text:
Advisory Visit
May 8-9, 2000
(Revised April 24, 2000)*
*Includes Attachments to "1/4/00 Response: GCC Faculty Senate Correspondence
Raul Cardenas
Interim Chancellor
Family of Colleges
Estrella Mountain
Paradise Valley
Phoenix Cc;lIege
Rio S"Jlado
South Mountain
Skill Centers
2411 West 14th Street < Tempe.AZ85281-6942 r Phone (480)731-8000 ' Fax(480)731-8850
Dr. Cecilia Lopez
Associate Director
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
30 North LaSalle Street Suite 2400
Chicago, TIlinois 60602-2504
Dear Dr. Lopez,
This will serve to follow-up on our telephone conversation regarding my
request to schedule a Focused Visit to Glendale Community College early
this spring semester. As I indicated, there have been several issues raised
by the Faculty Senate that warrant an external review. I have discussed
this request with President Pollack and while she favors waiting and
including these faculty concerns in the self study report now underway in
preparation for a comprehensive visit in 2001-2002, she is agreeable to
moving ahead and addressing them as soon as possible.
Enclosed please find correspondence which describe the issues that have
surfaced. Dr. Pollack in her memo (Attachment IV) suggests that a review
of~riterion Five and Two, plus GIR's # 6 and # 7 may cover the areas of
conc~m identified in this information. Please let me know if we need to
/protde Y\,u with any~g additional.
iSirj:erel l ..
\.~/(~; ·f (, if:' (J,.
kaill~Carde~~s' '~
cc: Dr. Tessa Martinez Pollack
Glendale Community College
1. October 6, 1999 Letter from GCC Faculty.
n. January 4,2000 Response to Faculty concerns,
m. January 18,2000 Letter from Gene Eastin
IV. February 2,2000 Memo Options for NCA Review
·;3G-~ :'"," "", x:: c';'f,;,.p:::;:;3 f':.:,r;;"'7&····F':;'7'""";~:'---:-t- :~d c·:,; 'j
Attachment I.
October 6, 1999
Dear Dr. Cardenas and Members of the MCCCD Governing Board:
The Glendale Community College Faculty Senate would like to inform you
of a serious breakdown in communication and shared governance between the
college administration and the faculty. Listed below are numerous descriptions
of incidents in which faculty proposals and requests, submitted in writing, have
gone unacknowledged, and decisions in which faculty should reasonably have
had input have been made unilaterally by the administration. The
unacknowledged proposals represent almost all Senate initiatives of the last few
years. The decisions made without faculty input are, in some cases, violations of
the Residential Faculty Policies.
I. Unacknowledged Written Senate Submissions
A. Campus Reorganization Plan - After a strong, adverse reaction from
department chairpersons to an initial, administration-produced
reorganization plan; faculty, and the Senate in particular, were invited
to provide input. The Senate produced and submitted a plan that was
never acknowledged. The administration plan was implemented.
B. Budget Data Request - Accounting faculty along with a faculty member
of the campus budget committee formulated a list of data that would be
useful to faculty members on future budget committees. The written
request went unacknowledged.
C. Afternoon College Proposal - The Senate presented a proposal to
increase afternoon enrollment in the College. The proposal went
D. Proposed College Plan - A plan was proposed at the end of March
1999. Questions were addressed to the Senate by the college
President about the plan, which were promptly answered. There was
no acknowledgement of the answers or plan until mid-September, and
only after the Senate President actively lobbied the college President
for a response.
E. Request for GCC's Financial Commitment to the Kellogg Grant
Proposal - This request has gone unacknowledged.
F. Computer Fee Proposals - Both the department chairpersons and the
campus computer committee were requested to propose plans
concerning how students would be assessed computer usage fees.
Both groups submitted proposals. Ultimately, the BUdget Committee,
at the urging of the Dean of Administrative SeNices, allocated funds
for universal student access without a computer usage fee. The
faculty proposals were ignored.
II. Decisions Made in Which Faculty Should Have Had Input.
A. Closing of the Library - The decision to close the College Library for
renovations without providing an alternative location, at least, for the
reference portion of the library materials, clearly has implications for
instructional delivery. This decision was made in the face of faculty
B. Resubmission of the Kellogg Grant Proposal - Concern about previous
grant proposals had resulted in the creation of a grant process
requiring the campus community be informed of grant proposals before
submission. The summer 1999 submission of the Kellogg grant
prooosal was not announced in any fashion. Faculty learned of the
resubmission only when the Senate President inquired about its status.
This was clearly a violation of the spirit of the new grant proposal
C. Revision of the Budget Process - In April 1999 a revision of the
composition of the membership of the campus Budget Committee was
announced. The revision significantly reduced faculty participation on
the committee. A similar revision had been announced a year and a
half earlier, and in response to faculty concerns. a Budget Process
Committee was formed to propose a different composition. While the
Budget Process Committee's recommendations were not accepted in
toto, there was agreement to limited changes and to reconvening the
Budget Process Committee in the case future revisions were to be
considered. The April 1999 announced revision violated the process
that had been agreed upon a year earlier.
O. Selection of Faculty Members of the NCA Steering Committee - The
Senate President should have chosen, with Senate approval, at least
some of the members of the NCA Steering Committee. Instead, the
administration chose the faculty members to serve on the committee.
E. Selection of faculty members on Facilities Manager Hiring Committee The
Senate President did not select the faculty representatives on the
Facilities Manager Hiring Committee, as required by the Residential
Faculty Policies.
These examples are contrary to the American Association of University
Professors principles concerning college government. As expressed in
AAUP Policy Documents & Reports, 1995, p.177, the Association has
"emphasiz[ed] the importance of faculty involvement in personnel
decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and
determination of educational policies". Furthermore. these examples
stand in contradiction to the NCA criteria for accreditation. Among these
criteria is the requirement that there be "integrity in our practices and
relationships." The GCC Senate believes that the GCC administration is
not in compliance with these principles or criterion.
For these reasons the GCC Senate decided to advise the Board of our
intention to inform the NCA of these problems.
2( f\ ./)~I ,. -:..vv~,::\ ~" . IC~ .
l mes Reed, Ph.D.
President, Glendale Community College Faculty Senate on behalf and as
directed by the Senate
cc. Carol Bernstein, President AAUP Arizona State Conference
Jim Richardson, President AAUP
Maricopa County Community College District
Chancellor's Office
January 13, 2000
Governing BLJMembers
Raul cirdeJ~Y
Dr. Pollack's Response to Glendale Community Collge
Faculty Senate Correspondence
Attached is the response from Dr. Tessa Martinez Pollack regarding the
concerns raised by the Faculty Senate in their December 6, 1999
correspondence to you and me. I'm currently reviewing her responses
and considering options on how to best address the matter, including
requesting a focus visit by a North Central team to review the concerns raised by
faculty. I hope we can bring closure to these matters once and for all.
I will keep you informed of the direction I plan to take as soon as I have had an
opportunity to discuss it with President Pollack.
cc: Dr. Jim Reed
GCC Faculty Senate
Dr. Tessa Martinez Pollack
Glendale Community College
Attachment II.
Item 2 of 26 printed b~ rv~~~~, .~~~A ~~~~~~~ a~ a~ a~ GC ll-Jan-2000 03:20pm
Tel No:
04-Jan-2000 11:34am MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Raul Cardenas
CC: Tessa Martinez Pollack
Subject: 1/4/00 Response: GCC Faculty Senate Correspondence (10/6/99)
This information is in response to the letter dated October 6, 1999 that the
GCC Faculty Senate wrote to you and the Governing Board. Thank you for
sharing a copy with me during the week of December 6 and for giving me the
opportunity to respond.
The content of the Faculty Senate's letter to you and the Board is grossly and
irresponsibly misinformed. I will elaborate broadly and specifically and make
equally important closing comments that I especially wish to bring to your
To provide you the courtesy of first review of this response, I have not
copied the Board, the GCC Faculty Senate, or any others. I would, therefore,
request that you share this response with the Governing Board and the
President of the GCC Senate at your earliest convenience.
First, the letter misrepresents the facts to you, to the Governing Board, and
apparently has the potential of equally egregious misrepresentations to the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The allegations are most
regrettable especially as we prepare for the most rigorous self-study that
Glendale Community College has ever undertaken. Indeed, large numbers of
faculty and staff are working to make this self-study one of our best.
Second, the letter makes sweeping allegations without details or facts that
make it difficult to respond. Where I cannot respond because of the absence
of detail, I have stated so.
Third, I wish to re-state that I do not fault the Faculty Senate President for ,I
the contents of the letter. I understand he was directed to send the letter v
after a 5-4 vote of the Senate and despite his objections to the inaccuracy of
its content. On the contrary, I wish to state that the Faculty Senate
President has made a herculean effort both to advocate for faculty issues as
well as to enable faculty participation in key college directions. His
leadership has been most productive 'for the climate and results that we are
continuing to realize in this academic year.
The following responses are provided as presented in the order of the Senate
letter. I have attached only key supporting materials in the interest of
brevity. I can provide additional supporting materials upon request.
Some of these events occurred and were already addressed over two years ago.
In a few instances where I have been unable to locate supporting materials, I
nave relied on my or staff recollections and have identified them as such.
The Senate's allegations, as they appear in the October 6, 1999 letter, are
bolded. My responses follow directly beneath each of their allegations.
I. Unacknowledged Written Senate Submissions
A. Campus Re-organization Plan - After a strong, adverse reaction from
department chairpersons to an initial, administration-produced
reorganization plan; faculty, and the Senate in particular, were
invited to provide input. The Senate produced and submitted a plan
that was never acknowledged. The administration plan was implemented.
1. Re-organization of the college is a management decision. It is not a
provision of the RFP. Furthermore, GIR #11 of NCA states that
II ... faculty has a significant role in developing and evaluating all of
the institution's educational programs. II It does NOT require the
involvement of the Faculty Senate in financial matters nor in
formulating the organizational structure of the college.
2. Even so, I and other college administrators spent almost two years
from conceptual to proposal to implementation phases of
re-organization to solicit and facilitate participation from all
corners of the campus, by individuals as well as groups. The Senate
was involved in significant ways but especially by their participation
on the President's Executive Committee (PEC) where much of the
discussion and deliberation on the re-organization occurred.
3. The President of the Faculty Senate at that time was Freddie Anttila.
Early in discussions, she stated that the Senate desired IIno change
[in the organizational structure].11 Later, a Subcommittee of the PEC,
led by the Chair of the Department Chairs Council,gathered input from
individuals and groups college-wide who wished to submit a
recommendation. The Senate could have submitted recommendations at
this time. (See ATTACHMENTS: PECMinutes, November 14, 1997, Item
2. and all of its parts and PEC Minutes, November 21, 1997, Item
l.c.) .
4. President Anttila chose not to participate in the PEC Subcommittee and
designated faculty member, Mike McKinley, to serve (See ATTACHMENTS:
PEC Minutes, October 31, 1997, Item 4. and PEC Minutes, November 14,
1997, Item 2. and all of its parts). The deadline for individuals or
groups to submit feedback to the Subcommittee was December 8, 1997
(See ATTACHMENT, PEC Minutes, November 21, 1997, Item 1.c.) The
Senate, to my recollection, did not submit any recommendations by the
deadline. If they had, the Subcommittee would have considered them.
S. In November 1997, the Senate voted for a moratorium on
re-organization. (See ATTACHMENT, Anttila to Pollack, January 28,
1998 and its attachments) .
6. At the conclusion of the PEC Subcommittee's work on December 12, 1997,
the PEe Subcommittee stated that they could not come to consensus, and
that liThe subcommittee does not feel comfortable making a
recommendation to PEC. The subcommittee feels that the
re-organization is ultimately the president's decision and that the
President should consider these new comments along with the former
ones. All new comments have been forwarded to the President for
review. (See ATTACHMENT, December 12, 1997 PEC Minutes, Item 3.)
I reviewed all comments forwarded.
7. On January 22, 1998, the Senate formed a subcommittee to look at the
organization of the college (See ATTACHMENT Item VI.C., Unapproved
Senate Minutes of January 22, 1998, provided as attachment by Anttila
on January 28, 1998).
8. Owing to the impending end of the academic year, to the long-overdue
action on re-organization, and to the absence of a response from the
Senate Subcommittee formed in January, on May 4, 1998, I announced the
re-organization and how it was to be implemented to the entire college
(See ATTACHMENT dated May 4, 1998.).
9. The Senate did not formally provide re-organization recommendations
until May 12. 1998, six months after the PEC Subcommittee's original
call for input and almost five months after the formation of the
Senate Subcommittee on re-organization. (See ATTACHMENT, Reed to
Pollack, May 12, 1998).
10. On May 14, 1998, I formally acknowledged and responded at great length
to the Senate about its recommendations (See ATTACHMENT May 14, 1998).
11. To conclude, the Senate was given ample opportunities for involvement
in re-organization, and their contributions were acknowledged as
demonstrated here. Further, per GIR #11 of NCA, the faculty is
intensely involved in committees and processes related to other
matters that can be rigorously demonstrated throughout our
institutional process.
