of faculty, staff, management, and students to express ideas and opinions at the campus level with the assurance that such opinions will be given respectful consideration. The aforementioned characterize collegial model concepts A, 259 D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Pasadena Community College District's governance model is collegial <C). Pasadena Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist/ Literature Review and Pasadena Community College District Shared Governance Board Policy (0300, 0300.10, 0300.20, 0300.30 and 0300 .40) . Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 260 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Peralta College(s): College of Alameda, Laney, Merritt and Vista Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Peralta Community College District Governance Board Policy 2.23 reflect collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. (1) Peralta Community College District Governance Board Policy (2.23) cite it shall be the policy of the District to establish procedures to ensure administra tion, faculty, staff and students the opportunity to participate effectively in college governance. The President shall create a Shared Governance/College Council. The sole purpose of the District's governance policy is to implement the concept of shared governance enacted by AB 1725. Once the shared governance policy has been in effect for a maximum of one year, the President, Administration, Academic Senate, Classified Senate and Associated Students shall review the shared governance policy and procedure and consult collegially at which time the shared governance policy may be renewed, amended or superseded by a new policy. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, C, 261 D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Peralta Community College District Governance Policy 2.23 is collegial (C). Peralta Community College District governance analy sis is supported by the Governance characteristic Pro file, Literature Review and Peralta Community College District's Governance Board Policy 2.23. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 262 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Bernardino College(s): Crafton Hills and San Bernardino Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 19 95 SUMMARY: San Bernardino Community College District shared governance policy denotes collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) San Bernardino Community College District is committed to the idea of shared governance as assured in AB 1725. The District acknowledge the rights and respon sibilities accorded to all parties within the District to participate effectively in District governance and support the establishment of procedures whereby faculty, staff and students are ensured of appropriate consulta tion on matters affecting them. The above cited charac terize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. San Bernardino Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). 263 San Bernardino Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and San Bernardino Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 264 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Francisco College(s): City College of San Francisco Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: San Francisco Community College District shared governance policy reflect collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to San Francisco Community College District's shared governance policy, the Board of Trustees shall establish procedures to ensure faculty, staff, and students, the opportunity to express their opinions and to ensure that these opinions shall be given every reasonable consideration. The above groups will have the right to participate effectively in college governance. Each constituent group (i.e., students, classified staff, administration and faculty) shall evaluate the effectiveness and operation of the entire governance system every two years beginning in 1995. A summary report and recommendation, based upon the reports/recommendations of each constituent group shall 265 be developed by the college Advisory Council and forwarded to the Chancellor who shall make a report to the Board of Trustees with recommendations for improvements and change (if needed) in the governance system. The above cited characterise collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. San Francisco Community College District shared governance policy is collegial (C). San Francisco Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and San Francisco Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 266 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Joaquin Delta College(s): San Joaquin Delta Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: San Joaquin Delta Community College District shared governance policy reflect collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) San Joaquin Delta Community College District's shared governance policy cite that the Academic Senate is recognized as the official representative of the teaching staff of San Joaquin Delta College. The Academic Senate will advise on matters of academic and professional concerns as cited in 53200 of Title V of the California Administrative Code. The Academic Senate Bylaws and Standing Rules as currently on file in the Senate office shall serve as the guide for Senate operations. The District's governance policy acknowledge the importance of staff and student participation in collaborative decision making. The above mentioned characterize 267 collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. San Joaquin Delta Community College District shared governance policy is collegial (C). San Joaquin Delta Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Char acteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and San Joaquin Delta Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Jose-Evergreen College(s): Evergreen Valley and san Jose City Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: San Jose-Evergreen Community College District denotes collegial model concepts A, B, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to San Jose-Evergreen Community College District a shared governance system shall be established whereby the faculty, administration, classi fied staff, and students will have the opportunity to participate in the development of District and College policies and procedures. Areas of participation in shared governance by the faculty, administration, classified staff and students shall not interfere with nor impinge upon activities which fall within the scope of collective bargaining. The District's shared governance policy cite that an effective shared governance structure shall ensure that the decision making and communication processes are clear, open, and 269 fair. This structure will entrust shared governance participants with the responsibility for fulfilling the colleges educational missions. In addition to the above the Governing board shall recognize the Faculty Senate at San Jose City College and the Academic Senate at Ever green Valley College as the governance groups which present the views and recommendations of faculty in academic and professional matters. The Faculty/Academic Senates shall address academic and professional matters per Section 1520.2 of the Title V Education Code. The Faculty/Academic Senate presidents shall present the senates view, recommendations, and proposals to the college president for joint consideration and, on matters of agreement, for joint recommendation to the Governing Board. If consultation with the college president results in disagreement, the Faculty/Academic Senate may present its views, recommendations, and proposals directly to the Board. Lastly, the District's governance policy for students cite that in-service training and orientation will be conducted at the beginning of each academic year for the purpose of building trust, foster ing team work, and preparing for meaningful participation in the governance process. