Joint Meeting
Deans and Program Chairs
October 27, 2008
3:00 – 4:30 p.m.
Present: John Backes Susan Hoyne Tom Moran
Marianne Baker Kathie Hunt Molly Morse
Stephanie Diemel Jeff Junkinsmith Lauren Sandven
Tony Doupe Gillian Lewis Bill Sperling
Jeanine Ghighi Marcia Liaw Bruce Spitz
Norma Goldstein Berta Lloyd Donna Wilde
Guy Hamilton Bruce McCutcheon Troy Wolff
Agenda: 1. Introductions/Background on past activities/meetings
2. Working relationships staff and Program Chairs/Assistant Deans
a. Primary tasks that require joint effort
b. Secondary tasks that require joint effort
c. Duplication of effort
3. Scope of work, legal and regulatory issues, costs, evaluation
4. Restructuring models
5. Wrap-up
John thanked the Program Chairs. He deeply appreciates faculty who are willing to step up into these positions. Faculty are hired to teach, advise and build their programs, but the PCs have stepped up to handle the administrative tasks related to their programs.
INTRODUCTIONS/BACKGROUND
Each Dean and Program Chair introduced themselves and identified their positions. During the May 1, 2007 Joint Meeting the Program Chairs described the duties they performed that were listed on the generic job description. From that meeting one conclusion or observation was that the PCs are supposed to coordinate the work of the department and/or discipline faculty. They are not supposed to do all of the work themselves. Somehow it has evolved that full-time tenured faculty think because Program Chairs get release time, they must do all of the work of the department. Last year we came to the conclusion that it is impossible for PCs to do all the tasks, and the Deans needed to work with their programs/departments to help the PCs distribute and assign the work so all FT faculty are helping. An example of this is part-time faculty evaluations. There is no reason a PC or Dean have to do all the part-time faculty evaluations. They actually should be assigned out to other FT faculty in the area the PC is serving.
SCOPE OF WORK, LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES, COSTS, EVALUTION
The college currently spends roughly 7.5 FTEF on Program Chairs. (Two of those positions i.e. [Nursing and Dental Hygiene] are required by accrediting agencies). When you convert FTEF to sections, that is nine sections annually of part-time work. It costs about $4,000 per section if we are using part-time faculty as replacement teachers. Therefore, we are looking at one FTEF that costs about $37,000 per year, multiplied by 7.5 FTEF or $277,500. John wanted to share this information so everyone knows what the cost of the Program Chair model is to the college. The Program Chair model is based in the university models and is not a unique model. It does have its pros and cons, however.
The scope of work covers everything from scheduling, p-t faculty evaluations, meeting with disgruntled students, finding supplies, and leading the department in terms of its own planning.
The legal and regulatory issues are important to understand. Program Chairs have the same level of exposure as any administrator. A Program Chair’s tenure does not protect them when working as a Program Chair. Generally speaking, Program Chairs do not get any training per se. There are no formal evaluation tools we use for Program Chairs. How do you know you are doing a good job as a PC when you look at the big list of tasks, and were you able to do it?
The PCs relationship with staff and the Dean is an area that often leaves them caught between the two and is sometimes difficult to manage. PCs want to make sure the interests of faculty and students are represented fairly. Often times they are in conflict and it can be a difficult place to find yourself as a PC.
Those who have been PC’s explained their scope of work:
Donna Wilde. PC’s with accredited programs have a much broader scope of responsibility due to accreditation requirements. Health Occupation programs also have the area of clinical practice to coordinate.
Marianne Baker. As PC Marianne has to manage a self support clinic with 48 students, 20 faculty, and 60 patients per day.
Molly Morse. Curriculum in the Allied Health programs continually changes to keep up with technologies and the scope of practice. It is a huge amount of work to keep students in clinical sites, get them through to exams and pass the accreditation exams.
Jeanine Ghighi. Cosmetology deals with certifications and licensing, and, in addition, they run a business in their program.
John explained that Jeanine Ghighi has a Pro Rata position that holds the same responsibilities as a full-time faculty member. As a PC she has the same responsibility whether a Pro Rata or Full-Time faculty, but she does not have tenure. She will need to work with her Dean to make sure while working within the program that full-time faculty views are always considered.
John explained that PC’s could delegate work to part-time faculty, but they would have to be paid $39/hr pursuant to the contract. PCs should talk with their Dean about this potential solution.
John stated that Program Chairs can not hire associate faculty, but they can only recommend to the Dean to hire them. That helps limit the Program Chair’s exposure in the area of hiring practices. Only the Dean has the authority to hire an associate faculty member. PCs should send an email to the Dean recommending who to hire. Deans would then have the option of asking why, or approving the recommendation in an email. Assuming you have an agreed upon letter or email to a potential employee that meets the standards of the college for an employment offer.
Program Chairs who have Affiliate Faculty may find it easier to manage the program because they know they have to give them a 50% or more load every quarter. Their choices are more defined in terms of assigning work and building a schedule that will work for students.
