Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Frequency of Participant Responses for Administrative Decisions

Decision Item	Local College	Primarily the college, with some input from the system	Shared equally between the college and system	Primarily the system, with some input from the college	State system
Allocating review to individual colleges from non-state resources	2	2	1	0	0
Approving budgets for departments at colleges	5	1	0	0	0
Approving purchases over $1,000	4	2	0	0	0
Assigning space and facilities to specific academic programs	5	1	0	0	0

Table 4.2 (continued)

Authorizing fundraising for capital improvements for specific colleges	1	3	2	0	0
Building or acquisition of a campus facility	0	2	3	1	0
Determining affirmative action targets for enrollment	0	1	3	2	0
Determining specific reductions required by mid-year budget cuts	2	3	1	0	0
Determining the use of year-end budget surpluses	4	2	0	0	0
Establishing or closing branch campuses	0	3	3	0	0
Offering courses and programs off campus	4	2	0	0	0

Table 4.2 (continued)

Setting enrollment levels for individual colleges	1	3	2	0	0
Setting tuition levels	0	0	0	1	5
Setting other student fees	0	0	1	1	4
Transferring more than $5,000 between budget categories	3	1	2	0	0
Determining system-level budgeting	0	0	2	2	2
Determining college-level budgeting	2	4	0	0	0
Total	33	30	20	7	11

In examining responses at the decision-item level, participants perceived that “approving budgets for departments at colleges,” “approving purchases over $1,000,” “transferring more than $5,000 between budget categories, “determining specific reductions required by mid-year budget cuts,” “determining the use of year-end budget surpluses,” and “determining college-level budgeting” lean toward the local college. The location of decision making for these budget-related administrative decisions can be
rationalized by the fact that each college maintained an operating budget separate from the system. In this regard, college presidents had discretion and decision making authority for how college funds were allocated.
Moreover, participants perceived that “setting tuition levels,” “setting other student fees,” and “determining system-level budgeting” lean toward the system. Although interview participants echoed that state allocations are made to the system and not to the individual colleges, interview participants described a shared decision making process for setting tuition levels. Moreover, document analysis confirmed that the KCTCS Board of Regents has ultimate authority for setting tuition levels and approving fees. Participants may have perceived that setting tuition occurred at the system because the KCTCS Board of Regents was more closely aligned to the system than to the colleges.
Furthermore, participants perceived that the items “establishing or closing branch campuses” and “building or acquisition of a campus facility” involved some level of shared decision making. When asked about the decision making process for establishing or closing a campus location, interview participants echoed the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Moreover, participants described a politically driven process because decision making concerning opening or closing a campus location hinged on funding and community investment. As such, survey participants may have perceived that establishing or closing a branch campus, or building or acquiring a campus facility was shared because these decisions involved budgets and funding.