Pierce College Planning Committee
Report to Pierce College Council
2012 -2013 Self-Evaluation Validation
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013
The shared governance committee annual self-evaluation for 2012-2013 began with a review1 of
the self-evaluation tool and the process of self-evaluation by the College Planning Committee
(CPC). The assessment of the self-evaluation process resulted in two recommendations to Pierce
College Council (PCC).
1. The self-evaluation tool should be modified to include the gathering of quantitative data
to help determine the effectiveness of governance committees. The following elements
were added to the tool:
a. Review of website
b. Meeting attendance rates
c. Planning document goal alignment (integrated planning)
d. Membership terms
2. Self evaluations would undergo an external validation. Validation teams would be
composed by randomly pairing 2 members of shared governance committees2 with a
member from the college planning committee.
Once the new tool had been approved by College Council it was distributed and all committees
conducted and completed the self-evaluation. 100% of the governance committee selfevaluations were submitted to the PCC prior to the end of the spring 2013 term in May.
Validation teams met and conducted their reviews using the form developed by the (CPC). The
following is a general summary and recommendations for each committee.
ACCREDITION STEERING COMMITTEE: Committee meets regularly and meetings are
well attended. Agendas are posted but do not correspond to meeting minutes which posted.
Some meeting minutes are missing. Committee membership on self-evaluation does not
correlate to the website data. Meeting dates are noted, summarized, and posted on website.
Website may want to align with other PCC website design for ease of use. Membership list is
not current with active members. Consider separating or removing names of emeriti members.
Validation team cited that the term of entire membership is 2013. The committee did not list any
prioritized goals for the coming year. The committee is working within the scope of its charter.
The validation team commends the committee for its well organized work and for
1
The review was prompted by the unsolicited feedback received after the 2011-2012 self-evaluation period. The
evaluation tool was modified to include quantitative as well as qualitative data elements to assess for committee
effectiveness, integrated planning, and to determine whether the committee was working within the scope of its
charter.
2
Each shared governance committee would recommend 2 members to participate in the validation of selfevaluations.
1
communicating it appropriately to the college community in a wide variety of methods and
venues. The validation team makes the following recommendations:
1. Update the website with current information.
2. Ensure continuity of membership, it may be prudent to stagger term end
dates.
3. Prioritize unmet goals for the 2013-2014 year.
BUDGET: Committee meets regularly and meetings are well attended. Documents are posted
and website is maintained. Validation committee speculates integrated planning, “The
Committee’s work impacts most areas of the campus, and thus integrated planning seems to be
unavoidable.”
COLLEGE PLANNING: Meetings were regularly scheduled but some were cancelled because
lack of attendance. Website is not maintained and page does not adhere to the PCC
recommended format. Committee cites unmet goals and unfinished projects are due to
incomplete membership. Prioritized goals are within the scope of the committee may be too
many to accomplished in one academic year. The validation team recommends:
1. Revision of charter, modification of membership, fill all positions
2. Update website
3. Review goals and assign appropriate objectives/tasks to other committees
DIVERSITY: Committee meets regularly and meetings are well attended. Current meeting
minutes and agenda were not posted and the website was not up to date. Committee goals were
vague and unspecific and it was not clear how the goals helped achieve the mission of the
college or how they aligned with or integrated with college strategic goals. The lack of a charter
makes it difficult to ascertain the relationship of Pierce Diversity Committee with other college
governance committees. The validation team makes the following recommendations:
1. The committee develops and posts a charter on the website.
2. PCC - review the charter to explore how the Student Equity Plan can be
incorporated into the work/activities of the committee
ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT: Meeting minutes were posted but some agendas were
missing. Information on the website regarding meeting schedules is inaccurate; homepage says
the committee meets the third Thursday of every month, but it appears the meetings are
scheduled for first and third Thursday. Meetings were held regularly and well attended. The
committee cited personnel turnover in the research office as well as limitations on the availability
of data as the cause of unmet goals. Validation team confirms that the Enrollment Management
Committee was functioning within the scope of its charter and their work reflects integrated
planning. The validation team makes the following recommendation:
