Chancellor Selection Process
Karolyn van Putten and Joseph Bielanski (representing the District Academic Senate), Sheryl Queen (representing the District Classified Senate), Diana Lara (representing SEIU), Debby Weintraub and Mark Greenside (representing the PFT) met on Tuesday, January 19th, and agreed on the following procedure for the selection of the next Chancellor. We are hereby recommending it to the Board of Trustees for consideration and approval.
Please note that our recommendations are completely congruent with current (and recently under revision) Board policy 1.20. The differences between our recommendations and that policy are in alignment with what appeared to be the intention of the Board Policy Review subcommittee when it last considered updating this policy. Further, our perception is that these recommendations add value and transparency to the process, thereby strengthening the current policy.
1. The Board puts out an RFP asking head-hunter firms to submit a proposal delineating the process and timeframe for the recruitment and selection of a new chancellor. The firms recruited should be large, ideally national, with documented, successful experience finding and placing community college chancellors.
2. Hopefully, 3 – 5 firms will respond. They should present their proposals at a Board convened public workshop where all the interested parties could participate and ask questions.
3. The Board selects a firm.
4. In a previous chancellor search (Scannell, 1988-89) writing the job description was viewed as a way to develop support, help build community and rebuild relationships. In preparation for that search, we had a large number of participants at this stage (writing the job description): 40 plus people. There were 3 or 4 trustees; each trustee selected 1 or 2 members from the community. These people were education leaders who had an active history of working with one of the colleges, serving on a committee or an advisory council, etc., made up of 2 college presidents, 2-3 vice chancellors, 3 faculty from the PFT, 3 faculty from the DAS, 3 classified from SEIU, 3 classified from the classified senate, confidential employees; and students.
This group would review previous Peralta job descriptions and job descriptions from other districts. People would identify attributes, skills, knowledge, and experience they want the new chancellor to have.
Using this process, the consultant will take all the information, write a draft job description and bring it back to the committee; the committee will review and revise it, as appropriate.
The reviewed, revised, and approved job description goes to the Board for its review, revision, and approval.
5. The job announcement is widely distributed and the head hunting firm begins recruiting individuals based on the needs identified in the job description.
6. A pool of 20 – 30 applicants is amassed. The consultant begins background checks.
7. A hiring committee composed of 2 administrators, 4 faculty members, 3 classified staff employees, and 2 students is appointed. NOTE: This was the composition of the hiring committee that resulted in our current chancellor, Elihu Harris.
8. The hiring committee and the consultant review all applications and the hiring committee determines who would be interviewed. The hiring committee and consultant develop interview questions and answers, and the questions and answers are approved by HR, as per the current hiring practice.
9. 10 – 15 candidates are interviewed.
10. Three to five (3 – 5) finalists are identified.
11. Two to three day site visits are made to the applicant’s college/district for each of the top 3 finalists. The visiting team is comprised of 3 trustees, the DAS President and the PFT President. The PFT President pays her/his own way. Note: this has been the process since 1989. If a candidate is no longer at an educational institution, the committee should visit the last educational facility at which the candidate worked.
12. Visiting team members make individual reports and recommendations to the trustees in Executive Session.
13. The 3 finalists make public presentations at the colleges and the public submits written comments.
14. The Board interviews the 3 finalists and selects a new Chancellor.
As described, the entire process would take 6 - 9 months to complete. It is our firm belief that (1) lengthy site visits are crucial to getting good information, and (2) they should not be made over the summer months, as many key people may not be available.
Page 1 of 2