B. Budget Data Request - Accounting faculty along with a faculty member of
the campus budget committee for.mulated a list of data that would be useful
to faculty members on future budget committees. The written request went
1. Gay Garesche, an Economics faculty member and member of the Faculty
Senate, presented a list of budget/expenditure data requests to the
Dean of Administrative Services. The Dean met with Ms. Garesche and
reviewed the data request with her. The information that Ms. Garesche
requested was not available through District and college databases.
Ms. Garesche was informed of this by the Dean.
2. The Dean still has the list and hopes that such data could eventually
be available from the OGF report system. The retrieval of historical
data will remain a challenge since OGF does not access the old FRS
records. The Dean has no record of a similar written request being
made by an Accounting faculty member.
C. Afternoon College Proposal - The Senate presented a proposal to increase
afternoon enrollment in the College. The proposal went unacknowledged.
1. T~e Senate's letter to you does not specify when the Senate sent
the proposal forward nor does it mention to whom it was sent.
2. However, last year Gay Garesche and two other faculty members
approached the Dean of Instruction about their ideas for an Afternoon
College. The group was interested in offering classes that would
potentially attract high-achieving high school students who were
available to take college classes during the afternoon. They also
mentioned the potential need for scholarships or reduced tuition for
afternoon classes.
3. As a follow-up to that conversation, Ms. Garesche attended a
Department Chair meeting to describe the ideas to the Department
Chairs. Department Chairs, in conjunction with residential faculty
members within their departments, are responsible for scheduling
classes for an Afternoon College.
4. GCC already offers a substantial mix of general educational and highdemand
computer classes during the afternoon session. Administration
welcomed the Senate's interest to enhance the mix of offerings.
5. On October 28, 1999, as a follow-up to the concept I had heard
discussed, I inquired with District about the possibility of a tuition
discount for an Afternoon College. The inquiry, response, and
notification to the Senate President are all attached (See ATTACHMENTS
of October 28, 1999; October 29, 1999; November I, 1999, 3:14 p.m.;
November I, 1999, 3:19 p.m.).
6. A one-page Afternoon College Proposal was distributed by Gay
Garesche at the November 3D, 1999, Budget Development Committee (BDC)
meeting. It was not received by the Budget Development Committee last
year nor does the Dean of Administrative Services have record of
receiving it prior to that time. As recorded in the BDC minutes, the
proposal will be discussed during the spring 2000 -meetings of the BDC.
Both the Senate President and Senator Gay Garesche sit on the BDC. As
representatives of the Senate, their role is to keep the Senate
apprised of BDC discussions.
7. Finally, please direct your attention to my request of the Senate for
increased communication on matters of respective interest including
the Afternoon College (See ATTACHMENT November I, 1999, 3:19 p.m.).
The Senate has been unresponsive to this request for communication on
matters that, presumably, are of interest to them.
D. Proposed College Plan ~ A plan was proposed at the end of March 1999.
Questions were addressed to the Senate by the college President about the
plan, which were promptly answered. There was no acknowledgment of the
answers or plan until mid-September, and only after the Senate President
actively lobbied the college President for a response.
Following is a more accurate depiction of the timeframes and activity
on the development of a college plan proposal:
1. A College Plan proposal was requested of Senate President Freddie
Anttila almost a year or more before it was first submitted in or
about April 1999.
2. As noted in the Senate's letter sent to you and the Board, I asked for
clar~fication of aspects of the proposed plan. I received those
clarifications in a document dated May 2, 1999 at which time it became
evident that we may have been reviewing an incomplete or incorrect
version of the proposal. I acknowledged receipt of the responses and
asked for a correct, complete version of the proposal. On or about
May 6, 1999, I and the Dean began review of the corrected version
provided by the Senate.
3. On May 13, 1999 (See ATTACHMENTS of May 13, 1999 at 10:19 a.m. and
12:33 p.m.), Senate President Reed and I agreed that the semester was
drawing too close to an end and that faculty schedules were too hectic
for a meeting to bring closure to the College Plan Proposal
(Commencement was occurring the following evening.).
4. On June 10, 1999 (See ATTACHMENT of June 10, 1999), I contacted Senate
President Reed and suggested we begin to plan the time and process for
a fall meeting of the appropriate Senate representatives.
5. On August 25, 1999, Senate President Reed stated that he was
beginning to gather the faculty members' schedules to convene a
meeting. Coordinating a meeting around busy faculty schedules proved
difficult, and there were also differences among the Senate members as
to who was composing the group of Senate representatives (See
ATTACHMENT dated September 1, 1999 and its attachment.). The first
meeting took place on September 22, 1999. Other meetings and delays
can be documented.
6. As recently as November 22, 1999, I communicated with the four members
of the Faculty Senate who have been in discussion with me about the
proposed College Plan. I clearly specified the outstanding issues and
j provided the rationale for my not approving selected items of their
college plan proposal. There has been no response as of this date for
a followup meeting to confer on those issues (See ATTACHMENTS dated
November 22, 1999 and November 23, 1999.).
E. Request for GCC's Financial Commitment to the Kellogg Grant Proposal this
request has gone unacknowledged.
1. Absent further information on when or to whom this request was made,
I am unable to comment.
2. Nonetheless, the first item of business upon return to the 1999-2000
academic year was to provide the Senate President with a copy of the
full details of the work done over the summer on the revision of the
grant by community partners. I indicated to him that the community
coalition had to submit revisions to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation by a
July 15 deadline.
3. In accordance with the College grants development process, the
proposal was placed on the first possible agenda of the PEC, and
copies were also distributed there (See ATTACHMENT PEC Agenda,
September 17, 1999, ItemF.2.b.). The President's Assistant also
recollects that several individuals came by to pick up a copy.
Additionally, a copy of the proposal was placed in the Media Center as
had been customary with various versions of this proposal. The
proposal, dated July 15, 1999, discloses a complete itemization of the
college's participation.
F. Computer Fee Proposals - Both the department chairpersons and the campus
computer committee were requested to propose plans concerning how students
would be assessed computer usage fees. Both groups submitted proposals.
Ultimately, the Budget Committee, at the urging of the Dean of
Administrative Services, allocated funds for universal student access
without a computer usage fee. The faculty proposals were ignored.
1. Various proposals relating to college computer/technology course fees
have been reviewed over the last several years. The College
Technology Committee (CTC) (open to all members of the GCC community)
created a Subcommittee that studied the issue and made recommendations
for several years. The Department Chairs also examined several of the
proposals provided by the CTC and made recommendations as well.
Faculty were involved in all aspects of the course fee discussions
either in leadership roles in the'CTC, as Department Chairs, and as
leaders within the GCC Information Services structure.
2. There was no consensus on the approach because of differing
philosophies about charging fees to students. In addition, when
faculty began to realize that:
a. the library would be closed during 1999-2000;
b. that ALL students would need access to our technology resources in
place of the on-campus library;
c. that there was no way to deny a student access to these
library/technology resources;
d. that the college had no authority to levy a course fee on all class
the need to provide "universal access" to our technology emerged.
Consequently, a proposal was developed with a good deal of CTC faculty
involvement to eliminate the fees completely (See ATTACHMENT, April
13, 1999, Universal Access Proposal) for a two-year pilot period.
3. This proposal was reviewed and was presented to the Budget Development
Committee. The debate over computer usage course fees was
increasingly divisive within the college faculty ranks. The Dean of
Administrative Services was only one of other advocates for the
proposal and only one of many members of the BDC. The proposal was
endorsed by the Budget Development Committee on which four (4)
faculty served: the Faculty Senate President, a Faculty Senate
President Appointee (accounting faculty member), and two (2)
Department Chairs.
4. Faculty proposals were considered throughout the long study process.
In the absence of specific references, it is not clear what is
meant by "the faculty proposals were ignored." To my and the Dean
of Administrative Services' knowledge, no formal recommendations from
the Senate were received.
II. Decisions Made in Which Faculty Should Have Had Input.
A. Closing of the Library - The decision to close the College Library for
renovations without providing an alternative location, at least, for the
reference portion of the library materials, clearly has implications for
instructional delivery. This decision was made in the face of faculty
1. The decision to close the library for one year was made by the library
planning team which included library faculty. Phasing the
remodeling of the library was rejected, because it extended the
construction time.
2. An intergovernmental agreement was developed with the Glendale Public
Library (GPL) , located approximately 2 blocks and 10 walking minutes,
from the campus. We recognized that if our library was not open, our
students would go there for some of their needs. We felt a
responsibility to help GPL handle the impact.
3. The planning team also determined that the year could be used by the
library faculty and staff to experiment with new approaches to library
services in a technology-intensive environment. Thus, arrangements
were made to move, where possible, items to an electronic reserve
desk, to pro~Tide space and support in HTC-2 for librarians with the
basic reference tools, for other staff in HTC-1 for interlibrary
loan, and for training of the staff in the HTC's to assist students
who need help with library functions.
4. By the time that the opposition to the closure surfaced, the
construction bid documents had been built based on the assumption of a
vacated structure. If the project was to stay on schedule, the
closing needed to stay as the planning team had recommended.
B. Resubmission of the Kellogg Grant Proposal - Concern about previous grant
proposals had resulted in the creation of a grant process requiring the
campus community be infor.med of grant proposals before submission. The
summer 1999 submission of the Kellogg grant proposal was not announced in
any fashion. Faculty learned of the resubmission only when the Senate
President inquired about its status. This was clearly a violation of the
spirit of the new grant proposal process.
1. The grants development process was developed and finalized long after
the first grant proposal was submitted to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
The Los Vecinos/The Neighbors Coalition from the community was working
to meet a summer deadline to revise that proposal to the W.K. Kellogg
2. In the summer, most faculty are gone. PEC meetings are also generally
not held in the summer. Hence, in the spirit of the grants
development process that is referenced, the revised proposal was
shared at the first possible meeting of the academic year on September
17, 1999. There were no objections or concerns voiced. See response
also under Section E., Roman Numeral I.
C. Revision of the Budget Process - In April 1999 a revision of the
composition of the membership of the campus Budget Committee was
announced. The revision significantly reduced faculty participation on
the committee. A similar revision had been announced a year and a half
earlier, and in response to faculty concerns, a Budget Process Committee
was for.med to propose a different composition. While the Budget Process
Committee's recommendations were not accepted in toto, there was agreement
to limited changes and to reconvening the Budget Process Committee in the
case future revisions were to be co~sidered. The April 1999 announced
revision violated the process that had been agreed upon a year earlier.
1. The revision of the budget development processes for this campus has
involved faculty throughout the process. The changes II announced II in
April 1999 reflected the recommendations of the Budget Development
Committee (BDC). There is/was confusion on the process that had been
agreed upon during the prior year's deliberations. This confusion was
addressed during meetings this fall.
2. The number of faculty involved in the current process exceeds what the
college has experienced in the past. During January/February 2000, an
evaluation of the process will again be conducted. Changes will be
recommended, and the appropriate reviews of those recommendations will
be conducted. Faculty do and will continue to have input into these
D. Selection of FaC"llty Members of the NCA Steering Commdttee - The Senate
President should have chosen, with Senate approval, at least some of the
members of the NCA Steering Committee. Instead, the administration chose
the faculty members to serve on the committee.
1. The North Central Association specifies that IIPeople chosen for the
Steering Committee should be recognized leaders who can command the
respect of the. institution's various constituencies .... " and that liThe
institution's Executive Officer should make these appointments, in
consultation with the Self-Study Coordinator, so that a broadly
representative Steering Committee, including significant faculty
involvement, can receive the cooperation necessary to carry out its
task." This was done.
2. The present NCA Steering Team has a total of 17 members, 12 of whom
are faculty including four Senate members, one of whom is the official
representative of the Senate.
E. Selection of Faculty Members on Facilities Manager Hiring Committee - The
Senate President did not select the faculty representatives on the
Facilities Manager Hiring Committee, as required by the Residential
Faculty Policies.
1. Apparently, the Senate has chosen to interpret section 22.214.171.124 of
the RFP in one fashion; we have interpreted it in another. The
Section reads:
The College Senate Faculty President will recommend faculty
to serve on screening committees for college ADMINISTRATIVE
personnel [emphasis added].
2. The Senate has interpreted that to mean all MAT personnel. Since MAT
includes management, administrative, and technical personnel, the
college interprets "administrative" as Dean-level (MAT IX) positions
and above.
3. In actuality, a faculty member (a Department Chair) did serve on
the committee for the Facilities Manager, MAT V - level position.
However, he was not recommended by the Faculty Senate President; he
was invited to serve by the committee chair.
4. Clarification on this section of the RFP should be provided
by the Legal Department. I understand that other employee groups are
lobbying for inclusion of similar language into their policies.
The Senate's letter cites American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
principles and NCA criteria regarding its allegations. The Board has not
recognized AAUP.
