Wednesday, May 25 , 2016, 5:41 pm | Partly Cloudy 68º

SBCC Drafting Response to Accreditation Warning over Lack of Governance Rules

By Giana Magnoli, Noozhawk Staff Writer | @magnoli |

Santa Barbara City College officials have spent months on a report addressing concerns raised by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, and the first draft was made public earlier this month for a College Planning Council meeting.

In the summer of 2011, a complaint was filed with the commission, claiming that SBCC’s Board of Trustees was not complying with its own rules of governance.

An investigation found that the board violated its own rules and refused to delegate authority to the former president, Andreea Serban — who was placed on paid leave until her contract was up. As a result, SBCC was placed on warning status.

SBCC must submit a special report to the Accrediting Commission by March 15, showing that the college has fixed the deficiencies and implemented the oversight agency’s recommendations. There will be another site visit in the spring, and if the commission is satisfied, SBCC will remain accredited.

SBCC was told it must train its trustees in the roles for governance; have a code of conduct — including ethics — for the board; improve student learning and services; and “create an environment for empowerment, innovation and institutional excellence” by working with campus stakeholders.

The draft report was put together by the Accreditation Task Force, and is now going through the College Planning Council, SBCC President Lori Gaskin said.

After input on the draft, the report will go to the trustees and eventually will be sent to the Accrediting Commission.

“It was important to do,” Gaskin said. “It was cathartic, as well. It’s very candid, and a reflective look at our processes ... not many new presidents get an opportunity to stand back and reflect. It was positive all around in terms of having the opportunity to take a real intensive look at our structures and systems.”

Gaskin was selected as president by a 16-member search committee, and started work at SBCC on July 1.

The team working on the project has been “phenomenal,” she said, noting that there won’t be any major changes to the governing system even with implementing the commission’s recommendations.

“There won’t be any big changes, no; what we are is more aware and conscious,” she said. “It’s just giving us a sense of who we are as an institution related to governance.”

The trustees published and adopted a code-of-ethics policy last spring in response to the recommendations, and the campus plans to go beyond the specific recommendations, Gaskin said.

“We are going to reach out to more key stakeholder groups, most notably classified staff and management, to make sure they have an active and engaged role in participatory governance,” she said. “It’s a recommendation that came out of our study.”

SBCC is also working on a document that explains its own governance structure all in one place so it’s easier to orient new board members and staff members, she said.

“We always strive for improvement in whatever we do, both personally and professionally, and as an institution,” she added.

The introduction to the staff report is more candid than the college has been so far in responding to the warning letter.

“The sanction of warning was painful and disturbing to the institution,” the introduction states. “At the same time, and more important, being placed on warning served as a catalyst for internal assessment, reflection, and difficult but genuine conversations.

“Over the past couple of years, the dynamic associated with leadership transitions at the board level, the nature and clarity regarding the appropriate and effective roles of the CEO and board of trustees, and internal/external divisiveness melded together to create an unprecedented level of discord across campus. This permeated into sectors of the community as well.”

The report, which includes the results of the fall 2012 Governance and Leadership Survey taken by 346 employees, goes beyond the three recommendations and examines the entire SBCC governance structure.

SBCC’s leadership wants to unify the campus and address the main issues that caused the level of discord and divisiveness, the report states.

The 129-page survey shows that Gaskin is rated highly, but it’s a mixed bag for the board of trustees and overall collaboration between campus groups.

Only 53.2 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: “The board of trustees, administrators, faculty, staff and students work together for the good of the institution through established governance structures, processes and practices.”

Less than a third of respondents believe the board delegates responsibility and authority to the president to implement board policies without interference. Another 23.7 percent of respondents disagreed, with the rest neutral or undecided.

SBCC has a new board of trustees with the Nov. 6 election of Veronica Gallardo, Marianne Kugler and Craig Nielsen.

Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and must be free of profanity and abusive language and attacks.

By posting on Noozhawk, you:

» Agree to be respectful. Noozhawk encourages intelligent and impassioned discussion and debate, but now has a zero-tolerance policy for those who cannot express their opinions in a civil manner.

» Agree not to use Noozhawk’s forums for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to, the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, fellow readers who comment on our stories, or anyone else in our community.

» Agree not to post on Noozhawk any comments that can be construed as libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane, vulgar, harmful, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, hateful, sexist, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that are invasive of another’s privacy.

» Agree not to post in a manner than emulates, purports or pretends to be someone else. Under no circumstances are readers posting to Noozhawk to knowingly use the name or identity of another person, whether that is another reader on this site, a public figure, celebrity, elected official or fictitious character. This also means readers will not knowingly give out any personal information of other members of these forums.

» Agree not to solicit others. You agree you will not use Noozhawk’s forums to solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites, without Noozhawk’s express written approval.

Noozhawk’s management and editors, in our sole discretion, retain the right to remove individual posts or to revoke the access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement; however, we are under no obligation to do so.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.


Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.