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, B, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. San Jose-Evergreen Community College District's governance model is collegial (C). San Jose-Evergreen shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature review and San Jose-Evergreen Community College District's Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con elusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 271 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Luis Obispo County College(s): Cuesta Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: San Luis Obispo County Community College District shared governance model denotes collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) San Luis Obispo County Community College District shared governance policy cites that faculty, staff and students shall be provided with opportunities to participate in the formulation and development of district and college policies and procedures, as well as in those processes for jointly developing recommendations for action, that have or will have significant effect on staff. Participation by staff in college governance will be facilitated primarily through the college's committee and council structure. In addition to the above, the District's Governing Board will: 272 a. Rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Academic senate; or b. The District's Governing board, or such repre sentatives as it may designate, and the repre sentatives of the Academic Senate shall have the obligation to reach mutual agreement by written resolution, regulation, or policy of the Govern ing Board effectuating such recommendations. The above cited characterize collegial model concept A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. San Luis Obispo County Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). San Luis Obispo County Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and San Luis Obispo County Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 273 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Mateo County College(s): Canada, College of San Mateo and Skyline Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: San Mateo County Community College District reflects collegial model concepts A, B, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. {1) In order to provide an opportunity for faculty, staff, and students to participate formally and effec tively in the development of policy and consultation District-wide, the board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCCD) has estab lished a District Shared Governance Council. The SMCCCD is committed to provide a shared governance system, which will ensure faculty, staff and students the right to participate effectively in dis trict and college governance and the opportun ity to express their opinions at the district level and to ensure that these opinions are given every reasonable consideration. (Educa tion Code Section 70901) 274 In addition to the above, the District's College Council is directed to develop, and advise the college adminis tration on the implementation of, a shared governance training program for faculty, staff, administrators and students. By participating in the program, individuals should, at a minimum acquire or enhance skills in: a. Problem solving and decision making (particu larly consensus decision making). b. Conflict resolution. c. Effective meeting management, facilitation, and participation. d. Data gathering and analysis. e. Basic budgeting and accounting. The above mentioned characterize collegial model concepts A, B, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. San Mateo County Community College District governance model is collegial (C). San Mateo County Community College District governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and San Mateo County Community College Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con ion chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 276 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Santa Barbara College(s): Santa Barbara City Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Santa Barbara City College District Governance Policy denotes collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) The Board of Trustees of Santa Barbara City College District is committed to collegial governance as a fundamental policy of the college in academic and professional matters as specified in Title V of the California Education Code <E.C. 53200) . Collegial governance involves the participation of administrators, faculty, staff and students in college planning and the development of policies and procedures by which the college is governed and administered. Various councils and standing committees provide the structure for individuals and/or representatives of designated areas or 277 groups to participate in shared governance. The preced ing characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Santa Barbara City College District shared governance policy is collegial (C). Santa Barbara City College District shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Character istic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Santa Barbara City College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 278 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Santa Clarita College(s): College of the Canyons Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Santa Clarita Community College District Shared Governance Policy reflect collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Santa Clarita Community College District Shard Governance Policy, governance is not the replacement of the Administration. The administration plays the crucial role of administering the goals of the college. However, shared governance recognizes that the administration should not determine college goals by themselves, but should rely on input from the entire college community during the goal-setting process. The Superintendent/President has the right to reject or modify any shared governance decision. However, in the spirit of professional collegiality, the Superintendent/ President will then inform the respective committee(s) of her objections to their recommendations. However, the 279 Senate, Classified Coordinating Council, College of the Canyons Faculty Association, CSEA and/or the Student Senate retain the right to present their concerns with the Superintendent/President's decision to the Board of Trustees. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Santa Clarita Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Santa Clarita Community College District governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Santa Clarita Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 280 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Sequoias College(s): College of the Sequoias Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Sequoias Community College District shared governance policy reflect collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Sequoias Community College District, shared governance is a decision making process committed to the best interest of our students and our institution based upon participation of those affected by decisions in an environment of cooperation and trust. Shared governance is a complex process of consultation that demands from faculty, administrators, classified staff, and students, a respect for divergent opinions, a sense of mutual trust and a willingness to work together for the good of the instructional enterprise. The District's Committee on Governance, Planning and budgeting has the responsibility to review the college governance, as well as, provide an assessment of the 281 effectiveness of the interim plan (along with the self evaluation of the College Council). The Committee on Governance, Planning and Budgeting will evaluate and make recommendations, concerning the composition, processes, and outcomes of the college council. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Sequoias Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Sequoias Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Sequoias Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 282 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Sierra Joint College(s): Sierra Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Sierra Joint Community College District shared governance policy reflect collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Sierra Joint Community College District's shared governance process reviews and recommends to the President policies and regulations of the college that affect all aspects of the college community. The District's Board Policy for shared governance provides: a. The process for shared development of policies and regulations. b. The means through which all membership of the academic community, students, faculty, adminis tration, and classified staff, can participate effectively in the growth and development of the college. 283 c. The coordination of the functioning of college wide standing committees/ and task forces. The preceding characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Sierra Joint Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Sierra Joint Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist/ Literature Review and Sierra Joint Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 284 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Siskiyou Joint College(s): Siskiyou Joint Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 19 95 SUMMARY: Siskiyou Joint Community College District shared governance policy denote collegial model concept A/ D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Siskiyou Joint Community College District shared governance policy (1.15) cites it is the policy of the Board of Trustees, in the spirit of collegiality, to ensure shared governance of the District which provides for timely communication between the Board of Trustees, while retaining ultimate authority as defined by federal and state law and local regulation, seeks to give reasonable consideration to the concerns and opinions of constituent groups at the campus level and to share information with these groups. The Board of Trustees delegates to the Superintendent/President responsibility and authority for developing policy recommendations for Board consideration and for implementation of Board 285 decision. The Board of Trustees, through its designated representative and with the representative of the Academic Senate shall have the obligation to reach mutual agreement by written resolution, regulation or policy in academic and professional matters. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Siskiyou Joint Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Siskiyou Joint Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Siskiyou Joint Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 286 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Solano County College(s): Solano Community Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Solano County Community College District shared governance policy denote collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Solano County Community College District each constituency of the college which has responsibility and expertise in a particular area will participate in the development of policies and procedures relating to that area. It is the responsibility and obligation of members of the faculty, staff, administra tion, students and Board to participate in the collegial process. The District committees shall be structured to include representation by college faculty, staff, administration and students, when matters being considered are within their purview. The above mentioned characterize collegial model concepts A, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic concept D. 287 Solano County Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Solano County Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Solano County Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 288 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Southwestern College(s): Southwestern Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Southwestern Community College District shared Governance Policy reflect collegial model concepts A, C, D and E. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteris tic Profile Checklist. (1) Southwestern Community College District encourages a governance structure and process that involves representation from all college constituencies to engage in full deliberation of key issues confronting the district and the formation or recommendations to be sent to the Governing Board for action. In addition to the above, the District will monitor in a systematic way progress being made to achieve agreed upon institutional goals. The above mentioned characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D and E. Southwestern Community College District shared governance model is collegial <C). Southwestern Community College District governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Southwestern Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con elusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 290 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: State Center College(s): Fresno City and Kings River Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: State Center Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) State Center Community College District shared governance policy cites in order that the faculty may have a formal and effective procedure for participating in the formation and implementation of district policies on academic and professional matters, the following policy shall apply: a. "Consult Collegially" means the Governing Board will develop policies relying primarily on the advice and judgment of the Academic Senates. b. "Consult Collegially" for all other "academic and professional matters" mean that the Govern ing Board will develop policies after the Chan cellor/designees have reached mutual written 291 agreement regarding academic/professional policies. c. The Governing Board, Chancellor and Academic Senates will review the above methods (i.e., consulting collegially, after one (1) year to year to determine their effectiveness. There after, either party may request periodic review of this governance policy for faculty. In addition to the above, students and the Classified Council will communicate recommendations and concerns to the District and College regarding matters affecting the welfare of its membership in the District's shared governance process. The above cited characterise collegial model concepts A, C, D, and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. State Center Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). State Center Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and State Center Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 292 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: West Valley-Mission College(s): Mission and West Valley Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: West Valley-Mission Community College District shared governance policy reflect collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to West Valley-Mission Community College District, the Academic Senate, organized under the provisions of the Administrative Code (Title 5, Section 53200 et. seq.), may represent the faculty and make recommendations to the administration and the Board of Trustees with respect to academic and professional matters, as long as, the exercise of such functions does not conflict with lawful collective bargaining agree ments. The District's Board of Trustees established the AB 1725 Steering Committee to oversee the development, implementation, evaluation, and revision of AB 1725 related mandate. The Committee shall be composed of two representatives of the association of College Educators, 293 one Academic Senate representative from each college, the Director of Labor Relations, Director of Human Resources, and one administrative representative from each college. The committee will function under the shared governance model in a collaborative and collegial environment. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. West Valley-Mission Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). West Valley-Mission Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and West Valley-Mission Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 294 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: West Kern College(s): Taft Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: West Kern Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. {1) According to West Kern Community College District, shared governance is a decision making process which is committed to supporting the mission, goals and vision of Taft College. The Governing Board recognises that the best decisions for the college can be made by relying upon the collective knowledge and expertise of faculty, students, classified staff and administration and by ensuring that each constituency is given every reasonable consideration to express its opinions and provide advice and counsel. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concept D. 295 West Kern Community college District shared governance model is collegial (C). West Kern Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist/ Literature Review and West Kern Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 296 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Yuba College(s): Yuba Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Yuba Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dis sertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureau cratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Yuba Community College District shared governance policy, all segments of the college community (i.e., students, staff, faculty and administra tion) will have access to pertinent information before and after decisions are made, and share the responsibil ity to voice concerns and ideas on substantive issues. The District's shared governance policy state that the Board of Trustees acknowledges sections 53200, 53203 and 53204 in Title 5 of the Administrative Code Regulations which specifies the role of the Academic Senate. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Yuba Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). 297 Yuba Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Yuba Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 298 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Victor Valley College(s): Victor Valley Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Victor Valley Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteris tic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Victor Valley Community College District, comprehensive procedure will be established in order to comply with the mandates of the California Community College Reform Bill (AB 1725) as it relates to shared governance. The District's cite that shared governance shall be defined as "shared participation in the decision making process in a climate of mutual trust." The District shall involve those affected by decisions in the decision making process. Those affected shall be defined as students, faculty, classified staff, administrators. The District will bring together all key parties as previously defined in an attempt to reach agreement on a policy or action that can be recommended 299 to or adopted by the Board of Trustees. All participants shall have a respect for divergent opinions/ a sense of mutual trust, and a willingness to work together in order to accomplish the college mission. The District shared governance policy shall not be interpreted to imply that there must be total agreement by all participants with majority rule. the ultimate responsibility for decisions rests with the Board of Trustees. Victor Valley Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Victor Valley Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Victor Valley Community College District Shared Governance policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 300 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Ventura County College(s): Moorpark/ Oxnard and Ventura Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April/ 1995 SUMMARY: Ventura County Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Ventura County Community College District's formal shared governance policy relates to the Academic Senates. However/ in the absence of policy language for the classified staff and students/ there is, nonetheless, active participation by both groups in the shared govern ance process. Representation from both staff and students exists within appropriate committee structure. There is a classified staff representative from each college and the district administration center, who sit on the Chancellor's cabinet. Both students and classified staff are represented at and actively participate in governing board meetings. The preceding 301 characterize collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concept D. Ventura County Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Ventura County Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and ventura County Community College District Shared Govern ance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 302 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Redwoods College(s): College of the Redwoods Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Redwoods Community College District shared governance policy (number 202) reflects collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteris tic Profile Checklist. (1) Redwoods Community College District shared governance Board of Trustees Policy (number 202) cites that the college district shall establish governance structures which are efficient, effective, and which allow for broad participation in the decision making process. The District seeks to build understanding and trust among various groups in the College through open collaboration and shared responsibility. College of the Redwoods Community College District's Policy Development Committee (PDC) shall be the major internal policy review and development committee for the College. The scope of PDC activity shall include policy review of long range 303 planning, budget development, information systems, reduc tions in force, affirmative action plans, program crea tion and elimination, and other issues having significant policy or budgetary impact upon the College. The member ship and procedures of the PDC shall be based upon proto cols agreed upon by the President/Superintendent and the Academic Senate. The above cited characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Redwoods Community College District shared govern ance model is collegial (C). Redwoods Community College District shared govern ance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteris tic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Redwoods Community College District Shared Governance Policy (number 202). Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 304 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Rancho Santiago College(s): Rancho Santiago Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Rancho Santiago Community District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, B, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Rancho Santiago Community College District shared governance policy cites, to fully implement the AB 1725 shared governance regulations in a spirit of collegiality, the District has organized a structure of councils, committees, ad hoc groups, and task forces. This structure is designed to ensure constituents groups (i.e., Academic Senate, Administrative Liaison, Supervisory/Confidential Liaison, Classified Senate, Associated Students) the right to participate effectively in District and college governance and the opportunity to express their opinions at the campus level and assure these opinions are given every reasonable consideration. The councils and committees will gather information, 305 deliberate, report, and formulate recommendations to the Board of Trustees regarding policies and procedures of Rancho Santiago College. All councils and committees will conduct their