The Senate's reference to NCA Criteria Five, specifically that "The
institution demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships," has
great legitimacy. Compliance with Criteria Five is of concern to me and
should be to the Chancellor and to the Board in the context of the Senate's
allegations. NCA text follows:
By integrity, the Commission means that an institution adheres both to
the civil laws and to the code of ethics commonly accepted by the
academic community. Such values are reflected by an institution's
o expression of the ethical values it has adopted through institutional
policies and procedures, made public in its public documents and
contractual arrangements;
o assurance that its practices are consistent with its publicly stated
o expectation that members of its constituencies (administration,
faculty, and students) observe the tenets of academic honesty;
o practice of full disclosure in its dealings with members of the
insticution and its publics;
o operation, without conflict of interest, at the board, administrative,
and faculty levels;
o living up to commitments it makes in all its public representations.
[Source: The NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition,
09/97, page 57]
The GCC Faculty Senate raises a serious concern regarding integrity in the
practices and relationships of the institution as defined by NCA above.
I concur with their concern. Evidence provided in this response or
elsewhere shows:
1. Reckless and questionably-motivated contents in the letter sent
to you and the Board by the Gce Faculty Senate
2. Abuse of the communication process with frivolous allegations by
the GCC Faculty Senate despite the Senate President's objection
to the Senate regarding the lack of veracity in the letter
3. The recent fining of the Maricopa Community College Faculty
Association, of which the GCC Senate is a member, in connection
with the campaign of a Governing Board Member of the Maricopa
Community College District who is also a former faculty member of
Glendale Community College
These conoltions clearly demonstrate non-compliance with Criteria Five
and warrant the attention of the North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools.
President's Executive Committee
November 14, 1997
PRESENT: Tessa Martinez Pollack, Joyce Elsner, Jean Ann Abel, Alberto Sanchez,
Mary Lou Bayless, Mike McKinley, Freddie Anttila, Ann Brandt-Williams, Pat
Brodie, Socorro Meek, Mike Murphy, Regis Della-Calce, Jim Hernandez, Pam
Jorranstad for Linda Hawbaker
ABSENT: Linda Hawbaker
a. New Committees - No new committees were announced.
b. Employee, Retention, Achievement - No report
2. INFORMATION: Joyce Elsner, Ann Brandt-Williams, Mike McKinley
Update from Re-Organization Sub-committee - The sub-committee composed of
Joyce Elsner, Ann Brandt-Williams, Mike McKinley thoroughly reviewed all
input. The sub-committee reviewed criteria that the Deans and President
had used during their initial deliberations. The criteria stressed that
any reorganization should provide a focus on instruction, distribute work
load, allow for achievement, and provide a high level of service.
The sub-committee read all input, categorized it, and sorted out the
themes. In some cases, the comments did not relate to reorganization but
to other peripheral matters unrelated to organizational structure.
Following that review, the sub-committee drafted another version of the
chart that would address the major concerns, that would provide additional
clarification, and that would allow the college to move forward and improve
upon some of its current practices. The result of their efforts was a
chart labeled "Draft #21/Revised 11/12/97." The highlights include the
following items:
a. Where the earlier chart had stated "Effective January 1998," the
wording was changed to read "Implementation Phased January through June
Rationale: This wording better reflects the original intent. It is
recognized that a change in organization cannot occur overnight and
that there are always portions of an organization that continue to
evolve. The sub-committee's intent with this word change is to reflect
a gradual change over the course of the spring semester with the goal
to have it in place by midyear.
b. The units, other than the deans, that report to the President
(Institutional Effectiveness, Marketing and Public Relations, and the
Athletic Director) were re-drawn to better reflect their overall
position in relation to the deans. A question had been asked about why
the Athletic Director was reporting to the President. The feeling was
that athletics was such a complex area that it best remain close to the
c. As mentioned earlier, the sub-committee tried to deal with the major
areas of consensus first. In general, the major areas of concern cited
by the respondents related to the Dean of Instruction and the Associate
Deans. Common themes cited about this area included the desire for all
department chairs to report to the dean and that two associate deans
were not needed. After much discussion, it was felt that if all
departments reported to one dean, there would still be a need for an
associate dean to help carry the overall workload.
d. Draft #21 shows one Dean of Instruction, fifteen (15) instructional
departments reporting to the Dean, and one (1) Associate Dean. The
Associate Dean would be responsible for initiatives that crossed many
departments. General Education and Basic Skills are cited and are
meant to convey the programs that this person would support and
coordinate. With these two, for example, the Associate Dean may look
at the way General Education courses are scheduled and ensure that a
student who wants to take the transfer block of courses would be able
to do so (within a semester, two semesters, three semesters or more) .
The present structure does not easily facilitate this across discipline
scheduling and coordination.
In addition, the Associate Dean would provide leadership for the
non-credit programs of the Institute and Special Interest. While these
are separately funded, they can be a "feeder" or test area for new
courses and new programs. By having them under the umbrella of
"instruction," the hope is that they can be used in this way more
The Honors program, faculty-designed and student-focused, remains in
this area with general supervision provided by the Associate Dean.
This Associate dean would also provide support for those faculty who
wished to do more with other instructional initiatives, such as,
Learning Communities, Service Learning and International Education.
e. The Dean on the left side of the chart was re-named to Dean of Students
and New Directions. The words "Community Service" were dropped from
the title.
Rationale: This change was intended to better reflect the emphasis of
this position. New directions and initial implementation refers to the
work that must be done to create and implement courses, programs and
services at new sites and new partnerships. The UCC
(University-College Center) at ASU-West and the current work on "GCC
North" demonstrate the types of activities that are needed to move us
in new directions of the Strategic Issues. The success of the UCC is
the result of good work by many people, but someone needed to be the
point-person to be sure that all of the right people were involved in
planning and in implementation. The planning for "GCC North" (the
acreage on Happy Valley Road that will be operated as an extension of
the campus) is another example in process. People are being brought
together to think about the site, about what program(s) could or should
be offered there, about the type of facilities we will need to deliver
that programs, and about the partnerships that might be needed to
deliver the program desired. Again, someone needs to take the
leadership and be a "rainmaker" with new initiatives. The
responsibility was lodged with this position.
f. The line that is drawn between the Dean of Students and New Directions
and the Dean of Instruction is an important one. That line is meant to
convey that programs initially "incubated" by the Dean of Students and
New Directions would move over to the Dean of Instruction and
Department Chairs to institutionalize and continue.
The line also indicates that new directions will be built with the Dean
of Instruction and the Department Chairs so that the transition to part
of the ongoing operation can be a smooth one.
g. The programs and services listed under the Associate Dean for
Enrollment Services and the Associate Dean for Student Life were
reviewed. In general, Enrollment Services focuses on services the
potential student needs ("life before enrollment"), while Student Life
focuses on services that support the students after they have enrolled.
These are not clear-cut distinctions as many of our programs have
multiple tasks of outreach, enrollment and retention support.
The sub-committee tried to look at the major work of units as listed to
see if they met the "before" or "after" enrollment emphasis. Comments
about the placement of the Counseling Department were made, but when
one looked at the work of the Counseling Department, the majority of
their efforts dealt with student support and retention, and while they
also taught courses, many of those courses, too, focused on retention
strategies. Plus, the counseling department has not expressed any
concern so it was left with Student Life.
h. Questions were also raised about the placement of ACE+, but again,
while it is involved with instruction, the instruction is the
responsibility of the instructional department. The program's main
emphasis is on the retention of the student through support services.
The staff works closely with the department chairs to ensure that
courses of interest to these students are provided.
i. The LAC/Literacy Center was another program that received comments. It
was placed where it was because it was felt that the major area of
their work was retention and tutoring of students. While many faculty
are involved in providing tutoring, the faculty involvement was not as
strong as, say, the Honors Program, which remained under the umbrella
of instruction. Again, with distribution of workload, it seemed
appropriate where placed. The issue of the Literacy Center may need
further discussion as it can be/is a feeder to our below-IOO courses,
and right now LAC and LC are linked primarily because of physical
The sub-committee decided that, since the Department Chairs were scheduled
to meet the day before the PEC, this draft should be shared with them. Ann
Brandt-Williams did so. She reported that the reaction was varied and
consensus was not reached.
Michael McKinley commented that the need for some reorganization was a
theme that had appeared in the Interim Advisory Committee work and in the
work of the Strategic Planning Committee. He noted that organizations
evolve and continue to do so.
Socorro Meek invited Joyce Elsner to attend the PSA meeting on November 20
to explain the changes on the new chart. Joyce indicated that she is
available to talk to departments and/or answer any questions.
In summary, all the feedback received was reviewed thoroughly. Tessa and
deans will begin sharing the new chart during the department meetings. All
feedback will be due back to Joyce Elsner, Ann Brandt-Williams or Mike
McKinley by Monday, December 1. A revised recommendation to PEC will be
presented on December 5.
Tessa expressed appreciation to all who submitted feedback on the
re-organization and to the PEC sub-committee who had the difficult task of
considering and organizing it.
3. DECISION: Tessa Martinez Pollack
Feedback on Employee Recognition Program - The proposed employee
recognition program was approved. Tessa presented Scott Kozak's request to
expand the charge to include "frivolity and fun, II and it was approved. The
PEC wishes to extend thanks and appreciation to the Employee Recognition
Committee for its hard work.
INFORMATION: Ann Brandt-Williams
4. Department Chair Update
a. John Griggs and Bruce Thomas will participate on the Enrollment Study
b. Ann will forward to Tessa a summary of community work being done by
individual departments.
c. Departments will be sending to Ann their ideas on whether testing
should be in one area or various areas on campus.
d. Ann shared with the Chairs the most recent version of the
re-organizational chart. The Chairs will be sharing the chart with
their departments and giving feedback to Ann. The department chairs
requested that Tessa review all the re-organization comments.
5. INFORMATION: Jean Ann Abel
Holiday Recess and January 2 Coveraqe - Jean Ann indicated that the
Chancellor granted an additional half-day of winter recess on the morning
of December 24, 1997. She indicated that we do return on January 2 and
that all departments should be staffed. Please get word to your
appropriate dean if phones will be forwarded to a "cluster."
6. Next Meeting - Friday, November 21, 9:00a.m.
President's Executive Committee
November 21, 1997
PRESENT: Tessa Martinez Pollack, Joyce Elsner, Alberto Sanchez, Mary Lou
Bayless, Freddie Anttila, Mike McKinley, Ann Brandt-Williams, Mike Murphy,
Linda Hawbaker, Regis Della-Calce, Pat Brodie, Don Jensen-Bobadilla for Socorro
ABSENT: Jean Ann Abel, Jim Hernandez, Socorro Meek
a. New Committees to Announce - Mike Murphy has received a good response
from the employees who were asked to participate on the steering committee
to plan the event to promote Fall, 1998 registration.
b. Enrollment, Retention, and Achievement Update - Mary Lou reported that
the Enrollment Study Group (ESG) sent a letter to Tessa outlining concerns
relating to the additional charges from PEC (see PEC minutes dated
10/10/97). Mary Lou Bayless will bring it to PEC at a later date.
c. Rumor Control/Clarification - This is clarification on the PEC minutes
dated 11/14/97. All members of the PEC will distribute DRAFT 21 of the
re-organization chart to their respective groups with a note indicating
that feedback/input is due back to Joyce Elsner, Ann Brandt-Williams, or
Mike McKinley.
Monday, December 8: Re-orqanization feedback due.
As before, input can be kept anonYmous. Tessa has reviewed all feedback
received to-date. She will review new re-organization feedback as well.
A revised recommendation on re-organization will be presented by the
sub-committee to PEC on December 12. PEC will act on the recommendation.
PEC defined consensus as:
- Everyone has spoken.
- There is discussion and exchange of ideas.
- Comments have been recorded.
- The recommendation reflects a direction that has received suitable
d. Employee Group Reports -
Don Jensen-Bobadilla reported that PSA has its own web page. The
website address is http://gcunix.gc.maricopa.edu:80/PSA/ It can also
be found on the GCC home page under Programs/Departments with a link
entitled Professional Staff Association. The links and information on
this web site include our Professional Staff Policy Manual; GCC PSA
meeting schedule; list of current officers; and links to
PSA related committees. Joyce Elsner attended the last PSA
and answered questions in relation to the re-organization
PSA has adopted Phoenix Childrens Hospital as their community
Pat Brodie reported that there are 30 MAT members on campus.
Participation has increased since meetings are being scheduled during
the lunch hour. Gene Eastin attended the last meeting, and Linda
Rosenthal is scheduled for the December 1 meeting.
Freddie Anttila reported that Tessa attended the Faculty Senate meeting
on November 20.
2. INFORMATION: Regis Della-Calce
Budget Process Review Update - Regis reported that a draft budget process
model is scheduled to be completed December 9. The model will link
budgeting to the strategic planning process and provide a more holistic
approach to the budget process. The first draft model will be submitted to
the committees represented by team members (including the current budget
team) for feedback. The revised (if necessary) draft model will be brought
to PEC in February for the PEC approval process. The new budget process
should be ready for implementation in April.
