1. ACCJC Task Force for District Recommendations

2. Agenda  Review purpose of the Task Force  Clarify and agree to the scope of the process  Collectively agree to goals of the Task Force  Review Progress on Recommendation #1 & 4  Review Progress on Recommendation #2  Review Progress on Recommendation #3  Next Steps

3. Scope  Scope is limited to:  ACCJC District Recommendations;  Addressing specific concerns/recommendations made by the visiting teams  Scope does not cover:  College recommendations;  District concerns not raised by the ACCJC/visiting team;  Items out of scope will go to a parking lot

4. Goal  Develop a tactical plan that will enable us to completely satisfy the ACCJC District Recommendations with evidence to support our addressing the recommendations and satisfying the standards;  Develop a tactical plan that “WE ALL” believe can satisfy the ACCJC District Recommendations;  Work as a team to communicate the work that has and will be done to re- instill confidence in our colleges’ and district’s ability to serve our community;  Develop a monitoring process that “WE ALL” believe is accurate, timely, meaningful, and transparent.

5. District Recommendation #1 & 4

6. District Recommendation #1  In order to meet the standards, the team recommends that the Board of Trustees examine its role in the development of policies and ensure that it acts in a manner consistent with its approved policies and bylaws. The team further recommends that the Board of Trustees take steps to ensure that all policies are developed or revised within the framework of the established input and participation process.

7. District Recommendation #4  In order to improve effectiveness, the team recommends that the District develop a local Board orientation program to ensure that all members of the Board are adequately prepared to provide leadership appropriate to their role as Board members

8. 1.1 What Triggered the Findings?  Lack of systematic and ongoing review of Board Policies/Administrative Procedures within specified timeline;  No policy review in place for at least 4 years;  Last minute rush to do all BP/AP means that reviews could not be done in a meaningful way;  AP6610 did not go through the agreed to process. It was rushed through based on “business necessity;”  Chancellor’s evaluation process – Used a different process than was in BP/AP and then approved new process after the fact

9. 1.1 What needs to be done?  Need to define timeline and systematic process for BP/AP review (timing should be specific and achievable)  Monitor and track progress  Clearly defined and communicated  Subject expert review and tracking  Overall tracking via checklist  Track rationale for any changes  Watch for conflict with other BP/AP  Need to make sure “current” policies available online  Should be included in Board self-evaluation

10. 1.1 Status  Define timeline and systematic process for BP/AP review  6 year review cycle done by chapter;  Designated chapter owners;  Track  When last approved, subject experts necessary, check for conflicts with other BP/APs, and rationale for changes  Executive Secretary oversees tracking and posting on web  BP/AP updated to codify process changes  Going through collegial consultation process via District Assembly

11. Tracking Tool

12. Chapter Owners  Responsibility for the review process is as follows:  Chapter 1: Chancellor and Board of Trustees  Chapter 2: Chancellor and Board of Trustees  Chapter 3: Chancellor and Chancellor’s Cabinet  Chapter 4: Vice-Presidents of Instruction, Student Services, and Academic Senate Presidents  Chapter 5: Vice-Presidents of Instruction, Student Services, and Academic Senate Presidents  Chapter 6: Vice-Chancellor of Fiscal Services and Vice-Presidents of Administrative Services  Chapter 7: Vice-Chancellor of Human Resources

13. 1.1 What evidence will be provided?  Use Collegial Consultation process to develop BP/AP on BP/AP development/review process to develop/review/monitor  Minutes  Draft/Completed BP/AP  Checklist  Comment form for BP/AP  Campus Awareness  Show that we have gone through/starting process

14. 1.2 What triggered the findngs?  Currently, no locally structured training or orientation. Every trustee needs to know and follow their Board BP/APs. Need to know time sensitive BP/APs; No evidence of local, structured, and/or comprehensive training.  President of Board of Trustees should make sure the Board is following BP/APs. There is no specific Board President training.

