2011-2012 Narrative Evaluation of Shared Governance Committees
Based on the external evaluations, it is clear that most committees quite effective.
These committees met regularly during the year, meetings on most committees were
well attended, they had agenda items that were consistent with their charters and the
College Strategic Master Plan, and they made recommendations to College Council that
resulted in decisions based on shared governance. Some committees functioned
primarily as forums for information, discussion, and planning. Several of these
committees were involved in planning college-wide activities such as training
workshops, student events, and campus policies; while they reported regularly to
College Council, they did not bring action items forward. All committees have made it a
priority in working on accomplishing their goals as set in last year’s evaluation
recommendations. All committees have been commended for the excellent work that
took place this past year (see below).
Shared Governance Committees still need to work on several items as a whole
(some of these carry over from 2010/11):
1. Keep membership current and recruit members on or before Flex Day in the Fall
semester.
2. Post all meeting documentation such as agendas and minutes online in a timely
manner.
3. Make sure that meetings are attended by members(including ASO) on regular basis
and and a strict 3 absence policy be enforced by committee co-chairs.
General Suggestions for Improvement of Shared Governance Committees:
1. Committee Reports to College Council and self evaluations should be posted on the
SGTF site.
2. All websites for each committee should be consistent.
3. All Agendas and Meeting Minutes should be a template that all committees use.
4. SGTF provide training workshops to new members.
Summary of External Evaluations of Los Angeles Mission College Shared
Governance Committees
Committee
Number of
Meetings
Fall 2011 to
Spring 2012
Average
Number of
Members
per
Meeting
Average
Number of
Attendees
per
Meeting
Regular
Reports
to College
Council
Recommendation
or Action Items to
College Council
Budget and
Planning
9
12
15
yes
yes
Educational
Planning
15
14
18
yes
yes
Student
Support
Services
8
7
7
yes
some
Technology
7
8
9
yes
some
Professional 2(on site)
and Staff
Development
?
?
most of the no
time
Facilities
Planning
11
11
yes
7
some
The Budget and Planning Committee met 10 times in 2011/12 and reported regularly
to
College Council. Members of the committee created a Budget Task Force to deal with
the sizeable budget cuts expected in fiscal year 2012-2013 and how to best prepare for
those cuts.
The committee discussed ways to refine and improve our resource requests process.
Members of this committee joined forces with members of Facilities and Planning to
create a joint task force to prioritize Bond construction projects. This list helped our
campus identify key projects that Shared Governance and the college president wished
to exclude from the district moratorium.
The Educational Planning Committee (EPC)
EPC met 15 times in 2011/12 and presented reports to College Council at each of those
meetings. There were many accomplishments for the EPC in the 2011/12 year. They
completed the final cycle of comprehensive program reviews which focused on Chicano
Studies, Foreign Languages, LRC, Arts/Humanities/Multimedia, and ESL/Dev
Comm/Learning Skills. They worked on revising the Unit Assessment screens for the
online tool. EPC was instrumental in strengthening linkages from the program review to
resource allocation and hiring prioritization.
The Facilities Committee
The Facilities committee met 7 times in 2011/12 and presented reports and attended
each College Council meeting. The committee worked diligently on providing the college
president with a prioritized list of all Bond building projects and to ensure all BUGS were
able to add input to their respective building projects. It is advised that the committee
make sure that an ASO representative attend meetings in a more regular manner. The
Term and Tenure of every member needs to be reflected on the website but otherwise
the website in this area was outstanding in its organization.
The Professional and Staff Development Committee
This Committee works on big campus events such as Flex Day, the Faculty Academy
and Holiday Luncheon. Because this committee does not have full membership it is
much more difficult to present the campus with enough meaningful faculty and staff
development workshops. It has been advised that the committee seek out new
membership that will be dedicated to working diligently on projects. It is also advised
that the committee keep their web site updated so it reflects current activities and
conduct a survey for workshop topics.
Student Support Services
This committee met 8 times in 2011/12 and its co-chair attended every College Council
meeting and gave a report. Student Support Services completed the three year cycle of
the comprehensive validation review process for all programs. It is suggested that
Student Support Services expand membership and make sure all resources are posted
on the website. ASO needs to be represented and attend regular meetings.
Technology Committee
The Technology Committee reviewed and updated the Tech Master Plan in the Fall
semester of 2011. The members reviewed all the ongoing and pending technology
projects on campus and made sure that the committee gave its input to IT. The
Committee recommended that the college move forward with a more robust emergency
response system and to update and implement the Campus Calendar for event listings
on the website. The committee needs to revise the forms it uses during meetings to
reflect attendance by the members. The membership also needs to be increased and
the SGTF Technology page needs to be reflect membership and be current with all
resources. It is advised that the committee make sure that an ASO representative
attend meetings in a more regular manner.
In conclusion, the Los Angeles Mission College shared governance committees met
and reported to College Council on a regular basis. Some of the committees such as
Budget and Planning and Educational Planning made recommendations to College
Council which resulted in actions taken. Other committees served mainly as information
or planning bodies and did not submit formal recommendations to College Council.
While faculty, staff, and administrator participation in the shared governance
committees was very good, most committees had limited student representation. The
Shared Governance Task Force will continue to monitor the effectiveness of each
committee on an ongoing basis. Self-evaluations will take place every spring semester,
and external evaluations will occur each fall. These evaluations will serve as the basis
for recommendations for improvement of the shared governance process.