University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Beyond the board room: how personal experiences and environments shape community college trustee learning

(USC Thesis Other)

Beyond the board room: how personal experiences and environments shape community college trustee learning

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Beyond the Board Room:
How Personal Experiences and Environments Shape Community College Trustee Learning
Linda M. Vazquez
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Linda M. Vazquez 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Linda M. Vazquez certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Raquel M. Rall
Sheila Bañuelos
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand the sources of information that community
college trustees draw from to understand their role and responsibilities and what information
supports their decision-making. California community college trustees are publicly elected
officials who provide financial and administrative oversight to a community college district. The
research between what trustees know and how they effectively utilize that knowledge in their
role is limited. This study utilized Bandura’s (1988) social cognitive theory to explore how
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors influence trustee learning. The findings from 16
semi-structured interviews with California community college trustees representing minority
serving institutions indicate that training programs centered on policies and procedures are not
enough to support them faithfully execute their duties. Trustees’ unique identities as people of
color, mothers, and first-generation college students and their prior career experiences provide
them a unique approach to governing their college. Additionally, trustees seek guidance from
their college president and other trustworthy mentors, including other trustees, to learn about
their role and execute their duties. Finally, learning on the job is the most effective way that
trustees come to understand the intricacies of their role.
Keywords: community college, minority serving institutions, trustees, CEO, governance,
policy, decision-makers, CCLC, ACCT, training, professional development, identity, racial
identity, experiences, personal, environmental

v
Dedication
To my husband, thank you for always believing in me and supporting my dreams.
To my daughter, Alitzel. There is nothing I have wanted more in life than to be a mother. I am so
lucky to have held you in my arms, even for a short moment. Thank you for making me a mom.
Por mis padres, gracias por su apoyo y su amor. Soy orgullosa de ser su hija.
To my siblings, nieces, and nephews: the first doctor in the family, but not the last.
To all the Latinas and educated peleoneras.

vi
Acknowledgements
I am a Mexican immigrant, a first-generation college student, and one of six children. I
have dreamt of writing this section for almost 20 years. That is how long ago I knew I wanted to
be Dr. Vazquez. I have been incredibly lucky to receive the mentorship and support of so many
people throughout my education and career.
First and foremost, I want to thank my dissertation committee. Thank you to my chair,
Dr. Patricia Tobey for your warmth, encouragement, and support. You were a great brainstormer
and thought partner. I am so grateful that you took me under your wing, even when your cohort
was full. Dr. Raquel Rall, your attention to detail was vital to the strength of my dissertation. I
hope to continue working with you on the important topic of community college trusteeship. Dr.
Sheila Bañuelos, I am so grateful that the stars aligned and brought you back into my life. Thank
you for providing me with new tools to help my research and writing. I also want to
acknowledge the participants who volunteered for this study. Without you, this study quite
literally could not be possible.
I want to thank my friends, classmates, and colleagues who have been such an important
part of this journey. To my Organizational Change and Leadership (OCL) classmates, this
experience has bonded us forever. To my Wednesday OCL reading group, that you for holding
space for us to gather and bond outside the classroom. Pauline, Dan, and Bryan, you humanized
this experience for me, and I am so grateful for your friendship. To my Latin@s United OCL 21
friends, you inspired me in more ways than you can imagine. We pushed and encouraged each
other like familia would.
Thank you to my colleagues and mentors, Daisy Gonzales, Siria Martinez, Lizette
Navarette, Eloy Oakley Ortiz, Alexandro Gradilla, Silas Abrego, Keith Curry, George Boggs,
Bill McGinnis, Cynthia Mosqueda, Kristan Venegas, and Marisela Cervantes for believing in me

vii
and offering your support in multiple ways along this doctoral journey. Thank you to David and
my government relations team for cheering me on these last 3 years. I am blessed to have so
many friends, especially Tany and Ada, that cheered for me along the way. You will never know
how much your comments, random texts or calls have helped and motivated me to keep going.
Finally, I want to acknowledge my family and husband. Familia, I missed many
birthdays, celebrations and forgot to reply to countless texts over the years. You never made me
feel guilty. Gracias por su apoyo. Esto lo hice por ustedes y espero que mis sacrificios hayan
valido la pena. Luis, you are my number one champ. I know pursuing a doctoral education was
not an easy decision to make in the middle of COVID-19, a move across the state, and several
job transitions. I am eternally grateful to you for gifting me the time and grace to pursue my
dreams.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
A Brief History of Community Colleges in the United States.......................................... 11
Overview of California Community Colleges.................................................................. 20
The Role of Community College Trustees ....................................................................... 32
Community College Trustee Training and Board Development ...................................... 41
Theory and Framework..................................................................................................... 47
Summary........................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 54
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 54
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 55
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 55

ix
Researcher Positionality.................................................................................................... 56
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 63
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 63
Limitation and Delimitations............................................................................................ 64
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 66
Participants........................................................................................................................ 66
Qualitative Findings Overview......................................................................................... 71
Findings for Research Question 1..................................................................................... 73
Findings for Research Question 2..................................................................................... 92
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 110
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 111
Discussion for Research Question 1 ............................................................................... 111
Discussion for Research Question 2 ............................................................................... 118
Recommendations........................................................................................................... 122
Recommendation for Future Research............................................................................ 130
Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 132
References................................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 153
Respondent Type ............................................................................................................ 153
Introduction to the Interview .......................................................................................... 153
Conclusion to the Interview............................................................................................ 157
Appendix B: Email Announcement for Recruitment.................................................................. 158
Appendix C: Information Study Sheet........................................................................................ 159
Appendix D: A Priori Codes to Conceptual Framework............................................................ 160

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Demographics............................................................................................... 67
Table 2: External Factors That Shape Trustee Perceptions ......................................................... 80
Table 3: Experiences with Conferences or Orientations............................................................... 85
Table 4: Trustee Actions to Prepare for Board Meetings............................................................. 98
Table 5: Personal Experience Influence on Trustee Motivation and Leadership ....................... 105
Table 6: Participant Goals and Their Associated Professional Background .............................. 106
Table 7: Themes for Research Question 1.................................................................................. 112
Table 8: Themes for Research Question 2.................................................................................. 118
Table A1: Interview Questions................................................................................................... 154
Appendix D: A Priori Codes to Conceptual Framework............................................................ 160

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Governance Structures of California Community Colleges.......................................... 23
Figure 2: Components of the Conceptual Framework.................................................................. 48
Figure 3: Environmental, Personal, and Behavioral Influences to Trustee Learning and
Development................................................................................................................................. 72
Appendix B: Email Announcement for Recruitment.................................................................. 158
Appendix C: Information Study Sheet........................................................................................ 159

xii
List of Abbreviations
AGB Association of Governing Boards
AACC American Association of Community Colleges
ACCT Association of Community College Trustees
AANAPISI Asian American Native American Pacific Islander serving institutions
CCCCO California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
CCLC Community College League of California
CEO Chief executive officer
HSI Hispanic serving institutions
MSI Minority serving institutions
PBI Primarily Black institutions

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Community colleges have historical roots as autonomous entities primarily governed by
local leaders (Kezar, 2006; McGuinness, 2016; Witt et al., 1994). Elected or appointed board
members, also referred to as trustees, hold the indispensable role of making policy decisions to
guide their community colleges to achieve their mission and strategic goals (Boggs, 2006; Chait
et al., 1991; Rall, 2014). Trustees lead by supporting their campus president, whom they hire to
operationalize the institutional mission (Amey, 2022; Boggs, 2006) and in partnership with
campus stakeholders like faculty and students (Lovell & Trouth, 2002; C. Smith, 2020). At
community college, students earn a vocational and technical education, a degree or credential, or
transfer to a 4-year university (Boggs, 2010; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994).
Therefore, the actions of trustees to support the diverse needs of their students are of
consequence. When trustees lack the knowledge and the skills to govern their institutions
responsibly, the public repercussions are far-reaching.
The case for robust orientation and ongoing professional development for community
college trustees is not a contested topic in higher education (Amey, 2022; The Aspen Institute,
2013; Association of Community College Trustees [ACCT], n.d.-b; Association of Governing
Boards [AGB], n.d., 2023; Boggs, 2022; Cooper, 2017; Floyd, 1995; Kezar, 2006; Phelan, 2022;
Tekniepe, 2014). Training and ongoing education are associated with effective boards (Boggs,
2006; Eddy et al., 2022; C. Smith, 2019). Effective boards are those that respect the role of the
college president or CEO (Carver, 2006; Phelan, 2022), govern with student success in mind
(Phelan, 2022; Potter & Phelan, 2008), engage in participatory governance (AGB, 2017), prepare
for the future (Boggs & McPhail, 2020; C. Smith, 2020), and commit to ongoing learning (C.
Smith, 2020). When they engage in ongoing education and professional development, trustees
can govern in ways that support the success of their institutions.

2
Background of the Problem
There is insufficient empirical evidence about the knowledge trustees utilize to inform the
way they govern. Community college trustees can access numerous training courses that help
them understand their roles and responsibilities. National and state membership organizations
like the Association of Community College Trustees and the Community College League of
California (CCLC) offer numerous resources for board member development (ACCT, n.d.-a,
n.d.-b; C. Smith, 2019, 2020). However, trustees do not always take advantage of the available
training (Kezar, 2006; Polonio, 2005). Approximately 20–25% of community college trustees
across the United States participate in ACCT training programs (Polonio, 2005). Larry Galizio,
CEO of the CCLC, shared that the average California trustee participation rate in CCLC
programs between 2019–2023 was 27% (L. Galizio, personal communication, March 25, 2024).
If trustees do participate in training, it is unclear what knowledge they gain and how they apply it
into practice (Kezar, 2006). This knowledge gap highlights the importance of exploring the
sources of information that trustees rely on to support them in their roles.
Community college trustees hold a prominent policy-making position within their
district. Trustees are responsible for all administrative, fiscal, personnel, and academic matters of
an institution (Bastedo, 2009a; Chait et al., 2004; Morgan et al., 2022; Rall et al., 2019; C. Smith,
2019). While on paper, trustees have ultimate governing authority to act on these matters, they
do so in recognition of many factors. Factors, such as growing political pressures (Cloud, 2022;
Mayfield et al., 2022; Rall et al., 2022), trustee elections (Cloud, 2022), changing student
demographics (Amey, 2022), and funding sources (Amey, 2022; Dortch, 2023), bring challenges
or opportunities to trustees in ways that influence their decisions. As such, the environments that
support community college trustee learning and development should get more attention.

3
Community colleges exist in an ecosystem shaped by internal and external factors.
Workforce requires that community colleges produce necessary credentials to meet demand
(Doyle & Gorbunov, 2011; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994). Colleges must adapt to
shifting sources in funding (Barringer, 2016; Dortch, 2023; Tollefson, 2009). Community
college enrollment is larger and more diverse. Across the United States, community colleges
enroll more than 10 million students, and the majority are women and racially diverse (American
Association of Community Colleges [AACC], n.d.). Further, unions have considerable influence
in trustee elections (Boggs, 2022; Cloud, 2010, 2022). Lastly, legislative oversight is increasing
in some states like California, where the state legislature has clear expectations for California
community colleges to increase transfer rates (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2022),
improve remediation and course placement practices (Felix, 2021), and close equity gaps (Office
of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2022). The legislature expects boards of trustees to achieve these
goals. The expectations are numerous and community college boards must be capable to meet
these needs.
Statement of the Problem
Community college trustees need ongoing and relevant training to be effective stewards
of their institutions. Only a quarter of trustees participate in national training programs by the
ACCT (Polonio, 2005), and 27% participate in California training programs by the CCLC (L.
Galizio, personal communication, March 25, 2024). Even when trustees participate in training, it
is unclear how they use the content. C. Smith (2020) writes that the community college
environment influences how trustees implement their newly acquired skills in real life. If internal
and external environments shape community colleges and the environments also influence how

4
trustees govern, then the relationship between environments and trustee actions is worthy to
explore.
There is limited research analyzing board member roles in higher education (Amey,
2022; Kezar, 2006; Rall et al., 2022). Even less literature exists on how board member
interactions and their environment influence their behavior and decision-making (Barringer,
2016). Therefore, it is important to consider if and how these environments influence trustee
learning. Most of the existing literature on boards focuses on trustee roles (Barringer & Riffe,
2018; Boggs, 2006; Chait et al., 1991; Chait et al., 2004; Demetri et al., 2022; Kezar, 2006),
selection (Dika & Janosik, 2003; Hill et al., 2001), and an expanding body of work on
effectiveness (Barringer & Riffe, 2018; Holland et al., 1989). A lack of empirical research to
illustrate how board members can effectively fulfill their responsibilities in practice places
community colleges at risk of failing to achieve their institutional goals.
Trustees are lay volunteers, and they govern community colleges by acting as a bridge
between their communities and institutions (Hendrickson et al., 2012; Kezar, 2006; C. Smith,
2020). Acting as connectors, lay boards “interpret the environment to the institution and ensure
strategic linkages to the many constituencies” they represent (Hendrickson et al., 2012, p. 222).
The concept of lay board governance ensures that society, not just the academic professionals at
an educational institution, holds oversight power on matters that benefit the public (Hendrickson
et al., 2012). Despite their important oversight role, trustees may not have prior knowledge of
higher education before they assume their new role (Amey, 2022; Hendrickson et al., 2012;
Phelan, 2022; Rall, et al., 2022). Due to their limited preparation before assuming their role,
community college trustees need training that helps them understand how to perform their
responsibilities.

5
Training and ongoing education provide community college trustees with the knowledge
and skills to meet their institution’s mission and confront the challenges before them (Amey,
2022; Boggs, 2006). Continuing education for trustees is more critical than ever because
demographic, economic, and enrollment are changing the higher education landscape (Carnevale
et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2019). Community college organizations highly encourage
community college trustees to participate in professional development (ACCT, n.d.-b). The
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior College (ACCJC) also requires that its
member colleges provide orientation for new board members (ACCJC, 2014; C. Smith, 2019).
Despite the emphasis on training and ongoing development, participation is not a frequent
practice for trustees (Kezar, 2006). There is a disconnect between the professed importance of
trustee training and the patterns of actual participation.
Purpose of the Study
The knowledge gap between community college trustee roles and the ways they execute
their duties is the driving purpose for this study. This study seeks to understand how community
college board members come to learn about their roles and responsibilities and how they apply
that knowledge in their governance and decision-making. Specifically, the study aims to explore
the contextual environments that influence trustee learning and what knowledge supports their
decision-making. Trustees hold incredible power over policies that support student success,
including academic policies and program budgets. Through their decision-making, their actions
impact students.
Organizational theories dominate the current research landscape on higher education
governance (Eddy et al., 2022). More literature exists on higher education structures (AGB,
2017; Kezar, 2006; Tollefson, 2009; Wise et al., 2020) than on the human beings who operate

6
those structures (Porritt & Stagg, 2022; Potter & Phelan, 2008; Rall, 2014). Therefore, this study
will apply Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to examine how governing board members’
environments shape their perception about their roles and responsibilities, and how those
learning experiences influence their decision-making.
Bandura’s (1988) social cognitive theory posits that human behavior operates within
reciprocal interactions and learning occurs within social environments (Schunk & Usher, 2012).
Community college boards have near complete autonomy to govern their colleges, but they must
do so while responding to economic changes (Tierney, 1988), political influence (Cloud, 2022;
Hendrickson et al., 2012; Mayfield et al., 2022), and social needs (Doyle & Gorbunov, 2011).
Social cognitive theory frames this study to understand how contextual environments, including
personal experiences, influence individual trustee behavior.
This qualitative study will look closely at the human behavior that drives engagement and
decision-making at community colleges. The following research questions guide this study:
1. How do California community college board members representing minority serving
institutions make sense of their roles and responsibilities?
2. What knowledge and experiences do California community college board members
draw on to inform their decisions within their roles?
These research questions will help the research community understand how board
members become acculturated to their role and what spaces are most influential to trustee
learning. It seeks to understand what factors support trustee learning and engagement. Trustees
serve in this role because they are committed to student success (ACCT, 2018; Phelan, 2022).
The student population in California community colleges are majority students of color
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Data Mart [CCCCO Data Mart], 2024a).

7
Therefore, these research questions intend to consider decision-making at institutions where most
students enrolled are students of color. Colleges receive state and federal funding to support the
success of students of color (Dortch, 2023). Through their decision-making authority (C. Smith,
2019), trustees have a fiduciary obligation to monitor how their institutions spend these dollars.
The goal of this study is not to understand what increases participation in professional
development, but to understand where trustees gain valuable information that supports them in
their role. By illuminating how trustees learn, the findings from this study can support the
creation of new strategies to design professional development programs that trustees will use.
With a better understanding of how environments shape trustee learning, community college
leaders, policymakers, and scholars gain valuable information to develop structures or policies
that promote successful trusteeship.
Significance of the Study
Trustee actions directly impact institution’s students, whether the trustees work directly
with them or not (Boggs, 2006; Rall, 2014; C. Smith, 2020). A college designated as a minority
serving institution (MSI) receives federal funding to support low-income and traditionally
underrepresented students in higher education (Dortch, 2023). These funds support the creation
of academic programs, community partnerships, articulation pathways with 4-year universities,
and more (Dortch, 2023). Similarly, California community colleges receive state funding that
takes into consideration the number of low-income students they enroll (Linden, 2022). This
student-centered funding formula awards additional funding to community colleges for
successful completion metrics of underserved students. Studying the ways trustees comprehend
their responsibilities is crucial, especially considering that one of their fundamental roles is to
approve their institution’s budget, and those budgets hinge on diversity of their student body.

8
Effective governance of community colleges is an equity imperative. Through their
affordable tuition rates and open-access mission, community colleges support a diverse
population of students, including low-income, immigrants, parents, foster youth, working
learners, and people of color (CCCCO Data Mart, 2024a; AACC, n.d.). Community colleges are
also beacons of economic opportunity and engines of social mobility for low-income individuals
(Carnevale et al., 2013). Undeniably, governing a community college is one of the most critical
leadership roles in higher education (Eddy et al., 2022; Gillett-Karam, 2013; Kater et al., 2022;
Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; C. Smith, 2020).
This study will focus on California community colleges. The California Community
College system includes 116 community colleges and serves 1.9 million students, 68% of whom
are of racially diverse backgrounds (California Community Colleges, n.d.). The effectiveness of
California community colleges leads to economic prosperity for the entire state of California
(Emsi Burning Glass, 2022). California community colleges generate more than $128 billion
annually to the state economy in added income (Emsi Burning Glass, 2022). Additionally, the
success of California community colleges has implications for the rest of the nation (The Aspen
Institute, 2013). Despite the system’s recent efforts to increase student success, completion
numbers are low and racial equity gaps remain (CCCCO Data Mart, 2024b; Felix, 2021). This
calls for a closer look at the experiences of local community college trustees who govern their
colleges with these goals in mind.
It is in the best interest of the public to ensure that trustees are successful in their roles.
California taxpayers primarily finance community colleges and the public elects community
college trustees (Boggs, 2006; C. Smith, 2019). An examination of the environments that
influence trustee decision-making allows stakeholders to assess whether board members receive

9
adequate training and assistance to meet their goals. It can also inform whether there are
procedures in place to hold board members accountable for promoting equitable outcomes.
Definition of Terms
This study employs numerous crucial words to enhance understanding of the research.
This list provides a clear and precise explanation of specific terms, titles, concepts, or phrases.
• Accreditation is defined by the ACCJC (2022) as “A system by which an institution
evaluates itself in accordance with standards of good practice regarding mission,
goals, and objectives; the appropriateness, sufficiency, and utilization of resources,”
measuring its effectiveness to achieve “its intended student achievement and student
learning outcomes, at levels generally acceptable for higher education” (para. 1)
• Board of trustees is a group of publicly elected or appointed individuals who govern a
community college and district (C. Smith, 2019). This study uses the terms governing
boards and boards of trustees interchangeably.
• California Community Colleges refers to the system of the 116 community colleges in
California, and the term California community colleges refers to the individual
colleges.
• Community college is an open-access institution that offers a postsecondary education
at an affordable cost and is a stepping-stone to a 4-year degree.
• Community college districts organize California’s 116 colleges. Colleges are
organized by 73 community college districts, each of them governed by a locally
elected board (C. Smith, 2019).

10
• Minority serving institutions are “institutions of higher education that serve high
concentrations of students, who historically have been underrepresented in higher
education” (Dortch, 2023, p. ii).
• President or CEO is the individual that the board of trustees appoints and the only
person who reports directly to the board. This can be a president, superintendent, or
chancellor. This study uses the terms president and CEO interchangeably.
• Shared governance is “the process by which various constituents (traditionally
governing boards, senior administration, and faculty; possibly also staff, students, or
others) contribute to decision making related to college or university policy and
procedure,” (AGB, 2017, p. 3).
• Trustees are publicly elected or appointed leaders that oversee the administration of
their community college. Community college trustees “ensure that the community
college district fulfills its responsibility to lead and serve its ever-changing
community,” (C. Smith, 2019, p. 22). This study uses the terms community college
trustee and board member interchangeably, and trustees and boards interchangeably.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One discusses the problem of practice
and provides an overview of the study. Chapter Two provides a comprehensive literature review
of the factors that influence the role of community colleges and trustees. The chapter also
includes an introduction to Bandura’s (1988) social cognitive theory, the theoretical framework
used for this study. Chapter Three provides a detailed review of the methodology. Chapter Four
covers the findings from the data collection. Chapter Five includes recommendations for policy
practice and future research.

11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter includes a review of relevant literature. Specifically, it consists of an
overview of community colleges, a review of community college governance, trustee roles,
trusteeship, and the training environment that supports trustees. The literature examines the
origins of community colleges and considers their evolving mission. It also includes an overview
of the California community colleges and the conditions that shape trusteeship, including state
law, funding, governance, and policies. It then provides an overview of existing scholarship on
trustee roles and responsibilities, including their bestowed authority and what is known about the
execution of these roles. Finally, this chapter introduces the theoretical framework used to guide
this study.
A Brief History of Community Colleges in the United States
Education is central to the American philosophy of equal opportunity (Brint & Karabel,
1989; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994). Community colleges made this quintessential
idea a reality for many by creating a pathway to a postsecondary education that was previously
only open to a select few (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Witt et al., 1994). These institutions are
commonly referred to as the People’s College (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Cohen et al., 2014) or the
“university of the common man” (Witt et al., 1994, p. 3) because of their open-door policies.
They are also called junior colleges (Brint & Karabel, 1989) or 2-year institutions. However, the
term community college became widespread after its inclusion in President Truman’s
Commission on Higher Education Report in the late 1940s (Witt et al., 1994). Colleges
nationwide changed their names from junior college to community college soon after the release
of this report (Witt et al., 1994).
Community colleges provide educational opportunities for a diverse range of individuals.
While enrolled in community colleges, students gain life-long skills, upskill for a career, access

12
career and technical education, or to transfer to a 4-year university (Boggs, 2010; Rhoads &
Valadez, 1996; C. Smith, 2020; Witt et al., 1994). With their open-admissions policy and
affordable tuition, community colleges enroll more students who are low-income, working
adults, female-identifying, and racially diverse than 4-year universities (Baime & Baum, 2016;
AACC, n.d.) The economic and social benefits are significant. Students who transfer from a
community college and earn a baccalaureate degree will earn 84% more in income during their
lifetime than those with only a high school diploma (Carnevale et al., 2016). Even a short-term
credential from a community college increases wages and a higher quality of life (Beer et al.,
2021; Johnson & Mejia, 2020). Community colleges serve an important purpose by supporting
students on a path to social and economic mobility.
The Purpose of Community Colleges
Multiple forces shape the purpose of community colleges’ existence (Bailey & Morest,
2006; Baime & Baum, 2016). The Great Depression sparked a surge in community college
enrollment and creation of new institutions (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Economic conditions
affected by World War II necessitated a more educated American citizenry. Between the 1920s
and 1950s, the labor market demanded more skilled workers, and community colleges were
critical to offering vocational degrees (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996). Community colleges faced
pressure between the 1950s and 1970s to serve another purpose. Faculty unrest, changes in
funding, and increased adult student enrollment sparked a new focus on community education
(Beehler, 1993; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994). Over the course of history,
community colleges have served many purposes to meet the growing demands of their external
environments.

13
National policy agendas also influence the purpose of community colleges. Presidents
and Congress support community colleges to keep the United States globally competitive.
President Truman’s 1947 Commission on Higher Education urged community colleges to
expand access to postsecondary education (Bailey & Morest, 2006). The Truman Commission on
Higher Education was the first major effort by a U.S. president to set a national policy agenda on
higher education (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). Scholars (Gilbert & Heller, 2013) posit that the report
served as a precursor to further federal engagement in community college access. President
Biden urged Congressional support for America’s College Promise to make community college
free (The United States White House, 2021). National leaders look to community colleges to
support the nation’s growing demands because they are versatile and open-access institutions.
The Mission of Community Colleges
A clearly articulated mission is fundamental to the success of a college. College leaders
must take into consideration how the environments surrounding their communities influence
their unique mission. Boggs and Galizio (2021) describe mission evolution as one that adapts as
the college itself evolves. Additionally, Boggs and McPhail (2020) encourage college leaders to
think of a mission as a roadmap for the future, and they should align their actions to support this
roadmap. Community colleges serve multiple purposes, and a well-defined mission helps
trustees achieve those purposes. National leaders followed the approach suggested by Boggs and
McPhail (2020). The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) is a national nonprofit organization that represents more than 1,200 public and private community colleges. The
organization changed its name twice throughout its more than 100-year tenure to reflect the
expanded mission of its institutions (AACC, n.d.). Community college trustees must understand
how their own institution’s mission adapts to their evolving community needs.

14
The mission of community colleges changes over time in relation to external needs.
Community colleges were first founded with the recognition that they operate under a general
education and transfer-centered mission (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994).
Community colleges effectively became known as junior colleges because they extended
academic studies to students beyond high school and prepared them for a baccalaureate or career
(Bogue, 2006; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Tollefson, 2009; Witt et al., 1994). President Truman’s
1940 Commission on Higher Education proposed that community colleges should also provide
vocational education (Bailey & Morest, 2006), further adding to the diverse community college
mission. This required community colleges to expand their curriculum focus from general
education and transfer to also include vocational programs.
The expectation to offer more educational services makes it challenging for community
colleges to achieve any one of those missions well. Bailey and Morest (2006) claim that
President Truman’s call-to-action for community colleges to offer vocational degrees propelled
controversy amongst stakeholders because it complicated their mission. A policy brief by Baime
and Baum (2016) states that multiple community college missions “complicate the measures of
student success” (p. 2). Despite the caution by scholars and policymakers, community colleges
continue to expand on their comprehensive mission. Community colleges awarded associate in
arts degrees in their early years, but some now offer baccalaureates degrees (Boggs & Galizio,
2021; Cohen et al., 2014; Fulton, 2020; Witt et al., 1994). More community colleges decide to
offer baccalaureate degrees because of workforce demand (Fulton, 2020) and, as affordable and
accessible institutions, they can support more students. Once again, this shift demonstrates that
the mission and role of community colleges continuously evolves.