3. INFORMATION: Tessa Martinez Pollack
Developing Grants Procedure - Joyce Elsner and Alberto Sanchez have been
working on a procedure for developing grants. Tessa suspended introduction
of the "straw model" to PEC in favor of the development of a process by PEC
membership. It was felt that a varied group of stakeholders should work on
the development of the grants procedure including Institutional
Effectiveness and the Strategic Planning (Operational planning)
sub-committee. The following individuals will work on developing the
grants procedure: Freddie Anttila, Jean Ann Abel, and Linda Hawbaker.
This group may decide that others should be added. Linda Hawbaker will
identify someone from the Strategic Planning Operational Planning
sub-committee to participate.
4. INFORMATION: Tessa Martinez Pollack
December 24 and January 2 - The Chancellor granted all employees an
additional half day on December 24. The campus will be open on Friday,
January 2 and the first four Saturdays in January for registration.
Supervisors will need to work out fair staff scheduling that meets College
needs on January 2.
The PEC Minutes of 10/31/97 were re-typed on 12/15/99 from a hard copy because
the original was not saved in an A-I folder.
Glendale Community College
President's Executive Committee
October 31, 1997
PRESENT: Tessa Martinez Pollack, Joyce Elsner, Jean Ann Abel, Alberto
Sanchez, Mary Lou Bayless, Freddie Anttila, Mike McKinley, Ann
Brandt-Williams, Socorro Meek, Pat Brodie, Linda Hawbaker, Regis Della-Calce,
Mike Murphy
ABSENT: Jim Hernandez
New Committees - The purpose of this item is to introduce new committees
on campus, as well as to propose that an ad hoc/select committee be
formally designated as a committee for inclusion as a Committee and
Professional Assignment request. An ad hoc/select committee requesting to
become a designated committee must:
a. Relate directly to the mission of GCC.
b. Not overlap with work of an already exiting committee.
c. Specify a charge, meeting schedule, records.
No new committees were announced.
Employee, Retention, Achievement - Mary Lou will report following the next
meeting of the Enrollment Study Group.
2. INTRODUCTION: Scott Kozak and Cookie Horne
Update from the Employee Recognition Committee - This committee, with
representation from all employee groups, solicited from all employees
ideas for a comprehensive Employee Recognition Program. The following
minor modifications were suggested:
a. Add the word "team" to Employee of the Year Award so that it reads
b. Add Service to Students to the Gauchos Pride certificate.
c. Add Going the Extra Mile to the Gauchos Pride certificate.
d. Include retiree recognition to the program.
Employee group leaders will take the report to their respective areas and
bring comments and suggestions back to the November 14 PEC meeting.
Scott Kozak will discuss with Donna Murchland and Freddie Anttila that this
committee become a standing committee. Monitoring and implementation are
the keys to a successful Employee Recognition Program.
3. DECISION: Mary Lou Bayless
Selling of Catalogs - A consensus was reached on the selling of catalogs.
4. INTRODUCTION - Tessa Martinez Pollack
Considering Feedback on Re-Organization - PEC collected input, in different
shapes and forms. Freddie Anttila or Mike McKinley, Ann Brandt-Williams,
and Joyce Elsner will organize possible categories (e.g., questions,
concerns, recommendations) keeping names of input anonymous. If any PEC
member discussed re-organization issues with faculty and staff, please
summarize the discussion (keeping names anonymous) and forward comments to
Joyce Elsner.
The organized responses will be presented at the November 14 PEC meeting.
The implementation date of January 1998 is a proposed date of
implementation rather than completion date.
The first tuition due date has been extended to January 8 to do reporting
the Hope Scholarship/Tax Benefit. Letter will be mailed to all students
who registered after October 29 have been given the January 8 due date.
GCC received three "Best of the West" awards. The awards were given for
the Soleri Amphitheater, University College Center partnership, and ACE
Plus in conjunction with the City of Surprise.
Tessa indicated that various situations have brought us to a point of great
stress in the College. She has requested to meet with the executive team
of the Faculty Senate. She has also requested to meet with the other
employee groups and departments as well. The first step is recognizing and
identifying the problems and then determining if we want to fix it.
6. Next Meeting - Friday, November 14 at 9:00 a.m. in the ACR
Item 5 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-~pr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
28-Jan-1998 11:07am MST
Freddie Anttila
TO: Tessa Martinez Pollack
CC: Mary Lou Bayless
CC: Joyce Elsner
cc: Alberto Sanchez
CC: Jean Ann Abel
CC: Gay Garesche
Subject: RE: Meeting Notes of January 26, 1998
The Faculty Senate has not proposed a new reorganization of the college. Our
discussion in Senate was to support the moratorium that was passed at the Nov.
20th meeting. We did, however, form a committee to look at the organization of
the college. This committee could be charged to look at the organization of
the college in a number of ways, not exclusively at the reporting structure or
lines of responsibility. I hope that this clarifies the rumor. I am curious
as to how this rumor was spread, given that the unapproved minutes of the
Senate had not been distributed at the time of our meeting. The attached
minutes do not reflect the discussion that took place with regard to Old
Business, item C. The title Faculty Driven Reorganization reflects the way the
topic was listed on the agenda, as requested by the person who introduced the
item, it does not reflect the actual motion as was passed.
Thanks for asking,
Item 6 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
TO: Distribution to 199 addressees.
Tel No:
27-Jan-1998 02:42pm MST
Betty Hufford
Subject: UNAPPROVED Minutes of January 22, 1998
Attached for your consideration are the latest faculty senate minutes (the
unapproved edition) .
I. CALL TO ORDER - President Anttila called the official meeting to order
at 2:40 in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT - Vice President Gay Garesche, Senators Carmela Arnoldt, Larry
Bohlender, Rod Brooker, Jim Daugherty, Paul DePippo, Marilyn Hoffs, Mike
Holtfrerich, Betty Hufford, Pam Joraanstad, Hannes Kvaran, Phil Moloso,
Joann Pell, Jim Reed, and Linda Smith
ABSENT - Pat Haas and Michael Petrowsky
VISITORS - Included but were not limited to Juan Gurule, Margaret
Hawks, Jeanne Saint-Amour, and Lyle Walcott
II. ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES - Phil Moloso moved, and
Linda Smith seconded approval of the minutes of December 11 with
corrections. PASSED.
Pam Joraanstad moved, and Jim Daugherty-seconded that the expanded
summary of discussion with Dr. Pollack be approved with one addition.
III. ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - Jim Daugherty added a Meet and
Confer report as point C under information. Marilyn Hoffs moved, and
Carmela Arnoldt seconded that the modified agenda be approved. PASSED.
IV. TREASURER'S REPORT - Marilyn Hoffs reported $12,236
$294 in checking. GCC membership stands at 148.5.
thank you notes from the families of Sylvia Meixner
for Senate donations in their names. Betty Hufford
Moloso seconded acceptance of the report. PASSED.
in savings and
She had received
and Joe Terrell
moved, and Phil
V. STUDENT INTERIM -- No students were present.
Rod Brooker reported that the revised budget process was now in
the "tweaking" stage and should be available for all faculty to
peruse by mid-February. This model will be delivered to Dean
Elsner. President Anttila suggested that senate should officially
review the process when it is available.
Joann Pell moved, and Betty Hufford seconded acceptance of a
document delineating problems in communication, morale, systems, and
community relations which led to the lack of confidence vote. This
document would be sent to Dr. Pollack; the president in concert with
the faculty senate would develop a means for discussing progress.
After lengthy discussion and many friendly amendments, senate PASSED
the motion in principle, pending a review of finalized wording via
A-l. Gay Garesche voted NO.
Phil Moloso moved, and Gay Gareshe seconded that the finalized
statement be forwarded to other appropriate parties, such as
the chancellor, the governing board, and the @gc distribution
list. The resolution PASSED; Marilyn Hoffs abstained.
Joann Pell moved, and Jim Daugherty seconded that a committee
composed of faculty senate volunteers investigate campus
organization. PASSED; Marilyn Hoffs abstained.
The volunteer committee of Jim Daugherty, Pam Joraanstad, Joann
Pell, Jim Reed, and Linda Smith was approved by acclamation.
Gay Garesche reported that the Executive Council committee to
gather information on the pervasiveness of co-enrollment had
finished the task; the committee's report will
be available soon. However, the committee has dissolved, and
an executive council committee to act on the information is
unlikely. Two proposals might fill this gap. One, Garesche
announced that the next GCC convocation on quality would address
this subject. Two, she moved, and Pam Joraanstad seconded that the
GCC senate form a committee on co-enrollment. PASSED.
Senators Brooker, Garesche, and Joraanstad volunteered to serve;
Al Shipley and Margaret Hawks (who initially brought this item to
the attention of senate) will also be invited to join the committee.
Paul DePippo moved, and Betty Hufford seconded that Dean Sanchez,
who has been working on issues of quality and control with
co-enrollment, be asked to present at the convocation. Dr. Pollack
and the deans would be invited for informational purposes. PASSED.
Phil Moloso delineated several areas of the constitution that needed
clarification or change. Then he moved, and Marilyn Hoffs seconded
that senate authorize Phil Moloso and Betty Hufford to frame
enabling language for constitutional changes to be considered at the
February meeting. PASSED.
Since district is no longer distributing printed copies to all
faculty, departments should watch that their paper budgets do not
go to printing the RFP.
A. AAUP/Faculty Association
The move to disaffiliate has been tabled at Executive Council, but
President Anttila expects it to resurrect. She has been supporting
the association but is open to response from faculty at large.
B. Legislative Report
President Anttila reported that the Whistleblower Law is likely
to pass. Its main feature is provision to go to state personnel for
mediation rather than the current internal process. The governance
law may also pass. Mail or e-mail your legislator to support these
C. Meet and Confer Report
Jim Daugherty reported that the employee alliance had presented
well-supported proposals to CFAC and had been generally well
received. Improved retrenchment language is likely to be TAed
(tentatively approved) at the next meeting. The movement in
professional growth is to keep the policy but not the procedures
in the RFPi policies still must be approved by the faculty Executive
Council. The faculty evaluation plan is likely to be approved.
Probationary faculty reform may fly.
The next meeting is February 26 at 2:30.
Jim Reed moved to adjourn, and Marilyn Hoffs seconded.
PASSED. The meeting was adjourned at 5:25
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hufford, Secretary
President's Executive Committee
December 12, 1997
PRESENT: Joyce Elsner Acting President for Tessa Martinez Pollack, Jean Ann
Abel, Alberto Sanchez, Mary Lou Bayless, Freddie Anttila, Mike McKinley,
Ann Brandt-Williams, Fernando Camou, Linda Hawbaker, Regis Della-Calce, Mike
Murphy, Pat Brodie, Jim Hernandez, Don Jensen-Bobadilla for Socorro Meek
ABSENT: Tessa Martinez Pollack, Socorro Meek
GUESTS: Steve Williams, Fernando Camou
1. WELCOME: Fernando Camou was welcomed as the new PEC representative of the
Department Chairs Council. Ann Brandt-Williams was thanked for her
contributions to PEC during the fall semester.
a. New Committees - Linda Hawbaker announced that she has asked several
department chairs to serve as an ad hoc committee and advise her of
information that should appear on the IE web page.
Jean Ann Abel announced that she and several faculty are meeting at ASU
West on January 8 to discuss 2+2 oppportunities. Anyone interested in
attending the meeting should contact Jean Ann at 5-3155.
Freddie indicated that the Employee Recognition Committee will be
submitting paperwork to be recognized as a permanent committee.
b. Enrollment, Retention, and Achievement - No report. Joyce Elsner
announced that spring enrollment is down.
c. Rumor Control/Clarification - Faculty in the 02 building will not be
moving to the LA building.
d. Grants Development Update - Diana Dias is working with a district-wide
team on a grant from AACC/Microsoft. If the grant requires matching
dollars, Carl Perkins dollars and release time for faculty will be used.
Steve Williams announced that GCC, PC, and SMCC in conjunction with ASU
West have been awarded an NIH grant. Ten (10) students from GCC need to be
identified for participation in this program. The grant aims to create a
bridge program for minority students to complete a baccalaureate degree in
the Life Sciences at ASU West and to direct the students into biomedical
research careers. The minority students targeted by NIH are Hispanic,
African American, Native American, and Pacific Islander. Anyone who knows
of a minority student who has a 3.0 GPA or better and has an interest in a
biomedical career l should contact Steve Williams at 5-3621.
e. Employee Group Reports - Don Jensen-Bobadilla reported that PSA is
collecting information for the Collaborative Policy Development (CPD)
meeting. This is the new term for meet and confer. He also reported that
PSA collected over $5000 in toys for the Phoenix Childrens Hospital.
Jim Hernandez reported that Crafts Collaborative Policy recommendations
were approved by the Governing Board at the last Board meeting. The next
years process now begins.
Pat Brodie - No report from MAT.
Freddie Anttila reported that the Faculty Senate met with the Arizona
Hispanic Forum. The Faculty Senate has donated funds for a party and gifts
for the children of the parents attending our classes in El Mirage.
