INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

TOPIC: Review of the SCJCD governance structure with regard to the Petaluma Center.

BACKGROUND: The current structure and procedures follow the guidelines of the Multi-Site Task Force. The group's original report (Spring, '94) outlined a commitment to a single college, multi-site structure which maintained the primary location for college governance in Santa Rosa. This approach established the Petaluma Center as a sub-group (but not a cluster) of Academic Affairs serving as a delivery site for curricula and services developed by the academic departments and recommended an evolutionary approach to anticipated administrative challenges. The report also recommended a review of the guidelines after sufficient experience had been gained. this review occurred in December, '96 and resulted in a progress report which detailed actual practice in response to the guidelines of the original report. The Task Force supported the development of more specific procedures in light of the growth of the Petaluma Center and initiated a discussion of the differences between a site, center, campus and college.

CURRENT STATUS: The Petaluma Center program now serves approximately 5,000 students a term, offers over 400 sections per term, and generates approximately 1,800 FTES annually. The growth of the operation has been accomplished with the evolutionary approach recommended by the Multi-Site Task Force under a matrix system. Faculty and staff are members of the Petaluma staff while also members of another governance structure such as an academic or service department. As a result, at least two administrative structures (and possibly more) might be involved in any decision. As the Petaluma Center program has become larger and more defined, the ability of Santa Rosa-based governance structures to be adequately informed about and involved in Petaluma matters has decreased or created an added strain to otherwise complex operational processes. Further, the overall college governance structure has remained unchanged since before the opening of the permanent Petaluma Center. Therefore, there are no Petaluma representatives in the committee structure. The matrix structure for operational concerns and the absence of Petaluma representatives inn the governance structure often lead to omission of Petaluma in planning issues or confusion regarding operational procedures.

RECOMMENDATION: The President, Component Administrators, and the Dean of the Petaluma Center should be charged by IPC to (1) review the Multi-Site Task Force Reports with reference to Petaluma; (2) clarify the SCJCD goals associated with the single college, multi-site structure; (3) develop recommendations for revision to the current governance structure; and (4) report results to IPC and college constituencies.