HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Board of Trustees – Regular Meeting
May 7, 2013
TIME/PLACE
411 Central Avenue, Salinas
5:00 p.m. – Open Session CALL 208
Board of Trustees
Candi DePauw, President
Patricia Donohue, Vice President
Bill Freeman, Elia Gonzalez-Castro, Ray Montemayor
Erica Padilla-Chavez, Demetrio Pruneda
Elaine Duran Luchini, Student Trustee
Dr. Willard C. Lewallen, Board Secretary
Superintendent/President
The Board of Trustees welcomes you to its meetings. The agenda and supporting documents are on the college’s
website at www.hartnell.edu/board. Contracts requiring approval of the Board on this agenda are available to view
in the President’s Office. Typically, the agenda consists of the following:
A. CONSENT AGENDA: These matters include routine administrative and financial actions and normally
approved by a single majority vote.
B. REGULAR AGENDA: Action Items: These items include significant administrative and financial actions
classified by departmental areas and approved by majority vote for each item.
Information Items: These items include presentations to the Board and items for discussion prior to Board
action, normally taken at the next meeting.
C. CLOSED SESSION: In accordance with Government Code Sections, 3549.1, 54956.9, 54957 and/or 54957.6,
the Board of Trustees may meet in Closed Session to consider legal, personnel, labor, and/or contract matters.
INDIVIDUALS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Board of Trustees is committed to maintaining a
respectful and productive environment that fosters a culture of civility where members of the campus, the
community, and the Board feel safe to express themselves and are free from discrimination, bullying, harassment
and threats. We welcome your comments and expect them to be presented in a civil manner and for decorum to be
maintained.
Any member of the audience desiring to address the Board should complete and submit to the Clerk prior to the
meeting, if possible, a Speaker Request Form, available at the door. When the item PUBLIC COMMENTS is taken,
the Board President will recognize those who have filled out a Speaker Request Form in the order in which they are
received. The Board President may limit the time of presentation to three minutes per speaker, and a maximum of
fifteen minutes. Pursuant to Board Policy 1025, members of the public shall also be able to address the Governing
Board regarding items on the agenda as those items are taken up. Following public comment, the Board President
will limit discussion to the Board only.
MISSION STATEMENT: Hartnell College provides the leadership and resources to ensure that all students shall
have equal access to a quality education and the opportunity to pursue and achieve their goals. We are responsive to
the learning needs of our community and dedicated to a diverse educational and cultural campus environment that
prepares our students for productive participation in a changing world.
ACCOMMODATIONS: All meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. The following services are available
when requests are made by 4:00 p.m. of the Wednesday before the Board meeting: American Sign Language
interpreters or use of a reader during a meeting; large print agenda or minutes; assistive listening devices. Please
contact, the Office of the President at (831) 755-6900, if you need assistance in order to participate in a public
meeting or if you need the agenda and public documents modified as required by Section 202 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HCCD –REGULAR MEETING – MAY 7, 2013
Page 1 of 4
I.
OPEN SESSION, CALL TO ORDER
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
II.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Fifteen minutes (three-minute maximum per person) set aside to receive public comments on closed
session, public session, or items not on the public session agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the
Board.
III.
REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND LOCATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IV.
Academic Senate – Tony Anderson, President
Associated Students – Wayne Ross, President
Classified Senate – Vacant
Hartnell College Faculty Association – Dr. Ann Wright, President
California Schools Employee Association – Stephen Otero, President
L-39 – Dale Fuge, Steward
Center for Advanced Technology – Dr. Zahi Atallah, Dean
South County and King City Education Center – Renata Funke, Dean
Superintendent/President – Dr. Willard Lewallen
PRESENTATIONS
A. ASSOCIATED STUDENT OFFICERS AND STUDENT TRUSTEE
Acknowledge the service of the 2012-13 Associated Student officers and student trustee and
introduce the officers for academic year 2013-14.
B. 2013 NURSING STUDENT LEADERSHIP
Receive a presentation on the 2013 Student Leadership and Service Learning Projects.
C. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
Receive presentation on project labor agreements.
V.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. MINUTES
Adopt the minutes of March 19, 2013 (Board Development) and minutes of April 2, 2013
(Regular Meeting), April 16, 2013 (Special Meeting and Board Development) as submitted.
B. DISBURSEMENTS
Ratify the disbursements from any or all of the following funds: general; debt service; bookstore;
child development; capital outlay projects; scheduled maintenance; property acquisition; bond
projects; cafeteria; self-insurance; retirees health benefits; associated student body; scholarship,
loan, and trust; and intercollegiate athletics.
C. CURRICULUM
Ratify Curriculum Committee actions from the March 21, April 4 and April 18, 2013 meetings.
HCCD –REGULAR MEETING – MAY 7, 2013
Page 2 of 4
D. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZEN'S BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Appointment of Elaine Duran Luchini, student representative, and Michael Payne, senior citizen
representative to the Bond Oversight Committee for one two-year term, effective May 17, 2013.
Mr. Payne is recommended for a second two-year term.
E. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT
Review and accept the Quarterly Status Report (CCFS-311Q) for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.
F. GRANT APPLICATION – SONG-BROWN HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE
TRAINING ACT
Ratify the grant application, accept funds, if awarded, and authorize the administration to
enter into agreements to execute the work of the Song-Brown Health Care Workforce
Training Act grant. The term of the grant is for two years, effective July 1, 2013 through
and including June 30, 2015 for $125,000.
G. GRANT APPLICATION – DEPUTY SECTOR NAVIGATOR FOR INFORMATION
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY AND DIGITAL MEDIA
Ratify the grant application, accept funds, if awarded, and authorize the administration to
enter into agreements to execute the work of the Deputy Sector Navigator for Information
Communication Technology and Digital Media grant. The term of the grant is for one
year with an option to renew with successful outcomes. The amount, if awarded, would
be $300,000.
H. PERSONNEL ACTIONS
Approve and/or ratify personnel actions.
VI.
ACTION ITEMS
A. BUDGET REVISIONS
Ratify budget revisions numbered 10203 to 10277.
B. 2013 CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE WEEK
Adopt Resolution 13:2, Declaring week of May 19-25, 2013 as Classified Employee Week.
C. EDUCATION PROTECTION ACCOUNT SPENDING AUTHORIZATION
Adopt Resolution 13:3, Education Protection Account Spending Authorization.
D. TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS TO TRUSTEE AREA BOUNDARIES
Adopt Resolution 13:4, Technical Adjustments to Trustee Area Boundaries.
E. EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE
Adopt Resolution 13:5, Early Retirement Incentive for STRS Members.
F. AWARD POSTHUMOUS DEGREE
Award a posthumous degree to Anna F. Martinez per BP and AP 4111, Posthumous Degrees.
G. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS
Ratify the construction changes orders in compliance with board policy.
H. LEASE-LEASEBACK STEPS AND PROCEDURES
Approve the lease-leaseback documents for the construction of the science building.
HCCD –REGULAR MEETING – MAY 7, 2013
Page 3 of 4
I.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 2740 BOARD EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Approve administrative procedure 2740, Board Education and Professional Development.
J. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TRAVEL BUDGET FOR 2013-14
Approve travel budget for 2013-14.
VII.
INFORMATION ITEMS
A. CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Receive the written report on current construction projects.
Joseph Reyes, Director, Facilities
B. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Receive the financial statements ending March 31, 2013.
C. BUDGET UPDATE
Receive a budget update on fiscal year 2012-13.
Alfred Muñoz, Vice President, Administrative Services
D. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE PROPOSAL – RESPIRATORY CARE PROGRAM
Receive an update on the approval of the Respiratory Care Program Substantive Change Proposal
submitted by the district to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.
E. BOARD POLICY 6800, SAFETY
Review first reading of board policy 6800, Safety.
F. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 6800, SAFETY
Review the implementing procedure for board policy 6800, Safety.
G. UPDATE ON FULL TIME FACULTY RECRUITMENTS FOR 2013-14
Receive an update on full-time faculty recruitment for academic year 2013-14.
H. 2013-14 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND NEW ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
Receive the Organizational Structure including new administrative positions for academic year
2013-14.
I.
REPORTS FROM BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Receive Trustee reports on matters of interest to the college.
VIII. BOARD OF TRUSTEES MOVE TO CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (1))
Name of Case: HCFA/Stave Grievance Arbitration
IX.
RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION AND REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY
X.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF FUTURE MEETINGS
1. Board Development May 28, 2013, 5 p.m., Hartnell College Main Campus, CALL-208
2 Regular Meeting June 4, 2013, 5:30 p.m., King City Education Center
XI.
ADJOURNMENT
HCCD –REGULAR MEETING – MAY 7, 2013
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Associated Students, Hartnell College
and Student Trustee
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
May 7, 2013
Number
IV. A.
Status
Presentation
Reference
Strategic Priority: 1
Accreditation Standard: IV. A.1
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The board will acknowledge the Associated Students, Hartnell College officers and the Student
Trustee for their service during academic year 2012-13 and introduce its officers for academic
year 2013-14.
2012-2013 Officers
President
Executive Vice
President
VP Communications
& Relations
VP Finance
VP Programs &
Services
VP ICC & Activities
Senator at Large
Senator at Large
Senator at Large
Senator at Large
Senator at Large
Wayne Ross
Jorge Cruz
James Stephens
Jorge Camacho
Erica Lomeli
Miriam Munoz
James Solarte
Maria Lozano
Jesus Antonio
Barajas
Laura Contreras
Larry Davis
2012-13 Student Trustee
Elaine Duran
RECOMMENDATION
N/A
2013-14 Officers
President
Executive Vice
President
VP Communications
& Relations
VP Finance
VP Programs &
Services
VP ICC & Activities
Senator at Large
James Stephens
Jorge Camacho
Erica Lomeli
VACANT
VACANT
Senator at Large
Senator at Large
VACANT
Jesus Antonio
Barajas
Elaine Duran
Miriam Munoz
Senator at Large
Senator at Large
James Solarte
VACANT
2013-14 Student Trustee
Elaine Duran
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Hartnell College 2013 Nursing Student
Leadership and Service Learning Projects
Presentation
Number
IV. B.
Area
Nursing and Allied Health
Status
No action
Reference
Strategic Priorities 1, 5, 6
Accreditation Standards: II. A.1a-c;
2a,c,d
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
Each year, the graduating nursing students complete “Leadership and Image of Nursing” assignments
under the advisement of faculty. The overriding goals are to advance the image of Hartnell College, to
recruit prospective students to healthcare programs at Hartnell College, and to provide learning and
service to populations served by Hartnell College nursing students. This year’s projects include
Hartnell College Chapter of National Student Nurse Association; Hartnell College Nursing Alumni
Association; Drug Take Back Program; Healthcare Career Days at Salinas High Schools; Partnering for
the Future: Interviewing with our clinical partners; Nursing Pinning Ceremony; Labor of Love; and
Fifth Annual Hartnell College Nursing and Allied Health Blood Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
The faculty recommends that the Board of Trustees continues to support service learning and
community outreach programs provided by Hartnell College Nursing and Allied Health students.
TERM:
N/A
BUDGET IMPLICATION
(Budgeted item/Increase/Decrease)
Fund:
N/A
Amount
$
Total
Revised Format: 04/2013
Office of the Superintendent/President
$
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Project Labor Agreements
Office of the Superintendent President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
May 7, 2013
Number
IV. C.
Status
Presentation
Board Review and Discussion
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4, 6
Accreditation Standards – III.B.1.a.,
III.B.1.b.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The Board of Trustees will be provided presentations on Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). The
following individuals will make presentations. Each will be provided with 10 minutes for a
presentation and 5 minutes for questions and answers.
Nicole Goehring, Government Affairs Director, Associated Builders and Contractors
Ron Chesshire, CEO, Monterey/Santa Cruz Building and Construction Trades Council
Attached is information documenting that 70% of all the local work performed through Measure
H funds has been performed by union workers.
RECOMMENDATION
None, no action required by the Board of Trustees.
Hartnell College Construction Costs
Series A, B, C & D + State Funds ( thru March 1, 2013)
PROJECT
COMPANY
CAT Building
Campus Refresh #2
PE Fieldhouse
TTB
CAB North Demo
Annex Demo
LRC
Parking Structure
Infrastructure Ph I
Infrastructure Ph II
CAB - New Air Handler
Dilbeck & Sons
Sanchez
Tombleson
Dilbeck & Sons
Dilbeck & Sons
Randazzo
DPR
DRP
Granite Construciton
Ranger Pipeline
Lyles Mechanical
AMOUNT
UNION SHOPS
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
$25M
$135K
$1.8M
$4M
$105K
$179K
$23M
$21M
$3.1M
$329K
$227K
$78,960,311
70.53%
NON-UNION SHOPS
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
CALL Building
CALL Building
CAT Building
Student Center
NE Landscaping
Campus Refresh #1
Campus Refresh #3
Marquee
City Sidewalk
City Sidewalk #2
MDF
Misc Projects
PE Field Renovation
Alisal Landscape
Alisal Parking
Alisal Bus Turnaround
CAB Roof
PA Renovation
Campus Lighting
Pool Renovation
DMC Construction
Cal Water
Alco Water
DMC Construction
MPE
Gozzi
DMC Construction
DMC Construction
Norcal Contractors
Don Chapin
PCC
DonAngelo Brothers
Perma Green
Perma Green
Perma Green
MPE
Progressive Roofing
BCI
RAN Electric
Western Water Features
$15M
$35k
$35k
$5.43M
$1.63M
$203K
$529K
$143K
$309K
$75K
$1.1M
$363K
$4.5M
$458K
$831K
$88K
$174K
$830K
$386K
$860K
$32,989,010
29.47%
TOTAL
* Indicates Active Projects
$111,949,321
*
*
*
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Minutes
Area
Office of Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen,
Superintendent/President
May 7, 2013
Number
V. A.
Status
Consent
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Submitted for review and consideration of adoption are the following minutes:
March 19, 2013, Board Development
April 2, 2013, Regular Meeting
April 16, 2013, Special Meeting
April 16, 2013, Board Development
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees review, revise as appropriate, and
adopt the minutes presented.
Unadopted
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
MINUTES
Board of Trustees – Development
CALL 208
411 Central Avenue
Salinas, California
March 19, 2013
OPEN SESSION
Called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Trustee DePauw.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Student Trustee Duran-Luchini led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Candi DePauw, President
Patricia Donohue
Bill Freeman
Elia Gonzalez-Castro (arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
Ray Montemayor
Erica Padilla Chavez (arrived at 5:45 p.m.)
Demetrio Pruneda
Elaine Duran-Luchini, Student Trustee – (advisory vote per Board Policy 1030)
Willard Lewallen, Superintendent/President
INFORMATION AND Matt Coombs, Vice President, Information and Technology Resources, presented an
overview and update on technology. He addressed the planning process that resulted
TECHNOLOGY
from the Technology Master Plan 2011-2021, a copy of which the board received. In
front of each member, Matt placed an iPad to demonstrate three major initiatives that
he proposed to the board a year earlier. Those initiatives were to 1) migrate off
Novel into Windows, 2) virtualization, and 3) increase wireless capability. In
addition, the presentation included a new website look, email transition, workgroup
printing, and future trends. Also, Matt spoke about a disaster recovery and auto
backup plan. A proposal to address this plan will be forwarded to the board for their
consideration in April.
After the presentation, the board asked questions regarding the email transition and
the affect to students, the authenticity of massive open online courses, student access
to computers, and online daily parking permits. Some members stated they like the
idea of making technology available to students. Matt thanked the board for
supporting technology because their support helped moved the college forward and
he stated that the college is doing things that few campuses are. The board thanked
Matt for his informative presentation.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
There were no public comments on this presentation.
HCCD – BOARD DEVELOPMENT – MARCH 19, 2013
Page 1 of 3
Dr. Lewallen stated that at the March 5, 2013 board meeting, the board authorized
RFP CRITERIA –
LEASE-LEASEBACK the utilization of lease-leaseback construction delivery method and stated the board
needs to 1) define “local”, 2) establish a target/goal of local, and 3) determine the
contingency fund.
Legal counsel, Tom Manniello, talked about the different options used to define
“local”, stating that a “local” contractor can mean several things and he stressed the
importance of carefully defining “local” in a manner that is clear to potential
contractors. In addition, he stated that too narrow or too large of an area can dilute or
restrict the pool. He shared that the County of Monterey adopted a local preference
policy in 2012 and he provided the board with an excerpt of that county ordinance.
The discussion then moved to the establishment of a goal for work performed by
local workers. Dr. Lewallen provided a list of projects and percentage of local firms
used since June 2006 to present (74.01%).
Mr. Manniello then explained the contingency account; an account that used to cover
unforeseen expenses. Further, he explained the differences between the two options
used to manage this account 1) contractor control, or 2) owner control.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Peter Kasavan, American Institute of Architects/Monterey Bay stated it is vital to
establish clear criteria for the success of the project.
Ron Chesshire, Monterey/Santa Cruz BCTC, urged the board to be reasonable - to
allow the contractor to do the best job possible in the most reasonable manner. In
addition, he cited apprenticeship percentages for various trades within the county.
Chris Burditt, IBEW 234, encouraged the board to consider local employment versus
local contractors.
The board engaged in a lengthy discussion each providing their input and overall, the
BOARD
board liked the use of the tri-county area (Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz) and
DISCUSSION –
LEASE-LEASEBACK based on the college’s history, established 75% as a targeted goal.
The board then discussed the contingency account. Some member referenced the
board's policy on construction change orders and others stated that liked the incentive
offered under the contractor's control.
The administration will submit a proposal at a future meeting. In addition, members
asked that the administration provide to the board a fully written summary prior to
taking action.
PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT
Legal Counsel, Tom Manniello, presented on Project Labor Agreements (PLAs); a
pre-hire collective bargaining agreement between a project owner and a union or
group of unions which establishes terms and conditions for the use of labor on a
specific construction project or projects. Mr. Manniello explained that a PLA must
be consistent with the requirement described by the California Supreme Court and
comply with the provisions set forth in the Public Contract Code [Senate Bill 922
(2011]. SB922 requires that PLAs include five specific taxpayer protection
HCCD – BOARD DEVELOPMENT – MARCH 19, 2013
Page 2 of 3
provisions: 1) non-discrimination, 2) contractor pool, 3) drug testing, 4) work
stoppage, and 5) arbitration. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Manniello
addressed the larger pros and cons of using PLAs.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
The following community members spoke against PLAs:
Paul Bruno, Monterey Peninsula Engineering
Dick Johnson, Community Member
Nicole Goehring, Associated Building Contractors
Peter Kavasan, Salinas Chamber Commerce/Builders Exchange
The following community members spoke in support of PLAs:
Ron Chesshire, Monterey/Santa Cruz Building Trades.
Abel Moran, local union member
Jim Schumaker, IBEW 234 member
Steve MacArthur, Plumbers/Steamfitters
A lengthy discussion ensued as each member asked questions and provided their
input. Some members supported the use of PLAs stating that it would help stop
construction delays and liked that unions advocate for employees (benefits and,
retirement). Other members believed the college has done well with the use of local
contractors and saw no need for the use of a PLA. The board thanked everyone for
their comments this evening and thanked Ron Chesshire for bringing PLAs to their
attention.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Candi DePauw
Board of Trustees President
HCCD – BOARD DEVELOPMENT – MARCH 19, 2013
Willard Lewallen
Board Secretary
Page 3 of 3
Unadopted
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees
(Public Hearing – Collective Bargaining)
April 2, 2013
CALL 208, 411 Central Avenue
Salinas, California
OPEN SESSION
Meeting called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Trustee DePauw.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Trustee Pruneda led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Candi DePauw, President
Patricia Donohue, Vice President
Bill Freeman
Elia Gonzalez-Castro
Ray Montemayor
Demetrio Pruneda
Student Trustee Elaine D. Luchini
Dr. Willard Lewallen, Board Secretary/Superintendent/President
ABSENT
Erica Padilla-Chavez
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments
REPORTS FROM
ORGANIZATIONS AND
LOCATIONS
Academic Senate
Tony Anderson reported that the Senate continues their work and he thanked Dr.
Lewallen for the invitation to attend the NAACP Life Membership Banquet
where he heard civil rights leader, Julian Bond, speak. In addition, Tony reported
that he and two other senate members plan to attend the 2013 Senate Spring
Plenary Sessions in San Francisco.
Associated Students of Hartnell College (ASHC)
Wayne Ross reported that elections are scheduled April 23/24 and that students
plan to attend the 2013 General Assembly on 4/26 in San Francisco. Also, the
students will review and discuss policy 5410, Student Elections at an upcoming
meeting and that a workshop on parliamentary procedure is planned later this
month. In closing, he reported that students plan to recognize the Main Campus
CDC children for their involvement in the Festival of Trees celebration held in
December in honor of Week of the Young Child.
California Schools Employee Association (CSEA)
Paul Chen, Vice President, said the work of the reclassification committee is
going well and stated that the union is working on a MOU to help save an
employee's job, and he stated that CSEA does not support outsourcing and
encouraged the board to look at all options regarding the CDC/Alisal Campus.
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
Page 1 of 7
L-39
Dale Fuge thanked the board and administration for all of their work.
Alisal Campus
None
King City Center – South County Education
Renata Funke, dean, reported that, as of March, south county students enrolled in
pre-transfer English and Math classes now have access to tutoring and
supplemental services at the King City Education Center. The students' progress,
in terms of improvement, will be monitored. Staff has attended emergency
preparedness training on main campus. More than 120 south county high school
students have been administered the college placement test at their high school
by center staff. Renata is exploring a pilot project with ADJ faculty that will
identify and provide assistance for students in two DE classes offered at the
center this fall. In addition, she was inducted as a board member to the King City
Chamber of Commerce and she will assist with two events: Mexican
Independence Day and musical entertainment for the King City farmer's market –
both events will include Hartnell students from Spanish and music classes. She
served as a volunteer at the King City Farm Day. Also, she attended a
conference in Palm Springs on distance learning. In addition, the center hosted
an open forum for the accreditation visiting team and team members were
impressed with the services and courses provided at the center, and she attended
an ROP Advisory Committee meeting at Greenfield High School.
President/Superintendent
Dr. Lewallen reported that he received a phone call from Sylvia Panetta and Ms.
Panetta invited students to participate in an educational experience that is part of
the Panetta Lecture Series. The first topic, held on April 8th, will focus on
immigration. College staff is organizing students to attend.
Also, Dr. Lewallen invited Rolando Perez to the podium. Rolando is a recipient
of the Phi Theta Kappa All California Community College Academic Team.
Rolando spoke about his life in high school, the military, and his experience at
Hartnell College. He plans to attend UCSC next fall and plans to pursue his
Ph.D. in Bioengineering. He thanked the board for the opportunity to speak. The
board and assembly applauded Rolando and congratulated him on his
accomplishments.
STUDENT OUTREACH
EVENTS – 2013 Harvest
STEM and CICOLVIA
Ana Ibarra, Treasurer
George Omictin, Vice President
Leo Osornio, President
Rolando Perez, Outreach
Maria Cardenas
Eduardo Huerta
The board received two presentations from officers of the Physics Club and
community members on student organized community outreach events 1)
2013 Harvest STEM, May 18, 2013, 2:30-6 p.m., Alisal Campus, and 2)
Cicolvia Salinas, an event where streets are blocked off for runners, walkers,
skaters, and bicyclists. The goal of the event is to promote physical activity,
provide a safe place for the community, and promote youth leadership. The
proposed route is main campus to Alisal. The event is in the planning stages
and tentatively set for August.
After the presentations, the board congratulated the students on their amazing
work; that they are impressed with the students' leadership and offered their
assistance wherever needed.
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
Page 2 of 7
CONSENT AGENDA
Motioned (Gonzalez-Castro) seconded (Donohue) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve Consent
Agenda Items B, C, and D. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
Consent Items A and E were pulled for separate discussion and vote
(Freeman).
Trustee Freeman stated that he believes that he did not arrive to
the meeting at 6:10 p.m. as noted in the February 5th minutes
and asked for a correction. The minutes will reflect that Trustee
Freeman arrived to the meeting at 5 p.m.
Trustee Freeman stated that he would like to see the Gear Up
program saved through the use of other funding because he
believes it is a good program.
Motioned (Gonzalez-Castro) seconded (Donohue) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve Consent
Agenda Items A and E. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
A. MINUTES
The board adopted the regular meeting minutes of February 5, 2013 as
corrected.
B. DISBURSEMENTS
The board ratified the disbursements from any or all of the following funds:
general; debt service; bookstore; child development; capital outlay projects;
scheduled maintenance; property acquisition; bond projects; cafeteria; selfinsurance; retirees health benefits; associated student body; scholarship, loan,
and trust; and intercollegiate athletics.
C. CURRICULUM
The board ratified the Curriculum Committee actions from the February 21,
March 7, and March 21, 2013 meetings.
D. BOND OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE STUDENT
APPOINTMENT
The board approved the appointment of Jorge Cruz, Vice President of
Associated Students, as the student member to the Bond Oversight Committee
for a two-year term, effective April 17, 2013.
E. PERSONNEL ACTIONS
The board approved and/or ratified personnel actions. (Appendix A)
PUBLIC HEARING
Collective Bargaining
At the March 5, 2013 meeting, the board conducted a public hearing for the
initial collective bargaining proposals between Hartnell Community College
District and the Hartnell College Faculty Association (HCFA). At that
meeting, Terri Pyer, district representative, read aloud the initial collective
bargaining proposal on behalf of the District and Melissa Stave read aloud the
initial collective bargaining proposal on behalf of HCFA.
