Since the last accreditation visit in the spring of 1995, Los Angeles Mission College has worked hard towards developing a Master Plan.

The college, knowing that the previous Master Plan was inadequate, took specific steps that are outlined in the next few paragraphs to get where we are today. On June 27, 1997, the college president and the college governance groups formed the College Master Planning Committee (CMPC). (Attachment #1 - 1, College Strategic Planning.) The college recruited the Executive Service Corp Organization to help formulate and develop our college master/strategic plan. Two retired executives, Leo Lippa, a vice president from ARCO and John Abel, a strategic planning officer from Unocal, were recruited to Los Angeles Mission College, to assist us in this process.

At the first LAMC Master Planning Committee meeting held on July 9, 1997, roles and responsibilities were assigned to members of the committee. The minutes of the meeting (Attachment #1-2, July 9, 1998, Minutes - Strategic Planning Meeting) indicate sub-committee members and their specific assignments. The college goals contained in the LAMC Odyssey 2001 document were reviewed (Attachment #1-3, LAMC Odyssey 2001). At this same meeting, the college president charged each sub-committee to develop specific work plans for the overall strategic plan. The committee then developed a format sheet for summarizing their findings and developed a method for tracking the progress of the strategic plan (Attachment #1-4, Agenda and Minutes - Work Plan Development meeting). From this Work Plan Development meeting, a task and time line planning chart was developed.

The second meeting of the LAMC Master Planning Committee held on August 13, 1998, determined target dates and evaluated the work plans of each sub-committee. A Community Perception Survey was developed at this meeting (Attachment #1-5, Community Perception Index 1997).

On September 10, 1997, the Master Planning Committee reviewed the work plans of the subcommittees and began analysis of the initial data being collected (Attachment #1-6, Work Plan Development Meeting minutes). Part of this data was a result of the Campus Employment Strategy sub-committee’s High School Survey that indicated the interests of our future students.

(Attachment #1-7, High School Student Survey and Student and Enrollment Statistics for Los Angeles Mission College.)

One result of these Master Planning Committee meetings were the apparent constraints put on the campus in attempting to attain the mission statement, goals, and objectives of Los Angeles Mission College. These concerns were articulated in the attached memo written by committee member Leo Lippa. (Attachment #1-8, Comments and Observations.)

During the spring and summer of 1998, Los Angeles Community College District began a comprehensive reform and decentralization of all District Operations. The net result was that the campus would be given the money generated through FTES. This would allow the colleges to be more responsible and the district would have less input on campus decisions. The down side of this district-wide reform and decentralization required all administrators and faculty leadership to temporarily suspend campus activities. This organizational restructuring also constrained our efforts in implementing the strategic plan in the spring of 1998.

The college planning process got back on track in late spring of 1998. Two all day planning retreats were held with faculty, staff, and administration. The first full day retreat was held August 28, 1998, and resulted in an adoption of new standards and vision for the college. (Attachment #1-9, Standards.) The second full day retreat was held September 28, 1998, and resulted in a compilation of the college’s strengths, opportunities, and threats. These are listed in Attachment #1 - 10, Strengths.)

Because of the importance of technology on the campus and its potential use in the Library/Learning Resources Center, a series of technical planning committees have been developed to handle a long and short term comprehensive campus technology plan. A draft plan has been developed and a final draft is projected to be completed at the end of the Fall 1998 semester. The technical planning committees are:

1. Campus-wide Computer and Technology Needs Committee (17 members).

2. Distance and Non-Traditional Learning Systems Committee (20 members).

3. Student Learning and Support Resource Committee (20 members).

4. Budgeting and Staff Needs Committee (6 members).

5. Training and Staff Development Committee (10 members).

6. Future Technology Trends Hardware, Software and Communications (7 members).

The college’s Facilities Master Plan was last updated for the July 1997 submission to the State. At that time, and until now, the college has had two active projects: land acquisition for which funds were allocated in 1992, and a Liberal Arts facility with a permanent Child Care (Development) Center. An Initial Project Proposal (I.P.P.) was submitted to the State in January 1997 and continues to be a high priority.

