Community College Leadership Structure
October 2006
Background
Community college board members and presidents were joined on May 11 by a member of the
State Board of Education, a legislator, the Commissioner and staff from the Department of
Community Colleges and Workforce Development, and a representative of the Governor’s office to discuss the options for governance of Oregon’s seventeen community colleges. The one-day
Governance Workshop was led by Aims McGuinness, Senior Associate of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems in Boulder, Colorado. The workshop was sponsored by the Oregon Community College Association.
The purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity for participants to explore the issue of Oregon community college governance at a deeper level in order to have richer future conversations at the local and statewide levels. Under the current statutes, community colleges are governed by locally elected boards of directors with oversight by the State Board of
Education through assistance of the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce
Development. The Department is a state agency and its Commissioner is appointed by the State
Board of Education
In the last several legislative sessions, proposals have surfaced to change the governance of community colleges by placing them under the State Board of Higher Education, creating a separate board for them to report to, or combining the State Board of Education and the State
Board of Higher Education into one “super” board to oversee education K-20. In past years, the
Oregon Community College Association has held the position that the colleges wanted no change in the current structure and has worked to defeat other proposals. Because of the many legislative proposals, this workshop was held to revisit the governance issue in preparation for future proposals that might alter the community college governance structure.
During the workshop, Mr. McGuinness cautioned participants to be clear about their values, criteria and principals and to distinguish between governance and coordination. He asked them to consider how much of [local] board meeting time is spent discussing the unique needs of the local community college and how best to meet those needs. He also asked that conferees identify what roles need to be played at the local level and which must be played at the state level.
Workshop attendees participated in valuable roundtable discussions and outlined the roles they felt are played at each level. Here is a sampling of the issues identified:
Local Level
 Curriculum / content

Budget / allocation

Personnel

Local needs

Suppliers of delivery system


Coordinators / brokers of services

Be accountable to community

Setting tuition

Allocating resources within matrix

Program development
 Policy decisions / dual enrollment

Defining needs in community
State Level

Set framework agenda

Control costs of state mandates / PERS benefits

State level structure is to deal with funding realities

If equal access, what does that mean?

Coordinating capacity

Capacity of make differentiated decisions
 Understand, support and enable local role
1.
Funding
2.
Legislative initiatives – workforce development

Coordinate and motivate

Data and dollars for incentivizing

Data for improvement and not compliance

Capacity to handle / design / manage budget (state support)

Accountability – linked to statewide vision / goals

Coordination of administrative functions
Shared

Facilities

Student scholarship local/state

Curriculum

Program creation

Professional development between institutions

Promoting natural partnerships
Mr. McGuinness emphasized that bridging the gaps between disparate groups at the statewide level in order to provide greater leadership could be accomplished by creating a new structure or empowering an existing entity. He stated that achieving the desired outcome does not necessarily require a new “governance” model for community colleges but rather a clarification of roles and better statewide coordination and leadership. It was the consensus of the group that the “governance” structure of community colleges currently exists at the local level and is not in question. This is what makes Oregon colleges “community colleges”. What is really needed is not a new “governance” structure but an effective “leadership structure” at the statewide level.
At the end of the workshop, participants spent time identifying a number of criteria that should be considered when evaluating a statewide “leadership structure” for Oregon community colleges. These criteria are detailed below.

Criteria
A statewide “leadership structure” for Oregon community colleges will:

Allow local community colleges to respond to local needs in nimble, flexible ways. o Maintain locally elected boards of education. o Retain authority to set priorities and policies that govern local community college operations at the local level. o Recognize the diversity of Oregon’s community colleges and avoids unfunded statewide mandates or regulations.

Support the broad, comprehensive community college mission. o Support affordable access to Oregonians throughout the state. o Support transfer, professional-technical, basic skills and community education programs based on local needs. o Support student success at all levels.

Provide statewide advocacy for the comprehensive community college mission. o Align state finance and budget decisions with the community college mission. o Develop statewide messaging. o Lead statewide public policy discussions.

Provide leadership for the community college role as a partner in the education continuum. o Allow community colleges to join in common agendas with other partners on a level playing field. o Ensure that state finance and budget decisions recognize the cost benefit of the community college role in the education continuum. o Provide statewide coordination of community colleges as appropriate.

Provide incentives at the statewide level for local community colleges to meet state interests.

Strengthen community college policies, practices, and student outcomes through effective data collection and use.
Next Steps
Staff will make recommendations for change as appropriate to the OCCA Board in December.