The collective bargaining process requires that the public have sufficient
opportunity to respond to the proposals. Thus, at 5:59 p.m., Trustee DePauw
opened a public hearing to allow further public comment.
There were no public comments and Trustee DePauw closed the public
hearing at 6:00 p.m.
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
Page 3 of 7
ACTION ITEMS
At this time, Trustee DePauw and Dr. Lewallen pointed out that, moving forward, all board cover items will
show a linkage to accreditation standards and board strategic priorities. Trustee DePauw thanked the staff for
their efforts, stating that she appreciates their work.
BUDGET REVISIONS
Motioned (Donohue) seconded (Duran-Luchini) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve the
budget revisions numbered 10174 to 10214. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
CAB NORTH, 1ST FLOOR
REMODEL
Motioned (Freeman) seconded (Montemayor) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to authorize the
administration to enter into a contract with Tombleson, Inc., for the CAB
North, 1st Floor Remodel Project. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
CCCT BOARD ELECTIONS
Motioned (Gonzalez-Castro) seconded (Pruneda) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to elect trustees to
the California Community College Trustee 2013 Board. (Absent: PadillaChavez)
Those elected were from the West Valley-Mission CCD, Santa Monica
CCD, State Center CCD, Monterey Peninsula CCD, and Pasadena CCD.
BOARD POLICY 5030
Motioned (Freeman) seconded (Duran-Luchini) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve the
final reading of Board Policy 5030, Fees. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
BOARD POLICY 4111
Motioned (Freeman) seconded (Montemayor) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve Board
Policy 4111, Posthumous Degrees. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
BOARD POLICY 7150
Motioned (Gonzalez-Castro) seconded (Montemayor) by vote of 6-0 and by
an advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve
Board Policy 7150, Evaluation of Management Employees. (Absent:
Padilla-Chavez)
STUDENT TRUSTEE
TRAVEL
Motioned (Donohue) seconded (Freeman) by vote of 6-0 and by an advisory
vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve travel for the
student trustee to attend the spring 2013 General Assembly, Student Senate
for California Community Colleges, April 26-28, 2013, Hyatt Regency, San
Francisco. The cost to attend is $600. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
DISASTER RECOVERY
HARDWARE/SOFTWARE
Motioned (Donohue) seconded (Duran-Luchini) by vote of 6-0 and by an
advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to approve the
purchase of network storage equipment from Tegile for $158,576 paid from
Fund 41, Capital Outlay. (Absent: Padilla-Chavez)
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
Page 4 of 7
RESOLUTION 13:01
Not adopted
Motioned (Donohue) seconded (Gonzalez-Castro) by vote of 3-2-1 and by
an advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the motion to adopt Resolution
13:1, In Support of Recommendations from the Hartnell College Child
Development Feasibility Study dated February 22, 2013 did not carry.
(Yes: DePauw, Donohue, Gonzalez-Castro; No: Freeman, Montemayor;
Abtained: Pruneda)
Prior to the vote, the board engaged in a lengthy discussion related to the
CDC / Alisal Campus Center. Some members stated that they do not support
outsourcing and asked about the use of private funding and support from the
Foundation, an option that was explored and is not available because donors
gift funds for a specific purpose and typically are one-time funds, and none
has been provided to sustain the services of the CDC.
Dr. Lewallen provided to the board four external providers who have
expressed interest in collaborating with the college and, if approved, a
formal agreement would be executed. In addition, he stated that many other
colleges decided to shut down their programs rather than looking at
alternatives. Further, he stated, the college is committed to keeping the
program viable and operating and believes collaborating with an external
provider is the best opportunity for the college.
Motioned (Donohue), seconded (Gonzalez-Castro and by vote of 3-3 and by
an advisory vote of Aye (Luchini-Duran), the motion to reconsider the
adoption of the resolution, did not carry.
(Yes: DePauw, Donohue, Gonzalez-Castro; No: Freeman, Montemayor,
Pruneda)
INFORMATION ITEMS
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
– UPDATE
The board received an updated, written report on the current construction
projects. The report is on Page 90 of the April 2, 2013 meeting agenda packet
posted at:
W:\board\packets\04022013.PDF
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The board received the financial statements ending January 31, 2013.
BUDGET UPDATE
Alfred Muñoz, Vice President, Administrative Services, presented a budget
update as of February 28, 2013. The presentation is on page 135 of the
April 2, 2013 meeting agenda packet posted at:
http://www.hartnell.edu/board/packets/04022013.pdf
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE 4111
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
The board received AP 4111, Posthumous Degrees, the administrative
procedure for the policy.
Page 5 of 7
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE 7150
The board received AP 7150, Evaluation of Management Employees, the
administrative procedure for the policy.
COLLEGE STATUS REPORT
ON SLO IMPLEMENTATION
Each year, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC) requires colleges to complete the College Status Report on Student
Learning Outcomes Implementation. The report includes a brief narrative
analysis and quantitative and qualitative evidence demonstrating status of the
college’s Student Learning Outcome (SLO) implementation. The board
received this annual report.
BOARD REPORTS
Student Trustee Duran-Luchini thanked the board for approving her travel to
the 2013 General Assembly in April.
Trustee Pruneda reported on his recent attendance to the ACCT Leadership
Conference stating that he was impressed with the quality and that he received
a lot of information – that he believed Narcisa Polonio, ACCT Executive, did
an excellent job facilitating a workshop. He stated that he believes all
conferences should be required for new trustees – that a lot is learned. He
then shared a post card he picked up at the conference that focused on one
particular college's fast facts and stated that he would like to see one at
Hartnell. He stated that he was impressed with the entire conference. Trustee
Pruneda thanked Dr. Lewallen for his weekly reports and he pointed out a
book he believed the board should purchase, Trusteeship in Community
Colleges: A Guide for Effective Governance.
Trustee Freeman reported that he thoroughly enjoyed attending the
Congressman Luis Gutierrez event. Also, he is pleased to learn that many
from Hartnell will be inducted into the Salinas Valley Hall of Fame including,
Ernie Camacho, Marv Grim, Tony Teresa, and Anthony Tony. On March 14,
a former student was killed near an elementary school and that he laid a rose
near the site of the incident and that he believes the City needs to do more.
He congratulated the Physic Club for their work and believes that that their
work should be lead stories. He asked that the meeting adjourn in memory of
Jackie Cruz's sister Maira and Olajawon Milligan, former student.
Trustee Gonzalez-Castro reported that she attended her first Foundation
meeting and found the meeting to be positive and she was pleased to learn
that the Foundation plans to support a communications/publicist position. She
thanked Dr. Lewallen for this weekly reports and his leadership. In addition,
she extended her condolences to Jackie and her family for their loss. In
closing, she informed the board that the Monterey County School Boards
Association is selecting their honoree for their Annual Dinner in April and she
will notify the board when she learns of the decision.
Trustee Montemayor stated that he is excited for the students' work on
Cicolvia Salinas and he reported that Dr. Lewallen attended the March
Sunrise House Board of Directors meeting.
Trustee Donohue reported that the Western Stage Gala is scheduled late
November and she reported that she attended a WELI meeting where they
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
Page 6 of 7
decided to revise their application and that a former recipient of WELI is now
a committee member.
Trustee DePauw reported on the ACCT conference she attended in San
Antonio stating that it was a quality conference – that the information was
excellent and helpful. Specifically, the conference had a good section on
board self-evaluation tools that she plans to share with the board.
MOVE TO CLOSED
SESSION
The board, Dr. Lewallen, Superintendent/President, and legal counsel, Tom
Manniello, moved to closed session at 7:05 p.m. to discuss:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1))
Name of Case: HCFA/Stave Grievance Arbitration
RECONVENE PUBLIC
SESSION / REPORT OUT
FROM CLOSED SESSION
Trustee DePauw reconvened the public session at 7:35 p.m. and reported no
action was taken in Closed Session.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next meetings:
1. Board Development, April 16, 2013, 5 p.m., CALL-208
2. Regular Meeting, May 7, 2013, 5 p.m., CALL-208
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. in memory of Jackie Cruz's sister, Miara,
and former student Olajawon Milligan.
.
Candi DePauw
Board President
HCCD REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 2, 2013
Willard Clark Lewallen
Board Secretary
Page 7 of 7
Unadopted
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
MINUTES
Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees
CALL 208, Training Room
411 Central Avenue
Salinas, California
April 16, 2013
OPEN SESSION
Meeting called to order at 5:04 p.m. by Trustee DePauw.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Trustee Freeman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Candi DePauw, President
Patricia Donohue, Vice President
Bill Freeman
Elia Gonzalez-Castro
Ray Montemayor
Erica Padilla Chavez
Demetrio Pruneda
Elaine Duran Luchini, Student Trustee
Willard Lewallen, Board Secretary/Superintendent/President
After roll call, the board and assembly held a moment of silence in honor of
the lives lost and injured at the Boston Marathon earlier in the week.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Ann Wright, faculty, spoke in support of and encouraged the board to adopt
Resolution 13:1, in Support of Recommendations from the Hartnell College
Child Development Center Feasibility Study dated February 22, 2013.
RESOLUTION 13:1 Dr. Lewallen recalled that the board received a presentation on the CDC
feasibility study at their meeting of March 5, 2013 and that the board received
additional information because of questions that arose from that presentation.
On April 2, 2013, at their regular meeting the board considered the adoption
of a resolution, but that resolution did not pass or fail because the lack of
votes so this evening the board will further discuss and consider adopting a
resolution in support of the recommendations that came out of the feasibility
study.
Prior to the vote, the board had a lengthy discussion that included the use of
general funds, the execution of an agreement, the timing of the transition, the
number of children enrolled in the program, the disruption of services,
external providers – public and private, and collaborating with the preschool
programs offered through the elementary school districts.
HCCD – SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD– APRIL 16, 2013
Page 1 of 2
Some members stated that they did not believe there would be enough time,
between now and June 30th, to ensure a smooth transition and asked if the
district had funds to carry the program through December 2013. This would
allow more time to secure a provider and to negotiate an agreement. Dr.
Lewallen responded that he and Vice President Muñoz discussed funding and
alternatives and would look to other resources to support extending the
transition date.
The motion was amended to include, "effective January 1, 2014" and the
board voted.
Motioned (Gonzalez-Castro), seconded (Donohue) and by vote of 6-1 (No:
Freeman), and by advisory vote of Aye (Student Trustee), the board moved to
adopt resolution 13:1, In Support of Recommendations from the Hartnell
College Child Development Center Feasibility Study dated February 22,
2013, effective January 1, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Candi DePauw
Board of Trustees President
HCCD – SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD– APRIL 16, 2013
Willard Lewallen, Ph.D.
Board Secretary
Page 2 of 2
Unadopted
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
MINUTES
Board of Trustees – Development
CALL 208
411 Central Avenue
Salinas, California
April 16, 2013
OPEN SESSION
Trustee DePauw called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
This meeting immediately followed a special meeting where Trustee Freeman led the
pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Trustee DePauw noted that all members of the board remained in attendance.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
LEASE-LEASEBACK The board received a presentation, from Devon Lincoln, legal counsel, on the steps
and procedures for the lease-leaseback approach. Dr. Lewallen recalled that at their
– STEPS AND
regular meeting of March 5, 2013, the board took action to authorize the
PROCEDURES
administration to move forward with the implementation of a lease-leaseback
construction delivery method for the new science building. In addition, Dr. Lewallen
reported that he, legal counsel, staff, and Trustees Donohue and Montemayor met to
discuss the steps and procedures. At that meeting, a draft request for
qualifications/proposal was developed and other pertinent documents were reviewed
and discussed. Ms. Lincoln then summarized the process and explained the
documents used to execute the process.
After the presentation, the board engaged in a discussion and asked about the
contingency fund options, change orders, the composition of the selection committee,
and the use of a project labor agreement. Some members stated that they liked the
idea of a PLA, but felt that the board needed to receive a presentation and come to a
decision and requested that the item be on the next meeting's agenda. The board will
consider approving the RFP/Q at their meeting of May 7, 2013.
SELF-EVALUATION
INSTRUMENT FOR
BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
Trustee DePauw reminded the board that they conducted their self-evaluation in
January. At that time, the board committed to conducting another self-evaluation in
six months so that the evaluation of the board and CEO were on the same annual
cycle.
In preparation for this next self-evaluation, Trustees DePauw and Pruneda received
information at the recent ACCT conference regarding board self-evaluation
instruments and procedures and they shared an instrument used in an exercise at the
conference. After some discussion, the board decided to keep the survey questions
from the January evaluation, but found the rating scale needed revision. The survey
will be created in Survey Monkey and available in early May. The results will be
tallied and ready for discussion at the May development session.
HCCD – BOARD DEVELOPMENT – APRIL 16, 2013
Page 1 of 2
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE 2740
The board received and discussed Administrative Procedure 2740, Board Education
and Professional Development, and discussed a suggested annual dollar amount
($3,000) for each board member for board education and professional development.
The board will consider approval of this procedure at its May 7, 2013 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Candi DePauw
Board of Trustees President
HCCD – BOARD DEVELOPMENT – APRIL 16, 2013
Willard Lewallen
Board Secretary
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
V. B.
Disbursements
Area
Status
Office of Administrative Services
Prepared by: Alfred Muñoz, Vice President
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The attached lists of disbursements from district accounts are presented for ratification.
COUNTY WARRANTS
Any or all of the following funds:
General; Debt Service; Bookstore; Child Development Center; Capital Outlay; Scheduled
Maintenance/State-Funded Projects; Property Acquisition; Bond Projects; Cafeteria; SelfInsurance; Retirees’ Health Benefits; Associated Student Body; Scholarship, Loan, and Trust;
and Intercollegiate Athletics
DATE
03/04/13
03/11/13
03/18/13
03/20/13
03/27/13
Subtotal
WARRANT NUMBER
12980012
12981218
12982339
12982825
12983768
12980558
12981362
12982452
12982909
12983909
NO OF
WARRANTS
547
145
114
85
142
AMOUNT
$122,586.56
$621,279.17
$775,580.33
$22,950.45
$332,391.52
$1,874,788.03
Note: Legal fees in above summary total $11,713.92
DATE
Mar 13
Total
CHECKING ACCOUNTS
General Fund Revolving
NO OF
WARRANT NUMBER
WARRANTS
10491
10507
14
AMOUNT
$23,430.77
$1,898,218.80
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify the disbursements from district
accounts.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Curriculum Committee Actions
Area
Academic Affairs & Accreditation
Prepared by: Stephanie Low
Vice President (Interim)
May 7, 2013
Number
V. C.
Status
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priority – 1, 2, 5
Accreditation Standard – II. A.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
The following actions were reviewed by faculty in the disciplines and approved by the Curriculum
Committee, which is a standing committee of the Academic Senate:
COURSE REVISIONS: 15 courses
ADJ-3, Concepts of Criminal Law (3 units)
Areas of Revision: grading (P/NP option), advisory, description, objectives, content, method of
instruction, method of evaluation, materials, assignments, DE/Hybrid Reviewed
BIO-10, General Biology (4 units)
Areas of revision: grading add P/NP, description, objectives, lab content, materials, assignments
BIO-13, Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis (3 units)
Areas of revision: materials, assignments; DE/Hybrid reviewed
BIO-20, Field Biology/Natural Science (4 units)
Areas of revision: grading (add P/NP), content, materials, assignments
BIO-30, Marine Biology (4 units)
Areas of revision: grading (P/NP), description, objectives, content, methods of evaluation, materials,
assignments
BUS-18, The Legal Environment of Business (3 units)
Areas of revision: units, weekly contact hours, semester contact hours, grading, advisory, description,
objectives, content, methods of instruction, methods of evaluation, materials, assignments, DE/Hybrid
reviewed
FCS-22, Essentials of Nutrition (3 units)
Areas of revision: advisory, objectives, content, materials, assignments, DE/Hybrid reviewed
FCS-23, Nutrition (3 units)
Areas of revision: advisory, content, methods of evaluation, materials, assignments, DE/Hybrid
reviewed
HES-53, Emergency Medical Technician I (5.5 units)
Areas of revision: add BIO-11 or BIO-5 and BIO-6 and BIO-6L as a corequisite, assignments, PCA
reviewed
HIS-4A, Western Civilization A (3 units)
Areas of revision: description, objectives, content, methods of evaluation, materials, assignments,
DE/Hybrid reviewed
HIS-4B, Western Civilization B (3 units)
Areas of revision: description, content, methods of evaluation, materials, assignments, DE/Hybrid
reviewed
HIS-5A, World History A (3 units)
Areas of revision: description, content, methods of evaluation, materials, assignments
HIS-5B, World History B (3 units)
Areas of revision: description, objectives, content, methods of evaluation, methods of instruction,
materials, assignments
MAT-16, Finite Mathematics (3 units)
Areas of revision: description, objectives, content, methods of evaluation, materials, assignments
PCA reviewed
PEIN-20, Intercollegiate Soccer (3 units)
Areas of revision: units (2 to 3), weekly contact hours, description, methods of evaluation, assignments
ADDED AUDIT OPTION: 49 Courses
PEAC-27, Hiking and Backpacking (2 units)
PEAC-28, Pilates Matwork Fundamentals (1.5 units)
PEAC-29, Introduction to Mountain Biking(1.5 units)
PEAC-30, Introduction to Triathlon and Skill Development (2 units)
PEAC-31, Introduction to Bowling (1.5 units)
PEAC-32, Core Strengthening and Flexibility (1.5 units)
PEAC-33, Badminton (1.5 units)
PEAC-34, Stability Ball Training (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-35, Weight Training for Women (1.5 units)
PEAC-36, Yoga (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-37, Intermediate Baseball (1.5 units)
PEAC-38, Advanced Baseball (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-40, Speed Training and Conditioning (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-42, Hydro-Fitness (1.5 units)
PEAC-43, Strength Training (1.5 units)
PEAC-44, Water Jogging 1.5 units
PEAC-45, Special Projects 1-3 units
PEAC-46, Circuit Endurance Training (1.5 units)
PEAC-47, Strength Conditioning Lab (1.5 units)
PEAC-49, Aerobic Strength Conditioning (1.5 units)
PEAC-50, Power Lifting (1.5 units)
PEAC-51, Wellness Through Walking (1.5 units)
PEAC-52, Volleyball (1.5 units)
PEAC-53, Track and Field (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-54, Softball (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-55, Soccer (1.5 units)
PEAC-56, Self-Defense/Martial Arts (2 units)
PEAC-57, Advanced Distance Running (1.5 units)
PEAC-58, Beginning Tennis (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-59, Intermediate Tennis (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-60, Advanced Tennis (1.5 units)
PEAC-61, Beginning Swimming (1.5 units)
PEAC-62, Intermediate Swimming (1.5 units)
PEAC-63, Advanced Swimming (1.5 units)
PEAC-64, Beginning Gold (1.5 units)
PEAC-65, Advanced Gold (1.5 units)
PEAC-66, Zumba Aerobics 1 (1.5 units)
PEAC-67, Aerobics II (1 unit)
PEAC-68, Swim Fitness (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-69, Introduction to Weight Training (0.5-2 units)
PEAC-70, Basketball (1.5 units)
PEAC-71, Fundamentals of Basketball (1-1.5 units)
PEAC-72, Intermediate Basketball (1.5 units)
PEAC-74, Advanced Volleyball (1.5 units)
PEAC-75, Fundamentals of Football (1.5 units)
PEAC-81, Introduction to Water Polo (1.5 units)
PEAC-82, Stress Reduction (1.5 units)
PEAC-223, Physical Fitness Assessment - Cardio Vascular(0.3 units)
PEAC-224, Fitness Education and Assessment (0.3 units)
NEW COURSES: 16 courses
ESL-233, Grammar, Vocabulary, and Reading 2 (7 units)
ESL-243, Grammar, Vocabulary, and Reading 3 (7 units)
ESL-290A, English in the Lab A (1 unit)
ESL-290B, English in the Lab B (1 unit)
ESL-290C, English in the Lab C (1 unit)
ESL-290D, English in the Lab D (1 unit)
PEIN-30, Preseason Sport Conditioning, Basketball (1.5 units)
PEIN-40, Non-Traditional, Season, Basketball (1.5 units)
PEIN-42, Nontraditional Season, Volleyball (1.5 units)
PEIN-43, Nontraditional Season, Baseball (1.5 units)
PEIN-44, Nontraditional Season, Softball (1.5 units)
PEIN-45, Nontraditional Season, Track and Field (1.5 units)
PEIN-46, Nontraditional Season, Football (1.5 units)
PEIN-32, Pre-Season Sport Conditioning (1.5 units)
PEIN-41, Nontraditional Season, Soccer (1.5 units)
RCP-225, Success Strategies for 1st Semester RCP Students (0.5 unit)
COURSE INACTIVATIONS –16 courses
These courses are being replaced with new ESL courses.
ESL-235, Grammar and Writing 2 (5 units)
ESL-235L, Grammar and Writing 2-Lab (1 unit)
ESL-238, Reading and Vocabulary 2 (4 units)
ESL-245, Grammar and Writing 3 (5units)
ESL-245L, Advanced English-Lab (1 unit)
ESL-248, Reading and Vocabulary 3 (4units)
These courses are being replaced with new ADT courses.
AUT-150, Introduction to Heavy Duty Diesel Technology (4 units)
AUT-151, Heavy Duty Diesel Preventive Maintenance (3 units)
AUT-152, Heavy Duty Diesel Technology Electricity and Electronics (4 units)
AUT-153, Heavy Duty Diesel Brakes, Steering and Suspension (3 units)
AUT-154, Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Performance and Diagnostics (4 units)
AUT-155, Heavy Duty Diesel Equipment Climate Control (3 units)
AUT-156, Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Rebuild (3 units)
AUT-157, Heavy Duty Diesel Electronics Systems and Controls (4 units)
AUT-158, Heavy Duty Diesel Power drive Train (3 units)
AUT-159, Heavy Duty Diesel Automatic Transmission (4 units)
PROGRAM REVISIONS: 4 degrees
Music AA Degree
Areas of revision: added MUS-2 to required units, major units increased from 31 to 34
Respiratory Care Practitioner
Areas of revision: program description
Registered Nursing AS Degree
Areas of revision: program description
Theatre Arts AA Degree
Areas of revision: Added 6.0 units to the required major courses, major units decreased from 21 to 18
due to several THA courses being inactivated.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify the actions taken by the Curriculum
Committee from the March 21, 2013, April 4, 2013 and April 18, 2013 meetings.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Independent Citizen’s Bond Oversight
Committee for Measure H - Appointment
of Members
Number
V. D.
Area
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
Status
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The structure of the Bond Oversight Committee for Measure H includes seven (7) members:
1) student, 2) a member active in a business organization representing the business community
located in the District, 3) a member active in a senior citizens’ organization, 4) a member active
in a bona-fide taxpayers association, 5) a member active in a support organization for the
college, such as a foundation, and 6) member of the community at-large.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees appoint Elaine Duran Luchini, as
student representative, and Michael Payne, as senior citizen representative, to the Bond
Oversight Committee for Measure H for one two-year term, effective May 2013 through May
2015. Mr. Payne is recommended for a second two-year term.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
V. E.
Quarterly Financial Status Report (CCFS311Q) for March 31, 2013
Area
Office of Administrative Services
Prepared by: Alfred Muñoz,
Vice President
Status
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.B.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
AB 2910, Chapter 1486, Statues of 1986, require California Community College Districts to report on
their financial condition on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, the District must submit the attached
Quarterly Financial Status Report (Form CCFS-311Q) to the Chancellor’s Office. The County
Superintendent of Schools receives an informational copy.
This quarterly report indicates that the District is solvent and that no unusual financial matters arose
during the quarter.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees review and accept the Quarterly Financial
Status Report (CCFS-311Q) for the period ended March 31, 2013.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Grant Application to the California
Healthcare Workforce Policy Commission
Song-Brown Health Care Workforce
Training Act
Area
Office of Advancement
Prepared by: Jackie Cruz, Executive
Director
May 7, 2013
Number
V. F.
Status
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priorities – 1, 4, 5, 6
Accreditation Standards –
II.A.1.a.; II.A.1.b.; II.A.5
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Hartnell College is located in a region designated as both a Registered Nursing Shortage Area
(RNSA) and a Medically Underserved Area (MUA). A significant challenge for local providers
is to employ culturally competent, qualified registered nurses. Despite the documented need for
more culturally competent nurses, the area hospitals have not been hiring new graduates.
In order to improve employment outcomes for our students and the healthcare workforce, funds
from the Song-Brown Grant will help Hartnell College create an interprofessional educational
environment where RN, VN, RCP, and EMT students learn together and complete new
transferrable course offerings and skill certification classes. These efforts will help retrain outof-work nurses and help students gain desired soft and advanced technical skills to improve their
employment options and success as well as meeting the needs of employers.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify the grant application, accept
funds, if awarded, and authorize the administration to enter into agreements to execute the work
of the California Healthcare Workforce Policy Commission Song-Brown Health Care Workforce
Training Act grant.
