PCC probation monitoring report

7/27/2019 PCC probation monitoring report

1/73

PCC Monitoring Report: Assumed Practices A.4. and B.2.c. Page 1

MONITORING REPORT ON

ASSUMED PRACTICESA.4. COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES

B.2.c. FACULTY OVERSIGHT OF CURRICULUM

ToThe Higher Learning CommissionACommissionoftheNorthCentralAssociationofCollegesand

Schools

FromPima Community CollegeTucson,Arizona

August2013


2/73


Message to the Community

Pima Community College (PCC) was informed on April 16, 2013 that it had been placed on probation

effective April 6, 2013 by its accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), because of concerns

related to integrity, financial management, personnel policies and procedures, shared governance, Boardoversight of the institution, and systemic and integrated planning. The HLC made its decision based on

the findings of an evaluation conducted as a result of complaints received by the Commission about the

College. [See thePublic Disclosure Notice on Pima County Community College Districtand theAction

Letter on Pima County Community College Districtfor additional information.]

On January 16-18, 2013, the HLC sent four educators to PCC to learn more about PCC governance and

administration. That fact-finding team made its determinations following a thorough review of extensive

printed materials submitted by the institution and the complainants and interviews with a total of 108

individuals representing Pima Community College District (PCCD) and the Tucson community, accordingto thefact-finding teams report.

Probation requires the College to undergo a full accreditation process, including the preparation and

submittal of an Institutional Self-Study by July 2014. This process forces the College to ask hard questions

about PCCs mission, culture and operations as we seek to regain the fullest confidence of the HLC.

The College acknowledges that it also must regain the fullest confidence of the public those who come to

PCC seeking a better life through education, and those whose taxes support College operations. To succeed

at this essential endeavor, we must begin by apologizing to the people of Pima County for our past mistakes,pledging to do better and offering a plan by which the public can hold PCC accountable for meeting that

pledge.

We accept full responsibility and say we are profoundly sorry for the serious breaches of integrity cited by

the HLC. We understand that as a result of these deficiencies, many members of the community we serve

have serious doubts about our commitment to the public good.

We recognize that at the core of our mistakes was a failure to recognize thatshared governance should be

our guiding principle, in the words of the Coalition for Accountability, Integrity, Respect and Responsibility

(C-FAIRR), a citizens organization. We failed to respond quickly and give proper credence to allegations of

sexual misconduct by former Chancellor Roy Flores. And we did not consider the legitimate concerns of the

College community and the public that in changing our admissions policy we were diverging from a

longstanding philosophy totake the student from where he is, to where he wants to go,in the words of a
http://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-10-HLC-letter-notification.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-10-HLC-letter-notification.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-10-HLC-letter-notification.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/C-FAIRR-letter-to-board-2013-03-26.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/C-FAIRR-letter-to-board-2013-03-26.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/C-FAIRR-letter-to-board-2013-03-26.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/C-FAIRR-letter-to-board-2013-03-26.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/former-faculty-adm-letter-to-Board-2011-05.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/former-faculty-adm-letter-to-Board-2011-05.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/former-faculty-adm-letter-to-Board-2011-05.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/former-faculty-adm-letter-to-Board-2011-05.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/C-FAIRR-letter-to-board-2013-03-26.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/C-FAIRR-letter-to-board-2013-03-26.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-10-HLC-letter-notification.pdf


3/73


letter sent to PCC by the Pima Open Admissions Coalition, an organization led by two former PCC Board

members, faculty, administrators and a student.

Our constituents, stakeholders and colleagues spoke, but we did not listen. For this, we are truly sorry and

are fully committed to ensuring that we never again act in such a manner. That era of inattention and

heedlessness ends with the Monitoring Report.

About the Monitoring Report

In addition to placing PCC on probation, the HLC asked that PCC submit by August 1, 2013 a monitoring

report on two areas of concern in which the College is not meeting the HLCs standards. Specifically, PCC

must submit a plan by which it will establish conformity with theCommissions Assumed Practicesrelated

to complaints and grievance procedures (Assumed Practice A.4) and to faculty oversight of the curriculum

(Assumed Practice B.2.c) by July 2014. The broader issues identified by the HLC in placing PCC on

probation will be addressed in the Institutional Self-Study that is due July 2014. Accordingly, this

Monitoring Report, as prescribed by the HLC, focuses only on the two areas of concern described in theAction Letter on Pima County Community College District :

The College is out of conformity with Assumed Practice A.4, The institution provides clear

information regarding its procedures for receiving complaints and grievances from students and other

constituencies, responds to them in a timely manner, and analyzes them to improve its processes

because the fact-finding team found that College did not respond to allegations and complaints about

the former Chancellor in a timely manner and following appropriate and up-to-date policies and

procedures.

The College is out of conformity with Assumed Practice B.2.c,Faculty participate substantially in

oversight of the curriculumits development and implementation, academic substance, currency,

and relevance for internal and external constituencies because the fact-finding team found that

faculty did not participate substantially in the review and adoption of the new admissions policy.

Readers should know that the intended audience for the Monitoring Report that follows is the HLC. Given

that its intended audience is not Pima County residents in general but a specific group with deep expertise in

the operation of higher education institutions, the report contains some jargon and other special or technical

vocabulary. This report tries to strike a balance between making the report easily understandable withoutincluding definitions and explanations that the HLCs experts will find unnecessary. It also should be noted

that in reviewing complaints and grievance procedures, the Monitoring Report Writing Team on occasion

ventured into matters of law, a field requiring specialized expertise that the Writing Team does not possess.

The recommendations in those areas are made by laypersons attempting to identify common-sense,
http://policy.ncahlc.org/Policies/assumed-practices.htmlhttp://policy.ncahlc.org/Policies/assumed-practices.htmlhttp://policy.ncahlc.org/Policies/assumed-practices.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://policy.ncahlc.org/Policies/assumed-practices.html


4/73


reasonable solutions to deficiencies. Full vetting of the recommendations by individuals with the appropriate

expertise will occur over the next year during plan implementation.

This Monitoring Report will, we hope, serve as an example of a new era of communication and

collaboration, as it will be informed by the comments and insights of Pima County residents. Many of the

recommendations you will read in the report are, in essence, blueprints for an improved connection betweenthe College and its constituents, be they students, staff, faculty or members of the community.

Whats Next: How PCC Will Hold Itself Accountable

How can the public be sure PCC will act on the recommendations contained in the Monitoring Report that

follows?

