Accreditation Show Cause Report TEMPLATE
Work Group Leaders: Please complete and submit this template to Gohar Momjian
(gmomjian@ccsf.edu) and Grace Esteban (mesteban@ccsf.edu) via email by Friday, December 7.
Complete a separate template for each Standard/subsection for which you are responsible (see
attached “Assignment Chart of Responsibility”).
1. Full Standard Number (e.g., II.B.3):
IV.A.3
2. Full Standard Text:
Please copy and paste the full text of the Standard from the September 2012 ACCJC Manual for Self Evaluation
beginning on page 11, found at:
http://www.accjc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Manual-for-Institutional-Self-Evaluation_2012.pdf
Through established governance structures, processes, and practices, the governing board,
administrators, faculty, staff, and students work together for the good of the institution. These
processes facilitate discussion of ideas and effective communication among the institution’s
constituencies.
3. Descriptive Summary: A primarily descriptive overview of what the institution does in relation to each of
the Standards.
 Communication – All - Dr. Scott-Skillman communicated about the effect of the passage of
Propositions A and 30 and the work still needing to be done by the entire college
community. (Representative emails)
 Communication – All - Dr. Fisher repeated kept the college community abreast of
developments in the progress of addressing the accreditation recommendations.
(representative emails)
 Communications – All – All non-student constituents receive school-wide emails from
the CCSF distribution list. (representative emails)
 Communications – All – Updates, minutes, agendas, meeting times and other
information for governance structures are generally, though not always, posted CCSF’s
website. Policies, procedures and updates for these processes are available online as
well. (website, sample documents)
 Communication – Faculty - Academic Senate President keeps the faculty up to date on
progress of the addressing the accreditation recommendations and how to get involved
(sample minutes)
 Communication – Students – Students receive information from CCSF website, allstudent emails, and on-campus resources (representative emails)
 Communication – Administration – Administrators receive information from monthly
leadership meetings held by the chancellor, email communications from Administrator
Association officers, and through the governance committee members’ reports (email
and minutes from AA, monthly leadership meeting agenda)
 Communication – Classified Staff – Staff receive information from SEIU and the
Classified Senate at meetings and through limited e-mails (representative e-mails sent
to classified staff)
 Discussion – All – Previously CCSF operated on a Shared Governance System which included
approximately 48 Shared Governance committees. (Previous board shared governance policy)
 Discussion – All – CCSF created a Participatory Governance system effective on its approval
November 15, 2012, outlined in Board Policy 2.07. (Board Policy 2.07)
 Discussion – All – A Governance Council meets regularly with multiple representatives
from each constituent group to discuss and represent ideas from their constituents with
the Chancellor. (representative Governance Council agendas and minutes)
 Discussion – All – The Governance Council and Chancellor create Participatory
Governance Committees which include appointed representatives from constituent
groups to discuss and work on specific issues. (Board policy 2.07)
 Discussion – All – All representative organizations, including the Administrators’
Association, Classified Senate, Academic Senate, and Associated Students Executive
Board meet regularly to discuss relevant policies and may create proposals to bring
forward to the Participatory Governance structure (representative agendas)
 Discussion – Faculty – Faculty have access to student data through institutional
research and DSS which can be used to foster discussion and implement goals for the
college (Office of Institutional Research reports)
4. Self Evaluation: Based on the descriptive summary, the institution should analyze and systematically
evaluate its performance against the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, Commission policies
and its institutional mission. This analysis should result in actionable conclusions about institutional
effectiveness and educational quality and decisions for improvement. The basic questions to explore are
whether or not, and to what degree, institutional evidence demonstrates that the institution meets the
Standards and how the institution has reached this conclusion. The Commission expects current and
sustained compliance with the Standards, focusing on accomplishments and outcomes that have been
achieved and not just structures or processes used.
 Communication – All – Many constituents feel that there is not enough communication on a
school-wide level and they are not adequately informed of the governance and future of the
school. (Student Focus Group Report)
 Communications – All – Constituents do not feel the website is designed in an accessible or
intuitive way and cannot locate information on it. (Student Focus Group Report)
 Communications – All – Some governance structures do not publicly post their minutes,
agendas, or meeting times online. (websites)
 Communication – Students – Students are generally ill-informed as to the governance structures
and ways to get involved with the Participatory Governance process. Additionally students are
unaware of many updates in regard to CCSF and its management. (Student Focus Group Report)
 Communication – Administration – Though largely complete, Administrators often receive
information late through the established structures, which causes difficulty in implementation
and effectiveness.
 Communication – Classified Staff – Some staff feel very disenfranchised and uninformed in the
Participatory Governance structure. Distribution e-mails and union-related news are virtually
the only source of regular communication and many key pieces of information are not
communicated. Some staff do not feel they are an equal part of this system.
 Discussion – All – The previous Shared Governance system was large and often inefficient, with
some feeling it held up important issues and hamstrung administrators. Students felt extremely
disenfranchised within it and provisions were not made for their effective participation. (Shared
Governance Appointment Roster)
 Discussion – All – The current Participatory Governance System is newly implemented and its
effectiveness cannot be concluded at this time. (Board minutes approving 2.07)
 Discussion – Students – Some Students feel that they are not adequately represented in the
new Participatory Governance System. (Student Focus Group Report)
 Discussion – Faculty – Some faculty feel that there is no structure for faculty to use data and
institutional goals to evaluate their work and effectiveness.
5. Actionable Improvement Plans: Continuous quality improvement is a hallmark of institutional
effectiveness. As an institution evaluates its programs and services with reference to each Standard, it
identifies areas in need of change. The Commission expects the institution to identify goals related to the
areas that require change and decide on the action required to meet these goals. The institution should
include the required actions in improvement plans. It may not be possible for the institution to have
improvement plans fully developed at the time of submission of the Institutional Self Evaluation Report. The
Commission expects these actionable improvement plans to be integrated into the institution’s continuous
evaluation and planning processes.
Please provide a narrative summary of the goals and associated actions in the text box below:
 Communication - School-wide distribution emails should be utilized more effectively to
communicate updates and gain participation from all constituents
 Communication – Information should be distributed more efficiently in order to be timely and
relevant, including reduction of unnecessary email traffic
 Communication – Special attention should be given to innovative methodology to engage
students
 Communication and Discussion – Classified Staff - A reorganization of the Classified Staff
communication and training structure is needed in order to enable them to be an effective
constituent group
 Discussion – Faculty - Data and goal driven evaluation processes should be made available to
faculty
 Discussion – All – Trainings should be implemented for all constituent groups in order to make
them able to effective participate in the new system
Please complete the table below to summarize the goals and actions described above as concisely as possible
(add rows as needed):
Goal
Associated Action(s)
Expected
Completion Date
Create effective communication with
constituents through online posting.
Re-design website with input from all
constituent groups to ensure usability.
Summer 2014
public debut
Ensure all constituents understand and
utilize established governance structures.
Implement flex day governance structure
training for all faculty, staff and
administrators.
Spring 2013
Ensure effective communication from
governance structures to all constituent
groups.
Outreach to constituent groups to locate
weaknesses and breakdowns in
communication. Address these with
improved e-mail and web communications.
Spring 2013
Ensure full accessibility of public
documents from all governance
structures.
Post all agendas, meetings and other public
documents to websites in a timely fashion.
Fall 2013
Ensure constituent participation in
Participatory Governance.
Conduct outreach and evaluation to fill all
vacancies at least once a semester.
Ongoing