Skip to content
Quick Start for:
Chapter 1
GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP

This chapter reviews Houston Community College System's (HCCS) governance and leadership in the following sections:

A. Governance and Board Policies
B. Management and Organization
C. Planning
D. Institutional Policies and Procedures
E. Legal Services

The governance and leadership of an institution of higher education requires cooperation between the elected members of the board of trustees and the staff. The board sets goals and objectives for the institution in both academics and operations; determines policies to provide effective and efficient governance; approves plans to implement those policies; and provides the funding necessary to implement the plans.

The chancellor, as the chief executive officer of the institution, recommends necessary staffing and resources to accomplish the board's goals and objectives. The chancellor reports organizational performance information to the board and ensures that the institution is held accountable for meeting its performance goals. Institutional managers and staff manage the day-to-day implementation of the board-approved policies and plans and recommend modifications to ensure that the institution operates efficiently and effectively and in accordance with its intended purpose.

BACKGROUND

A public referendum in May 1971 created HCCS and the college's charter placed it under the governance of the Houston Independent School District (HISD). The system's initial student enrollment of 5,700 attended workforce education classes. The following semester, HCCS added academic transfer courses to its offerings.

Originally HCCS occupied HISD facilities; however, in 1984, the HISD Board of Trustees allotted a portion of its property tax levies to HCCS for facilities, equipment and operating expenses. Two years later in 1986, Houston voters allocated a separate tax levy to HCCS for additional funding.

The HCCS board consists of nine members from single member districts. HISD board members appointed HCCS board members to staggered, six-year terms. On March 9, 1989, HISD officially transferred control of HCCS to the HCCS Board of Trustees.

While still accredited as a single institution by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), in 1992, the HCCS board organized HCCS into a system of six individual colleges each with its own president: Central College, Northwest College, Southwest College, Northeast College, Southeast College and the College Without Walls. The other colleges later absorbed the College Without Walls, leaving five colleges today. A chancellor heads the entire system. A president administers each individual college. The college presidents report directly to the chancellor. Exhibit 1-1 shows HCCS' colleges and campuses.

Exhibit 1-1
HCCS Colleges and Campuses
College Campus Location
Central Central Campus 1300 Holman
Houston, Texas 77004
Hobby Airport Center/Westwood College of Aviation 8880 Telephone Road
Houston, Texas 77061
Palm Center 5400 Griggs Rd.
Houston, Texas 77021
Northwest Town & Country Center 1010 W. Sam Houston Parkway N.
Houston, Texas 77043
Westgate Center 1550 Fox Lake Drive
Houston, Texas 77084
Southwest Alief Center 13803 Bissonnet
Houston, Texas 77083
Gulfton Center 5407 Gulfton
Houston, Texas 77081
Missouri City Center 1681 Cartwright Road
Missouri City, Texas 77489
West Loop Campus 5601 West Loop South
Houston, Texas 77081
Power Center 12401 South Post Oak Road Houston, Texas 77045
Stafford Campus 9910 Cash Road
Stafford, Texas 77477
Northeast Automotive Technology Training Center 4638 Airline
Houston, Texas 77022
Northeast Campus 555 Community College Drive
Houston, Texas 77013
Northline Mall Center 401 Northline Mall
Houston, Texas 77022
Pinemont Center 1265 Pinemont
Houston, Texas 77018
Southeast Eastside Campus 6815 Rustic
Houston, Texas 77087
Health Science Center 1900 Galen Drive
Houston, Texas 77030
Source: Houston Community College System Web site www.hccs.edu/new/mappg.

HCCS offers instructional programs that cover more than 40 disciplines. The institution awards associate degrees in Arts, Science and Applied Sciences. HCCS also offers many non-degree programs in continuing education, business and professional development and adult education. HCCS counted 54,749 students on its rolls for the 2002 fall semester in both credit and noncredit courses.

Exhibit 1-2 shows HCCS' taxing and election district boundaries. The system is not limited, however, to providing service within these boundaries. In 1995, the 74th Legislature assigned the service areas of all community or junior college districts in an effort to afford all Texas communities the opportunities offered through community colleges.

Exhibit 1-2
HCCS' Board Districts
HCCS' Board Districts
Source: Houston Community College System Web site www.hccs.edu/system/boardserv/board_map.htm.

