For most of my three terms on the Board of City College, I have been advocating for a more open process for budgeting. Related to the transparency of creating the budget is a clearer way of understanding what is contained within the budget. While the materials the College Board receives in approving the budget for the District have become better since I joined the Board in 2001, they are still inadequate if the Board is going to do our job properly in representing the public interest at City College.
Unfortunately, just as I have argued for a better budget process and documentation, for most of the time I have served on the Board of City College, others have argued against my reforms. The arguments of the majority of the Board (until now) have been that any changes to how City College creates and manages its budget would mean that the College Board is micromanaging, mistrustful of the College's Administration, ignorant that there is limited opportunity for changes to the budget with 92% of the budget going to salaries, etc, etc.
Fortunately, there is now a solid majority of College Board Trustees who reject the arguments of the past. We are prepared to open up budget planning, to create a culture that embraces widespread communication about the budget, and to establish timely and accurate assessment of the past fiscal year's achievements and challenges in setting out the priorities and parameters for the next budget. Those are all things that a fiscally-responsible College Board should have been insisting upon a long time ago.
As President of the Board of Trustees, I have appointed Chris Jackson to serve this year as Chair of the Board's Planning and Budgeting Council. I am recommending to Chris that he look for models of better community college budgets as he sets out to reform how City College does its budgets.
One such model can be found at Lane Community College in Eugene, OR. Lane received awards from the Government Finance Officers Association for a number of years for the way in which it presents its budget. You can see for yourself that Lane's Board and Administration understand the importance of clarity, a transparent schedule, and priorities and assumptions guiding the process from early in the calendar. While there are some things I would change, such as a link to a more highly detailed budget beyond what Lane's Board approves, they have it right in many aspects.
Here's the link to Lane's Budget Office site:
http://lanecc.edu/budget/index.htm
City College is a leader in community colleges and higher education in general. Our Board should lead the way to budget reform at City College that will be recognized in the way that Lane Community College has been. Given the state of the economy and City College's budget, our obligation to the people who elected us to represent them is even greater this year. Let's not let them down.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Performance Management at City College
The Board of Trustees continues to refine -- and, hopefully, improve -- the Chancellor's Evaluation process. Using valuable feedback from various constituent groups and the Board's experience with past evaluations, the new process will be established in time for the 2009-2010 evaluation of Chancellor Griffin. Under the contract the Chancellor has with the Board, we must complete his evaluation by the end of June.
While the Board manages and evaluates a single employee, Chancellor Griffin, we have an overarching responsibility to make certain that similar processes are functioning efficiently and effectively throughout the District. Every year, usually at our June meeting just before the start of the new fiscal year, the Chancellor presents the Board with a resolution notifying the Board that all Administrators have received at least a satisfactory annual review and recommending an additional year of employment for each. We are not given -- nor do we ask -- for any more information either on individual Administrators or on the process itself.
As this Board continues our efforts to bring reform and change to City College, we remain committed to improving systems and processes that impact the lives of people who work and study at City College. We know that the best performance management system will help both those being evaluated and the larger community at the College.
My colleagues, Steve Ngo and John Rizzo, and I have introduced the following resolution regarding evaluations of Administrators. I expect that we will have at least one committee meeting on this resolution before it is brought to our Board for action, and I hope that it receives a thorough vetting through Shared Governance and a universal acceptance as a good thing to do for the College.
"Resolution directing evaluation and possible changes to the Administrators’ Evaluation process"
City College of San Francisco functions with a significant workforce, serving 100,000 students annually. Whether as classified staff, administrators, or faculty, each person contributes to the success of the college.
As an educational institution, City College is especially mindful of the importance of supporting the entire workforce and assisting each person in growing professionally. The Board of Trustees believes that a sound performance management system is one based on support and assistance for each member of the staff at City College, and should never be characterized as punitive.
The Board of Trustees is undertaking a review of its evaluation process for the Chancellor, and expects to institute a revised process in the upcoming evaluation scheduled to finish by the end of June 2010. The Board is committed to improving the Chancellor’s evaluation and to modeling what it expects for useful evaluation processes at every level of the institution.
The District’s administrators are the next level of staff for which the Board would like to see a review of the evaluation process and outcomes last updated in 2004 (see http://www.ccsf.edu/Offices/Research_Planning/pdf/admeval.pdf.)