15
Calling these institutions 2-year colleges is misleading to state legislators. White (2022b)
documents the experiences of community college trustees who advocate for state resources to
support the community college mission. White (2022b) described the difficulty trustees
experienced as they explained the community college identity and mission to state policymakers.
The perception of community colleges as 2-year colleges fails to capture their diverse functions
to provide educational opportunities to students with a broad range of goals.
Funding of Community Colleges
Community college trustees are responsible for the fiscal oversight of their colleges.
Funding enables colleges to pay general operating expenses, administer programs and pay for
other related expenses. Most community colleges across the United States receive a combination
of funds from the state and federal government, local taxpayers, and student tuition (Boggs,
2006; Burns, 2023; State Higher Education Executive Officers Association [SHEEO], 2023;
White, 2022a). Funding determines how community colleges function, therefore, trustees
governance approaches adhere to these funding sources.
Historical roots in the financing of community colleges form opinions amongst college
leaders about who is ultimately responsible for governing community colleges. Four-year
universities established some of the earliest community colleges in the nation and they partly
funded these colleges through their university budgets (Witt et al., 1994). Before World War II,
local district revenues primarily funded community colleges, with some income generated by
tuition and fees (Burns, 2023). California’s very first community colleges were established and
funded solely with local property taxes (Tollefson, 2009); state support did not come until years
later. Different stakeholders contribute to the financing of community colleges. Over time, some
states increased their funding for community colleges while local revenue decreased (Burns,

16
2023). States that heavily depend on local appropriations tend to have a community college
governance structure that grants more control to local boards of trustees (Burns, 2023). Twentyseven percent of California community colleges funding comes from local appropriations (Burns,
2023). States exert greater influence over community college standards when their funding levels
exceed local revenue. The changes in funding structures result in a shift in power dynamics
between state leaders and local boards of trustees.
The amount of funding that community colleges receive can also send indirect messages
to trustees about how they should govern. Funding levels for all postsecondary institutions are
higher than they were before the Great Recession in 2009 (SHEEO, 2023). Yet, community
colleges receive 67% of the state funding compared to 4-year institutions receive (SHEEO,
2023). The funding levels do not align with the numerous missions that community colleges
must achieve. Research has not illuminated how historical trends in funding have impacted
trustees. However, according to Tollefson (2009), changing economic conditions, tuition trends,
state oversight and growing federal involvement are important factors that influence community
college funding patterns. These factors are also ones that influence the community college
mission, as noted earlier in the chapter. The limited research on 4-year universities shows that
boards of trustees tend to change their spending levels when revenue streams change (Barringer,
2016). Research on how community college boards respond to funding changes does not exist.
Structure and Operations of Community Colleges
A network of decision-makers organizes the community college structures. Community
college trustees are responsible for setting policies for their institution, and they hire a president
to conduct those policies (Boggs, 2006; Hedrickson et al., 2012; Lovell & Trouth, 2002; Rall et
al., 2022; C. Smith, 2019). The president, in turn, directs their staff to manage the daily

17
operations in service of the institution’s goals. As lay citizens (Hedrickson et al., 2012; Kezar,
2006), trustees make decisions on matters that trustees may not be familiar with (Amey, 2022;
Phelan, 2022; Rall et al., 2021). It is best practice for a board of trustees to consult with
administrators, faculty, and other key stakeholders before they adopt new policies. This process
is known as shared governance (Fulton, 2019). The Association of Governing Boards (AGB)
offers this definition of governance “the process by which various constituents contribute to the
decision-making related to college or university policy and procedure” (AGB, 2017, p. 3). Lovell
and Trouth (2002) describe governance as a “complex web of relationships and arrangements”
(p. 91). Governing a community college involves consultation with key constituents.
Stakeholder consultation is expected for trustees (AGB, 2017; Kater et al., 2022; C.
Smith, 2020), but the practice looks different at every campus (Boggs, 2006). In 2017, the AGB
conducted a series of focus groups with more than 200 college leaders to discuss perceptions of
shared governance. The AGB (2017) could not find a consensus for a standard definition of
shared governance among this group. This suggests that every campus operates within its own
understanding of shared leadership. The report notes, “When faculty, administrators, and boards
are actively and collaboratively involved in decision-making processes, decisions are
implemented more quickly and more effectively” (p. 3). Engaging with the appropriate
stakeholders is an essential strategy for making informed decisions.
Despite the broad differences in higher education governance structures, what is clear is
that trustees are critical players. Thousands of leaders undertake the responsibility to serve as
community college trustees. Across the nation, over 6,500 appointed or elected trustees govern
more than 1,200 public and private community colleges (ACCT, 2023). At least 36 states follow
a practice of electing community college trustees by voters in their district (ACCT, 2014; Fulton,

18
2019) and in most of the remaining states, the state governor appoints trustees (Fletcher &
Friedel, 2016).
Boards also have their own decision-making structure. The voters elect individual leaders
to a board; however, the board can only take actions as a unit (Boggs, 2006; Carver, 2006; C.
Smith, 2019). Further, the board chair influences the effectiveness of the entire board of trustees
(Kezar, 2006). The chair can set the agenda, mentor new members (Carver, 2006), establish
board norms (Kezar, 2006), and address inappropriate board behavior (Cloud, 2020). They are
often the only member authorized to speak on behalf of the board, when necessary (C. Smith,
2020). Whether appointed by a state body or elected by voters in their district, these officials are
responsible for guiding their institution to achieve their mission and strategic goals.
Shared Leadership Roles
On paper, trustees are responsible for the effectiveness of their institution. Governing an
institution is a shared responsibility across many constituents. The board is responsible for hiring
and managing the CEO, who operationalizes board policies and executes the college’s mission
(Amey, 2002; Boggs, 2006; California Assembly Bill 1725, Section 70902; C. Smith, 2019).
Trustees are not involved in the groundwork of operations, but their decisions impact every
aspect of the institution (Bastedo, 2005; Boggs, 2006; Kezar, 2006; Morgan et al., 2022; Rall et
al., 2019). A report by ACCT (2016) emphasized that trustees establish policies that in turn,
guide administrators and staff to achieve the stated goals. Further, the report (ACCT, 2016) says
that the most critical role of trusteeship is to understand that trustees are not employees of the
institution and therefore, “should not involve themselves in the college administration or
operations” (p. 11). Understanding the appropriate ways to execute their shared responsibilities
supports trustees’ ability to effectively govern an institution.

19
Board members must understand the shared governance structure they work in (C. Smith,
2020). Community college leaders who do not understand how to navigate within these
structures will struggle to effectively lead their organization (Boggs, 2006; Kezar, 2006; C.
Smith, 2020). Research suggests that a spirit of collegiality influences campus climate (Prater,
2009). A case study (Boggs & McPhail, 2020) of an embattled community college in Baltimore
County showed that cross-stakeholder contributions to campus strategic planning were vital to its
institutional success. Similarly, effective boards and presidents are those that work well with
faculty (Boggs, 2006; Chait et al., 1994). This underscores that it is not about what to lead but
how and who to lead in partnership with.
Board and President Relationship
The board of community college trustees operates in an ecosystem of decision-makers,
including the state legislature, faculty, students, staff, and administrators (Tierney, 1988; Kezar,
2006; McGuinness, 2016). The most important relationship within this network of decisionmakers is the one between the board and the CEO (Boggs, 2006; Cooper, 2017; C. Smith, 2019).
Trustees hire a president to lead their institution and the board bequeaths them the final authority
to conduct the board’s mission and goals (Amy, 2022; Boggs, 2006; C. Smith, 2019). Research
on community college effectiveness shows a strong correlation between the board and president
relationship (Cooper, 2016; Potter & Phelan, 2008; The Aspen Institute, 2013). The president’s
effectiveness determines their leadership team’s success (Boggs & McPhail, 2020). If trustees
are responsible for the success of their institution, then supporting their president to be an
effective leader is also one of their most important responsibilities.
A study by Cooper (2017) showed a mismatch of roles and expectations between boards
and presidents. Some trustees expressed their desire to support their president but are cautious

20
about not micromanaging. On the other hand, presidents stated that they might limit the
information they share with their board to shield them (Cooper, 2017). Trustees and presidents
contribute to the emerging discourse on this relationship. A trustee in Prater’s (2009) dissertation
study called attention to this dynamic:
I think the board should demand student success, then get out of the way while the
chancellor and those under the chancellor determine how that success is defined. …We
let him know, this is the goal of your job and your job depends on this. (p. 120)
Another study is by Potter and Phelan (2008). George Potter, a 40-year trustee veteran and
Daniel Phelan, a college president who once reported to Potter, created a set of principles to
cultivate a strong board and president relationship (Potter & Phelan, 2008):
• A sense of trust between president and board is key.
• The president should treat all board members equally.
• There should be open and relevant communication between the president and board.
• Board and presidents should respect each party’s purview to make decisions.
• The board does not undermine the president’ authority.
• Boards and presidents operate as team.
These lessons provide boards of trustees with suggestions on fostering collaborative partnerships
with their presidents.
Overview of California Community Colleges
California community colleges are critical to the survival of local and state economies
(Emsi Burning Glass, 2022). Projections indicate that by 2030, 40% of California’s jobs will
require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree (Johnson et al., 2019). Studies show that California
community colleges can meet these workforce demands. The California Community College

21
system is composed of 116 colleges, one of them a completely online college. It is the largest
system of higher education in the world and serves over 1.9 million students (California
Community Colleges, n.d.).
Authority Structure Over California Community Colleges
The California Community College system works in an intricate coordinating system that
includes state legislative oversight, different decision-makers, and unique funding mechanisms.
Its structure underwent many transformations over the years, and it is challenging for college
leaders to navigate. The California Master Plan for Higher Education in the 1960s formally
established community college oversight under the State Board of Education (Boggs & Galizio,
2021). Less than a decade later, however, California community college authority moved to a
newly created body: the California Community Colleges Board of Governors (Boggs & Galizio,
2021; California Education Code, Section 71024). Most local governing boards have existed
longer than the Board of Governor has.
As the California Community College system grew, so did the legislature’s involvement.
Before the enactment of the California Master Plan for Higher Education, community college
districts operated in silos (Boggs & Galizio, 2021). Through the creation of this Master Plan, the
legislature granted the Board of Governors the “duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and
jurisdiction” to manage, administer and control the community colleges (California Education
Code, Section 71024). Yet, the law still retained significant authority to local governing boards
to “establish, maintain, operate, and govern” their individual colleges (California Education
Code, Section 70902). Additionally, this specific statute grants local governing boards the
authority to establish and implement programs, policies, and regulations to operate so long as

22
they are not inconsistent with the authority granted to the Board of Governors (California
Education Code, Section 70902).
It is also important to understand the leadership structures at the local level. The bilateral
power structure grants ultimate authority to the Board of Governors over community colleges but
simultaneously emphasizes local authority on similar matters. The 115 physical colleges report
to 72 different districts managed by publicly elected boards of trustees Most of the 72 districts
only have one community college but others include multiple institutions (C. Smith, 2019).
Districts with multiple institutions have an additional layer to the decision-making tree (Boggs &
McPhail, 2020). The campus presidents only report to the chancellor, and the chancellor is the
only person who reports to the board (C. Smith, 2019).
While each trustee is individually elected by voters in their district, they do not have
individual authority on the board. A board of trustees can only take action on policies when the
entire board votes (Boggs, 2006; Carver, 2006; Chait et al., 1994; C. Smith, 2019). The
decentralized nature of this governance system underscores the importance of understanding the
environment in which leaders make decisions to support local and state goals. A Little Hoover
Commission report (2012) provides an illustration (see Figure 1) that depicts the multiple
decision-makers that govern a community college. Additionally, they found that the system’s
bilateral governance structure creates significant challenges to college leaders to implement
policies.

23
Figure 1
Governance Structures of California Community Colleges
Note. This figure represents the California Community Colleges governance structure.
Reproduced from the report Serving Students, Serving California: Updating the California
Community Colleges to Meet Evolving Demands, by the Little Hoover Commission,
2012 (https://lhc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Reports/210/Report210.pdf).
Funding of the California Community Colleges
The various changes in California community colleges financing resulted in numerous
shifts in the transfer of power. The California Ballard Act in 1917 required that any in California
district seeking to establish a community college must have property assessed at a minimum of

24
$3 million (Boggs & Galizio, 2021). This meant that if a community had the financial means to
generate local revenue, they could establish a community college. Between the 1970s and 1980s,
however, voter ballot initiatives granted more funding control over educational institutions to the
state legislature (Boggs & Galizio, 2021). For example, in 1978, voters approved Proposition 13,
which restricted local districts’ ability to raise their own funding (Little Hoover Commission,
2012). Ten years later, voters passed Proposition 98, which established a minimum state funding
guarantee for K–12 and community colleges (Little Hoover Commission, 2012). Still, local
boards have discretion in how they spend their funds (Linden, 2022). Although the roles of
community college trustees have remained largely the same, the sources of funding for
community colleges have evolved.
Another major shift in community college funding demonstrates how state leadership
continues to exert its power over local community colleges. Until 2018, the state of California
funded community colleges largely based on student enrollment (Linden, 2022). Lagging
completion rates and growing achievement gaps among underrepresented students led to the
development of the student-centered funding formula (Linden, 2022). The legislature adopted a
new funding formula for community colleges that considers student enrollment, socioeconomic
status, and successful student outcomes (Linden, 2022). It provides more dollars to colleges that
serve underrepresented students and rewards colleges for increasing successful outcomes of
those students. The formula moves away from the practice of funding based on enrollment and
instead, incentivizes colleges to improve the success of their underrepresented students (Linden,
2022). The new funding structure serves as an incentive for trustees to prioritize efforts that
support minority student success.

25
Coordinating Bodies of the California Community College System
Community college trustees coordinate within a system of many groups. Vested with
legislative authority, the California Community Colleges Board of Governors oversees all 116
community colleges in California (California Education Code, Section 71024). The Board of
Governors has the authority to establish statewide policies and goals for all community colleges
(California Education Code, Section 71024). The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office (CCCCO) serves as the administrative body for the Board of Governors. The CCCCO
executes fiscal and policy matters for the system and acts as a buffer between the colleges and
the legislature (C. Smith, 2019). Even with legislative oversight and a statewide leadership body,
college governance rests in the hands of local boards of trustees. The 116-community college
system is organized by 73 districts, each administered by a publicly elected or appointed board of
trustees (Boggs, 2006; Little Hoover Commission, 2012; C. Smith, 2019). One of the colleges in
the system is Calbright College, a completely online college and it receives its oversight by the
Board of Governors. The system office plays an important leadership role for colleges but is not
a unilateral decision-making entity for local districts.
The origin of California community colleges as locally independent institutions has
ingrained a perception that as locally supported institutions, they are best controlled by local
trustees. As the literature review reveals, changes to the funding, legislation, and mission
contributed to the numerous changes to the authority structure of California community colleges.
Amidst growing state involvement, faculty and administrators fought for changes that established
clearer lines between state and local powers. Between the 1970s and 1980s, faculty and
administrators formed their own associations to protect local authority (Boggs & Galizio, 2021).
The association’s legislative advocacy resulted in the passage of AB 1725 (California Education

26
Code, Section 70902), which requires the Board of Governors to consult community college
stakeholders on policy matters (Boggs & Galizio, 2021).
State legislation can foster a cooperative environment in complex governance settings
like those in the California community colleges. AB 1725 established clear expectations for
college leaders to work with faculty (California Education Code, Section 71020.5) but evidence
shows that effective boards are those that work closely with faculty and other campus
stakeholders (AGB, 2017). Faculty shape the classroom environment that helps students succeed
(Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015) and evidence shows that when a college president is successful in
their role, the institutions are successful (Beehler, 1993; Boggs, 2006). To foster student, faculty,
and president success, the importance of board collaboration cannot be understated.
Implementation of Policy Under a Decentralized System
The California community college system distributes power and authority at both the
state and local levels. California law (California Education Code, Section 70901) requires the
Board of Governors to ensure autonomy to local districts to the “maximum degree permissible”
(Part 43). Implementing statewide policies within this decentralized structure is no easy task for
college leaders. While the California Community Colleges Board of Governors may hold
administrative and budget powers officially, local college leaders bear the ultimate responsibility
to act on the demands of statewide policies (California Education Code Section 70901). A good
example of how state leaders expect local boards to meet statewide goals is through the studentcentered funding formula. It funds local districts partly based on their successful outcomes
(Linden, 2022). Additionally, the Board of Governors launched the Vision for Success initiative
in 2017, a systemwide set of goals to close racial equity gaps, improve time to degree, reduce
unit accumulation, and improve job placement rates (California Community Colleges Vision for
Commented [AW1]: See above

27
Success, 2017). More than 6 years later, the system made modest progress in some of those goals
but lags in transfer rates (CCC Data Mart, 2024b). System leadership has signaled clear
expectations for a unified agenda for all community colleges, and local boards must determine
how they will meet those expectations.
Mission of the California Community College System
The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office listed on their website that the
mission of California Community Colleges is to provide “life-changing opportunities and a clear
path to … goals, whether it’s transferring to a four-year college or university or seeking the jobtraining skills that can help … move up the career ladder” (CCCCO, n.d., para. 1.). Compared to
the broad mission presented by the Chancellor’s Office, the California Education Code Section
66010.4 is more specific and includes the following components as part of the California
Community College mission:
• Offers academic and vocational instruction in lower division coursework for younger
and adult students, including those returning to school.
• Grants associate in arts and associate in science degrees.
• Offers instruction through English as a second language and adult noncredit.
• Prohibits the instruction beyond the second year of college.
• Advances California’s economic prosperity and meet workforce demand.
In 2021, the California Governor signed legislation to amend the California Community
College’s mission by granting the colleges the ability to offer limited baccalaureate degrees
(California Education Code, 2021, Article 3, Section 6, Subsection 78043). Additionally, each
community college board has legal authority to develop their own mission that supplements state
law (California Education Code, Section 72000). They also have the authority to change the

28
name of their district. Through these legal powers, trustees have considerable power to adapt to
external demands by revising their institution’s mission.
The expectation to serve many purposes does not provide much direction for trustees as
they govern institutions. The continued expansion of the mission is evidence of the growing
expectations for community colleges. State law restricts what degrees community colleges can
offer but those parameters adjusted over time, such as expanding community college
baccalaureate degrees under legislation AB 927 (California Education Code, 2021, Article 3,
Section 6, Subsection 78043). Community colleges are symbols of agility, but no system of
higher education can do it all. Trustees must confront the difficult task of meeting the growing
requirements of community colleges.
Community college trustees have an important task to guide their institutions amidst
changing structural, mission and demographic realities. The first California community college
was founded in Fresno, California, in 1910 as an extension of high school and was known as a
junior college (Boggs & Galizio, 2021). The California Community Colleges Board of
Governors approved it 115th community college in Madera, California in 2020. By 2024, the
California community colleges offer a combined 46 baccalaureate degree (California Community
College’s Chancellor’s Office, n.d.). This is a significant shift from its origins as an extension of
high school.
From a mission perspective, the California community colleges provide educational
services to those seeking to transfer, upskill, gain new skills, earn a degree or transfer. From a
student diversity perspective, the number population of students served by California community
colleges is large and diverse. The 116 California community colleges annually serve over 1.9
million students (California Community Colleges, n.d.). Most of these students are part-time,

29
female-identifying, and of racially diverse backgrounds (CCC Data Mart, 2024a). The
diversification of their educational portfolio demonstrates the ability of California community
colleges to adapt to meet the growing needs of the state and students.
Growing Pressures on the California Community College System
California community colleges face multiple pressures to meet student and economic
needs The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted campus operations (Boggs & Galizio, 2021) and led
to significant enrollment declines, especially among African American and Latinx students
(Bulman & Failie, 2022). Before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in 2020, a looming
workforce shortage in California (Johnson et al., 2019) mobilized higher education leaders to set
ambitious goals to increase student success (CCCCO, 2017). Simultaneously, the legislature
required community colleges to close equity gaps by developing a comprehensive student equity
plan (Felix, 2021). The AGB (2023) reminds college leaders that public policy discussions must
consider the “broader environment in which they occur” (AGB, para. 1). This environment must
take into consideration the different populations served by community colleges today. More than
70% of California community college students are students of color, 35% are first-generation,
64% are working learners, and 74% are part-time or noncredit students (CCC Data Mart, 2023a).
Considering the factors, it is an equity imperative to understand how community college trustees
understand their responsibility to respond to these growing demands.
Workforce Demands
Community colleges produce an educated citizenry that fuels the economy (Cohen et al.,
2014). Some of the earliest references to community colleges’ mission are associated with
workforce demands (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994). It was the case in the 1940s
and it is the case today, a rapidly changing economy requires more college-educated workers

30
(Carnevale et al., 2016; Gilbert & Heller, 2013; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996). California anticipates
a shortage of educated workers (Johnson et al., 2019). To address this demand, California
Governor Gavin Newsom announced an unprecedented goal to have 70% of adults earn a college
credential by 2030 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2022). With a total of 116 institutions,
California community colleges can bridge this goal.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
An increased focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion is changing the higher education
landscape in California. Thus, college leaders are taking a deeper look at diversity policy issues.
Faculty and staff racial diversity is a key lever for improving student success (Bustillos &
Siqueiros, 2016). Yet, the diversity of community college leadership does not match the
demographics of the students they serve (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2016). In an updated diversity
report, the Campaign for College Opportunity found (Reddy, 2024) that even though more than
66% of California community college students were racially diverse, the majority of college
leadership is White. Specifically, 56% of tenured-track faculty, 59% of trustees, and 53% of
campus presidents and senior administrators at the California community colleges are White
(Reddy, 2024). Research (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018; Reddy, 2024; Robinson et al., 2013)
shows many benefits to having diverse faculty and leadership. If colleges want to improve
student success, improving faculty and staff diversity must be a priority for boards of trustees.
Tackling challenges of this magnitude requires both system and local institutional
leadership. In 2019, the Chancellor’s Office convened a diversity, equity, and inclusion taskforce
to identify strategies that improve faculty and staff diversity at the California community
colleges. The task force issued a report in 2020 with over 70 recommendations to improve the
pre-hiring, hiring, and retention practices of community colleges (Oakley, 2020). The report

31
serves as a helpful guide for trustees and CEOs, but they still determine implementation. Local
boards can adopt their own policies to implement recommendations of the taskforce. Institutional
leaders must actively work to integrate diversity efforts into their institution’s mission (Hurtado,
2007) but campuses are known to struggle with this (Kezar, 2007). It is incumbent on trustees
and leaders to consider if their own structures may be perpetuating a lack of diversity and must
take appropriate action to remedy them.
Student Equity
Community colleges exist to educate students and to support their success. Due to their
community origins, people have historically perceived trustees to be agents of the public good
(McGuinness, 2016) and as a “fiduciary watchdog” over institutions to protect the public’s
interest (Potter & Phelan, 2008, p. 16). This is because the public funds community colleges with
their tax dollars. The traditional views about board member roles shape a perception that a board
of trustees’ primary role is fiduciary and administrative. However, some scholars posit that a
board’s highest priority should be to student learning and student success, not just on financial
matters (Potter & Phelan; 2008). Survey data indicate that trustees do recognize their
responsibility to student success (ACCT, 2018). As chief decision makers for their institution,
boards can inform strategic plans and budgets by making student success the center of those
policies (Prater, 2009).
Student equity and success are vital priorities for the California state legislature. In the
past few decades, the legislature enacted progressive education policies designed to increase
student success and equity in community colleges (California Education Code, 2014, Section
78221) and to address historical inequities in course placement (California Education Code,
2017, Section 78213). Research shows that institutional leaders play a role in student success by

32
supporting equity-centered practices and setting high expectations for academic standards
(Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015). As established earlier in this chapter, boards hold legal power to
adopt these policies. According to Kezar (2007); however, college leaders often struggle to
transform policy into practice. Additional information on what helps college leaders implement
these student equity policies can also support trustees to be more attentive to their own role in
developing those policies.
The most important role of a community college trustee is to ensure student success
(Boggs, 2006; Potter & Phelan, 2008). Board members do not control classroom instruction, nor
advise students, but they must take corrective action when those policies are not supporting their
students. Some research suggests that board members’ actions influence institutional culture in
service of student success (Boggs, 2006; C. Smith, 2019). A notable policy in California that
aims to support the success of underrepresented community college students is the Student
Equity Policy (California Education Code, Section 78222). This program requires community
colleges to develop a campus equity plan with targeted strategies to support underrepresented
students. The California Education Code requires that a college consult with students, faculty,
and the public as it develops its campus equity plan (California Education Code, Section 78222).
Further, campuses receive a significant budget allocation to execute these strategies (Felix,
2021). Felix’s (2021) study showed that governance structures and campus leaders impact the
design and implement of a campus’ student equity plan. The research community does not know
enough about these contextual factors, especially the role of individual actors like trustees.
The Role of Community College Trustees
Community college trustees have the fundamental responsibility to ensure the success of
their institution and the students they serve (Boggs, 2006; Hendrickson et al., 2012; Kerr &

33
Gade, 1989; Kezar, 2006; Rall et al., 2021). Community colleges exist to provide educational
opportunities for students (Brint & Karabel, 1989) and produce a skilled workforce (Rhoads &
Valadez, 1996; Witt et al., 1994). The expectations are significant, and the voters elect trustees to
ensure that their college meets these obligations (Boggs, 2006; Rall, 2014; Rall et al., 2021; C.
Smith, 2019). However, there is no requirement for service as a trustee (Rall et al., 2022).
State law and other policy documents establish the roles and expectations of community
college trustees (ACCJC, 2014; Boggs, 2006; California Education Code, Section 70902;
Gilzene, 2009; Little Hoover Commission, 2012; C. Smith, 2019; Witt et al., 1994). Boards of
trustees hold the power to determine budgets, strategic plans, academic programs, and
employment policies (Gillett-Karam, 2013; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall, 2021; C. Smith, 2019).
Additionally, collaboration with campus stakeholders to take action on institutional policies is a
strongly recommended best practice by scholars (Boggs, 2006; C. Smith, 2019). By embracing
their responsibilities, trustees can help community colleges remain responsive in an everchanging landscape.
Formal Authority
The legislature establishes authority and standards for community college leadership
functions. All states have laws that grant legal powers to community college trustees (Mathies &
Slaughter, 2013; C. Smith, 2020). While the type of authority varies across states, all community
college board members share common responsibilities. The Association for Community College
Trustees handbook, Trusteeship in Community Colleges: A Guide for Effective Governance (C.
Smith, 2020), documents the most common responsibilities and duties for trustees:
• Establish policies and regulations to implement state law.
• Establish policies for and approve comprehensive institutional plans.