Texas Education Code (TEC) §130.182 mandates that HCCS serve Houston proper, the Stafford Municipal School District and the Katy, Spring Branch, North Forest and Alief ISDs. HCCS has facilities in both Harris and Fort Bend counties. Exhibit 1-3 shows a comparison of HCCS' tax districts to its service areas.

Exhibit 1-3
HCCS' Service Districts
HCCS' Board Districts
Source: Houston Community College.

Although the school districts of Alief, Katy, North Forest and Spring Branch receive services from HCCS, the residents of these districts do not pay taxes to HCCS. To compensate, students from these districts pay higher fees than students living within the system's taxing district.

Exhibit 1-4 shows the districts that HCCS serves outside of its taxing jurisdiction. This exhibit shows the student enrollment for each school district and the total property values of the district. The exhibit also shows the estimated additional tax revenue to HCCS were the districts to fall within the taxing jurisdiction of HCCS.

Exhibit 1-4
HCCS Out-of-District Service Areas
2001-02
School
District		 Student
Enrollment		 Property
Value		 HCCS
Tax Rate		 Estimated
Additional
Tax Revenue
Alief 43,630 $7,208,813,486 $0.081233 $5,855,935
Katy 37,211 $8,669,541,052 $0.081233 $7,042,528
North Forest 11,699 $878,098,032 $0.081233 $713,305
Spring Branch 32,540 $11,527,846,951 $0.081233 $9,364,416
Total 125,080      
Source: Texas Education Agency (TEA), Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), 2001-02. HCCS tax rate obtained from the 2001-02 Tax and Valuation reports, Texas Association of Community Colleges.

Community college systems can expand their taxing districts through annexation. Annexation occurs when a board votes to annex an area, and the area residents vote to join the system. Under state law, residents agree to additional property taxes in exchange for reduced fees for students who live in the annexed area. Annexation also affords the community representation on the community college Board of Trustees.

Although HCCS trustees voted six to three in 1999 to annex Missouri City, Katy and North Forest ISDs, the board has not yet decided to present residents of Katy and North Forest with a vote to join HCCS' taxing district. In 2000, of Missouri City voted to annex itself to HCCS.

Because HCCS needs to expand its facilities, it is considering a bond election. HISD successfully passed an $809 million bond election in November 2002. The board believes that the success of that bond election indicates that the community will support additional bond issues. HCCS last presented a $300 million bond package to voters in 1993 - it failed by a margin of two to one.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) provides oversight to Texas colleges and universities. The Legislature created THECB in 1965 to provide the Texas higher education system leadership and coordination in achieving excellence for the college education of Texas students. The board assesses the state of higher education in Texas and develops recommendations for the Governor, Legislature and institutions to enhance and establish policies for the efficient and effective use of the state's higher education resources. The board reviews and recommends changes in formulas to allocate state funds to public institutions and works with higher education institutions, the Governor and the Legislature to ensure that all Texans have access to high quality programs. The board also administers the state's student financial aid programs.

In 1999, THECB decided to develop a new higher education plan. The board finished the plan's first draft, the Closing the Gaps initiative, in July 2000. The board designed the Closing the Gaps outreach effort to motivate students to pursue college educations and to mobilize support groups to create an environment that promotes higher education. THECB adopted the plan in October 2000.

The plan is designed to close educational gaps in four areas: student participation, student success, excellence and research. Student participation goals include increasing enrollment rates among students across Texas and adding 500,000 more students by 2015. The student success goal seeks to increase the number of degrees, certificates and other measures of student successes by 50 percent. The excellence and research goals focus on increasing the number of nationally recognized programs or services at colleges and universities. The plan also has a research goal of increasing the level of science and engineering research funding to Texas institutions to $1.3 billion, an increase of 50 percent. Since THECB adopted the new plan, the Legislature has passed a number of bills supporting and ratifying the goals of the initiative. Exhibit 1-5 presents an overview of the Closing the Gaps initiative.