In answering this question, it is necessary to provide some organizational context. As stated above, the

Monitoring Report addresses just two of several areas in which the HLC found PCC to be deficient. Over

the next year, PCC must demonstrate to the HLC that these other deficiencies, which are specified in thenotification of the probation sanction, are being remedied. The Monitoring Report is the culmination of just

the first four months of a period of self-examination at PCC that will broaden and intensify over the next 12-

15 months into a top-to-bottom review of College operations known as an Institutional Self Study.

In June, the College formed 14 committees to conduct the Self Study. One of these committees is the

Assumed Practices Monitoring Report Follow-up (MRF) Team. This team has the primary responsibility of

ensuring that the action plans detailed in the Monitoring Report are completed and implemented by July

2014. These action plans are directly in response to the HLC requirements and address three areas:

1) Complaints and grievances against the Chancellor2) Complaints made by students, employees and the community3) Substantial faculty oversight of curriculum

To aid the MRF Team in completing its assigned task, a subcommittee of the MRF Team, the Complaints

and Grievances Oversight (CGO) Team, has been created to implement the plan items related to complaints

and grievances made by students, employees and the community. The Chancellors Office has committed to

implementing the plan items related to complaints and grievances against the Chancellor. The MRF Team

itself will implement the plan items related to faculty participation in the oversight of curriculum. A moredetailed description of how these three entities will interact to accomplish the plans by July 2014 is presented

on pages 11 and 72 in the Monitoring Report that follows.

In short, the College recognizes the urgency of the task before it, and the potential consequences of failure,

and has put in place the necessary structures to turn the recommendations made in the Monitoring Report
http://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdf


5/73


into reality. Moreover, about 250 people, including PCC employees and two dozen members of the

community, are directly involved in the Institutional Self-Study and are committed to seeing that the College

accomplishes it through a meaningful, constructive and thoughtful process that leads to its successful

emergence from probation.


6/73


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

II. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................................................................12

III. COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE CHANCELLOR .......................................................................................................................15

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

CURRENT PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18RECENT IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

IV. COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES .............................................................................................................................................27

CURRENT PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

RECENT IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29


V. STUDENT COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES ..................................................................................................................................................31




VI. EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES .................................................................................................................................................36




VII. PLANS FOR ENSURING PCC COMPLIANCE WITH ASSUMED PRACTICE A.4. BY JULY 2014 .............................................................................42

COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE CHANCELLOR ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES MADE BY STUDENTS,EMPLOYEES AND THE COMMUNITY................................................................................................................ 43

VIII. B.2.C.1.: FACULTY PARTICIPATE SUBSTANTIALLY IN OVERSIGHT OF CURRICULUM .....................................................................................46

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46




IX. B.2.C.2.: FACULTY PARTICIPATE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE ASSURANCE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE LEVEL AND QUALITY OF

INSTRUCTION AND IN THE EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE .....................................................................................................58

CONSISTENCY IN CURRICULUM ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHING FIELDS ...................................................................................................................................... 59

TEXTBOOKS.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 60

STUDENT SUCCESS,ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING.................................................................................................................................................................. 60

ADDITIONAL FACULTY ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

X. B.2.C.3.: FACULTY PARTICIPATE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS OF FACULTY .............................................................62

FACULTY OVERSIGHT OF ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS FOR FACULTY ............................................................................................................................................ 62

CONTRACTS AND CERTIFICATION OFFICE............................................................................................................................................................................... 62

XI. B.2.C.4.: FACULTY PARTICIPATE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE ANALYSIS OF DATA AND APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ASSESSMENT OF

STUDENT LEARNING AND PROGRAM COMPLETION ....................................................................................................................................64

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING ................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

PROGRAM COMPLETION................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

XII. PLAN FOR ENSURING PCC COMPLIANCE WITH ASSUMED PRACTICE B.2.C.1. BY JULY 2014 ..........................................................................71

XIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................................................................................73


7/73


I. Executive SummaryPima Community College respectfully submits the following Monitoring Report on Assumed Practice A.4.,

complaints and grievances, and Assumed Practice B.2.c., faculty participation in the oversight of curriculum,

to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). This document provides an in-depth description of the steps

PCC is taking to address the issues highlighted by the HLC in its April 16, 2013action letterto the College.Specifically, the HLC requested that the College submit a plan by which it will establish conformity with

Assumed Practices A.4. and B.2.c. by July 2014 because the fact-finding team found that the College did

not respond to allegations and complaints about the former Chancellor in a timely manner and following

appropriate and up-to-date policies and procedures and faculty did not participate substantially in the

review and adoption of the new admissions policy.

This Monitoring Report describes the Colleges procedures concerning complaints and grievances for all

constituencies and faculty participation in the oversight of curriculum. The report also includes the Colleges

plans to re-establish compliance with A.4. and B.2.c. by July 2014. For purposes of review andimplementation, the following areas of focus were identified and three plans were created for bringing the

College into compliance with A.4. and B.2.c.:

Complaints and grievances against the Chancellor (A.4.) Complaints and grievances made by students, employees and the community (A.4.) Substantial faculty oversight of curriculum (B.2.c.)

Please note that B.2.c. has four areas: Faculty participate substantially in:

1. oversight of the curriculumits development and implementation, academic substance, currency,and relevance for internal and external constituencies;

2. assurance of consistency in the level and quality of instruction and in the expectations of studentperformance;

3. establishment of the academic qualifications for instructional personnel;4. analysis of data and appropriate action on assessment of student learning and program completion.

Since the College was specifically asked to address B.2.c.1., this report dedicates extra attention to and

provides a background for and summary of issues related to B.2.c.1. and the admissions policy change, as

well as a plan for improving related processes. However, the report also shows that the College has many

robust systems in place to ensure that faculty participate substantially in the oversight of curriculum

(B.2.c.1.), as well as demonstrating that the College is already in compliance with B.2.c.2., B.2.c.3. and

B.2.c.4.
http://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/201304-16-HLC-action-letter.pdf


8/73


The College would like to bring to the attention of our HLC reviewers the following two items:

On March 29, 2013, at a Special Board of Governors Meeting, the Admissions and RegistrationSPG-3501/AA went before the Board of Governors with a recommendation to include the following

statement: Due to Board of Governors action, language that refers to minimum level scoring on

assessment examinations was suspended for a minimum of one year. The change was approved and

resulted in the suspension of the admissions policy change. On June 25, 2013 at a Special Board of Governors Meeting, the Board voted on a resolution to affirm

Board Policy 3501 on Admissions and Registration and directed College administration to revise

implementing procedures, including SPG-3501/AA. This affirmation supports the College

administration in beginning the appropriate process to permanently remove the changes made to

SPG-3501/AA, which resulted in the revised admissions policy. This removal of appropriate

language, which will happen during Fall 2013 following regular College processes, will result in

PCC permanently returning to a full access, open admissions institution.

