IVA3. Through established governance structures, processes, and practices, the governing board, administrators, faculty, staff, and students work together for the good of the institution. These processes facilitate discussion of ideas and effective communication among the institution's constituencies.
One of the primary recommendations resulting from the spring 2004 comprehensive visit deals with the need for clearly administered responsibility across instructional, student services and learning resource centers at all six campuses.
After the receipt of the recommendation from ACCJC the college immediately convened an all campus meeting which resulted in a revised organizational chart for review and approval of the board at its September 2004 meeting. Training on the organizational changes was conducted for all campuses on December 13, 2004, at the national campus. From January to April 2005 implementation plans were developed by the state campuses and submitted to the president. Changes in existing job descriptions and descriptions for new positions, revised committee assignments, and other structural changes were implemented to support the new organizational chart from July to October 2005.
Trip reports show numerous site visits to all state campuses and FMI by the vice president for instructional affairs (VPIA) and vice president for student services (VPSS) throughout the remainder of 2005. Travel logs and trip reports show that such visits continue to be made to all campuses by administrators on an ongoing basis.
Details of the development, documentation and implementation of the revised organizational chart can be found in the ACCJC progress reports of October 15, 2004, March 15, 2005, March 15, 2006, and in the Midterm Report of March 15, 2007. A formal evaluation of the college's organizational structure was carried out during February and March 2007 through the use of an institutional survey and focus groups conducted during the national campus Staff Development Day and the President's Retreat. A report of this evaluation was published and disseminated in June 2007.
A second major recommendation from the 2004 comprehensive visit focuses on the need for enhanced communication in the system. In specific response to this recommendation, a communications working group was established, a series of evaluations of the organizational chart have been made, and the adoption of decision and communication grids was recommended to improve the flow of communication. A log of campus visits documenting communication is being maintained. Technology has been deployed to assist in communication including a voice-over-IP phone system linking all sites. A new student information system assists in the flow of student records information among the six sites. An on line forum has been established to pilot the use of forums as a way to improve student and staff communication among the campuses.
In March 2006 the board adopted a communications policy in response to the findings of a communications survey conducted in 2005 and 2006. This policy contains specific communications pathways and calls for development of a communications improvement plan.
The above said, and given resolution of the questions above, I do think that the college can say that the processes now in place do facilitate discussion of ideas and effective communication. The college has solved the communication problem that plagued the system prior to 2004. To be all too blunt, there was time when command and control was not being followed and remote sites were in the dark. My sense is that those days are behind us. Like any institution we must always work on communication and work to improve communication, but communication is no longer crippling our ability to deliver courses and programs with continuity across all six sites. I think we meet the standard set in IVA3 and, like any institution, are reaching to exceed the minimum requirements of the standard.
| Information | Evidence |
|---|---|
| 1. Terms of reference for all committees specify staff and student membership. | Terms of reference for committees. |
| 2. Faculty/Staff Senate bylaws specify in Article III Section 2 that "Through its appointments of faculty and staff representatives to the College's standing committees and the other decision-making bodies, the Senate makes recommendations to the President and/or the Board of Regents. The Senate also can communicate directly to the President and/or Board of Regents." | College of Micronesia–FSM Faculty/Staff Senate Bylaws |
| Information | Evidence |
|---|---|
|
1. Sixty-four percent of respondents (n = 709) to a follow-up communication survey report having a good understanding of what goes on at the college. The survey includes students, staff, and faculty. Among faculty 70% report having a good understanding of what goes on at the college. Seventy-six percent of the staff report having a good understanding of what goes on at the college. Sixty percent of the students reported having a good understanding of what goes on at the college.
Students obtain information primarily from supervisors, other students, and talking to friends. Staff rely on information obtained in meetings, from minutes of meetings, and email. Faculty are informed most strongly by information circulated by email and secondarily by information obtained in meetings or from reports of meetings. |
Communication follow-up study spring 2006. |
| 2. 62% of the staff report having attended a committee meeting. 68% of the staff report having talked to a supervisor about the college. | Communication follow-up study spring 2006. |
| 3. The terms of reference for all committees include broad participation by students, staff, and faculty. The faculty/staff senate and student body association both have roles in appointing committee members. The college is guided by the work of the committees under the shared governance policy. The organizational chart is also designed to foster communication. |
Governance Policy 07 December 2006 Faculty/Staff Senate Bylaws 04 February 2008 Terms of Reference for committees [updated various dates spring 2008] Communications Policy [Appendix B, 15 March 2006 Progress Report] |
| 4. [Actual institutional improvement is a meta-question. Unclear how to formulate an answer other than to cite en toto all the reports and studies done to date.] |
| Information | Evidence |
|---|---|
|
1. Sixty-four percent of respondents (n = 709) to a follow-up communication survey report having a good understanding of what goes on at the college. The survey includes students, staff, and faculty. Among faculty 70% report having a good understanding of what goes on at the college. Seventy-six percent of the staff report having a good understanding of what goes on at the college. Sixty percent of the students reported having a good understanding of what goes on at the college.
Students obtain information primarily from supervisors, other students, and talking to friends. Staff rely on information obtained in meetings, from minutes of meetings, and email. Faculty are informed most strongly by information circulated by email and secondarily by information obtained in meetings or from reports of meetings. |
Communication follow-up study spring 2006. |
| 2. A communications working group has been established, a series of evaluations of the organizational chart have been made, the adoption of decision and communication grids was recommended to improve the flow of communication. A log of campus visits documenting communication is being maintained. Technology has been deployed to assist in communication including a voice-over-IP phone system linking all sites. A new student information system assists in the flow of student records information among the six sites. An on line forum has been established to pilot the use of forums as a way to improve student and staff communication among the campuses. | Follow-Up Report presented to the ACCJC October 15, 2008. Page sixteen addresses "Commission concern 1: Communication. This section includes citation of communications group working minutes, decision grids, VPA services evaluation, governance policy, organizational chart evaluation, and the IRPO web site. |
| 3. "The purpose of the College of Micronesia shared governance model is to ensure participatory decision=making. Its fundamental premise rests upon active and responsible involvement of all college employees and students. An inherent characteristic is a commitment made by the president as well as members of all constituency groups to engage in interactive communication." Representation is assured via committees, subcommittees, extensions of committees in the state campuses, appointments made by the faculty/staff senate to committees, and appointments made by the student body association to committees. |
3. Governance Policy 07 December 2006 Faculty/Staff Senate Bylaws 04 February 2008 |
| Information | Evidence |
|---|---|
| 1. Through intercampus visits, meetings both on campuses and system-wide gathering of representatives from each campus, and the committee structure under a shared governance policy, staff are aware of institutional efforts to achieve goals and improve learning. |
Faculty and staff workshops [specific citations yet to be formulated] Intercampus visit log |