34
• Approve the annual budget and monitor the fiscal condition.
• Establish policies for and approve educational programs.
• Establish employment policies and approve the hiring of certain personnel.
• Manage and control district property.
Further addressing the role of the board, the handbook (C. Smith, 2020) describes that an
effective board is one that “helps create strong, effective institutions by performing well their
unique governing responsibilities” (p. 24). In addition to state laws, the ACCT list provides a
starting point for trustees to focus on areas for which trustees are responsible for.
Expectations for California community college trustees are like those in other states. The
California Community Colleges Board of Governors provides some oversight to local colleges
on policy, but local boards still hold final authority on many issues. According to the California
Education Code (Section 70902), some of those duties are as follows:
• Establish and approve policies for academic and facilities plans and programs.
• Establish, develop, and approve comprehensive plans for the district.
• Establish policies for and approve courses of instruction and educational programs.
• Establish academic standards and graduation requirements consistent with minimum
state standards adopted by the board of governors.
• Establish and employ employment and personnel practices that shall not be
inconsistent with the laws of California.
• Determine and control the district’s operational and capital outlay budgets.
• Ensure that faculty, staff, and students have the right and ability to participate in the
college governance process.

35
• Ensure that academic senates have the right and ability to assume primary
responsibility for making recommendations on curriculum and academic standards.
• Establish rules and regulations regarding student conduct.
These tasks are numerous and all-encompassing. Scholars on board governance describe
trustees as being “accountable to the community for the performance and welfare of the
institutions” (C. Smith, 2020, p. 41), guardians of institutional matters (Kerr & Gade, 1989), and
overall, responsible for meeting the institution’s mission and goals (Boggs, 2006; Rall et al.,
2022; C. Smith, 2019, 2020). Statutory powers grant trustees the ability to adopt policies that
shape the future of their own institutions. Rall et al. (2021) postulate that trustees can help their
institution reach their strategic goals through their actions. Prominent scholar on nonprofit board
governance, John Carver (2006) states that board policies are essential to the organization. He
says, “they present the most powerful lever for the exercise of leadership. Policy leadership
clarifies, inspires, and sets a tone of discourse that stimulates leadership in followers” (p. 41).
Delineation of formal powers provides trustees with a foundation to comprehend their
responsibilities. More information on how trustees make sense of these responsibilities is needed.
Trusteeship in Practice
Despite the existence of community colleges for more than a century, there remains a
dearth of knowledge about their highest-ranking policy-makers. Research on community college
boards is emerging on board advocacy (Mayfield et al., 2022; Wise et al., 2022), diversity of
boards (Brekken et al., 2021; Rall et al., 2019), board relations (Amey, 2022; Boggs, 2006, 2022;
C. Smith, 2020), rogue trustee behavior (Cloud, 2020, 2022; O’Banion, 2009; Potter & Phelan,
2008), expectations for trustee roles (Davis, 2018; Farbman, 2016; Moran, 2017; Rall, 2014; Rall
et al., 2022) and board governance (Eddy et al., 2022; Fletcher & Friedel, 2016; Kater et al.,

36
2022; Phelan, 2022). Yet, while research on community college boards is increasing in various
issues, evidence is limited on trustee implementation practices and behavior.
A review of the literature revealed little empirical evidence on how community college
trustees apply their statutory powers into practice. Many scholars have encouraged additional
research to understand the workings of community college boards (Floyd, 1995; Gillett-Karam,
2013; Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall, 2014). Rall et al. (2021) called attention to the
lack of progress to fill this critical research gap, despite researchers’ insistence for decades. Only
a handful of empirical studies have examined the connection between their role in student
success (Camp, 2019) and involvement to advance influence diversity, equity, and inclusion
efforts (Morgan et al., 2022; Robinson et al., 2013). Far fewer have focused their analysis from
the trustees’ perspectives (Farbman, 2016).
Specifically, studying the behavior and practices of boards of trustees is a difficult task.
Sunshine laws prohibit multiple trustees from convening outside of a public meeting to discuss
board matters (Bastedo, 2009; Kezar, 2006). Observing public board meetings is one strategy but
as Rall (2014) highlights that observations do not yield information about behaviors and actions
since public meetings appear largely ceremonial in practice. Kezar’s 2006 literature review on
governing boards found that most of the research was based on anecdotal data and individual
experiences. Of the existing research on board governance, studies are descriptive, focused on
trustee selection and education, and portray a general characterization of trustee effectiveness
(Barringer & Riffe, 2018; Kezar, 2006; Gillett-Karam, 2013; Chait et al., 1991). More than 15
years later, Rall et al. (2021) conducted another extensive review of the literature on community
college boards. The study (Rall et al., 2021) concluded that current scholarship is not reflective

37
of academic “rigor, theoretical and methodological approaches” (p. 391). The need for more
evidence-based research on trusteeship in practice is still relevant today.
Accountability
Demarcation of legal duties is not enough to hold community college trustees
accountable for faithfully executing their role. Institutional accreditation establishes some
standards for trustee accountability (ACCJC, 2020). Trustees are responsible for understanding
and considering their college’s own environment as they exercise statutory powers (C. Smith,
2020). Carver (2006) underscores that to be an effective board of trustees, they should take
“moral ownership” to “govern themselves” (p. 185) and responsibly perform their duties.
Trustees are accountable for acting in the best interest of the institutions they represent.
Accreditation
Accreditation is a regulatory measure that holds community college trustees accountable
for their role to support institutional effectiveness. The ACCJC periodically evaluates colleges’
academic quality, student success, administrative and budget infrastructures, and leadership
effectiveness (ACCJC, 2022). Boards of trustees are chief guardians of institutional policy for all
these measures (Bastedo, 2009; Morgan et al., 2022; Rall et al., 2022; C. Smith, 2019, 2020). A
caveat to this evaluation process is there is insufficient research on an accreditation’s connection
to institutional effectiveness (Burnett, 2021). However, earning accreditation determines an
institution’s eligibility for federal financial aid (Burnett, 2021). Community college accreditation
sanctions correlate with student enrollment declines (Burnett, 2021). For these reasons, college
leaders should be concerned with adhering to accreditation standards.
Understanding community college accreditation can give trustees direction about their
responsibilities. The AACJC (2020) standards for Governing Boards clearly outline the board of

38
trustees’ responsibility in accreditation. ACCJC (2020) standards state that their role is for the
“fiscal integrity of the institution” (p. 7), “institution’s achievement of the mission” (p. 7), and
“balancing and integrating a wide variety of interests and needs into policies that benefit the
common good” (p. 8). These standards are not a set of actions or steps but instead, serve as a
guide for trustees. In addition to risking access to student federal financial aid and student
enrollment, accreditation sanctions can result in a negative public opinion of the college (Boggs,
2022; Kater et al., 20220; Kezar, 2006). As the critical connectors between their community and
the college, the association between effective governance and public perception should matter to
trustees because the public elects them.
Personal Interests
Personal interests can influence trustees’ decision making. Unions and faculty are
increasingly becoming involved in trustee elections (Boggs, 2022; Cloud, 2022) or serving in
trustee roles themselves (Boggs, 2022). Additionally, individual trustees may choose to engage
in specific issue areas due to their professional expertise or political ideology (Phelan, 2022). As
former or current executives in their own professions, they may bring their personal perceptions
to their trustee role (Bastedo, 2005; Bastedo, 2009; Rall, et al., 2022). A study of Massachusetts
boards of trustees found that they may exhibit cognitive bias in decision-making based on prior
experiences (Bastedo, 2006). Scholars (Rall et al., 2022) suggest that when boards of trustees
cannot isolate this bias in their “fiduciary roles and responsibilities, the institution and public
good are compromised” (p. 202). It is the trustee’s responsibility to put the interests of their
institution above their own.
Boards of trustees must govern without bias or personal interests in mind. Accreditation
policies (ACCJC, 2020) clearly outline their responsibility to separate their personal interests

39
from their decision making. The practice to remove personal bias is also highly encouraged by
experienced college presidents and trustees (Boggs, 2006; Potter & Phelan, 2008; C. Smith,
2020). While these standards are clear, community college trustee can exhibit inappropriate
behavior. For example, trustees have approved contracts to companies that donated to their
campaigns (E. A. Smith & Miller, 2015), accepted bribes in exchange for favorable board votes
(Kelley, 1985), and interfered with campus hiring decisions (Boggs, 2022; Weissman, 2021).
Those who exhibit inappropriate behavior are commonly referred as rogue trustees (Cloud, 2022;
Potter & Phelan, 2008). Early and frequent training can prevent these situations from happening
(Potter & Phelan, 2008). The severity of these behaviors stresses the importance of
understanding the factors that influence trustee decision-making.
Trustee Interference
Trustee interference in campus operations is common (Boggs, 2022; Cloud, 2022;
O’Banion, 2009). When trustees act outside the bounds of their role, the consequences can be
damaging. Rogue trustees micromanage operations (Boggs, 2022; Cloud, 2022; Kezar, 2006),
compromise an institution’s accreditation status (Kater et al., 2022), intimidate faculty and staff
(Boggs, 2022), and contribute to high president turnover (Cloud, 2022; Cooper, 2016). The
average tenure of a California community college president is 3.5 years (Mize, 2022) and the top
cited reason for their early departure is due to tension with their board of trustees (Cooper, 2016;
Mize, 2022). These are tangible examples that showcase the negative effects of concerning
trustee behavior.
More Than a Rubber Stamp
Community college trustees can be instrumental to shape policies outside of the
boardroom. Research suggests that trustees’ professional experiences (Bastedo, 2009b), external

40
relationships (Barringer & Riffe, 2018; Barringer et al., 2019; Mathies & Slaughter, 2013), and
advocacy expertise (Bastedo, 2005; D’Amico et al., 2022; Mayfield et al., 2022; White, 2022a)
can contribute to the success of their institution. These studies also align with trustees’ own
beliefs. An AGB (2017) study asserts that trustees believe that their expertise and perspectives
could positively shape institutional policy.
Community college trustee and leader advocacy can result in more state resources for
community colleges (White, 2022b). A recent study demonstrated how the Mississippi state
board worked with the state legislature to enact legislation and budgets to eliminate institutional
barriers and support student success (Mayfield et al., 2022). Another study found that community
colleges can build successful workforce programs when their board members engage, especially
if trustees tap into their political connections (D’Amico et al., 2022). Community college trustees
can be instrumental assets to the institution if they use their skills strategically.
Society expects community colleges to be adaptive (Boggs & Galizio, 2021; Brint &
Karabel, 1989; Witt et al., 1994). As discussed in this chapter, the environments in which
community colleges operate have changed over time. However, knowledge about community
college trustee roles have stayed the same (Amey, 2002; Kezar, 2006; Rall et al., 2019). Boards
of trustees are still predominantly relied upon to adopt budgets and policies (Barringer & Riffe,
2018). The antiquated perception of board members as administrative and fiscal agents only
serves to protect the status quo. This stagnant view of trusteeship places colleges at a
disadvantage because high performing boards are necessary to meet modern education and
economic challenges (Amey, 2022; Kater et al., 2022; Kezar & Eckel, 2004). Consideration of
community college environments and their impact to trustee learning is key to supporting the
ongoing growth and evolution of trusteeship research.

41
Community College Trustee Training and Board Development
Scholars widely support the value of training and ongoing education for community
college boards (Amey, 2022; Davis, 2018; Eddy et al., 2022; Farbman, 2016; Floyd, 1995;
Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Moran, 2017; Rall et al., 2022). Training serves several
purposes and offers many advantages. Through training and professional development,
community college trustees acquire current and relevant information to prepare them to lead an
institution and prepare for the future effectively. Trustee training is associated with lower
presidential turnover (Tekniepe, 2014) and stronger relationships with their president (The Aspen
Institute, 2013). Trustee training is abundant and available but underutilized (Gillett-Karam,
2013; Kater et al., 2022; Kezar, 2006; L. Galizio, personal communication, March 25, 2024;
Polonio, 2005).
Requirements
Despite broad support for trustee training, it is not a universal requirement (Floyd, 1995;
Kater et al., 2022). According to an analysis of 95 bylaws of different higher education
governing boards across the United States, 73 did not mention training for board members (Rall
et al., 2022). California does not require trustees to complete training before assuming their role
or during their time of service. Without the requirements to participate in development
opportunities, other driving forces can motivate trustees to willingly engage.
Presidents can encourage their trustees to participate in training programs (Davis, 1997).
Davis (1997) emphasizes that the relationship with the trustees and the president is an important
one, and the president can ongoing learning is beneficial. Davis (1997) further points out that
voters or the news media can motivate trustees to participate in training. Davis (1997) says that
when “those who played a significant role in the selection of the trustee signal an interest in the

42
new board members’ growth and development, the trustee is inclined to participate” in training
(p. 22). However, he also says if voters do not express interest, then the trustee may also not
prioritize training. Even if professional development is not required, multiple stakeholders
encourage trustees to participate in those opportunities.
There are other ways to encourage trustees to participate in training and ongoing
educational development. The ACCT strongly recommends ongoing professional development
(ACCT, n.d.-b). The ACCJC requires trustee orientation for new members (ACCJC, 2014),
although this requirement only applies to California institutions accredited by the ACCJC. Of the
community colleges that offer their own onboarding training for trustees, they are often one-time
(Amey, 2022). The Rall et al. (2022) study suggests that the omission of training requirements
could convey a message that training is unnecessary because trustees already enter their role with
the necessary knowledge. However, research shows that trustees may not be prepared to assume
their role (Amey, 2022; Rall, 2014). Therefore, studying where trustees find knowledge to help
them govern is important.
Limited Trustee Knowledge
Trustees enter this role with respectable intentions to serve the public good (ACCT, 2018;
Phelan, 2022). Community college trustees are, on average, highly educated (ACCT, 2018). Yet,
their knowledge is limited (Amey, 2022; Rall, 2014). When describing their role, Hendrickson et
al. (2012) state that trustees “exercise legal responsibility over an organization that requires
expertise that they often do not hold, engage with campus power structures they often do not
understand, and take actions on management decisions they often do not participate in” (p. 227).
Studies (ACCT, 2018; Rall et al., 2022) show that the majority do not have experience with a
college other than their time as a student. Considering their influence over administrative and

43
fiscal policies (Boggs, 2006; C. Smith, 2020), training specific to their responsibilities is
paramount. According to a recent study by Rall et al. (2022):
If trustees are not actively trained once they are in the role, then potentially there are a
priori skills, experience, or knowledge they possess that serve to, at minimum, qualify
them for and, at most, exemplarily equip them for board performance. (p. 195)
Absent adequate training, trustees may assume their position by modeling the actions
(Bandura 1988; Bandura & Cervone, 2023) of their peers or traditional board practices. As
Phelan (2022) notes, “Trustees are more often welcomed to the job with little fanfare and are
expected to fall into the mold of a board member, framed by the existing trustees” (p. 52).
According to Bastedo (2009a), board members must be aware of their cognitive bias in decision
making. Bastedo (2009a) posits that board members may exhibit cognitive bias because they
“overestimate the value of our own experiences and discount the experiences of others” (p. 359).
According to Moran’s study (2017), some board members believe that their personal background
or experience is the most important to trustee leadership development. Their prior experiences,
however, may not be sufficient stand-ins for their duties as community college trustees.
Resources for Trustee Training and Development
Board members can benefit from empirical evidence to identify what critical knowledge
is most influential to their leadership and how other boards have successfully used that
information. There is broad support for trustee training but there is not sufficient research on the
effectiveness of trustee training (Dika & Janosik, 2010; Kezar, 2006; Rall et al., 2022). Scholars
offer insight on community college board governance by drawing on examples of nonprofit
organizations (Carver, 2006; Chait et al., 1991) and 4-year universities (Barringer & Riffe, 2018;
Barringer et al., 2019; Bastedo, 2005). Dika and Janosik (2003) found that individuals who have

44
do not have an official role in trustee selection curate most of the available resources on best
practices for higher education board governance. However, more former trustees and
administrators contribute to growing research by sharing their own experiences (Boggs, 2006;
Potter & Phelan, 2008). These guides are helpful to understand trusteeship in real life and they
add to the knowledge gap about trusteeship. More empirical data on effective training; however,
can increase an understanding of evidenced-based decision-making.
Effective Nonprofit Organization and University Boards
Some literature provides a baseline understanding of effective board governance across
many organizations. One of the most frequently utilized books on board training is by renown
board scholar, John Carver. Carver created the Carver Policy Governance Guide for governing
boards (Carver & Carver, 2009). This model posits that effective boards are visionary, coordinate
with the president, and frequently evaluate their progress. Effective boards do not meddle in
operations, they “find out if the ends were accomplished” (Carver & Carver, 2009, p. 12).
Another historical resource is by Chait et al. (1991), which state that “effective boards take the
necessary steps to ensure that trustees are well-informed about the institution and about the
boards’ roles, responsibilities, and performance” (p. 26). While these training documents are not
specific to community colleges, they are still useful because board roles across other
organizations are more similar than they are distinct.
Most of the research on board governance focuses on non-profit organizations (Carver,
2006; Chait et al., 2004) and private 4-year universities (Kezar, 2006; Barringer & Riffe, 2018;
Barringer et al., 2019; Bastedo, 2005; Mathies & Slaughter, 2013). This limits an understanding
of what is most effective for community colleges. Research specifically focused on effective
community college board training is necessary because the organizational structures are distinct

45
from nonprofits and 4-year universities (Kezar, 2006). As noted earlier in this chapter,
community colleges operate within a network of internal and external stakeholders. These
factors, including a voter’s role to elect community college trustees, may not apply to nonprofit
organizations or private universities. Board training that speaks to the culture of the college
(Kater & Burke, 2022) and unique learning styles of each trustee (Davis, 1997) can be beneficial
to trustee learning. These considerations speak to the importance of customized training that is
unique to each board.
Community College Trustee Associations
Without empirical data on effective strategies for trusteeship in practice, organizations
offer their own training material. Associations like the ACCT, AACC, AGB, and Community
College League of California (CCLC) develop information and best practices for trustees. The
ACCT also provides advocacy and leadership tools for community college trustees and
administrators (ACCT, 2016, 2018, 2020). One example of these best practices for effective
trusteeship is by ACCT (n.d.-a):
• Act on behalf and for the benefit of the community.
• Advocate for the community college and those it serves.
• Commit time and effort to governance responsibilities.
• Shape consensus among groups and individuals with competing interests.
• Serve without personal gain.
Former trustees and administrators (Boggs, 2006, 2022; Cloud, 2018, 2022; Potter & Phelan,
2008) also produce training resources informed by their own experiences.
The CCLC is the largest network of professional development for California community
college trustees (C. Smith, 2019). Every single community college district is a paying member of

46
the CCLC. The organization offers webinars, fellowships, workshops, and conferences for
trustees and CEOs (CCLC, n.d.). Despite the availability of these resources for community
college trustees, only 27% of the approximately 440 California community college trustees
participate in their programs (L. Galizio, personal communication, March 25, 2024). The low
engagement rates align with research (Gillett-Karam, 2013; Kezar, 2006; Kater et al., 2022;
Polonio, 2005). A reason why they may not attend is because they do not want to spend taxpayer
dollars (Moran, 2017). In Moran’s (2017) dissertation study, a trustee participant explained that
they do not participate in training because the content does not cover important topics. If the
issues in the training programs address the “changing functions, partnerships, socio-academic
shifts” (Kater et al., 2022, p. 18) in higher education, trustees can be motivated to attend.
Presidents can encourage trustees to participate in professional development activities by
identifying opportunities and sharing resources (Boggs, 2006; Chait et al., 1991; Davis, 1997).
Trustee associations, networks, and influential leaders can serve as sources of information to
trustees.
Thought Leaders
The network of resources to educate community college trustees about their
responsibilities includes thought leaders in board governance. In her 2006 study, Kezar notes that
60% of boards across the United States used John Carver’s model for effective governance.
Other prominent thought leaders like Cindra Smith (C. Smith, 2019, 2020) and George Boggs
(Boggs, 2006, 2022; Boggs & Galizio, 2021; Boggs & McPhail, 2020), who contribute to the
research on board development, continue to reference Carver’s model for effective governance.
Trustees can also access independent publications that educate them on board advocacy
(Mayfield et al., 2022; White, 2022a, 2022b), building strong president and board partnerships

47
(Boggs, 2006; Carver, 2004), effective governance (Chait et al., 1991; Kater & Burke, 2022;
Kater et al., 2022), board role to increase faculty diversity (Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2016; Reddy,
2024; Robinson et al., 2013), and leadership development (Davis, 2018; Dika & Johnson, 2003).
While research still lacks an understanding of trusteeship in practice, the availability of
association publications and other studies demonstrate that trustees can access a wide variety of
information from multiple sources.
Theory and Framework
There is plenty of research on higher education organizational structures (AGB, 2017;
Floyd, 1995; Kezar, 2006; Phelan, 2022; Tollefson, 2009; Wise et al., 2020), but not enough on
the human beings who operate them (Amey; 2022; Potter & Phelan, 2008; Porritt & Stagg, 2022;
Rall, 2014). Moreover, studies of community college trustees rarely make trustees the sole focus
of their research (Camp, 2019). To understand how community college trustees learn, it is first
critical to understand the interpersonal dynamics in organizational settings (Kezar, 2006) and
how trustees are socialized to understand their role (Dika & Janosik, 2003). As Boggs (2022)
noted, “trustees are people, and they can make mistakes; they can let emotion overside reason,
and they can be influenced by political pressure” (p. 22). A study centered on social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1988) can describe how surroundings influence the behavior and actions of
individual trustees on community college boards.
Bandura’s (1988, 1989, 2002) framework on social cognitive theory suggests that human
agency and consciousness drive intentional actions in personal development. Social cognitive
theory uses a triadic reciprocal causation framework (see Figure 2) to illustrate how personal,
behavioral, and environmental determinants interact with one another to change human behavior
(Bandura, 1988). These three determinants are reciprocal because any one of them can change to

48
improve human behavior, and vice versa. As publicly elected or appointed leaders (Boggs, 2006;
Rall, 2014; Rall et al., 2021; C. Smith, 2019) who govern diverse community colleges, trustees
fall squarely within this context of interconnected dynamics. Figure 2 describes the components
of the conceptual framework that guide this study.
Figure 2
Components of the Conceptual Framework
Note. Adapted from “Organisational Applications of Social Cognitive Theory,” by A. Bandura,
1988, Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275–302 (https://doi.org/10.1177).

49
Social cognitive theory suggests that trustees can self-regulate and self-correct their
behavior to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura, 1988). Community colleges are highly
susceptible to state and federal funding levels (Burns, 2023), changes to the economy (Tierney,
1988; Tollefson, 2009) and influence by unions (Boggs, 2022; Cloud, 2009, 2022). Within this
triadic model of reciprocal interactions, individuals actively contribute to their own motivation
and actions (Bandura, 1986). Individual’s perceived notions of their ability to be successful
significantly influences their motivation (Bandura, 1988; Locke et al., 1984). Modeling or
observing others reinforces this notion of sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1988; Bandura &
Cervone, 2023). Recognizing that trustees only operate as a unit, observing other board members
becomes critical to sustaining a sense of self-efficacy amongst individual trustees.
Social Cognitive Theory on Self-Efficacy, Motivation, and Beliefs
One of the foundational components in the model of triadic interactions is the concept of
self-efficacy. Self-efficacy pertains to people’s perceived notions of their abilities to accomplish
a set of tasks (Bandura, 1988; Bandura & Cervone, 2023). Self-efficacy influences more than an
individual’s skills; it impacts choices made, efforts dedicated to something, and ability to
persevere from setbacks (Bandura, 1988). This matters because individuals with higher degrees
of self-efficacy are more likely to exert more effort into a task, producing more successful
outcomes (Locke et al., 1984; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). A meta-analysis study shows that
self-efficacy is positively associated even with small tasks such as brainstorming, to more
complicated challenges like science projects (Locke et al., 1984). Then, building a solid self of
efficacy can support trustee learning and development. This tenet within social cognitive theory
is important to this study because it focuses on individual trustee’s application of knowledge and
skills.

50
Participation in training and development can improve board member competencies and
abilities (Boggs, 2006; Chait et al., 1991; Chait et al., 2004; Tekniepe, 2014), but to successfully
apply them in practice requires one to believe in their ability to do so (Bandura, 1988). This
becomes especially acute for board members with limited trustee experience (ACCT, 2018; Rall
et al., 2022). Prior knowledge of an individual can create “different competencies and interests”
(Bandura, 1988, p. 281) that they can use in their current roles. Yet there are limitations to
utilizing prior experience, as people will avoid specific tasks if they believe they cannot
accomplish them (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy is one of the most fundamental factors in
determining how motivated an individual will be to pursue a task (Bandura, 1989)
The position of community college trustee is a public servant job. Trustees serve in this
capacity because they want to serve the public and support students (ACCT, 2018). It becomes
critical then, to equip trustees with the knowledge and skills to help them be successful in their
role as public servants (Davis, 1997; Tekniepe, 2014). As the social cognitive theory suggests,
however, motivation propels individuals to learn (Bandura, 1988; 1989). Goal setting is
associated with increased motivation (Bandura, 1988). As with boards that develop and approve
strategic plans for their college (Prater, 2009), goals provide a purpose and direction for an
individual (Bandura, 1988). Boggs and McPhail (2020) suggest that successful colleges are those
that establish clear goals for their leaders. Bandura’s (1988) concept aligns to what Boggs and
McPhail discuss. Bandura (1988) suggests that “when people are unclear about what they are
trying to accomplish, their motivation is low and their efforts are poorly directed” (p. 290). Goals
can motivate individuals to accomplish a specific task, but challenging goals are associated with
overall increased performance (Bandura, 1988; Bandura & Schunk 1981).