Complaints and Grievances Against the Chancellor (A.4.)Key Plan ItemsChancellor Lee D. Lambert, who began his tenure with the College July 1, 2013, has committed the

Chancellors Office to leading College administration and the Board of Governors through the necessary

steps to clearly articulate the relationship between the Board and the Chancellor and to implement an

improved model of institutional governance. To accomplish this, the Board and Chancellors Office will:

1. Review and updateBoard BylawsandPoliciesto align them with peer institutions, to adopt bestpractices, and to implement a governance model applicable to PCC that has a demonstrated record of

success at other community colleges, with the overall goals being improved clarity, transparency, and

analysis. The review should include exploring the creation of a new, separate article in the Bylaws

dedicated to complaint handling by the Board of Governors (separate from the current Article XII.Orientation). The content for this new article should apply to complaints given to individual Board

members, as well as those received during public comment at Board meetings. The process should

be consistent with other College complaint handling processes and should include:

Requiring all Board members to share all complaints with all other Board members,Delineating the required steps in an investigation,Tracking quantities and trends with a database,Ensuring follow-up and closure, andRevising the process for complaints and feedback regarding the Chancellor, since the

current process calls for referring complaints back to the Chancellor.

2. Develop a process to ensure that all Board members receive training on Board Bylaws annually. Aregular timeline for reviewing and revising the Bylaws thereafter will also be developed.

3. Review the efficacy of initiating a community advisory committee to the Board.4. Develop a clear, concise and comprehensive evaluation process for the Chancellor. The objectives of

the evaluation would be improved performance by the College and greater transparency.
http://www.pima.edu/meeting-notices/agendas/agenda-2013-06-25-special-430pm.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/BP-3501.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/BP-3501.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/meeting-notices/agendas/agenda-2013-06-25-special-430pm.pdf


9/73


5. Continue to implement a comprehensive regimen of professional development for the Board that willaid in the development of an institutional governance model, and increase Board knowledge and

skills regarding sexual harassment reporting and procedures, the HLCs Assumed Practices, and

other topics.

To bring the College into compliance with Assumed Practice A.4, as it relates to complaints and grievancesagainst the Chancellor, the Chancellor will charge administration with examining policies, regulations,

guides of standard practice and procedures to:

1. Codify that investigations of the Chancellor will not be conducted by the General Counsel, to avoidpotential conflicts of interest.

2. Identify ways to conduct investigations that do not involve investigators who have a contractedfinancial relationship with the College.

3. Specify the General Counsels duty to share directly with the Governing Board complaints about theChancellor.

4.

Clarify language to eliminate potentially confusing references to Board attorneys by identifying allattorneys under contract with PCC as College attorneys who, except in narrowly defined cases,

represent the interests of PCC as a whole, thus reinforcing that the Board is aligned with College

interests, goals and mission.

5. Compile a single record of all complaints against the Chancellor for examination by the entire Board.6. Supply internal and external constituencies an aggregate annual summary that contains substantive

data and insights regarding complaints against the Chancellor while honoring confidentiality, to the

extent allowable by law, of both the complainants and the Chancellor.

7. Clearly delineate avenues that exist for PCC employees to bring complaints against the Chancellorand other high-level administrators, along with the rights and responsibilities of complainants,timelines, as well as complete explanations of due process, confidentiality to the extent allowable by

law and other issues. The policies and processes must be clear and easy to navigate.

8. Find additional new processes and technologies that could provide a means to follow-up andinvestigate complaints made to the Board by those who wish to remain anonymous.

Complaints and Grievances Made By Students, Employees and the Community (A.4.)Key Plan

Items

In June 2013, the Complaints and Grievances Oversight (CGO) Team was created to review the weaknesses

raised and recommendations made with regard to student, employee and community complaints andgrievances in this Monitoring Report and implementing appropriate actions to bring the College into full

compliance in these areas by July 2014. To accomplish this, the CGO Team will:

1. Review existing complaints and grievances processes for all constituent groups (students, employees,the community), including appropriate policies, procedures and SPGs and identify and implement


10/73


improvements and simplifications. The policies and processes must be clear and easy to navigate.

The improvements should also include an avenue for administrators to file complaints and

grievances.

2. Create clear and consistent processes for intake and handling of complaints, grievances and feedbackholistically across all constituent groups, including triage, investigation, response, training, follow-

up, closing cases and tracking for trend analysis.3. Clarify the terms informal and formal and ensure that they are used the same throughout all

College complaints and grievances processes.

4. Work with appropriate staff to implement training for employees at all levels to understand theColleges Policies and Procedures related to complaints and grievances processes.

5. Review EthicsPoint (the Colleges current intake portal for employee complaints) to see if it can beexpanded to be offered to all constituents (employees, students, community), not just employees, as a

complaint portal and tracking tool, or if some other tool needs to be found or created to provide a

central intake and tracking system.

6.

Review the intake process for EthicsPoint to determine if the Office of Internal Audit (as the currentprocess dictates) is the appropriate place for EthicsPoint feedback to be fielded and triaged.

7. Research the efficacy of and, if deemed appropriate, create a Dispute Management Office orCompliance and Ethics Office (or something of the like) for consistent oversight and tracking of

complaints, grievances and feedback from all constituent groups. The processes put in place for this

Office should ensure that it is autonomous and remains insulated from influence by administration or

the Board of Governors. If such an office is not deemed necessary, then very clear processes for

holistic oversight of all complaints and grievances processes will be created and in place before the

Self-Study is submitted in July 2014.

8. Examine having access to an external or independent investigative service to address complaints thatshould not or cannot be properly handled internally and, if an external investigative service is

deemed necessary, create a process for determining when an external investigator should become

involved.

9. Work closely with the Self Study Assumed Practices Monitoring Report Follow-up (MRF) Teamassigned to conduct follow-up on the A.4./B.2.c. Monitoring.

10.Follow-up with and assist Chancellor Lambert as he works with the Board and other internalconstituencies to make improvements to all complaints processes, including those against the

Chancellor.

11.Recommend to the Human Resources Department that a review of Employee Relations be conductedto determine whether this area serves as a consultative body or an investigative body, or if complaints

and grievances oversight should be reassigned to another area.