Re-Organization - The re-organization subcommittee reviewed all the
additional comments submitted. The subcommittee does not feel comfortable
making a recommendation to PEC. The subcommittee feels that the
re-organization is ultimately the president/s decision and that the
president should consider these new comments along with the former ones.
All new comments have been forwarded to the President for review.
4. Other - No PEC meeting scheduled for FridaYI December 19.
Item 9 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
04-May-1998 05:05pm MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Via System List GC
Subject: Staffing of the College
SUBSCRIBERS: AT Al AT GC )
Throughout many discussions and input periods regarding the organizational
structure of the College, there has been agreement on one point: we all seek
a structure that supports academic quality, students, and the continued growth
and development of the College for a changing community. I thank all of you
who participated in the processes, discussions, and contribution of feedback
for your level of care and interest.
Today, I have taken the following actions:
1. Jean Ann Abel and Alberto Sanchez will begin the transition of moving the
on-campus Dean of Instruction duties to Jean Ann. Alberto and Jean Ann
will continue to work as a team to support instructional initiatives.
2. Alberto Sanchez will focus on the Northwest Center, the UCC, other campus
sites, and education partnerships in a transition to duties as the Dean
for Educational Services.
3. Two posting requests for Associate Deans have been sent to the District
Office. The Associate Deans will work with both Dean Abel and Dean
4. Donna Murchland has been re-assigned to serve as Associate Dean of Student
Life. She will assume administrative responsibility for Disabled Student
Resources, the Learning Assistance Center, Career Services, Job Placement,
and Re-entry Services.
To begin the phase-in of these staffing changes, I have requested that the
following occur:
1. Dean Abel and Dean Sanchez will meet with all of the instructional
2. Dean Elsner and Donna Murchland will meet with departments where there
will be changes in reporting relationships in a few of the program areas.
Early on, I shared with you some of my priorities in a management decision
regarding the organizational structure and staffing of the College. They
o that we be able to develop a more efficient focal point for the support of
o that we be able to move in the direction of the same focal point for the
support of students services;
o . that we be able to develop a more balanced work load across a dangerously
lean administrative structure; and others.
I believe that these staffing arrangements achieve those priorities. I thank
you for helping me to shape some adjustments that have been incorporated. The
Deans and I look forward to your continued participation and cooperation for a
continuously evolving structure as the demands on our college may require.
Item 10 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT A1 AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
12-May-1998 11:45pm MST
Jim Reed
(43) 53631
TO: Tessa Martinez Pollack
Subject: GCC Reorganization
Dr. Pollack:
The Faculty Senate has spent a great deal of time discussing numerous revisions
of GCC's organizational structure. At our April 23 meeting we agreed upon the
1. That we add a Dean of Instruction rather than two Associate
2. That we have a Director of Student Life rather than an Associate
I have put a model of this plan in your office for your consideration. The
Senate requests that you suspend yo~r reorganization plan pending a review of
the Faculty Senate's Proposal. Our rationale favoring a fourth Dean in
preference to two Associate Deans is:
1. A Dean would be less expensive than multiple Associate Deans.
2. A Dean maintains GCC's non-hiearchical structure.
3. A Dean can take a higher profile role in our community.
4. A Dean does not demand time for supervision/delegation.
5. A Dean would allow instructional departments to be divided among
two Deans rather than have all instructional departments reporting
to one Dean.
6. A Dean would accommodate NCA requirements that there be a Dean
of Instruction responsible for curriculum.
A portion of our UNNAPROVED MINUTES from the May 7 meeting follows:
"Phil M. moved, accepting Michael P's. friendly amendment, and Gay
G. seconded, that the Senate, on behalf of the entire Glendale Faculty,
opposes the addition of the two new associate deans to GCC's
Administration, favoring instead the faculty's reorganization plan
prepared recently for President Pollack. The Senate requests that
Dr. Pollack suspend her reorganization plan pending a review of the
Faculty Senate proposal. Discussion followed. Passed. Marilyn Hoffs
voted No."
The Senate thanks you for your consideration in this matter.
Jim Reed, Senate President
Item 11 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT A1 AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
TO: Distribution to 22 addressees.
Subject: Changes in College Staffing
Tel No:
14-May-1998 01:24pm MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
This is to respond to each of your two messages attached. Let me thank you
and other members of your Senate's sub-committee who worked with the Deans to
obtain a better understanding of organizational and staffing needs so that we
can provide the type of service that students need and faculty and staff
First, I will respond to each of the Senate's recommendations:
1. That we add a Dean of Instruction rather than two Associate Deans
I cannot agree with this recommendation. Now, let me explain why
a. The addition of another Dean maintains the current fractionalization
of our most important enterprise at the college, instruction. One of
the keys to effective organizational design is the coordination of
key functions. We need more coordinated support for programs that
have both transfer and occupational aspects (e.g., Psychology,
Sociology, HPER, Art). We are growing in our need for more of that
coordination between general education and occupational programs as
well as in some labor intensive NCA processes such as Institutional
Effectiveness, Program Review, and College-wide Academic Achievement.
b. There are other areas in which faculty need a cohesive approach and
integrated support for emerging themes of instruction (e.g.,
Integrated Learning Communities, Multiple Intelligences, the infusion
of diversity into the curriculum, writing across the curriculum).
c. The addition of a Dean does not address one of the top priorities
related to workloads. Whether or not we choose to use any college
within the system or outside of it as a reference, it would be
unreasonable for me to expect any human (or superhuman) being to
attend to the coordination of instruction described above with
any level of quality in its growth and support. The communication
tasks, alone, from e-mail to meetings are mammoth.
Additionally, I have decided in the last two days to post these two support
positions as Senior Associate Deans. These positions more adequately reflect
the breadth and depth of responsibilities that the work above requires.
Posting these two positions at the Senior Associate level rather than the
Associate Dean level was accommodated in the 1998-1999 budget. An important
outcome of this is that the salary level of the Senior Associate Dean may
also attract more faculty applicants in the pool. I believe that this is a
plus and addresses some of the input that I received regarding administrative
opportunities for faculty.
Regarding the Senate rationale, let me hasten to add that I am aware
of and share concerns for leanness and hierarchy in structures. One of the
reasons, I deferred refilling Dean Staten's vacated position was in the
interest of being lean. The trade-off to address the workload issue
is some elongation to the structure. However, I believe that the net effect
will be better service and support. I am confidant that the Dean of
Instruction will be able to work closely with the Department Chairs to define
functions that require her direct supervision and functions where the Senior
Associate Deans can lend support.
2. That we have a Director of Student Life rather than an Associate
I cannot agree with this recommendation. This position will also be
reclassified as a Senior Associate Dean. Like the positions above, it
was accommodated in the budget building process and will not affect the
1998-1999 budget. Here, I would also like to explain why the adjustment is
necessary ---
a. The current breadth and depth of responsibilities of this position
require it. Again, regardless of the reference to a college in or
out of the system, the duties being performed in that position
currently command that placement in our District emploYment
classification structure.
b. The Senior Associate Dean for Enrollment Services is a parallel
position, meaning that the Student Life duties are comparable in
depth and breadth to that in Enrollment Services. If we do not
classify this position in a parallel fashion, we are not acting in
accord with good business practices.
Second, this is to respond to your attached a1 on the reporting of Counseling.
My a1 of May 4, 1998 (Staffing of the College) is also attached. It does not
suggest nor have I decided anything as yet regarding the reporting of
Counseling anywhere else other than where it is reporting now. As I also said
there, I am keeping a view toward the continuing evolution of the
organizational structure. The Counseling Department has done some outstanding
work as part of the Student Success Council, and I will want them to take that
promising work into consideration in continuing decisions. Regardless, I would
hope that we do not confuse issues of function (i.e., Where will Counselors
best serve students as part of the Student Success model?) with classification
(i.e., Counselors are, by RFP, faculty regardless of where they report.).
Finally, Jim, I am, again, most appreciative of the diligent work done by the
Senate sub-committee. The Deans and I are very interested in the inverted
organizational model that you have proposed. We would like to continue to work
with you in reflecting the staffing changes as noted above and as they continue
to evolve in an organizational chart of the same type. The sub-committee gave
us a head start on a chart that will need to be in place by the time of the NCA
Item 12 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT A1 AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
01-Nov-1999 03:19pm MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Jim Reed
CC: Jean Ann Abel
CC: Joyce Elsner
CC: Alberto Sanchez
CC: Christine Hall
CC: Randy Kimmens
CC: Mary Lou Massal
CC: Donna Murchland
CC: Roxie Helbert
Subject: Attached E-mail RE: Afternoon College
Jim, sorry I missed you last week: lots to talk about, and tough to line up
our schedules. The attached on Afternoon College was one of the topics.
On a broader but related topic, I am feeling a deficit of communication to and
fro on matters that are of respective concern to the Senate and me. At the
beginning of the semester, I felt that you and I were briefing each other,
but, as semesters and schedules go, we've not really maintained the effort.
The group on the College Plan is a good example of an opportunity in which we
have been able to establish communication on that particular topic. However,
I think that we need a means to brief, discuss, inform, and so on on broader
topics and interests that may not always present themselves in something so
structured as PEC or a particular activity (i.e., such as the development of
the College Plan). Additionally, if we had a pre-arranged time for standing
meetings, we could have taken up topics like the College Plan which, as you
know, continues to be difficult to schedule.
What do you think of creating some spot on the calendar where you and Senate
leadership or some group of your design meet regularly with me and the Deans
on any topics that may need to be shared or discussed. Let me hear from you
if you're interested so that I may coordinate calendars.
Item 13 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
28-0ct-1999 06:28pm MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Rufus Glasper
CC: Raul Cardenas
Subject: Afternoon College
GLASPER, RUFUS AT Al AT DIST
CARDENAS, RAUL AT Al AT DIST
Rufus, I understand that some time back there was an Afternoon College tuition
discount that was later discontinued. What is the history of this? I'm sure
that there were adjustments that needed to be made to address the offsets of
the discounts. However, could this be a discussion for FAC?
Such an arrangement is of great interest to GCC and I would imagine would be
to the larger colleges. It certainly beats adding new buildings, new parking
lots, etc. when ATRA and others (our own Board) might potentially challenge us
on a 38% (or thereabouts) use of our buildings.
Item 14 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
29-0ct-1999 03:09pm MST
Rufus Glasper
GLASPER, RUFUS AT Al AT DIST
Business Services
TO: Tessa Martinez Pollack
CC: Rufus Glasper
CC: Raul Cardenas
Subject: RE: Afternoon College
POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC
GLASPER, RUFUS AT Al AT DIST
CARDENAS, RAUL AT Al AT DIST
The initiator of the Afternoon Program was Mesa College. The rate of tuition
was (if I can remember indexed at 2/3 of full tuition). The program lasted a
few years but received mixed reviews from the colleges. Not all colleges
participated and when offfered--the reduced tuition did not appear to increase
the number od student in sufficient numbers to warrant the cost of faculty,
etc. Additionally, when the program was eliminated district-wide revenues
continued to increase. We are not sure of the relationship.
The topic is a good one ... maybe its time has come to try again .... If you would
like I will ask Jack Twithchell or Larry the master designers to research their
files for stuff to share ... please advise ... thx rg
Item 15 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
01-Nov-1999 03:14pm MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Rufus Glasper
CC: Raul Cardenas
CC: Rufus Glasper
CC: Tessa Martinez Pollack
Subject: RE: Afternoon College
GLASPER, RUFUS AT Al AT DIST
CARDENAS, RAUL AT Al AT DIST )
GLASPER, RUFUS AT Al AT DIST )
POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC
Yes. I think Afternoon College needs to be placed back on the table. As I
understand it, there may have been some tactical scheduling errors that the
colleges made when it was piloted. We would need campus enrollment experts and
DI's to be part of the conversation so that we address the programmatic side
as well as the fiscal side.
Item 16 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
13-May-1999 10:19am MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Jim Reed
CC: Roxie Helbert
CC: Jean Ann Abel
CC: Alberto Sanchez
CC: Joyce Elsner
Subject: College Plan
Jim, I need some advice. I have been trying to move my reviews of the college
plan and response as soon as you have provided them. I know that you and the
Senate have done the same. Yet, here we are upon the close of the semester,
and we have not been able to bring closure to it. Where do you want to go
from here? Shall we plan to meet over the summer or wait until the Fall to
continue the journey?
Item 17 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
13-May-1999 12:33pm MST
Jim Reed
Communication/Faculty Presiden
(43) 53631
TO: Tessa Martinez Pollack
CC: Joyce Elsner
CC: Alberto Sanchez
CC: Jean Ann Abel
CC: Roxie Helbert
Subject: RE: College Plan
Dear Dr. Pollack:
I believe that we need to move ahead on the College Plan. But, it's a very
crowded week for us to add anything else to the plate. So I'll be in touch
with you and several of the Senate members at the beginning of next week.