51
Social Cognitive Theory on Skills and Accountability
Research shows that not all board members have the right skills for service as trustees
(Amey, 2022; Rall, 2014). Trustees must be more than capable of doing the job. They must also
be prepared to execute them well (Bandura, 1982). Social cognitive theory suggests that the
ability to navigate one’s environment is not merely a matter of knowing what to do, but how to
do it well (Bandura, 1982). This requires individuals to organize their behavioral, cognitive, and
social skills in such a way that enables them to become competent in certain tasks (Bandura,
1982; 1988). The focus on cultivating and sustaining a skill set is a central tenet of social
cognitive theory.
Social cognitive theory recognizes that the broader societal context structures human
relations (Bandura & Cervone, 2023). For trustees, the broader context includes their board peers
(Carver, 2006; Chait et al., 1991; C. Smith, 2020) and the external community to whom they are
accountable to (Hendrickson et al., 2012; Tierney, 1988). Further, successful boards are those
that hold themselves accountable to effective governance (Boggs, 2006; Carver, 2006; Davis,
1997). A mechanism for self-evaluation is valuable to successful board governance (Carver,
2006; Chait et al., 1991). It provides the board with self-prescribed criteria to measure their own
performance (Floyd, 1995). Board-initiated mechanisms create a sense of accountability to
themselves.
Community college trustees are responsible for placing personal interests aside when
making decisions on behalf of their institution (ACCJC, 2020; Boggs, 2006; Potter & Phelan,
2022; C. Smith, 2020). It does not mean, however, that a trustee’s individual voice is not
important. Their individual contributions, shaped by their personal experiences, can positively
support their community college. By harnessing the unique expertise of each board member

52
(Bastedo, 2005; Barringer & Riffe, 2018), boards can put their collective capabilities to better
use (Bandura, 2002). These pooled resources improve group functioning (Bandura, 2002). When
the board utilizes all available resources and works together as a unit, everyone benefits.
Social Cognitive Theory on Persuasion, Social Modeling and Structures
Self-efficacy is not static. External factors continuously reinforce self-efficacy (Bandura,
1986). These factors include firsthand experiences with accomplishing a task and social
modeling (Bandura & Cervone, 2023). Bandura and Cervone (2023) posits that when social cues
are the sole means of conveying a desired behavior, modeling becomes an essential learning
process. The lack of empirical data to demonstrate effective trusteeship (Floyd, 1995; GilletKaram, 2013; Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall et al., 2022) means that modeling can be a
significant source of learning for trustees. Modeling develops knowledge and social and
behavioral capabilities (Bandura, 1988; Bandura & Cervone, 2023). Outlining the roles and
responsibilities to trustees in law without modeling how to do it effectively will not improve
their performance.
Additionally, verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Cervone, 2023) or social
persuasion (Bandura, 1988) influences the belief in one’s ability to successfully accomplish a
task. Within social cognitive theory, persuasion is an effective mechanism to strengthen an
individual’s self-efficacy because those belief systems can “strengthen or undermine” (p. 287)
their ability to do something. In this sense, social persuasion that reinforces successful behavior
can improve a task (Bandura, 1988). Verbal persuasion is successful when the “communicators
are credible and possess expertise” (Bandura & Cervone, 2023, p. 77) in their respective fields.
In this sense, trustees can build knowledge and skills if that information is derived from
individuals whom they deem as credible. One of the principles of effective board governance is

53
the ability to work as a team (Boggs, 2006; Carver, 2006; Chait et al., 1991; Potter & Phelan,
2008; C. Smith, 2020). A group only functions through the actions of its members (Bandura,
2002). Collective efficacy speaks to the concept of individuals working together towards a
shared belief (Bandura, 2002). In this mode of social cognitive theory, collective efficacy is just
as powerful to improve group functioning just as self-efficacy is to improve personal functioning
(Stajkovic et al., 2009). Moreover, groups that exhibit collective efficacy are positively
associated with group performance. The findings from this meta-analysis (Stajkovic et al., 2009)
support the scholarship on effective board governance.
Summary
Community colleges are highly complex institutions and the trustees who govern them
hold considerable influence over their direction. Several factors determine the functions and
operations of community colleges, including voters, stakeholder influence, evolving missions,
legislative oversight, and shared leadership structures. These environmental considerations
warrant a closer review of what they mean to community college trustees as they engage in
critical decisions for their districts. Due to the minimal participation rates in training programs
(L. Galizio, personal communication, March 25, 2024; Polonio, 2005) and limited scholarship on
trusteeship in practice, it is paramount to understand what tools and information community
college trustees utilize to govern their institutions. Chapter Three will delineate the research
approach to help understand how community college trustees make sense of their roles and
responsibilities and how they utilize this knowledge to inform their decision making.

54
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology for this study. This chapter provides an overview
of the purpose of the study, sample and population, data collection, and data analysis procedures.
This study aimed to understand the types of knowledge that informs trustees’ understanding
about their role and how they apply this knowledge to their decision-making as community
college trustees. The study centered on the factors that shape trustee learning, including
environmental circumstances surrounding the community college and the individual trustees.
Using Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986, 1988), the framework used for this study
explored the connections between environmental factors and trustee actions.
Structures do not govern educational instructions, people do. An abundance of research
exists on higher education governance structures (Fletcher & Friedel, 2017; Hendrickson et al.,
2012; McGuinness, 2016; Phelan, 2021). However, research on the unique perspectives of
trustees is limited. Jacob Farman’s (2016) phenomenological dissertation study is one of the only
examples of a study solely focused on the voices of community college trustees. Trustees’
experiences provide insight to the inner workings of decision-making within educational
institutions. For these reasons, this study focused on the direct experiences of community college
trustees.
Research Questions
This qualitative study looked closely at the factors that drive decision-making at
community colleges. The following research questions guided this study:
1. How do community college board members representing minority serving institutions
make sense of their role and responsibilities?
2. What knowledge and experiences do California community college board members
draw on to inform their decisions within their roles?

55
Overview of Design
This study utilized a qualitative approach to understand cognitive and contextual factors
that shape community college trustee decision-making. According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2016), researchers use a qualitative design when they want to understand “how people interpret
their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their
experience” (p. 6). Mutually aligned to this research method, social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986, 1989) posits that behavioral, personal, and environmental factors influence individual
actions. As such, semi-structured interviews create a space for trustees to share their unique
personal background, knowledge, and other details about their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) as governors within their respective community colleges. Taken together, the information
from these interviews illuminated what and how these experiences support their learning and
approach to governing. The research questions focused on how community college trustees make
sense of their duties. No other stakeholder is more appropriate to answer these questions than
trustees themselves.
Research Setting
The setting for this research study centered on community colleges in California.
Specifically, trustees who govern community colleges in California. Not only is the California
Community College system the largest in the country (California Community Colleges, n.d.),
their contributions support economic prosperity for millions of Californians (Emsi Burning
Glass, 2022). More than 440 community college trustees govern the 72 local community college
districts. This large sample size provided the researcher a strong starting point to identify
potential participants. The goal of this study was to interview 12 to 15 California community
college trustees and the final list of participants was 16.

56
The diverse California community college student population and a trustee’s role in
supporting student success compelled the need to consider racial equity in this study. Of the 1.9
million students who attend a California community college, 69% are students of diverse ethnic
backgrounds (CCC Data Mart, 2024a). The intent of this study was not to make a correlation
between trustee policy-making behavior and student outcomes. Still, it sought to explore how
trustees understand their responsibility to support student success and how their actions align
with their perceived responsibilities. The focus on minority serving institutions (MSIs) aligned
with Research Question 1.
This study only included the voices of trustees from MSIs. Minority serving institutions
enroll higher populations of minorities and historically underrepresented students (Dortch, 2023).
The Higher Education Act of 1965 created several grant programs that support MSIs (Dortch,
2023). Institutions can be Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Asian American and Native
American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISI), and Predominantly Black
Institutions (PBI). Depending on their enrollment numbers, institutions can be one or all of these
classifications. Institutions must apply for an MSI status to receive federal funding; these
resources help them develop strategies to support minority student success (Dortch, 2023).
Trustees, as key decision-makers on budget and policy matters, hold power to determine how
their institutions spend these dollars. Therefore, it was pertinent to know more about their role
and approach to making decisions for these critical budget matters.
Researcher Positionality
I am a Mexican immigrant, female-identifying, first-generation college student. I grew up
undocumented, in poverty, and benefited from state and federal financial aid, federal work-study,
and other campus programs that supported my success. Even as a college student, I knew that

57
these programs only exist if people decide that they can. Secules et al. (2021) refer to
positionality as a tool to weave in purposeful reflection of who we are in the research process to
help unpack the dynamics of systemic oppression. My firsthand experience as a beneficiary of
equity-centered policies is a testament to how leadership can positively influence student
success. Leaders do not need to directly interact with students to significantly impact their lives.
Today, I serve as an administrator for the California Community College system. As an
administrator, I have had the privilege of collaborating with many community college trustees,
presidents, and students. Through these relationships, I have learned of their passion for their
duty and witnessed how they engage in professional learning opportunities to improve their skill,
especially trustees. In my role as an Assistant Vice Chancellor for Government Relations, I
observe the opportunities and challenges that both trustees and CEOs face in the policy-making
process. I am also aware that studies documenting these experiences are rare. For this reason, I
intentionally chose to interview community college trustees about their experiences governing a
community college district. Their decisions at the highest levels have life-altering impacts on
lowest levels and their voices deserve to be heard.
I approach this study recognizing that I have my own biases and limitations. My
interactions with community college CEOs and their boards of trustees create a general
understanding of the problem. While I am an administrator who interacts with CEOs and
trustees, I do not currently work at a campus with others who understand the intricacies of
institutional board engagement or experience board culture; therefore, I must engage with
trustees to better understand this issue. Engaging in this problem of practice requires me to
connect with and understand the identities of those different stakeholders. Bandura’s social
cognitive theory suggests that an individual’s surroundings impact their behavior. Therefore, I

58
will engage in an interpretive paradigm of inquiry centered on individuals’ surroundings and
constructed realities (Saunders et al., 2019). My goal is to add to the body of literature that sheds
light on the experiences of community college trustees.
Data Sources
Data sources that addressed the research questions in this study were semi-structured
Zoom interviews. Participants recruitment occurred through an email announcement and word of
mouth. As a first step, I created a list of California community colleges designated as an MSI
(Rutgers Graduate School of Education Center for MSIs, 2022). This list included HSIs,
AANAPISI, and PWIs. In total, 80 of the 116 community colleges had an MSI status in 2022
(Rutgers Graduate School of Education Center for MSIs, 2022). Some of these institutions are
part of a multi-college district managed by a single board of trustees. Collectively, the 80
colleges report to one of the 53 community college districts across California. As a next step, I
researched the 53 community college district’s websites and searched for the board of trustees’
contact information. I documented the publicly available email addresses for those trustees. I
also shared the email announcement with trustees whom I have interacted with in my
professional role. A copy of the email announcement is in Appendix B. I conducted interviews
via Zoom, each lasting approximately 1 hour. Lastly, I transcribed each interview and coded
them to describe my findings according to emerging themes. Appendix D describes the coded
themes and their alignment to the research questions and theoretical framework.
Participation
The target population for this study included publicly elected community college trustees
who served in their position for a minimum of 1 year, represent an MSI, and are not currently
providing training to other community college trustees. Given that this study aimed to understand

59
how trustees gain knowledge about their role, it was pertinent only to include participants who
participate in training and are not those who deliver knowledge. To capture eligible trustees, a
Qualtrics pre-survey screened participants if they offered their own trustee training at the time of
their interview.
While studies on community college trustees are increasing (Amey, 2022; Rall et al.,
2022), few make trustees the sole purpose of their study (Camp, 2019). Effective governance
supports trustees to meet the goals of their organization (Carver, 2006; Chait et al., 1991). Hence,
it was crucial to document the firsthand experiences of community college trustees who govern
these institutions. This clear focus on trustee experiences contributes to the existing gap in
literature.
I used a purposeful sampling approach to identify 12 to 15 California community college
trustee participants for this study. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), purposeful sampling
is a strategy that researchers use to “discover, understand, and gain insight and, therefore, must
select a sample from the most can be learned” (p. 96). The types of purposeful sampling include
typical, unique, maximum variation, convenience, and snowball samples (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study utilized a maximum variation sampling technique.
Maximum variation sampling is a technique that qualitative researchers utilize when they
want to understand common patterns in participants’ experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
California community college trustees receive legal powers from the state legislature, which
gives them authority to execute these powers locally. The maximum variation sampling approach
provides the widest range to capture community college trustee experiences who are bound by
the same state laws. The inclusion of participants from diverse ethnic backgrounds and genders
provided a representative perspective that closely resembles the statewide community college

60
student population. As established earlier in this chapter, California has approximately 440
community college trustees 73 community college districts. Of those districts, 53 have an MSI
status. The conditions in a purposeful sample approach helped narrow the list of participants to
16. The final analysis illuminates the voices of 16 trustees from those 53 districts.
The purposeful sampling approach required a Qualtrics prescreening questionnaire to
screen participants. This pre-survey included questions about their length of service, racial and
gender demographics, community college district, and their experience as trainers. These
responses served as the first step in the data collection procedure to identify eligible participants.
Additionally, Qualtrics data screened participants if they represented a district that did not have
an MSI status. Recruitment involved emailing trustee listservs, sending personal invitations, and
through word of mouth. The message included an invitation to participate, a link to the prescreening form, and details about the purpose of the study. Trustees who completed the prescreening questionnaire and met all the criteria received an invitation to an interview. The
Qualtrics prescreening questionnaire included a note that trustees would not receive an invitation
if the study reached the maximum number of participants.
Instrumentation
This study’s primary data collection tool was semi-structured interviews with trustees.
Interviews can illuminate perspectives from experts who lead higher education organizations
(Patton, 2002). Additionally, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) support structured conversations as an
effective research tool to gain information about an issue. A key tenet of qualitative research is
“meaning-making” (p. 21) of people’s experiences. The most appropriate vehicle for
understanding these experiences is through rich conversations with the participant.

61
As demonstrated by Kezar (2006) and Rall et al. (2021), studying trustee behavior is
challenging to do. Observing boards of trustees in public meetings does not account for their
“intentions, history, group dynamics” or other perspectives (Kezar, 2006, p. 978). Patton (2002)
states that interviews help one understand things “we cannot directly observe” (p. 340).
Interviews, then, can illuminate trustees’ unique experiences about their position, their
motivations to serve as trustees, and the factors that prepare them to govern their institution. This
study will be among one of the few that explore the phenomenon of higher education decisionmaking solely through the lens of community college trustees.
The interview included 20 to 22 open-ended questions about trustees’ motivations to run
for trustee elected office, their reflections about their community college, experiences with
training and development, and insights about relationships that are important to them. Each of
these questions connected to one or both research questions by uncovering information about
where trustees gain knowledge about their role and if and how this information influences their
decision-making. The interview began with open-ended questions to ensure the participant was
comfortable. It then progressed with substantive questions. A semi-structured interview served as
a starting for point the conversation, but the protocol adjusted based on the direction that each
participant took. This approach provided flexibility to uncover unexpected details that the
participant wanted to share (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). See Appendix A for a copy of the
interview protocol.
Data Collection
In-depth, semi-structured interviews with California community college trustees served
as the primary source of data for this study. I conducted and recorded all interviews through
Zoom and OtterAi, two digital tools used for transcription. Each interview lasted at least 1 hour.

62
A Qualtrics prescreening questionnaire identified participants who met the eligibility criteria.
The population for this study resided in regions throughout the state of California, and a virtual
option provided the greatest flexibility for participants to join this study. To schedule the Zoom
interview, participants communicated their time and date preferences via email or phone call.
Once the date and time were identified, the participant received confirmation via email.
Participants received a reminder about their interview 1 day before the date. Prior to the start of
each interview, participants were asked to provide their consent to enable the recording and
transcription of the Zoom interview. After each interview, I transcribed responses and removed
all identifiable participant information from the transcript. A video recording and a transcription
of each interview is archived in a cloud-based system and is password protected. A copy of the
interview was available to each participant.
Data Analysis
According to Creswell & Creswell (2018), a researcher can utilize several steps to
interpret the information gathered during data collection. Following the recommendations from
Creswell & Creswell, I took observation notes during each interview of comments that were
strongly relevant to the research question. After each interview, I downloaded the transcription
from OtterAi’s website and saved them for my own review and annotation. Data interpretation
involves making sense of the information shared during an interview (Patton, 2002). Therefore, I
reviewed my interview notes immediately after the conclusion of each interview. According to
Patton (2002), this strategy is important for quality control. The immediate documentation of
notes helped to align any observations from the interview to the research questions. Additionally,
a copy of the transcript and recording of the interview was available to each participant. This
allowed them an opportunity to confirm if responses were appropriately captured. I used a priori

63
thematic coding to make sense of the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), using social cognitive
theory as the foundation. These themes aligned with the behavior, personal, and environmental
factors as outlined in the social cognitive theory framework. Pseudonyms were then assigned to
participants to protect their anonymity.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Human beings are the primary source of data collection in qualitative research (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Researchers make sense of the data by interpreting people’s experiences.
Therefore, credibility of a study is critical to qualitative research. To ensure credibility and
trustworthiness of the data, the study utilized two different strategies. The first strategies
mitigated bias. To mitigate researcher bias prior to designing the data collection procedure, the
interview questions underwent peer review and examination (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) by
scholars of higher education governance. This ensured that the questions appropriately aligned to
the research framework. To minimize the potential for researcher bias in this study, the
recruitment email clearly stated my positionality. I also reminded participants of my professional
affiliation during the interview and before the interview started. Third, participants were
informed that they had an opportunity to review their interview and revise statements if they felt
that they were inaccurate or incomplete during the interview. These steps strengthened the
accuracy and credibility of the data.
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that the ethics of the researcher is the most important
factor that determines validity and reliability in a study. This is true even when data collection
methods are rigorous (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was central to this study to ensure the highest
level of ethical standards and to protect the integrity of the study. I reminded participants of my

64
researcher positionality throughout communications. To protect their anonymity, each participant
received an alias. I reminded participants throughout their interview that responses were
completely confidential, and their personal identifiable information would be removed or
replaced with an alias, however appropriate for the data analysis. As part of the interview
protocol, participants were assured of the careful consideration taken to protect the interview
files during the data analysis. After the analysis is completed, the interview files will be deleted.
Limitation and Delimitations
Higher education governing boards are highly complex and difficult to study (Kezar,
2006; Rall et al., 2021). This study only focused on California community college trustees and
specifically, only elected trustees whose district has an MSI designation. Of the 73 community
college districts in California, trustees from 53 districts qualified for the study. As evidenced by
the Department of Education, institutions must apply for the MSI designation and subsequent
federal funding. It is possible that the study omitted trustees from community colleges with
significant representation of minority students, but they did not apply for MSI status. Even
within the 53 eligible districts, the study limited participants to meet specific criteria.
This study does not aim to provide a template or a guide for every college district. Even
across California, every community college has unique decision-making structures and confronts
different issues. Given their major differences in governance structures and approaches, this
study cannot be generalized for other states. This study centered on the unique experiences and
environments of every trustee, therefore the results cannot be generalized for all board members’
experiences. Bearing these limitations in mind, this study could help institutional leaders
understand how to execute their roles in ways that are still mindful of those unique
circumstances.

65

66
Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to understand how California community college trustees representing
Minority Serving institutions (MSI) come to understand their role and how environments
influence their decision-making. This chapter will describe the results of semi-structured
interviews with 16 participants, organized by research question. The conceptual framework
identified the significance of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors in sense-making
and decision-making. This study considered knowledge and experiences that trustees utilize to
make decisions. The following research questions informed this study:
1. How do community college board members representing minority serving institutions
make sense of their role and responsibilities?
2. What knowledge and experiences do California community college board members
draw on to inform their decisions within their roles?
The conclusion focuses on the common themes across the participants.
Participants
This study looked at 16 trustees representing MSI who served in their role for no less
than 1 year. The participant recruitment announcement included an information sheet, which
allowed participants an opportunity to read about the study before committing their participation.
Data collection occurred through semi-structured Zoom interviews, approximately 60 minutes in
length. Zoom interviews offered greater flexibility for the researcher to capture a larger
geographical region and for the participant to choose a time that worked best for their schedule.
A priori coding informed the analysis of the findings. Each participant received a pseudonym to
protect their privacy. Because this study considered how experiences influence trustee’s
understanding of their role, some details about their personal and professional experience are

67
provided. Table 1 provides general demographic details of the participants, including a larger
regional affiliation, to protect their anonymity.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Participant Gender Ethnicity Region
Ann Female Latinx Southern California
Christine Female Black Southern California
Diana Female Latinx Central Valley
Evelyn Female Caucasian Southern California
Hector Male Latinx Northern California
Harding Male Caucasian Northern California
Judy Female Asian Southern California
Kathryn Female Caucasian Southern California
Lisa Female Latinx Southern California
Lori Female Asian Northern California
Marie Female Latinx Southern California
Michael Male Latinx Southern California
Mildred Female Black Northern California
Martin Male Latinx Central Valley
Nicole Female Latinx Southern California
Perry Male Caucasian Southern California
Note. Pseudonyms replace actual names.

68
Ann
Ann grew up in the same community where her college resides. She was a practicing
attorney for many years and works in public and community relations. Ann served on a K–12
school board before running for a seat on the community college trustee board. She is a
community college alumna and has served as trustee for a community college in Southern
California for at least 10 years.
Christine
Christine grew up in the same community where her college resides. She was a faculty
member for over 20 years at a 4-year university and currently owns a consulting firm. She has a
doctorate, is a mother, and is very involved in her community. She has served as a trustee for a
community college in Southern California for less than 5 years.
Diana
Diana is a first-generation college student who grew up in a heavily migrant community.
She was an educator for over 40 years before serving as a trustee. She has served as trustee for a
multi-community college district in the Central Valley for over 30 years.
Evelyn
Evelyn is a retired faculty member who spent 40 years at a 4-year university. She was
and continues to be deeply interested in policy and legislation. She has served as trustee for a
multi-community college district in Southern California for over 15 years.
Harding
Harding has worked in behavioral health for many years. His career spans several roles in
education. He was a K–12 educator, counselor, and currently serves as a part time community

69
college faculty member. He has served as a trustee for a community college district in Northern
California for less than 5 years.
Hector
Hector is a Chicano activist who grew up in a family of farmworkers. He is a U.S. Marine
veteran and a community college transfer student. He is a former K–12 administrator and has a
doctorate. He has served as a trustee for a multi-community college district in Northern
California for less than 5 years.
Judy
Judy works in the strategic communications and public affairs industry, but she started
her career in politics, and she remains interested in policy and legislation. She is also a mother.
She has served as a trustee for a community college in Southern California for less than 5 years.
Kathryn
Kathryn grew up in the community where her college resides. She is a mother and very
involved in her community outside the college. Prior to becoming trustee, she was a community
college faculty member for over 20 years. She has served as a trustee for a community college in
Southern California for less than 5 years.
Lisa
Lisa is a mother to four children and was an English language learner. She currently
serves as faculty at a community college. She has served as trustee for a multi-community
college district in Southern California for less than 5 years.
Lori
Lori is a retired healthcare administrator and part-time community college faculty. Before
being a community college trustee, she was heavily involved in local politics, including city

70
council. She has served as a trustee for a community college in Northern California for less than
5 years.
Marie
Marie is a graduate of the same community college which she now represents. She is a
mother and is very involved in her community. She currently works as a bilingual educator. She
has served as a trustee for a small rural community college in Southern California for less than 5
years.
Martin
Martin grew up as a farmworker picking fruit. He identifies as a first-generation college
student and is an alum of the same community college district he now represents. He has a fulltime job working in healthcare. Martin has served as a trustee for a multi-community college
district in the Central Valley for less than 5 years.
Michael
Michael is a Chicano activist. He has a background in law, teaching, and non-profit
organizations. He is deeply interested in legislation and governance. He is also a father. He has
served as a trustee for a large multi-community college district in Southern California for less
than 10 years.
Mildred
Mildred is a retired policymaker and educator. She has experience working with the
California state legislature and election campaigns. She is a mother and a community college
alumna. She has served as a trustee for a multi-community college district in Northern California
for over 20 years.

71
Nicole
Nicole is a Chicana and an alumna of the same community college district she now
represents. She is a K–12 administrator and is committed to social justice in the classroom. She
has served as a trustee for a multi-community college district in Southern California for less than
5 years.
Perry
Perry has a background in commercial real estate and publishing. He is heavily involved
in his community and deeply interested in economic growth for his region. He has served as
trustee for a community college in Southern California for over 10 years.
Qualitative Findings Overview
All participants understood that their general responsibilities were about establishing
policies and procedures, monitoring the budget, and hiring the CEO. Findings illuminate that
nothing prepared them for their role better than learning on the job. Trustees shared that it takes
more than a law or an onboarding training to teach them how to do it. Trustees rely on their
personal and professional experiences to inform how they lead. Figure 3 provides a visual
representation of themes from the research questions aligned to the theoretical framework.

72
Figure 3
Environmental, Personal, and Behavioral Influences to Trustee Learning and Development
Note. This figure is adapted after “Organisational Applications of Social Cognitive Theory,” by
A. Bandura, 1988, Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275–302 (https://doi.org/10.1177).
I made connections between the major findings from this study and the tenets of social cognitive
theory.

73
Findings for Research Question 1
While state laws and accreditation policies establish trustee responsibilities, there is no
law that requires minimum education levels or training. Trustees then learn how to navigate their
role based on training they electively participate in and their own personal and professional
experiences. Findings from this study demonstrate that the environmental context surrounding a
community college shapes trustees’ understanding of what is most important to an institution,
which then influences their perspective about issues to elevate as a trustee. Additionally, while
training remains voluntary, every one of the 16 participants stated that they participated in some
form of training provided by an association or their district. Training courses provided them with
information about technical aspects of their role such as budgets and open meeting laws, but the
greatest value in these training sessions is the connections formed with board peers and CEOs.
These relationships are key to helping them understand how to advance policy, how to raise an
issue with their board, and how to navigate board politics.
Environmental Context
Participants are aware that the environmental factors surrounding their community
colleges can influence student learning. While trustees are publicly elected representatives for a
community college board, they understand that their constituency transcends the walls of an
educational institution. For some participants, it is also their lived experience. A third of the
participants grew up in the neighborhood or attended community college in the district they now
represent, therefore, they know the community well. Trustees are attentive to the needs of their
voters, the external community, and the students enrolled in their institutions.

74
External Factors That Impact Student Success
Of the 16 participants, 11 spoke directly about external factors that impact student
success. Trustees talked about mental health and basic needs challenges, the threat of gangs, and
rising unemployment rates as determinants that influence a student’s college journey. Trustees
make decisions about academic policy, and they approve budgets that dedicate resources for
students, including those targeted at marginalized student populations. These narratives
demonstrate that trustees pay attention to the factors that impact a student’s ability to enroll or
stay in school.
Beyond their academic studies, a student’s basic needs come first. As Harding described
it, “students have so many stressors. You know, they’re thinking about their childcare, their
transportation, their housing. They’re purchasing their books, the time away from maybe a work
environment to attend classes.” Christine shared a similar perspective. She said, “We also know
what takes place in real time in a real context.” She spoke about the challenges that students face,
including food and housing insecurity, access to technology, COVID, and finances. As a trustee,
she understands that a college education is not easy to achieve if students are experiencing these
challenges. She further said, “I think that our real time mission, which is centered at core on
achieving education, is differentiated because we understand people are coming as whole beings.
And so, we’re trying to meet those needs.”
Participants understood that community colleges are more than just educational beacons
of opportunity, they bring different opportunities to many populations. Marie, whose community
is struggling with a poor economy and a rise in homelessness says that trustees “have to be very
cognizant of the needs of [our] community. One of the things that I always said is that our
community college needs to be that bridge.”

