Perceptions and Assessments of Power in Legislative Politics for Texas Public Community College Administrative Leadership
Gerald Minor Stanglin
Abstract
Open-access reader
Gerald Minor Stanglin
Abstract
Open-access reader
The problem with which this study was concerned is the political influence of community/junior college chief executive officers (CEOs) and campus presidents on the state legislature, both directly and indirectly, in the funding of community colleges in Texas. Perceptions of effectiveness were recorded by survey from campus presidents and CEOs as well as from legislators and key legislators. In addition, interviews were conducted with several key legislators and the chief administrators of the two statewide community college organizations. The purpose of the study was to analyze the policy-making process in Texas of which community/junior colleges are a part. The influential relationships and interactions of the sixty-five CEOs and campus presidents of the public community college districts and campuses in Texas were analyzed after a survey instrument was administered. Perceptions of rank—and—file legislators were gathered through use of another survey instrument and perceptions of key legislators were gathered in the same manner but with the addition of a personal interview. Certain questions were asked of them concerning interactions and communication with leaders of community colleges. With the legislators and the presidents certain demographic data was collected and analyzed as a part of the study. Among the findings, campus presidents and CEOs do not have sufficient levels of acquaintance, interaction and communication to heavily influence local people whom they consider powerful in state funding of community colleges. Furthermore, legislators do not receive enough communication from powerful local group members to positively influence their decisions regarding community college funding. Presidents and CEOs from the metropolitan districts communicate most often with their legislators followed by those from rural districts. Board members from the metropolitan districts are most active in communicating with their legislators. Finally, legislators view the community college nearest them as equal to or better than community colleges statewide.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The problem with which this study was concerned is the political influence of community/junior college chief executive officers (CEOs) and campus presidents on the state legislature, both directly and indirectly, in the funding of community colleges in Texas. Perceptions of effectiveness were recorded by survey from campus presidents and CEOs as well as from legislators and key legislators. In addition, interviews were conducted with several key legislators and the chief administrators of the two statewide community college organizations. The purpose of the study was to analyze the policy-making process in Texas of which community/junior colleges are a part. The influential relationships and interactions of the sixty-five CEOs and campus presidents of the public community college districts and campuses in Texas were analyzed after a survey instrument was administered. Perceptions of rank—and—file legislators were gathered through use of another survey instrument and perceptions of key legislators were gathered in the same manner but with the addition of a personal interview. Certain questions were asked of them concerning interactions and communication with leaders of community colleges. With the legislators and the presidents certain demographic data was collected and analyzed as a part of the study. Among the findings, campus presidents and CEOs do not have sufficient levels of acquaintance, interaction and communication to heavily influence local people whom they consider powerful in state funding of community colleges. Furthermore, legislators do not receive enough communication from powerful local group members to positively influence their decisions regarding community college funding. Presidents and CEOs from the metropolitan districts communicate most often with their legislators followed by those from rural districts. Board members from the metropolitan districts are most active in communicating with their legislators. Finally, legislators view the community college nearest them as equal to or better than community colleges statewide.
Key concepts: Legislature, Political science, Public relations, Politics, Perception, State (computer science), Power (physics), Public administration