Report 2017-102 Recommendation 21 Responses

Report 2017-102: California Community Colleges: The Colleges Reviewed Are Not Adequately Monitoring Services for Technology Accessibility, and Districts and Colleges Should Formalize Procedures for Upgrading Technology (Release Date: December 2017)

Recommendation #21 To: Foothill-De Anza Community College District

To increase the transparency of its annual review process, by June 2018, De Anza should establish procedures requiring its departments to document attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2021

There are multiple methods for faculty members to provide input on instructional technology equipment requests. One is at the department level. While some departments might be small (sometimes with only one full-time faculty member) and department meetings are not held, larger departments often keep meeting notes of attendees. For example, the English Department takes notes at each meeting, noting the attendees and input that was given on various items including budgetary requests such as instructional technology equipment. It also holds meetings to review program review requests, which includes any instructional equipment requests. The department then posts the meeting notes on the department Canvas shell so that all members of the department can see what input was given or decisions made.

Another method for the faculty to provide input is through the Academic Senate. The Academic Senate keeps official meeting notes, including records of attendees and decisions made. The Academic Senate is closely tied to the campus's Instructional Planning and Budget Team, with faculty representatives serving on the team who help make decisions about resource allocation for instructional equipment requests. Relevant websites with documentation include https://www.deanza.edu/gov/academicsenate/ and https://www.deanza.edu/gov/ipbt/.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

De Anza's response does not address the recommendation that it establish procedures requiring its departments to document attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2019

The annual program review process includes directions for identifying instructional technology requests for consideration by the Instructional Planning and Budget Team (IPBT) composed of faculty, staff, administrators and students. Program review materials are submitted by departmental representatives to the dean after consulting among departmental members during established departmental meetings. As a secondary step, Deans review departmental requests and prepare a comprehensive division request list. Faculty representatives on IPBT are expected to communicate with their colleagues and encourage review of the requested items for accuracy prior to any allocation of funding for instructional technology requests. Finally, and before allocation begins, requests are posted to the public website. Requests are then vetted by the Instructional Planning and Budget Team based on agreements and funding guidelines.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

De Anza did not provide procedures requiring its departments to document attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests. Although it provided documentation of a meeting template to capture the information, the examples provided do not consistently show the attendees, input received, and agreements reached during meetings to consider instructional technology equipment requests.

60-Day Agency Response

Foothill/De Anza Community College District did not submit a 60-day response for this recommendation. It has, however, submitted responses for the 6-month and 1-year reporting periods.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

The district did not submit a response.

1-Year Agency Response

In addition to other processes developed by De Anza College leadership, the district's IT team (Educational Technology Services - ETS) has also developed a procedure for documenting the specific outcomes of regular equipment refresh prioritization meetings held between ETS and college leadership/staff. A copy of the meeting notes template along with samples of meetings notes using this template will be forwarded via email as per the instructions below.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

De Anza did not provide documentation to support its assertion of full implementation of this recommendation. Although it provided documentation that its ETS unit has procedures and has begun to document attendees and agreements reached in its technology meetings, it did not provide documentation showing procedures for departments or that its departments were documenting department technology meetings as we recommended.

6-Month Agency Response

Procedures for documenting attendees, input and agreements reached were discussed with division deans in preparation for program review submission in the spring term. In Fall 2018, the Instructional Planning and Budget Team will request updated lists of instructional equipments needs based on program review submissions from the the spring term and request an explanation of how the instructional equipment requests were determined.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

De Anza did not provide documentation to support its assertion of full implementation of this recommendation.

All Recommendations in 2017-102

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.