See you tomorrow evening,
Item 18 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT A1 AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
10-Jun-1999 11:16am MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Jim Reed ( REED, JIM )
Subject: Suggestion for Finalizing the College Plan
Jim, summer is moving swiftly through GCC,
talking again about finalizing the College
a process subject to discussion with you.
organizing the dialogue.
and I thought I would get us both
Plan. Here are my best thoughts on
It's a place to start for
Let me hear your reactions to it or whether you'd rather wait on reviewing the
suggested process with your colleagues when they are all back. We probably
don't want to stretch this out too much beyond a Fall, 1999 completion. Take
care, drop by, call, or send a postcard ... !
Proposed Process for Adopting a College Plan
The goal: to reach agreement on the content of the college plan as per RFP
The timeframe for reaching agreement: Close of Fall, 1999
The process: The Senate President and the College President will decide
on a process and the membership of the College Plan Team.
As the proposed process, the team will:
1. Review the currently existing college plan.
2. Develop a working document that aligns the currently
existing college plan and the proposed college plan to
facilitate discussion and examination of the differences.
3. Discuss the working document and specify rationales
where there are differences between the existing and
proposed college plans.
4. Draft alternative proposals for consideration where there
are areas of disagreement.
5. Retain the language of the existing college plan in those
areas where agreement cannot be reached.
6. Submit the final proposed college plan to the President for
Item 20 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
01-Sep-1999 02:43pm MST
Roxie Helbert
GCC President's Office
TO: Tessa Martinez Pollack
TO: Jim Reed
Subject: FYI re College Plan Meeting
Item 21 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT A1 AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
01-Sep-1999 02:11pm MST
Gay Garesche
GCC Social Science
TO: Roxie Helbert
Subject: RE: College Plan Meeting
Roxie - Bob Albury is the other individual that the Senate chose to meet with
Dr. Pollack. Jim Daugherty was not chosen for this committee. I would like to
see the meeting include only those who the Senate chose. Perhaps if we had a
longer lead time on this meeting, this error could have been more gracefully
Please pass this comment along to Presidents Pollack and Reed. I don't
know how to select a portion of a distribution list for an a-I response.
The PEC Minutes of 10/31/97 were re-created on 5/15/99 from a hard copy
because the original was not saved in an A-I folder.
Glendale Community College
President's Executive Committee
Administration Conference Room
September 17, 1999
12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
(Minutes Approved via A-I)
Meeting 12
Present: Jean Ann Abel, Regis Della-Calce, Joyce Elsner, John Griggs,
Christine Hall, Linda Hawbaker, Pam Joraanstad, Randy Kimmens, Scott Kozak,
Mary Lou Massal, Donna Murchland, Debra Palok, Tessa Martinez Pollack, Jim
Reed, Alberto Sanchez, Patricia Vogel.
Guest: Mark Ferris representing Alice Estrada
A. Introductions Tessa Martinez Pollack
Committee members introduced themselves. An orientation for the new
members to the roles, responsibilities, and protocols of PEC was
deferred until the next meeting in order to get to the topics
(especially parking) on the agenda.
Tessa attended the President's Summit on September 15. The meeting
was comprised of all of Arizona's community college and university
presidents. Some of the topics included a need for more
collaboration; general education; dual enrollment; and what the new
Arizona population means to community college and university roles.
Governor Hull is creating a Task Force on Higher Education that would
include three Chancellors (one from MCCD, one Pima Community College
District, and one from the rural community colleges), three university
Presidents, a representative from the University of Phoenix, and four
representatives from the private sector. She stated that she will be
increasing her involvement in statewide issues and organizations given
the importance of emerging issues.
B. Review of Ground Rules
C. Proposed changes to Agenda/Approval of Agenda
D. Recommendations (Old Business)
E. First Consideration (New Business)
F. Standing Items
1. Rumor Control/Clarification
2. Grants
a. NSF ACEPT Grant Funding from ASU Jean Ann Abel
GCC did not apply for this grant, but Bob Thompson, three
faculty (including part-time faculty) attended a seminar at ASU
during the summer. After attending, Bob was offered $10,000
from an ASU NSF grant that can be used for equipment,
supplies, and temporary help.
b. Los Vecinos/The Neighbors Coalition Grant Tessa Pollack
The third revision to the grant was submitted to W.K. Kellogg
Foundation by the Coalition of which the college is a member.
The changes from the former proposals include: (1) in-kind
increases by organizations involved in the partnership; (2)
greater involvement from the banking community, (3) an
Invitational Summit in collaboration with the Maricopa
Foundation and WKKF where the project could serve as a model
for socio-economic development, as well as to stimulate a more
philanthropic culture in the West Valley.
GCC students have already been involved in landscaping and
immunization projects in the community. The experience has
been of mutual benefit to students and the community. It was
suggested that community involvement such as these should be
made public on A-I and the legislative brochure.
c. Child Care Grant Alberto Sanchez
The Governing Board accepted an intergovernmental agreement for
$78,247 between GCC and the Arizona Department of Economic
Security/Child Care Administration (DES/CCA) for the term of
July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, to conduct the GCC/DES
Academic Training Program.
3. College Committees
a. Jim Reed and Alberto Sanchez will recommend to Tessa Pollack
the charge for a Grants Development Committee. It will not
hamper the grants development process but provide a plan for
securing external resources especially pertinent to the
Strategic Plan.
b. Mary Lou will be bring forth recommendations to form two
committees: America Reads-America Challenge Committee and
Opportunity Scholarship Committee. She will work with Jim to
bring the new committees to PEC for approval.
c. Alberto mentioned a need for a Grants Resources Committee and
will work with Jim to bring the new committee to PEC for
4. Issue Bin (add, alter, screen, schedule)
5. Information and announcements
a. Parking Update Debra Palok/Joyce Elsner
GCC took a proactive approach by adding 700 new spaces knowing
that 500 existing spaces would be lost because of construction.
It costs $550 - $600 per lighted parking space.
Most complaints about parking have been in regards to finding a
parking space and the distance the available parking spaces are
from classrooms. There have also been complaints from faculty
regarding students parking in employee parking spaces.
Ideas and comments included:
Could hire temps for directing traffic to available parking
More signage
Provide parking map with warning or ticket
Signs on Orange Grove are perpendicular to curb
Higher penalties for parking in employee spaces (fees are set
by the Governing Board)
Remind students when registering that parking is congested
during the beginning of the semester
Add parking information in newsletter
Practice more forgiveness
Figure out how to address distance issue
Inform that we lost parking spaces here but added there
Could handle more growth if more classes offered in afternoon
Update the master plan to lay foundation for next bond cycle
Parking garages (paid by parking fees)
Update map for pathways because of construction
Shuttle? No budget or plans for shuttle
Visitors parking full for visitors, etc.
Warning tickets seemed to disappear earlier this year
Warning ticket created stain on car seat
Incentives for travel by bus and car pools
Student questioned why the employees don't park further out as
employees at the malls do
Explore shuttle service between ASU West and GCC
Lease parking across the street during first weeks of semester
Pay premium for reserved parking
ACTION: Send suggestions to Debra. She will brief PEC about
the additional things that Safety will do to help prepare for
next time. Debra will bring the number of employee parking
spaces to the next meeting.
b. NCA Alberto Sanchez
NCA will be coming to GCC for the accreditation visit in a
couple years. The NCA Steering team, comprised of Jean Ann
Abel, Joyce Elsner, Alberto Sanchez, John Griggs, Linda
Hawbaker, David Raffaelle, Regis Della-Calce, Tessa Pollack,
and Johnette Williams, are organizing the planning of the NCA
document. The co-chairs are Jean Ann Abel for instruction,
Alberto Sanchez for student services, and Johnette Williams for
faculty. The team viewed models of several different colleges
and decided to incorporate elements of Sinclair Community
College's model which has three phases: 1) description phase,
2) evaluation phase, and 3) planning phase. The Steering Team
will oversee the process. There are five accreditation
criteria with a team for each. The writing should be done by
the end of next year.
c. Faculty will be hosting an Octoberfest. Date and time will be
announced later.
October 8, 1999 from 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. in the ACR
a. Marketing Update
b. Early Warning System
c. Evaluation of PEP Grant
d. Action Planning Resources
e. Role and Scope of PEC
Trish Vogel
Donna Murchland
Mary Jane Onnen
Donna Murchland
Tessa Pollack
What follows will be distributed in hard copy at the meeting this afternoon,
but I thought you might appreciate a preview of this agenda item:
Administrative Services
April 13, 1999
Budget Development Committee
Joyce Elsner
Universal Access to Technology for Students
Over the past year, a great deal of discussion revolved around the concept of
providing "universal access ll for all students to the Instructional Palette.
The College Technology Committee (CTC) and the Department Chairs Council
examined various funding models that focused on assessing a course fee on ALL
sections offered on campus.
The discussions were ably led and produced a recommendation to assess $1 per
section for those courses that were 1 credit or less and to charge $2.25 per
section for all others. The recommendation was endorsed by the CTC and
received a majority vote of the Department Chairs Council.
Authority for assessing such a fee seemed to be included in the definition
provided the colleges. A position paper on the issue was developed and
circulated to the Administrative Services Group, the Deans of Instruction, the
Deans of Students, and the Administrative Councils of the ten colleges.
Support for the approach varied from college to college. Each wanted to be
sure that assessment of such a fee would be a college decision and not a
district mandate.
Ultimately, the issue of the course fee on all sections in support of
technology moved to the district-wide Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) where,
after discussions at two meetings, it was tabled. FAC was just not able to
deal with the issue at that time. Thus, GCC had not received validation of its
authority to move forward with the total assessment approach.
Simultaneously, the timeline for the remodeling of the library was revealed,
and it became apparent that without a functioning library on campus, much would
need to be done to create electronic library resources for students. If our
library were evolving to a "cybrary" for next year, all students would need
access to the Palette where the electronic resources would reside.
Where we are now
- Without clear support to assess an "all sections" fee from the
district-powers-that-be, and
- Recognizing that there was not universal shave universal access if
our students are to use our electronic library resources, and
- Recognizing that we have never charged for library services,
We must fund universal access to the Instructional Palette with our own
operational dollars.
Proposed Budget for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001
Recent financial data for 1998-99 shows that we have spent and encumbered
$152,000 and have collected $163,000 through existing TUF fees. Thus, for this
year, we appear to be in budget. The revenue data is somewhat corrupted as it
also reflects dollars collected to date for summer school and/or fall semester.
We also have yet to expend funds in support of the rest of this semester and
there will also be needs for the summer session.
The "all sections" fee that had been endorsed for the college was projected to
produce a total of $293,000, with an estimate of $117,000 per semester plus the
summer sessions.
Based upon our past experience and facing the potential of increased student
use for next year, the proposed budget for next year of $200,000 is
recommended. The budget will cover:
Student network supplies (connectors, cables, basic software, standard
suite of tools and selected options, storage)
Emergency, temporary help for the student network
There are carry-forward dollars in the existing technology user fee account
that will make up the difference between the two amounts for the pilot period.
The actual expenditures in the various categories would be monitored closely so
that an accurate report could be prepared based on real expenditures.
A commitment of this amount for a two- (2) year pilot period is recommended.
In this way, there would be a full-yearUs experience with actual expenditures
prior to submission of the 2001-2002 budget request. We would be better able
to assess the impact of the "technology fee-free" experiment.
Where would the dollars come from?
It is a fair question. Throughout the fall semester, we had been saying that
assessing the technology course fees on all sections was Tabsolutely criticalU
for the survival of the program. Now, we are saying that we can fund it though
our operational dollars. What has changed?
The change is GROWTH. If we had not realized the enrollment growth this year,
the item would not be on the table for discussion. There would not be any
additional dollars for distribution. This proposal could not be considered.
Course Fees Would Still Be Needed in Selected Programs
Universal access would not include expenditures for software beyond the basic
Palette needs. Expensive software programs that are used by relatively few
(200-250) students (e.g., CAD, Computer Graphics, and selected high-end
Business applications, etc.) would still need to be funded by separate course
fees for their instructional program.
Implications for Implementation
When adopted, the staff would need to determine processes for:
- Refunding dollars already collected
- Deleting TUF fees from the course sections
- Validating processes to add student accounts and provide the
necessary support
- Monitoring capacity and usage across the campus
In addition to the mechanics of the two "technology fee-free" years, we can
also begin developing the strategies to assess the effectiveness of this
approach for students and for services. Evaluation processes will need to be
developed to determine the impact on learners, on faculty, on staff, on library
and student services.
These implications are manageable within the time available to be ready for the
summer sessions. This approach will also move the overall discussion of
technology and learning to the "uses and benefits" mode. We can leave the
"to-course-fee or not-to-course- fee" discussions behind us. We have learned
that they are divisive and unproductive. The pilot will enable us to focus on
learners and learning.
Next Steps
The recommendation of the Budget Development Committee will be forwarded to the
President for consideration.
Item 24 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
22-Nov-1999 04:59pm MST
Tessa Martinez Pollack
GCC Admin
TO: Jim Reed
CC: Robert Albury,
CC: Gay Garesche
CC: Michael Holtfrerich
CC: Jean Ann Abel
cc: Roxie Helbert
Subject: College Plan Revisions
Jim, I looked at the revisions delivered to me last Tuesday. I thought that
I'd give you some feedback on remaining concerns:
1. Item 10 on page 2 and 3
This is complicated for those occasions if and when a President must
remove a Department Chair. I can think of occasions in which it would
not be possible to even suggest that there are "legal issues." I am
consulting with Legal as we discussed.
2. Item V on page 7 and 8
This also is complicated in contrast to the process proposed for the
original creation of the plan. Perhaps we have a mutual, periodic review
of the college plan that still conforms to the RFP D.1.1. process under
which it was created. A President must approve the college plan
whether it's brand new or modified.
Roxie is away all of this week, and I will not be here after Tuesday. Esme is
available if you want to work with her on the calendar for a group meeting.
Please let me, Esme, or Roxie (when she returns) know how you want to pick it
up after Thanksgiving.
This has been a fine group to work with. Thanks to all of you and to Mike
whom I gather has been the scribe for our work. Happy Thanksgiving to all of
Item 25 of 25 printed by POLLACK, TESSA MARTINEZ AT Al AT GC 25-Apr-2000 08:56am
Tel No:
23-Nov-1999 01:48pm MST
Jim Reed
Communication/Faculty Presiden
(43) 53631
TO: Tessa Martinez Pollack
CC: Roxie Helbert
CC: Jean Ann Abel
CC: Michael Holtfrerich
CC: Gay Garesche
CC: Robert Albury,
Subject: RE: College Plan Revisions
I'll talk to my colleagues and see how their schedules are for the week
we return. Looks to me like we're almost there. Meetings are starting
to take over my life. :)
2~ll Wei~ \.:th StfgeT • ':'e~. AJ. 55281-6942 ( pnOM (~ 731-e~ • Fex (~ 731-&55:)
1lave 1'~d Dr. Pollack's ~e to the Gee Fioulty Senate, md I am not only =xtremely
outraged. bm &lso d:eply o~d by her remarks aboU! me ne2r the end of her clem.:
'The irrelevancy of her su,te:ment eo!1CCning'my WItp1ign is astonishm: wi stJrely
eseape~ no one..
I am .5J.1ed --.i.th alum and di&mAy tbat she uses ml1m' thi:'d piece of ·t\'iden~· to impuem
my honor md dig:lity while ram }m$idmt of the Go~~ Board ofMCCCD,
In the fl."'St place, the Fac:llty PAC is In cntiIcly s:p:.:at: and. indep::r.dent otity from the
Fac:ulty Assoeia1ion. 1%\ the seccnd place 2nd basc4 on her r=.spcnsc, abe knows absolutely
not."Ung abont tn! in~es ~ details ofmy co..mpaig:n finances, nor those of the Ficulry
Political A.:tion co~ttee (FACiAC). N:itr4 c1o~ si: 1a10w a.Ocut the pani::uJan of'
the sit:Jal::ion th:t: she d=scrfcc:s 3S 8& !enous concern repdi:c.g i:lteg;:ity ,*
I ilo"1d it personally appallinf that she would dan to involve n-.)' CampalSO a.T1d mat of t!:..e
Faculty PAC in ber lonc-Ncning C.ispure with the: Gee faC1Jlty when there is Dot the
sliiht.c:st sbrcd afevidence to cem1cot ct.e with b atb:r.
Seen from my p«S?el:livc, it is my apinion W.t Dr. Pc:>lbc1Cs COImne:!1t is reckless,
B:I:'13~oru3tie end tadong mthe kind of jud.gment tbz.t I wcuJd e:tpeCt from a college
~esid=nt. If ~yming, it bas created a ptrteption in my mind that C-CC probably needs
ne-w leadeIsbip.
<cUI Cerdena!
In1erim C1icncO!lor
Famlly Of Colleoes
t!ITeUo MOUl'ItCin
(;lel'\doe :: Meso
F'crcdi.a voney
~hoenix Colf~
SOU1'"'1 Mo-.nr::~
SIC!! CO!!n-ers
Dr. Carde:t.u, I am SO resc:o::ful of this he~dless reference tlu.! 1 Wan! a ",Totten apo!og}°
from Dr. Pollack followed by the e!i:mi:l3tiotl oittat merence:o :ne a:od QY em?lis:n in
In conch:.s~ you should know QAt I am sa:1tf.ng a copy of this l:tcr tel uli pcr50ns and
crg:::tiZ!tions mentioned i:1 her .:amments. I sr.: a.ssut:1ing of COlrSC, aDd in aU wmes&.
that ev'a)' person and Qip:li:w:ion mentioned has 3. copy orher' COI:m1ents.
Grne Eastin °
P:-esidc:::.t oftr.e G~)\"I::r.it;g 'Board
Wedn~soay. February 2. 2000 Oplions (revi
Attachment IV.
Subject: Options (revised) for NCA Review
Date: Wed. 0:2 Feb 2000 11:20:25 -0800
From: Tessa Pollack <lessa.pollack@l:cmail.maricopa.edu>
Organization: gcc
To: Raul Cardenas email@example.com>
As you know, the Faculty Senate of Glendale Community College (GCC) wrote to you and the Governing Board alleging GCC's non-compliance with
accreditation Criterion Five of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). I responded to you on January 4, 2000 regarding those
allegmions. In that response. I concurred with the GCC Faculty Senate's position of non-compliance due to conditions cited in my response. Further, I
stated that conditions at GCC warrant the attention of NCA.
This response is to recommend to you options for an NCA review to serve the best interests of the college. This response also addresses Board President
Gene Eastin's letter to you dmed January 18,2000 (ATTACHMENT A) as his comments therein are related to the January 4 document.
In reviewing my January 4, 2000 response. it is possible that. inadvertently, I failed to distinguish between the representative organization of the college
faculty and the political action organi.::ation of the district faculty. If that is so, I acknowledge the error. Not knowing with whom you or Mr. Eastin have
shared the response, I hope that you and he will share this clarification as well. This clarification in no way affects either the GCC Faculty Senate's
allegations of non-compliance nor my request for NCA's attention to GCC's compliance with Criterion Five.
Mr. Eastin stmes in his January 18 letter that I am unfamiliar with the details of his campaign finances and those of the Faculty Political Action Committee
(FACPAC). He is correct. Those matters are not my concern: Because Criterion Five addresses the integrity of an institution's practices and relmionships,
those det:llls may be of mterest to NCA's CommissIon on InsUtullons of HIgher Educallon. It IS ultimately for NCA to determine whether the GCC Faculty
Senate's allegations. the complex set of conditions (represented in part by Items I. and 2. on page 9 of my January 4 response), in combination with practices
and relnLionships (represented in pan by Item 3. of my January 4 response) affect institutional integrity and compliance with Criterion Five.
One option that may be available is for you to request a Focused Evaluation. Following is the description of a Focused Evaluation:
Focused evaluations nre another form of COllunission oversight; they occur between comprehensive evaluations and examinc only certain
aspects of an institution. Focused evaluations are not primarily concerned with determining whether an institution fulfills the Criteria for
Accreditntion. Instead they are meant to review specific developments and changes at an institution or to follow up on concerns idenufied
by a previous evaluation process [NCA-ClHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, Septcmber 1997, page 13] (ATTACHJ'vIENT
The NCA-CIHE Handbook further describes a possible need for Commission monitoring when there is an:
Existence of highly publicized and divisive controversies among the governing board, administration, andlor faculty [NCA-CIHE Handbook
of Accredllation, Second Edition. September 1997, page 163] (ATTACHMENT C).
An alternate option to requesting direct NCA involvement through a Focused Evaluation is to conduct a review of these issues within GCC's on-going
self-study proccss. The college has begun preparing for its next comprehensive NCA evaluation scheduled for 2001-2002.
Whcther you decide to pursue a Chancellor-requested Focused Evaluation or an integration of this review within GCC's on-going NCA preparations, I
recommend that the following aspects of NCA's Criterion Five serve as a focus:
By integrity, the Commission means that an institution adheres both to the civil laws and to the code of ethics commonly accepted by the
acndemic community. Such values are reflected by an institution'S integrity
[text omitted]
• expectation that members of its constituencies (administration, faculty, and students) observe the tenets of academic honesty;
[text omitted]
• operaLion, without conflict of interest, at the board, administrative, and faculty levels:
[text ornined]
[NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation. Second Edition. September 1997. page 57] (ATTACm,.IENT D).
I also recommend the following aspects of NCA's Criterion Two as a focus:
In developing the panern of evidence supporting Criterion Two, the Commission suggests the breadth of evaluation that it considers
appropliate to a [as partially listed below].
a} governance by a board consisting of informed people who understand their responsibilities, function in accordance \\ith stnted board
poliCIes, and have the resolve necessary 10 preser.e the institlllion's integray.
WecJ.lescJay, FebrlJary 2. 2000 Opooos (revised) lor NCA Rsvl8w Page: 2
b) effective administration through well-defined and understood organizational structures, policies, and procedures.
c) qualified and experienced administrative, personnel who oversee institutional activities and exercise appropriate responsibility for them.
d) systems of governance that provide dependable information to the institution's constituencies and, as appropriate, involve them in the
decision-making processes [NCA-ClHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 39] (AITACHMENT E).
Impoltantly, the NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation also notes that:
Since each GIR [General Institutional Requirement] deals with issues evaluated in greater breadth and depth under the Criteria, it is
important that both institutions and Consultant-Evaluators understand the relationship between the threshold requirements of the GIR's and
the higher expectations embodied in the Criteria [NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 27]
It is my recommendation, therefore, that the review acknowledge the relationship that NCA specifies between GIR #6 and GIR #7 as the broader contexts of
Criterion Five and Criterion Two [NCA-CIl-IE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 27] (AITACHMENT F). GIR #6 states:
Its governing board includes public members and is sufficiently autonomous from the administration and ownership to assure the integrity
of the institution.
Although every governing board will be concerned primarily with the integrity and academic quality of the institution for which it is
responsible, it also has an obligation to assure that the institution serves the public interest. The Commission expects, therefore, that each
governing board will have "public members," people who can make decisions free of any personal or financial interests that might be
affected. Moreover, the Commission expects that a governing board, while conscious of the interests of a variety of constituencies, has
structures and personnel that make it capable of decision-making free from undue influence of governmental bodies, supporting Ixxlies, amJ
employees [NCA·CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September J997, page 20] (AITACHMENT G).
It has an executive officer designated by the governing board to provide administrative leadership for the institution.
The Commission requires that the governing board designate a person who leads the institution and who coordinates the day-by-day
running of it. Typically that person is the president. No mailer what the title, that person must hold appropriate authority to carry out the
broad policies established by the governing board. [NCA·CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 2J]
The thrust of Criterion Five is on ethics, policies, and actual practices and relationships. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the review refer to the
"Board Members Code of Conduct" policy (AITACHMENT I, adopted by the MCCD Governing Board on September 24, 1999), and other policy pertinent
to the Board's role to study for consistency between policy and practice and relationships.
To Mr. Eastin's point of my leadership of the college. I want to emphatically state that, per the job description of the Maricopa College Presidents ODD 103
38/ I) (ATTACHMENT J), the President is the responsible agent for the college. It is my duty to preside as President with a view for the total operation of
the college including the maintenance of a positive working climate and high morale. I am also obligated, per my duties. to inform the Chancellor about
major or unusual developments of the college such as those described in my response of January 4, 2000, prompted by the GCC Faculty Senate's
GCC is at a critical point of its growth and development. It must open itself to the pursuit of learnings about its practices and relationships -- not only for
tlleir real and perceived effect on the GCe campus operation but on District-wide policy, structures, and processes as well. There are advantages and
disadvantages to each option.
Jnte~tjQn of Review
Currently, GCC has a self-study structure composed of excellent faculty and staff whose participation continues to broaden and deepen. Under this option,
GCC could integrate a review of these issues within the on-going Self-Study plans and processes. This would enable Self-Study Teams to focus on the
issues, to build the issues into the work load, and hopefully to assure robust participation for outcomes that serve the college and students. A major
disadvantage is the prolonged time until these pressing issues could be addressed by the Study Teams. Another disadvantage is whether individuals would
feel free to lead in a study of the issues without fear of retaliation or retribution.
Focused Evalumjon
The Focused Evaluation has been described in a preceding section. AFocused Evaluation would provide more immediate attention. It will also make use of
an objective team external to the college and District that could take a view of the issues from without.
Under either opnon. my recommendauon is to advance these issues. with all records referenced or generated to-date, to the Self-Study Tri·Chairs and
appropriate Self-Study Teams or to NCA for inclUSIOn III their reviews.
Finally, :\Ir. Eastin expresses strong reactions in his letter of January 18, ~OOO. It is my hope that he, in his new role as MCCD Governing Board President.
and I, in my role as President of Glendale Community College. will welcome this as an opponunity for GCC to review issues o\er which he has expressed
IM"'P::ldoml,l. """"'0pI.ldu?l.tCh,UID'IINBOX,905
Wednesday. February 2. 2000 Options (revisal!) lor NCA Revi_ Pago: 3
concern, non-compliance issues that the GCC Senate alleges in their leuer to you and the Board, and issues that I raise in my January 4 response and herein.
