| Table of Contents |

STANDARD 3: ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE

The organizational structure of QVCC and the CTC system have not changed significantly since the 2001 NEASC report. The Board of Trustees continues to govern at the system level under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 89-160. The BOT consists of sixteen appointed members and two elected student trustees. The BOT appoints members to the Regional Advisory Council (RAC), which meets quarterly to advise the College regarding the programming and educational needs of QVCC’s service area. The BOT continues to set and review CTC system policies and approve major projects, and was thus instrumental in the current building expansion. QVCC’s RAC also played a crucial role in obtaining funding for the expansion. This support is reflected in the enormously successful capital campaign of the QVCC Foundation. Additionally, the BOT continues to monitor the CTC system’s effectiveness, including an annual evaluation of the system’s chief executive officer, the Chancellor. The Chancellor evaluates the President of the College annually and presents a recommendation to the BOT regarding the President’s continuation.

There have been minor changes to the organizational structure of the College since 2001. In the student services area, the LSD Division has upgraded the Coordinator of Job Placement position to Director of Career Services, renamed the Job Developer position to Associate Director of Career Services, upgraded the Transition and Enrollment Counselor position to Director of Admissions, and renamed the Outreach Specialist position Assistant Director of Admissions. Associate and assistant positions were reassigned in reporting order from the Director of Outreach and Employment to the directors of their respective areas, to reduce the number of direct reports to the Director of Outreach and Employment. In the academic area of LSD, the Director of Curriculum and Faculty Orientation pilot position was filled by a senior faculty member, to relieve the increasing burden on the Dean of faculty supervision as the faculty grows (historically, all full-time faculty members have reported to the Dean).

The number of College committees and the average size of the committees have remained fairly constant from 2000 to 2006, with a general trend toward reducing the number of committees. From 23 committees in 2001-2002, more recently the number has ranged between 15 and 18, with an average membership of 6-7 (including student members).

The governing body of the LSD Division, the Division Council, has been active in addressing the need for ongoing assessment. As new courses and programs have been proposed, and existing ones modified, the Council has improved the new course and program approval process to include more feedback from across the Division and the College. Also, the Council has supervised the development of policy concerns, such as those regarding weapons on campus, high-school students taking college courses, and changes in the College’s grading system for conformity with the CTC system. In addition, there has been the task of aligning courses and monitoring changes resulting from the system’s Common Course Numbering project. Through discussions at staff and Division meetings, the Council has engaged Division and College staff in the development of all policies.

Noting the 31% cumulative enrollment growth during the last five years, the College is prepared to respond to the many changes that will come with a larger, less intimate environment. Discussions about the impact of a multi-level, multi-wing building expansion and distribution of faculty and staff are ongoing. To meet the challenge of maintaining a student-centered culture as new faculty and staff members are added, College committees have begun adding student members, and the Student Government Association has been consulted on various issues. As the College continues to expand with student enrollment and new faculty hires, the architecture of the organization will evolve in order to continue managing resources effectively and to promote student development.

Institutional Effectiveness

The College’s planning and evaluation systems will continue to engage the needs of all constituencies as the institution grows, so that the organization and governance of the College can be modified for full effectiveness in response to growth. Already in the planning stages is a reorganization of the academic segment of LSD. Also, the College continues working to maintain effective communication between the Danielson and Willimantic locations. As both sites experience dramatic growth, continued coordination of student, staff, and faculty needs is paramount for operating the two locations in an optimal way.

| Table of Contents |