TERM: Two years July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2015
BUDGET IMPLICATION
Revenue
Fund: 12, Restricted (State)
Up to
$125,000
Total
$125,000
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Grant Application to the Chancellor’s Office
of the California Community Colleges
(CCCCO), Division of Workforce and
Economic Development, Deputy Sector
Navigator
Number
V. G.
Area
Office of Advancement
Prepared by: Jackie Cruz, Executive Director
Status
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priorities – 2,5,6
Accreditation Standards –
II.A.1.a.b. and c.; II.A.2.b. and f.; II.A.5
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
This is a new grant opportunity to target investment at priority and emergent industry sectors as chosen
by each of the regions of the State to meet the specific objectives of the Economic and Workforce
Development Program (SB1402) and the Career Technical Education Pathways Program (SB1070).
There are ten regions and ten industry sectors in the State. Hartnell College is in the Bay Area Region
with seven other community college districts. The Bay Area Region has selected seven priority and
emergent sectors. Hartnell College is applying for the Information Communication Technology &
Digital Media sector.
The Deputy Sector Navigator will coordinate with the regional colleges and the State to meet the
workforce needs of the sector by sharing best practices; aligning certificates, degrees and K-16
preparation; and convening education and industry leaders. Strengths of this proposal include Hartnell
College’s track record with the Central California New Media Center, workforce needs for IT and
digital media in our region, and history of collaboration with regional education and industry partners.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify the grant application to the CCCCO,
and if awarded, accept the funds, and authorize the administration to enter into agreements to execute
the work of the Deputy Sector Navigator for Information Communication Technology & Digital Media.
TERM: 7/9/2013 through 6/30/2014. Renewable for four years with successful outcomes
BUDGET IMPLICATION
Revenue
Fund: 12 Restricted
State funds up to
Total
Amount
$300,000
$300,000
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
Personnel Actions
Area
V. H.
Status
Human Resources & Equal Employment
Opportunity
Prepared by: Terri Pyer
Consent
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.A.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees approves and ratifies the personnel
actions as listed:
Ratification of:
2 resignations of regular employees
1 appointment of regular classified position
1 part-time instructor hire for spring semester
1 appointment of substitute position
10 appointments of professional experts
2 appointments of volunteers
15 student worker hires for spring semester
Detail
I. Retirements, resignations, releases, and leave requests
A. Ratify resignations of regular personnel:
1. Kourtney Erin Brewster, Multimedia Technician – Information & Technology
Resources, (#CC-124), effective April 23, 2013.
2.
Tammy Anne Sharp, Human Resources Systems Specialist – Human Resources,
(#CF-9), effective May 10, 2013.
II. Appointments
A. Ratify appointment of classified employee:
1. Daniel Jimmeye, full-time, 40 hours per week, 12 months per year, Multimedia
Technician – Information & Technology Resources, (#CC-124), Range 33, Step
A, effective April 24, 2013.
B. Ratify appointment of part-time instructor for spring semester 2013:
1. Karl Ewald, Engineering
C. Ratify appointment of substitute:
1. Yesenia Contreras, $16.52/hr (40 hrs/week), division administrative assistant,
February 19 –April 1, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
D. Ratify appointments of Professional Experts:
Hartnell’s theater arts program/The Western Stage (TWS) provides students the
opportunity to learn their craft within a professional context. The Young Company
(YC) exposes young people to theater arts:
1. John Englehorn, $16,200 total, master electrician, April 2 – December 21, 2013.
2. Richard Green, $7,000 total, photographer, May 1 – December 7, 2013.
3. Amber Hamzeh, $5,000 total, costume designer, April 20 – June 7, 2013.
4. Diane Kelsey, $10,400 total, wardrobe supervisor, April 30 – December 21, 2013.
5. Leslie Lancaster, $13,500 total, properties coordinator, April 2 – December 21, 2013.
The Athletic Program provides competitive opportunities for Hartnell students, and
professional experts assist coaches in fulfilling the program’s mission:
6. Chris Hauswirth, $500 total, assistant track coach, April 1 – April 27, 2013.
7. Jesus Santa, $500 total, assistant track coach, April 1 – April 27, 2013.
The Foster Kinship Care Education Program (FKCE) provides advanced training for
current and prospective foster, relative, and non-related extended family member
caregivers, adoptive parents, and local agency employees. It also provides support for
foster home recruitment activities. This grant-funded program is a joint effort of the
California Community College Chancellor’s Office and the Department of Social and
Employment Services (DSES). Assignments include orientation leaders, trainers,
childcare and activity providers, and program coordination:
8. Denise M. Fematt, $13/hr (as needed), childcare, March 1, 2013 - June 10, 2015.
9. Denise M. Fematt, $16/hr (as needed), childcare lead, March 1, 2013 - June 10, 2015.
10. Christian Rivera, $16/hr (as needed), childcare lead, February 10, 2013 – June 10, 2015.
E. Ratify appointments of volunteers:
1. Ashley Varao, King City Center, April 1 – May 31, 2013.
2. May Sigala, Physical Education, February 1 - May 31, 2013.
F. Ratify appointments of student workers for spring semester 2013:
1.
Maria Alejandre-Manzo, Child Development Center, Student Worker I
2. Cristina Calderon, Human Resources, Student Worker I
3. Rodolfo Garcia, MESA, Student Worker IV
4. Jocelyn Gonzalez-Martinez, Student Services, Student Worker III
5.
Yeraldiny Jose Alonzo, HEP, Student Worker I
6.
Wei Li, MESA, Student Worker IV
7.
Aaron Lopez, MESA, Student Worker IV
8.
Luis Perez, Title V, Student Worker IV
9.
Lisset Ramirez, Tutorial Center, Student Worker III
10. Rex Ramos, Student Affairs, Student Worker III
12. Vanessa Rouch, Title V, Student Worker II
13. Raul Tapia, ACE, Student Worker III
14. Ramiro Valdez, MESA, Student Worker IV
15. Ricardo Valenzuela Acharte, Student Services, Student Worker III
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. A.
Budget Revisions
Budget Increase (Restricted General Fund)
Area
Office of Administrative Services
Prepared by: Alfred Muñoz, Vice President
Status
Action
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The Board of Trustees recognizes that the annual budget of the District is a financial plan and is subject
to adjustments during the fiscal year caused by changes in enrollments, programs, services, and the cost
of goods and services.
Revisions to the adopted budget are subject to approval by the Board of Trustees. Budget revisions
consist of transfers between major object expenditures or from the appropriations for contingencies, as
well as budgetary increases for the use of funds not included in the original budget.
All budget entry numbers are assigned automatically assuring a complete sequence accounting. Numeric
breaks on the attached report are due to the exclusion of budget transfers, which do not require Board
approval. The accompanying Budget Journal Entry Detail Report was produced directly from the
accounting software.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify budget revisions for fiscal year20122013 numbered 10203 to10277 and recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify the budget increase for
fiscal year 2012-2013 as follows:
Augment NASA SEMAA budget for FY 2012-2013 - $25,000
BUDGET IMPLICATION
Budget Increase
Fund:
Fund 12- Restricted General Fund
Amount
$25,000
Total
$25,000
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Resolution 13:2, Declaring Classified
School Employee Week
Number
VI. B.
Area
Office of Superintendent/President
Prepared by: Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
Status
Action (Roll-call)
Reference
Strategic Priorities –
Accreditation Standards –
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The California School Employees Association and the California State Legislature have
designated the third full week of May (19 through 25) as Classified School Employee Week. To
recognize the event locally, Hartnell Chapter 470 requests that the Board adopt the attached
resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt Resolution 13:2, Declaring May
19-25, 2013 as Classified School Employee Week.
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 13:2
Declaring Classified School Employees Week
WHEREAS, classified professionals provide valuable services to the schools and
students of the Hartnell Community College District; and
WHEREAS, classified professionals contribute to the establishment and promotion of a
positive instructional environment; and
WHEREAS, classified professionals serve a vital role in providing for the welfare and
safety of Hartnell Community College District’s students; and
WHEREAS, classified professionals employed by the Hartnell Community College
District strive for excellence in all areas relative to the educational community;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hartnell Community College District
hereby recognizes and wishes to honor the contribution of the classified professionals to quality
education in the state of California and in the Hartnell Community College District and declares
the week of May 19–25, 2013, as Classified School Employee Week in the Hartnell Community
College District.
Passed and adopted on this 7th day of May 2013.
_____________________________
Candi DePauw
President, Board of Trustees
Willard Lewallen
Board Secretary
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. C.
Adopt Resolution No. 13:3, Education
Protection Account Spending Authorization
Area
Office of Administrative Services
Prepared by: Alfred Muñoz, Vice President
Status
Action (Roll-call)
Reference
Strategic Priority – 1, 4
Accreditation Standard – II. A., B., C and
III.D.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
On November 6, 2012, the voters of California approved Proposition 30. On November 7,
2012, Article XIII, Section 36 was added to the California Constitution wherein under Section
36(e) an Education Protection Account (“EPA”) was created in the state’s General Fund to
receive and disburse the revenues derived from the incremental increases in taxes imposed by
Article XIII, Section 36(f). Before June 30th of each year, the Director of Finance is to estimate
the total amount of additional revenues, less refunds that will be derived from the increases in
tax rates made pursuant to Article XIII, Section 36(f) that will be available for transfer into the
EPA during the next fiscal year. All monies are continuously appropriated for the support of
school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts
and are not used to pay any costs incurred by the legislature, the governor or any agency of state
government.
Districts have sole authority to determine how the monies received from the EPA are spent,
provided that the governing board makes these spending determinations in open session of a
public meeting of the governing board.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt Resolution No. 13.3,
establishing that monies received from the Education Protection Account shall be spent as
required by Article XIII, Section 36 and as stated in Attachment A.
BUDGET IMPLICATION
Estimated Education Protection Account Allocation
Fund:
General Fund, Unrestricted
Amount
$5,450,857
Total
$5,450,857
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Resolution 13:3
THE EDUCATION PROTECTION ACCOUNT SPENDING AUTHORIZATION
WHEREAS, the voters approved Proposition 30 on November 6, 2012;
WHEREAS, Proposition 30 added Article XIII, Section 36 to the California
Constitution effective November 7, 2012;
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article XIII, Section 36(e) create in the state
General Fund an Education Protection Account to receive and disburse the revenues
derived from the incremental increases in taxes imposed by Article XIII, Section 36(f);
WHEREAS, before June 30th of each year, the Director of Finance shall estimate
the total amount of additional revenues, less refunds that will be derived from the
incremental increases in tax rates made pursuant to Article XIII, Section 36(f) that will be
available for transfer into the Education Protection Account during the next fiscal year;
WHEREAS, if the sum determined by the State Controller is positive, the State
Controller shall transfer the amount calculated into the Education Protection Account
within ten days preceding the end of the fiscal year;
WHEREAS, all monies in the Education Protection Account are hereby
continuously appropriated for the support of school districts, county offices of education,
charter schools and community college districts;
WHEREAS, monies deposited in the Education Protection Account shall not be
used to pay any costs incurred by the Legislature, the Governor or any agency of state
government;
WHEREAS, a community college district, county office of education, school
district, or charter school shall have the sole authority to determine how the monies
received from the Education Protection Account are spent in the school or schools within
its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, the governing board of the district shall make the spending
determinations with respect to monies received from the Education Protection Account in
open session of a public meeting of the governing board;
WHEREAS, the monies received from the Education Protection Account shall not
be used for salaries or benefits for administrators or any other administrative cost;
WHEREAS, each community college district, county office of education, school
district and charter school shall annually publish on its Internet website an accounting of
1
how much money was received from the Education Protection Account and how that
money was spent;
WHEREAS, the annual independent financial and compliance audit required of
community college districts, county offices of education, school districts and charter
schools shall ascertain and verify whether the funds provided from the Education
Protection Account have been properly disbursed and expended as required by Article
XIII, Section 36 of the California Constitution;
WHEREAS, expenses incurred by community college districts, county offices of
education, school districts and charter schools to comply with the additional audit
requirements of Article XIII, Section 36 may be paid with funding from the Education
Protection Act and shall not be considered administrative costs for purposes of Article
XIII, Section 36.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
1.
The monies received from the Education Protection Account shall be spent
as required by Article XIII, Section 36 and the spending determinations on how the
money will be spent shall be made in open session of a public meeting of the governing
board of Hartnell Community College District;
2.
In compliance with Article XIII, Section 36(e), with the California
Constitution, the governing board of the Hartnell Community College District has
determined to spend the monies received from the Education Protection Act as stated in
attachment A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Hartnell Community College District Board of
Trustees on May 7, 2013 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
Board President
______________________________
Dr. Willard Lewallen
Secretary of the Board of Trustees
2
Attachment A
THE EDUCATION PROTECTION ACCOUNT SPENDING AUTHORIZATION
1.
Student Services Cost:
Admissions & Records
Counseling Services
Library Support Services
Financial Aid
2.
Faculty and Adjunct Instructional Salaries and Benefits
3.
Instruction Aides Wages and Benefits
4.
Instructional Supplies and Equipment
3
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. D.
Adopt Resolution No. 13:4, Technical
Adjustments to Trustee Area Boundaries
Area
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
Status
Action (Roll-call)
Reference
Strategic Priority – 6
Accreditation Standard – IV.B.1.c.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
On November 1, 2011 the Board of Trustees approved a redistricting plan and new trustee area
boundaries. The plan was accepted by the Department of Justice on February 28, 2012. In a
letter dated April 11, 2013, Monterey County Elections asked that the District provide
clarification on some inconsistencies with some of the new boundaries. Lapkoff & Gobalet
Demographic Research, Inc. performed an analysis of the inconsistencies and supported the
recommendations from Monterey County Elections.
The conclusion of the analysis was the technical adjustments result in no significant impact on
the original adopted plan. Dr. Jeanne Gobalet will be available by phone if there are any
questions or clarifications needed.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt Resolution No. 13.4
supporting the recommended technical adjustments to trustee area boundaries from Monterey
County Elections as validated by Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Resolution 13:4
TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS TO TRUSTEE AREA BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED
THROUGH THE HCCD REDISTRICTING PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees approved a redistricting plan and new trustee
area boundaries at its regular meeting on November 1, 2011;
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights
Division) did not interpose any objection to the redistricting plan;
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2013 the District was informed by Monterey County
Elections (Registrar of Voters) that clarification on some inconsistencies was needed for
the trustee area boundaries established through the approved redistricting plan;
WHEREAS, an analysis of the inconsistencies was performed by Lapkoff &
Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.;
WHEREAS, the analysis yielded technical adjustments to the trustee area
boundaries;
WHEREAS, the recommended technical adjustments do not make a significant
difference in the demographic characteristics of the original, adopted redistricting plan;
WHEREAS, the adjusted version of the plan results in a total deviation of 7.0
percent compared to 7.7 percent in the original plan;
WHEREAS, all of the differences relevant to the Federal Voting Rights Act
requirements are insignificant;
WHEREAS, the shares of Hispanics and persons with Spanish surnames are
virtually the same in the adjusted plan as they were in the original plan;
WHEREAS, the conclusion is that the technical adjustments have no impact on
the adopted plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
The Board of Trustees approves the technical adjustments to the trustee area
boundaries and authorize the administration to coordinate with Monterey County
Elections to obtain preclearance of the adjustments to the original plan from the U.S.
Department of Justice.
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Hartnell Community College District Board of
Trustees on May 7, 2013 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
Board President
______________________________
Dr. Willard Lewallen
Secretary of the Board of Trustees
Attachments
1.
Communication from Monterey County Elections dated April 8, 2013.
2.
Technical Adjustments Report from Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research,
Inc.
2
Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.
www.Demographers.com
22361 Rolling Hills Road, Saratoga, CA 95070-6560 
2120 6th Street #9, Berkeley, CA 94710-2253 
(408) 725-8164 
(510) 540-6424 
Fax (408) 725-1479
Fax (510) 540-6425
Hartnell Community College District
Technical Adjustments for 2011 Trustee Area Plan
April 22, 2013
On November 1, 2011, Hartnell’s Board of Trustees adopted a plan to realign the trustee election
district boundaries in order to meet legal requirements. The U.S. Department of Justice precleared
that plan.
The Monterey County Election Department (MCED) is now implementing the adopted, precleared
plan for use in the 2013 Trustee elections. MCED personnel have asked some questions about the
effects of making some technical adjustments to the adopted plan in order to conform to its existing
precinct boundaries (see Appendix A). These adjustments are needed because the MCED’s precincts
are based on real estate parcel data, whereas the trustee area districting plan was based on U.S.
Census block geography, as required by the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of California.
In order to assess the demographic effects of these technical adjustments, we have estimated the
populations of Census blocks that have been split by trustee area boundaries in the adopted plan. For
each split block, we first investigated whether the block was populated, and, if so, we estimated the
share of the block’s total housing units in each portion of the split block. We applied the proportions
of each block’s housing units to all of the population variables used in developing the redistricting
plan. Appendix B shows data for two of the steps involved in that process. Of the 27 Census blocks
split by precinct boundaries, only eight had populations split by those boundaries.
It turns out that these technical adjustments do not make a significant difference in the demographic
characteristics of the adopted plan. Table 1 compares the plan as adopted, the plan with technical
adjustments, and the differences between the two. Please note that this comparison is based on
estimated housing and population shares in each portion of a split block.
The only difference between the adopted and adjusted versions of the plan that is of interest is that
the adjusted version has a slightly lower (and better) total deviation (7.0 percent rather than 7.7
percent). All of the differences relevant to Federal Voting Rights Act requirements are insignificant.
The shares of Hispanics and persons with Spanish surnames are virtually the same in the adjusted
plan as they were in the original.
In our opinion, the technical adjustments have no material impact on the adopted plan.
1
Table 1: Comparison of Adopted, Precleared Plan with the Adjusted Plan
H a rtne ll Community Colle ge D istrict T ruste e Are a s Adopte d 11/ 1/ 2011
Summa ry S ta tistics for Adopte d P la n a nd Adopte d Pla n with T e chnica l Adjustme nts
Population Balance
Trustee
Area
Population
Deviation
Adopte d, Pre cle a re d P la n
1
38,376
2
36,618
3
38,620
4
36,741
5
38,360
6
35,751
7
37,993
Total
262,459
882
-876
1,126
-753
866
-1,743
499
Most populous trustee area
Least populous trustee area
Difference
Ideal Trustee Area Size
Plan's Percent Deviation
Adopte d P la n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
with T e chnica l
38,421
36,706
38,603
36,567
38,360
35,810
37,992
262,459
Adjustme nts
927
-788
1,109
-927
866
-1,684
498
Most populous trustee area
Least populous trustee area
Difference
Ideal Trustee Area Size
Plan's Percent Deviation
D iffe re nce s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
45
88
-17
-174
0
59
-1
45
88
-17
-174
0
59
-1
Percent
Deviation
2.4%
-2.3%
3.0%
-2.0%
2.3%
-4.6%
1.3%
7.7%
Percent of Trustee Area's Population that was Hispanic/ Latino/ Spanish Surname
Estimated
Citizen Voting
Voting Age
Age
Total
Population
Population
Registered
Voters Nov
Voters Nov
Population
(VAP)
(CVAP)
voters 2010
2010
2008
57.0%
77.0%
37.0%
72.0%
93.0%
86.0%
80.0%
51.0%
73.0%
32.0%
66.0%
91.0%
83.0%
76.0%
38.0%
59.0%
26.0%
55.0%
76.0%
70.0%
57.0%
36.0%
61.0%
21.0%
52.0%
79.0%
70.0%
58.0%
29.0%
55.0%
16.0%
46.0%
74.0%
66.0%
57.0%
32.0%
57.0%
18.0%
49.0%
76.0%
67.0%
51.0%
56.8%
76.8%
36.9%
71.7%
93.1%
86.1%
80.3%
50.5%
73.2%
32.1%
66.0%
91.2%
83.2%
76.1%
37.7%
59.2%
25.9%
55.1%
75.6%
69.5%
57.5%
36.0%
60.5%
21.0%
52.5%
79.0%
70.4%
58.3%
29.2%
54.9%
16.0%
46.4%
74.3%
65.2%
49.9%
31.6%
57.3%
18.1%
48.9%
75.6%
66.5%
51.0%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.1%
-0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
-0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
-0.3%
0.2%
-0.1%
0.1%
-0.4%
-0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.4%
0.3%
-0.8%
-7.1%
-0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
-0.1%
-0.4%
-0.5%
0.0%
38,620
35,751
2,869
37,494
7.7%
2.5%
-2.1%
3.0%
-2.5%
2.3%
-4.5%
1.3%
7.0%
38,603
35,810
2,793
37,494
7.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
2
Appendix A
Correspondence from Monterey County Elections Department
3
Appendix B
Steps involved in developing estimates of demographic characteristics of adjusted plan
(pink shading identifies split blocks with split populations; gray shading used in lower table to
distinguish portions of blocks)
Ce nsus Block
N umbe r
060530001021003
060530001021004
060530001022010
060530001022015
060530001022016
060530001023017
060530001011010
060530105041020
060530103061077
060530106061231
060530106061232
060530106061193
060530106061194
060530106061197
060530108042142
060530108042143
060530111011052
060530111011059
060530107021009
060530108042007
060530108042008
060530001041000
060530106061091
060530106061092
060530106061093
060530106061094
060530106061096
Block portion
MCE D Ma p
N umbe r
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
MCE D Ma p
N umbe r
Block split
be twe e n
T ruste e Are a s
TA 2 & 4
TA 2 & 4
TA 2 & 4
TA 2 & 4
TA 2 & 4
TA 2 & 4
TA 4 & 6
TA 1 & 4
TA 1 & 3
TA 1 & 3
TA 1 & 3
TA 3 & 6
TA 3 & 6
TA 3 & 6
TA 6 & 7
TA 6 & 7
TA 6 & 7
TA 6 & 7
TA 3 & 6
TA 3 & 6
TA 3 & 6
TA 2 & 6
TA 2 & 6
TA 2 & 6
TA 2 & 6
TA 2 & 6
TA 2 & 6
Comme nt
move 10 homes from TA4 to TA2
move 20 homes from TA4 to TA2
move 4 homes from TA4 to TA2
move 13 homes from TA2 to TA4
no affected homes or population
no affected homes or population
move 12 homes on east side of Jade Dr from TA4 to TA6
move 12 homes from TA4 to TA1
no affected homes or population
no affected homes or population
no affected homes or population
no homes
no homes
move 5 homes from TA3 to TA6
no homes
no affected homes or population
move 1 home from TA7 to TA6
no homes
no affected homes or population
no homes
no homes
no affected homes or population
no affected homes or population
no affected homes or population
no homes
no homes
no homes
T ruste e Are a of
this block
portion
H ousing
U nits
31
67
18
34
24
88
19
13
13
6
3
0
0
6
0
12
3
0
34
0
0
2
10
1
0
0
0
P opula tion
117
275
71
125
83
341
65
49
30
20
5
0
0
20
0
25
4
0
100
0
0
13
24
2
0
0
0
H ousing
units in this
block
portion
Sha re of
housing units
& popula tion
in this block
portion
060530001021003A
1
4
21
0.68
060530001021003B
1
2
10
0.32
060530001021004A
1
4
47
0.70
060530001021004B
1
2
20
0.30
060530001022010A
1
4
14
0.78
060530001022010B
1
2
4
0.22
060530001022015A
1
2
21
0.62
060530001022015B
1
4
13
0.38
060530001011010A
2
4
7
0.37
060530001011010B
2
6
12
0.63
060530105041020A
3
4
1
0.08
060530105041020B
3
1
12
0.92
060530106061197A
5
3
1
0.17
060530106061197B
5
6
5
0.83
060530111011052A
6
7
2
0.67
060530111011052B
6
6
1
0.33
4
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. E.
Adopt Resolution No. 13:5, Early
Retirement Incentive for STRS Members
Area
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
Status
Action (Roll-call)
Reference
Strategic Priorities 3, 4
Accreditation Standard – III.A.2
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
This resolution is for the purpose of offering an early retirement incentive to qualified full-time
STRS members. Per Education Code Section 22714 the outcome of the early retirement
incentive cannot result in any additional expense to the District. Accordingly, the
administration has established a minimum number of retirees (7) necessary to implement the
early retirement incentive. The exact amount of the fiscal impact is unknown, but it is
anticipated that the implementation of the early retirement incentive will result in a net
expenditure savings between $300-500,000 over 5 years. The amount will vary depending on
the total number of retirees, years of service, and other factors.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt Resolution No. 13:5
supporting the implementation of an early retirement incentive program for STRS members.
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 13:5
Early Retirement Incentive for STRS Members
On motion by______, seconded by _______, the following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, Education Code Section 22714 provides that a school district may permit members
of the State Teachers’ Retirement System who retire to receive up to two years of additional service credit
at the time of retirement; and
WHEREAS, the employing school district shall pay to the State Teachers’ Retirement Fund an
amount equal to the actuarial present value cost of the additional service credit, and a fee to cover
administrative costs; and
WHEREAS, the Hartnell Community College District wishes to make this program available to
members eligible for retirement and who retire within the designated program period of May 8, 2013
through July 6, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Hartnell Community College District makes the offer to eligible members, it
does so contingent upon realizing a total neutral cost to the District, and a minimum of seven members to
retire; and
WHEREAS, the Hartnell Community College District places a contingency upon the offer, all
members who submit retirement letters relying on the conditions of the offer may withdraw their letter
should the contingency nullify this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Governing Board of the Hartnell Community
College District hereby adopts this program, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that eligible employees’ effective date of retirement under this
program be after this resolution is adopted and before July 6, 2013.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 2013, by the Hartnell Community College District Board
of Trustees of Monterey and San Benito counties, California.
I, Willard Lewallen, Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Hartnell Community College
District, do hereby certify the foregoing to be full, true, and a correct copy of a resolution adopted by the
said Board at its regular meeting on May 7, 2013, which action is contained in the minutes of the meeting
of said Board.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
Board President
______________________________
Dr. Willard Lewallen
Secretary of the Board
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Awarding of Posthumous Degree
Number
VI. F.
Area
Student Affairs
Prepared by Dr. Romero Jalomo,
Vice President Student Affairs
Status
Action
Reference
Strategic Priority – 1
Accreditation Standards – II.A.2i
IV.B.1b
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
BP 4111 and AP 4111 authorize the awarding of a posthumous degree. Ms. Anna F. Martinez
who passed away August 23, 2012 meets all of the established criteria for awarding a
posthumous degree.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees authorize the awarding of an
associate degree posthumously to Ms. Anna F. Martinez at the May 31, 2013 commencement
ceremony.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
N/A
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Construction Change Orders
Area
Facilities, Operations & Asset Management
Prepared by: Joseph Reyes, Director
Facilities and Asset
Management
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. G.
Status
Action
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III. B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Change orders authorized by the administration are to be ratified by the Board in compliance
with Board Policy. The projects are listed with an explanation on the attached log.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees ratify the construction change orders
per policy and procedure.
HARTNELL COLLEGE CHANGE ORDER LOG-04/02/13
PROJECT NAME
PCO #
001
865003 / PE Field House
DATE
DESCRIPTION
Nov 15, 2012
Pot Holing for utilities and Relocation
Pot holing to located existing utilities which were not detectible by survey
and to relocate existing utilities from under the footprint of the building
Revised finish hardware
Incorrect door hardware was specified by A/E. Best hardware needed to be
replaced for specified Schlage.
Remove tile
Tile was removed from concessions and restrooms and replaced with
finished concrete
Expedite hollow metal door
In order to meet the contractor schedule, the hollow metal door frames
needed to be ordered and expedited so the project did not come to a stop.
Remove and Replace unsuitable material
The soil under the footprint of the building contains organics and would not
compact to the required percentage. That material needed to be removed
and replace with material which would meet the design requirements.
Wing Wall Membrane on Roof
Whole in documents did not designate the interface between the flashing
and the roof membrane.
New Paver Design
As part of the PE capital campaign to raise money for athletics, the
foundation needed to change the paver type and design to meet the
campaign needs.
Additional Blocking at Fascia
Needed for aluminum panels around outside of the building. The change
would allow more a longer life of the panels.
*
865003 / PE Field House
002
Nov 15, 2012
*
865003 / PE Field House
003
Nov 15, 2012
*
004
865003 / PE Field House
Nov 15, 2012
*
005
865003 / PE Field House
Nov 15, 2012
*
865003 / PE Field House
006
Mar 15, 2013
865003 / PE Field House
009
Mar 15, 2013
*
*
010
865003 / PE Field House
Mar 15, 2013
*
813028 / Technical Training Building
001
Dec 1, 2012
*
813028 / Technical Training Building
002
Mar 1, 2013
*
O - Owner
A/E - Architect/Engineer Oversight
D - Discovery / Unforeseen Conditions
DSA - Division of the State Architect
City - City of Salinas
Re-Route electrical to FDA
The main transformer which feeds the existing FDA site needed to be
relocated because of a conflict and the power to that site needed to be
relocated and reconnected.
Install BioSwale
The City of Salinas made changes to the BioSwale for the TTB Building after
the project was bid. Because the District is using the City’s storm drain the
District needs to meet their requirements.
ORIGIN
AMOUNT
BALANCE OF
OWNERS
ALLOWANCE
/%
D
$3,408.85
$158,812.15
2.15%
A/E
$10,980.48
$147,831.67
7.43%
O
-$3,080.41
$150,912.08
-2.04%
A/E
$1,250.00
$149,662.08
0.84%
D
$13,151.40
$136,510.68
9.63%
A/E
$1,355.00
$135,155.68
1.00%
O
$28,495.00
$106,660.68
26.72%
D
$4,961.00
$101,699.68
4.88%
D
$13,341.00
$447,129.00
2.98%
D
$66,904.00
$393,566.00
17.00%
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Lease-Leaseback Steps and Procedures
Office of the Superintendent President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. H.
Status
Action
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standards – III.B.1.a.,
III.B.1.b.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
At its March 5, 2013 meeting the Board of Trustees authorized the administration to move
forward with the implementation of a lease-leaseback construction delivery method for the new
Science Building. At its April 16, 2013 meeting the Board of Trustees received information on
the steps, procedures, and documents that will be followed in executing this construction
delivery method.
The only change to the documents reviewed at the April 16, 2013 meeting is the following entry
on page 11 of the RFQ/P related to Project Labor Agreements.
Project Labor Agreement: The College will not require that the contractor selected for the
Project enter into a Project Labor Agreement, and a contractor’s willingness to enter into
such an agreement shall not be a criteria for selection. The contractor selected for the
Project may, in the contractor’s discretion, enter into a Project Labor Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees approve the Lease-Leaseback
RFQ/P and authorize the administration to issue the RFQ/P.
Hartnell Community College District
411 Central Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901
Request for Qualification / Proposals For
Lease-Leaseback Construction Services
Hartnell College Science Building
RFQ/P Issued: May 8, 2013
1
Request for Qualifications/ Proposals For
Lease-Leaseback Construction Services
Hartnell College Science Building
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 3
A.
B.
Three Phased Selection Process .................................................................... 3
Contract Documents ...................................................................................... 3
Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 4
Criteria for Selection ............................................................................................................. 5
A.
B.
Generally ....................................................................................................... 5
Local Participation Goal ................................................................................ 5
Phase I ................................................................................................................................... 5
Phase II .................................................................................................................................. 7
Phase III................................................................................................................................. 9
General Information .............................................................................................................. 10
2
Introduction
The Board of Trustees (“Board”) of Hartnell Community College District (“College”) is seeking a
qualified provider of construction services for the construction of the Hartnell College Science
Building project (“Project”). Pursuant to Education Code section 81330 et seq., the Board intends
to enter into a lease-leaseback contract for the construction of the Project in the form attached
hereto (“Contract”) with a contractor of the Board’s choice. As described in this Request for
Qualifications/ Proposals (“RFQ/P”), the selection of the contractor for the Project will be
completed in three (3) distinct phases: Phase I – Review of Qualifications; Phase II – Review of
Initial Proposals; and Phase III – Review of Final Proposals. All interested contractors are
encouraged to participate in Phase I. Participation in Phases II and III will be by invitation only.
The College reserves the right to enter into the Contract for the Project with the contractor or entity
the College deems most suitable to undertake the Project. The College further reserves the right to
reject any or all proposals, or waive any irregularities in any of the proposals submitted pursuant to
this RFQ/P.
Overview
A.
Three Phased Selection Process
This RFQ/P is divided into three phases.
Phase I – Review of Qualifications. In Phase I, all interested contractors are invited to submit a
completed questionnaire and statement of their qualifications, in the manner and form set forth
below. The College’s selection committee will review all submissions by all contractors and select
a number of contractors to participate in Phase II.
Phase II – Review of Initial Proposals. Contractors who are invited to participate in Phase II will be
required to (1) attend a mandatory meeting about the Project with the Project architect; (2) submit
an estimated cost to complete all work required by the Contract Documents (“Initial Proposal”), in
the manner and form set forth below, and (3) participate in a mandatory interview. The selection
committee will review the Initial Proposals and select at least two (2) contractors to participate in
Phase III.
Phase III – Review of Final Proposals. Contractors who are invited to participate in Phase III will
be required to submit a Final Proposal, in the manner and form set forth below. The selection
committee will review submitted Final Proposals and present the Board with a recommendation for
award of the Contract at the Board’s September 3, 2013 meeting.
B.
Contract Documents
The Contract for this Project, consisting of a Lease-Leaseback Agreement and General Conditions,
as well as other documents referenced thereby, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The College proposes to enter into the Contract in substantially the form attached hereto, and is not
willing to entertain any substantive changes to the Contract. However, the College will consider
3
limited changes proposed by any contractor responding to this RFQ/P. The College will not
consent to changes to the Contract requested by any contractor after July 23, 2013. The selected
contractor must indicate in writing the contractor’s willingness to execute the Contract in its July
23, 2013 form prior to the Board’s meeting on September 3, 2013. If the selected contractor does
not do so, the College reserves the right to select another contractor for approval by the Board.
In order to effectively participate in the RFQ/P, contractors should familiarize themselves with the
plans and specifications for the Project as early as possible. Contractors interested in participating
in the RFQ/P process may obtain electronic copies of the plans and specifications at: [Insert link]
Schedule
Phase I May 8, 2013 – Issuance of RFQ/P.
May 22, 2013 – Submission of Qualifications. Written responses to the Phase I questionnaire and
statement of credentials must be hand-delivered to [Damon Felice] at [ Hartnell College, 411
Central Avenue, Salinas, California 93901] by no later than May 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM. Responses
not received by the deadline will be returned unopened.
June 5, 2013 – Selection of Phase II Participants. On June 5, 2013, the selection committee will
issue an invitation to selected contactors to participate in Phase II. The list of contractors selected
for Phase II will be available to interested parties on June 6, 2013.
Phase II June 13, 2013 – Mandatory Meeting. Contractors who are invited to participate in Phase II are
required to attend a meeting to be held on June 13, 2013, between those contractors, the Project
architect, and the College. The meeting is intended to be an open forum in which the parties may
gain a better understanding the goals and requirements of the Project.
July 12, 2013 – Initial Proposals Submitted. Initial Proposals must be hand-delivered to [Damon
Felice] at [Hartnell College, 411 Central Avenue, Salinas, California 93901] by no later than on
July 12, 2013 at 5:00 PM. Initial Proposals not received by the deadline will be returned unopened.
July 22 – 23, 2013 – Interviews. The selection committee will contact responding contractors to
schedule interviews on July 22 and 23, 2013.
August 1, 2013 – Recommendation Regarding Phase III Participants. On August 1, 2013, the
College will issue the agenda for the Board’s August 6, 2013 meeting. Included in the agenda will
be the selection committee’s recommendation of at least two contractors who will be invited to
submit Final Proposals.
August 6, 2013 – Board Selection of Phase III Participants. The Board will review the
recommendation of the selection committee and select at least two contractors who will be invited
to submit Final Proposals.
4
Phase III August 28, 2013 – Final Proposals. Final Proposals must be hand-delivered to [Damon Felice] at [
Hartnell College, 411 Central Avenue, Salinas, California 93901] by no later than on August 28,
2013 at 5:00 PM. Final Proposal packets not received by the deadline will be returned unopened.
September 3, 2013 – Board Award of Contract. At the Board’s September 3, 2013 meeting, the
Board will be presented with College staff’s recommendation and will consider the award of the
Contract.
Criteria for Selection
A.
Generally
The selection committee will carefully review all responses to each Phase of this RFQ/P in
consultation with the Architect and shall ultimately recommend to the Board the contractor who, in
the committee’s opinion, has submitted the best Final Proposal for the Project. Selection shall be
made on the basis of contractors’ qualifications, on the Initial Proposal and the Final Proposal, and
on the information obtained in interviews.
B.
Local Participation Goal
The Board of Trustees has established a local participation goal of seventy-five percent (75%). The
College will require contractors preparing Initial Proposals and Final Proposals to make good faith
efforts to identify, and ultimately subcontract with, qualified local subcontractors.
For purposes of achieving the College’s local participation goal, a contractor or subcontractor shall
be considered “local” if all of the following conditions are met:
•
The contractor or subcontractor has owned, leased, rented or otherwise occupied a fixed
office or other commercial building, or portion thereof, having a street address within the
county of Monterey, Santa Cruz, or San Benito since at least January 1, 2013.
•
The contractor or subcontractor possess a valid and current business license issued by a city
within the county of Monterey, Santa Cruz, or San Benito, or issued by one of those
counties if located in an unincorporated area.
•
The contractor or subcontractor employs at least one full time employee within the county
of Monterey, Santa Cruz, or San Benito, or if the contractor has no employees, the business
is at least fifty percent (50%) owned by one or more persons whose primary residence is in
the county of Monterey, Santa Cruz, or San Benito.
Phase I
Each contractor’s response to Phase I of this RFQ/P should be clear, concise, complete, well
organized, and demonstrate the respondent’s qualifications, ideas, and ability to work together with
5
the College and its Architect and other consultants. An original [+ six (6) copies] of the response
must be provided, with no more than 30 single-sided pages in total length. All respondents are
requested to follow the order and format specified below. Please tab each section of the proposal to
correspond to the numbers/headers shown below.
A.
Response Cover
The Phase I response should include a cover sheet, including the title “RFQ/P Phase I
Qualifications,” as well as the due date, and the name, address, fax number, and the telephone
number of responding firm (or firms if a proposal is submitted by a joint venture or association).
B.
Table of Contents
Include complete and clear listings of headings and pages to allow easy reference to key
information.
C.
Body of Response
The following sections should be included in the order listed:
1.
Cover Letter. The cover letter should be signed by a person with authority to act on behalf
of and bind the firm, and should indicate the firm’s interest in entering into the Contract.
The cover letter should also include general information about your firm, including at least
the following:
(a)
number of employees;
(b)
years in business;
(c)
name(s) of owners(s);
(d)
home office location;
(e)
local office location (if different); and
(f)
proposed team members for this Project, including at a minimum your
proposed project manager, project superintendent, and project engineer.
2.
Project Approach. Please describe your approach and methods for carrying out the Project.
Please discuss your company’s unique qualifications for the Project, including successful
experience with any local school projects and lease-leaseback projects. Please also discuss
how your firm would develop an Initial Proposal and Final Proposal for the Project. Include
a list of up to three (3) subcontractors your firm has worked with for each of the major
trades included in the Project.
3.
Financial Information. Provide the following financial information about your firm:
•
•
A current report from any commercial credit rating service, such as Dunn and
Bradstreet or Experian.
A letter from a California admitted surety or insurance company stating the
bonding limit for both payment and performance bonds which can be applied to
this Project.
6
•
•
A letter from an insurance company indicating ability to provide insurance along
with applicable, maximum limits of coverage.
Current value of all work the firm has under contract presently.
4.
Questionnaire. Provide your firm’s answers to the questionnaire attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
5.
References. List at least three and no more than five public agency projects completed by
your firm in the past five (5) years. The College is particularly interested in California
community college and K-12 public school projects. List the name, title, and contact
information for a person employed by the owner of each listed project during project
construction. Such references should be familiar with your firm and your work on the listed
project. The selection committee will contact references prior to the Phase II selection.
Phase II
The selection committee will issue an invitation to selected contractors to participate in Phase II.
Phase II contractors must attend the Mandatory Meeting, scheduled for June 13, 2013.
Additionally, Phase II contractors must submit an Initial Proposal in the manner required below.
Finally, Phase II contractors must participate in an interview on July 22 or July 23, 2013.
A.
Mandatory Meeting
Phase II contractors attending the Mandatory Meeting will have the opportunity to discuss the
Project with the Architect and College staff.
B.
Requests for Information
After Phase II contractors have been selected by the College, Phase II contractors are encouraged to
submit Requests for Information (“RFIs”) both prior to and after the Mandatory Meeting. RFIs will
be accepted from Phase II contractors from June 5, 2013 until 5:00pm on July 2, 2013. Responses
to RFIs and oral inquiries made before, during, or after the Mandatory Meeting will only binding on
the College if issued by the Architect in a formal written addendum to the Contract Documents.
Contractors may not, and should not, rely on any information that is not memorialized in such an
addendum or that is provided by any party other than the Architect. College staff will not respond
to RFIs or informal inquiries.
C.
Initial Proposals
Each contractor’s response to Phase II of this RFQ/P process should be clear, concise, complete,
well organized, and demonstrate the respondent’s qualifications, ideas, and ability to work together
with the College and its Architect and other consultants. An original [+ six (6) copies] of the
response must be provided, with no more than 30 single-sided pages in total length. All
respondents are requested to follow the order and format specified below. Please tab each section
of the proposal to correspond to the numbers/headers shown below.
1.
Response Cover and Cover Letter
7
The Phase II response should include a cover sheet, including the title “RFQ/P Phase II Initial
Proposal,” as well as the due date, and the name, address, fax number, and the telephone number of
responding firm (or firms if a proposal is submitted by a joint venture or association). In addition, a
cover letter should be provided, including the following:
2.
•
The signature of a person with authority to act on behalf of and bind the firm, and a
statement indicating the firm’s interest in entering into the Contract.
•
A summary description of the Initial Proposal, including a preliminary estimate of
contract price.
•
A clear and unambiguous statement that the contractor guarantees that the total
contract price contained in any Final Proposal submitted by the contractor will be
within five percent (5%) of the contract price contained in the Initial Proposal.
•
A detailed statement describing how the contractor intends to help the College achieve
its local participation goal, as defined above.
Price Proposal and Potential Subcontractors
Phase II contractors are required to include in their Initial Proposals a preliminary breakdown of the
total cost for the completion of the Project work. The Initial Proposal shall additionally include at
least three (3) subcontractors, including at least one local subcontractor, as defined above, for each
trade from which the respondent intends to solicit quotes. Quotes from the listed subcontractors are
not required to be submitted with the Initial Proposals.
3.
Any Requested Changes to the Contract
The College intends to enter into the Contract in substantially the form attached hereto, and is not
willing to entertain any substantive changes to the Contract. However, the College will consider
limited changes proposed by any contractor selected to participate in Phase II. Any changes that a
contractor wishes to propose should be included with Initial Proposal. The College will review any
proposed changes received from the respondents with legal counsel. Any changes that the College
makes at the request of any contractor shall be incorporated into the form of Contract for all
respondents. At the interviews scheduled for July 22 – 23, 2013, the College will provide each
candidate with a final form of the Contract, and will review with the candidates any changes the
College has made since the date of this RFQ/P. The College will not consent to changes to the
Contract requested after July 23, 2013, including changes requested by the contractor ultimately
awarded the Contract.
D.
Interviews
The College will review all Initial Proposals and contact responding contractors to schedule
interviews on July 22 – 23, 2013. Contractors should be prepared to discuss and provide any
requested additional details to any information submitted.
8
Phase III
Following the submission of Initial Proposals, the Board will consider the recommendation of the
selection committee of at least two contractors who will be invited to submit Final Proposals,
including value engineering analysis.
Each Final Proposal should be clear, concise, complete, well organized, and demonstrate
respondent’s qualifications, ideas, and ability to work together with the College and its Architect
and other consultants. An original [+ six (6) copies] of the response must be provided, with no
more than 30 single-sided pages in total length. All respondents are requested to follow the order
and format specified below. Please tab each section of the proposal to correspond to the
numbers/headers shown below.
1.
Response Cover and Cover Letter
The Final Proposal should include a cover sheet, including the title “RFQ/P Phase III Final
Proposal,” as well as the due date, and the name, address, fax number, and the telephone number of
responding firm (or firms if a proposal is submitted by a joint venture or association).
In addition, a cover letter should be provided, including the following:
2.
•
The signature of a person with authority to act on behalf of and bind the firm, and a
statement indicating the firm’s interest in entering into the Contract.
•
A summary description of the Final Proposal, including the total final price.
Final Proposal
In the interest of minimizing the expenditure of funds for the construction of the Project, each
contractor submitting a Final Proposal shall solicit competitive bids from appropriately licensed
subcontractors and materials suppliers in a manner that fosters competition for each scope of work
included in the Project. Unless the College otherwise directs in writing, each contractor shall ensure
that it obtains at least three (3) competitive bids from subcontractors, including at least one local
subcontractor, as defined above, for each trade component of the Project (including each trade
component that the contractor proposes to undertake with its own forces, unless the College directs
otherwise). Contractors shall inform all bidders that the College will not be a party to any contracts
for construction services executed by the contractor and selected subcontractors. The Final
Proposal shall include a listing of proposed subcontractors with associated breakdown of trade
values to the College for the College’s review. In addition, at the College’s request, the contractor
shall provide the College with full, unredacted documentation regarding the bids or competitive
quotes received by the contractor.
The Final Proposal shall state a proposed Contract Price, supported by a detailed breakdown of all
Project costs, including but not limited to, quotes from at least three (3) subcontractors for all work
to be subcontracted, separately stated costs for overhead, profit, general condition costs and fees,
insurance costs, bonding costs, and a three percent (3%) contingency amount, as required by the
Contract Documents. The Final Proposal should additionally include any suggested alterations
9
resulting from the contractor’s value engineering analysis, providing information regarding the
specific change, the effect to the scope and schedule, and the resulting change in cost. No item or
portion of Work not identified in the Final Proposal shall be deemed included in the Contract Price
set forth in the awarded Contract.
3.
Value Engineering Analysis
Each Final Proposal shall include a value engineering analysis. The value engineering analysis
should include a detailed and thoughtful evaluation of the goals and requirements for the Project,
and the manner in which these goals and requirements can be met while achieving greater cost and
scheduling efficiency for Project. Such an analysis may include, but is not limited to, alternatives in
design concepts, materials, and methods. Each suggested alteration should include a narrative
description of the change in scope and the effect on the Project schedule and Project cost.
General Information
Addenda: The College reserves the right to cancel or revise this RFQ/P in part or in its entirety.
Respondents interested in receiving such addenda, and in making a response to this RFQ/P, shall
provide an email address for receipt of such addenda to [Damon Felice] at [Hartnell College, 411
Central Avenue, Salinas, California 93901] by May 15, 2013. If the College cancels or revises the
RFQ/P, only respondents who have submitted contact information will be notified by addenda.
Inquiries: Any questions concerning this RFQ/P or the selection process may be directed to
[Damon Felice]; telephone: [ 831-770-7044]; email: [ info@felice-consulting.com]. Replies
involving any substantive issues will be issued by addenda and mailed to all parties recorded by the
College as having received the RFQ/P documents. Only questions answered by formal written
addenda will be binding.
Non-Discrimination: The College does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, age, ancestry, medical condition, disability, gender or sexual orientation in consideration
for an award of contract.
Costs: Costs of preparing a proposal in response to this RFQ/P are solely the responsibility of each
respondent.
Prevailing Wages: Respondents are advised that this Project is a public work for purposes of the
California Labor Code, which requires payment of prevailing wages. These rates are set forth in a
schedule, which may be found on the California Department of Industrial Relations website at
www.dir.ca.gov. Any entity to which the Contract is awarded must pay the prevailing rates, provide
payroll records when required, post copies thereof at the job site, and otherwise comply with
applicable provisions of state law.
Bonding: The entity to which the Contract is awarded will be required to furnish a Payment Bond
(Material and Labor) in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the contract award amount
and a Performance Bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the contract award
amount, each in the form attached to the Contract.
10
Project Labor Agreement: The College will not require that the contractor selected for the Project
enter into a Project Labor Agreement, and a contractor’s willingness to enter into such an agreement
shall not be a criteria for selection. The contractor selected for the Project may, in the contractor’s
discretion, enter into a Project Labor Agreement.
Limitations: This RFQ/P does not commit the College to award a contract, to defray any costs
incurred in the preparation of a proposal pursuant to this RFQ/P, or to procure or contract for work.
The College reserves the right to waive any irregularities in the proposals received pursuant to this
RFQ/P, or in the process outlined herein for selection of a contractor for the Project.
Public Records: Responses and proposals will be opened privately to avoid disclosure of the
contents to competing respondents prior to and during the selection process. However, responses
may be public records under California law, and may, at the College’s discretion, be released to
members of the public upon request at each selection phase and following the award of the
Contract. Information provided for purposes of this RFQ/P is for potential qualification and
selection on this Project only, and satisfaction of any or all requirements herein, does not amount to
prequalification for any other College project.
11
Exhibit A - Questionnaire
Each respondent must answer all questions on the following Questionnaire under penalty of perjury
and submit the completed Questionnaire with its proposal or the proposal may be rejected as nonresponsive. Responses to the questions below may be included in the space directly below the
question or included on a separate sheet of paper that must be attached to the document. Every
question must be responded to and all questions answered “yes” must be explained.
Any omission of requested information may result in an automatic rejection of the response
submitted by the contractor. Any material misrepresentation shall result in the automatic rejection
of the response submitted by the contractor. If any information submitted by a contractor becomes
inaccurate after submittal, contractor must immediately notify the College and provide in writing
any updated information.
This document is not a prequalification questionnaire and financial statement as provided for in
Public Contract Code Section 20651.5 and thus may be subject to public disclosure. All
information provided in this document will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law.
1.
How long has your organization been in business in California as a contractor under your
present business name and license number?
2.
Respondents must hold a General Building Contractors License, Class B, which is current,
valid, and in good standing with the California Contractor’s State License Board. Provide
the following information for each license held:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name of license holder exactly as on file
License Classification
License Number
Date Issued
Expiration Date
Whether license has been suspended or revoked in the past 5 years (if so, please
explain)
3.
Has your organization ever been licensed in California under a different name or license
number? If yes, please list all the name(s) and license number(s).
4.
Is your organization connected with other organizations as a subsidiary, parent, holding or
affiliate? If so, please explain.
5.
Has your organization completed any California community college or university
construction projects in the past five years? If so, please indicate owner name, project
type(s), constructed values, dates, names of owner contacts, and architect and engineer
contacts. Please indicate if any of these projects were performed under a lease-leaseback
contract.
6.
Has your organization completed any construction projects under the auspices of the
Division of the State Architect in the past five years? If so, please indicate the owner name,
12
project type(s), constructed value, dates, names of owner contacts, and architect and
engineer contacts. Please indicate if any of these projects were performed under a leaseleaseback contract.
7.
Has your organization ever failed to complete a public construction contract in the past five
years? If so, please explain.
8.
Has your organization ever failed to complete a public construction contract in the past five
years within the authorized contract time? If so, please explain.
9.
Has your firm been assessed liquidated damages on a public construction project in the past
five years? If so, please explain.
10.
What is your current total bonding capacity?
11.
What is your current available bonding capacity?
12.
Has your organization been unable to obtain a bond or been denied a bond for a contract in
the past five years? If so, please explain.
13.
Has your organization ever defaulted on a contract forcing a surety to suffer a loss? If so,
please explain.
14.
Has your organization declared bankruptcy or been placed in receivership in the past five
years? If so, please explain.
15.
Has your organization received a notice of default, or notice of intent to terminate, on a
project in the last five years? If so, please explain.
16.
Has your organization’s contract on a project been terminated or canceled by the owner in
the last five years? If so, please explain.
17.
Is your organization currently involved in litigation related to a construction project? If so,
please explain.
18.
Has your organization been involved in litigation in the past five years related to a
construction project? If so, please explain.
19.
Are there currently any liens/stop notices for labor and/or materials filed against your
organization? If so, please explain.
20.
How many stop notice enforcement lawsuits against your organization have been lost or
settled by the organization in the past five years? Please explain.
21.
How many construction-related claims, complaints, and/or cross-complaints has your
organization filed in court in the last five years? Please explain.
13
22.
How many construction-related claims has your organization arbitrated in the last five
years? Please explain.
23.
In the past three years, how many unresolved change orders resulted in a claim filed by your
organization? Please explain.
24.
Has any employee, individual, or entity filed a complaint in the past five years against your
organization with the California Contractors License Board? If so, how many were filed and
how were the complaints resolved?
25.
In the past three years, has any action for back wages been filed against your organization
with the California State Department of Labor Standards Enforcement for failure to pay
prevailing wages? If so, please explain.
26.
In the last five years, has any insurance carrier, for any form of insurance, refused to renew
the insurance policy for your firm? If so, please explain.
27.
Has your firm, or any of its owners, officers, or partners ever been found liable in a civil
suit, or found guilty in a criminal action, for making any false claim or material
misrepresentation to any public agency or entity? If so, please explain.
28.
Has your firm, or any of its owners, officers, or partners ever been convicted of a crime
involving any federal, state, or local law related to construction? If so, please explain.
29.
Has your firm or any of its owners, officers, or partners ever been convicted of a federal or
state crime of fraud, theft, or any other act of dishonesty? If so, please explain.
30.
If your firm was required to pay a premium of more than one per cent for a performance and
payment bond on any project(s) on which your firm worked at any time during the last three
years, state the percentage that your firm was required to pay, and provide an explanation.
31.
During the last five years, has your firm ever been denied bond credit by a surety company,
or has there ever been a period of time when your firm had no surety bond in place during a
public construction project when one was required? If so, please explain.
32.
Has CAL OSHA cited and assessed penalties against your firm for any “serious,” “willful”
or “repeat” violations of its safety or health regulations in the past five years? If so, please
explain.
33.
Has the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited and assessed penalties
against your firm in the past five years? If so, please explain.
34.
Has the EPA or any Air Quality Management District or any Regional Water Quality
Control Board cited and assessed penalties against either your firm or the owner of a project
on which your firm was the contractor, in the past five years? If so, please explain.
35.
How often do you require documented safety meetings to be held for construction
14
employees and field supervisors during the course of a project?
36.
List your firm’s Experience Modification Rate (EMR) (California workers’ compensation
insurance) for each of the past three premium years:
Current year: ____________________
Previous year: ____________________
Year prior to previous year: ____________________
37.
Within the last five years, has there ever been a period when your firm had employees but
was without workers’ compensation insurance or state-approved self-insurance? If so,
please explain.
38.
Has there been more than one occasion during the last five years on which your firm was
required to pay either back wages or penalties for your own firm’s failure to comply with the
federal or state prevailing wage laws? If so, please explain.
39.
At any time during the last five years, has your firm been found to have violated any
provision of California apprenticeship laws or regulations, or the laws pertaining to use of
apprentices on public works? If so, please explain.
40.
Are you a local contractor, as defined in this RFQ/P? If so, please explain how your
organization meets the College’s requirements for local classification.
15
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Administrative Procedure 2740
Board Education and Professional
Development
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. I.
Status
Action
Reference
Strategic Priorities – 3, 4
Accreditation Standard – IV.B.1.f.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The Board of Trustees reviewed and discussed AP 2740 at its development meeting on April
16, 2013. In general, administrative procedures do not require Board of Trustees approval.
However, it is recommended that for administrative procedures that directly relate to board
member activity, the Board of Trustees take action to approve such administrative procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the board approve Administrative Procedure 2740, Board
Education and Professional Development.
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
AP 2740
Board Education and Professional Development
References: EC 72423, Accreditation Standard IV.B.1.f.
The following education and professional development guidelines have been developed to
facilitate the professional development of Trustees and to keep Trustees informed and upto-date on issues affecting California Community Colleges.
1. Conference Attendance
A. All trustees are encouraged to attend two (2) major conferences, workshops, or
seminars annually. When multiple Trustees attend one event, an effort should be
made to attend as many different workshop sessions as appropriate and to avoid
duplication of attendance.
B. The Board President, elected at the December Organizational Meeting, shall be
encouraged to attend the Community College League of California (CCLC) Board Chair
Workshop (typically in January).
C. Any newly elected or appointed Trustee shall be encouraged to attend any workshop
sponsored by CCLC that has a focus for new Trustees.
D. The Student Trustee shall be encouraged to attend at least one conference annually
that includes professional development activities specifically for student Trustees.
E. Any member of the Board of Trustees elected to the California Community College
Trustees (CCCT) Board shall be encouraged to attend all functions, meetings, and
conferences that include the work of the CCCT Board.
F. Any member of the Board of Trustees elected to the Association of Community College
Trustees (ACCT) Board of Directors shall be encouraged to attend all functions,
meetings, and conferences that include the work of the ACCT Board.
G. All Trustee travel is subject to approval of the Board of Trustees (Ed Code section
72423). As part of the budget development process for the District, the Board of
Trustees will annually review expenditures for conference attendance and will take
action to establish a budget for the subsequent academic year. This action will be
taken no later than May each year. Any expenditure beyond the budgeted amount
will require separate action by the Board of Trustees.
H. Trustee travel authorization and expense reimbursement procedures shall conform to
District policies and procedures.
2. Orientation/Mentoring of New Trustees
A. Following the seating of new board members in December of election years, the Board
President shall solicit a veteran Trustee to serve as a mentor for each new Trustee
(including the student Trustee). The veteran and new Trustees are encouraged to meet
at least quarterly and give a brief report about such meetings at the subsequent Board
meetings.
B. Necessary materials for such orientations will be supplied by the Superintendent/
President’s office.
Page 1 of 2
C. The veteran and new Trustee are encouraged to discuss topics such as, but not limited
to:
1. Roles and responsibilities of board members
2. Authority of the board
3. Brown Act
4. Board meeting protocol
D. The veteran and new Trustee are encouraged to participate in activities such as:
1. Tours of all District locations
2. Attendance at campus events (e.g., student awards ceremonies, performing
arts events, speakers, athletic events, etc.)
3. Introductions to local community boards, elected officials, and community
leaders
3. Local Workshops
To enhance Trustee expertise and effectiveness, the Board of Trustees shall consider
sponsoring at least one local workshop annually to be presented by a representative of
the Community College League of California, the State System Office, the Accrediting
Commission, or other agency and/or organization deemed to be appropriate for board
development.
4. Other Professional Development Activities
A. Regularly scheduled board development study sessions will provide opportunities
for Trustees to learn about Hartnell College programs, services, and activities and to
learn about issues and developments affecting Hartnell College.
B. A resource library will be maintained in the Superintendent/President’s Office, and
Trustees are encouraged to spend time reviewing books, newsletters, and publications
pertaining to their role on the governing board. Trustees are encouraged to make
recommendations about materials to be added to the library.
C. Trustees are encouraged to become competent in computer skills in order to
enhance communications and enable the acquisition of information pertaining to
issues affecting the District.
D. Trustees are encouraged to research and review reports, announcements and other
items posted on websites, including, but not limited to, the Hartnell College website,
the California Community College Chancellor’s Office website, the CCLC website, the
ACCT website, and the ACCJC website.
E. Trustees are encouraged to develop and deliver topical workshops at conferences of
professional organizations.
See Board Policy 2740, 2735
Approval Date:
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
2013-14 Budget for Board of
Trustees Travel
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
May 7, 2013
Number
VI. J.
Status
Action
Reference
Strategic Priorities – 3, 4
Accreditation Standard – IV.B.1.f.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Per AP 2740, the Board of Trustees will establish a travel budget for the next academic year no
later than May of the current year.
The Board of Trustees reviewed and discussed AP 2740 at its development meeting on April
16, 2013 and also discussed a suggested annual dollar amount ($3,000) for each board member
to utilize for board education and professional development.
RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the Board of Trustees approve a travel budget of $24,000
for 2013-14 in support of board member's education and professional development.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
Construction Update
Area
Facilities, Operations & Asset Management
Prepared by: Joseph Reyes, Director
May 7, 2013
Number
VII. A.
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Each month, the Board of Trustees receives an oral and written report on current design, planning, and
construction projects. Completed projects are removed from the report and current activities are updated
monthly. The construction consultant and district manager are available at the meeting to answer
questions
RECOMMENDATION
None, no action required by the Board of Trustees
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
VII. B.
Financial Statements
Area
Status
Office of Administrative Services
Prepared by: Alfred Muñoz,
Vice President
Information
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.B.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
Financial statements of district funds for the period ending March 31, 2013 are attached for
information.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
Title
May 7, 2013
Number
VII. C.
Budget Update
Area
Office of Administrative Services
Prepared by: Alfred Muñoz,
Vice President
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standard – III.D.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
Provide Trustees updated budget information over the term of the fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
None, no action required by the Board of Trustees
5/1/2013
BUDGET UPDATE
AS OF
3/31/2013
BUDGET UPDATE 3/31/2013
Actual
Budget
%
Revenue $19.0 million $32.4 million
59.0%
Expense $23.5 m
69.0%
$34.1 m
Revenue Under Expense (deficit) $4,334,112 @ 3/31/2013
Revenue Under Expense (deficit) $1,928,052 @ 2/29/2012
1
5/1/2013
BUDGET UPDATE 2/28/2013
2011-12
2012-13
Diff
Revenue $23.2 million $19.0 million $4.2 million
Expense
$25.4 m
$23.5 m
$ 1.9 m
Cash
$4.7 m
$4.3 m
$ 0.4 m
R
Reserve
$6
$6.3
3m
$4
4.4
4m
$1
1.9
9m
Apport.
$9.1 m
$ 4.5 m
$ 4.6 m
CASH FLOW
Cash Balance 2/28/13
Receipts:
Property Taxes
Student Receipts
Apportionment
Other
Expenditures:
Payroll and Benefits
Vendor Disbursements
Cash Balance 3/31/13
$ 5,983,401
861,567
22,419
731,234
91,738
2
2,289,490
289 490
1,067,653
$ 4,333,216
2
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Substantive Change Proposals
Number
VII. D.
Area
Academic Affairs & Accreditation
Prepared by: Stephanie Low
Vice President (Interim)
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priority – 1, 5 and 6
Accreditation Standard – II. A.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The Accrediting Commission requires community colleges to submit Substantive Change
Proposals under four conditions: 1) New Programs are created; 2) New Certificates are created;
3) when 50% or more of a program can be offered through distance learning; and, 4) New
location (campus or center). In 2012, the Accrediting Commission approved the Associate
Degree in Spanish and a certificate in Agriculture and Food Safety, but requested revisions to
other proposals.
At the March 18, 2013 meeting of the Committee on Substantive Change of the Accrediting
Commission approved the revised Substantive Change Proposal from Hartnell College for the
Respiratory Care Practitioner program.
RECOMMENDATION
None, no action required by the Board of Trustees.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
First Reading Board Policy 6800,
Safety
Number
VII. E.
Area
Human Resources/Administrative Services
Prepared by: Terri-Jean Pyer, Associate
VP Human Resources
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priority – 4
Accreditation Standards – III. A. and B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The District wishes to create a policy on Safety that is aligned with best practices of community
colleges to provide for the safety of employees, students, and guests. This is the first reading of
this policy.
The policy has received approval from the District’s Safety Committee, a committee whose
membership includes faculty and staff (CSEA, L-39, confidential, supervisors, and managers)
from all three-campus sites. It has been reviewed favorably by the Executive Cabinet and by
the Resource Allocation Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
None; first reading.
HARTNELL COLLEGE
BP 6800
Safety
Reference: 49 C.F.R., Part 40; 49 C.F.R, Part 655; Title 8, Section 3203; 29 C.F.R. 1910.101 et
seq.; California Health & Safety Code Section 104420; CSEA-HCCD Collective
Bargaining Agreement Article 22; L-39-HCCD Collective Bargaining Agreement
Article 19.
The Superintendent/President shall establish administrative procedures to ensure the safety of
employees and students on District sites, including the following:
•
•
•
•
Compliance with the United States Department of Transportation regulations implementing
the Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991. Specifically, the District
shall comply with the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and, if
applicable, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Compliance with these policies and
procedures may be a condition of employment.
Establishment of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program in compliance with applicable
OSHA regulations and state law. These procedures shall promote an active and aggressive
program to reduce and/or control safety and health risks.
Establishment of a Hazardous Material Communications Program, which shall include
review of all chemicals or materials received by the District for hazardous properties,
instruction for employees and students on the safe handling of such materials, and proper
disposal methods for hazardous materials.
Prohibition of the use of tobacco in all public buildings.
See Administrative Procedure 6800
Adopted:
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Administrative Procedure 6800, Safety
Number
VII. F.
Area
Human Resources/Administrative Services
Prepared by: Terri-Jean Pyer, Associate
VP Human Resources
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priorities – 4
Accreditation Standards – III. A. and B.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
AP 6800, Safety, is the implementing procedure for Board Policy 6800, Safety.
AP 6800 contains legally required procedures as well as procedures that represent best practices
in college safety, researched and written by the District’s Safety Committee.
The procedures were written and approved by the District’s Safety Committee, and they have
been reviewed favorably by the Executive Cabinet and by the Resource Allocation Committee.
HARTNELL COLLEGE
AP 6800
SAFETY
References: Labor Code Sections 6300, et seq., and 6302(h); California Administrative Code,
Title 8 Section 3203; Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.8; Penal Code Sections
273.6; 626.9; 626.10; and 12021
Responsibilities:
The Superintendent/President has the final authority and responsibility in all matters of safety.
All employees have the responsibility to follow safety rules, to report unsafe conditions, and to
refrain from creating unsafe conditions.
The District Facilities Department shall operate and maintain a health and safety program which
includes the identification, reporting, and mitigation of all District-wide safety concerns. The
Director of the Facilities Department coordinates with the Chief Human Resources Officer in
serving on the District Safety Committee, whose meetings shall address District concerns
related to risk management and employee health and safety. Appropriate reports shall be filed
and maintained.
The District safety program shall include promulgation and implementation of procedures to:
1. Promote safe conditions in all District offices, classrooms, meetings spaces, and other
facilities.
2. Remove obstructions to the safety and security of all personnel and of all District
facilities.
3. Periodically review and update the District’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program
(IIPP) and Hazardous Materials Communication Plan (HMCP).
4. Coordinate with the District’s Incident Command System emergency preparedness
team.
5. Facilitate SWACC Property and Liability Inspection Reporting.
Definitions:
Prevention. Prevention activities increase awareness and minimize the potential for crisis in the
workplace. Training is essential for all staff to learn how to recognize early warning signs, so
that appropriate intervention can be provided for identified areas of conflict in the workplace.
Crisis or Conflict. Crisis or conflict constitutes any inappropriate or unreasonable disruption that
interferes with the normal functioning of your work.
Page 1 of 4
Acts of Violence. Acts of violence include any physical action, whether intentional or reckless,
that harms or threatens the safety of self, another individual, or property. A threat of violence
includes any behavior that by its very nature could be interpreted by a reasonable person as
intent to cause physical harm to self, another individual or property.
Serious Injury or Illness. A serious injury or illness is defined in the Labor Code Section as "any
injury or illness occurring in a place of employment or in connection with any employment
which requires inpatient hospitalization for a period in excess of 24 hours for other than
medical observation or in which an employee suffers loss of any member of the body or any
serious degree of permanent disfigurement." Serious injury or illness does not include any
injury, illness, or death caused by commission of a Penal Code violation, except the violation of
Penal Code Section 385 (which refers to the operation of heavy equipment adjacent to
electrical wires), or an accident on a public street or highway.
Workplace. Workplace includes off-campus locations as well as college-sponsored activities
where faculty, staff, or student employees are engaged in District business or locations where
incidents occur as a result of the person's relationship to the college community.
Emergencies:
Any employee shall immediately report any situation that threatens life or property and
demands an immediate response of police, fire or medical personnel by first dialing 911 (8-911
from campus phones) and then notifying Campus Safety at 6888 (831-755-6888). (King City
employees must dial 9-911 for fire, police, ambulance; 6888 for campus security)
Equipment and Sanitation:
Should the duties of an employee require the use of equipment to ensure the safety of the
employee, the District shall furnish such equipment. Complaints related to health safety,
sanitation, and working conditions shall be forwarded to the Vice President of Administrative
Services for review and recommendation.
Crisis and Conflict Intervention:
Any employee experiencing a crisis, conflict, or any other unsafe work condition should
immediately contact his or her supervisor. The supervisor shall immediately notify Campus
Safety, the Facilities Department, and their immediate supervisor about any reported issues.
The employee will be provided consultation regarding resources available to resolve the unsafe
work condition.
It is the responsibility of all employees to immediately report threats, acts of violence, or any
other behavior which deliberately hurts or harms another person within the workplace to their
immediate supervisor and Campus Safety, and the appropriate Police Department. Such reports
will be promptly and thoroughly investigated as appropriate.
Page 2 of 4
Restraining Orders/Court Orders:
An employee shall notify local law enforcement of any restraining orders/court orders when
named as a plaintiff, and provide a copy of the order to Campus Security. It is strongly advised
that employees also notify the Human Resources Office of such documents.
In the event the supervisor is informed by an employee of a restraining order, the supervisor
will contact Campus Security to ensure they are aware of it, and that they have a copy of the
restraining order on file.
Safety Committee:
The Safety Committee should be comprised of at least the following members:
a. Director of Facilities & Operations
b. Chief Human Resources Officer
c. Director of Campus Safety, or delegate
d. Representatives from satellite campuses
e. Faculty Representative(s)
g. CSEA Representative(s)
h. L-39 Representative(s)
i. HR staff responsible for workers’ compensation and/or injury prevention.
To exercise its duties, the Safety Committee may:
a. Study the District accident reports provided by the Human Resources Office and inspection
reports provided by the Director of Facilities & Operations; and make recommendations for
corrective action to the Vice President of Administrative Services.
b. Make recommendations to the Vice President of Administrative Services concerning District
safety training programs.
c. Review the District Safety Policy and Procedures, IIPP and HMCP and, where necessary, make
recommendations to the Vice President of Administrative Services concerning their updating.
d. Meet at least quarterly during a calendar year.
Individual Responsibilities:
All employees shall support the total District Safety Program and shall follow all safety
directives to make their work area safe and accident-free.
Employees are provided work spaces and/or offices for their use during their work tenure at
Hartnell College.
• Offices, classrooms, and work spaces are to be used for conducting Hartnell College
business and functions relating to the mission of the College.
Page 3 of 4
•
•
•
•
•
The use of these offices and work spaces shall be consistent with the District’s Safety
Policy and Procedures, and consistent with the college’s mission.
College officials may enter offices, classrooms, and work spaces as needed, and reserve
the right to require individual employees to remove items from their offices for health
and safety reasons.
While employees may bring personal items and valuables to campus, these items
remain the responsibility of the employee. For security, employees should lock all
offices when not occupied, and keep valuables locked.
For the safety of employees and students, offices, work spaces, and classrooms have
doors with view windows. The glass should remain un-obscured by any blockage.
Lighted candles, incense, or similar items should not be used in any office or work space.
Area heaters must be approved in advance by the Director of Facilities and Operations.
Floors in offices, workspaces, classrooms, and hallways should be kept free from boxes and
other debris.
Electrical plugs and cords should be orderly and maintained so as not to present tripping
hazards or fire hazards.
Approved:
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Update on Full-time Faculty Recruitments
for 2013-14
Number
VII. G.
Area
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priority – 3
Accreditation Standard –III. A.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
The District currently has 8 full-time faculty positions in recruitment for 2013-14. Interest for
these positions has been extremely high and we had a total of 406 applicants for all positions.
Some positions had over 100 applicants. All recruitments have hiring committees that are in
various stages of the recruitment process. It is expected that all positions will be filled in time
for the start of the 2013 fall term.
Positions in Recruitment
Spanish
English
Math
Physical Education (also cross country and track/field coach)
Chemistry
Biology
Welding
Counselor/Career and Transfer Center Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION
None, no action required by the Board of Trustees.
AGENDA ITEM FOR BOARD MEETING OF:
May 7, 2013
Title
Organizational Structure for 2013-14 and
New Administrative Positions
Number
VII. H.
Area
Office of the Superintendent/President
Prepared by Willard Lewallen
Superintendent/President
Status
Information
Reference
Strategic Priorities – 3, 4, 5
Accreditation Standards - Eligibility
Requirement 5, III.A.2., III.A.6, IV.B
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
During 2012-13, the District has engaged in considerable activity surrounding the
organizational structure of the District. In November of 2012, a survey was distributed to
gather input on the organizational structure. The results of the survey (attached) were
communicated to the campus and posted on the college web site. Additionally, at the January
23, 2013 meeting of the Resource Allocation Committee the results of the survey were
presented and discussed. The two most dominant themes from the input were a need for
stability in the administrative organization and the need for additional management positions at
the middle management level.
Additionally, one of the preliminary recommendations delivered by the accreditation visiting
team (March 18-21, 2013) focused on the need for a stable infrastructure of sufficient
administrative personnel to better ensure a consistent level of services to support the
institution’s mission and purpose and the team recommended that the college expedite the
process to fill vacant and interim positions.
At the April 24, 2013 meeting of the Resource Allocation Committee, I presented the
organizational structure for the District that will begin July 1, 2013. I also presented some new
administrative positions that are necessary to support the organizational structure. The RAC
unanimously endorsed the organizational structure along with the new administrative positions
necessary to support the structure.
Position
DEAN OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
DEAN OF STUDENT AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF STUDENT AFFAIRS
Source of Funding
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
General Fund (already budgeted
2012-13, using funds allocated for
vacant Assistant to the President
position)
100% Foundation Funded
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY
INSTITUTE
The organizational charts effective July 1, 2013 are attached. The assignment and reassignment
of support staff positions related to this organizational structure are still under review and
consideration. Some possible changes will require negotiations with CSEA. After all aspects
of this part of the organizational structure are finalized, all employees affected will be notified.
The chart for Academic Affairs shows 3 Dean of Academic Affairs positions vacant, but there
is only 1 new position. The Dean of Academic Affairs (Nursing and Allied Health) is currently
filled on an interim basis by Debra Kaczmar and is in recruitment. The Dean of Academic
Affairs (Instructional Programs and Support) is currently filled on an interim basis by Dr. Brian
Lofman. This position will be put into recruitment immediately. The Dean of Academic
Affairs (Learning Support and Resources) is the only new dean position in Academic Affairs
and will be placed into recruitment immediately.
Until July 1, 2013, the existing organizational structure will be in effect. In some cases, due to
recruitment status of some administrative positions, final changes for some areas will occur
later than July 1, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
None, no action required by the Board of Trustees.
Summary of Survey of HCCD Organizational Structure
January 18, 2013
Introduction
In November 2012, faculty, classified staff, administrators/managers were given
a chance to respond to survey questions pertaining to Hartnell’s organizational
structure. 112 persons in total responded. The response rate breakdown is as
follows: 60 faculty members responded, representing 53.6% of all respondents;
30 members of the classified staff responded, representing 26.8% of all
respondents; and 22 administrators/managers responded, representing 19.6% of
all respondents.
Three notes of caution pertaining to the responses and response rate: First, the
survey summary provided by SurveyMonkey does not disaggregate constituency
group responses per question. Therefore, for none of the five survey questions
can one determine the response rate percentage pertaining to a particular
constituency group (though, concerning some individual responses, one might
infer a respondent’s group affiliation).
Second, although the aggregate summary information indicates that there were
114 respondents (112 who answered questions and 2 who skipped questions*),
the disaggregation of responses per question presents a more analytically
curious story. For example, for the first question—“What are the strengths of the
current organizational structure?”—44 out of 114 respondents (38.6%) answered
the question. Put differently, well over half of the respondents chose not to
answer this question. At first glance, one cannot determine the response rates
per group, per question. A disaggregation of data might yield useful information
concerning constituency group representation for each survey question
response.