Until we participate in a rigorous and honest review of the issues, GCC will continue to be deterred from critical strategic directions and especially from
imponant work in service to students. Most importantly, I, you, and the Board must provide the college community with absolute assurance and actions that
demonstrate that this review can proceed honestly without fear of retribution.
I hope to hear from you as soon as possible so that we proceed to appropriately charge the Self-Study Teams or to request NCA for assistance on a Focused
I have appended (and will fax) the following attachments:
• ATTACHMENT A: Gene Eastin's letter dated 1/18/2000
• ATTACHMENT B: Focused Evaluations NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 13).
• ATTACHMENT C: Relationships with StudentslFaculty/AdministrationlGoverning Body [NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition,
September 1997, page 163)
• ATTACHMENT D: Criterion Five [NCA-ClHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 57)
• ATTACHl\1ENT E: Criterion Two NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 39)
• ATTACHMENT F: Relation,hip Between the GIRs and the Criteria Evaluations NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition,
September 1997, page 27)
• ATTACHMENT G: GIR #6 [NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 20]
• ATTACHMENT H: GIR #7 [NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation, Second Edition, September 1997, page 21]
• ATTACI-Th1ENT 1: Board Members Code of Conduct [www.dist.maricopa.edu/gvpolicy/policieslgovprocess.html)
• ATTACHMENT J: Maricopa College President Job Description (JDD 10338/1)
You may also want to refer to the NCA-CIHE Handbook of Accreditation in its entirety. Please Jet me know if I may be of assistance.
IUAP j;oomail.maflcopa.ldu?l.teh)oUIO>IINBOX>905
Ja.mJ.:rY 18, 2000
2~i 1Wei~ l.:th Stl'geT , ;e~. AI. 65281-6942 ( PI'lOl"l9 (.aBC) 731 '0=0 • Fox (4Sa) 731·865:J
1lave read Dr. Pollac~& %'C$}'Onse to the Gee Floulty Senate, and I am not only nttemely
outraged. bm also deeply o~ by her remark! lboltt me near the end or her c!osin:
Th.e irrelevancy of her statement cO:lceming'my campaign is astonishI:l~ md surely
es~pe> no one.
I am filled '9o.;th Alum and diGmAy that she uses 1%1 ~ thi:'d piece of "e-.ideac¢" to impusn
tOy honer me dig:iry while r am pr:sidem oflhe Gov:m:a:t Board ofMCCCD,
In the fl.-st place, the Fac~ty J>AC is an enti:rcl)' s=p:.:atc anci ind~dent entity from !he
Fac:ulty .luaociatiou. In the ~econd pIau mdba5e4 on her response, abe knows absolutely
not.ling abOUt th! m~es me. details ofmy co...mpsign finmces, nor those of the Ficulry
Political A.ctiO:1 cotI1I!ll~ (fACfAC). Neiu-..ef <loes sh: bow abcut the partizulars of
the sitJ.at'i.<m. th:: she dcscrfc~ 35 8 .. ~e:ious concern regar&:g oteg:ity,~
I f1.~d it personally &ppalling that she would due TO involve my campaiso and that of ~
Fa.culty PAC in ber lon~·'ruaning &pure with the Gee faculty when Ulere is Dot the
sliihtcst shred af evidence to c:a:mCO.f =e v.i.Ih'tbe other.
Seen from my ~"=' it is my opinion that Dr. Pol~k's comme:1t is reckless,
~1aionistie tnd ladong in the kind of judgment that I wewa expe:t from a college
~esid=nt. If a1l}"lhing, it bas created a perception in my mind that C-CC probably nce:s
new leadership.
Family of Colle~e!
<Ow COlda~
Irrterim cncncollOl'
ESlTello MouT'ltcin
Gler">dcle '": M"$
PcrOdi5S VaR"y
Phcentx COllegE
Ric ~lc::o
Soun Mo\I"lr::~
SkiH Can~ers
Dr. Carti..-::.u, I am so res=~ of this hetdless refem1ce w! I want a \l,-r:u:n apo!og)"
from Dr. Pollack followed by the elimir.aticm of that re:fcrence:c :ne l:Id Qj' cm.palgI'l in
h:r oemorandum.
In c:oncl1:Sia:I. you sbculd know ~lt I am sa:1dini a c:opy of this l:t:cr to ~i person! aod
crg:=tit!ti.ons m=tion:d i:1 her:cmrcems. 1 ~ lSSUI:1ing of c:otne, and in aU !limesli,
that ~~ person and orgti:zation mcmioncd bas a. copy ofher Co:::mlentS.
Ckne Easful ,
Preside::lt ortr.c G~"e:r~g :Soard
Focused evaluations are another form of Commission oversight: they occur between comprehensive
evaluations and examIne only certain aspects of an institution. Focused evaluations are not primarily
concerned with determining whether an institution fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation. Instead they are meant
to review specific developments and changes at an institution or to follow up on concems identified by a
previous evaluation process.
"~'.- 13
ATTACHlVIENT .B
---------------,----------- 'ion wirf1 the Commission
The Commission may call tor a focused evaluation as part of its accrediting action. Such aalons are recorded
orl the institution's Statement of Affiliation Status. In addition. either the Commission or the Commission staff
may sChedule a focused evaluation based upon Commission policies concerning institutional change (see
Chapter 1'2). In either case. focused evaluations require a report focused on the issues. but do not require a
complete Institutional self-study. Focused evaluations. in unique situations. may lead to a recommendation
ior Probation or withdrawal of affiliation.
, . Institutional Annual Repor1S
In the spring of each year, the Commission sends each affiliated institution an Institutional Annusl Report form,
The Commission conSiders the Annual Report to be such asignificant mOOltoring lool that failure to supply it may
invite sanCtloC'\S.
The InstItutional Anl"iual Report requests information about enrollment. about changes In degree offerings.
and about contractual arrangements. It includes the Annual Report of Off-Campus Offerings. which requests
de!ailed information about all off-campus operations. The Annual Report is structUred around the Record of
Status 2l"id Scope (F\SS). The Commission staff reviews the reports to ensure that institutional operations
COntinue to comply with Commission policies and are within the affiliation status of the inStitution.
Inconsistencies between activities reported and the current RSS may leed to the initiation of the COmmission's
change proc~ss (see Chapter 12). An institution's most recently completed Armual Report form is inCluded
in the materials sent to Evaluation Teams from the CommissIon office. Information from the A.1nual Report is
essential to the publication of tl'le Commission's direCtory oi aifiliated institutions.
::: Payment of Dues and fees
Payment of dues and fees is an obligatIon of affiliation. The Commission bills affiliated institutions for annual
dues tha t are payable on receipt of the billing aM are not refundable. The Commission bills the institution ior
~ll evaluation processes. Payment is due prior to the evaluation. The Commission reserves the right to witndraw
tn~ affiliation oi an institution that after due notice. fails to mee~ its iinancial obligations.
From time to time. the CommiSSion may apply sanctions Clgainstits affiliated institutions. Currently. the Commission
has two sanctions; Memorandum for the Record ana Probation.
_ Memorandum for the Record
The Memorandum for the Record is the sanction applied to an ins:itutiOn that initiates a change withOut
receiving prior Commission approval. The policy states:
-_..._.-- ._.--.-------,-----_•._------._--------
NCA·CIHe HanC1boOK ofAccrec1irerion 2nd ed. 091S'/
r-H)<; NU.
Merging lwO or more regionally acc~edited entities. or the absorption of a regionally
accredireo entity by another. O.C.3.3.)
Changing ownership, control. and/or the legal Status of the institution. (I.C.Sol.)
Merging of the affiliated institution and an entitY not accredited by II regionlll
institutional accrediting association. (I.C.2a.S.)
Changing institutional .. ffiliatlon WIth II sponsoring organiZ:ltlon (e.g~ changing
oenominstionClI :lfflliation). (I.C.2C.l.)
}oo,) •--
i. t:
Approval Process
On-Site Visit
Staff Recommendation.
Evaluators' Panel.
or On-Site Visit
On-Site Review AfTer
Initiation (viSIt within
six mOnths)' ,----
On-Site Review After
Initilltion (viSit within
one year)' '----- On-Site Review After
Initiation (ViSit within
one yellr)'
Relationships with Other Institutions/Group continued •.•
Transferring to a ne\1i entity the accredited statuses of two or more regionally
accredited entitles. 0.C.3.2.)
C,'1apter 12, InSf/lucional Change
..- -----~--------------
Notification Of san~ions applied by governmental agencies. (I.C.5.3.)
PUblic sanctions applied bv other institutional or professional accrediting
assoc::nJons. O.c.S.S,)
Mighl require
Commission mOnltonng'
Might require
Commission monitoring"
Relstionships with Srudents/Faculty/Administration/Governing Body
Might reQuire
Commission monitoring"
Evalualors' Pnnel or
On-Site ViSit ----Staft Recommendation.
E'/alul1tors' Panel.
or On-Site ViSit
--_ --_.--_._--_._-,---- .._-
C~anglng. after <;ignific3nl planning. the character and nature of the student
body. O.C.2b.5.)
SigJ1ific:Jnt unanllc:pateo reduc~ion in progr:Jm offering. faculty. and/or
enrollment, (I.C.5.2.)
Absoroing unantiCIpated but 5igr,iiicant changes In the char:Jcter and nature of lhe
student bOdy (e.G.. assuming oversight for programs orph:Jned by a closing
InstlMlon) 0.C.2c.J.)
:..xistenCc oi i":lghly publicized and divisive controversies nmong the governing ooarO.
rhe ~dmlnis:ration, ..nd/or :hc faculty. O.C.5.l.)
Might :eQuire
_._ C~m",iss:on mur~itonng' ..__.__.--_.__.._--_.-_.. - "_.-
Financial and Ethical Maners
_.,-_._._.- - _....._ ..--..._. Finnncisl .;uC:it reports that raise serious co"c~rns about ttnanCilll VIability or
financial manClGp.ment prnc:tces. (I.C.5.6.)
-DeC_:IHln.o-lin:lncial exige~c'l. (I.C.Q.2.) .._--. _ ..-----
Might r~Clulre
CommiSSion monitoring; ----.--- Staff Report to the
Commisslonl ...--.._---._.._.-
-De_c!ar..ng'-ba"nKr.up_tcy,.(I_.C 4.-1.)-- _... _. --. ---~ -
Slntf Report to the
Commissionl ---_ ..-.-
Sd.rio_us ie-gal._fin:mciei. or ethic:l1 investigations. O.C.5.o.) ..-_. _..'--
Might require
CommiSSion mOl'll loring' -----.--
AMOllnc:ng r,losure oi an institution (I.e.A.3.)
Stott Report tu tM
ConllnisSlol1: . --_..-- --.._.__..~_...
Dls:lster~ that jeoP<lrdi2e me ins,ltutlon's physical infrastrllcture. (I.C.SIl.)
Might requirr.
Commlsliion momtonllg"
5enOIlS mls~eore$ent~llior. to $tuoe!'lts and the pllblie. (I.C.S.7.)
Migh' rllQuire
ComrniSlllon monitoring'
---- -_. -_. ,_._..._-_. _.
NCA.-CII/E Handbook of Accrerlitar/on 2ml (la. 0')/97
oJ C:I.I I. ...l.I,
ATTACHl\tfENT I)
t-HX NU.
"The instituelon demonstrates Integrlry in Irs practices and relarionshlps. "
o 5ecause It repiaced its ct'1ief academic officer, an inStitution did not actUally implement the assesSmem
program it so carefuLly planned. Moreover. academic pianning nowappears to be driven largeiy by the
desire to institute ·nlche" programs mat will offset the decline in traditional students. Yet each new
.,niChe· program appears to have assessment of student learning integrated into program design and
evaiua!Jon. Seeing that the InstlWtlon understands and Is committed to assessment in these new
;:lrograms and a9precistlng the work that went into the designed but never·implemented assessment
program. the team recommends amonitoring report on sssessmemIn two years. The text of the report
states trlat if the ieport does not provide dependable evidence that the assessment ~rogram IS
operatmg, a focused visit on assessment Should be conducted.
CIi;;pter G. ihe C!iterra for Accredirarion
:: Commission Meaning of "Integrity"
The higher education communit)t has often assumed that because of its traditional commitment to the pursuit
of ,ruth. its institutional behavior is beyOnd reproach end that the public should trust In this. But inStitutions
of higher education are as vulnerable to error as are all other SOCial institutions. During the past decade. some
widely-reported iapses in instltutional integrity have brought into new focus the relationship between
inst.itutional integrity and institutional accreditation.
By integrity. the Commission means ttlat an Institution adheres boch to the civil laws and to the code of ethics
commonly acCeptad by the academic community. Such values are reflected by an institution's
<) expression of the ethical values it has adopted through institutional policies and procedures.
made public in its public documents and contractual arrangements:
o assurance thst its practices are consistent with its publicly stated pOlicies:
---:~ 0 e~pec:tation thet members of its c
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.