11/73


Faculty Participate Substantially in the Oversight of Curriculum (B.2.c.1.)Key Plan Items

In July 2013, the Assumed Practices Monitoring Report Follow-up (MRF) Team was created to

review the weaknesses raised and recommendations made with regard to faculty oversight of curriculum in

this Monitoring Report and implementing appropriate actions to bring the College into full compliance in

these areas by July 2014. To accomplish this, the MRF Team will:

1. Ensure that SPG-3105/DA (Program Review) is reviewed and updated by July 2014.2. Review the efficacy of developing three separate SPGs for admissions, placement and registration

and, if deemed appropriate, work to create the separate SPGs.

3. Develop and place language in policy that requires major curriculum changes such as an amendmentto admission policies be undertaken only following a rigorous review over a realistic time frame,

including a review to ensure applicable processes are followed before such changes are adopted.

4. Ensure that the Provosts Office reviews the current state of credit and non-credit developmentaleducation. Upon completion of the review, a plan to address the developmental education needs of

the population served by the College will be developed. This review and associated plan shouldaddress the following:

Determining if increased oversight of curriculum in non-credit developmental education isnecessary and, if so, if it will become the responsibility of the College Curriculum Council, if

a separate, parallel entity will need to be created, or if some other type of process needs to be

created to ensure substantial faculty curricular oversight in this area. If a separate entity or

process is necessary to ensure substantial faculty curricular oversight of non-credit

developmental education curriculum, the entity or process will be designed and implemented.

Considering the expansion of existing faculty curricular oversight responsibility to thoseinstructional employees (including adjunct faculty, staff instructors, and designated teachingpersonnel) who develop/deliver non-credit developmental education curriculum.

5. Work with appropriate faculty, staff and administrators to continue the current activities dedicated tothe reestablishment of a functional, respectful, trusting, collegial, collaborative relationship among

faculty, staff and administrators.

In addition to focusing specifically on the faculty oversight of curriculum issues, the MRF Team also has the

responsibility of ensuring that all activities related to the three plans contained in this Monitoring Report,

including those associated with complaints and grievances, are completed and the College is in full

compliance with Assumed Practices A.4. and B.2.c. by July 2014. The MRF Team will work with the

Chancellors Office and the Complaints and Grievances Oversight Team (CGO) in performing this duty.
http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/standard-practice-guides/SPG-3105-DA.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/MRF-team-diagram.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/MRF-team-diagram.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/MRF-team-diagram.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/MRF-team-diagram.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/MRF-team-diagram.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/standard-practice-guides/SPG-3105-DA.html


12/73


II. IntroductionThe purpose of this Monitoring Report, presented by Pima Community College (PCC) to the Higher

Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, is to describe

current practices and outline a plan by which the College will establish full compliance with Assumed

Practices A.4. and B.2.c. by July 2014.

Assumed Practice A.4.The institution provides clear information regarding its procedures for

receiving complaints and grievances from students and other constituencies, responds to them in a

timely manner, and analyzes them to improve its processes.

The HLC requested that the College submit a plan by which it will establish conformity with Assumed

Practice A.4. because the fact-finding team found that the College did not respond to allegations and

complaints about the former Chancellor in a timely manner and following appropriate and up-to-date policies

and procedures.

Since the HLC specifically highlighted the Colleges response when dealing with complaints against the

Chancellor, we have provided background and summary of those issues, as well as a plan for improving

related processes. As required by Assumed Practice A.4., we also present an analysis of current complaints

processes for students, employees and the community and recommendations and plans for improving those

processes as well.

Assumed Practice B.2.c.Faculty participate substantially in:

1. oversight of the curriculumits development and implementation, academic substance, currency,and relevance for internal and external constituencies;

2. assurance of consistency in the level and quality of instruction and in the expectations of studentperformance;

3. establishment of the academic qualifications for instructional personnel;4. analysis of data and appropriate action on assessment of student learning and program

completion.

The HLC requested that the College submit a plan by which it will establish conformity with Assumed

Practice B.2.c. because the fact-finding team found that faculty did not participate substantially in the

review and adoption of the new admissions policy. Specifically, the College was asked to address B.2.c.1.

Faculty participate substantially in oversight of the curriculumits development and implementation,

academic substance, currency, and relevance for internal and external constituencies. As a result, we

provided background and summary of issues related to B.2.c.1., as well as a plan for improving related

processes. We also demonstrate how the College is already in compliance with B.2.c.2., B.2.c.3. and B.2.c.4.


13/73


In gathering information for this report, the Monitoring Report Writing Team interviewed dozens of people,

including students, faculty, staff and administrators, and reviewed numerous internal and external documents

(accessible in this report via hyperlinks).

About the Public Comment ProcessA draft of the Monitoring Report was placed on thePima Addresses Probation webpageof the Colleges

website from July 3-14 so that the public could share its insights. Members of the media, College staff,

students and the public were notified of the posting through press releases, internal communications and e-

mail invitations. Internal and external constituencies were asked to confidentially comment on the draft and

suggest improvements through a survey on the PCC website.

A total of 132 comments were received by the Monitoring Report Writing Team. Most came through an

anonymous online survey that accompanied the draft of the report. Other comments were received by email

or hardcopy. Some comments came in the form of heavily annotated paper copies of the report or multipagecommentaries referring to numerous specific passages of the report.

All comments were reviewed and weighed equally regardless of source (if the source was known) by the

Writing Team using the following evaluation guidelines:

Technical

edits

Maintain tone

and format ofthe report

Deadline

for inputof July 14

Focus as determined

by HLC is only on

Assumed Practices A.4

Complaints and

Grievance Procedures

& B.2.c Substantial

Faculty Involvement in

Curriculum

HLC

Expected

outcomeis a

plan

Ask question

of whether

input should

be inMonitoring

Report or in

the Self-Study

All input/

comments are read

and evaluated in

the same way using

the editing and

comment rubric,

regardless of

source (if known)

Input is

confidential

and

anonymous

Written to

intendedaudience

Spelling

The writing

and

ownership of

the report is

the

responsibility

of the College

Comments related

directly to A.4 and

B.2.c will be included,

as this is the

expectation of the

HLC readers

Comments

better suited

for the Self-

Study will be

forwarded to

the

appropriate

teams

HLC

Punctuation

Grammar

Typos

Complete

sentences
http://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/index.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/index.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/index.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/index.html


14/73


The approach used by the Writing Team in evaluating the public comments was also in keeping with the

Writing Teams commitment to the following guiding principles:

Operate with integrity. Operate objectively and without bias.

Tell the truth as we discover it to be based on our research. Do not succumb to internal or external pressure from anyone at any level in the College or outside of

the College to change or present the facts in ways inconsistent with the findings from our research or

that can otherwise be verified.

Discussions had in meetings and one-on-one among Writing Team members will be kept confidentialby the team.

The team is a safe place to conduct a forthright review of the shortcomings of the College and makerecommendations for improvement.

Honor the process and do not allow others to influence the process.Finally, all public comments have been kept anonymous and confidential and have not been shared

outside of the Writing Team, as promised in the following excerpt from thecall for public comment:

Pima Community College is required to file a monitoring report no later than August 1, 2013,

outlining a planby which it will establish conformity with Assumed Practices A.4. (complaints and

grievances) and B.2.c. (faculty oversight of curriculum) by July 2014.

We value your insights and wish to make the writing process as open and inclusive as possible. To

this end, the College welcomes public comment on the draft report. The report will be open for

public comment until Sunday, July 14. Please keep in mind the following while reviewing the report

and providing comments:

3. The College will, in good faith, attempt to incorporate all applicable comments into theMonitoring Report. It is possible that some comments received may be more appropriately

handled via the Self-Study due July 2014. Such comments will be saved and used in the

preparation of that document.

4. To ensure confidentiality, comments will be anonymous.5. Comments will only be seen and used by the Monitoring Report writing team (with the

exception of comments saved for preparation of the Self-Study).

As this summary indicates, comments were reviewed using the evaluation guidelines and appropriate

comments were incorporated into the Monitoring Report. Comments deemed to be more appropriately

handled via the Self-Study due July 2014 were saved and will be used in the preparation of that document.
http://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/monitoring/public-comment.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/monitoring/public-comment.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/monitoring/public-comment.htmlhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/probation/monitoring/public-comment.html


15/73


III. Complaints and Grievances Against the ChancellorThis section of the Monitoring Report begins with a chronology of events specifically referenced by the HLC

in declaring the College out of compliance with Assumed Practice A.4.: complaints and grievances against

former Chancellor Roy Flores, especially those regarding sexual harassment. The chronology quotes directly

from theHLC fact-findingreport section on Claims of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviors bythe colleges Former Chancellor and failure of the Board to institute an appropriate investigation into these

claims. It should be noted that in its March 29 response to the HLC fact-finding report, PCC, in the

interests of moving the College forward, did not take exception to any of the 17 findings contained in the

above-mentioned section. The chronology also directly quotes from the Governing Boardstimeline of

allegationsincluded as part of the Colleges response to the fact-finding report.

The chronology was compiled by the Writing Team to identify deficiencies in process that PCC can remedy

through changes in policies and procedures. The chronology presented in this report is not intended to be a

comprehensive or definitive history. Its only purpose was to serve as a tool to help the Writing Teamconduct a gap analysis and develop a plan for bringing the College into compliance with A.4. as it relates to

complaints and grievances against the Chancellor. The teams intent in including the chronology is

encapsulated in a quotation from the Colleges above-referenced response to the HLC: We are working

diligently to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Following the chronology is a description of current policies and practices, as well as recent improvements

and recommendations. Information is based on review of PCC documents, discussions with PCCs Director

of Internal Audit and the Colleges General Counsel, communications with the outside attorney who

provided primary legal services for the College in 2012 and earlier, and media reports. It also includes an

examination of policies and bylaws at the Collegespeer institutionscommunity colleges of similar size

and configuration that have been designated by the Colleges Department of Planning and Institutional

Research to serve as benchmarks against which the College can evaluate its operations.

Background

Dr. Flores behaviors, referenced by some Board members as strong and tough and by employees as

intimidating, rude, and of a bullying nature, were known by some Board members as early as 2004

according to theHLC Fact-Finding Report. Occasional coaching by the Board led to temporary periods of

civility, but no long-lasting change in behavior. To quote the fact-finding report:

Many examples were provided which described overly harsh, sometimes belittling feedback fromthe former Chancellor, including statements where he would resort to name-calling in meetings,

screaming and using profanity when confronting employees.
http://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/PCC-report-response-harassment.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/PCC-report-response-harassment.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/PCC-report-response-harassment.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/PCC-report-response-harassment.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/peer-institution-list.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/peer-institution-list.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/peer-institution-list.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/peer-institution-list.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/PCC-report-response-harassment.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/PCC-report-response-harassment.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdf


16/73


Official leaders of the PCC Faculty Association presented information to the Board in 2007 whichhighlighted the faculty responses to three questions on an annual faculty culture survey. The

presentation brought about silence from the Board and an angry outburst from the former Chancellor,

who later apologized. One statement in the survey queried: Faculty can express their views openly

without fear of recrimination. The PCC results indicated that 49% of the respondents said false

and an additional 28% said more false than true. Nationally in that year faculty responded with 13%false and another 22% more false than true. The Board never officially responded to this finding.

[It should be noted that the Board may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during

public comment unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action, according to

information contained on the Public Comment Card.

One Board member indicated that he/she was fully aware of complaints against the formerChancellors leadership style and his use of belittling and derogatory comments. However, the Board

member was happy with the direction of the College and did not want to jeopardize that through

disciplining the Chancellor.

A member of the Board told the HLC team that he/she was only concerned that the college wasfiring on all eight cylinders and not whether employees were happy.

Below is a specific chronology regarding sexual harassment. The chronology in almost all cases quotes

directly from theHLC fact-finding reportor the timeline of allegations submittedto the HLC by PCC in

March 2013 (referred to hereafter as the PCC timeline):

1. 2008: According to the HLC fact-finding report, One or more Board members received ananonymous complaint regarding inappropriate behavior by the Chancellor. The Board discussed,

in a public meeting, that anonymous complaints (unspecified at the time) had been received bythe Board. The Chair of the Board asked individuals to contact him if there were concerns or

complaints.

2. August 31, 2008:According to the PCC timeline, One member of the Board received ananonymous 10-page letter with this date which expressed complaints and concerns regarding a

number of items. There is a heading sexual harassment on page 4, but it is not clear from the

general description of behavior whether it was inappropriate or could have a legitimate

explanation. The letter contains no details about who was involved or the dates of the alleged

incidents that could be investigated. The Board member stopped reading the letter before

reaching the heading for sexual harassment and did not inform any other member of the

Board.

3. 2010: According to the HLC fact-finding report the Board received an anonymous complaintabout the Chancellor. According to the PCC timeline, neither the Board nor the administration

was aware of an anonymous complaint being received during this year.
http://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-timeline.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-timeline.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-timeline.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-timeline.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-timeline.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-timeline.pdfhttp://pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs/HLC-visit-report-20130315.pdf


17/73


4. June 2011: According to the HLC fact-finding report, The Former Chancellor reported at anexecutive board meeting in June of 2011 that rumors existed regarding his inappropriate

behavior. He vehemently denied such actions. The Board took no additional action at this time to

discipline the Former Chancellor or to investigate the rumors as he described them. At least one

of the Board members described some of the allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of

the Former Chancellor as minor and did not take the complaints seriously if he/she believed theemployee was not a good employee or if the individual making the claim was a former

employee who left the employ of the College in disfavor with the colleges leadership.

5. July 2011: According to the PCC timeline, There was a conversation between the same Boardmember who received the 2008 letter and a former employee, but their recollection of the

conversation differs about whether the conversation included allegations of sexual harassment.

6. October 14, 2011:According to the PCC timeline, Dr. Flores underwent quadruple bypasssurgery.

7. November 18, 2011:According to the PCC timeline, A Board member received an emailstating in part Over the years, women have contacted me about Chancellor Flores and histendency to try to separate them from their clothing. This portion of the email did not include

any names, dates, or other details.

8. December 2011:According to the PCC timeline, The Board consulted legal counsel during thefirst of this month regarding the complaints received in November 2011. At the time of receipt in

November, legal counsel had been traveling out of the country. Dr. Flores was still recovering

from heart surgery.

9. Late January 2012:According to the PCC timeline, Dr. Flores announced his intention toretire related to his health condition.

10.February 3, 2012:According to the PCC timeline, Dr. Flores had an emergency heart-relatedsurgery.

11.February 5, 2012:According to the PCC timeline, a former College employee posted a blogcomplaining about Dr. Flores treatment of her and other female employees.

12.February 29, 2012: According to the HLC fact-finding report, The Board accepted the FormerChancellors resignation dated February 29, 2012 with a special assignment granted from March

1, 2012 to June 30, 2012.

13.March 2012:According to the PCC timeline, Board member Scott Stewart spoke on a radioshow about the anonymous allegations against Dr. Flores and indicated that women with

allegations of misconduct should come forward.14.Last week of March through the first week of April 2012: According to the PCC timeline,

Eight women came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against Dr. Flores and all

were interviewed by the Colleges outside legal counsel. According to the HLC fact-finding

report, Eight female employees came forward to tell their personal stories regarding the fact that

they were the recipients of unwelcome and inappropriate attention and advances by the Former


18/73


Chancellor. These contacts took place both on and off campus. Some of these employees

reported these incidents to their superiors and to a member of the Human Resources staff. None

of these employees knew, exactly, how many other women, if any, may have been subjected to

such inappropriate behavior. According to the HLC fact-finding report, The Board engaged a

member of its legal counsels firm to investigate the allegations against the Former Chancellor.

The Board did not make use of any other alternative source that had no connection to the Collegeto investigate the allegations. The investigator, one of the principals of the law firm contracted by

the Board to provide legal advice, is married to the Boards legal counsel. In February, 2012, the

legal counsel advised the Board of its findings prior to the Former Chancellors departure from

the College. One member of the Board indicated that he/she did not know that the investigator

was married to the Boards legal counsel until after the investigation into the charges against the

Former Chancellor was completed.

15.April 10, 2012: According to the PCC timeline, College outside legal counsel met with Dr.Flores to share the allegations and receive his perspectives.

16.Mid-April 2012:According to the PCC timeline, The review concluded the allegations ofunprofessional conduct by Dr. Flores were largely credible and that the claims of retaliation

could not be substantiated. The findings were shared with the Board and with Dr. Flores through

his legal counsel. According to the HLC fact-finding report, the women suffered physically,

financially, and emotionally. They feared and experienced retaliation in the form of inappropriate

verbal communications and employee working condition changes following the employees

refusals of such attentions and advances. Several of the women who rejected the Former

Chancellors actions towards them were, within approximately six months, subjected to

disciplinary actions through the HR process and were demoted or transferred to another position

within the District.17.April 17, 2012: According to the PCC timeline, The Board accepted Dr. Flores resignation

effective June 30, 2012.

18.December 8, 2012: An article in theArizona Daily Starreported that the Boards attorneyconfirmed the College paid a $30,000 out-of-court settlement to one of the eight women who

complained of being sexually harassed by Dr. Flores.

Current Processes

Common Policy and Practices Regarding Investigation of the Chancellor

In addressing processes regarding complaints and grievances against the Chancellor, one must focus on thepolicies and procedures of the Pima County Community College District (PCCCD) Governing Board. This

five-member elected board is empowered bystate statuteto govern districts such as the PCCCD. Governing

Board members represent districts covering Pima County in Southern Arizona, and are elected to six-year

terms.
http://azstarnet.com/news/paid-to-woman-in-pcc-harassment-case/article_65488460-af86-57d5-b6ba-457a03e0a526.htmlhttp://azstarnet.com/news/paid-to-woman-in-pcc-harassment-case/article_65488460-af86-57d5-b6ba-457a03e0a526.htmlhttp://azstarnet.com/news/paid-to-woman-in-pcc-harassment-case/article_65488460-af86-57d5-b6ba-457a03e0a526.htmlhttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/01444.htmhttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/01444.htmhttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/01444.htmhttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/01444.htmhttp://azstarnet.com/news/paid-to-woman-in-pcc-harassment-case/article_65488460-af86-57d5-b6ba-457a03e0a526.html


19/73


Through policies that will be described below, the Board acknowledges its unique role in hiring and directing

the Chancellor. Additionally, on page 2 of itsresponse to the HLC 2013 fact-finding report, the Board

described the Chancellor as the one employee over whom it has direct supervision.

Three current Board members have served since 2000, and the terms of four of five Board members last at

least through 2016. Thus, barring unforeseen circumstances, responsibility for current practices and forchange rests with the current Board, who answer ultimately to the people of Pima County.

The Board has twice approved language to Subsection E, Investigations, of Section V, Code of

Conduct/Discipline, in the Personnel Policy Statement for College Employees, known as Common Policy, to

specify procedures for investigating the Chancellor. This is notable because an examination of bylaws and

policies at the Colleges 11 peer institutions reveals that none has delineated a specific process for

investigating complaints made against the Chief Executive Officer. The first change occurred in2010(page

3), adding language that matters concerning a Chancellor should be referred to the Employee Relations

Office, and directing the Employee Relations Office to forward the matter to the Boards attorney, whowill inform the Board of Governors.

Page 50 of theCommon Policywas amended in June 2012 to read:

Matters concerning a Chancellor shall be referred to the Employee Relations Office, Board of

Governors Chair, Boards attorney or the Colleges compliance and ethics hotline. Matters

concerning the Chancellor received by the Employee Relations Office or the Colleges compliance

and ethics hotline will be forwarded to the Boards attorney, who will inform the Board of

Governors.

Below are four areas in which the language of the above section, or its associated procedures and Board

policies, could be addressed:

1. The process described in Common Policy mandates that complaints received by Employee Relations;and the complaint and grievance hotline, which is the responsibility of the Director of Internal Audit;

be sent to the Boardsattorney, who has a duty to report them to the rest of the Board. The process

does not impose a similar responsibility on the Board Chair or other members of the Board. The duty

to report should be extended to all individual Board members, so that the entire Board may have thesame clear information mandated in Assumed Practice A.4. Moreover, the duty imposed on the

Boards attorney comes fromArizona Rule of Professional Conduct ER1.13 (b),which specifies

that an attorney working for an organization has a duty to report concerns about an officer,

employee or other person associated with the organization to that organizations highest level of

authority, which in PCCs case is the Board. No Board Policy contains this responsibility. Spelling
http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/2010-common-policy-review.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/2010-common-policy-review.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/2010-common-policy-review.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/common-policy-2012-13-pg-50.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/common-policy-2012-13-pg-50.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/common-policy-2012-13-pg-50.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/ER-1-13-duty-to-organization-client.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/ER-1-13-duty-to-organization-client.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/ER-1-13-duty-to-organization-client.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/ER-1-13-duty-to-organization-client.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/common-policy-2012-13-pg-50.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/2010-common-policy-review.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdf


20/73


out this duty in Board Policy would provide an additional level of assurance for the public.

2. In January 2013, following an external recruitment, the Governing Board hired a General Counsel tolead and coordinate the Colleges legal affairs. In the absence of an internal legal resource, PCC in

recent years had utilized one primary outside counsel to address legal concerns that have arisen in

College operations, an individual described in Common Policy the Boards attorney. The wordingof the Common Policy on investigations and in other relevant PCC documents should be made

consistent, and should eliminate potentially confusing references to Board attorneys when the

reality is that all attorneys under contract with PCC are employed by the College.

3. Common Policy does not specify who will conduct investigations of the Chancellor. Current practice,put into effect by the General Counsel since his hiring in January, is for outside legal counsel under

contract for 2013-14 to lead investigations against the Chancellor, not the General Counsel, in order

to help reduce conflicts of interest stemming from having the General Counsel, who reports directly

to the Chancellor, lead an investigation of charges against the Chancellor. The Common Policyshould be updated to reflect this practice.

4. According to page 6 of theHLCs fact-finding report, the Board delegated the March-April 2012investigation of sexual harassment allegations against Dr. Flores to an attorney working for the firm

under contract with the College to provide its primary legal representation. The College should

identify ways to conduct investigations that do not involve investigators who have a contracted

financial relationship with the College to further minimize conflicts of interest.

Process for Recording Complaints and Grievances Against the ChancellorAs the sole supervisor of the Chancellor, the Board has the responsibility to closely study the number,

source, nature and resolution of complaints against the Chancellor in order to spot trends and fix problems,

and thus comply with A.4.s provision that an institution analyzes [complaints] to improve its processes.

Complaints against the Chancellor can come from myriad sources, such as students, faculty, staff,

administrators and community members. And they can be made in myriad ways: phone calls, postal

correspondence, emails, and meetings between an employee and a supervisor.

In 2012, the Board approved use of EthicsPoint, a complaint reporting hotline, for employees to reportconcerns and-or file complaints. Currently, the Board receives a report of all complaints received through

EthicsPoint, including those about the Chancellor, from the Director of Internal Audit. These reports occur

quarterly, with the most recent report delivered in aGoverning Board Executive Session on June 19, 2013.

Employee Relations, which is within Human Resources and maintains primary responsibility for handling

employee complaints (excluding EEO/Affirmative Action/ADA issues), does not deliver to the Board a
http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/press-room/news-releases/2012/201206-board.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/press-room/news-releases/2012/201206-board.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-executive-session-agenda-20130619.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-executive-session-agenda-20130619.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-executive-session-agenda-20130619.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-executive-session-agenda-20130619.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/press-room/news-releases/2012/201206-board.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdf


21/73


similar report. It is unclear if the Board Chair or the EEO/Affirmative Action/ADA office, which also can

receive complaints about the Chancellor, makes separate reports to the entire Board of complaints they have

received directly. In any case, on page 2 of theresponse to the HLC fact-finding report, the Board said that

the College must improve its methods for collecting and reviewing information about the Chancellor. To

achieve that goal, the Board should explore ways to create and implement a system for logging and tracking

all complaints against the Chancellor.

Process for Handling Anonymous Complaints

Complaints about Dr. Flores were made by individuals who wished to keep their identity secret, according to

pages 5-6 of theHLC fact-finding report. For example, in 2008, One or more Board members received an

anonymous complaint regarding inappropriate behavior by the Chancellor. The Board discussed, in a public

meeting, that anonymous complaints (unspecified at the time) had been received by the Board. The Chair of

the Board asked individuals to contact him if there were concerns or complaints. Given it is reasonable to

assume many complaints against the Chancellor will be from individuals who will seek to shield their

identities, the Board needs to create an atmosphere and adopt an approach that encourages those withcomplaints to come forward, whether by name or anonymously. It is possible to investigate anonymous

complaints, and the Board should explore processes and technologiessuch as EthicsPoint -- that could

provide an opportunity for follow-up and investigation of complaints made by those who wish to remain

anonymous. All process changes should be grounded in preservation of proper due process for both

complainant and Chancellor.

Moreover, College policies, regulations and guides of standard practice should clearly delineate external

avenues that exist for PCC employees and others to bring complaints against the Chancellor and other high-

level administrators, along with the rights and responsibilities of the College, the complainants and thosebeing accused, timelines, as well as complete explanations of due process, confidentiality and other issues.

Board Bylaws

The rules that define the operation and responsibilities of the Board are known at the College as Board

Bylaws. Article XII, Section 2, Subsection C of the bylaws, regarding orientation sessions for newly elected

or appointed Board members, lists Complaint handling as an orientation topic and includes the following

procedures:

Let person know complaint will be referred to the Chief Executive Officer Contact Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer will verify response is made to person making complaint Chief Executive Officer will verify Board member is notified of resolution of complaint.

On January 18, 2013, Board members, including a new member elected in November 2012, attended a

Special Board Meeting described as Board Training and Retreat, where they received information from a
http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-Board-bylaws.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/HLC-fact-finding-report-2013-01.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/PCC-response-comments.pdf


22/73


representative of the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) and the Board Attorney

(Colleges contracted legal counsel). Neitherthe agenda for the meeting nor the outline of the Board

Attorneys remarkscontains a specific reference to complaints or grievances. The Board Attorney believes

that he reminded Board members to turn in complaints, claims and lawsuits.. However, it is not apparent that

the Board received detailed information about the Colleges specific procedure for investigations against the

Chancellor.