75
Trustees view their responsibility as creating a supportive environment for the whole
community, not just the students currently enrolled in their institutions. Kathryn and Martin both
represent community colleges in rural parts of California, and both spoke about educational
deserts. The nearest 4-year university to Kathryn’s district is more than an hour away, which
means that her college is an educational necessity to those in the region. While she recognized
that the college is an important destination for students, it also leaves students with few options
to transfer. She said, “many of them don’t leave town, you know, and that when you think of
transfer, you have to leave town to go to college because there’s no 4-year school here.”
Martin expressed concern about the lack of access to community colleges in the Central
Valley. The geography in the Central Valley is extensive and the nearest community college to
another one in his same district is at least an hour away. The distance restricts access; therefore,
his board prioritized strategies to make community college accessible to more students. As a
first-generation college student like himself, he feels that he has a responsibility to “bring college
to them.” The perspectives on college access illustrate how trustees think about their role to
support their diverse needs of their students.
Diversity of Community
The participants in this study represent MSIs. During their interviews, participants
described their institution’s mission and they talked about their role to achieve the mission. Only
three trustees spoke directly about their institution’s mission or MSI status but 13 spoke about
the diversity of their districts. Terms used to describe the diversity of their community included
migrants, first generation, Native Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and people of color.
Diana described her district as heavily migrant and first generation, and she described her role as
being a voice for those communities. Harding talked about his interactions with the tribal

76
communities in his region. Kathryn and Perry’s communities are rural, and both see their
decision-making power as a critical lever to support local industry needs.
Trustees shared an understanding that they could do more to support students of color
through their actions. Harding talked about how it is important for him to attend community
events where he can connect with and learn from the Native American community. He noted, “I
don’t think, especially White people, understand the kinds of challenges and risks that a Native
American community has endured over the years.” When she first joined her board, Lori
discovered a lack of representation of the Asian American Pacific Islander student populations in
district reports. She said,
That right there it just … really made me concerned, because there was lack of
representation. … So, it was knowing that if we put our mind to it, we could develop
policies that were going to benefit everyone, not just certain populations.
Lori noted that one of her top priorities as a trustee was to elevate the voices of the Asian
American Pacific Islander community.
Similarly, Mildred shared how she uses her position as a trustee to speak about racial
equity gaps, especially on behalf of the Black community. Mildred spoke about an instance when
the board of trustees received a district presentation on student completion of transfer-level math
and English completion. The presentation showed stark differences among White students and
Black and Latino students, although the biggest gap was among Black students. She made a
statement about the data in her board meeting, and she expressed disappointment in her board
peers who did not speak up. She said,
But I had, not one trustee say amen to that. … But, um, and let me also say that had that
been Latinos down there and not black folks, that [deleted for anonymity] would have

77
spoken up. But I would have spoken up, I would have spoken up, had there been anybody
down there. That’s the difference.
Diana spoke about the intersection between racism and student-centered policy. In her
experience, Diana felt that racism played a role in how faculty treated students. She said, “We
had a good, maybe 30 instructors who were White and didn’t want to be teaching to minorities.
And period. Because they … felt that they were inferior.” She was referring to college faculty
resistance to implement a policy designed to eliminate racial equity gaps in student completion.
As background, her district enrolls predominantly Latinx and low-income students. The
administration eventually offered many of those faculty members an early retirement. Her
district’s decision was an unconventional solution to a challenge, but it serves as an example of
how a trustee perceives district-level challenges to support diverse students.
Influence of Unions
Ten of the trustees spoke about the ways in which unions tend to influence trustee
elections or how trustees make decisions. Mildred’s early career in politics exposed her to the
world of elections and the power of unions. She shared, “I’m political looking at the landscape of
who is providing funds, for whom and, and the state of play is that unions understand the role of
an elected trustee, probably better than most.” Martin, who is in his early years as a community
college trustee, described some of the scenarios that Mildred spoke about. Martin noted,
In our community college district, sometimes it’s difficult to do the work because any
elected official, all elected officials, are funded by different people or organizations. …
The unions are really powerful and if they give you like $40,000, and you win, they’re
definitely going to want you to push their agenda. And if you don’t push their agenda,
guess what’s gonna happen, this time around, they’re gonna push someone else.

78
He is aware that trustees face consequences if they do not follow the union agenda.
When speaking about her experience with unions, Lori noted that they pressure her board
members to vote a certain way. She expressed, “I just wish that they will remember that they
were elected to represent students.” She further added, “but sometimes those groups sort of take
advantage of that sensitivity and say no, it must be this way.” Evelyn shared a time when she
voted on a construction project that did not please the unions or even her board peers who
support unions.
Marie, who described herself as being “pro-union,” talked about how it was important for
her to vote in favor of something that would benefit students, not something that would benefit a
singular group. Perry also described his perspective. He said, “If you have people that are too
aligned with unions, they can’t make the right decision. It’s not to say that unions are bad.”
Further, he added that made note that, “When you’re not able to support that president,
superintendent, and you’re more concerned about the constituency group, that’s where you fail
our job.” These stories speak to the ways in which unions hold significant influence over
trustees.
Trustees as Elected Officials
As elected officials, trustees must balance their role as policymakers for a community
college while also remaining attentive to their voters and donors. Lisa is involved with mom
groups in the community, which she uses to relay updates about her district and vice versa.
Similarly, Kathryn participates in monthly community meetings with local city council and K–12
leaders. Judy felt a personal obligation to run for trustee because she felt that the board was not
authentically representing her community. She shared, “because if you don’t have the right
people in place, there’s just and the people do things that are questionable. That trust gap widens,

79
and we really need to close that trust gap.” These trustees continue to keep a close connection to
their community because those communities elect them.
Perry calls his constituents to urge them to get involved and express opinions about
community college issues. He sometimes organizes meetings to bring people together to discuss
an issue. Hector keeps his own email listserv to keep the community updated on certain issues.
Ann also spoke about her duty to keep her voter base updated on the college. She said, “As
elected board trustees, you know, we have an obligation to communicate with the community.
We’re representing them. Let them know what’s going on. The best we can keep our ears open
and to find out what their concerns are.” The stories explain trustee perceptions about the
interconnected nature of their role as elected officials and their responsibility as community
college trustees. Table 2 includes exemplary quotes from trustees about external factors that
shape influence their perception about their roles.

80
Table 2
External Factors That Shape Trustee Perceptions
Factors Number of
participants
Exemplary quote
Community 11 “I feel like sometimes people don’t see a
community college as attainable. And so, I think
that more needs to be done.” Lisa
Diversity 13 “Our mission is to educate our community and best
serve our community and how we are going to
encourage diversity. And we’re going to
encourage those that that live within our area to
empower them.” Marie
Politics 10 “And I think that’s the problems we have today in
governance, whether it’s community college or
K 12. There’s a real strong division and you see
it right now. People keep being elected with a
really conservative bent. And the fact is, they get
elected, and they represent a constituent.” Hector
Elected officials 12 “Now were there probably 10 times in the early
years that I really wanted to resign? Yeah. But
the problem was I raised a lot of money. So, you
can’t go back to your people who wrote you
$100 check, or they wrote your $5,000 check …
and I’ve gotten a couple of checks and say I you
know, I just wasn’t you know, it wasn’t up to it.”
Perry
Conferences and Orientations
With the exception of one participant, every trustee spoke about the rude awakening they
experienced upon assuming the trustee role. This was true even for those participants who were
or are currently administrators, faculty, or served on similar boards and commissions. Christine
said it poignantly, “I had a general knowledge of you know, the fiduciary responsibility of a
board, the hiring of you know, the administrator, but in terms of all of the implications, I did not
have the professional knowledge walking in the door.” Findings illustrate that regardless of their

81
background, training teaches trustees about their duties. They find that training; however, is more
than just a handbook or a conference. They gain lessons through collaboration with district
leaders and connections with trustees from other districts across California.
District Orientation
The college districts provide an important footing for newly elected trustees. A notable
experience shared among trustees was the provision of a thick binder by their district on board
policies, budgets, and accreditation. Kathryn started her term as trustee during COVID-19 and
the district offered her a 1.5-day Zoom training. She said that the district gave her “a really thick
binder” as part of that orientation. Martin assumed his role just as the district was about to update
its strategic master plan. Like Kathryn, he also received a binder. Additionally, the chancellor
invited him to a one-on-one meeting to talk about his role and responsibilities. During his first
few months on the board, the district handed Perry a copy of the new accreditation report
published by the Community College League of California (CCLC). It was one of the first
materials he read. Prior to joining the board, he felt that “accreditation was never important.” He
said, “I never really understood the big deal about it until I became a trustee.”
College presidents or chancellors are the first people that trustees met with during their
onboarding. As shared in an earlier section, Martin’s chancellor reached out to him for a one-onone meeting and orientation. Lisa found her district orientation very helpful, but she struggled
with unfamiliar terms. To help her feel prepared for board discussions and decisions, she
followed up with the CEO and district staff on many initial orientation details. Throughout her
interview, Lisa expressed her appreciation to her chancellor. Lisa said of her experience, “Now I
understand the importance of the role, how busy they are, and in the fact that she made time for
me an hour every so often, that’s a lot to ask.”

82
Mildred, a long-time trustee, had a more cautious outlook for these initial district
orientations. When speaking about new trustees, she commented, “They come in with very little
knowledge … so they are dependent upon what the chancellor tells them.” Michael had a similar
opinion of training provided by his district. He felt that “there is too much manipulation” in what
the district wants him to know. While she appreciated the orientation provided to her, Lisa was
also aware that the district curates the information it gives her. She noted, “you only get what the
chancellor and the presidents bring to the board.” Perry shared that it was important for him to
attend the CCLC conferences because he lacked information from his district. He said, “I got the
feeling that nobody wanted me to know what I should know.” No matter how unique each
orientation is, the findings show that CEOs are an essential resource for trustee learning.
Conferences as Spaces to Convene
Training provided trustees with the technical knowledge to conduct public board
meetings, the process of accreditation, balancing a budget, and hiring a president. Perry attended
a CCLC conference because he felt lost in his early days. He said, “I had to kind of figure it out
so … I went to a CCLC meeting very soon after, and not a clue … I kind of had to ask a lot of
people from other colleges.” To Lisa, these training sessions offered her insight into the “basic
structure” of governance. Ann shared this about her own experience with trainings, “helpful as
far as governance goes to understand your role, how to do things properly, how to, you know,
not get yourself in trouble.” Conferences, then, teach trustees the fundamentals of governance.
Every one of the trustees participated in a conference training offered by the CCLC or
Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT). What they value most is meeting other
trustees, learning what other districts or trustees are doing, and learning about policies that affect
their colleges. Harding said, “I like to go to the meetings where there’s going to be conversation

83
about how we deal with this stuff.” Martin found that connecting with other college leaders was
very important to his onboarding. He said, “[They] have always told me, if you have any
questions or concerns or if I can be of any assistance … reach out to me.” Nicole shared that the
CCLC conferences reaffirmed what she is advocating for in her own district.
One of Lori’s most significant takeaways from conferences is learning about policy
issues and trends. “You go to these conferences, and you start talking about things and then I go,
Well, what, what are we doing about that?” Most recently, she attended a conference where she
learned about cybersecurity and strategies to increase college enrollment. When she returned to
her district, she brought this information to her board for further discussion. To implement the
lessons they learned, trustees will follow up directly with their CEO. Milred recalls one out-ofstate conference she attended where she learned about a transformative policy on remedial
education. She returned from the conference and asked her CEO why the district was not doing
this. She recounted the experience, “He’s just, because it’s too costly on the front end, he said,
that’s the truth. And that triggered for me. Well, why the fuck not? … Why aren’t we putting our
money there?”
Diana does not wait until she returns to her college. If there is something she wants her
district to explore, she will email the CEO while she is still in the conference to relay information
she learned. She said, “I do email and send it off to the college even before I got back to give a
report. I had them on it.” These examples are consistent with other comments shared throughout
their interviews. Trustees view themselves as important advocates for their district in more ways
than just budgets and policies. They learn how to advocate for these issues by utilizing the
knowledge they gain from conferences.

84
Critiques of Trainings
Despite the broad support for these training opportunities amongst participants, it may be
important to note that some expressed concern about who the training really benefits. Michael
felt that the people who organize the content for these conferences do not look like him. He said,
“They give us all kinds of stuff that we’re supposed to follow. No. You know, and I’ve gone to
their conferences and it’s all white.” He further felt that CEOs attend trustee trainings with the
sole purpose of keeping an eye on them.
Evelyn also shared her criticism of the heavy presence of college CEOs in workshops
intended for trustees. “What bothered me, and I complained about it … there were more CEOs
attending the Beginning Trustee workshops than there were new trustees.” She recalled a session
she joined with a small group of individuals to discuss specific scenarios for trustees. In that
group, she said that “the trustees were outnumbered by the CEOs.” In the group activity, she
described how trustees shared their thoughts on how they would address a particular scenario,
but CEOs corrected trustees by saying “No that’s not what you do, you’re wrong.” Evelyn later
shared in her interview that she still attends these conferences but does not find them beneficial.
“I don’t think I got much out of it. To tell you the truth. I mean, it was really, just the experience,
you know, just being there and seeing how things are done.”
Judy recognizes the vital role that the CCLC plays to bring a “very important resource
learning” to trustees. However, she also spoke about their decision-making process that impacts
trustees. She believes that the CCLC board leadership keeps the same people in leadership
positions, who, in turn, have influence and power in determining content for training or
engagement opportunities for trustees. The findings show that trustees are wary of the training

85
structure. Trustees find more value in making connections with other trustees. Table 3 includes
exemplary quotes from trustees about their experiences with conferences or orientations.
Table 3
Experiences with Conferences or Orientations
Factors Number of
participants
Exemplary quote
District
orientation
7 “So once I got elected, they invited me to do a meeting with
the chancellor and the chancellor basically gave me a
binder with all of our policies, our roles and responsibilities
at the time.” Martin
Conferences 16 “I have to tell you that all of the training that I received, I
really take it to heart. Because for me as a trustee, I feel
that I need to know what’s going on for students, staff, and
how are we navigating that to be effective? To be an
effective community college, how are we navigating. It’s
so important for us to go learn, come back, use it if we may
but it gives us different ideas.” Diana
Critiques of
trainings
9 “I want to go to a conference where no administrator goes, no
administrator goes. Because I almost think that that some
of the our administrators go because they want to guide us
in a certain way. Right. And the speakers right, I want … a
conference where, it’s different visions of being a trustee,
for trustee without staff interference.” Michael

86
Importance of Relationships
Trustees can attend as many conferences or participate in an abundance of workshops. At
the end of the day, however, the ultimate implementation of these lessons is up to the trustee. As
noted earlier, trustees instruct their CEO to take specific actions on material they learned about in
conferences. They may also start a conversation with their CEO or board peers about best
practices. To help them make sense of the training material and apply lessons into practice,
trustees utilize their relationships with CEO, board peers or other mentors.
Mentors Guide Learning
Trustees rely on mentors to help them understand their role and to navigate the politics of
being a trustee. For example, Judy’s mentor was a former community college trustee and
Christine’s is a former community college board chair. Perry leaned on the unlikely mentorship
of a dean at his college, whom he met through a mutual contact. Diana depended on women and
other board members to show her the ropes. She said, “I had to depend on the individual women
who were on the board when I came on, and there were three women.” She also noted, “If I
didn’t know something, I asked questions of the other board members. If I was invited to
whatever it was … I would attend those.” Martin also relied on the mentorship of a fellow board
member to orient him during his early years. He said, “I have spent countless hours talking to her
about what that role is and how it looks like and how not to get into the day.” Lisa wanted to lean
on other trustees for mentorship, but she cautioned, “How do you even match up someone where
they can be sincere and honest to ask any candid questions, right, especially when everything’s
assumed that you should know certain things?”
Nicole shared something that echoed Lisa’s comment about trust. She seeks counsel from
other trustees outside her own board to guide her through decision-making. She said,

87
I think your network is really important and genuine network, and it’s going to be small
as a trustee. … You know, you come across people that are like-minded and have been
doing this for a long time, also in their experience, and how to move through policy and
how to get the work done.
Mentors can also come from outside the community college system. Some of Martin’s
mentors are current or former elected officials, and they helped him understand the nature of
elections and relationships. Marie looks to her partner, an organizer, as a sounding board to
strategize her platform. His knowledge about construction projects also helps her prepare for
board decisions on project labor agreements. When her board was discussing a construction
project, she said, “He said, well go talk to the engineers. Let’s go make an appointment.” During
her interview, Diana spoke frequently about the wisdom her father imparted to her. His lessons
of hard work, ethics, and values guided her through challenging times as a trustee, including
dealing with institutional racism and board conflict. Mentors are supportive peers that trustees
can rely on for guidance.
Influence of Board Peers
All 16 of the participants referenced board relationships and how they helped trustees
understand what trusteeship in practice looks and feels like. Trustees spoke of the importance of
getting to know one another. During her first few months as trustee, Lisa invited every one of her
board peers for coffee one-on-one so they could get to know one another. She shared, “I took the
initiative to make sure that they knew me or meet outside of the meeting, so that they kind of saw
when it wasn’t just the first time we met every time we met at the at the meeting.” In the end,
these meetings had tremendous value for her because she learned that some of them had
misconceptions about her due to her professional job as faculty. Similarly, Judy said that the

88
former board chair was wary of her because she was a labor-endorsed candidate. She said that
the board chair “was suspect of me.” Like Lisa, Judy was able to foster a good working
relationship with her board chair after they got to know one another.
Boards can only vote as a unit, which is not an easy task if they do not get along with
each other. Throughout his interview, Perry spoke about the times when his board was very
divided. He shared,
There’s a lot of anger and pent-up hatred I think, out there. So, I think that you really
have to just hope that you get five or seven adults that act like adults that have to
understand that they’re not there for their personal reason. They are there to forge … their
college in the right direction, offer the right programs, hire the right people, and make
very tough decisions. We were not there to pick out the paint in the bathroom. We’re
there to pick the superintendent.
Even though they do not always agree with each other, Perry noted that with time, his board
became a united team. Hector said something similar, “I came here knowing two of you and now
all of a sudden, I gotta get with get along with you 110%? I don’t think so. I don’t think so.”
Hector underscored, however, that trustees need to work together to serve students.
A common thread in this finding was the relationship between board colleagues.
Trustee’s relationship with their peers influences their individual experience as trustees. Before
Evelyn assumed her role as trustee, several members of her new board reached out to her and
offered to meet her for lunch. During this lunch, the board members spoke about their plans to
fire the CEO and they wanted her to support them. She later learned that the timing of the lunch
was intentional to avoid a violation of the Brown Act. Since she had not taken the oath of office
at the time of the lunch meeting, she was technically not a trustee. Evelyn, expressed, “I did not

89
understand that I was being used in this way.” In her words, “this was my introduction to
governance.” When she made it very clear to her peers that she was not going to do what they
asked, the two board members lashed out by running candidates against her in her re-election.
“You know, opposing people who are my friends and having them do some really bad things to
me. To really hurt me.”
Trustees feel alone when speaking up on issues on the dais; this was especially true for
people of color. During Marie’s first year, her board was preparing to vote on the renewal of an
administrator’s contract, which the district had historically renewed for years. After researching
the individual’s record and performance, she did not feel that the board should renew his
contract. During the board meeting, she expressed her concern and voted against the proposal to
renew his contract. While the board ultimately voted against his contract renewal, no one else
said anything. Marie said, “I was the only one who spoke because I felt that someone had to say
something, and I was ready to do it.” This left her to be the target of public backlash for the
board’s collective decision.
Michael spoke about the trust that the public places in him to provide oversight to the
district. He felt that his board peers often silence him when he attempts to raise concerns about
questionable district practices. He said that his colleagues tell him, “Please stop talking about
that. You’re, you’re messing with our good thing here.” Similarly, Hector shared that when he
does speak up, board peers accuse him of not being a team player or being anti-good governance.
“I’m gonna speak my mind. Yes, I do go along with it. But when it starts hurting my community,
when it hurts raza, so you can bet I’m going to speak up.”
Mildred felt that she was the only one on the board asking tough questions about Black
student success. From her perspective, there is a notable difference in how some trustees engage

90
on the dais based on their racial identity. During one of their meetings, trustees received a
presentation from district staff about racial equity gaps between Black students and their peers on
transfer-level math and English course completion. Mildred, the only Black person on the board
but not the only person of color, was waiting for her peers to comment. When no one did, she
spoke out. She said,
At that meeting in public with the faculty sitting there, I basically said, the reason why
this is unacceptable is because there is something terribly wrong. Because you, I know
you won’t say this, whether you believe it or not, that Black people are dumber than the
rest of the population in our classes. … That is emphatically an error. So, something else
must be going on and we all, sitting in this room, need to be concerned about that.
Evelyn’s experience highlights the lonely side of trusteeship when relationships with
peers are unpleasant. According to Evelyn, one of her board peers was unhappy with how she
voted on a contract. He lashed out at her by organizing with the unions to run a candidate against
her in her re-election. She expressed, “that was really a betrayal to have somebody do something
like that and I you know, and then running somebody against me. So … it’s hard to get over
that.” Relationships with peers play a significant role in shaping the experiences of a trustee,
whether those relationships are hostile, uncooperative, or collaborative.
Chief Executive Officers Are Trainers
The data show that CEOs can empower trustees or serve as gatekeepers. Six of the
trustees spoke about the mutual respect shared between their CEO. They hold this trust while
also maintaining a level of accountability to each other. For example, Kathryn holds so much
faith in her CEO that she said she is “scared to death” when he retires. Upon earning his seat on
the board, Harding made it clear to his CEO that he had certain goals he wanted to achieve, and

91
his CEO was very supportive. Harding shared that his CEO encourages all the trustees to attend
conferences and to share space with one another. Marie said, “I’m always able to call him, he
knows … that’s what I like to do and … he’s okay with it.” During her first few months as a new
trustee, Lisa said her CEO set the time aside to meet with her and if she could not answer
specific questions, the CEO asked her own staff to provide Lisa with the appropriate information.
Other times, trustees seek information from the campus community without going
through the CEO. Ann reaches out directly to students and staff on campus, a practice that makes
others uncomfortable. She said, “One of the things I do, some trustees don’t like to do it, but I
talk to like, the employees and the students to see what’s going on.” She does this because feels
that the college insulates board members from campus conversations. She said,
It’s the whole control dynamics. You know, you have the board and then you have the
administrators and then you have the faculty, whether it’s college or you know. But one
of the things is to try to keep the board members isolated … and train them employees
that they’re not supposed to talk to the governing board members. But I think they know
better, I’m gonna talk to whoever I want to.
Evelyn shared one instance when she reached out directly to a staff member and the CEO
politely reprimanded her for it. “One time I asked her without going through him [CEO] and he
says, when a board member asks something, they just jump and think they have to respond right
away.” In this instance, her CEO was attempting to shelter staff from board member requests.
These narratives show how CEOs are important people to help trustees comprehend their
responsibilities.

92
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
Trustees utilize their familiarity with the community college environment, relationships
with other trustees, and lessons from formal training to understand the essence of trusteeship.
The narratives shared in this study illustrate how trustees rely on these experiences to help them
understand the functional aspects of the trustee role. Associations like the CCLC provide training
to trustees about policies and procedures but even through these trainings, trustees gain more
knowledge by connecting with and learning from other trustees. While participants participated
in some form of training, they emphasized that those learning opportunities only provide an
introduction to the basics. The most impactful factors that influence trustees’ understanding of
their role is learning about best practices and of different scenarios for policy implementation.
Trainings and CEOs can provide a space to share these best practices, as evidenced by the stories
shared by trustees. The CEO is a highly respected leader among trustees. While trustees are the
ones who hire the CEO, there is an expectation or assumption, however, that the CEO would
provide them with the necessary orientation to be effective trustees.
Findings for Research Question 2
The primary way that trustees apply their duties in practice is through their decisionmaking on district policies and budgets. Research Question 2 addressed what knowledge and
experiences trustees utilize to help them carry out their duties and obligations. The data reveal
that regardless of their unique background, trustees draw on their own positionality, professional
expertise, and lived experiences on the board to inform how they make decisions on the board.
Learning on the Job
The board handbook may provide a trustee with information on their duties, but they still
have to know how to do it. Evelyn said, “I had no idea when I was first elected.” Evelyn spent

93
more than 4 decades as faculty at a 4-year university, but she shared that the structures, rules and
“the way things are run” were very different at a community college. This was a common thread
among more than half of the participants. Christine spent many years working in higher
education and had a general understanding of the fiduciary and administrative responsibilities of
a trustee, but she admitted that she had limited knowledge. She shared,
In terms of all the implications, I did not have the professional knowledge walking in the
door. We got this big binder. And of course, I’m gonna read and prepare myself but there
was still so much I just did not know because again, in hindsight, I was coming in from
that personal professional from an educator perspective, but not from the professional of
formal trustee.
The data reveal several ways how trustees come to think about their decision-making authority
by learning on the job. This was true even for those with experience in higher education or
elected office.
Navigating the Ways of the Board
Trustees learn how to engage by first learning about their own board. Martin, who has
experience as an elected official, reflected on his early days as a trustee. He said, “I was kind of
intimidated by some of the board members. I felt like I would be like a small fish swimming with
sharks. But I went in with the understanding that I was allowed to learn.” Marie felt like Martin
as she found herself on a board with members who have served in their roles for many years. She
spoke about the importance of staying informed so that she could stand out and represent her
community well. She shared, “Being the youngest on that board when everybody else was
retired. Everybody else had many years on that board. You know, everybody was gonna
question, just the fact that I was an educator, I think that’s not enough.”