business according to group developed rules, including a definition of ''Quorum" for purpose of action, or standard parliamentary procedure. None of the groups decisions shall be construed to impinge upon the statutory rights included in Title V sections governing the participation right of any group, including collec tive bargaining, faculty, staff, students, community members, or trustees. The above characterize collegial model concepts A, B, C, D and E and collegial/bureau cratic model concepts A and D. Rancho Santiago Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Rancho Santiago Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Rancho Santiago Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 306 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Sonoma County Junior College(s): Santa Rosa Junior Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Sonoma County Junior College District shared governance policy denotes collegial model concepts A, B, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Sonoma County Junior College District shared governance policy, collegial consultation and participation in shared governance is a collective responsibility between the four campus constituent groups (faculty, administration, classified staff and students) and the Board of Trustees. The shared governance policy cites that the District shall strive for collegial and professionally scripted policies and procedures that bring forth the best examples of our governance in the past, from contemporary educational codes, and from our own professional innovation. The governance roles of the Board of Trustees and their designee the Superintendent/ President are set in California education Code. The 307 Board or its designee are directed to maintain, operate, and govern the district in accordance with the laws of the state and to establish rules and regulations for the governance and operation of the district Ed Code 72000- 726000). Through the college shared governance system, the Board of Trustees and their designee the Superinten dent/President will receive advice and recommendations from the faculty, administrators, classified staff, and students. Suggestions and recommendations within shared governance are provided through the campus committee system, professional dialogue, and the drafting or revising of policy. The above cited characterise collegial model concepts A, B, D and E and collegial/ bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Sonoma County Junior College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Sonoma County Junior College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Sonoma County Junior College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 308 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Rio Hondo College(s): Rio Hondo Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Rio Hondo Community College District shared governance policy denotes collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to Appendix section A and B of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Rio Hondo Community College District's Board of Trustees state that shared governance furthers the mission, goals, and purpose of the District. In keeping with the spirit and intent of AB 1725, the Board recognizes the unique role of the faculty, acting through the Academic Senate, in shared governance at Rio Hondo College. The Board affirms the District's commitment to maintaining and following the agreements developed with the Academic Senate to achieve the implementation of AB 1725. In addition, the Board encourages and recognizes the active participation of other District constituencies in those shared governance activities most appropriate to their interest and expertise. The District's shared 309 governance policy shall be evaluated periodically under the direction of the Superintendent/President, in consultation with the Academic Senate. The evaluation criteria shall include the effectiveness of the policy and its compliance with the requirements of AB 1725. The Board of Trustees shall receive and review the evaluation presented by the Superintendent/President. The above mentioned characterize collegial model concepts A, C, D and E and collegial/bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Rio Hondo Community College District shared governance model is collegial (C). Rio Hondo Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Rio Hondo Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 3X0 APPENDIX J SUMMARY OF THE (14) CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS COLLEGIAL/BUREAUCRATIC MODELS 311 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Allan Hancock Collegers): Allan Hancock Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Allan Hancock Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concepts A, D and E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept B, C and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance Characteris tic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Allan Hancock Community District's shared governance policy 1112 all standing and ad hoc committees shall be structured to include appropriate representation by faculty, administration, classified staff and students. The District's decision making process depends upon open communication and full sharing of information with all parties involved. Allan Hancock Community College District's shared governance policy cite that the consensus will not always be possible and the governing board, as the entity holding the institu tion in trust for the community, has the ultimate respon sibility to act. The above cited characterize collegial 312 model concepts, A, D and E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts B, C and D. Allan Hancock Community College District's shared governance policy is Collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Allan Hancock Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile checklist, Literature review and Allan Hancock Shared Governance Policy 1112. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendation/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 313 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Antelope Valley College(s): Antelope Valley Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Antelope Valley Community College District shared governance policy denotes collegial model concepts A and E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts A, B and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Antelope Valley Community College District's shared governance policy cites that the faculty, stu dents, staff, administration and Board of Trustees of Antelope Valley College affirm their commitment to shared governance. Nothing in the shared governance process shall infringe upon the rights and responsibilities of staff members under collective bargaining agreements. The District's shared governance policy cites that the College Coordinating Council's primary purpose is to determine the appropriate process for resolving issues. The council acts as an information sharing forum so that the constituent groups can share issues, problems, and concerns relevant to shared governance. In addition to 314 the above, the Board of Trustees shall be represented by the members of the Administrative Cabinet, as designated by the President, in all shared governance activities. The participation of the Academic senate and members of the Administrative Cabinet, as designated by the Presi dent, in a shared governance committee or process consti tutes the provision for "mutual agreement." The above cited characterize collegial model concepts a and E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts A, B and D. Antelope Valley Community College District's shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Antelope Valley Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, literature Review and Antelope Valley Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 315 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Butte College(s): Butte Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Butte Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's disser tation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Butte Community College District, it is recognized that the rights and responsibilities of the Board of Trustees are derived from the Education Code of the State of California. The Board delegates its authority and designates the Superintendent/President and such representative(s) as he or she may designate, to implement its policies on governance. The District's Board of Trustees shall, through its designee, and through collegial consultation, reach mutual agreement with Academic Senate in developing and implementing policies and procedures relative to "academic and professional concerns." Butte Community College District's shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). 