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees directs the Chancellor to report on the progress to date of any review of the evaluation process for administrators during the past year; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees directs the Chancellor to prepare and deliver to the Board of Trustees an accounting of each administrators’ numerical rating for the past 3 years for administrators who have served as administrators for this number of years. This accounting will identify each administrator by a number rather than by name, and whose order will be randomized to prevent any identification of any administrator and his/her rating; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees directs the Chancellor to engage either the College’s Office of Research and Planning or the Association of Community College Trustees to assess the efficacy of the administrators’ evaluation process both in terms of how well City College is served by the current system and how well administrators are supported in their professional functions; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this assessment shall be completed no later than April 1, 2010, and delivered to the Board of Trustees in open session no later than April 15, 2010; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this assessment will include recommendations for improvements, if any, to the process for evaluating administers, and that, in concert with the Administrators Association and any other pertinent Shared Governance entity, the Chancellor will present a revised evaluation process for administrators by June 30, 2010 for adoption by the Board of Trustees and implementation for the 2010-2011 academic year.
Milton Marks
Steve Ngo
John Rizzo
Submitted February 2, 2010
While the Board manages and evaluates a single employee, Chancellor Griffin, we have an overarching responsibility to make certain that similar processes are functioning efficiently and effectively throughout the District. Every year, usually at our June meeting just before the start of the new fiscal year, the Chancellor presents the Board with a resolution notifying the Board that all Administrators have received at least a satisfactory annual review and recommending an additional year of employment for each. We are not given -- nor do we ask -- for any more information either on individual Administrators or on the process itself.
As this Board continues our efforts to bring reform and change to City College, we remain committed to improving systems and processes that impact the lives of people who work and study at City College. We know that the best performance management system will help both those being evaluated and the larger community at the College.
My colleagues, Steve Ngo and John Rizzo, and I have introduced the following resolution regarding evaluations of Administrators. I expect that we will have at least one committee meeting on this resolution before it is brought to our Board for action, and I hope that it receives a thorough vetting through Shared Governance and a universal acceptance as a good thing to do for the College.
"Resolution directing evaluation and possible changes to the Administrators’ Evaluation process"
City College of San Francisco functions with a significant workforce, serving 100,000 students annually. Whether as classified staff, administrators, or faculty, each person contributes to the success of the college.
As an educational institution, City College is especially mindful of the importance of supporting the entire workforce and assisting each person in growing professionally. The Board of Trustees believes that a sound performance management system is one based on support and assistance for each member of the staff at City College, and should never be characterized as punitive.
The Board of Trustees is undertaking a review of its evaluation process for the Chancellor, and expects to institute a revised process in the upcoming evaluation scheduled to finish by the end of June 2010. The Board is committed to improving the Chancellor’s evaluation and to modeling what it expects for useful evaluation processes at every level of the institution.
The District’s administrators are the next level of staff for which the Board would like to see a review of the evaluation process and outcomes last updated in 2004 (see http://www.ccsf.edu/Offices/Research_Planning/pdf/admeval.pdf.)
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees directs the Chancellor to report on the progress to date of any review of the evaluation process for administrators during the past year; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees directs the Chancellor to prepare and deliver to the Board of Trustees an accounting of each administrators’ numerical rating for the past 3 years for administrators who have served as administrators for this number of years. This accounting will identify each administrator by a number rather than by name, and whose order will be randomized to prevent any identification of any administrator and his/her rating; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees directs the Chancellor to engage either the College’s Office of Research and Planning or the Association of Community College Trustees to assess the efficacy of the administrators’ evaluation process both in terms of how well City College is served by the current system and how well administrators are supported in their professional functions; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this assessment shall be completed no later than April 1, 2010, and delivered to the Board of Trustees in open session no later than April 15, 2010; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this assessment will include recommendations for improvements, if any, to the process for evaluating administers, and that, in concert with the Administrators Association and any other pertinent Shared Governance entity, the Chancellor will present a revised evaluation process for administrators by June 30, 2010 for adoption by the Board of Trustees and implementation for the 2010-2011 academic year.
Milton Marks
Steve Ngo
John Rizzo
Submitted February 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)