94
Christine spoke about the challenges with board bureaucracy. Her district’s board policies
prohibited trustees from responding to public comments. She said, “Sometimes they would come
and make a statement, and we would just be sitting there, and I’d be sitting there like, wait a
minute. I don’t want them to think that we’re ignoring them.” She further said, “I don’t have time
for this bureaucracy.”
Judy has extensive experience with elected office and the public policy process. She said,
“[I] understand politics, I already understand power, I already understand how the game is
played.” Like Christine, she spoke of the bureaucratic nature of trusteeship that most people do
not understand, which leads them to have a certain public perception about trustees. She said,
Most people don’t understand the role of a trustee. They just think that we could just go
chop chop, get it done. No. And that is not, just, not just the trustees, but other folks think
that we could just let’s get it done. You, just because you say it’s gonna happen, no,
doesn’t work that way. But other people who are not in this role, they think that’s how it
works.
As trustees learn the ins and outs of board culture, they gain valuable knowledge and
skills that teach them how to engage. Evelyn spoke of an instance when she voted against a
project labor agreement with a construction company, which upset the unions and some board
peers. She shared, “I guess I was very naive in the beginning and didn’t realize that I was
expected to follow a certain line.” Judy used her political acumen to help her count board votes,
advance policies, and change board culture. She noted, “It changed by my personality. It changed
because I am nothing like my predecessor. I’m not an older White man who had been there for
30 years, who was a rubber stamp partner.” Hector pointed out the difficulty in keeping clear
boundaries between trustees and the CEO when they become too close. He shared that trustees

95
tend to meet with the CEO for lunch on a weekly basis, but it is a practice that he cautions
against. He said,
I don’t do that. I keep my professionalism. I’ll go out to lunch with you. But I’m not
going to talk business. You talk business in public. We’re a one on one. And I think that’s
happened too many times with people of governance that come in to elected officials
wanting to make changes. And then pretty soon you can’t really disagree because he’s
my good friend.
The inner workings of a board and the structure of board policies provide trustees with a sense of
direction on how to lead and strategize.
Asking Questions to Influence Change
Asking questions provides trustees with power and information to influence change.
Thirteen participants spoke of their approach to asking questions as a strategy to shape district
policies or hold their district accountable. It was important to Nicole that she speak up on the
dais and use her voice to make changes. She said, “I do my homework, I do my analysis, and I
really prepare, and I work alongside my district. But I, also as a good board member, I’ll ask
questions that is going to help them really do this work.” Christine is an emeritus faculty member
who taught at 4-year institutions. When she learned how differently community colleges evaluate
faculty in comparison to 4-year universities, she started to ask her district why. She said, “What
do you mean the faculty don’t get evaluated, but once every 3 years? What? What how can we
change that? It’s like, oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. You can’t just do that.” By asking these
questions, she learned that changing faculty evaluation polices is not a simple task. She described
this learning moment as “disturbing,” but she did acknowledge that she walked away with a

96
valuable lesson. She said, “What it did teach me though is how to navigate and still accomplish
the goals that I knew were important.”
Asking questions is a widely accepted and recommended strategy for trustee governance
but trustees shared that this strategy raises concern among district staff or even their board peers.
According to Michael, people perceive this to be a form of meddling or micromanaging. He said,
I’m like, I’m not micromanaging. I’m asking when we got the money. How did it go,
where did it go to? We’re supposed to, we have a [inaudible] budget we’re spending, you
know, can you please tell me how that’s being used? Right? And the system doesn’t like
questions. They just don’t.
Nicole had a similar experience when she requested a district report on their remedial education
implementation efforts. The resistance did not come from staff; however, it came from her board
peers. She described,
In my district with the board of trustees, they tried to silence me. They were trying to say,
“Oh, you can’t be doing that. That’s operational.” When it wasn’t. Like, asking for
reports. I’m not telling them how to do the report.
Despite the resistance from some of the trustees, Nicole did have support from others on the
board. Eventually, the district shifted the way it developed its agenda to integrate reports for the
board. Nicole said, “The staff is providing a more thorough report so that I can have information.
And … questions that I might have had before, it’s now answered in the narrative.”
Trustees can inspire board dialogue and motivate each other by asking questions. Mildred
commented that trustees have an audience they need to learn how to use. She said,
So, there is a power from the dais and there’s a power for the question that gets asked,
and … it doesn’t always have to even be answered, but that it’s asked is critically

97
important. … And then the response triggers for another board member. Oh, I haven’t
thought of that. What about this? And while they’re not necessarily, I’ll call it, I’ll call it
instrumentation, they’re not necessarily talking to each other, they are still informing
each other, and they are informing that audience out there of those who are sitting in the
audience.
Participants expressed frustration with being the only one on their board to raise
questions. Judy gave one example, “And so of the five of us, me and one other trustee, I will say
are the only ones who like read the budget. Line by line and ask really specific questions.” As
described earlier in this section, board peers discouraged Michael to ask too many questions
about the budget. Mildred was disappointed that her peers did not join her in raising questions
about the alarming data on equity gaps. She said, “I’m always … try to hope that my colleagues
will step up, but they did not.” Asking questions is a form of governing, yet trustees must learn
how to use this skill in their own way and within their own board.
Board Meeting Preparation
Trustees gain new information about different topics as they prepare for board meetings.
When trustees review their monthly board agenda, they research items and prepare for the
discussion or action items. Almost all the participants stated that they reach out or meet with
their CEO ahead of monthly board meetings to discuss certain agenda items. Hector commented
that CEOs have significant power to set the agenda, which in turn, determines what information
the board receives. He said, “They drive a lot of the agenda because trustees are lay people for
the most part, and you don’t know what you’re talking about half the time.” Lisa said something
similar about district influence over the information provided to trustees. She commented,

98
We only get what the chancellor and the presidents bring to the board…you only get the
information they send you so a lot of times you don’t have all of the information … if
you have to make a decision, if you hadn’t really visited campuses and understand what’s
going on … you’re just going to use what is brought to you.
Others will contact trustees from other districts to talk through an issue. Trustees take
these steps because they believe it prepares them to adequately engage on the dais during board
meetings. Table 4 shows the different approaches by trustees as they prepare for board meetings.
Table 4
Trustee Actions to Prepare for Board Meetings
Participant Quote
Marie “Every Monday, so yesterday, I met with the President, and so we have a
zoom for about an hour, an hour and a half, and I go over the entire agenda
with him.”
Kathryn “I’m writing my email to [deleted for anonymity], with my questions as I read
it, and I’m also marking up my agenda. So, I know, you know what
question to ask at the meeting or what to pay particular attention to.”
Ann “And then sometimes you have to do a little bit more research, make some
phone calls or look into things and sometimes talk to other trustees. If you
know that they they’ve dealt with this specific situation.”
Lori “I’m a detail person, so I read everything I come prepared…I consider this a
very big responsibility. And so, I’m going to do my best, the best that I can
and that means coming prepared, having questions, and asking something
that maybe no one else thought of, or was afraid to ask.”
Martin “If you’re an active trustee, and you do your homework and you read over the
agenda and try to be on top of everything that’s going on, you have to be
informed. It’s like having a part time job, you invest a lot of energy and
hours into it.”
Lisa “We get the information ahead of time, I will sometimes reach out to other
district colleagues to see hey, let’s say cybersecurity, for example, You
know, what, what can you share about your experiences with cybersecurity,
you know, what, what has happened?”

99
Influences of Personal Experiences
The data show that trustees apply their own identities and upbringings to guide their
capacity as trustees. Their experiences as women, parents, first-generation college students, and
people of color influenced their motivations to run for office. Their identities shape their goals
and governance approaches as trustees.
Motivation to Serve
Trustees serve in their position because they believe in the power of an education and
want to serve their community. Christine said this, “I have always had a connection to my
community college, and I always wanted to, in some capacity, serve. I was not interested at all in
political, in the political world.” Christine’s comment about the political nature of trusteeship
overlaps with other findings in this study. Despite the many political challenges he faces on his
board, Michael remains loyal to his role as a trustee because he wants to support good policy. He
noted, “I’m not looking to become a congressman, a state senator or anything like that. I have
zero interest. Only because I think, frankly, I have more of the ability to affect policy here.”
Like Christine and Michael, Hector commented on the challenges of trusteeship due to its
political nature. He has worked with trustees over the years who view trusteeship as a symbolic
position. Hector said, “They see it as a seat, and to me, that’s [pauses], well that’s not something
what, that, I guess I don’t strive for.” He also spoke about his belief in education as a public
good. He shared, “Community colleges, to me are probably one of the three or four great
equalizers. If it wasn’t for community college, I sure wouldn’t be sitting talking to you right
now.” Hector’s own experience as a beneficiary of community college is what motivated him to
work in education for many years and upon retirement, to serve on a community college board.

100
Judy shares Hector’s view about community colleges too. She said, “I see community
college as well as an equalizer because it creates opportunities, and it’s for everybody.” She
shared examples of how community college is accessible to students with different needs. She
noted,
You could be a mom who was out of the workforce for many years wanting to look for,
you know, opportunities to go back into the workforce. Or you know, somebody looking
to get your units before you transfer to a 4-year university, somebody who’s looking for a
certification program and a building trade or construction trade in the entertainment
industry, or somebody who just wants to continue to learn about whatever.
They recognize that community colleges provide opportunities for all students and as trustees,
they are responsible for keeping those opportunities available.
The importance of diversity and representation also surfaced as a theme among
participants. Marie said,
I felt that I could better represent my community. After so many years of teaching in this
area, I knew a lot of the students and I knew all of the reasons and barriers that they had
at that community college, and I wanted to make sure that their voice was heard.
Martin shared that he did not see college leadership represented in the diversity of the students in
his district, and he wanted to change that. He noted,
I wanted for the community to have a board member that looks like them, and also has a
similar background as them because I also grew up working in the fields cutting grapes
and different products.
Nicole decided to run for office because she wanted to represent her diverse community.
What primarily motivated her, however, was her perception that the college was not doing

101
enough to improve student completion. She said, “As a community college, like you should be
done, I mean, within 2–3 years typically, and you should have the support…There should be
someone who’s doing this, they should have those supports, they should have these resources.”
She reflected on her own experience as a community college student and how she transferred in
2 years. She said that it should be the board’s responsibility to secure these resources that are
vital to student success. She noted, “At the trustee level … whether it is funding, whether it’s
going to be priorities, whether it’s going to be things that we have to lobby for, I didn’t know
why it wasn’t happening. But it needed to happen.” Their own motivations seem to align with
their understanding of their duties.
Personal Identity Influences Leadership
Trusteeship in practice is a unique experience for trustees based on their identity. The
data show that trustees utilize their own experiences as a compass to lead, especially on matters
of race. They can do this by identifying specific goals for their district, raising awareness about a
specific issue, or questioning district practices.
A leading factor that motivates trustees to run for trustee office is the desire to see more
representation of diverse people on the board. This was important for Martin, Nicole, and Marie.
Findings suggest that trustees continue to advocate for representation of their communities even
when they are on the board. Trustees use their identity as people of color to amplify the voices of
racially diverse students. As an Asian American, Lori feels that the conversations about the
Asian American community in her district are often missing. She said, “My first board meeting,
they were talking about demographics, and about underrepresented communities, and they
specifically said, Latino, and African American, nothing about AAPI … there is no consideration
for this community.” During Lori’s interview, she acknowledged that she was unapologetically

102
an advocate for the Asian American community. She is involved in other community college
initiatives throughout the state and tries to always bring Asian American voices to those spaces.
Judy shared that she is the only one on her board asking questions related to the Asian
American student population. Lori and Judy’s experience illuminate how they utilize their voice
to raise awareness about the Asian American community when others do not, even district
leadership. Lori shared a time when she had to educate her own CEO on the widely known
acronym that defines the Asian American community. It reminded her that all college leaders,
including CEOs, need ongoing education about marginalized students of color. She noted, “I will
say there is absolutely the need for education. Because … to ask her, ‘Are we an AANAPISI?’
… She’s like, ‘oh, what is that?’” Trustees take actions on a wide range of policies that directly
impact student success. When populations are invisible in district documents and discussions,
trustees give voice to these communities.
The leadership and action of trustees of color are important to transform institutional
practices. Hector is a Chicano, a first-generation college student, and a K–12 administrator for
many decades before serving as a community college trustee. Through his extensive work with
many boards, administrators, and students, he has seen and worked with many board members
who do not speak up on issues impacting communities of color. He believes that trustees of color
need to use their platform for good. He said, “People of color should have questions, should
challenge, should take risks. That’s what you’re there for. If you want to be status quo, let White
people continue to rule the governing models that we have.”
Data show that trustees, especially parents, view themselves as nurturers who can support
the well-being of their students. Christine comes from a large family, and she shared that her
entire family pushes their children to attend school and get an education. She said, “We are

103
always pushing these babies and that’s the same mentality I bring to my trusteeship.” As a parent
and an aunt, Christine brings the same mentality through her leadership as a community college
trustee. Lisa was a student parent while in college and now that she serves as a trustee, she
understands the experience of student parents. She speaks up about her own path so that the
experience of working parents is not invisible. She commented,
The other thing I talk a lot about is my experience as a student when I was an adult, you
know, pregnant with my third child going back to school, how scary it was, and the
challenges that I’ve faced being a student learner at the time. And you know, how it took
me longer than most, how I felt like I didn’t belong.
Lisa and Christine did not reference specific examples of how they utilize their experience as
parents to inform decision-making; however, they both acknowledge that it is a part of who they
are and how they show up as trustees. Trustees’ identities as parents provide them with an
emotional compass to lead in service of student success.
Trusteeship is a unique experience and one shaped by every trustee’s unique identity.
Trustees use their own experiences to guide them in their leadership roles, including their race.
Nicole talked about her identity as a Chicana woman and how she brings her authentic self to
work. Similarly, Hector commented throughout his interview that speaking out for “la raza” was
very important to him. Mildred shared a moment when it felt impossible to disconnect her role as
a trustee from her identity as a Black woman. There was an incident on campus involving the
police and a Black student. While the incident would not typically implicate trustees, she spoke
out anyway because she believed that the situation impacted the campus climate for students.
She shared,

104
We had … an incident of a student who was escorted off campus because they had been,
seemed to be sleeping at 6 o’clock in the morning in a doorway. … And the police person
basically … not attack but verbally um, walked behind this person as they were finally
getting off and basically said you’re not a student. … Really was saying, you don’t
belong. … Now, unbeknownst to the president of the board, unbeknownst to anybody
else, the police sent a report over to the president that that student would be, not be
allowed to come back to class … I hear about it because I’m a trustee.
Mildred further elaborated about her frustration with the situation. She asked the chancellor for a
copy of the police tape, which the chancellor protested at first. In her eyes, the district leadership
wanted to relay the information to her instead of allowing her to see the evidence firsthand.
Eventually, Mildred did speak to the chief of police and district leadership, and she told them,
“Your first inclination was to protect the institution, not the student … we have to move beyond
that piece. Especially if we have students of color that are impacted.” To Mildred, trustees have
an interest in learning how institutions handle these scenarios. She said, “Mostly because I’m
Black, and I know what, I sort of know what can happen in these situations.” The stories shared
in this section show that trustees do not serve on the board to simply approve items or listen to
updates, they draw on their personal background to craft their unique voice on the board. Table 5
represents some of the exemplary participant quotes from the section.

105
Table 5
Personal Experience Influence on Trustee Motivation and Leadership
Factors Number of
participants
Exemplary quote
Motivation to serve 8 “I think for us that are going into leadership, people
of color, I kind of it’s like, oh my god, like I’m in
this position, and what can I do now because it’s
on me to be able to make a difference.” Nicole
“I wanted for the community to have a board
member that looks like them, and also has a
similar background as them because I also grew
up working in the fields cutting grapes and
different products.” Martin
“I see community college as well as an equalizer
because it creates opportunities, and it’s for
everybody.” Judy
Personal identity
influences
leadership
15 “We are always pushing these babies and that’s the
same mentality I bring to my trusteeship.”
Christine
“When it starts hurting my community, when it hurts
raza, so you can bet I’m going to speak up.”
Hector
“Mostly because I’m Black, and I know what, I sort
of know what can happen in these situations.”
Mildred
Influence of Career Experiences
Career experiences, both past and present, provide participants with the familiarity to
understand the mechanics of trusteeship. This creates a knowledge base that informs trustees’
goals and decision-making. Trustees use their professional experiences as faculty, administrators,
elected officials, lawyers, advocates, and teachers to develop their unique leadership style as
trustees.

106
Informs Personal Goals
As elected officials, trustees must be free of personal bias, but the findings show that
trustees have personal interests or goals while on the board. More than half of the participants
spoke about a specific goal they want to accomplish as a trustee or a priority they want their
district to focus on. When asked about their institution’s mission and their role to support
minority students, only two trustees repeated words or phrases from their district’s mission
statement. As noted earlier in the chapter, the majority of participants are cognizant of the many
factors that impact student success. They did not describe their own goals as bringing them
personal gain; however, trustees view their goals as part of the district’s overall mission to
support students. These goals underscore that trustees have suggestions on ways the district can
lead. Table 6 provides a brief description of trustee goals if they provided it.
Table 6
Participant Goals and Their Associated Professional Background
Participant Professional background Goal
Christine Faculty Improve faculty evaluation process
Diana Educator Equity and access for migrant communities
Evelyn Former faculty Increase number of full-time faculty
Marie Educator Improve curriculum and literary programs
Michael Attorney and non-profit leader Increase equity in literacy for non-English
students
Nicole K–12 administrator Evaluate curriculum and increase student
completion
Harding Educator and mental health
advocate
Increased mental health support
Perry Businessman Increase graduates to meet industry need

107
Shapes Unique Lens to Leadership
The breadth of their career experience gives trustees the knowledge and skillset to craft
their approach to trusteeship. Regardless of their professional background, their unique qualities
benefit them in their current role as trustees. Perry is a self-described “great negotiator.” He said,
“I think that in my business, rejection is a part of what I do. So, you have to have a tough
stomach. I’m pretty tough.” He uses this skill to negotiate contracts with the unions, although he
admitted he had a learning curve. He found commonality with unions in their mutual interest to
support students. He noted, “And at the end of the day, that commonality was we’re here for one
reason, one reason Oh, and that’s student success.”
Michael has a background in law and throughout his interview, he talked about relying on
the law to guide him in his role more than training provided by the district or associations. He
said, “I understand the importance of statute. Even though I always understood it. What does the
statute say? What do the rules say and how are they going to be enforced? Or are they there for
show?” He said that the public places a great deal of trust in trustees to oversee and manage a
district. He said, “They give you a trust, hence the name trustee, right?” He believes that a
trustee’s attention to law and implementation is an essential part of their job because it balances
power among the district leadership. He expressed,
You have to monitor, you have to have oversight, you have to review the budget …
Because [pauses] power within the institution. If it feels the trustees or the governing
board is not paying attention, they will take advantage of it.
The trustees in this study understood their responsibility is to provide oversight and keep the
district accountable, but Michael emphasized the consequences if they fail to do so.

108
More than half of the participants entered their role with a reputation as either being profaculty or pro-union because of their professional affiliations. Board colleagues or CEOs were
wary of them because they felt that the trustee would vote a certain way due to their affiliation.
Kathryn was a faculty member for almost 20 years for the same college she now represents. She
described how her own CEO was apprehensive of her when she joined the board of trustees. She
said,
He was scared to death that I was just going to take the faculty side of everything. And I
was like, no, no that’s not the way I am. You know, I could see both sides and I know
when, I when, I don’t think the faculty is right.
This moment is important to highlight because she did share an example when her role as a
trustee and her experience as former faculty came head-to-head. She shared,
I’ll be really honest. What really shocked me is how the faculty, like I said before, was
getting paid for all these things that were part of my job, paid to do program review, you
know. They get … paid for large class stipends, they get paid for, I can’t remember what
else, but all sorts of things that weren’t in the contract way long ago, and I was like oh
really?
Her experience is very similar to the one shared by Christine earlier in this chapter. Both
are former faculty and yet they learned that the faculty experience or structure was different than
theirs. Christine shared that faculty were skeptical of her. She said,
When I ran, the faculty ran people against me and I’m like, you can say I’m anti-faculty
all you want. I’m a faculty member. I’m the beneficiary of people depositing in me. But
that’s why I go hard and say, look, you don’t have time to be injuring somebody in
classrooms.

109
She and her district have fostered a good working relationship with faculty since. These
examples reveal that even though trustees bring a certain professional expertise to their role, they
can challenge district practices in service of students.
Participants spoke about having to put in extra effort to ensure that their comments or
votes were free of personal bias. Marie captured this best,
I’m pro-union. I’m part of my own union, but we need to make sure once again, that
everything is equitable, and the focus on the students. And we’re not going to take from
the students just to make another group happy.
Lisa felt that her board formed a certain perception of her when she first joined the board. She
said, “There was almost a wall being built because of that. And when I met with each of the
board members, I could see the difference.” The examples shared in this section illuminate how
trustees bring a unique lens to their leadership in part because of their professional experiences.
Still, some trustees push back against the assumptions made about them due to their identity.
Trustees rely on their board peers for subject matter expertise. For example, Evelyn
mentioned that she relies on the accountant on her board to share her thoughts on budget related
matters. Trustees assume that their colleague’s professional experiences make them more
knowledgeable about a particular topic. Lori shared that her board peer’s unique experience
teaches her about a new area and helps the board think of issues they had not thought of before.
So, in this sense, trustees learn about new subjects through their peers. On the other side,
participants observe peers who are not afraid to make it known that they represent a particular
sector. Kathryn said that one of her peers describes himself as the “union-guy.” Similarly, one of
Ann’s board peers refers to himself as, “The corporate business trustee.”

110
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
While Research Question 1 explored the factors that generate a knowledge base for
trustees to learn about their unique role, Research Question 2 considered the factors that
influence their decision-making. The most significant factors that influencing their decisionmaking approach are their background, career expertise, and experiences gained while serving on
the board. Trustees elevated that their identities as people of color, mothers, women, and firstgeneration college shaped their approach to advocacy in service of special populations. They
were aware that as diverse individuals, trustees could change or champion institutional practices
that support minority students. The professional skills of trustees also serve them well in their
role as governing board members. Their prior or current professions provide them with the
familiarity to navigate board politics and bureaucracy. Finally, relationships are an important
source of information to trustees. Through relationships with other trustees or CEOs, trustees
gain critical tools to help them govern their districts.
Conclusion
Trustees must have the knowledge and skillset to govern an educational institution
effectively. Trustees fundamentally believe in education as a public good and they are motivated
to make a difference on their board. The data analyses illustrate the numerous environmental
factors that support trustee learning and development. While all trustees work under the same
state laws and expectations of the job, the data show that trustees will act upon these laws
differently based on their unique personal experiences, environmental context, and lessons
learned on the job. These experiences, combined with any formal training they participate in,
provide trustees with a blended combination of assets that help them govern.

111
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Community college trustees hold one of the most important roles for an institution
because of their decision-making authority over virtually every policy aspect of the institution.
Community colleges require their trustees to be aware of their various responsibilities and
equipped with the information to faithfully execute their duties. Professional development is a
method to assist trustees in their success. While it is abundant and accessible, participation in
professional development and ongoing training is not a legal requirement for trustee service in
California. Further, available training is significantly underutilized (Kezar, 2006; L. Galizio,
personal communication, March 25, 2024; Polonio, 2005). Considering the conditions regarding
participation in training, there is an opportunity to explore how and where trustees gain the
information and skills to govern their institutions.
To explore the factors that produce knowledge and skills for trustees, this study applied
Bandura’s (1988) social cognitive theory. No other study has used this concept to explore the
behaviors of community college trustees in relation to their surrounding environments. This
theoretical framework provided a lens to consider how environmental, personal, and behavior
factors influence a trustee’s understanding of their role and their approach to governing. The
following research questions offer a deeper understanding to the study:
1. How do community college board members representing minority serving institutions
make sense of their role and responsibilities?
2. What knowledge and experiences do California community college board members
draw on to inform their decisions within their roles?
Discussion for Research Question 1
The findings demonstrate that trustees pay attention to the environmental challenges that
affect students and voters in their community colleges. Voters in a community college district

112
elect trustees; thus, trustees view these broader societal challenges as their duty to change or
address. Additionally, exposure to training experiences, such as district orientations and
conferences, and relationships with trustee peers and mentors are important sources of
information for trustees. Trustees, including those who served in their role for more than 5 years,
depend on the guidance from other people to help them understand how to apply the technical
aspects of trusteeship in practice. As a review, Table 7 summarizes the themes and subthemes for
Research Question 1.
Table 7
Themes for Research Question 1
Theme Subtheme
Environmental context External factors that impact student success
Diversity of community
Influence of unions
Trustees as elected officials
Conferences and orientations District orientation
Conferences as spaces to convene
Critiques of trainings
Importance of relationships Mentors guide learning
Influence of board peers
Chief executive officers as trainers

113
Environmental Context
The first major theme to surface in Research Question 1 centered on the environmental
factors outside of a community college that aid in a trustee’s understanding of their role.
Environmental cues (Bandura, 1988) such as mental health, homelessness, and employment are
very important to trustees. They understand that their role is to provide fiscal and administrative
oversight to their colleges, but their knowledge and awareness motivate them to lead in other
ways. Evelyn, Diana, Harding, Christine, and Marie raised attention to issues that could
potentially sway students from even going to college in the first place. If students are
experiencing homelessness, unemployment, hunger, and mental health challenges, then college
will not be a priority for them. Put another way, trustees create their own motivation and actions
(Bandura, 1986) to govern based on their observations of societal challenges.
As first-generation college students or parents, trustees like Lisa, Juan, Christine, Martin,
and Diana utilized their experience to guide their approach to leadership. Others like Evelyn,
Marie, Nicole, Christine, and Martin grew up in the same neighborhood where their community
college district resides or attended the college that they now represent. Their experiences
reinforce self-efficacy (Bandura, 1988); they know that a college education helped them and for
this reason, they advocate for issues that they believe will support the students they represent.
Trustees transform their knowledge and awareness of social issues and their lived experiences
into a platform of issues that they believe are important to their community.
Trustees utilize their awareness of the external environments to develop goals for the
institution. Emphasizing the social cognitive theory framework, Bandura and Cervone (2023)
state that people do not control the environments around them, but they “do have some latitude
in how they construe it and react to it” (p. 11). Perry, a businessman, makes connections between

114
local workforce demands and the credentials that his community college should produce to fulfill
those demands. He wants his college focused on student success because college graduates will
fuel the local economy. Additionally, Kathryn, Martin, and Judy spoke about the need to expand
college access so that more students accessed a college education. As elected trustees, they
believe in their ability to bridge those needs. In this sense, trustees take deliberate actions to
respond to their environments (Bandura & Cervone, 2023).
Additionally, the data show that trustees have a clear interest in racial equity. These
interests did not surface as individual goals but rather, observations about how their districts
interact with students of color. Mildred, a Black woman, felt that the institution was placing its
own needs ahead of its Black students. Mildred believes that it is her duty as a trustee to ensure
that students have a supportive campus environment. On multiple occasions, Hector spoke about
the needs of Latino students, specifically calling out “la raza” or the community. Lori and Judy
are both Asian American women and they each shared in their interviews that they felt Asian
American Pacific Islander (AAPI) students were absent in district priorities. They both utilized
their identities as Asian American leaders to urge their colleges to do more for this population.
College presidents have a vested interest to pay attention to the concerns raised by
trustees like Mildred, Lori, Hector, and Judy because their institutions are MSIs. Institutions with
MSI status receive federal funding to support the success of racially diverse student populations.
As “fiduciary watchdogs” for community colleges, trustees hold their CEO accountable for
utilizing these dollars in support of students of color (Potter & Phelan, 2008, p. 16). Trustees
exhibit a commitment to addressing racial equity issues and they push their institutions to
prioritize them. This presents an opportunity for CEOs to work collaboratively with trustees to
be more attentive to diverse students’ needs.

115
Training Beyond a Conference or an Orientation
The second major theme in Research Question 1 pertained to trustees’ perceptions about
professional development. Trustees, as lay citizens, oversee a multitude of issues that they may
not be familiar with (Rall et al., 2021). Absent any prior knowledge before assuming trusteeship,
trustees need resources to help them faithfully execute their duties. This reinforces the
importance of building skills (Bandura, 1988) to help an individual perform their duties
effectively. Harding, Christine, Evelyn, and Perry received a thick binder of information from
their district as part of their new trustee orientation. While the resource was helpful, it was
difficult for them to process. In her interview, Christine shared, “You get that orientation book.
That doesn’t mean you learn it.”
All the participants in this study participated in an orientation hosted by their district or a
conference hosted by the Community College League of California (CCLC). Lisa, Harding,
Evelyn, and Judy made note that the CCLC conferences taught them the basic elements of the
trustee role. Findings suggest that district orientations and conferences are not enough on their
own to adequately inform trustees about their responsibilities. This aligns with research findings
that indicate trustees need additional support to apply training material into practice (GillettKaram, 2013; Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall, 2014). The greatest value in these
conferences is the ability to meet with other trustees to discuss issues that impact their role, and
they want to learn about best practices. This supports social cognitive theory’s tenet of social
modeling (Bandura, 1988). Modeling or observational learning helps individuals build
competencies and craft their skill (Bandura, 1988). It also reinforces certain behavior, both
positive and negative (Bandura & Cervone, 2023). This finding demonstrates that trustees seek
guidance from others to help them be successful in their role.