316 Butte Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Butte Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 317 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Chabot-Las Positas College(s): Chabot-Las Positas Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Chabot-Las Positas Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Chabot-Las Positas Community College District's governance structures serve as a vehicle for the chancellor to identify the need for policies and procedures in any of the ten areas of academic and professional matters. The Governance Council will provide the district with information regarding the direction and development of governance policies. The above cited characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Chabot-Las Positas Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Chabot-Las Positas Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance 318 Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Chabot-Las Positas Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter to the evaluator's dissertation. 319 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Gavilan College(s): Gavilan Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Gavilan Community College District's shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Gavilan Community College District's shared governance policy cites that the district will operate in accordance to the provisions of Title 5, sections 53200- 53204 of the Administrative Code of the State of California, also in accordance to the mandate of AB 1725. The preceding characterize collegial model concept E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concepts A and D. Gavilan Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Gavilan Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Gavilan Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con elusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 321 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Imperial College(s): Imperial Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Imperial Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. <1) According to Imperial Community College District, the policy for shared governance will be adopted by mutual agreement between the Academic Senate and the Board of Trustees or its designees (Title V, Section 53203a, 53203e). The above characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Imperial Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Imperial Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Imperial Community College District Shared Governance Policy. 322 Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/ Conclusion Chapter of the Evaluator's dissertation. 323 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Mt. San Jacinto College{s): Mt. San Jacinto Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 19 9 5 SUMMARY: Mt. San Jacinto Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Mt. San Jacinto Community College District shared governance policy reflects adherence to Title V, Section 53203a and 53203e. The preceding characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept A and D. Mt. San Jacinto Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Mt. San Jacinto Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature review and Mt. San Jacinto Community College District Shared Governance Policy. 324 Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 325 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Saddleback College(s): Irvine Valley Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Saddleback Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Saddleback Community College District shared governance policy reflects adherence to Title V, Section 53203a and 53203e. The above cited characterise collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Saddleback Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Saddleback Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Saddleback Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 326 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: San Diego College(s): San Diego City, San Diego Community College Education Centers, San Diego Mesa and San Diego Miramar Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: San Diego Community College District shared governance policy reflect collegial model concept E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept A and D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) The Board of Trustees of the San Diego Community College District is committed to collegial governance. The district governance policy is intended to ensure that faculty, students and staff have the right to participate effectively in the governance of the District. The governance policy acknowledges the right of the Academic Senates to assume primary responsibility for making recommendations in the areas of curriculum and academic standards. The above characterize collegial model concept E and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept A and D. 327 San Diego Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). San Diego Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and San Diego Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 328 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Shasta-Tehama-Tri. Joint College(s): Shasta Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Shasta-Tehama-Tri. Joint Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evalua tor's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Shasta-Tehama-Tri. Joint Community College District Shared Governance Policy 1440 cites that the administration of the college and the Governing Board shall rely primarily on the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate regarding academic and professional matters. The above mirror collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Shasta-Tehama-Tri. Joint Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Shasta-Tehama-Tri. Joint Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and 329 Shasta-Tehama-Tri. Joint Community College District Shared Governance Policy 1440. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 330 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Riverside College(s): Riverside Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Riverside Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's disser tation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureau cratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) According to Riverside Community College District Board Policy, 3010, the Board of Trustees recognizes the Academic Senate of Riverside Community College District as the organization representing the faculty in the formation of District policy on academic and professional matters under the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title V, Section 53200- 53205. The above cited characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Riverside Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Riverside Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Riverside Community College District Shared Governance Policy 3010. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con elusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 332 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Yosemite College(s): Columbia and Modesto Junior Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Yosemite Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's dissertation for the collegial model and collegial/ Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) The Board of Trustees recognizes the Academic Senates of Yosemite Community College District as the body which represent the faculty in collegial governance related to "academic and professional" matters. Each respective senate is authorized to fix and amend by vote of the faculty the composition, structure and procedures of its senate. The above characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Yosemite Community College District shared governance policy is collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Yosemite Community College District shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Yosemite Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendations/Con elusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 334 GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS District: Santa Monica College(s): Santa Monica Evaluator: Antoinette Wheeler Date: April, 1995 SUMMARY: Santa Monica Community College District shared governance policy reflects collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Please refer to the Appendix section of the evaluator's disser tation for the collegial model and collegial/Bureaucratic model Governance Characteristic Profile Checklist. (1) Santa Monica Community College District and the Board of Trustees recognizes and endorses the rights and responsibilities assigned to faculty by Assembly Bill 1725 and in order that the faculty may have formal and effective procedures for participating in the formation and implementation of district policies on academic and professional matters, an Academic Senate is established at Santa Monica College. The above cited characterize collegial model concept D and collegial/Bureaucratic model concept D. Santa Monica Community College District's shared governance policy is Collegial/Bureaucratic (C/B). Santa Monica Community College District's shared governance analysis is supported by the Governance 335 Characteristic Profile Checklist, Literature Review and Santa Monica Community College District Shared Governance Policy. Recommendations: Noted in the Recommendation/Con clusion Chapter of the evaluator's dissertation. 336 APPENDIX K GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL MODEL— COMPLETED EVALUATION FORM Districts: Bantow tabHllo Cerrito* :haffev Coast Contra Costa Desert 11 Caaino Feat her Rivers ilendale Grossaont- Cuyaaaca Late Tahoe Lassen Long Beach Los Rios Bar In Mendocino Like Merced Mira Costa Monterey Veninsuta Rt. San Antonio Collegial Model: A. Reflect* a holistic I governance approach to oraanirational desim. V X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CL Reflect* governance froa a global perspective and support* the develop- aent of visionary leadership. X X C. Governance flow chart which illustrate* teaa build ing. Coupled with an evalua tion process to ascertain the the effectiveness of colleaial oovemance. X X X X X X X D. Scholarly participation X in the acadeaic ailfeu. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X £, collegial decision based on total group participa- X lion and a consensus of an eoual voice. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X District: M ain e of Colleger*): Evaluator: Reco— endatoni: Ui U> -J Napa Districts: Valiev Palos Verdes Palomar Pasa dena Peralta Dancho Sant i aoo Red woods Rio Mondo San Bernardino 5an Francisco San Joaquin San Jose Iverqreen San Lui* pbisoo San hateo sent* ftmrbarm Santa Clarita S«0»in Sierra Joint Siskiyou Joint Solano SOnewv Collfgtil Nodtl: A. Reflect! a holistic governance approach to 1 oroanixational desion. X X X X X X X X t t X X X X X X X X X X B. deflect* governance from a global perspective and support* the develop* *ent of visionary leadership. X X t X I C* Governance flow chart which illustrate* teaa build ing, Coupled with an evalua- X tion process to ascertain the the effectiveness of colleaiat oovernance. X X X X X X X 0. Scholarly participation X in the academic milieu. X X 1 1 X X X X X X 1 X X X X X X X X X E. Collegial decision based on total group participa tion and a consensus of an X eoual voice. X X 1 X X X t X I X t X X X X X t X X X District: Name of College(s): Evaluator: Recomnendatons: LO Ui CO SOUlh- Dtstricts: western State Center Ventura County Victor valley Vest Kern West valley mission Tuba Allan Hancock Antelope Valiev 3utte Cabot-Las Posita Freaont- Newerk GavMan Iverial tit. San Jacinto River* side Saddle back San Dieqo Santa Homes Shasta T thane - Tri Joint Yosemile Collegial nodal: k. Reflects a holistic t governance approach 10 orqaniitttional desion. X X X 1 V X X B. Reflect! governance froa a global perspective and supports the develop ment of visionary leadership. C. Governance flow chart which illustrates teaa build ing. Coupled with an evaluo- X tinn process to ascertain the the effectiveness of colteqial oovernance. X X 0. Scholarly participation x in the academic milieu. X X X X X X X X X X X X X t t X X E Collegial decision based on total group participa- 1 tion and a consensus of err equal voice. X 1 X X X X X X X X District: Name of Cotlegets): Evaluator: Recommendatons: U) U) I D 340 APPENDIX L GOVERNANCE CHARACTERISTIC PROFILE CHECKLIST: COLLEGIAL/BUREAUCRATIC MODEL— COMPLETED EVALUATION FORM Districts: Barstow Cabrillo Cerrito* Chaffev Coast Contra Costa Desert EL Caaino Feather Rivers Glendale Grossaont- Cuvaaaca lake Tahoe Lassen Long Beach Los Rios Florin Mendocino Lake Fterced Flira Costa Honterey Peninsula Fit. San Antonio Collegial /Bureaucratic Mel: X* Reflects a hier archical Governance. X X X X X X X X X X 8. Reflects traditional leadership. C. Bureaucratic decisions based on a fortal system of standard operating procedures, infcraation flows horizontal and vertical. D. Reflects adherence to organizational policies, educational codes and SB 17?$ Mandate*. X .1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E. Reflects the develop ment of a sub-group decision Making process, instead of total group participation in decision aakina. District; tote of College(s): Evaluator: It e c o m m e n d a t o r 3 : Districts: flapa Valiev Palos Verdes Palomar Pasa dena Peralta Rancho Sant iaoo Red- Rio woods Hondo San Bernardino San Francisco San Joaouin San Jose Everoreen San Luis Obilpo San ttateo Santa Barbara Santa Clarita Sequoias Sierra Joint Siskiyot Joint Solano Sonoau CoUegiat/Bureaucretlc ttodel A, Deflect* a hier- fal.fltwefhanet. _ .. X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0. Deflects traditional leadership. C. Bureaucratic decisions based on a formal system of standard operating procedures, information flow* horizontal and vertical. 0. Deflects a*erenc* to organizational policies, educational codes and AB 1725 mandates. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X X E. Deflects the develop ment of a sub-group decision meking process instead of total group participation in decision melt i no. X D istrict: Kane of Collegeli): Evaluator: Recommendatons: W 4* to Dtitrtets: South western State Center Ventura County Victor vallev vest Kern West Valley Million Tuba Allan Hancock Antelope Valiev Butte Cabot-Lai ’osita f remont- ttevark CaviIan lawriit Kt. Sir Jacinto River side Saddle back San DJeoo Santa Honica 5h«ila Triune- tri Joint voimiir CoUegfet/Buremueratie node 1; A. Reflect* * hier archical Governance. X X X X X X X B. lelltctt traditional leadenhio. X X C* Bureaucratic decisions based on a formal system of standard operating procedures, information flout horizontal and vertical. X 0. flefleets adherence to organizational policies, educational codes and AB 1725 mandates. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X i. Reflects the develop ment of a sub-group decision making procesi instead of total group participation in decision makind. Oitfritt: N a m of C olltget*): Evaluator: R e c o D M m f a to n i: W .N u>