15. 1.2 What needs to be done?  Board Training  Board Handbook  Develop Board Board Learning Outcomes (BLOs)  Develop local Board President Training which should be included in overall Board Handbook/Training

16. 1.2 & 1.3 Status  Board Handbook  Revised to include linkage between Community College League of California (CCLC) Board of Trustees training and SBCCD specific training;  Specific topic list (BLOs) outlined and will be updated regularly;  Board members sign off to verify they have received training;  Board President and Chancellor specified as being responsible for ensuring the training of new trustees;

17. Board Training Topics  Missions  Organizational Charts  San Bernardino Community College District  San Bernardino Valley College  Crafton Hills College  Board Imperatives & Goals  Board Imperatives  Board Goals  About the Board of Trustees  Board Membership  Election of Student Trustees  Board of Trustee Meetings  Communication Protocol  Campus Visits  Board Planning and Evaluation  Accreditation  Foundations  Collegial Consultation  Groups on Campus  Graduation  Board Policies & Procedures  Walking tours of the district, campuses, and off-site locations

18. Board Training Topics  Institutional data review  College history and development, and college catalogs  Lists and contact information for trustees, college personnel, and student leaders  Structure and operations of board of trustees  Structure of higher education at the state level  Briefings on organization, programs, budget, and facilities of the colleges and sites  Collegial Consultation, inclusive of 10+1  Board handbook, meeting agendas, and minutes  Affirmative action plans  Printed college materials  Opportunities to meet informally with campus leaders and faculty, staff, students, administrators, and fellow trustees  Email records disclosure responsibilities  Attendance at local, state and national meetings, including the League’s New Trustee Orientation Workshop and Legislative Conference  Review of pertinent laws and board policy  Board Budget

19. 1.2 What evidence will be provided?  Training plan  New Board hand book  New BP/AP  Training plan  Minutes  Systematic vs one-time  Develop list of base knowledge and include in policy  No violations  College surveys  Board Self-Evaluation

20. District Recommendation #2

21.  In order to meet the standards, the team recommends that the Board of Trustees, and the Chancellor, in consultation with the leadership of the college campuses, develop a strategy for addressing significant issues to improve the effectiveness of district human resource services that support the colleges in their missions and functions. These issues include:  Reliable data from the Human Resources department to support position control and other human resources functions;  Timeliness of employee evaluations  Responsiveness and improved timelines for employee hiring;  Consistent policy interpretation and guidance; and  Completion of the faculty evaluation instrument to include work on Student Learning Outcomes.

22. District Recommendation #3

23.  In order to meet the standards, the team recommends that the District follow their Resource Allocation Model focusing on transparency and inclusiveness, supported by a comprehensive district- wide Enrollment Management Plan and a Human Resource/Staffing Plan integrated with other district- wide programs and financial plans, broadly communicated to the colleges.

24. What Triggered the Findings?  Lack of communication as evidenced by raises being approved before notifying colleges of budget impact (no details shows on who got raises, retro pay, or impact on planning);  Lack of constituent understanding of new floating allocation model vs. “70-30 split;”  Lack of communication prior to modification of budgets;

25. What Triggered the Findings?  Inconsistent use of numbers for Full Time Equivalent Student (FTES) assumptions;  Lack of communication from budget committee members to the college constituents they are representing;  Lack of leadership in implementing resource allocation model;  Lack of clarity in budget numbers provided and issues impacting numbers.

26. What needs to be done?  Though Board AP2610 (Presentation of Initial Collective Bargaining Proposals) as amended requires the Chancellor to provide advanced notice and forecasts to the Board of Trustees, there is also a need to provide the colleges with scenarios in advance, capitalizing on use of the campus budget committees;  Need documented process, guidelines, and training on how to implement resource allocation model, using “Guiding Principles” (e.g. SBVC must stay above 10,000 FTE, CHC needs to become financially self-sufficient.) and there is a need for the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of Fiscal Services to promote approved resource allocation model consistently and transparently;

27. What needs to be done?  Need to develop and use District Enrollment Management Plan;  Quarterly Newsletter from District Budget Committee and campus presentations;  Provide realistic scenarios in advance and adjust budget calendar to facilitate forecasting for the colleges.

28. What evidence will be provided?  Administrative Procedure AP 2610  Minutes from various constituency groups of Chancellor and Vice- Chancellor promoting resource allocation model  District Budget Committee Recommendations  Agendas from College/District Business & Fiscal Services meetings  District Budget Committee Agenda with minutes

29. What evidence will be provided?  Enrollment Management Task Force - Recommendation to DBC for FY 15-16  2015-07-16 Tentative vs Final FTES Distribution Growth  May 28, 2015 Board Study Session - Preliminary Budget Presentation  Chancellor’s Chat Newsletter  Budget Book  September 8, 2015 Board Study Session – Final Budget Presentation

30. District Recommendation #4