District Governance Senate District Year-end Governance Report

Transcription

1 District Governance Senate District Year-end Governance Report The District Governance Senate (DGS) is a governance and consultative body that represents all District constituents. As such, it is crucial to ensure members are actively participating and serving as a conduit of information to and from the constituency group that they represent. For the school year, the DGS met a total of 15 times with a quorum attained at each meeting. For the year, attendance exceeded 90%, not only for DGS meetings but also the four committees (Budget, Technology, Institutional Program Review, and Institutional Planning and Effectiveness). Each committee chair as well as constituency group representatives to DGS (i.e. Academic Senate and Student Senate) consistently provided written reports of their committee/senate meetings and were prepared at the subsequent meeting to summarize and answer questions. As documented in TracDat within the individual reports, the DGS accomplished its eight initiatives satisfactorily with the partial exception of number 6 related to how well DGS members disseminated information to their constituency groups. An assessment tool was not used to survey the constituency groups to seek feedback on the performance of their respective representative. This will be done during the year. Each Senate and DGS committee member was surveyed at year end about the effectiveness of the group with the results forwarded to the co-chairs to be used in their year-end report. The DGS survey is attached but in general shows a strong satisfaction that the DGS is meeting its charge of being the District s central governance and consultative body. Specifically, 100% of members either Agreed or Strongly Agreed that the DGS was meeting its role and responsibility. The group did, however, provide feedback as to how DGS can be strengthened in the future including improving our BP/AP process and improving the assessment and evaluation tools for all of our year-end groups and processes. In addition, each of the four committees that report to District Governance Senate prepared a Year-end Evaluation Summary. Those reports are stored in TracDat and attached to this yearend report for further reference.

2 Survey Results & Analysis for District Governance Questionnaire District Governance Senate Thursday, April 24, 2014 Powered by Vovici EFM

3 Executive Summary This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled District Governance Questionnaire. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 16 day period from Tuesday, April 08, 2014 to Wednesday, April 23, completed responses were received to the survey during this time. Survey Results & Analysis Survey: District Governance Questionnaire Author: Filter: (wsb33 LIKE '%District%') Responses Received: 14 Based on your involvement with the DGS, on a scale of 1 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score each of the following: Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree The senate/committee/council met its roles and responsibilities. 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 57.1% (8) 42.9% (6) Adequate and appropriate resources are available to support my work on this senate/committee/council. 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (7) 50.0% (7) The workload of this senate/committee/council is appropriate. 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 64.3% (9) 35.7% (5) The senate/committee/council was effective in completing its initiatives. 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 53.8% (7) 46.2% (6) The senate/committee/council stayed on task. 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 42.9% (6) 57.1% (8) The senate/committee/council adhered to Robert s Rules of Order. 0.0% (0) 7.1% (1) 42.9% (6) 50.0% (7)

4 How could the DGS improve its effectiveness in regard to meeting its roles and responsibilities? Improve cycle of BP/AP process. Perhaps color code where they are in the approval cycle. Overall, much improved from last year. Continue refining effective implementation of governance roles and responsibilities. Perhaps revisit the roles and responsibilities. Periodically review timelines in the integrated planning manual relevant to DGS to ensure our compliance and ability to plan well ahead of time. Small suggestion: instead of basically reading what has already previously been provided in a written standing report that the time is used for Q & A based on the document. No suggestions; I think DGS is fulfilling its roles and responsibilities. The District Governance Senate is currently meeting all of its roles and responsibilities at a high level. I can't think of any. There has been a lot of open communication and everyone seems to take part. Improve consistent attendance, more time for work and discussion. It currently does a good job of meeting its roles and responsibilities. It is well led and adheres strictly to the agenda which is made available to all members.

5 How might the DGS improve its effectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives? Keep initiatives on the agenda, so we can be reminded what they are on a regular basis. Continue refining effective implementation of governance roles and responsibilities. I don't think DGS has initiatives? Periodically review initiatives once a month to ensure we are on track. No suggestions; DGS is accomplishing its initiatives. The District Governance Senate is currently accomplishing its initiatives at an above satisfactory level. Again, since this is the first year, I think we have done well. I do not remember reviewing the initiatives as a group-- would help to review. I think the job it is currently doing accomplishes its initiatives very effectively.

6 What resources are needed to assist the %q33% in performing its operations? It is performing better over time. None - it's working well. None I appreciate how easy it is to find the DGS materials online prior to the meeting - thanks to Meghan. None at this time. None that I know of. I liked having a meeting at Tulare and at Hanford. I think it's important to keep them feeling a part of everything. None. It would be nice to have the agenda and items under discussion printed and made available at each session.

7 What topics should be addressed by the DGS next year? Evaluation process was a bit confusing; but at least we are working on it. The feedback from this survey will be very helpful to that end. Continue refining effective implementation of governance roles and responsibilities. Completing the first year cycle of integrated planning and governance. Continue to shepherd the new master plan process. None at this time I know it's necessary to cover procedures and process but sometimes I think that obligation crowds out big issue discussions, e.g. "how well is the District serving Tulare and Hanford?", or "how well are we meeting the challenge of the West Hills attempts to carve into our student base?" and so on. When time allows, it is nice to have reports from campus groups like we did for Nutrition-to-go and the update on STEPs. Can't think of anything in particular. Format of the meeting? I don't know.

8 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the DGS should be fulfilling? not at this time. Perhaps more action requests coming from the four DGS committees - but only if deemed necessary. No No. I appreciate Brent's leadership. He gives everyone a chance to participate. I don't think so. None that I can think of off hand. Generated: 4/24/2014 6:57:36 PM

9 Budget Committee Year-end Evaluation Summary Christine Statton, Vice President, Administrative Services On May 8 th, the Budget Committee met for its last committee meeting of fiscal year The Year-end evaluation summary results of the District Governance Senate questionnaire regarding the effectiveness of the committee meetings and work during the fiscal year. The results of the survey showed that all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the committee met its roles and responsibilities, that the workload was appropriate, that the committee stayed on task, and that the council adhered to Robert s Rules of Order. The results also showed that all respondents, except one, felt that there were adequate and appropriate resources provided to the committee, and that the committee was effective in completing its initiatives. Discussion regarding the survey results was short and to the point. The committee felt the responses were appropriate and reflective of the committee s work. They did not have any additional feedback to add. Discussion continued regarding some of the suggestions included in the survey responses, and a few were mentioned as ones the committee will try and incorporate in : (1) training on the resource allocation manual in small segments throughout the year (2) creating a mock ranking of above-base resources as training prior to the resource allocation process, (3) continued education regarding the budget categories and expenditures, and (4) provide more training or information on TracDat. (Note, the committee had just completed training on TracDat after the survey but before our meeting to discuss, so there was not additional training planned in the near future, but possible joint meetings with Program Review committee and TracDat committee are being considered). Program Review Committee Year-end Evaluation Summary Membership: Cindy DeLain (Co-Chair), Thea Trimble (Co-Chair), Nancy Morgan, Joni Jordon, John Boragno, Christian Anderson, James McDonnell, Jessica Figallo, Ryan Wullschleger (Student), Dali Ozturk, Ahsen Baig, and David Robinson The members reviewed and discussed the end of the year survey report. Overall the standard statements were rated either Agree 14.3% to 42.9 % or Strongly agree 42.9% to 85.7% (7 respondents). There was no Strongly disagree recorded and Disagree at 13.3% in 3 out of the 6 statements. Based on evaluations of the IPRC member survey

10 and the year -end report on IPRC initiatives, the items IPRC would like to pursue for next year to date are: Secretary for the committee - currently Co-Chair completes all agendas, minutes, reports, etc. Research other colleges for best practices on program review processes and committee structure/function. Meet at least once a semester with IPEC and Budget Committee to discuss overlaps in 2.0 manuals. Complete a process for monitoring and evaluating the new program review and implement after October Continue training as needed. The conclusion based on the year-end report on initiatives and member survey summary is the IPRC has strong participative membership and is very successful in accomplishing its initiatives on target and on time. IPEC Year-end Evaluation Summary Dr. Jennifer La Serna, Vice President, Academic Services Greg Turner, Vice President, Academic Senate Survey results from May 2014 indicate that members of the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed that the committee met its roles and responsibilities, had adequate resources, was effective in completing its initiatives, stayed on task, and adhered to Robert s Rules of Order. 40% of respondents, however, indicated that they did not think the workload was appropriate. Comments reveal that some believe the workload to be too much. However, it is clear (and implied in other comments from the survey) that the workload for the committee during the year was greater than a typical year since the Master Plan was being written. The workload of the committee should be analyzed via review of the District s planning manual and processes. For the committee is responsible for the Strategic Plan and Annual Report on the Strategic Plan. Another common comment from the survey was that more training was needed for members of the committee. As a result, IPEC is considering making training on strategic planning one of its initiatives for Also, consistent with the responses and reported in the End-of-Year report, IPEC stayed on task and completed its duties as described in the Governance Manuals. IPEC made significant progress on the Master Plan and completed the Annual Report on the Strategic Plan (which will soon be the Annual Report on the Master Plan). The committee did have to change the time-line for the Master Plan; however, it is still on track to be submitted to the Board in January.

11 Additionally, the initiative to review above base funds has been carried forward since it must come after program review in fall Technology Committee Year-end Evaluation Summary Purpose Statement: In accordance with the District Governance & Decision making manual, the Technology Committee is charged by the District Governance Senate with providing a forum for anticipating needs, discussing options, and making recommendations regarding technology issues at College of the Sequoias. Membership: Tim Hollabaugh - Co-Chair Administration Deborah Nolan - Co-Chair Faculty Joni Jordan - Faculty Beverly Feleciano - Classified Stephen Meier - Classified Stephanie Collier/Jessica Figallo - Administration Abigail Guttierez - Student None - Adjunct Faculty The end of year survey had four responses out of a possible seven resulting in a pretty light response rate but generally people agreed that the committee was on track with a few exceptions. Notably the direction for the technology plan and its relation to the strategic plan. Of note also was the request to have further feedback from District Governance Senate as well as the campus at large. The number of meetings held was limited by the number of holidays that fell on the first Monday of the month as well as a few meetings where there was not a quorum.