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