116
Importance of Relationships
The third major finding from Research Question 1 centered on trustee vital relationships
that shape a trustee’s understanding of their role. The very basis of social cognitive theory
centers on human behavior (Bandura, 1988, 1989, 2002) and how they respond to contextual
environments, including other individuals. Findings show that trustees look to their CEO to help
them make sense of their responsibilities. Trustees like Lisa, Martin, Harding, Marie, and
Kathryn expressed gratitude towards CEOs for providing them with orientation materials and
assisting them to prepare for board meetings. The relationship with CEOs is not just important
during the trustees’ initial onboarding period, it remains vital to their learning throughout their
tenure on the board (Boggs, 2006). The findings point to an interesting juxtaposition between the
trustee and CEO role. The board of trustees hire the CEO, and they hold this leader accountable
for operating within the district’s mission and policies (Boggs, 2006; Lovell & Trouth, 2002;
Rall et al., 2022). Yet, trustees lean on their CEO to provide them with resources to help them
execute their role. Participants did not speak about this as an expectation that CEOs train them to
be effective trustees; it was not a focus of this study. Trustees described their relationship with
CEOs as a mutual respectful partnership. This interesting dynamic, however, positions the CEO
as both an employee of the board of trustees and a pseudo-manager that supports their learning
and development.
The CEO is the board’s only employee, and it is the most important relationship to
nurture (Boggs, 2006). In California, the average tenure of a community college CEO is less than
3.5 years (Mize, 2022), and the number one reason for the high turnover is tension with their
board of trustees (Cooper, 2016). This study did not consider the nature of the CEO and board
relationship, but it did uncover that CEOs are vital to trustee learning and development. The

117
study only focused on trustee experiences and therefore, it does not reflect a CEO’s perspective
on what a trustee’s support means for their own learning. What it does illuminate, though, is that
trustees find value in the support that CEOs give them. The trustees who discussed the ways in
which their CEO supports their learning also emphasized the mutual respect they have for one
another. This finding is not unexpected. Research suggests that when the relationship between a
CEO and their trustees is strong, the board can be very effective (The Aspen Institute, 2013;
Boggs, 2006; Cooper, 2016; Potter & Phelan, 2008).
Trustees rely on a network of relationships to help them understand how to successfully
execute their duties and obligations. As noted in the first theme for Research Question 1,
conferences enable trustees to connect with peers. Martin, Harding, Diana, Nicole, and Lori
shared that the most valuable experience from these conferences was the ability to connect with
other trustees. Through their connections with fellow trustees, trustees gain new skills that help
them translate training content into practice. When Ann wants to learn more about a policy issue
or work through a problem, she calls trustees from other boards to talk about it. Lori and Diana
engage in a similar practice of checking in with other trustees to learn how they would approach
a particular issue. Other mentors that guide trustees in their role include family members and
former trustees. They seek counsel from these mentors to help them strategize board actions,
think through innovative ideas, and navigate conflict.
The findings from Research Question 1 reveal that trustees can gain a comprehensive
understanding of their roles and obligations through orientations and conferences. Nevertheless,
they desire information that transforms the content from orientation binders and conference
trainings into real-world situations. To accomplish this, they gather information from an intricate

118
ecosystem that includes their community, students, their CEO, and other trustees. These
relationships are instrumental to trustee learning and development.
Discussion for Research Question 2
Training opportunities provide trustees with an understanding of the mechanics of the
job, but they do not teach trustees how to apply the concepts in everyday life. Trustees’ stories
demonstrate that they gain valuable knowledge about their responsibilities by learning how to
apply them in real life. This aligns to Bandura’s (1982) social cognitive theory, which suggests
that it is not sufficient to possess the knowledge about a task, one must also acquire the skills to
perform it well. This was true even for trustees with decades of experience as administrators or
who served in other elected positions. The most significant finding for Research Question 2 was
the importance of trustee identity and career experiences to inform their decision-making. The
diverse set of knowledge and experiences they bring to trusteeship are more helpful to their role
than any other factor in this study. As noted in the earlier findings for this study, trustees seek
and need guidance that teaches them how to apply their duties into practice. The data analysis
shows that they utilize their own lived experiences to help them do this. As a review, Table 8
summarizes the themes and subthemes for Research Question 2.
Table 8
Themes for Research Question 2
Theme Subtheme
Learning on the job Navigating the ways of the board
Asking questions to influence change
Board meeting preparation
Influence of personal experiences Motivation to serve
Identity influences leadership
Influence of career experiences Informs personal goals
Shapes unique lens to leadership

119
Learning on the Job
The first major finding for Research Question 2 centered on the importance of learning
on the job. Trustees assume their role with a perception about what the role entails, but most
valuable lessons are the experiences they gain while they are on the job. By directly engaging in
the task of trusteeship, trustees gain valuable experiences that contribute to the development of
their skills, as demonstrated by Bandura and Cervone (2023). For example, Christine worked in
the higher education sector, yet she acknowledged that she was not prepared for the political
nature of the job. Also, Kathryn was a faculty member for 20 years before starting her role as a
trustee and still, she learned about new issues related to faculty governance. Harding worked in
the mental health sector, but he was also a part-time community college faculty member, which
meant that he had some knowledge about community colleges. Yet, he described his introduction
to trusteeship with “zero orientation.”
Voters entrust these individuals with the responsibility to govern a community college
district; nonetheless, trustees learn that the duty is not solely theirs. One of the most difficult
lessons for trustees is learning that unions wield significant power over trustee’s decisions. These
experiences are consistent with the recent body of research on the union’s growing influence on
trustee elections (Boggs, 2022; Cloud, 2022). For example, Martin expressed that unions
pressure trustees to act a certain way because they donate to trustee campaigns. If they do not
vote in favor of unions, it could cost them their reelection. Both Martin and Mildred shared
stories of board colleagues in other districts who faced those consequences and lost their
elections.
Sometimes other board members pressure their peers to vote in favor of unions. Marie’s
board was negotiating a construction contract and she felt pressured to support it because her

120
board wanted to. Like Marie, Kathryn experienced pressure from her board peers to vote for
issues that favor unions. In Mildred’s experience, the faculty union stopped speaking to her
because of the way she voted on a particular policy. The limited data did not show how union
pressures influence their decision-making, but it did illuminate examples of trustee and union
interactions.
Influence of Personal Experiences
The second theme that surfaced in Research Question 2 was about the influence of
trustee’s identity to support their decision-making. Social cognitive theory does not pertain to
identities, but it does illustrate how their personal and behavioral beliefs (Bandura, 1988)
influence actions. Their identities as parents, people of color, first-generation college students,
and members of their community provide them with a moral compass to serve. They believe in
education as a public good, which motivated them to run for trustee elected office. Perry, Hector,
Martin, Christine, and Judy called attention to the tremendous value that community college
brings to students. Their belief in education guides their approach to decision-making because
community college has an impact on the lives of so many students.
Trustees find ways to bring their authentic self to their role as trustees. Christine and Lisa
utilize their experience as mothers to shape the way they lead and resonate with the student
experience. Hector, Michael, and Nicole spoke about their Chicano and Chicana identities and
the importance of supporting the Latinx community. On several occasions during his interview,
Hector made it evident that issues pertaining to the Latinx community are a top priority for him.
As a former community college student, he knows how vital community colleges are for people
like himself. As shared in earlier findings, Lori and Judy are Asian American Pacific Islanders
and while they both represent different districts in the state, they both find themselves struggling

121
to advocate for Asian American Pacific Islander voices. Lori admitted that she unapologetically
advocates for these students because no one else does.
Harding also made a comment about his race and positionality. He acknowledged that as
a White male, he may not fully understand the experiences of students of color. When it was
time for his board to nominate a new board chair, his peers recommended him for the role. He
expressed, however, that it was important for his Latinx peers to serve in that critical position
because his college was majority Latinx. Through these experiences, trustees shared how their
racial identity is important to their role as trustees.
Influence of Career Experiences
The third major finding for Research Question 2 focused on the ways that trustees utilize
their career experiences to guide their approach to decision-making. Martin, Judy, Lori, Nicole,
and Mildred previously served in other elected roles or worked in legislative advocacy. Their
experience in the policy industry gave them the political acumen to navigate union and board
politics. Lori shared, “I know how the game is played.” Martin’s experience as an elected official
taught him that change takes time but achievable in increments. Hector was a K–12 education
administrator that worked closely with a governing board. He shared during his interview that
this experience enabled him to see things from the CEOs perspective. Marie also has experience
as a commissioner and through that experience, she learned how to approach a delicate board
decision on a project labor agreement. This supports one of the core tenets of social cognitive
theory that prior knowledge helps one develop core competencies in a certain area (Bandura,
1988). Trustees use their craft to help them govern.
Trustees develop goals for their district based on their professional expertise. Christine is
a former faculty and one of her goals is to improve faculty evaluation policies. Kathryn is also a

122
former faculty, and her goal is to increase the number of full-time faculty. Other trustees had
broader goals. Harding is a mental health advocate, and his goal is to expand mental health
resources for students. Development of self-goals is central to social cognitive theory (Bandura
& Cervone, 2023) and achieving those goals builds self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). Goals increase
motivation to accomplish a task, especially if it is self-curated (Bandura & Cervone, 2023).
These findings support research’s (Hendrickson et al., 2012) assertion that board members bring
their personal perspective on how their institution should focus, and they focus on a select issue
to pursue.
Findings show that goal development aligns to professional expertise. Some studies show
that trustees can apply their career perspectives to their role as trustees (Bastedo, 2005; Bastedo,
2009). When trustees utilize their individual skills on their board, it can help their institution
advance their mission (Barringer & Riffe, 2018; Barringer et al., 2019), facilitate connections
with critical resources (Demetri et al., 2022), and result in fiscal resources (White, 2022b). Taken
together, their collective expertise can improve group functioning (Bandura, 2002). While this
study did not consider the benefits of trustee networks or advocacy, the findings show that a
trustee’s career experiences do help them govern. They utilize this knowledge to challenge
institutional practices, develop unique goals, or raise innovative approaches to board governance.
These are only a few examples of the ways that trustees utilize their career experiences as a tool
to help them lead as community college trustees.
Recommendations
The discussion of findings reviews the major ways that trustees acquire knowledge about
their role and how the information contributes to their approach to decision-making. The
following section includes five recommendations that address the key findings from this study.

123
Recommendation 1: Create a Community of Practice for Trustees
One of the most valuable aspects of the CCLC or ACCT convenings for trustees was the
opportunity to meet other trustees and learn how to advance policy. Through these conferences,
trustees may learn about an issue, but they eventually turn to their CEO or other trustees to learn
more. It is the how-to component of these conversations that trustees seek. Researchers and
practitioners utilize the community of practice to transform knowledge about a particular topic
into practice (Omidvar & Kislov, 2014). This framework reinforces the concept that learning is
not dependent on an individual, but instead, it occurs within a situated and contextual framework
(Omidvar & Kislov, 2014). This theory of learning is consistent with the framework of reciprocal
interactions in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1988).
The creation of a community of practice for California community college trustees,
curated for and open only to trustees, can enable them to learn more about critical aspects of their
responsibilities. This learning experience can guide trustees to organize their individual skill sets
(Bandura, 1988) that help them accomplish their united goal of being an effective trustee. This
group would be free of administrators so that trustees can feel comfortable connecting with their
own peers. Kathryn’s experience with the Beginning Trustee workshop showed that CEOs attend
and overpower trainings that are exclusively intended for trustees. A community of practice also
supports another tenet of social cognitive theory, collective efficacy (Bandura, 2002). If
The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office funds several communities of
practice for local colleges seeking to support student success (Christian, 2023), but none to date
are for trustees. One of those communities is for Puente Project Math faculty to improve the
successful implementation of strategies to implement AB 705 (Irwin), a landmark bill signed in
2017 that required California community colleges to redesign their remedial education practices.

124
Another example of a community of practice supports the creation of institutional strategies to
grant students curriculum credit for prior learning (Christian, 2023).
The Brown Act, a California state law (California Government Code Section 54952.2)
that prohibits the majority of trustees from the same community college board to convene and
discuss board matters, even if those matters are about their own professional development, poses
limitations on how they can come together to learn. Communities of practice would benefit new
and older trustees to help them build skills and learn content over time. Trustees in this
community of practice can work with a group of trustees from other districts to avoid violating
the Brown Act (California Education Code Section 54952.2). Groups can meet in person or via
Zoom, which accommodates trustees from different geographies.
Trusteeship is a difficult and complex job. A community of practice can normalize the
practice of asking for help. The content that trustees learn from these opportunities only go as far
as teaching them what they need to do but not how to do it. As described in the literature review
in Chapter Two, the policy landscape and environments surrounding community colleges are
constantly evolving. A community of practice provides trustees with recent policy trends and a
safe space where they can discuss those issues with other trustees.
Recommendation 2: Establish California Law to Require Annual Trustee Training
The California legislature holds trustees responsible for closing equity gaps (Office of
Governor Gavin Newsom, 2022), increasing transfer rates (Campaign for College Opportunity,
2022), and improving student success (Felix, 2021), among other goals. Voters hold trustees
accountable for meeting these demands but voting patterns are a poor measure of accountability
(Warren, 2014). If state leaders valued these goals and expected to see results, then it must create
the structural conditions that foster an ecosystem of learning and accountability for trustees.

125
There are no requirements for trustees to serve in office (Rall et al., 2022). By omitting any
expectations for training, the state could be signaling to the public that trustees already enter their
position with the required knowledge and skills (Rall et al., 2022). As evidenced in this study,
even those trustees with extensive experience in higher education or elected office require
guidance to faithfully execute their responsibilities. Data analysis indicates that trustees can draw
on their personal and career experiences to inform their governing style, but they need support to
carry out their duties into practice. Findings also show that training is a widely accepted activity
for trustees but it is entirely voluntary.
Trustees voluntarily participate in training provided by the CCLC or the ACCT, but these
are membership-based associations. As fee-based membership organizations, community college
trustees and administrators serve on their board of directors. Further, much like the leadership
structure at a community college district, the membership organization’s board of directors hire a
CEO to execute their mission and priorities. Therefore, it may be in the state legislature’s best
interest to require that trustees complete a training that is sanctioned and monitored by the state.
California community college trustees govern under the same laws (California Education
Code Section 70902). The state legislature can build off this infrastructure by establishing a
training requirement that reinforces those laws. This training can include an overview of the laws
with specific trustee responsibilities. It should also include an overview of their ethical duty to
lead without bias. This study illustrated that trustees are mindful of retribution by unions or other
parties for the way they may vote, but a state administered training can remind trustees of their
obligation to serve their institutions without bias (Boggs, 2006; Potter & Phelan, 2008; C. Smith,
2020). A state mandated and administered training would not replace the CCLC or ACCT. These

126
organizations bring tremendous benefit for trustees who want to convene with other trustees,
hear about best practices, and learn about emerging issues that impact community colleges.
Recommendation 3: Institute an Annual Board Retreat to Discuss Trustee Goals
Chief executive officers should institute an annual board retreat focused on goal
development. Bandura (1982) and Bandura and Cervone (2023) posit that goal development
drives self-efficacy. When an individual builds self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982), they believe they
are capable of accomplishing a task. Therefore, consideration of individual trustee goals is
important to trustee learning. It is common for community college leaders to convene a board
retreat to discuss matters of interest to the district, update strategic plans, or conduct board selfevaluations (C. Smith, 2019). Based on the stories shared by participants, trustees have goals to
increase full time faculty, invest more resources on basic needs, and improve the way it supports
students of color.
Hendrickson et al. (2012) note that trustees enter their role with a perception that their
personal experience can support their institution. They note, however, that this can sometimes be
a disservice to the institution if they “neglect the fiduciary responsibility of trusteeship entrusted
to them” (p. 299). Through a retreat, trustees and CEOs can work together to properly and
ethically integrate the trustee’s goals into a district’s strategic plan. Retreats can foster
collaborative, innovative thinking, and exploration of new ideas and approaches. These skills are
essential for trustees to remain agile and adaptive to the changing needs of community colleges.
Trustees believe their expertise and perspectives could positively shape institutional
policies (AGB, 2017). This is also consistent with research that shows that trustees’ professional
experiences (Bastedo, 2009) and advocacy expertise (Bastedo, 2005; D’Amico et al., 2022) can
contribute to their institution’s success. Although CEOs tend to be cautious when trustees get too

127
involved in areas outside of board policies (Boggs, 2006; Cooper, 2017; Kezar, 2006), this study
confirmed that participants have personal goals they want to achieve during their time as
trustees. CEOs have an opportunity to lean into any goals that positively align to their
institution’s mission and work collaboratively with their trustees to integrate them.
Trustees want to have a voice on matters that are important to their constituents.
Residents and donors who may not attend a community college have the voting power to elect
trustees. Conversely, students attending a college in a trustee’s district may not be a voter. This
poses an interesting dichotomy for trustees who must balance their voter’s interests while
remaining attentive to their student’s needs. Simply put, trustees will contribute their ideas if it
matters to their constituents. Therefore, CEOs should have honest conversations with their
trustees about the ways they can seamlessly integrate new goals into the college’s strategic plan
without disrupting existing efforts. By instituting a board retreat, CEOs and trustees can establish
clear expectations for each other through consensus building and collaboration.
Recommendation 4: Hire Staff to Manage Board Conduct and Development
Supporting trustee development is crucial for the success of the district due to the
extensive list of trustee responsibilities (Amey, 2022; Phelan, 2022; C. Smith, 2019).
Community colleges should consider creating dedicated staff that support trustees successfully
execute their roles. One of these positions can include a chief of staff to the community college
CEO and liaison to the board of trustees. The chief of staff would not replace the CEO or
insulate them from board relations. The CEO is the only employee of the board of trustees;
therefore, that relationship is critically important to maintain.
Data analysis indicates that while board members understand their administrative and
fiduciary responsibilities, they also expect the president to invest time to support their

128
development. This can place a strain on the relationship between presidents and trustees. A chief
of staff can support the CEO to solicit, make sense of, and operationalize many of the distinct
requests from trustees. This would then enable the college CEO to focus on the actual operations
of the institution, which, in turn, can lead to successful institutional outcomes. When the CEO is
successful, everyone benefits. Dedicating a senior level executive to work directly with trustees
is in the best interest of the college because the number one reason why California community
college presidents quit is because of board tension (Cooper, 2016).
Community colleges should also consider hiring in-house legal counsel that advises the
CEO and board of trustees. Legal counsel would support district leaders to track compliance of
all state and federal laws and monitor threats to ethical board conduct, including unethical board
interactions and influence by unions. The dedicated counsel should not advocate for or safeguard
the interests of the board of trustees, it should monitor the board’s duty to execute their
responsibilities. The narratives of trustees in this study illustrate that there are potential hazards
to board conduct that may require careful review of legal duties. This includes the practice by
board members to engage in conversations with other trustees, which risks violation of laws.
Additionally, the growing pressure against trustees by unions warrants a closer look at the
necessary legal steps to prevent unethical or illegal actions.
These situations may not be threatening on their own but legal counsel would call
attention to inappropriate or illegal behavior by unions and board members when it arises. It
appears that trustees respond to these instances on their own, often having a negative
consequence to their experience, as shown with Evelyn. Monitoring ethical behavior seems more
appropriate for an attorney to do and not the CEO, who, as established, is hired by the board of

129
trustees. This shields the CEO from having to deliver the difficult message to their employer
when they are out of compliance.
Recommendation 5: Solicit Frequent Input From Students and Community Members
Findings show that input from students, voters and community members is very
important to trustees. Surveys, town halls, and community events can provide insight to college
leaders about the campus and community atmosphere, which they can utilize to support their
mission and goals. Participants talked about the ways they already solicit input from students and
the people in their community college districts. Ann likes to go on campus and speak with
students and staff, a strategy she uses to remain updated on the campus climate. Marie speaks to
students about issues indirectly associated with the college, such as challenges with
transportation. Discovering these challenges helps her advocate for students so that the problems
do not affect their college education. During his interview, Perry said it was important for him to
work hard because he did not want to disappoint his donors. The election structure of community
college trusteeship makes it challenging to distinguish the needs of the voters with the needs of
the institution. For trustees, both are equally important.
Community colleges operate in an ecosystem shaped by students, state and federal
legislation, and workforce demands. Trustees govern their colleges with these factors in mind
while also remaining attentive to the needs of their voters (Polonio, 2005). Interactions with the
public should matter greatly to CEOs because the community has the power to elect or vote out
their bosses: the board of trustees. Currently, feedback appears to be collected on an individual
basis, and it may only reflect the perspective of one trustee or a limited group of constituents.
Therefore, CEOs and trustees should create opportunities where they can solicit feedback from
the community together.

130
Recommendation for Future Research
The findings from this study provide important insights to the individual experiences of
community college trustees and their approaches to decision-making. Social cognitive theory
provides a framework to understand how people behave and how external environments
influence those behaviors (Bandura & Cervone, 2023). Trustees have a significant responsibility
to govern community colleges and it is alarming that there is insufficient research (Floyd, 1995;
Gillett-Karam, 2013; Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Rall, 2014) about these individuals. The
following section includes eight recommendations for future research.
• All participants in this study participated in some form of training by the district or an
association. The voices of trustees do not participate in professional development are
missing in this study. Interviews with trustees who do not engage in professional
development can provide insight to their own experiences with knowledge
generation. Their stories can also help associations like the CCLC and ACCT create
new ways to engage trustees who do not participate in training.
• The study did not focus on the effectiveness of CCLC training, but data analysis
showed mixed opinions about the usefulness of the content. To date, no empirical
studies exist on the CCLC training content or its effectiveness. Every community
college district in the state of California is a member of the CCLC, therefore, the
CCLC and its members can benefit from empirical data that shows what content is
most effective to trustee governance.
• The participants in this study were racially diverse, and the majority were women of
color. The findings showed how trustees of color, and women especially, approached
their decision-making style based on their diverse identities. Comparative studies of

131
trustee leadership across gender and race can show how different demographics
contribute to differences in trustee experiences, governance style, and relationships
with board peers.
• This study examined individual trustee behavior amid changing environmental
factors. Research on boards of trustees remains understudied (Barringer et al., 2019;
Bensimon, 1984; Kezar, 2006; Mogan et al., 2022). Participants spoke frequently
about other trustees on their board, specifically about their behaviors. Scholars, state
policymakers, and administrators can benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of
how boards, not just individual trustees, work together to respond to the growing
demands of community colleges. Other studies on board behavior can help scholars
understand how factors such as group dynamics and board culture affect a board’s
governing style.
• Trustees have unique goals they want to accomplish during their time as board
members. Governing board members can positively support their institution through
advocacy (Mayfield et al., 2022; White, 2022) and professional connections
(Barringer & Riffe, 2018), but these studies are severely limited. There is no available
research on community college trustee personal goals and their actions to successfully
achieve them. With the size of community college districts and number of trustees,
California provides an ample pool of potential participants to start.
• Based on their unique environmental context and voter constituency, every
community college board is unique. More research that compares boards across
different regions can provide some insight on how geography and climate influences

132
board actions. Suggestions on specific actions to research include fiscal management,
CEO selection, advocacy, and contract approvals.
• Trustees spoke of their experience dealing with union pressure. Few studies talk about
how unions can sway trustee elections and decision-making (Boggs, 2022; Cloud,
2022). This study illuminated the ethical dilemmas with union peer pressure, but it
only scratched the surface. More research on how union pressure affects trustees’
ability to govern can help policymakers consider potential solutions to address those
challenges.
• Community college boards operate within an intricate regulatory framework of state
and federal laws. State laws establish the community college mission and trustee
responsibilities; therefore, lawmakers can benefit from learning how trustees make
sense of these laws. Specifically, how do trustees learn about state and federal laws
and what helps them meet the objectives of those laws. Studying how boards interpret
and respond to these legislative mandates can offer useful insights to the ways they
govern.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to explore the sources of knowledge that community
college trustees utilize to understand their responsibilities and learn how they utilize this
information to guide their decision-making. The state of California does not have prerequisite
criteria for trustee elected office and it does not require that trustees participate in professional
development. Therefore, the gap of knowledge between what trustees know and how they apply
knowledge to their role is limited. Using Bandura’s (1988; 1989) social cognitive theory as a
framework, the findings suggest that to govern their community colleges, trustees glean

133
information from trusted mentors, professional development training they voluntarily participate
in, and their personal experiences.
Community colleges are microcosms of their surrounding communities. Political, social,
and economic conditions require community colleges to adapt to changing legislative mandates,
student demographics and workforce demands (Fulton, 2019; McGuinness, 2016; Tierney,
1988). Through their policy-decision making power, trustees must remain responsive to these
needs and as such, they seek relevant information that teach them how to do it. This is true even
for trustees with extensive experience in K–12 or higher education, business, or prior elected
office. Trustees transform their knowledge into practice by drawing on the lessons they gain
from their personal and business experiences. Even trustees who elect to participate in
professional development, the how-to component of governance is lacking but it is the most
valuable information they seek. In the absence of enough resources, trustees rely on their
personal experiences, their college president or chancellor, and trusted individuals for help.