A state of urgency with the land acquisition project has forced the college to prioritize our facilities projects. Attachment #1-11 contains a listing of the options available for land acquisition.

Our final Master Plan will include a revised mission statement, revised goals, and a set of strategies and objectives for meeting these goals. This final Master Plan will ultimately embrace the educational, technological, facilities, and individual department plans of Los Angeles Mission College. The College Master Plan will be completed in the spring of 1999.

In response to recommendation #3, the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) in the last year, has begun to change its organization structure and handing procedures. In the past, individual colleges were hindered in implementing a long-term fiscal plan. One major reason for this was the district, traditionally, did not release a proposed budget to each college until July and sometimes into the month of August, which was already into the fiscal year. This created chaos and uncertainty on the individual campuses, as last minute cuts and changes had to be made to accommodate the budget. These cuts and changes, often times, could not be implemented until the spring semester. Because of this it was impossible to develop and follow a long-term fiscal plan. The Board of Trustees of the LACCD, in response to substantial financial problems, began a reform and decentralization of the district office. (Attachment #3-1, Board Motion.) This decentralization effort began in April of 1998 and was implemented in July of 1998. The background of the board motion is as follows:

The reform will, hopefully, enable the colleges to operate more efficiently and have greater control over their financial future.

The Chancellor organized an Administration Organization Study Group (Attachment #3-2, Study Group) which was comprised of nine college presidents, the Vice Chancellor of Operations, the Chancellor, three AFT representatives, and three Faculty Senate Representatives. Additional study groups were organized to examine all areas of the district office to look for ways to minimize duplication of services and eliminate certain functions to streamline efficiency and save money. The typical parameters and areas of review can be found in Attachment #3-3, Study Group Parameters. There were Standard Operational Principles (SOPS) developed (Attachment #3-4, Standard Operational Principles) because of the ripple effect on resources, functions, and campus operating procedures.

Ultimately, the College president presented to the Board of Trustees a set of initial recommendations for reform and decentralization (Attachment #3-5, President's Council presentation). These recommendations delineated new roles and responsibilities for college presidents and each college campus. The implementation of this reform will result in more responsive services, an elimination of duplication of functions, and more responsibility and accountability at the local level.

So how does this affect Mission College? A new Budget Allocation model has been adopted that greatly enhanced the growth of Mission College (Attachment #3-6, Budget Allocation model). Last fiscal year, Mission College was one of two from the nine colleges to come in with a budget surplus. This was accomplished by becoming twenty percent more efficient in the classroom and managing all services more efficiently. The new distribution of hinds from the district will benefit colleges with potential growth like LA Mission College. More hands are being distributed directly to the colleges as a result of this massive reform and decentralization of the Los Angeles Community College District.

A long-term fiscal plan for Los Angeles Mission College has become more feasible under the new reform and reorganization process. The college can now more reasonably project handing levels for fixture years and can plan appropriately. All areas of the college have participated in this difficult yet necessary process.

The college has taken definitive steps to better define our campus governance structure and procedures. Since the beginning of the college accreditation visits, the accreditation team consistently questioned the rationale of the cluster system. The concern was that the clusters contained disciplines that had no apparent educational relationship. During the last three years the college gradually eliminated the cluster system and formed a department structure. These departments are designed to contain disciplines with common educational goals. Our work has resulted in a more logically organized faculty reporting structure. (Attachment #4-1, new Faculty Departmental Organizational Chart.)

The college president recognizes State Assembly Bill AB1725 and has made significant progress toward consultations with the Academic Senate on academic and professional matters. These regular consultations have resulted in many positive activities for the betterment of the campus. For example, the President, in conjunction with the Academic Senate, this year planned and administered two campus retreats where we formulated new goals and objectives for the future of this campus. For the first time the process included diverse participation from the faculty and staff in formulating these goals and objectives. The results of these two retreats will be forwarded to the College Master Planning Committee for integration into our campus master plan and with an update of the mission statement for the college catalog. Another example of improved shared governance is the collaboration between faculty leadership and the administration in working through the difficult process that our district is undergoing in reform and decentralization. This process creates a strain on many functions at this campus and yet, through a concerted collaborative effort, we were able for the first time in four years, to come in on budget.

After the interim accreditation visit, the college President formed a task force to better define the overall governance process on campus. Two of the three governance areas are defined by either AB1725 or LACCD Collective Bargaining contracts. The task force was to develop a process to handle ideas, concerns, and issues outside of the aforementioned governance areas. The task force reviewed the organizational aspects of other California Community colleges and the result was a recommendation on January 14, 1997, to form a president’s coordinating council and eliminate and/or redefine existing campus committees. (Attachment #4-2, Task Force Proposal.)

The name chosen for this governance committee is Mission President’s Coordinating Council (MPCC). The purpose of MPCC is for "the collaborative participation of representative members of the college community in planning for the future and in developing policies, procedures, and recommendations under which the college is governed and administered." The MPCC is a Brown Act Committee.

The previous governance committee, Mission Planning and Advisory Council (MPAC), dissolved its charter and on August 25, 1997, a new charter was approved for the Mission President’s Coordinating Council (MPCC). New charters were also developed for standing committees. (Attachment #4-3, MPCC and Standing Committee Charters.)

These charters included:

1. Statement of Purpose

2. Membership
3. Responsibilities
4. Meeting
5. Motions
6. Minutes
7. Standing Committees

• Budget
• Campus Development/Work Environment
• Enrollment Strategies
• ICAN: Improvement Continuous and Never-ending
• Personnel
• Staff Development
• Student Programs/Student Equity

Once the above standing committees were established and developed, there was still concern of the vast scope and responsibilities of the ICAN committee. The demands of the committee in time became unwieldy and therefore a select few were determining most aspects of the college’s fixture. Because of the importance of planning and faculty/staff participation, it was determined that ICAN was to be separated into three independent committees. This would allow more diverse involvement from campus-wide groups.

These new committees are:

1. College Evaluation
2. Institutional Accreditation
3. Master Planning

Each of the nine standing committees elects its own chair and several committees will be assigned a facilitator to support the function of the committee and will be assigned to an administrative area for support:

The most essential function of each of these MPCC standing committees is to facilitate discussion and give each member of the college faculty/staff every opportunity to bring forth his or her ideas for discussion and review. Another important element of this organizational structure is to give all members of the staff (faculty) an opportunity to participate in the governance structure of the college.

This new campus committee structure has permitted different committees to focus on specific elements that affect the operation and future of the college and allows more participation by faculty and staff (Attachment #4-4, Committee Structures and Charters.)

The college governance structure as shown in the current organizational chart has taken into account faculty rights as outlined in State Assembly Bill AB1725 and the authority given by different Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) contracts to the seven collective bargaining units on campus.

The MPCC, through its charter, deals with all issues that are not contractual or academic/professional matters outlined in AB 1725. Each collective bargaining unit is provided access to the president. The Office of the President allows a one-hour meeting per month for each bargaining unit, if requested. The Academic Senate has a governance agreement with the college president and can be found in Attachment #4-5, Governance Agreement or on the college web page. The premise of the agreement is that the college president "agrees to rely primarily on the advice and judgement [judgment] of the Academic Senate on academic and professional matters."

In regards to the College Governance structure a clear chain of command of the various campus committees is shown. (Attachment #4-6, College Governance Structure.) This structure has helped eliminate violations of this chain of command by faculty, staff, and special interest groups. If any faculty or staff member has a proposal, concern, or plan he or she may it directly to the Chair of MPCC. The Chair of MPCC, in turn, would, depending on the subject matter, refer the individual to the appropriate standing committee to ensure the preferred governance process is being followed. Once the proposal, concern or plan is reviewed and a position is developed, it is sent to the MPCC for action. The recommendation is either sent back to the committee for more evaluation or passed onto the President for his/her approval.

Campus Governance Chart

Campus Committees Chart