Rio Hondo College: A Past Practice Doesn't Make it A Good Practice

"That's they way we have done it" is a typical statement used to justify not following a written rule, procedure or policy.
Recently, on Friday, March 8, 2019 I sat on the Special Awards Committee, BP 1500 that states that "by March 1, a committee composed of the Superintendent/President of the college, the president of the Board of Trustees, the president of the Academic Senate, and the president of the Associated Students" will meet to recommend a Fellow of the College.

Two issues arose quickly; 1) the committee is meeting beyond the March 1 deadline and 2) where is staff(csea)? Staff are excluded on the committee by policy. I could not turn the other cheek and ignore the two serious issues for expediency. Rio Hondo College is government, a branch of the State of California and designed to be locally governed to represent local communities. This is a serious responsibility which the people and communities we represent demand transparency and accountability. How could I look the other way and say "well..that's the way we've done it for years". Responsible government requires us to follow our own rules and policy.

Board Policy 1500 has existed since 1977 and renewed in 2014.

So, in discussing it with the committee we had two choices: 1) not have a Fellow this year or 2) changed the date for the committee and add staff to committee. We choose number two. We agreed at making two small amendments that are temporary so we can consider the fellow yet understanding that this policy needs a comprehensive review after graduation. We made our amendments and "referred" (or committed) our amendments to the Planning and Fiscal Council for "review". Under Robert's Rules of Order the process to refer or commit gives you two choices: 1) refer without any specific direction leaving it open or 2) refer with the question (amendments) put forward for review. Choice number two is specific directions to the referred committee (PFC). The direction is that the Special Awards Committee proposes to make a temporary and small amendment to allow it to recommend a fellow to the board by changing its meeting deadline prescribed by BP 1500 and add staff to committee.

The policy overall is inconsistent and not cohesive. A summary of issues with the policy includes:

1) the Special Awards Committee for the Fellow's deadline is too restrictive.

2) Staff (csea) are excluded from the Special Awards Committee for the Fellow in gross violation of shared governance.

3) The nomination form for Fellow and Distinguish Service is not compliant with the policy and misleading.

4) Distinguished Service Award does not state that the Awards Committee, whom recommends the Fellow, also recommends the Distinguished Service Award but it does in practice. No committee exist for this award.

5) There is no deadline for Distinguished Service Award and can be awarded anytime.

6) Policy states that the Distinguished Service Award recipient must be "member of the Rio Hondo Community College District" which is a resident requirement but rarely has this been followed.

7) We do not have a staff (CSEA) award bestowed by the District. As it exist in policy, the "Classified Employee Award" is a state award that staff recommends a nominee and the Board endorses.

8) The deadline is the state deadline which all the above must occur by March 10. No nominee has been forwarded.

9) The Distinguish Faculty Award does have a nomination deadline of "third Friday in February".

10) The "Selection Process" for the Faculty award contains two sub-committees: 1) Academic Senate and 2) Superintendent/President of the college, the president of the Board of Trustees, the president of the Academic Senate, and the president of the Associated Students to "affirm" the first committees choice. This year (2019), the first committee has forwarded a nominee to the board, however, skipped the second sub committee. Policy not followed.

My intent, is to hold Rio Hondo accountable to its established policies. We need to follow policy or change it. The idea that "that's the way we do it here" contrary to policy is unacceptable. Yes, people say that questioning how we've done things, out of policy compliance, creates a "toxic environment". What I've learned and observed is that the stalwarts of bad practices react toxic stating the the questions are toxic. What is right?