134
References
Acevedo-Gil, N., Santos, R. E., Alonso, L. I., & Solórzano, D. G. (2015). Latinas/os in
community college developmental education: Increasing moments of academic and
interpersonal validation. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(2), 101–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715572893
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. (2014, June). Accreditation
standards adopted June 2014. ACCJC. https://accjc.org/eligibility-requirementsstandards-policies/
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. (2022, January). Policy on rights,
responsibilities, and good practice in relations with member institutions. ACCJC.
https://accjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Policy-on-Rights-Responsibilities-and-GoodPractice-in-Relations-with-Member-Institutions.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges. (n.d.). Fast facts 2024. Retrieved March 24,
2024, from https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/
Amey, M. (2022). Community college boards of trustees: The more things change, the more they
stay the same? New Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(200), 111–114.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20553
The Aspen Institute. (2013). Crisis and opportunity: Aligning the community college presidency
with student success report. Professional Services Close. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/
wp-content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/CEP_Final_Report.pdf
Association of Community College Trustees. (n.d.-a). Trustee education. Retrieved February 12,
2024, from https://www.acct.org/trustee-education
Association of Community College Trustees. (n.d.-b). Board roles and responsibilities: An
overview. ACCT. https://www.acct.org/page/board-roles-responsibilities-overview

135
Association of Community College Trustees. (2016). Trusteeship 101: Board basics from
ACCT’s bestselling trusteeship in community colleges. ACCT.
https://www.acct.org/product/trusteeship-101
Association of Community College Trustees. (2018). Executive leadership transitioning at
community colleges. ACCT. https://www.acct.org/product/executive-leadershiptransitioning-community-colleges-2018
Association of Community College Trustees. (2020, July). 5 keys to a successful transition year:
An ACCT guide for community college boards and CEOs. ACCT.
https://www.acct.org/product/5-keys-successful-transition-year-2020
Association of Governing Boards. (n.d.). Board fundamentals: Shared governance: Why this is
important. AGB. https://agb.org/knowledge-center/board-fundamentals/sharedgovernance/
Association of Governing Boards. (2017). Shared governance: Changing with the times. AGB.
https://agb.org/sites/default/files/report_2017_shared_governance.pdf
Association of Governing Boards. (2023). Top public policy issues facing governing boards in
2023–2024. AGB. https://agb.org/reports-2/top-public-policy-issues-facing-governingboards-in-2023-2024/
Bailey, T., & Morest, V. S. (2006). Defending the community college equity agenda. Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Baime, D., & Baum, S. (2016). Community colleges: Multiple missions, diverse student bodies,
and a range of policy solutions. Urban Institute.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

136
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist,
37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–
290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (2023). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective on human
nature. Wiley-Blackwell.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41(3), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Barringer, S. (2016). The changing finances of public higher education organizations: Diversity,
change, and discontinuity. In E. Popp Berman & C. Paradeise (Eds.), The university
under pressure (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 46, pp. 223–263).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-
558X20160000046008
Barringer, S., & Riffe, K. A. (2018). Not just figureheads: Trustees as microfoundations of
higher education institutions. Innovative Higher Education, 43(3), 155–170.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9422-6

137
Barringer, S., Taylor, B. J., & Slaughter, S. (2019). Trustees in turbulent times: External
affiliations and stratification among U.S. research universities, 1975–2015. The Journal
of Higher Education, 90(6), 884–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1574695
Bastedo, M. (2005). The making of an activist governing board. Review of Higher Education,
29(1), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2005.0034
Bastedo, M. (2009a). Conflicts, commitments, and cliques in the university: Moral seduction as a
threat to trustee independence. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 354–386.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329439
Bastedo, M. (2009b). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State
policymaking and governing board activism. Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 209–
234. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0045
Beehler, M. C. (1993). The changing role of the community college president in Washington
state. Community College Review, 20(4), 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009155219302000403
Beer, A., Brown, K., & Juszkiewicz, J. (2021). The value of community college short term
credentials. Association of Community College Trustees.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616929.pdf
Boggs, G. R. (2006). Handbook on CEO-board relations and responsibilities. Community
College Press.
Boggs, G. R. (2010). Democracy’s colleges: The evolution of the community college in America
[Paper prepared for the White House Summit on Community Colleges]. American
Association of Community Colleges. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?
repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=b49b1c67a73f259eaaf514025ea32b7c2ea669db

138
Boggs, G. R. (2022). Reflections on dilemmas of presidents and trustees. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2022(200), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20546
Boggs, G. R., & Galizio, L. A. (2021). A college for all Californians: A history of the California
community colleges. Teachers College Press.
Boggs, G. R., & McPhail, C. J. (2020). Team leadership in community colleges. Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
Bogue, E. G. (2006). A breakpoint moment: Leadership visions and values for trustees of
collegiate mission. Innovative Higher Education, 30(5), 309–326.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-9002-4
Brekken, K., Bernick, E. L., Gourrier, A., & Kellogg, L. (2021). The people’s college: A review
of local community college governing boards through the lens of descriptive
representation. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(1), 41–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1640142
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. Oxford University Press.
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on community college enrollment
and student success: Evidence from California administrative data. Education Finance
and Policy, 17(4), 745–764. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00384
Burnett, C. A. (2021). Accreditation sanctions and community college enrollment. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2021(196), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20480
Burns, R. (2023). Issue brief: Local appropriations for public institutions FY 2022. State Higher
Education Executive Officers Association, State Higher Education Finance.
https://shef.sheeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SHEFLocFund_FY22.pdf

139
Bustillos, L. T., & Siqueiros, M. (2018). Left out: How exclusion in California’s colleges and
universities hurts our values, our students, and our economy. Campaign for College
Opportunity. https://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Left-Out-ReportFINAL.pdf
California Community Colleges. (n.d.). Key facts. Retrieved February 12, 2024, from
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (n.d.) Baccalaureate degree program.
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Servicesand-Support/What-we-do/Curriculum-and-Instruction-Unit/Curriculum/BaccalaureateDegree-Program
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2024a). Management information systems
data mart: Enrollment status summary. Retrieved March 29, 2024, from
https://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Headcount_Term_Annual
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2024b). Management information systems
data mart: Credit court retention/success rate. Retrieved March 29, 2024, from
https://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes_Courts_Ret_Success
California Education Code, AB 927, Community College Education Programs, Article 3, Section
6, Subsection 78043 (2021).
California Education Code, AB 1018, Community Colleges, Education Programs, Chapter 2,
Article 1.5, Section 78221 (2014).
California Education Code, AB 1029, The California Community Colleges, Part 43, Section
70902 (2006).
California Education Code, AB 1372, Board of Governors, Article 2, Section 71020.5 (1995).

140
California Education Code, AB 1705, Community Colleges, Education Programs, Chapter 2,
Article 1, Section 78213 (2017).
California Education Code, AB 1725, The California Community Colleges, Section 70902
(1988).
California Education Code, AB 1809, The California Community Colleges, Part 43, Section
70901 (1976).
California Education Code, AB 2973, Donahoe Higher Education Act, Article 2, Section
66010.4 (1995).
California Education Code, Board of Governors, Article 2, Section 71024 (1976).
California Education Code, Districts and Governing Boards, Article 1, Section 72000 (1976).
California Education Code, Donahoe Higher Education Act, Article 2, Section 66010.4 (1997).
California Government Code, Powers and Duties Common to Cities, Counties, and Other
Agencies, Chapter 9, Section 54952.2 (1953).
Camp, J. L. (2019). Community college governing boards: Effects of structure and composition
on student and institutional outcome (Publication No. 13814851) [Doctoral dissertation,
Mississippi State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Campaign for College Opportunity. (2022). Higher education in California: An introduction to
the state’s public colleges and universities. https://collegecampaign.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/02/2022-Hed-Primer-Web.pdf
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2016). The college payoff: Education, occupations,
lifetime earnings [Policy brief]. Georgetown University Center on Education and the
Workforce.

141
Carver, J. (2006). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and
public organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Carver, J., & Carver, M. (2009). The policy governance model and the role of the board member.
Jossey-Bass.
Chait, R. P., Holland, T. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1991). The effective board of trustees. The Oryx
Press.
Chait, R. P., Ryan, W. P., & Taylor, B. E. (2004). Governance as leadership: reframing the work
of nonprofit boards (1st ed.). Wiley.
Christian, S. (2023). Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) report. California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Reports
Cloud, R. C. (2010). Epilogue: Change leadership and leadership development. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 2010(149), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.398
Cloud, R. C. (2020). Higher education institution governing boards: Rogue members. In M. E.
David & M. J. Amey (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of higher education (Vol. 2, pp.
737–739). SAGE.
Cloud, R. C. (2022). Rogue trustees and malice in wonderland. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2022(200), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20547
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college (6th ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Community College League of California. (n.d.). I am a trustee. Retrieved June 22, 2023, from
https://ccleague.org/leadership-development/i-am-a-trustee

142
Cooper, S. (2016). Tough job if you can keep it: What California community college CEOs say
about their challenges and longevity. UC Davis Wheelhouse: The Center for Community
College Leadership and Research. https://education.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/
files/ucdavis_wheelhouse_tough_job_research_brief.pdf
Cooper, S. (2017). Talk to me: What California community college trustees want from their
CEOs. Wheelhouse: The Center for Community College Leadership and Research.
https://education.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/wheelhouse_trustee_survey_brief_online_v
ersion_11.17.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
D’Amico, M., Turk, J. M., Hancock, A., & Miller, M. T. (2022). Addressing workforce needs
and educational opportunity through board action. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2022(200), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20550
Davis, C. (2018). Perceptions of trustees and presidents of the competencies essential for
successful 21st-century community college leadership (Publication No. 10841145)
[Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Dika, S. L., & Janosik, S. M. (2003). The role of selection, orientation and training in improving
the quality of public college and university boards of trustees in the United States.
Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 273–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832032000151139
Dortch, C. (2023). Programs for minority-serving institutions under the Higher Education Act
[CRS report prepared for members and committees of Congress]. Congressional
Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43237

143
Doyle, W., & Gorbunov, A. (2011). The growth of community colleges in the American
states: An application of count models to institutional growth. Teachers College Record,
113(8), 1794–1826. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300808
Eddy, P., Kater, S. T., & Gillett‐Karam, R. (2022). Theories supporting board reform. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(200), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20552
Emsi Burning Glass. (2022). The economic value of the California community college system.
California Community Colleges. https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCO-Website/docs/
report/ccc-1819-mainreport-final-a11y.pdf?la=en&hash=CFE9AEF8BA1DC
503BD7647BEEEE37BD62365E64F
Farbman, J. (2016). The experiences of community college trustees during their first year of
service: A phenomenological study (Publication No. 10056030) [Doctoral dissertation,
Rowan University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Felix, E. (2021). Improving racial equity in community college: Developing a plan,
implementing the vision. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 419–444.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373721996729
Fletcher, J. A., & Friedel, J. N. (2016). Typology of state-level community college governance
structures. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(4-5), 311–322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1251355
Floyd, C. E. (1995). Governing boards and trustees. Review of Higher Education, 19(1), 93–110.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0004
Fulton, M. (2019). An analysis of state postsecondary governance structure. Education
Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/An-Analysis-ofState-Postsecondary-Governance-Structures.pdf

144
Fulton, M. (2020). Community college bachelor’s degrees: An update on state activity and policy
considerations [Policy Brief]. Education Commission of the States.
https://www.ecs.org/community-college-bachelors-degrees-an-update-on-state-activityand-policy-considerations/
Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman
Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of
Higher Education, 84(3), 417–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0019
Gillett-Karam, R. (2013). The future-shaping function of the governing board. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 2013(162), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20057
Gilzene, A. M. (2009). An analysis of actual and desired roles of trustees and presidents of
community colleges linked to board-president relationship and its impact on college
effectiveness (Publication No. 3365813) [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University].
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Hendrickson, R. M., Lane, J. E., Harris, J. T., Dorman, R. H., & Ikenberry, S. (2012). Academic
leadership and governance of higher education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and
aspiring leaders of two- and four-year institutions. Stylus.
Holland, T. P., Chait, R. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1989). Board effectiveness: Identifying and
measuring trustee competencies. Research in Higher Education, 30(4), 435–453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992565
Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher
education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185–196.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0070

145
Johnson, H., Bohn, S., & Mejia, M. C. (2019). Higher education in California: Meeting
California’s workforce needs. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/higher-education-in-california-meetingcalifornias-workforce-needs-october-2019.pdf
Johnson, H., & Mejia, M. C. (2019). California’s higher education system. Public Policy
Institute of California.
Kater, S. T., & Burke, D. (2022). Getting to shared governance: New perspectives for
implementing governance. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(200), 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20548
Kater, S. T., Cloud, R. C., & Fossey, R. (2022). Best practices in college governance. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(200), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20545
Kelley, D. (1985, March 28). Compton educator accused of bribery: College chief’s arrest
shocks colleagues. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-
03-28-hl-29439-story.html
Kerr, C., & Gade, M. (1989). The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and
universities; What they do and how well they do it. Association of Governing Boards of
Colleges and Universities. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED330285
Kezar, A. (2006). Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of
a national study of governing boards in the United States. The Journal of Higher
Education, 77(6), 968–1008. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778953
Kezar, A. (2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to institutionalize a
diversity agenda. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413–439.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772264

146
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the
literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(4), 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772264
Linden, R. (2022). Understanding the student-centered funding formula: A primer on California
community college finance. UC Davis Wheelhouse: The Center for Community College
Leadership and Research. https://education.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/fileattachments/wheelhouse_research_brief_vol_7_n_3_final.pdf?1663872636
Little Hoover Commission. (2012). Serving students, serving California: Updating the
California community colleges to meet evolving demands. https://lhc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Reports/210/Report210.pdf
Locke, E., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task
strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241–251.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.241
Lovell, C. D., & Trouth, C. (2002). State governance patterns for community colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(117), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.56
Mathies, C., & Slaughter, S. (2013). University trustees as channels between academe and
industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network. Research Policy,
42(6-7), 1286–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.003
Mayfield, A., White, C. C., Downs, T., & Erlandson, D. (2022). Expanding advocacy for
community college success. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(197), 13–28.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20494

147
McGuinness, A. C. (2016). State policy leadership for the future: History of state coordination
and governance and alternatives for the future [Policy brief]. Education Commission of
the States.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mize, R. (2022). California’s community college: CEO tenure & retention study (10th update).
Community College League of California. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED626380.pdf
Moran, T., Sr. (2017). Leadership development in times of leadership shortages: A collective
case study of perceptions and expectations of Texas community college presidents and
board members (Publication No. 234672653) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech
University]. Texas Tech University Library.
Morgan, D., LePeau, L. A., & Commodore, F. (2022). Observable evidence and partnership
possibilities for governing board involvement in diversity, equity, and inclusion: A
content analysis. Research in Higher Education, 63(2), 189–221.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09651-x
Oakley, E. (2020). Vision for success: Diversity, equity, and inclusion taskforce. California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCOWebsite/Files/Communications/vision-for-success/cccco-dei-report.pdf
O’Banion, T. (2009). What motivates the community college rogue trustee? Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 33(6), 476–501.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902790543

148
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. (2022). The California blueprint: Strengthening our world
class education system [Fact Sheet]. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/Higher-Education-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Omidvar, O., & Kislov, R. (2014). The evolution of the communities of practice approach:
Toward knowledgeability in a landscape of practice—An interview with Etienne
Wenger-Trayner. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 266–275.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492613505908
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Phelan, D. J. (2022). Uncommon governance. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2022(200), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20554
Polonio, N. (2005, October 28). Best practices for community college boards. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/best-practices-for-communitycollege-boards/
Porritt, V., & Stagg, F. (2022). Can governance be ethical if it is not diverse? Management in
Education, 36(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206211057986
Potter, G. E., & Phelan, D. J. (2008). Governance over the years: A trustee’s perspective. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2008(141), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.311
Prater, W. C. (2009). Board of trustees governing for student success (Publication No.3378900)
[Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.

149
Rall, R. M. (2014). Assuming the trusteeship: Studying the influence of learning and preparation
on the decision making practices of members of public multi campus boards of higher
education (Publication No. 10799170) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Rall, R. M. (2021). Getting the boards involved: Challenges and opportunities for equity at the
highest level of university governance. USC Pullias Center for Higher Education.
Rall, R. M., Dominguez, V., & Garcia, A. (2022). What does it take to lead: The hidden
curriculum of qualifications for service on public boards of higher education. Teachers
College Record, 124(1), 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221086116
Rall, R. M., Morgan, D. L., & Commodore, F. (2019). Invisible injustice: Higher education
boards and issues of diversity, equity, and inclusivity. In R. Jeffries (Ed.), Diversity,
equity, and inclusivity in contemporary higher education (pp. 261–277). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5724-1.ch016
Rall, R. M., Morgan, D. L., & Commodore, F. (2021). Bounded boards: A commentary on the
limitations of knowledge and scope of research of boards of higher education. Innovative
Higher Education, 46(6), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09582-6
Reddy, V. (2024). Still left out: How exclusion in California’s colleges and universities
continues to hurt our values, students, and democracy. The Campaign for College
Opportunity. https://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/
2024/01/012524_StillLeftOut_bodyfinal_web.pdf
Rhoads, R. A., & Valadez, J. R. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community
college: A critical perspective. Garland Pub.

150
Robinson, P. A., Byrd, D., Louis, D. A., & Bonner, F. A. (2013). Enhancing faculty diversity at
community colleges: A practical solution for advancing the completion agenda. FOCUS
on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 7(1), 1–11.
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Robinson,%20Petra
%20Enhancing%20Faculty%20Diveristy%20FOCUS%20V7%20N1%202013.pdf
Rutgers Graduate School of Education Center for MSIs. (2022). List of minority serving
institutions. https://cmsi.gse.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022%20MSI%20List.pdf
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Bristow, A. (2019). Chapter 4: Understanding
research philosophy and approaches to theory development. In Research methods for
business students (8th ed., pp. 128–171). Pearson.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 13–27). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0002
Secules, S., McCall, C., Mejia, J. A., Beebe, C., Masters, A. S., Sánchez-Peña, M. L., &
Svyantek, M. (2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity
research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community. Journal of Engineering
Education, 110(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20377
Smith, C. (2019). Trustee handbook. Community College League of California.
Smith, C. (2020). Trusteeship in community colleges: A guide for effective governance (2nd ed.).
Association of Community College Trustees.
Smith, E. A., & Miller, M. T. (2015). Presidential perceptions of trustee involvement in
community college decision making. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 39(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.821961

151
Stajkovic, A., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group
performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659
Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.124.2.240
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. (2023). State higher education
finance, FY 2022. https://shef.sheeo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/SHEEO_SHEF_FY22_Report.pdf
Tekniepe, R. (2014). Linking the occupational pressures of college presidents to presidential
turnover. Community College Review, 42(2), 143–159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113516671
Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1988.11778301
Tollefson, T. A. (2009). Community college governance, funding, and accountability: A century
of issues and trends. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3-4),
386–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802580481
Warren, M. E. (2014). Accountability and democracy. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0018
Weissman, S. (2021, June 23). A ‘broken board culture.’ Inside Higher Ed.

152
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/06/24/grand-jury-report-criticizes-peraltacommunity-college-district
White, C. (2022a). Advocating for community colleges in the college completion agenda. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(197), 157–173.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20504
White, C. (2022b). Community college governance and trustees as advocates for fiscal support.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(200), 65–77.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20549
The White House. (2021, April 28). Fact sheet: The American Families Plan [Press release].
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheetthe-american-families-plan/
Wise, G., Dickinson, C., Katan, T., & Gallegos, M. C. (2020). Inclusive higher education
governance: managing stakeholders, strategy, structure and function. Studies in Higher
Education, 45(2), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1525698
Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L., Gollattscheck, J. F., & Suppiger, J. E. (1994). America’s
community colleges: The first century. Community College Press.

153
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How do community college board members representing minority serving institutions
make sense of their role and responsibilities?
2. What knowledge and experiences do California community college board members
draw on to inform their decisions within their roles?
Respondent Type
I will interview California community college trustees. I will utilize a purposeful
sampling approach to collect a representative sample of the following:
• elected community college trustees serving in their role for a minimum of 1 year
• must represent a college(s) that is classified as minority serving institutions (MSIs)
• cannot be currently conducting training for trustees
• racial and gender representation that is similar to the racial and gender demographics
of the California community college student population
Introduction to the Interview
Hello and thank you for agreeing to meet with me today to participate in my study. As I
have mentioned before, I am pursuing my doctoral degree at the University of Southern
California, and my study seeks to understand how community college trustees’ environment
influences their decision-making at minority serving institutions. The aim for this interview is to
document the ways in which community college trustees come to learn about their role and
expectations and how they utilize that knowledge and experiences to inform their decisionmaking within their institutions. I will be asking you some questions about your motivation to
serve in this capacity, the types of training and professional development opportunities you may

154
have participated in, peers you may lean on for support, and how these experiences support you
in your capacity. Now, I would like to take a moment to review the consent form with you.
Before we begin, do you have any questions for me? I would like to record this Zoom interview
so that I can capture the information you share with me today. Do I have your permission to
record this interview?
Table A1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Introductory questions
[Name], thank you again for
agreeing to be a part of my
study. Can you tell me a little
bit about your occupation
outside of your role as
trustee?
RQ2 Personal factors
How does your occupation or
prior occupations inform
your role as a trustee?
RQ1, RQ2 Personal and
behavioral
factors
Thank you for sharing a little
bit about your background.
Can you talk about what
inspired you to run for
community college trustee?
Can you say more about
that?
RQ2 Personal and
behavioral
factors
How do your personal
experiences shape your views
about trusteeship.
Can you give me an
example?
RQ1, RQ2 Personal and
behavioral
factors
Can you share a little bit about
the demographics or
constituents that are
represented in your district?
Potential follow-up
questions:
You touched on X…could
you share more detail
about the
[demographics] or the
[socio and political
RQ1, RQ2 Environmental
factors

155
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
environment] in your
district?
Transition questions
In this role as a community
college trustee, what do you
hope to accomplish?
RQ1 Personal and
behavioral
factors
Can you tell me a little bit about
your community college or
district’s mission?
RQ1 Environmental
factors
How does the college’s mission
help you think about or
understand your role?
RQ1 Behavioral and
environmenta
l factors
1. From your perspective, what
is the most enjoyable aspect
of being a trustee?
Can you share an
experience that brought
you fulfillment?
RQ2 Behavioral and
environmenta
l factors
2. What is the most
challenging aspect of being
a trustee?
If it helps, maybe think
about a recent
experience or decision
that you found to be
very difficult.
RQ2 Behavioral and
environmenta
l factors
Key questions
3. I’d like you to look back on
your first year [or first few
years] on the board. What
was your understanding then
of what a community
college trustee is responsible
for?
“You can take your time
on this question, as I
understand you may
need to think about a
moment in time.”
RQ1 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors
4. Was there anything in
particular that you learned
during your first year that
shaped your understanding
of your responsibilities? If
so, what was it/were they?
RQ2 Behavioral,
personal and
environmenta
l factors
5. If this applies to you, can
you tell me about any
mentors that you rely on to
help guide you in your role?
What was it about their
mentorship that was
most meaningful to
you?
RQ2 Environmental
factors

156
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
6. Based on the information
you provided in your
screening questionnaire, you
stated that you participated
in some formal training. Can
you share some highlights
of what was covered in
those trainings?
RQ1 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors
7. Can you share one or two
examples of how you have
utilized those trainings to
support you in your role as
trustee?
RQ1, RQ2 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors
8. Outside of these formal
trainings, what other
experiences or information
do you utilize to support you
in your role as trustee?
If they need assistance, I
can ask:
Anything that it not
offered through trustee
associations or
conferences. Like
books, listservs or other
networks.
RQ2 Environmental
factors
9. Can you share a little bit
about how your interactions
with the community in your
role as trustee?
If they need assistance, I
can ask:
How do engage with the
community? What are
some of your
takeaways from
engaging with the
community?
RQ2 Behavioral and
environmenta
l factors
10. In your opinion, what
information or experiences
are most useful to you in
your role as a community
college trustee?
Follow-up question:
Can you tell me more
about why they are
most useful to you?
RQ2 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors
11. Along the same lines, as you
prepare for board meetings
or take action on board
matters, what guidance or
sources of information do
you lean on to help you?
If they need assistance, I
can ask:
What helps you prepare
for those decisions?
What information do
you draw on to make
decisions?
RQ2 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors

157
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
12. Earlier in the interview, I
asked you to think back
when you were in your early
years of your trusteeship
and how you perceived your
role and responsibilities.
Now I want you to think
about that question today.
What is your understanding
of what a community
college trustee is responsible
for?
Has this perspective
changed from your first
year in service? If so,
how?
RQ1 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors
Closing questions
13. Are there any trainings that
you wish you would have
had when you were first
elected as trustee?
Follow-up question:
Why?
RQ1 Personal and
behavioral
factors
14. Is there anything else you
would like to share that we
have not covered?
RQ1, RQ2 Personal,
behavioral
and
environmenta
l factors
Conclusion to the Interview
I want to thank you for your time today and contributing to my study. What you have
shared with me today will be confidential and please know that I am taking the utmost care in
protecting the anonymity of all participants. As I mentioned earlier, I will be contacting you at a
later time so that you can review the transcript from today’s interview for accuracy. This will
also be an opportunity for you to clarify or add anything you feel you may have missed. I will
also be sure to share my contact information in case there are any questions that you may have
for me.

158
Appendix B: Email Announcement for Recruitment

159
Appendix C: Information Study Sheet

160
Appendix D: A Priori Codes to Conceptual Framework
Primary codes Area of conceptual
framework
Secondary codes Tertiary codes
Environment
surrounding
college
Environmental External factors Student success
Environmental Diversity of community
Environmental Politics
Environmental Elected position
Formal training Environmental,
behavioral
District orientation
Environmental,
behavioral
Associations
Behavioral,
personal
CEOs as resource
Relationships Personal Mentors
Personal, behavioral Board peers
Learning on the job Personal,
environmental
Learning board culture
Behavioral Asking questions
Environmental,
behavioral
Unions and politics
Personal, behavioral CEO as a resource
Personal
background
Personal, behavioral Motivation to serve
Personal Goals Self-promotion
Personal, behavioral Leadership Women, people of
color, first gen
Career experiences Environmental,
personal
Navigating role How to lead
Personal, behavioral Goals Personal
Environmental,
personal,
behavioral
Perspective

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand the sources of information that community college trustees draw from to understand their role and responsibilities and what information supports their decision-making. California community college trustees are publicly elected officials who provide financial and administrative oversight to a community college district. The research between what trustees know and how they effectively utilize that knowledge in their role is limited. This study utilized Bandura’s (1988) social cognitive theory to explore how personal, behavioral, and environmental factors influence trustee learning. The findings from 16 semi-structured interviews with California community college trustees representing minority serving institutions indicate that training programs centered on policies and procedures are not enough to support them faithfully execute their duties. Trustees’ unique identities as people of color, mothers, and first-generation college students and their prior career experiences provide them a unique approach to governing their college. Additionally, trustees seek guidance from their college president and other trustworthy mentors, including other trustees, to learn about their role and execute their duties. Finally, learning on the job is the most effective way that trustees come to understand the intricacies of their role.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

PDF

Assuming the trusteeship: studying the influence of learning and preparation on the decision-making practices of members of public multicampus boards of higher education

PDF

Planting the seeds of change: a journey of resilience and challenges faced by men of color in community colleges

PDF

Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Grinding all my life: the role of a community college men of color program in supporting masculine identity exploration

PDF

Burnout in women of color in HR leadership roles during COVID-19

PDF

A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

College readiness and transitional experiences: the factors that contribute to first-generation Latino students’ persistence and retention to achieve higher education degrees

PDF

Women in academic leadership: the systemic struggles and representation of Latinx women in higher education

PDF

How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs

PDF

Navigating the unknown: uplifting the experiences of mixed-status families in higher education

PDF

Navigating and accessing higher education: the experiences of community college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

PDF

Lived experiences of African American expatriate teachers abroad and back: a teacher's experience that brings effect to the community

PDF

Redefining mattering in STEM: an autoethnography examining ways to improve persistence in marginalized STEM communities through holistic support

PDF

Well-being and healing as resistance: testimonios of Latina students’ arrebatos in California community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Vazquez, Linda Marlen (author)

Core Title Beyond the board room: how personal experiences and environments shape community college trustee learning

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/10/2024

Defense Date 04/16/2024

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

Tag ACCT,CCLC,CEO,community college,decision-makers,environmental,experiences,governance,identity,minority serving institutions,OAI-PMH Harvest,Personal,policy,professional development,racial identity,Training,trustees

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Bañuelos, Sheila (committee member), Rall, Raquel M. (committee member)

Creator Email linda.m.vazquez20@gmail.com,lindavaz@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113932670

Unique identifier UC113932670

Identifier etd-VazquezLin-12907.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-VazquezLin-12907

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Vazquez, Linda Marlen

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240515-usctheses-batch-1150 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu