Abstract
Problem and Purpose. In response to Assembly Bill 1725, the California community college system has sought to increase faculty participation in academic and professional matters through shared decision making. The rationale for increased faculty involvement in college governance was to enhance the quality of academic decisions by encouraging greater understanding, identification, and commitment of faculty and other college members to achieve these decisions. This study sought to identify faculty involvement in the decision-making process relative to the ten primary areas of academic and professional matters and determine the impact of faculty participation on college governance and the deterrents which limit the strengthening of the faculty role in shared governance. Methodology. A combination of descriptive and ex post facto research was used in the design of this study. All 107 California community college presidents as the chief executive officers (CEOs) and academic senate presidents were surveyed. The response rate was 86 percent of college presidents (CEOs) and 82 percent for academic senate presidents. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test for independent samples, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test. Findings and Conclusions. The data from this study suggest that faculty appear to be actively involved in the decision-making methods relative to the ten primary areas of academic and professional matters in response to Assembly Bill 1725. Either "rely primarily upon" or "mutual agreement" tends to be the preferred choice of decision making practices on most statewide community college campuses in California. College governance structures and processes for institutional planning and budget development are more likely to remain administratively controlled than the other primary areas. Both CEOs and academic senate presidents seem to be generally satisfied with this level of involvement. Despite increased faculty involvement on institutional committees, the quality of committee meetings, quality of reports and recommendations to the board of trustees, and level of cooperation, trust, and shared values have not changed much since implementing Assembly Bill 1725. Both CEOs and academic senate presidents concur that the two major factors impeding the strengthening of the faculty's role in academic and professional matters include "we/they" mentality and personal agendas. In addition, academic senate presidents believe that distrust between faculty and administration, the lack of faculty interest in becoming more actively involved in shared governance, and the lack of release time or pay compensation for faculty serve as additional deterrents. The study concludes that if shared governance is to effectively operate on a college campus then the college constituencies must begin to work and think as a team and rid themselves of limited perspectives formed around personal turfs. Until that point, it is unlikely that shared values, mutual trust, and cooperation will improve nor will shared governance on the community college level be very responsive to the needs of its students, district, and state.