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Community college's educational role in supporting the assessed economic development needs of local business and industry

PDF

California superintendents and their views of the Challenge School District Reform Initiative

PDF

Administrative considerations for the inclusion of high school students with the label of seriously emotionally disturbed in regular education classes

PDF

Superintendent and school board communication and relationships in middle-sized districts in California

PDF

Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education (CARE): Factors influencing college completion programs of female single-parent students of selected California community colleges

PDF

Comprehensive high school restructuring: Utilizing school-based management and curricular reforms to increase student achievement

PDF

Computer deployment patterns and student computer use in K-12 education

PDF

Attitudes of honors and non-honors high school students about weighted grading, grade point averaging, class ranking, and access to honors courses

PDF

An Assessment Of The Implementation Of Shared Governance Provisions Of Ab 1725 (1988) At Selected California Community Colleges

PDF

Capacity, access, and equity: Traditional and theoretical measures of educational technology resources in public schools.

PDF

Barriers to implementing distance education: A case study in the community colleges

PDF

A cross-site analysis of the extent of implementation of the California mathematics and science frameworks.

PDF

Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry

PDF

A regression analysis of certificated salary items in a collective agreement and the budgetary impact on district financial certification

PDF

Auroville: Problems in language communication. Is Suggestopedia the solution?

PDF

California community college career centers and contingency theory: Responsive structures for complex environments

PDF

Is Tort Litigation Related To Educational Setting?

PDF

Cost effectiveness of various computer deployment models in K-12 education

PDF

Attitudes of chief financial officers about modifying state required audit guidelines and procedures in order to increase the effectiveness of the audit as a management tool

PDF

A comparative analysis of academic achievement for CalWORKs students in a K--12 public school system

Asset Metadata

Creator Wheeler, Antoinette (author)

Core Title Assembly Bill 1725: Redesigning the California community colleges governance

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,education, community college,education, curriculum and instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Clark, Richard (committee member), Ross, Maurice (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-486883

Unique identifier UC11352580

Identifier 9621645.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-486883 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9621645-0.pdf

Dmrecord 486883

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wheeler, Antoinette

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA