Descriptive Summary
City College of San Francisco has provided educational programs, support services and opportunities for hundreds of thousands of students over the years to achieve postsecondary goals ranging from earning two-year degrees and transfer to baccalaureate institutions to career and technical training and fundamental skills to supplement that such as English language classes and high school completion programs. Additionally, our mission statement, approved in fall of
2012, not only commits the institution to continue providing an accessible, affordable, high quality education for all its students, but that we do so by enhancing student success, address the achievement gap for underrepresented students, and ensure that the college allow for students to attain academic, cultural and civic achievements.
For more than twenty years, CCSF has operated a Participatory Governance model that has allowed for all stakeholders at the college to actively engage in a participatory process that deliberates matters and concerns with a college-wide impact or are mandated by Title 5 of the
California Administrative Code to be considered by all recognized stakeholders: administrators, faculty, staff and students. Assembly Bill 1725, which only guided the process of what became the Shared Governance System at City College of San Francisco, did not prescribe the most efficient manner of managing participatory governance affairs. In 1994, the Chancellor and the
Academic Senate, with the approval of the College Advisory Council (CAC), created the Office of Shared Governance and the position of the District Shared Governance Coordinator, the first one in the state of California. Since the establishment of the CCSF Shared Governance System, the College actively engages in a participatory process in all matters that have policy and/or significant institution wide implications. For example, the College has been engaged in several institution wide discussions on such issues and ideas as: the District Sunshine Policy; student equity and the achievement gap; faculty diversity issues; the state budget and its implications on budget and planning; content filtering on the Internet; designated smoking areas on campus; student learning outcomes; and Program Review. Classified staff, students, faculty, and administrators are invited to attend discussion and/or committee review sessions to share information, make comments, and provide feedback. What resulted at the college was a system of 7 committees, nearly a dozen subcommittees, and over 20 subcommittees that were only convened by members of the Academic Senate. There was typically representation from all stakeholders, but at times there were committees where certain stakeholder groups were outnumbered 12 to 1, creating an inequitable system where students, the main beneficiaries of much of what is deliberated in participatory governance, were left confused and feeling unsupported in many of the meetings. Without a process for equitable representation from all stakeholder groups, a level of distrust can occur, preventing much of the business of the committees to be completed.

Policy Manual 2.07 on Participatory Governance, Section II.B.1, previously stated: "The
Chancellor shall establish a College Advisory Council, which will coordinate policy development and make recommendations in areas not under the leadership of the Academic
Senate" [IV A-2]. Policy recommendations originating from members of the Board of Trustees require review by the Academic Senate if they concern academic and professional matters.
Policy decisions are reviewed by the College Advisory Council if they will have a significant effect on employees or on students, in accordance with Title 5, Sections 51023.5 and 51023.7.
Administrative policies do not need a Shared Governance review. This section was amended in
November 2012 to conform to Title 5, Assembly Bill 1725 and recommendations from the
Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges that acknowledged after a recent site visit and discussions with the Chancellor that the Participatory Governance policies needed to ensure that participatory governance did not interfere with administrator duties or governing board policies. The College also recognized that many of the committees as outlined in the previous Shared Governance System had not been convened in over a year.
Major changes to Board Policy 2.07 include:
Establishing a new Governance Council that replaces the College Advisory and Planning and
Budget Councils that were comprised of many of the same College leaders and often took positions or made decisions in conflict of each other;
Requiring that the Governance Council be comprised of four stakeholders from each stakeholder groups and allowing for the provision of alternate stand-in members for the student stakeholder group;
Limiting membership to the Council for two year terms; except for students who would serve a one-year term;
Charging the Chancellor with sole responsibility of supporting the Governance Council and the
Council with determining the number of subcommittees under the new structure effective
December 2012.
Self Evaluation
The College meets this standard.
The College has implemented a number of new mechanisms to ensure a more honest evaluation in future years, including:
A more focused Mission and Vision Statement that will drive planning and budgeting decisions;
A program review process that will be tied to budgeting decisions and managed by key decision-making roles at the college (i.e. Campus and School Deans; Cost Center Managers)
Filling of key leadership positions, elimination of Interim positions and reorganization of the administrative structure to match the best practices of peer community colleges in California

Planning Agenda
November 15:
November 20:
December 18:
Approval of Revised Participatory Governance Board Policy 2.07
Initial meeting of leadership members of new Governance Council
Initial meeting of newly chartered College Governance Council
Dec 2012-Jan 2013: Discussion of the Charge of the Governance Council
February 2013: Introduction of subcommittee proposals to Council
May 2013:
August 2013:
Initial review of Governance Council
Appointment of new members to Council for 2013-2015