Third, when one compares responses to a particular survey question with
responses to the other survey questions, one discerns that, for more than one
survey question, the same respondent provides similar, if not identical,
information. In some cases, the individual herself/himself indicates as much, by
offering comments such as “As state[d] previously” or “See second questions
[sic] response.” In these cases—and in others, as well—verification of survey
submission dates and times confirms the likelihood that the disparate question
responses are being offered by the same respondent. In short, what might at first
appear to be two distinct respondents’ indicating a recurring or common concern
(e.g.) is, instead, one respondent’s repeating her/his perception in more than one
survey question area.
2
Executive Summary
All of the above cautionary notes notwithstanding, two dominant themes emerge
from the survey: One, a number of employees express concern about instability
at the college. In particular, these employees express concern about what they
see as 1) instability marked or caused by unfilled and interim appointments and
2) instability marked or caused by too frequent changes to the college’s
organizational structure itself.
The second dominant theme might best be summarized as follows: The college
needs more administrators than it currently has, especially at the middlemanagement level, and, concomitantly, more evenly balanced administrative
duties, responsibilities, and areas of oversight than those in effect presently, as
well as clearer and more effective reporting lines than those presently in place.
Many of those expressing this perception suggest that the college hire more
deans and distribute the deans’ responsibilities evenly. Others recommend more
faculty quasi-administrative involvement (though these two recommendations are
not necessarily mutually exclusive). Epigraphically capturing the sum and
substance of this concern—and perhaps fittingly appearing at the end of the
survey document itself—one respondent’s comment is stated thus: “[T]here
should be an academic representative for each category of disciplines…. If it is
deans, then deans. If chairs are the option, then chairs.”
3
Summary of Survey Question 1: “What are the strengths of the current
organizational structure?” (44 out of 114 respondents answered the question; 70
skipped it.)
Several respondents note that personnel are “dedicated,” “caring,” and
“committed.” Interestingly—in light of the number of critical comments appearing
elsewhere in the survey that pertain to the organizational structure—some
respondents suggest that supervisory levels are appropriate and that reporting
lines are clear. Representative comments of this sort include the following:






“Seems most functions of the college are appropriately assigned to VP’s
and the right ones are reporting directly to the Supt/Pres.”;
“The dean structure is working much better than the pod system. It is easy
to identify the appropriate administrator”;
“There are clear lines of reporting in most areas. Administration is not too
heavy and classified staff have more responsible positions than in the
past”;
“Few elements in the structure between faculty and upper administration
so more direct interaction”;
“The roles are well balanced”; and
“Clearer reporting relationships with stated responsibilities.”
“Some respondents offer critical views. One such view refers to “multiple (failed?)
administrative reorganizations in the last 5 years [parenthetical question in the
original], and the recent compaction of four dean roles….” One respondent
suggests that there are “too MANY VP [sic] and directors” (caps in the original)
and that there are “missing faculty[,] especially in student services” (an apparent
allusion to the need for more faculty quasi-administrative involvement). Another
respondent remarks on her or his difficulty in commenting on organizational
structure strength “because there are too many empty positions or positions in
leadership with interim people in them.” Finally, one respondent remarks, simply,
“I think that our structure is confusing.”
Summary of Survey Question 2: “What are the weaknesses of the current
organizational structure?” (49 out of 114 respondents answered the question; 65
skipped it.)
Many of the comments center on perceived problems related to instability in
positions, the frequency of change, and uneven or otherwise problematic
divisions of labor. Representative comments are as follows:




“Rotating administrators and interim Deans”;
“From an internal viewpoint, the structure changes so frequently, it looks
like we don’t have a plan”;
“Academic affairs [sic] is badly understaffed. There seems to be a lot of
confusion about who is in charge of what”;
“Some of the administrators are overloaded. When all positions are filled,
the difficulties should resolve”;
4













“The alignment of disciplines into Divisions isn’t working”;
“The distribution of responsibilities for the deans and the disciplines that
they oversee is not balanced. In fact, it is grossly skewed. There needs to
be a redistribution of responsibilities within the divisions”;
“Uneven work loads among managers that result in gaps in services. Too
many people are serving on [sic] interim appointments”;
“The structure is not balanced”;
“While there are five deans indicated on the chart, in reality, two of them
are physically remote, and a third is relegated to the management of a
small area. The dean structure is too ‘flat’ and does not allow for timely
responses. The structure is also unbalanced”;
“[T]he representation of the instructional side of the college in the
administration is very small”;
“There are not enough administrators to adequately direct, plan,
supervise, and communicate between parties. [Rather than needing] more
Vice Presidents, the college needs more mid-level managers—deans and
directors to work with faculty and classified work groups”;
“It is unclear who is in charge of many tasks”;
“There needs [to be] an intermediate between Faculty and Administration,
perhaps a chairperson for each department to oversee day to day [sic]
matters”;
“We need to fill the Director of IT vacancies and assistant to the President
positions”;
“Having so many people in interim positions causes uncertainty amongst
those they supervise/manage”;
“Most employees will likely observe that there isn’t a sense of continuity or
permanence”; and,
“There are no leadership roles between individual faculty and deans who
are responsible for many disparate areas. We need to move in the
direction of having either department chairs, ‘pod’ leaders, or deans who
are focused on one academic division instead of several at once.”
Perhaps the following comment most pithily summarizes a number of the key
matters at stake here: “Who is in charge? Who is running things? Why is turnover
so high? I miss having deans.”
Several other comments touch upon themes that recur in the survey. For
example, there is some concern pertaining to a lack of shared governance. One
respondent notes that she/he “feels as if the management and faculty are taking
the lead in all decisions.” Elsewhere in the survey, however, respondents are
critical of what they see as a lack of administrative involvement in committee
work.
Summary of Survey Question 3: “Does the current organizational structure
contribute to institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples of how it
contributes to effectiveness.” (37 out of 114 respondents answered the question;
77 skipped it.)
5
Of the thirty-seven responses, 13 can be categorized as affirmative or as
“qualified affirmative.” Affirmative or qualified affirmative responses include the
following examples meant to illustrate the current organizational structure’s
contributing to institutional effectiveness:





“To be effective[,] like functions should be together and I think [that the]
org chart does that”;
“Re-establishing Deans/Directors/Supervisors under VPs allows for
greater work flow and increased effectiveness in response time and the
processing of paperwork”;
“[T]he chain of command is clear”;
“Having Deans for each area is better than having faculty chairs since
faculty already have too much on their plates. Also[,] it is good to have
someone to report to before reporting to the VP”; and,
“[E]veryone has clear roles.”
16 of the responses can be categorized as non-affirmative; interestingly, none of
the non-affirmative responses appears to be qualified. The following are
representative examples purporting to illustrate the current organizational
structure’s not contributing to institutional effectiveness:





“Unfortunately, this year the structure was changed AGAIN [caps in the
original] and it became more lean[,] which has placed more responsibilities
on the deans[,] thus making it more difficult to be involved in the facilitation
of [various important] processes…. There hasn’t been organizational
stability here since 2007 or so[,] and[,] without that stability[,] you can
almost guarantee that institutional effectiveness is going to be
jeopardized”;
“There are good people trying to hold this place together, but we are
burning people out”;
“[T]he spareness [sic] of the structure prevents the level of communication
and interchange necessary to make good decisions and plan ahead”;
“With more mid-level managers it could work. As it stands now, no”; and,
“No, it does not contribute to institutional effectiveness. In fact, it hinders it
as it does not allow for the streamlining of activities, efforts and decisionmakings [sic].”
At least one response offers what might be considered neither an affirmative nor
a non-affirmative view. The respondent offering this view suggests that the
current organizational structure is “not hurting institutional effectiveness, but it’s
also not contributing to success.” The respondent then offers these explanatory
remarks: “The management of faculty has improved with the reinstatement of
Deans, but the organization of disciplines does not provide adequate attention to
many disciplines.” The latter allegation—concerning the organization of
disciplines—represents a recurring focus of responses in the survey at large.
6
Summary of Survey Question 4: “Does the current organizational structure hinder
institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples of how it hinders
effectiveness.” (40 out of 114 respondents answered the question; 74 skipped it.)
Of the forty responses, 31 can be categorized as affirmative or as “qualified
affirmative.” Affirmative or qualified affirmative responses include the following
examples meant to illustrate the current organizational structure’s hindering
institutional effectiveness:












“The multiple signature requirements bogs [sic] down the process”;
“Because the core of the organization keeps changing every year (deans,
major departments, etc.)[,] it makes us less effective, I believe”;
“[W]e do not have enough systems in place to keep things running
smoothly…. Somehow we need to decide what is important, stick to it, and
not keep putting out fires. I don’t know how to do that when we are spread
thin”;
“[T]he Academic Affairs Org Chart demonstrate[s] that there are six
competing areas and does not point to how the core function of student
learning is supported by each of the area[s]. The areas appear
independent of each other”;
“[T]here [are] unevenness and gaps….[Whereas] some areas have lots of
directors or managers, they don’t have anywhere near equal
responsibilities…”;
“Our processes are not streamlined in all areas…. You have some
employees over loaded [sic] while others are not”;
“Planning is not evident. For several years, there has not been an
institutional researcher…. There is no infrastructure support for the
collecting and maintaining of data. There is not a culture of institutional
effectiveness at Hartnell”;
“With two [deans] off site and thus not available, two of them working
multiple jobs, and one of them the dean of the specialized Allied Health
area, there is very little instructional leadership on key committees related
to institutional effectiveness";
“[T]here is not enough support at the administrative dean level to support
everything that needs to be accomplished”;
“Lines of communication and supervision are unclear…. [Also, shared
governance and Academic Senate standing committees that] I serve
on…have administrators assigned, but the administrators never show up.
Often they are ‘double booked’ with meetings. Current organizational
structure has not allowed for meetings in my department”;
“The supervisors above the academic units have way too much to do to be
effective”; and,
“Having one person oversee many departments means we are relying on
administrative assistants to run things. There is less oversight. We don’t
have a clear chain of command."
7
Additionally noteworthy comments address perceived problems concerning
communication, as well as problems pertaining to a backlog of part-time faculty
evaluations and to perceived employee stress.
Only three responses were non-affirmative. Only two of these responses provide
corresponding illustrations of evidence; both are brief, and neither is altogether
clear:


“Helps disperse responsibilities; team-oriented”; and,
“[I]t will work if we follow the design[.]”
One other comment is worth noting: “Without support and guidance, departments
suffer academically[,] and the faculty of these departments are always adjusting
to a new individual vision.” This comment seems to allude to the perceived
problem of the college’s instability that is caused by, as the respondent notes
elsewhere, “[r]otating administrators and interim Deans” (see the first bullet point
for Q2).
Summary of Survey Question 5: “How might a different organizational structure
eliminate or improve on weaknesses in the current one?” (40 out of 114
respondents answered the question; 74 skipped it.)
A number of the comments in this section reiterate recurring themes in the
survey responses as a whole. For example:








“[A] Dean of Math, Science, [&] Engineering should be created and spun
off of the Dean of Instruction/Accreditation/Liaison”;
“We…need a research office…. [Also,] [w]e have had too much in the way
of interim positions over the last two plus years”;
“We need more deans”;
“Some people seem to be doing more than one job. Advertise for positions
to be filled, i.e. [e.g.?], VP of Academic Affairs”;
“Clear delineation of responsibilities”;
“A clearer organizational structure, one with deans and directors in place,
would provide for a more efficient and effective operation and instill more
confidence in all employees, and result in better service to students and
the larger community…. [Additionally,] [m]id-level managers would not
only attend meetings[,] but [also] encourage and allow classified
employees the opportunity to serve the college through participation in
shared governance”;
“Greater participation is needed. A larger body needs to be formed. Rac
needs to be restructured”;
“Develop a relational structure that would show the functional
dependencies and relationships of the critical areas of the College—
Academic Services, Academic Support Services and Institutional Support
Services—as they support the core function of the College, that is[,]
student learning and success. Consolidate deans [sic] responsibilities
8








[and] then create the equivalent of the assistant dean positions to monitor
and evaluate faculty”;
“The only way that we can function well without [having] more academic
deans seems to be to have faculty taking on a leadership/evaluative role
that is commonly done with academic chairs”;
“[W]e should consider designating department chairs”;
“More deans, with fewer areas”;
“[T]here should be an academic representative for each category of
disciplines…”;
“For academic purposes, a structure that provided for deans of the major
areas…provided a more responsive structure for faculty and staff (and,
therefore, students)…. We have had turnover in virtually all management
positions in the last five years. As a result, we are unstable and are limited
in leaders who have institutional history…. Furthermore, filling positions on
an interim basis contributes to a lack of permanence and commitment”;
“The organizational structure should reflect the priorities of the
institution…. A more evenly distributed structure would enable the college
to efficiently use resources, yet still get work done in key areas…. [Also,]
the instructional deans’ responsibilities are unevenly distributed”;
“Hartnell College does not need a top[-]heavy Administration”; and
“Having deans would allow departments to know who is in charge and be
confident that someone is overseeing how things are run…. Too few
people are running too many departments. It’s chaotic.”
Several respondents also comment on the need for improved communication,
and several indicate a need for stability pertaining to restructuring and
reorganizing per se. Concerning the latter issue, the following responses are
pertinent:


“Create at least a core organizational structure that isn’t going to change
(as other colleges do) to keep at least some consistency; and,
“[W]e need to stabilize the structure long enough to know what works and
what does not. With a stable structure, we will be able to develop
procedures and communication channels that are more efficient and
effective.”
*In the aggregate, the survey summary notes that 112 respondents “answered
question” [sic] and that 2 “skipped question” [sic]. For each question, the sum
total of responses is 114: e.g., 44 respondents are reported to have answered
question #1, and 70 are reported to have skipped the question. The sum total of
responses for each of the other questions is also 114.
Prepared by Richard J. Prystowsky
13 January 2013
Review of HCCD Organizational Structure
1. Which of the following best describes you as a respondent? (Not required to complete
survey)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Faculty member
53.6%
60
Classified staff member
26.8%
30
Administrator/manager
19.6%
22
Student
0.0%
0
answered question
112
skipped question
2
2. What are the strengths of the current organizational structure?
Response
Count
41
answered question
41
skipped question
73
3. What are the weaknesses of the current organizational structure?
Response
Count
45
1 of 28
answered question
45
skipped question
69
4. Does the current organizational structure contribute to institutional effectiveness? If yes,
provide examples of how it contributes to effectiveness.
Response
Count
36
answered question
36
skipped question
78
5. Does the current organizational structure hinder institutional effectiveness? If yes,
provide examples of how it hinders effectiveness.
Response
Count
38
answered question
38
skipped question
76
6. How might a different organizational structure eliminate or improve on weaknesses in
the current one?
Response
Count
40
2 of 28
answered question
40
skipped question
74
Page 3, Q1. What are the strengths of the current organizational structure?
1
I can't think of any.
Jan 7, 2013 3:59 PM
2
From what I have seen since the new president came in there has been more
communication as to what is going on at the campus.
Jan 7, 2013 3:56 PM
3
It does offer all members of the organization an oppurtunity to share their opinion
Jan 7, 2013 3:52 PM
4
New President and his attitude toward change. Faculty lead committees which
are still in progress.
Jan 7, 2013 3:49 PM
5
Some very dedicated teachers work at Hartnell.
Nov 9, 2012 4:30 PM
6
I think it's laid out well with few recommendations. Seems most functions of the
college are appropriately assigned to VP's and the right ones are reporting
directly to the Supt/Pres.
Nov 9, 2012 12:27 PM
7
Clear lines of supervisory/leadership within each department.
Nov 9, 2012 12:12 PM
8
Caring, committed people work for this college. Their dedication is evident in the
community, gaining support of our local employers, and citizens. The community
trusts our organizational structure is working.
Nov 9, 2012 9:01 AM
9
The business office seems to run well and is refreshingly transparent. Facilities,
too.
Nov 8, 2012 7:56 PM
10
The president has taken steps to communicate with the college community.
Nov 8, 2012 4:40 PM
11
Less upper management allows less complicated processes. It is much easier
to affect change and adopt practices more easily. The dean structure is working
much better than the pod system. It is easy to identify the appropriate
administrator.
Nov 8, 2012 4:35 PM
12
The areas of instruction have been very well defined. Student Services and
Support Services have been reorganized so there are career ladders for staff.
There are clear lines of reporting in most areas. Administration is not top heavy
and classifed staff have more responsible positions than in the past.
Nov 8, 2012 1:18 PM
13
There are a lot of dedicated passionate people who give of themselves tirelessly
to make things work. They care about the present and the future of the college.
They look for solutions, and they prepare for meetings and do their part and then
some. They often even mentor others along the way.
Nov 8, 2012 11:20 AM
14
There are multiple levels of management so that checks and balances are in
place that keep administrators' decisions consistent. For the instructional side,
the Dean positions are vital in order to make the faculty evaluation and schedule
building workloads reasonable, and to be sure that faculty involvement continues
in these important tasks.
Nov 8, 2012 9:37 AM
15
The Org Chart represents the management structure and the hierchacy of
authority within the College. Strongly depict the line of authority and governance
of the College.
Nov 7, 2012 9:54 PM
16
Most important services are represented by senior level management so that
they can get appropriate attention. Also, those managers have the requisite
Nov 7, 2012 5:59 PM
4 of 28
Page 3, Q1. What are the strengths of the current organizational structure?
knowledge and abilities to lead their areas.
17
Few elements in the structure between faculty and upper administration so more
direct interaction
Nov 6, 2012 5:15 PM
18
I do not see any strengths of the current structure.
Nov 6, 2012 1:12 PM
19
After multiple (failed?) administrative reorganizations in the last 5 years, and the
recent compaction of four dean roles, plus the VPAA roles into the responsibility
of just two people, it is difficult to find a strength. One thing that is a possible
strength of the structure is that the Dean of Instruction and the VPAA have so
many responsibilities, there is little potential for micro-management. Another
possible strength is that the structure is relatively flat and that can be a good
thing, enabling cost savings. However, one of the advantages of a flat
organizational structure can be a lack of bureaucracy and I’m not sure we have
realized that advantage.
Nov 6, 2012 12:43 PM
20
We have some excellent people here, but the structure is creating a great deal of
stress.
Nov 6, 2012 11:26 AM
21
It shows the roles well defined
Nov 5, 2012 9:37 PM
22
I really don't know much about this as I was just hired.
Nov 5, 2012 8:54 PM
23
It is good to have Deans back again.
Nov 5, 2012 1:07 PM
24
It's lean.
Nov 5, 2012 12:24 PM
25
Not much.
Nov 5, 2012 10:16 AM
26
Very few strengths, if any, and many more challenges. We all know something
about everything
Nov 5, 2012 9:09 AM
27
1. Location of Hartnell is is a strength, with satelite access in east Salinas etc.
makes higher education, learning easily accessible to the community. 2 Hartnell
has remedial courses to help all prospective students prepare for higher
learning, and use this as a steping stone to achieve goals and future dreams
with support. 3. Hartnell's atmosphere is accepting, supportive, and is committed
to reaching out to those new to the idea of college. 4. Hartnell faculty teach
students to take charge of their future, through education by dreaming about
what that future would entail, and how to make a plan to achieve this dream into
a reality.
Nov 5, 2012 9:04 AM
28
Our new president exhibits strength and positive change - something our
campus needs!
Nov 5, 2012 8:54 AM
29
* The roles are well balanced * Everyone in the structure play an important role
Nov 5, 2012 8:44 AM
30
too MANY VP and directors and missing faculy especially in student services.
Nov 5, 2012 8:36 AM
31
That our faculty, staff, and administrators have the best interests of our students
as their top priority.
Nov 5, 2012 8:32 AM
32
The current president seems to be progressing and making an effort for the
Nov 5, 2012 8:27 AM
5 of 28
Page 3, Q1. What are the strengths of the current organizational structure?
"right" reasons. I feel like he has the potential to bring Hartnell College through
some tough times.
33
Open to free flow of ideas. Respect for each members ideas and expression.
Nov 5, 2012 6:38 AM
34
Clearer reporting relationships with stated responsibilities.
Nov 5, 2012 6:04 AM
35
It is known (in the past things would change and it would have been a secret). It
is hard to comment on it because there are too many empty positions or
positions in leadership with interim people in them.
Nov 4, 2012 8:43 PM
36
Commitment and leadership abilities of many organizational leaders. Pres, Inst
VP, IT VP, KC, VP Stud Services - Superb
Nov 4, 2012 6:46 PM
37
Our new President/Superintendent has demonstrated a genuine interest in the
daily activities of the college.
Nov 4, 2012 6:40 PM
38
Nursing has a "place" at the table ( with a dean of nursing and allied health)
Nov 4, 2012 6:10 PM
39
Helps to locate departments within the department and personnel. Possibly able
to click on a specific individual to link to email or helplink.
Nov 4, 2012 5:04 PM
40
I think our structure is confusing.
Nov 4, 2012 5:00 PM
41
This isn't really a strength of the structure itself, but the fact that it's clearly
documented in any easy-to-find location on the web site is welcome.
Nov 4, 2012 4:53 PM
6 of 28
Page 3, Q2. What are the weaknesses of the current organizational structure?
1
There are not enough administrators to adequately direct, plan, supervise, and
communicate between parties. Instead of more Vice Presidents, the college
needs more mid-level managers--deans and directors to work with faculty and
classified work groups. A lot of resources are expended in some areas, while
minimal amounts are spent in others. Mega-divisions should be broken down
into smaller groups. As the importance and reliance on data increases for SLO
assessment, and decisions relating to full-time faculty hiring, faculty need access
to a full-time, permanent institutional researcher for consultations. Another
weakness of the current organizational structure is that there are some academic
disciplines that have no full-time faculty. Who will conduct, assess, and plan for
improvements relating to Student Learning Outcomes for these disciplines?
Who will conduct and take the lead for Program Review in these disciplines?
Jan 7, 2013 4:04 PM
2
In some like Matriculkation committee where a major part of its function is about
counseling there are no counselors on it.
Jan 7, 2013 3:52 PM
3
The structure is not balanced. You have many areas where your Management
lack the skills and don't have the experience. People always willing to pass the
responsiblity to others. No processes. Time management.
Jan 7, 2013 3:46 PM
4
The choices made as to who assumed responsiblity in the new management
positions were poor choices on many levels. We don't have the leadership that
is needed and we don't have the knowledge and understanding of the
community college system. The distribution of responsiblities for the deans and
the disciplines that they oversee is not balanced. In fact, it is grossly skewed.
There needs to be a redistribution of responsibilities within the divisions.
Jan 7, 2013 3:44 PM
5
Rotating administrators and interim Deans.
Nov 9, 2012 4:30 PM
6
As the fundraising arm of the college, the Hartnell Foundation is excellent at its
main responsibility of raising funds for the College. However, as a separate
entity from the College, they should not be responsible for running educational or
academic programs with little or no shared governance oversight from faculty,
deans, etc.
Nov 9, 2012 3:08 PM
7
Accreditation should be responsibility of VP of AA not a dean. Where is UPS our
security dept, shouldn't it be responsibility of Support Operations VP? Or I
missed it on the chart. Is HR appropriately under Support Operations, seems it
should report directly to Supt/Pres considering it works with the whole college,
unions and negotiates the contracts. VP of Support Opns would supervise few
areas but still the responsibility of this division is huge. It's the responsibilities of
the division that require a VP level.
Nov 9, 2012 12:27 PM
8
Several positions still vacant but otherwise well-structured.
Nov 9, 2012 12:12 PM
9
From an internal viewpoint, the structure changes so frequently, it looks like we
don't have a plan. Hard for employees to be effective in an every changing
environment when the reasons for the changes of the organizational structure
are not evident.
Nov 9, 2012 9:01 AM
10
Academic affairs is badly understaffed. There seems to be a lot of confusion
about who is in charge of what. We have many millions of dollars in grantfunded activity, both privately funded and federal grants. The Foundation Office
Nov 8, 2012 7:56 PM
8 of 28
Page 3, Q2. What are the weaknesses of the current organizational structure?
should,be running the private grants and is doing both. If we are going to seek
grants aggressively, we need to infrastructure to do it properly. Generally, too
much turnover and not enough infrastructure. Not enough planning and thinks
are not given a chance to gel.
11
All employees still do not know who is overseeing certain areas or where people
have moved to.
Nov 8, 2012 4:40 PM
12
Some of the administrators are overloaded. When all positions are filled, the
difficulties should resolve.
Nov 8, 2012 4:35 PM
13
Staff do not feel included in decisions made at the college. Shared governance
does not work, (even though this will be reviewed), currently it feels as if the
management and faculty are taking the lead in all decisions.
Nov 8, 2012 1:18 PM
14
The names of the departments and deans keeps changing about once a year.
This has been the standard for at least the last 7-8 years. We need more
consistency so that it's easier for students to located specific departments and
specific employees and not confuse them every time they return for the new
year. Also, this will save a lot of money on employees having to reprint their
business cards and other stationary as well as door plaques and other signage.
Nov 8, 2012 11:32 AM
15
The rate at which things move. The fact that conclusions are drawn, but the next
week the topic is debated again if it isn't the conclusion wanted by one person or
area. (Maybe because we do not do enough to announce when the conversation
is taking place or to anncounce that a choice was made by a shared process.)
But I hate the doing it over again and spinning wheels feelings I get when things
happen like that. I also feel that there is a lot of work to do, so many of those
wonderful persons listed above are exhausted and worn out and we need to get
others involved.
Nov 8, 2012 11:20 AM
16
The alignment of disciplines into Divisions isn't working. There's no clear
leadership for career technical education disciplines that are not part of
Advanced Technology, which are ADJ, Allied Health & Nursing, AOD, BUS,
Digital Arts, and ECE. Second, part-time faculty are not being evaluated. There
is a critical need to create a time line to get them all evaluated, especially new
adjuncts in their first semester teaching at Hartnell.
Nov 8, 2012 9:37 AM
17
Does not show the relations between areas and how they support the core
mission of the College. Lack of another layer of academic management to
ensure sufficient evaluation of faculty performance No apparent evidence of
Institutional Assessment
Nov 7, 2012 9:54 PM
18
Uneven work loads among managers that result in gaps in services. Too many
people are serving on interim appointments.
Nov 7, 2012 5:59 PM
19
The two main academic administrators appear to be so overwhelmed by the
number of duties they have and seem unfamiliar with the diverse areas they are
responsible for that decisions seem arbitrary and made without proper input by
faculty, students or community.
Nov 6, 2012 5:15 PM
20
There is limited support for faculty, and therefore, instruction. While there are five
deans indicated on the chart, in reality, two of them are physically remote, and a
Nov 6, 2012 1:12 PM
9 of 28
Page 3, Q2. What are the weaknesses of the current organizational structure?
third is relegated to the management of a small area. The dean structure is too
"flat" and does not allow for timely responses. The structure is also unbalanced:
the Dean of Nursing has a limited number of departments under her purview
(EMT has only one course!); this could be a director position that reports to the
Dean of Math/Science while still meeting the BRN requirements. There are
examples of how responsibilities are misplaced or simply not listed: Accreditation
and curriculum should be shared among all deans and faculty (and staff, where
appropriate); PPA and SLO responsibilities are not even included. The
instructional area suggests that there are no PE faculty and that the College
actually has a Student Success Center. ACE and FACTS (which is not grant
funded as is depicted on the chart) appear to have the same weight as
Languages and Fine Arts; Health Services and Emergency Medical Tech are
also represented as a program, when in fact, there are only two HES courses.
Several grants (Title V CUSP and MESA) are instructional yet are housed in the
Foundation Office rather than under the direction of the Dean of Math and
Science where they belong as part of instruction.
21
Deans are quite distant from faculty, with little knowledge of what is happening in
any one department. With one dean also serving as VPAA and multiple
divisions (Social and Behavioral sciences, Math/Science/Engineering, PE)
collapsed under another, there is very little faculty-dean interaction and very little
of the support and advocacy that deans in the pre-2008 structure provided for
faculty. Also, the representation of the instructional side of the college in the
administration is very small. Instruction and academic counseling are our
purpose, yet the number of managers directly supervising instruction and
counseling is small compared to the total. Another weakness seen is that there
are instructional related programs (MESA and Title V CUSP grant) that are being
run out of the Office of Advancement and Development. These two programs
are intimately related to instructional programs. They entail curriculum
development/redesign, articulation, student support/tutorial services, and
financial support for courses and labs in STEM. These should be overseen by
the dean of math and science or, at worst, the VPAA. In addition, there is one
person who is reporting to the Foundation and the VP of Student Services. Both
functions, School to College partnerships and K-16 Bridge are directly related to
student services. The dual supervisor problem would easily be solved by
connecting both of these functions under the student services umbrella.
Nov 6, 2012 12:43 PM
22
Communication and clarity are the two greatest weaknesses as I see it. We have
lost a great deal of good people and "institutional memory" in recent years. The
feeling by many is that we are in a perpetual state of chaos and uncertainty.
Communication has been ineffective. A stable departmental structure does not
exist to provide effective communication. In its place, we have an over-reliance
on mass email that cannot separate the wheat from the chaff. It is unclear who is
in charge of many tasks. The challenge to complete simple things is
unreasonably complex. If it is hard for me as a full-time faculty member, I can
only imagine how intimidating this place must be to our students when anything
goes wrong for them.
Nov 6, 2012 11:26 AM
23
There needs an intermediate between Faculty and Administration, perhaps a
chairperson for each department to oversee day to day matters.
Nov 5, 2012 9:37 PM
24
I really don't know much about this as I was just hired.
Nov 5, 2012 8:54 PM
10 of 28
Page 3, Q2. What are the weaknesses of the current organizational structure?
25
We need to fill the Director of IT vacancies and assistant to the President
positions. Also, the Grant Manager position should have a greater role in the
college and more support staff since grants are a major source of funding for the
College.
Nov 5, 2012 1:07 PM
26
People are spread too thin to adquately respond to issues, plan ahead, or
communicate in a timely and effective manner.
Nov 5, 2012 12:24 PM
27
We seem to be top heavy with too many vp and no deans. To many divisions
under VP's. A lack of vocational education for the community that will not go on
to higher ed.
Nov 5, 2012 12:12 PM
28
The current organizational structure does not give enough support at the
administrative dean level with less than 2 deans to serve the entire institution.
There needs to be more deans to support different divisions appropriately.
Additionally, there needs to be someone at the administrative level who can
support distance ed. This is an area that has even less support than different
academic areas. There needs to be more focus on this.
Nov 5, 2012 10:16 AM
29
Lines are blurred and way too many people are involved in issues that are not of
their business. Not sure that a college of our size needs so many VPs. And I
see little in terms of qualified people filling the ranks. It is not about how a last
name sounds, it is about what a person can actually do, and how qualified they
are. We have promoted some people for the wrong reasons, like length of
service, or ethnic background, or hardship in life. So the structure is a mirror
image of our societal mayhem, not that of a professional institution.
Nov 5, 2012 9:09 AM
30
1. I do not believe any weakness should deter student plans or interfere with
educational needs.
Nov 5, 2012 9:04 AM
31
Unfortunately, there is a lack of decision making in our organization; many
people do not want to take action and assume responsibility but rather stand
behind the phrase, "it's not my job." This has to stop. Having so many people in
interim positions causes uncertainty amongst those they supervise/manage.
There is a disregard for professional courtesy amongst many employed by the
college.
Nov 5, 2012 8:54 AM
32
* Some people are carrying various roles which sometimes leaves them less
time to handle all issues that may arise in a timely manner
Nov 5, 2012 8:44 AM
33
Too to heavy Faculty Chairs would be much more viable and less expensive.
Nov 5, 2012 8:36 AM
34
1. Communication: communicating with each other as well as communicating to
the campus community. 2. Not having a clear organizational structure as yet.
Nov 5, 2012 8:32 AM
35
Separation of similar programs. There are many similar programs being ran
effectively at Hartnell. However, if you bring the programs together you would
maximize the effort and efficiency from all involved.
Nov 5, 2012 8:27 AM
36
Experience. Time will improve this weakness.
Nov 5, 2012 6:38 AM
37
Inequities among what folks actually do at the same level of staff and
administrative position. Inability to hold folks accountable may be a key reason
Nov 5, 2012 6:04 AM
11 of 28
Page 3, Q2. What are the weaknesses of the current organizational structure?
why the institution lags behind others: certain basic features, such as
standardized procedures, and following best practices, simply do not exist in
some cases. Without accountability, the institution essentially relies on those
who make a greater commitment and care about the quality of the work they do.
38
There is either not enough leadership above the academic units or too much
(Nursing has a Dean?).
Nov 4, 2012 8:43 PM
39
Too many changes Misalignment between conceptions and names of divisions
and purpose/urgency of divisions Organize according to educational and
vocational promise. If there are jobs, degrees and financial support accorded to
specific discipline areas, organize accordingly.
Nov 4, 2012 6:46 PM
40
Most employees will likely observe that there isn't a sense of continuity or
permanence. Current members of the administrative structure have
demonstrated that they cannot defend many of their administrative decisions or
diffuse conflict. This has caused a significant perception of lack of vested
interest in the success of the organization.
Nov 4, 2012 6:40 PM
41
The people in the current administrative positions are new to the job There are
many responsibilities for each administrative position
Nov 4, 2012 6:10 PM
42
Some need more detail within the department structure.
Nov 4, 2012 5:04 PM
43
Who is in charge? Who is running things? Why is turnover so high? I miss
having deans.
Nov 4, 2012 5:00 PM
44
The administrators are spread too think over the Divisions. It is not possible to
get quick or at least timely answers and feedback from the administrative level.
We have administrators with no or little experience in the subject areas for which
they are responsible.
Nov 4, 2012 4:53 PM
45
There are no leadership roles between individual faculty and deans who are
responsible for many disparate areas. We need to move in the direction of
having either department chairs, "pod" leaders, or deans who are focused on
one academic division instead of several at once.
Nov 4, 2012 4:53 PM
12 of 28
Page 3, Q3. Does the current organizational structure contribute to institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide
examples of how it contributes to effectiveness.
1
With more mid-level managers it could work. As it stands now, no.
Jan 7, 2013 4:04 PM
2
No. It actually wastes everyone's time and energy.
Jan 7, 2013 3:59 PM
3
Having all of Student Services in one same building is very helpful to the
students because they don't have to be running around looking for offices.
Jan 7, 2013 3:56 PM
4
No, I see alot of difficulty by those in VP and Dean administrative positions who
are over whelmed and having difficulty handlying the job. Many irons- in-the -fire
and limited follow-through. I have seen some very unprofessional behavior in
meetings by upper management who became frustrated and when professional
behavior was needed to control the situation.
Jan 7, 2013 3:49 PM
5
NO! We will get there, I'm sure.
Jan 7, 2013 3:46 PM
6
Overall, I would say no. Up to now there hasn't been much planning to speak of.
We don't have a strategic plan and our educational master plan is outdated. We
did have PPA plans completed by faculty and some of the student service areas.
Administrative units are still working on getting that going. Student Learning
Outcomes are defined for almost all areas both instructional and noninstructional and assessment is occuring at different levels. But this seems to be
in large part due to the efforts of faculty. Facilitation of these processes by
management has been minimal at best. Last year when we had the new
structure implemented was the closest we have come to having management
level support for these processes. Unfortunately, this year the structure was
changed AGAIN and it became more lean which has placed more
responsibilities on the deans thus making it more difficult to be involved in the
facilitation of these processes. And actually, to address the question itself, the
elephant that is in the room is that the "current" structure is yet just the newest
one of 3 or 4 that has occurred in the last 5 years or so. There hasn't been
organizational stability here since 2007 or so and without that stability you can
almost guarantee that institutional effectiveness is going to be jeopardized.
Jan 7, 2013 3:44 PM
7
I think so. To be effective like functions should be together and I think org chart
does that. Also I am considering the faculty views on this and I think they would
agree. Personally I would want more faculty collaboration with administration
but it's not in CTA contract and guess we get that through committees.
Nov 9, 2012 12:27 PM
8
Re-establishing Deans/Directors/Supervisors under VPs allows for greater work
flow and increased effectiveness in response time and the processing of
paperwork. Simply having an organizational structure in place is an
improvement!
Nov 9, 2012 12:12 PM
9
Not so much the structure but the execution: more transparency about our
finances gives more of a sense of realism about what we can accomplish.
Shared governance is still evolving but more people have attempted to educate
themselves about our processes and are more engaged in dialogue and decision
making.
Nov 8, 2012 7:56 PM
10
Don't know yet as it still appears to be somewhat chaotic with offices moving,
people moving around or leaving, etc. Things still need to settle down.
Nov 8, 2012 4:40 PM
14 of 28
Page 3, Q3. Does the current organizational structure contribute to institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide
examples of how it contributes to effectiveness.
11
Separating Nursing and Allied Health has stregthened the programs by allowing
better use of personnel, equipment, and services. It has allowed more
opportunities to qualify for grants and has been an effective way to leverage
expenses.
Nov 8, 2012 4:35 PM
12
Not unless everyone has an equal say in decisions.
Nov 8, 2012 1:18 PM
13
It does when it is consistant. in 2008-2009 we made great strides towards
balancing the budget and getting the college on track with the shared
participation of many. But all the cuts made ongoing sustainability hard.
Nov 8, 2012 11:20 AM
14
It's not hurting institutional effectiveness, but it's also not contributing to success.
The management of faculty has improved with the reinstatement of Deans, but
the organization of disciplines does not provide adequate attention to many
disciplines.
Nov 8, 2012 9:37 AM
15
In some ways. For instance, having a VP-level position in charge of technology
who is well-versed and well-connected in the fields of informational and
administrative technology helps the college meet its academic and administrative
technology needs. This probably wouldn't be so possible with a lower-level
position devoted to this (which is common in many college structures).
Nov 7, 2012 5:59 PM
16
Not really as there seems to be a true bottleneck until last minute decisions as to
class offerings and staffing for sections suddenly appear.
Nov 6, 2012 5:15 PM
17
I do not think that the current structure supports institutional effectiveness.
Nov 6, 2012 1:12 PM
18
No.
Nov 6, 2012 12:43 PM
19
I do not believe that our current structure does contribute to institutional
effectiveness. There are good people trying hard to hold this place together, but
we are burning people out.
Nov 6, 2012 11:26 AM
20
Yes, the chain of command is clear.
Nov 5, 2012 9:37 PM
21
Having Deans for each area is better than having faculty chairs since faculty
already have too much on their plates. Also it is good to have someone to report
to before reporting to the VP.
Nov 5, 2012 1:07 PM
22
Not in its current configuration. Again, the spareness of the structure prevents
the level of communication and interchange necessary to make good decisions
and plan ahead.
Nov 5, 2012 12:24 PM
23
No
Nov 5, 2012 12:12 PM
24
No.
Nov 5, 2012 10:16 AM
25
No, it does not contribute to institutional effectiveness. In fact, it hinders it as it
does not allow for the streamlining of activities, efforts and decision-makings.
Nov 5, 2012 9:09 AM
26
Yes, the academic standards are in keeping with the University expectations.
Students are prepared to be able to compete with those at the University level.
To prove this the graduation of Hartnell students transfering to University's
Nov 5, 2012 9:04 AM
15 of 28
Page 3, Q3. Does the current organizational structure contribute to institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide
examples of how it contributes to effectiveness.
checked against those who complete a 4 year degree would be evidence of the
effectiveness of Hartnell education.
27
Yes, in that everyone has clear roles.
Nov 5, 2012 8:44 AM
28
NO
Nov 5, 2012 8:36 AM
29
It seems like we're getting the job done as needed, putting out fires as they
come up, but unable to take the time to put a strong, effective, structure in place.
Nov 5, 2012 8:32 AM
30
Yes, but I don't see the energy level rise to where it should be. Possible reason
may be under staffed?
Nov 5, 2012 6:38 AM
31
NO!
Nov 4, 2012 8:43 PM
32
Difficult to say as the current structure is new.
Nov 4, 2012 6:46 PM
33
I have not been involved enough to know how to answer this question
Nov 4, 2012 6:10 PM
34
Yes, shows that we are putting the effort to help those viewing our website.
Looks so much more organized.
Nov 4, 2012 5:04 PM
35
Maybe it costs less to run the college they way its being run now.
Nov 4, 2012 5:00 PM
36
No.
Nov 4, 2012 4:53 PM
16 of 28
Page 3, Q4. Does the current organizational structure hinder institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples
of how it hinders effectiveness.
1
Lines of communication and supervision are unclear. Who reports to who? Who
is in charge of counseling? Of the library? Who is the "chief instructional
officer?" What are all these "special" programs (TRIO, ACE, HEP, BSI, etc.)-who oversees these and how do they relate to the college and its mission?
Some faculty seem to report to multiple managers/deans/VPs? The committees
I serve on (shared governance and Academic Senate standing committees)
have administrators assigned, but the administrators never show up. Often they
are "double booked" with meetings. Current organizational structure has not
allowed for meetings in my department. This is November and there has not
been one department meeting yet. Adjuncts in my department have not been
evaluated in at least 15 years, even though accreditation standards expect that
adjuncts will be evaluated. The current organizational structure does not
enhance communication. A recent example is a key classified employee
resigned from my department and many employees did not find out until after he
left. The current organizational structure does not adequately support my
department. Institutional effectiveness is not enhanced by this lack of support.
Jan 7, 2013 4:04 PM
2
.
Jan 7, 2013 3:56 PM
3
No it will work if we follow the design
Jan 7, 2013 3:52 PM
4
Yes, the senior management or lack of is not moving this college forward as
needed. The experience is not there with the senior managment and the
professionalism is limited, so in difficult situations this behavior does not help
with closure of an issue and causes the faculty to wonder who is sailing this
boat.
Jan 7, 2013 3:49 PM
5
YES! Your VP's are on over load and can't seem to answer a simple question,
which causes a break in effectiveness. Our processes are not streamlined in all
areas, we work harder not smarter! You have some employees over loaded
while others are not. I would strongly recommend that we hire an evaluator to
review our labor effectiness in all areas, I bet this would help our budget. The
College needs to be ran more like a "Business"! If you belong to a particular
department, then you should be the "experts" in knowing your area, but that isn't
always the case in. Examples: A&R and FA don't answer calls! They were reorganized and I'm not sure how effective this was. The union negotiated
professional growth opportunities only for them? I don't feel this was correct!
The ACE program has so many issues where students have been promised so
many things and find out that it was not the case, the Hartnell community knows
about this, and what's being done? We continue to have the same person
leading that area, which sends a negative message to many of us on campus
that try to be engaged at work and do our part for a better work enviroment. I
understand that Managers have trainings but don't attend! Faculty attitude on
campus gives so much to talk about... which brings a negative moral to our
community, they act like they are better than everyone else and don't act like
professionals (yes, hard to fix that structure). They complain about everything!
Jan 7, 2013 3:46 PM
6
See above.
Jan 7, 2013 3:44 PM
7
Without support and guidance, departments suffer academically and the faculty
of these departments are always adjusting to a new individual vision. Classes
should have been made transferable years ago.
Nov 9, 2012 4:30 PM
18 of 28
Page 3, Q4. Does the current organizational structure hinder institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples
of how it hinders effectiveness.
8
Responsibilities of the class schedule, catalog, facilities should be directly under
the VP, it crosses all disciplines.
Nov 9, 2012 12:27 PM
9
Not to my opinion. Helps disperse responsibilities; team-oriented.
Nov 9, 2012 12:12 PM
10
The multiple signature requirements bogs down the processes. In some ways
this indicates a lack of trust and faith in the employee's ability to do their job in
accordance with Title 5 requirements.
Nov 9, 2012 9:01 AM
11
Academic affairs: administrators are overwhelmed, avoidable mistakes are made
(e.g., schedule). When decision makers are overwhelmed, they tend to make
decisions hastily or not at all. Communication is a time consuming undertaking.
When people are overwhelmed, they don't take the time to communicate.
Nov 8, 2012 7:56 PM
12
Somewhat as titles have changed that does not fit the forms for signature. Time
is wasted. For example who is the Associate VP?
Nov 8, 2012 4:40 PM
13
Maybe look at the programs under PE? Some may be better served under
different areas.
Nov 8, 2012 4:35 PM
14
Because the core of the organization keeps changing every year (deans, major
departments, etc.) it makes us less effective, I believe. I just heard that we are
changing "Support Operations" to "Administrative Services" soon. It was the
"Business Office" for years then became "Support Operations" a few years ago.
Now it's changing again. To me, this is inefficient and wasteful if it's not a priority.
It just adds unnecessary expense to departmental budgets.
Nov 8, 2012 11:32 AM
15
It hinders effectiveness because we do not have enough systems in place to
keep things running smoothy. It seems that we are always reworking how to do
things (payment of fee dats, add drop dates, book order dates, things like that
change.) it would be great if there was some calendar where everyone knew
what was coming when. It would help the new and old, full and partime alike and
administration too. Somehow we need to decide what is important, stick to it, and
not keep putting out fires. I don't know how to do that when we are spread thin. I
am trully hopeful and will be prayerful that the team doing the examining will
have ENOUGH time away to really reflect.
Nov 8, 2012 11:20 AM
16
Yes. The workload for the Dean of Instruction, S&BS/MSE/PE, prohibits the
evaluation of all full-time and part-time faculty in a timely manner.
Nov 8, 2012 9:37 AM
17
For example, the Academic Affairs Org Chart demonstrate that there are six
competing areas and does not point to how the core function of student learning
is supported by each of the area. The areas appear independent of each other.
Nov 7, 2012 9:54 PM
18
But, there still is unevenness and gaps. For instance, the VP of technology
(above) has too many direct reports to be as effective as possible. And while
some areas have lots of directors or managers, they don't have anywhere near
equal responsibilities, meaning that some programs are very well managed, with
lots of attention, and others are not.
Nov 7, 2012 5:59 PM
19
Students are confused and frustrated at the vague process by which the
schedule is constructed as are the faculty. The community is feeling shut out of
Nov 6, 2012 5:15 PM
19 of 28
Page 3, Q4. Does the current organizational structure hinder institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples
of how it hinders effectiveness.
the long and positive relationship it has had with the College.
20
The current structure does not facilitate institutional effectiveness. There does
not seem to be participation in the shared governance process by managers.
Committees do not regularly have academic managers in attendance, which
negatively impacts vertical communication. Division meetings do not appear to
be vehicles for discussion (of programs, outcomes, resource needs, etc.) but
merely a means for disseminating information that could be delivered in an email. Planning is not evident. For several years, there has not been an
institutional researcher. (Research has taken place, but the person in that
position did not have effective task direction.) The last planning document, the
2020 Vision, was researched and written by a consultant and mostly used as
window dressing. In fact, I believe that the “2020” part of the name was
intentionally used to mislead the campus and community to think the research
expanded beyond its time. Changes that will improve student success (such as
orientation, development of first-year ed plans) have not been institutionalized to
be effective. Program outcomes have just been developed for some service
areas, so therefore comparisons to any standards have not been assessed.
While evaluations of classified staff and faculty have been ongoing (although the
current infrastructure is not supportive of effective, fair faculty evaluations),
managers have not been evaluated nor held to any standards. Job descriptions
do not get revised, so positions are not necessarily representative of their duties.
Decisions that are data based are typically those where research is funded by
grants and not part of a sustainable college commitment. The structure under
which we are currently operating is based on circumstance and not planning.
There are inconsistencies, unequal distributions, and inaccuracies. This college
has undergone a series of organizational restructures, the first of which (about
five years ago) was designed to eliminate people rather than positions. For
approximately four years, we had little administrative guidance, where faculty
managed in roles designed for managers and directed the work of the college
with limited resources. It was recognized that the lack of academic structure (four
deans—two remote, and one over a limited area—and one Vice President of
Academic Affairs) was not effective, and a new structure was vetted among
constituents and implemented, albeit with mostly interim personnel. What
seemed to be ignored is that the people hired for the positions were interim, but
the positions themselves were board approved. The structure has returned to
one that hinders institutional effectiveness. There is a lack of communication.
Program planning and assessment discussions and a link to resource allocation
are not evident on a recurring basis. There is no infrastructure support for the
collecting and maintaining of data. Our data management software for curriculum
and program planning and assessment have been confusing and cumbersome,
even with a larger support staff than when these programs were originally
implemented. Any assessment programs have been “home grown” and difficult
to use for sustainable and easy-to-use data collection. There has been relatively
little management participation or support of these processes. The College does
not engage in meeting the accreditation standards as they are designed. There
is not a process on ongoing and systematic institutional processes and practices
that support improvement. There is a “scrambling” to produce the required
ACCJC self-evaluation document and evidence; it does not appear as though
our process for this evaluation is designed to improve the teaching and learning
at the College. There is not a culture of institutional effectiveness at Hartnell.
20 of 28
Nov 6, 2012 1:12 PM
Page 3, Q4. Does the current organizational structure hinder institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples
of how it hinders effectiveness.
21
The structure hinders institutional effectiveness. In the instructional areas there
is very little ability for the deans to support and lead the faculty in functions such
as assessment of course and program SLOs, program planning and assessment
(PPA) processes, assessment and analysis of core competencies, curriculum
planning and revision, or implementation of BSI action plans. How many of the
deans are participating in committee work on these areas? With two of them off
site and thus not available, two of them working multiple jobs, and one of them
the dean of the specialized Allied Health area, there is very little instructional
leadership on key committees related to institutional effectiveness. Related to
the issue of institutional effectiveness is the issue of customer service. The
current dean structure doesn’t provide for good customer service for our
students. When students have a form that requires the dean’s signature or a
question that the dean should answer, they are hard pressed to find someone
who is able to help them. Deans should available to their faculty and to the
students. With the current structure it seems that they are out of the office or too
busy.
Nov 6, 2012 12:43 PM
22
I truly believe that we are hindering institutional effectiveness. Our institution
exists to provide educational opportunities to the citizens of our community. With
that purpose in mind, I provide the following examples: (1) Due to budget
concerns, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on obtaining grant money.
To that end, we have been successful in many cases. Along with the grant
money comes our promises to deliver on NEW programs and procedures. The
grants also come with the administrative overhead. We do not even have our
basic programs in place, yet we keep spreading ourselves ever more thin.
Where is our tutorial center? Where are the remedial classes to develop reading
and writing skills so students may be successful in ENG-101 and ENG-1A?
Where is our promised "hands-on learning experiences" for our ag program? (2)
Many of our basic functions are being treated as an afterthought. For example,
outreach efforts occur in small pockets without any coordination. I frequently
hear complaints from our local high schools that "Hartnell has dropped the ball"
on them. Our high school contacts depend upon individuals at Hartnell rather
than a dependable "system" that is being comprehensively managed. (3)
Students often complain that there are not enough resources for tutoring,
counseling, and other support. Faculty often complain that students do not show
up to study sessions when provided. In my view, we have tried to plug holes with
small grant-funded projects. It is our responsibility to meet the needs of our
student population in a way that they will utilize. (4) We need in include adjuncts
in the process more effectively--in ways that will make this crucial component of
our faculty feel respected.
Nov 6, 2012 11:26 AM
23
Yes, see above.
Nov 5, 2012 12:24 PM
24
Yes, VP's are not effective. Instituting Deans and more full-time faculty bring a
more cohesive structure. Also, deans from faculty ranks bring institutional
memory. Hartnell has become a stepping stone for many in admin. A VP of
Technology, really?
Nov 5, 2012 12:12 PM
25
Yes, because there is not enough support at the administrative dean level to
support everything that needs to be accomplished.
Nov 5, 2012 10:16 AM
26
Yes our structure gravely hinders effectiveness Our business model is a lack of
Nov 5, 2012 9:09 AM
21 of 28
Page 3, Q4. Does the current organizational structure hinder institutional effectiveness? If yes, provide examples
of how it hinders effectiveness.
a model. This means that we are in effect ineffective because of duplication,
lack of foresight and inadequate experience.
27
Hartnell needs more fulltime opportunities for Adjunct's. Most Adjunct professors
have two or three educational jobs in order to meet financial obligations.
Nov 5, 2012 9:04 AM
28
YES! too to heavy.
Nov 5, 2012 8:36 AM
29
Is does hinder our effectiveness. One thing I notice is that everyone is stressed
and therefore not communicating well with each other, not giving each other the
benefit of the doubt as were are in a transitional phase.
Nov 5, 2012 8:32 AM
30
Yes. Managers/Directors should have the ability to sign for up to $5,000 on
documents that go to the business office. This would eliminate the need to
burden the Deans/VP's.
Nov 5, 2012 8:27 AM
31
No.
Nov 5, 2012 6:38 AM
32
Yes. The supervisors above the academic units have way too much to do to be
effective.
Nov 4, 2012 8:43 PM
33
Business processes in most areas are ponderous and do not respond in timely
manner. Examine steps to complete any single business, planning, approval
transaction and reduce steps.
Nov 4, 2012 6:46 PM
34
The Spring 2013 scheduling planning was the worst scheduling disaster in many
years. Succinctly, faculty was given about 24 hours to view and comment on the
schedule before it went final. This is not a reasonable vetting. Compare this
with the period of time when Hartnell used Pod Leaders and all users, faculty,
admin and PT faculty had 2-3 months lead time and many felt an ownership in its
production. This is not a problem with the organizational structure as it is the
organizational atmosphere, which comes down to trust. Unfortunately, this is as
hard an obstacle to overcome as a restaurant with a health inspection failure.
How does one restore trust? Transparency is not necessarily the answer, but
community is an important component.
Nov 4, 2012 6:40 PM
35
I have not been involved enough to know how to answer this question
Nov 4, 2012 6:10 PM
36
As mentioned above a few minor adjustments. Include additional staff, links.
Nov 4, 2012 5:04 PM
37
Yes! Having one person oversee many departments means we are relying on
adminstrative assistants to run things. There is less oversight. We don't have a
clear chain of command.
Nov 4, 2012 5:00 PM
38
Yes. See second questions response.
Nov 4, 2012 4:53 PM
22 of 28
Page 3, Q5. How might a different organizational structure eliminate or improve on weaknesses in the current
one?
1
A clearer organizational structure, one with deans and directors in place, would
provide for a more efficient and effective operation and instill more confidence in
all employees, and result in better service to students and the larger community.
Better, more timely communication, smaller meetings where there is time for an
exchange of ideas, not just announcements, would be a positive outcome of
smaller divisions. Administrator and classified participation on shared
governance committees instead of just the usual faculty members would be a
welcome improvement over the current situation. With adequate deans and
directors in place, hopefully they will understand and value the importance of the
committees and the key roles they play in community college governance. Midlevel managers would not only attend meetings but encourage and allow
classified employees the opportunity to serve the college through participation in
shared governance.
Jan 7, 2013 4:04 PM
2
If we could get some qualified, permanent administrators, it would be a vast
improvement.
Jan 7, 2013 3:59 PM
3
If we were to get someone that would treat all of their employees the same way
and have the character to face the problems that surge in the office and fix them.
Not have other classified think and act like they are the managers. Get
employees that want to do their jobs and not be rude the students and for all to
remember that WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE STUDENTS AND FOR THE
STUDENTS. IF IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF THEM NONE OF US WOULD HAVE
A JOB.
Jan 7, 2013 3:56 PM
4
We need to just find ways to encourage more employees to participate and trust
the system.
Jan 7, 2013 3:52 PM
5
Upper Management, one with clear direction and understanding of their jobs.
Working with faculty as support and helping move faculty in a colleaguel way
toward the ultimate direction of the college.
Jan 7, 2013 3:49 PM
6
By having Managers with experience and that are vested in the College
regardless if they are interim or not! Less stress, more structure will help have a
healthier work enviroment based on what was shared above. (The organizational
structure that we had back when Dr. Velau was here, I think was good and
balanced).
Jan 7, 2013 3:46 PM
7
I actually think that the organizational structure we had prior to 2007 was more
effective than anything we have experienced since. While that structure seemed
challenging at the time, hindsight is 20/20 and now I would be happy to go back
to a structure like that. We also need a research office! I am glad to see the
new hire in place and am hopeful that some of the new positions coming along
will attract qualified candidates who will stay for a while. We have had much too
much in the way of interim positions over the last two plus years. In addition,
responsibilities and accountability for accreditation processes such as program
planning, outcome assessment, curriculum revision, etc. need to live in the
management side of the house. There are many faculty who have been working
to move these processes forward but they do not have the authority to follow-up
with discipline faculty in the way that a dean or VP does.
Jan 7, 2013 3:44 PM
8
People should be properly vetted, from the top to the bottom. Educators,
Nov 9, 2012 4:30 PM
24 of 28
Page 3, Q5. How might a different organizational structure eliminate or improve on weaknesses in the current
one?
administrators and staff should not be brought in. Hire people the proper way
and consider faculty input.
9
Grants and programs relating to STEM (including Title V grants such as CUSP,
STP, and STEM) should report to the Math, Science, Engineering department
and to the VP of Academic Affairs. For example, the MESA program should also
report to the Math, Science, Engineering department and upward to Academic
Affairs (and possibly even Student Affairs in addition). At Cabrillo College,
MESA is under the VP of Instruction. See:
http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/Org_Chart2011.PDF To accommodate these
changes, a Dean of Math, Science, Engineering should be created and spun off
of the Dean of Instruction/Accreditation/Liaison. As in Cabrillo College, perhaps
the Advanced Technology programs can be combined into the STEM
department as well.
Nov 9, 2012 3:08 PM
10
I can't imagine trying to do another structure. Let's assure we have one this
time that lasts longer than a year and encompasses future changes in cc's.
Does this one look like most other CC's? Would be nice if cc's had similar
structures at all different sites.
Nov 9, 2012 12:27 PM
11
The structure is somewhat dependent upon who is in the position. If that person
leaves their position, everything changes. Without written policies and
procedures set to guide the institution, the organizational structure changes
every time someone new joins the organization.
Nov 9, 2012 9:01 AM
12
We don't simply need more administrators. But, in academic affairs, we do need
a well-thought-out approach in which faculty chairs (in appropriate roles) work
with administration in a mutually supportive way. We need more deans. If we
take on significant responsibility like securing large grants or developing
community education, that we develop the infrastructure to support it. We also
need well qualified people to serve in these positions. We also need training and
good communication to help them be successful in their jobs.
Nov 8, 2012 7:56 PM
13
Some people seem to be doing more than one job. Advertise for positions to be
filled, i.e., VP of Academic Affairs. It is recognized that money is a problem, so
why not make King City a director as before. It is hard to believe with all the
unemployment that we could not fill that position as a director.
Nov 8, 2012 4:40 PM
14
Create at least a core organizational structure that isn't going to change (as
other colleges do) to keep at least some consistency. Going from the titles such
as "divisions" to "pods" and now to "deans" is wasteful. I thought "divisions"
worked well with deans within the divsions until someone came up with the word
"pods" which makes absolutely no sense for an academic organization. What a
waste of time that all was a few years ago... a waste of taxpayer dollars (mine
and yours alike).
Nov 8, 2012 11:32 AM
15
Clear dilineation of responsiblities. Clear timelines of what is needed when,
Perhaps if we can't bring in more amin, then provide release time for faculty
leaderes. I also appreciate how much the communication is improving under Dr.
Lewallen's leadership
Nov 8, 2012 11:20 AM
16
If the structure continues to include five academic deans, at least one of them
Nov 8, 2012 9:37 AM
25 of 28
Page 3, Q5. How might a different organizational structure eliminate or improve on weaknesses in the current
one?
should be a Dean of Instruction, CTE programs. Curriculum & Instructional
Support doesn't need a Dean if the Vice President of Academic Affairs has
experience and expertise with California regulations. These activities can be
managed by the VPAA with a team of classified staff who have appropriate
professional development opportunities and adequate technological support. The
current instructional operations staff are extremely competent.
17
Develop a relational structure that would show the functional dependencies and
relationships of the critical areas of the College - Academic Services, Academic
Support Services and Institutional Support Services - as they support the core
function of the College, that is student learning and success. Consolidate deans
responsibilities then create the equivalent of the assistant dean positions to
monitor and evaluate faculty. Create an Institutional Assessment unit.
Nov 7, 2012 9:54 PM
18
The only way that we can function well without more academic deans seems to
be to have faculty taking on a leadership/evaluative role that is commonly done
with academic chairs. I understand that they have rejected this option, but at
what cost? When they don't participate in this way, it increases the divide of usthem, and justifies a debilitating victim mentality among some vocal faculty.
Nov 7, 2012 5:59 PM
19
Make the role of the two upper level administrators more that of facilitators and
less dictatorial.
Nov 6, 2012 5:15 PM
20
For academic purposes, a structure that provided for deans of the major areas
(Math and Science, Languages and Fine Arts, Social and Behavioral Sciences,
and CTE) provided a more responsive structure for faculty and staff (and,
therefore, students). Planning processes and results need to be transparent and
discussed. There needs to be better collaboration, communication, and
cooperation between student and academic affairs. There needs to be a culture
shift that will occur only when College personnel feel valued and respected. We
have had turnover in virtually all management positions in the last five years. As
a result, we are unstable and are limited in leaders who have institutional history.
(This is not to suggest that people should be retained in positions simply
because they have been at the college for a long time); in addition, the degree of
loss of qualified personnel has to be stemmed for us to gain stability at our
College. Furthermore, filling positions on an interim basis contributes to a lack of
permanence and commitment.
Nov 6, 2012 1:12 PM
21
The organizational structure should reflect the priorities of the institution. I
understand the need for cost savings and a lean structure. However, the current
structure seems heavily weighted away from instructional and counseling
leadership. These areas should be a major focus of the organizational structure.
A more evenly distributed structure would enable the college to efficiently use
resources, yet still get work done in key areas. In addition to uneven distribution
between academic and non-academic areas, the instructional deans’
responsibilities are unevenly distributed. Two of the deans have multiple jobs
that have been combined. The Dean of Instruction’s area has a large number of
full-time and adjunct faculty and active courses. The Dean of Languages and
Fine Arts includes programs critical to student success initiatives. Moving the
schedule, catalog, and instructional facilities functions into the VPAA office
where they reside at many other colleges would be a start toward making that
role more manageable. On the other hand, the Dean of Nursing and Allied
Nov 6, 2012 12:43 PM
26 of 28
Page 3, Q5. How might a different organizational structure eliminate or improve on weaknesses in the current
one?
Health has two active degree programs, a RCP program that hasn’t started yet
and has only one faculty member, and two Health Services courses (5 units
total). The Dean of Advanced Technology position also has very few full-time
faculty in the span of control. The number of students served by both areas is
small compared to the other dean areas as well.
22
First, we need to stabilize the structure long enough to know what works and
what does not. With a stable structure, we will be able to develop procedures
and communication channels that are more efficient and effective. Every faculty
member needs to be part of a departmental group that meets regularly. As it is,
there are so few ways to disseminate information other than email, and virtually
no way to discuss the information. Departmental groups should decide on a twohour block EVERY WEEK that will be set aside for faculty. No full-time faculty
should be scheduled to teach during this block. Monthly, the departmental group
may meet. On the other weeks, faculty have the opportunity, though not the
requirement, for collaborative activities. Why not make it the same time for all
full-time faculty campus-wide!
Nov 6, 2012 11:26 AM
23
As state previously, we should consider designating department chairs.
Nov 5, 2012 9:37 PM
24
The Grant Manager position should be under the Executive Director of
Advancement (not under the Controller) and have a greater role and support
system since grants are a major source of funding for the College.
Nov 5, 2012 1:07 PM
25
By restoring the old structure of academic deans, faculty and staff would have a
better opportunity to participate in shared decision-making and communicate
more effectively.
Nov 5, 2012 12:24 PM
26
More deans, with fewer areas. ATC seems to have too few areas. We also need
more vocational courses. Not all students are going to transfer and we need to
be more skills centered than transfer centered. It is our mission which dates back
to WW2 and the need to educate those who had little to no education and few
skills.
Nov 5, 2012 12:12 PM
27
With more deans in place, the different areas would all receive the support that
they require.
Nov 5, 2012 10:16 AM
28
1- 2 VPs: one academic to include student services and academic affairs,
whereas the other one oversees all administrative activities including HR, IT and
others. 2- 4 deans. Drop the assistant dean overseeing nursing and keep a
director. 3- Streamline IT and only keep effective and trained personnel. It goes
beyond the superficial administrative reviews to examining skills and
experiences. 4- Develop maintenance capabilities
Nov 5, 2012 9:09 AM
29
As an Adjunct I am not sure about this question.
Nov 5, 2012 9:04 AM
30
T follow above suggestions of eliminating administrative positions and stream
line organtzation we are one scollege district not a multiple one and further use
wisely categorical funding as well as money recieved fro being an hispanic
institution; grants that in my view are not serving the population that is
proclaming to serve!
Nov 5, 2012 8:36 AM
27 of 28
Page 3, Q5. How might a different organizational structure eliminate or improve on weaknesses in the current
one?
31
First, start with a clear organizational structure that is documented (charts).
Second, educate the administrators, staff, and faculty on what that structure is:
share information, be straight forward. Also, put the organizational structure
online, easily accessible, and let people know where and how to access it. It
should be a resource to go to rather than something to memorize. Keep the
online source up to date!
Nov 5, 2012 8:32 AM
32
The different levels of Management seem to be completely separate from the
pulse of the school. Deans and VP's are not "involved" but rather detached.
Hartnell College does not need a top heavy Administration.
Nov 5, 2012 8:27 AM
33
Greater participation is needed. A larger body needs to be formed. Rac needs
to be restructured.
Nov 5, 2012 6:38 AM
34
A structure that is based on empirical analysis of what folks actually do in their
jobs and a vetting of priorities so that focus is placed on key initiatives. Managers
need greater degrees of freedom to get things done, though it doesn't appear
that changing the organizational structure itself will contribute much to that.
Nov 5, 2012 6:04 AM
35
Better distribution of work load for the managers would make them more
effective.
Nov 4, 2012 8:43 PM
36
First, it would be wisest to incrementally clean the slate. That is, allow all at will
employees in temporary positions apply for the positions using our current hiring
practice. This would reduce the perception of biased selection. Second, many
recognize that the evaluation process in the campus cannot be taken seriously.
The academic and administrative evaluations are being done to meet a
requirement, not maintain the integrity of the institution. Third, there should be
an academic representative for each category of disciplines: Fine Arts, S&BS,
CTE, etc. If it is deans, then deans. If chairs are the option, then chairs. In any
case, an VP AA should lead this area. VP IT Should have a Operational
assistant, especially for Student Assistance and LRC areas.
Nov 4, 2012 6:40 PM
37
I am guessing that there will be a reduction in the number of administrative
positions to save money. Nevertheless, there needs to be someone to whom
faculty are accountable for a variety of things, for example, for program
evaluation.
Nov 4, 2012 6:10 PM
38
Like what has been created....just some minor changes needed.
Nov 4, 2012 5:04 PM
39
Having deans would allow departments to know who is in charge and be
confident that someone is overseeing how things are run. I don't know who is in
charge of things. Too few people are running too many departments. Its chaotic.
Nov 4, 2012 5:00 PM
40
A more horizontal, rather than vertical structure might help in getting more timely
responses to area problems.
Nov 4, 2012 4:53 PM
28 of 28
HARTNELL COLLEGE
Organizational Chart
GOVERNING BOARD
Assistant to the
President
(Vacant)
SUPERINTENDENT/PRESIDENT
Senior Executive
Assistant
Lucy Serrano
Dr. Willard Clark Lewallen
Executive Director of
Advancement
Vice President of
Information and Technology
Resources
Site Supervisor Campus
Security
Vice President of
Academic Affairs
Jackie Cruz
Matt Coombs
William Myers
(IVacant)
Dean of Institutional
Planning and
Effectiveness
(Vacant)
Vice President of
Administrative Services
Vice President of
Student Affairs
Alfred Muñoz
Romero Jalomo
Effective July 1, 2013
Hartnell College
Academic Affairs Division
2013-14
Dan Teresa
Director of
Athletics/
HED/PE
Class schedule;
Catalog;
Curriculum;
Instructional
Facilities;
Academic
Planning;
Enrollment
Management
Accreditation
Vacant
Vice President of Academic Affairs
(Accreditation Liaison Officer)
Vacant
Dean of Academic
Affairs (Instructional
Programs and
Support)
Math, Science
& Engineering
Title V-STP
(HSI STEM
Grant)
2011-2016
Vacant
Dean of Academic
Affairs (Nursing &
Allied Health)
Registered
Nursing
NSF-ATE
Principal
Investigator
2010-2014
Math &
Science
Institute
(in
collaboration
with
Advancement)
Carla Johnson
Director of HEP
Stephanie Low
Dean of Academic
Affairs (Instructional
Programs and Support)
Social &
Behavioral
Sciences
Library
Vocational
Nursing
Title V-STEM
2009-2014
Title VGavilan
Coop
2007-2012
Vacant
Dean of Academic
Affairs (Learning
Support and
Resources)
Health
Services Emergency
Medical Tech
Respiratory
Care
Practitioner
Academy for
College
Excellence
Basic Skills
Initiative
Tutorial Center
Community
Education
Foster and
Kinship Care /
DSES
SLOs
FACTS
Languages
& Fine Arts
Linda Taylor
Director of
CDC
Jon Selover
Artistic
Director, The
Western Stage
Administrative Support
Dr. Zahi Atallah
Dean of Academic
Affairs
(Advanced Technology
& Applied Science)
Agriculture Business,
Agriculture Industrial
Tech, Automotive,
Heavy Diesel Tech,
Computer Science,
Sustainable
Construction,
Sustainable Design,
Drafting, Welding
Molly Lewis
Director of
Community
Collaborative &
Articulation
Renata Funke
Dean of South County
Education Services
Academic
Classes and
Services for
South County
Management
and
Supervision of
King City
Education
Center
Distance
Education
Management and
Supervision of Alisal
Campus
Vacant
Director, Agriculture
Business &
Technology Institute
(2)
Effective July 1, 2013
Hartnell College
Student Affairs Division
Romero Jalomo
Division Admin. Assistant
Vice President of Student Affairs
Belen Gonzales
Mary Dominguez
Dean of Student
Affairs
(Enrollment Services)
(Vacant)
Dean of Student
Affairs
(Student Success)
Administrative
Assistant
Counselors (SSTF)
(Full & Part-Time)
(5 f/t; 8-10 p/t)
Secretary
1 f/t Vacant
Career and Transfer
Center Coordinator
/Counselor (4)
+ Job Placement
ASHC Advisor
Service Learning
Information &
Welcome Center
Student Ambassadors
Student Grievances
Student Discipline
Yvonne Carreon
Jessica Tovar
Financial Aid Lead
(5 f/t FA Spec;
2
f/t FA Tech)
+
Veteran’s Services
Enrollment Specialist
(4 f/t)
(1 p/t @ AC)
Irene Haneta
Enrollment Services
Lead
(1 f/t A&R Tech; 2
p/t; 2 f/t Evaluators)
+
International Student
Services
Clerical Assistant
1 f/t Vacant
(Vacant)
Director of Student Affairs
(Student Life)
Paul Casey
Director of
Student Affairs
(Categorical
Programs)
SSTF Coordination
School &
Community
Relations
Manuel Bersamin
Director,
SSS TRIO Program
(2p/t Counselors; 1
p/t clerical asst.)
DSPS
(1 f/t; 2 p/t)
Counselors#
2 f/t staff)
EOPS/CARE/
CALWORKS
(2 f/t Counselors)
Antonia Jaime
Classified Coordinator
(2 f/t staff)
Assessment Center
(SSTF)
(2- ¾ staff total)
Orientation & Counseling
Support (SSTF)
Clerical Assistant
Xochitl Carranza (1 f/t)
Data Technician*
Ariana Rodriquez (1 p/t)
Effective July 1, 2013
Hartnell College
Administrative Services Division
Al Muñoz
Vice President of
Administrative Services
Joseph Reyes
Director, Operations,
Maintenance &
Asset Management
Laura Warren
Administrative Assistant
Martha Suarez
Terri Pyer
Associate Vice
President of Human
Resources & EEO
Vacant
Controller
Administrative Asst.
VACANT
PT Clerical Asst.
VACANT
Maintenance Ops
Coordinator
Art Alvarado
Grounds Supervisor
Maint Specialist (4)
Grounds Staff (3)
VACANT
Purchasing Director
Wilfred Placido
Senior Accountant
Tammy Moreno
Systems Specialist
Monica Massimo
Alma Arriaga
Specialist
Louann Raras
Specialist
Administrative
Assistant
David Techaira
Joanne Ritter
Accountant
Purchasing Tech.
Utlity Worker (2)
Debra Pyle
Richard Haro
Pool Specialist (1)
Accounting Asst.
Dora Sanchez
Payroll Supervisor
Warehouse Tech.
Day Custodian (1)
DC Washington
Custodial Supervisor
Sharon Alheit
Grants Manager
Mike Cunnane
Cafeteria Manager
Custodial Staff
Cafeteria Staff
(15)
(5)
Damon Felice
Felice Consulting /
Construction Mgmt
Abel Del Real
Karen Martinez
Payroll Technician
Accounting Assistant
Patrick Mendez
Yolanda Barroso
Accounting Assistant
Mailroom/Switchboard
Kris Tina Summers
Lorena Nuñez
Cashier
Cashier
Nora Torres-Zuñiga
Technician
Effective July 1, 2013
Hartnell College
Information and Technology Resources Division
Matthew Coombs
Vice President of Information and
Technology Resources
Joanne Pleak
Division Administrative Assistant
& Facilities Scheduler
VACANT
Director of IT
Help Desk/Assist.
Administrative Assistant
VACANT
Director of Information
Technology Systems
Stephen Otero
Technology
Specialist
Kerry Gray
Programmer
Analyst Network
Computer Software
Tech Support
Novell/Windows
Email/Communication
Paul Chen
Technology
Specialist
Eric Price
Computer/Tele
Technician
Computer Software
Tech Support
Telephone Switches
Telecommunications
Jorge Isaias
Computer Lab
Coordinator
Bruce Brandt
Computer/Tele
Technician
Telecommunications
Wireless
Long Nguyen
Computer Lab
Coordinator
Juana Montelongo
Daniel Jimmeye
Multimedia
Technician
Abel Rodarte
VACANT
Sr. Programmer Analyst
Datatel
Data Warehouse
Institutional Reporting
Instruct. Technologist
Distance Education
Faculty Tech Training
Campus Tech Training
Al Grainger
Programmer Analyst
James Fitch
Web Master
Datatel
Counselor Scheduling
Room Scheduling
Website Management
Campus Portal
Digital Signage
Min Hu
Programmer Analyst
Datatel
MIS Reporting
VACANT
Programmer Analyst/
AV/Media
Effective
July 1, 2013
Hartnell College
Advancement and Development/Foundation Division
Foundation Board of Directors
Jackie Cruz
Executive Director of Advancement
Brenda Thrasher
Program Assistant
Andy Kreyche
Planetarium
Educator
Maggie MeloneEchiburu
NASA SEMAA Site
Director
Kaley Grimland
NASA SEMAA
Program Coordinator
Andy Newton
Director of Math & Science
Institute
Senior Advancement &
Development Officer
Vacant
Director of
Communications
Pat McNeill
Title V CUSP Activity
Director
STEM Programs
Facilitator
Student
Workers
Terri Ugale
Executive Assistant
Karen Hagman
Philanthropy Officer
Loyanne Flinn
Director of
Development
Kira Solivo
Bookkeeper &
Database Manager
Mike Thomas
Sponsored
Projects/Program
Developer/Director
Sustainable Design &
Construction
Cristina Westfall
Administrative
Assistant
Bronwyn Moreno
MESA Project
Coordinator
Melvin Jimenez
Program Manager
(CSIT-In-3) and
Internship
Coordinator
Angelica Meza
NASA SEMAA AEL
Coordinator
Effective July 1, 2013