Standard III - Section D 1.C

 

Standard III - Section D 1.C 1. Review the Specific Standard Section 2. List of Team Members working on this Standard 3. Read and Review Self-Study Questions and Suggested Source of Evidence 4. Locate and Review the Evidence.  5. Descriptive Summary 6. Integration Review 7. Self Evaluation 8. Planning Agenda

 

1. Review the Specific Standard Section

 

c. When making short-range financial plans, the institution considers its long-range financial priorities to assure financial stability. The institution clearly identifies and plans for payment of liabilities and future obligations.

 

2. List of Team Members working on this Standard

 

 

3. Read and Review Self-Study Questions and Suggested Source of Evidence

 

Major reference source for analyzing accreditation standards:

“Accreditation Commission Self Study Guidelines, August 2004, Guide to Evaluating Institutions”

http://www.ohlone.edu/org/instruction/docs/200408accredcomm-guidetoevaluatinginstitutions.pdf

 

4. Locate and Review the Evidence. 

 

 

Include Suggested Sources of Evidence from the “Guide to Evaluating Institutions” as well as additional engagement activities conducted by your Team, such as team meetings, special meetings of existing groups, special focus groups, open forums, surveys, etc…)

 

List of evidence being reviewed and engagement activities being conducted:

 

5. Descriptive Summary

 

Draft a brief one or two paragraph description of what the College is doing to meet the standard.

 

 

6. Integration Review

 

Is there an expression of our College Values?  Is there a contribution to our College Goals?  Is there an expression of the Accreditation Themes?

 

Self Assessment: Currently the District has very little long range debt with the exception of the Prop 39 Bond which is paid for from an increase in tax revenues. These transactions are recorded in the debt service fund and appear in the footnotes of the audit. The District does have a future retiree health benefit liability. The recent actuarial study estimated that the extent of the liability is $4,124,684.  The District anticipated this requirement and for the past five years has been funding this debt as of the latest actuarial study, although not at the level that is currently required. The board reviewed the actuarial study at its regular meeting on April 12, 2007. A proposal to set up an irrevocable trust with the California Community College League JPA will be discussed at the April 25th Sub-committee meeting. The District plans to be an early adopter. All other obligations such as lease purchases, are part of the regular fixed expenditure budget process.

 

7. Self Evaluation

 

Provide a rating of how well the College is addressing the specific standard using this scoring rubric:

 

1. Superior: College has worked in this area and considerable improvement is noted

2. Satisfactory: College has taken some actions to address the area and some improvement is noted.

3. Needs Improvement: College has not adequately addressed the area.

 

Rating:

 

Draft a one or two paragraph explanation for this rating based upon your assessment of the College’s activities in relation to the standard. Pay particular attention to the quality of our involvement and interventions since the last WASC self-study report.

 

 

8. Planning Agenda

 

If the assessment process does not identify areas in need of change, simply state, No Plan Required

 

If the assessment process identifies areas in need of change, a planning agenda for improvement should be developed. The planning agenda should identify the activities and processes the institution should implement, or is implementing, to produce improvement.  How will these plans be incorporated into the evaluation and planning processes of the institution?  How will the outcomes of this planning agenda improve student learning and foster institutional improvement in general.

 

Planning Agenda: No recommendations at this time.