1. Update the website to include all meeting agenda.
FACILITIES ADVISORY: Meeting dates were posted. Agenda and minutes were not
updated. There were some coding mistakes on the website so some of the information appeared
2
as garbled. Though meetings were held regularly attendance could not be confirmed by the
posted minutes. Reported accomplishments seem to be more task-oriented and less tied to
strategic or college goals. The validation team acknowledges the committees work and
accomplishment of some impressive tasks however; they are not clearly tied to prioritized
college goals. The committee’s overarching goals were somewhat unclear. The validation team
recommends the following:
1. Update the website and monitor regularly
2. Clarify and clearly integrate committee goals to strategic or other college
planning goals
PIERCE COLLEGE COUNCIL: Committee meets regularly and minutes and agendas are
posted; however, the naming convention for some files is inconsistent. College Council Charter
could not be found on the website. Membership listing needs to be updated as membership
changes occur. Posted membership includes members who have retired or separated from the
college. College Council has effectively tracked all issues which were brought forward for
discussion and action. Additionally, the council has been successful in attaining a quorum on a
routine and regular basis, and was successful in instituting actions to include ASO representation
on shared governance committees. The validation team makes the following recommendations:
1. Establish data warehousing practices (design template) for all committees
to ensure that shared governance committee websites can be easily
navigated to obtain information.
2. Create active links on the PCC page for all shared governance
committees’ documents and websites.
RESOURCE ADVISORY: Agenda, minutes, and meetings dates from January 2013 through
the end of the spring term, June, are not posted. Meetings are generally well attended. Website
is not up to date. Membership roster is incomplete: term, term end date, and constituent group
were not included.
The Resource Allocation Committee has demonstrated efficiency in achieving its primary task of
prioritization of resource requests in a timely manner. However, the website may not reflect or
provide documentation of the committee’s accomplishments. Additionally, the committee
membership updates, annual goals and linkages to planning documents, and other information is
not easily found on the website.
The annual goals are expressed in very broad terms and do not have accompanying
objectives/activities specified. Goals are not linked to other college planning documents or
processes nor are they expressed in ways that confirm that they are attainable, measureable, and
sustainable. The validation team commends the Resource Advisory Committee for routinely
assessing it processes and implementing improvements.
3
The validation team makes the following recommendations:
1. It is recommended that RAC update and organize its website.
2. It is recommended that RAC revise/restate its 2013-2014 annual goals to
ensure that they are attainable and measurable.
3. Elect a co-chair
TECHNOLOGY: The website was updated, and the goals reflect some thought given to
integrated planning. It would be helpful to see the self-evaluation posted along with the meeting
location. Also, we wonder if there is any kind of mid-cycle evaluation that can be done by each
committee so they can ensure that they are on track.
CLOSING SUMMARY AND GENERAL COMENTS: The summaries and
recommendations will be forwarded to the various committees. The committees are responsible
to addressing the recommendations. The self-evaluation for 2013-2014 will require that the
committee comment on how the CPC recommendations were handled. It will be College
Council’s responsibility to assist committees work towards greater effectiveness. The Planning
Committee has observed that there were some recurring issues present in the validation reports
and expresses the following concerns to College Council for consideration and or action.
 Vice presidents or designees are on just about every shared governance committee. An
assumption is that the VP would select an administrator to serve as his/her designee.
There are not enough administrators to fill the requests for administrators on committees.
 Many committees have perpetual members. In some cases committees have listed nearly
the entire committee as perpetual. If the practice of perpetual membership continues and
remains unchecked the possibility of a committee with a permanent membership may
become a reality.
 There is clear distinction between the work of the Budget committee and Resource
Advisory Committee. It seems that the work of the Resource Advisory is specifically a
singular task; could this be a subcommittee/taskforce of the Budget committee assembled
annually for the purposes of prioritizing resource requests?
 Committees and new committee members may not understand the college governance
processes and have no resource to reference.
 Committees may need additional guidance regarding meeting attendance and reporting
non attendance to appointing group; process to request appointment from constituent
groups; guidelines for websites design; templates for minutes and or agenda; or
guidelines for reporting to PCC; and appropriate forms to use. A shared governance
handbook would be useful.
4