Report of the Working Group on Governance

Statement of the Issues

The Group agreed that the governance of postsecondary education requires fewer overall improvements than that of K-12 education, but that those improvements are essential for both continued success as well as betterment of the California postsecondary education system.

California Community Colleges

• Clarity of mission responsibility at each level (state, regional, local) must be achieved.
• The value of and need for restructuring local districts should be examined.
• There should be a clear statement of which functions are assigned to the Board of Governors and which functions should be assigned to local boards.
• The current structure of the state-wide central office is ineffective for governance and coordination between the community colleges and other postsecondary systems.
• The Board of Governors’ lack of authority to appoint/approve senior staff of the central office frustrates effectiveness and accountability.

California Postsecondary Education Commission

• CPEC does not have sufficient authority to coordinate or effectively monitor postsecondary education entities.
• CPEC does not have sufficient authority to require thorough and consistent data reporting by postsecondary education entities, although it is currently assigned that responsibility.

Recommendations and Rationale

The following recommendations are intended to be accomplished by the most direct mechanisms possible. Each recommendation is supported by a statement of rationale.

California Community Colleges

8. The California Community College system’s main missions, by level, should be: state level, transfer; regional and local levels, workforce preparation; and local level, remediation.

Rationale: There are multiple missions for the California Community College system; the Group decided that these were the three most prominent. These main missions may be concerns at every level, but the respective levels listed are the ones with the best ability and greatest responsibility to fulfill the missions. Efficient and accurate academic preparation for transfer to other postsecondary institutions requires massive coordination and is best fostered—if students’ needs are preeminent—by a state-level approach. Workforce preparation varies widely depending on the work demand in the region and local community of the college. Remediation involves intense focus on individuals locally.

9. The responsibilities of the California Community College Board of Governors and local boards should be defined as the following:

Board of Governors:

• Exercise general supervision over, and coordination of, the local community college districts.
• Provide leadership and direction through research and planning.
• Establish minimum conditions and standards to be required for all districts to receive state support and to function within the system.
• Establish specific accountability measures and assure evaluation of district performance based on those measures.
• Approve courses of instruction and educational programs that meet local, regional, and state needs.
• Administer state operational and capital outlay support programs.
• Adopt a proposed system budget and allocation process.
• Ensure system-wide articulation with other segments of education.
• Represent the districts before state and national legislative and executive agencies.

Local Boards:

• Establish, maintain, and oversee the colleges within each district.
• Assure the district meets the minimum conditions and standards established by the Board of Governors.
• Establish policies for local academic, operations, and facilities planning to assure accomplishment of the statutory mission within conditions and standards established by the Board of Governors:
• Adopt local district budgets.
• Oversee the procurement and management of property.
• Establish policies governing student conduct.
• Establish policies to guide new course development, course revision/deletion, and curricular quality.
• Establish policies to guide new course development, course revision/deletion, and curricular quality.

Rationale: The community college system, to be effective, needs a clear statement of functions and authority for the Board of Governors and the local boards of trustees. This assignment of respective functions would clarify that it is the responsibility of the Board of Governors to ensure the performance of such duties as establishing statewide policy, negotiating funding, managing, and setting accountability standards for all the colleges collectively.

The Group decided early on and consistently restated throughout its meetings that focus in the postsecondary realm was needed most on the community college system. Group discussions ran the gamut of potential solutions to the community college governance challenges. Associating the system more with K-12 education versus the postsecondary segment; abolishing local boards; or abolishing the Board of Governors were points of discussion across the meetings. Ultimately, however, most members of the Group expressed the opinion that community colleges provide education that is, for the most part, post—K-12 education and that what plagues the system, in part, is its lingering semi-association in structure with the K-12 system. Assigning clear functions to the Board of Governors and local boards was agreed to be the best course of action at this time.

10. A state assessment should be conducted on the value of and need for restructuring of local districts with attention to the size and number of colleges in a district, as well as the scope of authority that should be assigned to each district. Should this assessment find restructuring valuable and desirable, incentives should be provided to encourage restructuring.

Rationale: Some type of restructuring of the local district system is necessary from the point of view of both efficiency and effectiveness, but will be effective only if local boards are engaged and supportive. Size and scope of authority are the two main considerations with respect to the local board structure in the CCC system.

More focused discussion of community college local boards prompted the Group to conclude that the high number of districts and their overwhelming scope of responsibility limit the state system’s ability to satisfy its missions. But local boards were decided to be too ingrained in the structure of the system to be sweepingly eliminated.

11. The CCC Board of Governors should have the same degree of flexibility and authority as that of CSU/UC, including the authority to appoint/approve senior staff to the Board of Governors.

Rationale: With regard to administration, the Group easily achieved consensus that the central office structure of both the California State University system and the University of California is highly functional. The Group further concluded that the flexibility and authority allowed by this structure would benefit the CCC central office. The authority to appoint/approve senior staff will help empower the CCC system to fulfill its missions by providing the Board of Governors the ability to choose competent, capable staff with expertise in specialized areas and offer competitive salaries rather than being confined to state salary schedules, which frequently fall below even district salary schedules.

California Postsecondary Education Commission

12. CPEC should be configured as follows:

• The Governor should appoint its membership, for staggered terms.
• The commission should continue to appoint its executive director.
• There should be a civil service exemption for staff (parity with the structure of CSU).
• The mission should be to provide policy and fiscal advice that represents the broad public interest, planning for coordination, program review, and new campus approval.

Rationale: Staggered terms would foster continuity on the commission, and the executive director’s being appointed by the commission would enhance collaboration by insulating the executive director from any affiliation with existing systems of postsecondary education in the provision of advice to the Legislature, Governor, or system leadership. CPEC would benefit from the civil service exemption for the purposes of hiring employees who meet specific needs, as has been the experience of the CSU and UC systems.

The priorities of CPEC should be those interests that fit together to form a cohesive mission, and should not include those that put CPEC into a role conflict. Most members agreed that CPEC currently has competing missions of (1) subjectively approaching the postsecondary segments in order to coordinate them, while (2) objectively approaching the segments to negotiate among them. After discussing possible elimination of CPEC, the Group chose instead to recommend its redefinition, with its data collection responsibility re-assigned to an independent agency (see K-16 Education).

The Group did not progress far enough in its conversation about redefining the responsibilities and composition of CPEC to reach consensus on either additional authority that CPEC would require to enhance its effectiveness or whether the recommended gubernatorial appointments to the commission would be accompanied by a reduction in the overall size of the commission.