In any case, the process referenced in Article XII (which has not been revised since 1990) does not comport

with current College practice, which does not place the Chancellor in the reporting loop before an

investigation is conducted to help keep the identity of complainants about the Chancellor secret from the

Chancellor should they choose to remain anonymous.

Benchmarking: Policy and Bylaws

Chancellor Lee D. Lambert, who began his tenure with the College on July 1, 2013, has indicated the

Chancellors Office will work with the Governing Board on a comprehensive review of its policies, whichestablish institutional goals and stipulate a stance or direction PCC must take to pursue those goals, and

bylaws, which, as stated earlier, define the operation and responsibilities of the Board.

The review would demonstrate compliance with Assumed Practice A.4. and would be timely, as 11 of the

Boards 12 bylaws have not been amended in this century. (Article X empowers the Board, at its sole

discretion, to periodically review and, if it deems it necessary, amend bylaws, but evidence of a recent

comprehensive review is not apparent.)

As part of this review, Chancellor Lambert has directed the College to compare Board bylaws and policiesagainst its peer institutions. A summary of benchmarking follows.

OnePCC Board Policy, 1502: College Organization,references the relationship between the Board and the

Chief Executive Officer:

The Chief Executive Officer of the College is charged by the Board of Governors with the

responsibility for implementing the goals and policies of the College as established by the

Board. The Chief Executive Officer is expected to design, implement and evaluate an organizational

structure for the College. In carrying out the goals and policies, the Chief Executive Officer shallplace College functions and activities under administrators and establish reporting lines in the

manner felt to be most effective to meet the established goals and policies of the Board.

Article XI, Section 2(5) contains the only substantial reference in Board Bylaws to the Chancellor: It is

among the Boards legal powers and duties to Appoint and employ a chief executive officer . . .
http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-agenda-and%20outline-201301-18.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-agenda-and%20outline-201301-18.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-agenda-and%20outline-201301-18.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-agenda-and%20outline-201301-18.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/BP-1502.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/BP-1502.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/BP-1502.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/policies/board-policies/BP-1502.htmlhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-agenda-and%20outline-201301-18.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Board-agenda-and%20outline-201301-18.pdf


23/73


Though Board bylaws and policies at PCC and peer institutions have much in common,Portland Community

College,Austin Community College,Tarrant Community College,Brevard Community College andSt.

Louis Community Collegedefine CEO duties and responsibilities in greater detail than does PCC. Those

schools describe the Chancellors duties, qualifications, grounds for suspension, dismissal and non-renewal

of contract, and strategic planning.

Investigating changes in PCCs Board processes for evaluating the Chancellor would be especially relevant

to demonstrating compliance with A.4., as it seems logical to hold that the systematic analysis of complaints

and grievances would be part of a comprehensive regular evaluation of the Chancellor. Moreover,

Chancellor Lambert has indicatedpubliclythat greater monitoring of the Chancellor should be a priority

for the upcoming year.

From 2003-2012, theemployment contractentered into by the Board and former Chancellor Flores contained

the following section: Evaluation: The Board shall evaluate the Chancellor annually. The evaluation is aconfidential Executive Session process. There shall be no public comment by either party in the event of

any dispute related to the Chancellors performance. Chancellor Flores employment file does not contain

evaluations from the Board for this time period. At the Boards direction, Dr. Flores submitted a self-

evaluation in 2009 and 2010.

Page 3 of theemployment contract entered into by the Board and Chancellor Lambert contains a slightly

expanded reference to evaluations:

Annual Evaluation and Option to Conduct Additional Evaluations: In March, April or May of eachfiscal year, the Board shall schedule and hold a personnel executive session for the purpose of

conducting an annual evaluation of the Chancellor's job performance. At such executive session,

each individual Board member shall be given the opportunity to discuss with the Chancellor that

Board member's opinions concerning the Chancellors job performance. In addition to the annual

evaluation referenced above, the Board may, in its discretion and at any time, schedule and hold one

or more additional personnel executive sessions for the purpose of conducting additional evaluations

of the Chancellor's job performance.

In contrast, at least three peer institutions --Austin Community College,St. Louis Community CollegeandTarrant Community College-- detail an extensive process for evaluating the chancellor, including rationale,

timelines and areas of evaluation. The Chancellor and Board should work toward a more clearly developed

evaluation process. The objective of the evaluation would be improved performance by the College and

greater transparency. The evaluation would include clear expectations from the Board regarding the
http://www.pcc.edu/about/administration/board/policies/b213.htmlhttp://www.pcc.edu/about/administration/board/policies/b213.htmlhttp://www.pcc.edu/about/administration/board/policies/b213.htmlhttp://www.pcc.edu/about/administration/board/policies/b213.htmlhttp://www.austincc.edu/board/policies/c3.phphttp://www.austincc.edu/board/policies/c3.phphttp://www.austincc.edu/board/policies/c3.phphttp://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFA1http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFA1http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFA1http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/brevard-community-college-board-policy-governance.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/brevard-community-college-board-policy-governance.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/brevard-community-college-board-policy-governance.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061313_lambert_pcc/new-day-incoming-pcc-head-calls-public-input/http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061313_lambert_pcc/new-day-incoming-pcc-head-calls-public-input/http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061313_lambert_pcc/new-day-incoming-pcc-head-calls-public-input/http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Flores-contract-2011-06.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Flores-contract-2011-06.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Flores-contract-2011-06.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Lee-Lambert-contract-201305-17.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Lee-Lambert-contract-201305-17.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Lee-Lambert-contract-201305-17.pdfhttp://www.austincc.edu/board/agendas/2002/7522.htmhttp://www.austincc.edu/board/agendas/2002/7522.htmhttp://www.austincc.edu/board/agendas/2002/7522.htmhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFD1http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFD1http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFD1http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.austincc.edu/board/agendas/2002/7522.htmhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Lee-Lambert-contract-201305-17.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/Flores-contract-2011-06.pdfhttp://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061313_lambert_pcc/new-day-incoming-pcc-head-calls-public-input/http://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/saint-louis-community-college-admin-procedures.pdfhttp://www.pima.edu/about-pima/accreditation/docs-13-HLC-mon-rpt/brevard-community-college-board-policy-governance.pdfhttp://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Code/1097?filter=BFA1http://www.austincc.edu/board/policies/c3.phphttp://www.pcc.edu/about/administration/board/policies/b213.htmlhttp://www.pcc.edu/about/administration/board/policies/b213.html

Documents

PCC probation monitoring report