Exhibit 1-5
Closing the Gaps
The Texas Higher Education Plan
2000
GOAL 1: CLOSE THE GAPS IN PARTICIPATION
By 2015, close the gaps in participation rates across Texas to add 500,000 students.
Strategies for the State:
I. Recruit, prepare and retain additional well-qualified educators for elementary and secondary schools.
II. Make the Recommended High School Program the standard curriculum in Texas public high schools and make it a minimum requirement for admission to Texas public universities by 2008.
III. Ensure that all students and their parents understand the benefits of higher education and the necessary steps to prepare academically and financially for college.
IV. Establish an affordability policy that ensures students are able to participate and succeed in higher education.
GOAL 2: CLOSE THE GAPS IN SUCCESS
By 2015, increase by 50 percent the number of degrees, certificates
and other identifiable student successes from high quality programs.
Strategies for the State:
I. Focus college and university efforts on increasing graduates in education, engineering, computer science, math, physical science, allied health, nursing and other critical fields.
II. Carry out the state's Uniform Recruitment and Retention Strategy and other efforts aimed at making college and university enrollment and graduation reflect the population of Texas.
III. Fund colleges and universities to reward increases in retention and graduation from high quality programs.
IV. Create incentives and requirements for seamless student transitions among high schools, community and technical colleges, universities and health-related institutions.
V. Make partnerships and collaborations between the business community and higher education institutions a part of the culture of these organizations.
GOAL 3: CLOSE THE GAPS IN EXCELLENCE
By 2015, substantially increase the number of nationally recognized programs or services at college and universities in Texas.
Strategies for the State:
I. Establish ladders of excellence for different types of institutions.
II. Fund competitive grants to community and technical colleges and universities to match business contributions for acquiring equipment and software and maintaining high-tech instructional laboratories.
 
Strategies for the State:
I. Permit universities, like health science centers, to retain all overhead income from grants and contracts.
II. Establish the Texas Science and Engineering Collaborative to expand research in focused areas through collaboration among institutions.
III. Increase funding for the Advanced Research/Advanced Technology Programs.
IV. Establish a competitive grant program to expand research and research capacity at developing research universities in current and projected major urban areas.
Source: THECB, "Closing the Gaps" report, 2000.

HCCS is accredited as a single institution through SACS, the recognized regional accrediting body in the 11 southern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. SACS is one of six private, nonprofit, voluntary regional accrediting associations established to improve education in colleges and schools by evaluating institutions against a set of criteria. Accreditation by SACS means that an institution meets the criteria or established standards and serves as an indicator of an institution's commitment to quality and continuous improvement. Receiving college credit from an accredited institution aids students in transferring credit from community colleges to other colleges or universities.

The SACS evaluates HCCS every 10 years. The process begins with a required self-study and is followed by an on-site visitation from a SACS peer review team. HCCS received its most recent SACS evaluation in 2002. The SACS visitation team issued a report of HCCS findings and recommendations in March 2002. SACS required HCCS to respond to the 34 recommendations contained in the report before accrediting HCCS. On December 9, 2002, SACS reaffirmed HCCS' accreditation. Exhibit 1-6 presents an overview of 14 key recommendations contained in the SACS report and provides the system's responses.

Exhibit 1-6
SACS Visitation Committee Report - 2002
SACS Finding HCCS Response
A number of program evaluations lack both measurable results and documentation that the evaluation process has been used for improvement.
  • Created and implemented Annual Progress Report Form for all program reviews.
  • Reaffirmed program review cycles.
Some of HCCS' colleges lack stated goals and/or processes for evaluation and improvement.
  • Created the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Portal in 2000-01, which includes this information.
  • Established a schedule for completion of all IE activities processes.
  • Setup training for all new unit managers to ensure they completed the process.
  • Ensured all units completed the process.
No process exists for assessing graduate competence in oral communication and computer literacy.
  • Revised core curriculum to include oral communications component.
  • Included the program recommended in the Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills report for all workforce degree plans, which includes oral competence and computer literacy.
  • Continued to implement a Title V Grant and a Texas Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TTIF) grant to integrate/increase the available technology resources.
  • Attempting to include computer literacy in all courses.
No systematic program exists for academic advising of undergraduates.
  • Created the HCCS Student Success Model to formalize the advising program.
The number of advising counselors is too low for the number of students, and counselors have many other time-intensive responsibilities.
  • Adjusted ratio of counselors to students at individual campuses to achieve at most a 1/1200 ratio.
  • Required any deviations from this ratio to be approved by the President's Council.
  • Examined the number of available Student Service Associates to handle extra tasks and hired an additional distance education counselor.
The policies and procedures for hiring faculty, as well as the data in the applicant pool, is not processed and disseminated effectively.
  • Created the Employment Process Committee to look for ways to improve.
  • In the process of establishing formal recruitment procedures and an annual calendar of hiring.
  • Created a regularly updated list of all adjunct faculty members in HR that can be found online or obtained on request.
There are a disproportionate number of classes being taught by part-time faculty in some departments.
  • Increased 2002-03 budget to allow hiring of new full-time faculty to teach at least 60 percent of all classes.
  • Set a minimum threshold so that full-time faculty must teach 50 percent of all sections.
  • Created a quarterly report to track current ratios of full-time to part-time teaching.
No clear documentation exists for faculty salary increases. Initial step levels and horizontal movements on the salary scale are not clearly defined.
  • HCCS uses a "range-based" system, rather than a step-based system.
The faculty evaluation process is not uniformly or consistently administered across the system.
  • Compiled a list of all outstanding full-time faculty evaluations under their current system, which was given to each college president.
  • Provided status updates to presidents one month later.
Library services are not grouped for individual colleges, making site-specific information hard to find. There is also no evaluation for distance learning library services.
  • Updated the program review process to address these problems. Specifically:
    • The library's ongoing planning and evaluation process;
    • How librarians work with faculty to develop services to meet student and instructional needs;
    • The role of college advisory committees;
    • Evaluation criteria used to meet the needs of users and support of institutional programs and purposes;
    • How user satisfaction is documented;
    • Measures used to quantify library use; and
    • How results of evaluations are used to make changes and improve services.
The Student Financial Aid (SFA) department may have inadequate funding and scholarships do not have enough publicity throughout the college community.
  • Already budgeted for 10 new positions in SFA.
  • Launched a $1 million marketing campaign that includes extra publicity for scholarships.
  • Updated the financial aid Web pages to include additional information and allow students to apply online.
  • Hosted a systemwide financial aid forum.
Linkage of the program review process to the new budget process is weak.
  • Developed an Annual Planning/Budget Timetable to strength the linkage.
There is no documented plan for handling deficits incurred by auxiliary enterprises beyond fiscal year 2000-2001
  • The Board of Trustees approved a policy to handle deficits and surplus funds.
College facilities need to be expanded, renovated and brought to adequate levels.
  • Increased funding for facilities expansion and renovations.
  • Purchased new land and began work on new facilities.
  • Made all preparations for an upcoming general obligation bond to fund facilities in the long-term.
Source: Response to the "Report of the Reaffirmation Committee," Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, August 2002.

Dr. Bruce Leslie served as the interim chancellor from October 23, 2000 until his appointment as permanent chancellor on January 5, 2001.

Texas School Performance Review (TSPR) teams ask community colleges to select other Texas community colleges as their peer colleges. The review team compares the community college against its chosen peers to highlight the college's successes and identify opportunities for improvement. HCCS selected Dallas County Community College District (DCCC), Alamo Community College District (ACCD), North Harris Montgomery Community College District (NHMCCD) and Austin Community College (ACC) as its peer colleges. Exhibit 1-7 compares demographic and tax data of HCCS and its peer colleges.

Exhibit 1-7
Demographic and Tax Data
HCCS and Peer Colleges
2001-02 and 2002-03
  HCCS Alamo Austin Dallas North Harris
Montgomery
Enrollment Fall 2001* 34,714 42,044 27,577 50,191 29,386
2002-03 Appropriation
($ in millions)		 $133 $120 $77 $172 $78
M&O Tax Rate 2001-02 $0.081233 $0.0898 $0.05 $0.06 $0.076
Debt Service Tax Rate 2001-02 $0.0 $0.0148 $0.0 $0.0 $0.034
Total Tax Rate 2001-02 $0.081233 $0.1046 $0.05 $0.06 $0.11
Total Property Valuation
2001-02 ($ in millions)		 $68,655 $51,450 $45,905 $127,871 $57,541
Source: THECB, Statistical Report; Legislative Budget Board; Texas Association of Community Colleges as of the years indicated.
*Represents students enrolled in credit only courses and therefore does not include continuing education students.

HCCS faces a number of significant issues including annexing outlying areas surrounding Houston proper, continued enrollment growth, a possible bond election to increase the system's infrastructure, establishing international partnerships and meeting the economic development needs of local businesses. The college must also meet the demands of THECB's Closing the Gaps initiative.