John said it is not a good idea to have Program Chairs or Assistant Deans in serious situations where there could be legal or regulatory issues outside of the contract. Although PCs are always first in line to listen to student complaints, referral to the Dean is sometimes necessary and appropriate. Some situations could make exposure to legal or regulator issues very high, and PCs don’t want to be in that position. Always be considerate to students, but there are times you need to let your Dean take over. PCs could be held liable if they start to enter into decisions related to cases of gender, race or religious discrimination and sexual harassment. We have policies on this PCs need to be aware of. In cases of sexual harassment we are obligated by federal law to report that immediately to the Dean and the VPHR and have documentation available to them. Situations like that will legally expose Program Chairs as Administrators. If PCs make a misstep, they will be held accountable. One of the outcomes John expects is increased training for Program Chairs.
If enrollments are smaller, Program Chairs need to recommend quarter by quarter who they use as staff. There is nothing in the contract that states associate faculty are guaranteed a class. If PCs have qualified associate faculty and their schedule shrinks, they have to make recommendations on behalf of the students and their own evaluation of work that tends to be done that quarter. PC’s can not “terminate” anyone. These decisions should be made for the good of the program. People will ask why someone was selected and another was not. Program Chairs have to be able to state why, and they should have good reasons. As administrators Deans have to make choices on who is employed and who is not. They, in consultation with the PC, make choices for associate faculty based on current and future program needs. John suggested the way PCs should think about their recommendations on who to offer a contract to, is if they were challenged and in front of an arbitrator. PCs should always run their recommendations by the Deans as hiring authorities, which helps shift the exposure from them to the Deans.
Sometimes you hire someone who has not taught. They may be a star on paper and know they want to be a teacher. Many criteria come into play when choosing whose passion is teaching. That is John’s first criteria. Do they love students and can you see that? It is important to make sure evaluations are conducted regularly per the contract, especially for new faculty.
Training. The college has policies generated by federal law (i.e. Sexual Harassment) and state law (these are in the WACs). Program Chairs should be aware of these policies and know where the tipping points are that would alert you to be cautious. John hoped that everyone is completely familiar with the Student Code of Conduct.
Training ideas for Program Chairs would include;
· Policies, legal and regulatory issues
· Student Code of Conduct
· Reference checks on students who apply for positions. What we can say, what we can’t say
· Emergency training (shooter on campus, earthquakes, etc.)
John would like PCs to receive more training on emergency procedures as part of their overall training, and they in turn share that information with faculty. Program Chairs are a buffer within their department at an administrative level between the faculty and the Dean. As such, they are administrators.
Staff Issues. Division staff reports to Deans, not Program Chairs. John said Deans and PCs need to be aligned as to how staff are used. There are simply not enough of them. This is another fine line for PCs to work with their Dean. John reminded everyone that classified staff are a protected employee group. You should be familiar with the classified staff contract. Having staff report to Deans is a way to reduce PC exposure around that contract.
RESTRUCTURING MODELS
John reiterated the Program Chair model we use costs the college roughly ¼ million dollars for that work. John’s question is, “Is it worth that kind of money?” Is it cost effective? We don’t have a choice in the Allied Health Sciences, so we can subtract the 2 FTEF from the equation because it is required. This would leave 5.5 FTEF for the rest of the divisions.
The work is administrative (scheduling, evaluations, dealing with students). It is not teaching or advising. Is it useful to have full-time faculty doing this work instead of being in the classroom and meeting with students as their advisors?
John presented a different model for discussion: Give the Deans a full-time administrative exempt person as an Assistant Dean who would do the work of the PC. They could rotate, or you could hire someone who was a teacher and is interested in administrative challenges. A full-time administrative exempt person would help Deans accomplish administrative work and allow faculty to teach and advise the students as their contract dictates. John asked how it is working in the various areas and at what cost.
Comments:
Marcia Liaw. Marcia’s area has a faculty Dean model. What she sees is very few people want to be a Program Chair or Assistant Dean. Someone will step up “because someone’s got to do it.” She has mixed feelings about Assistant Deans. Most faculty in her division want to teach. That is why the college hired them. She sees the same people doing PC work year after year. In other areas they have to convince the person to do it. It is not working that well in Marcia’s area, but that does not mean it is not working well in other divisions.
Troy Wolff. There is so much work to do as PC in English. The PC selection is “who gets the shortest straw.” They have thrown around the idea of a FT administrative person for a couple years, but despite the difficulty of the position they have not been willing to let go of the inside understanding of the finer points of how to schedule classes, etc. They complain about the work but are scared of hiring a non-faculty person to control their lives.
Guy Hamilton. There could be some advantages to an Assistant Dean model. For instance in Science, there are so many PCs trying to schedule classes and the Program Chairs are focused on their own classes. It is difficult. There is no one person in charge of thinking about the whole area. Everyone has their own self interests. Guy said another thing to think about is it would behoove us to be applying for and writing more grants as a way to bring in more money. We do not have a grant writer on campus anymore. Having an Assistant Dean model might allow us to think about a way to run the divisions to apply for grants. Marianne added that her counterpart at Seattle CC is a full-time administrator who has time go to meetings and write grants.
Norma Goldstein. Norma had reservations about the Assistant Dean model given the size of her division.
John does not know if an Assistant Dean model would use fewer FTEFs. He is bringing this subject up to discuss a different way of accomplishing our work and to seek the Program Chair’s input. John said the structure we have now is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. He is not sure if there is a way to make it completely equitable. One approach is to consolidate the total costs and compute how many Assistant Deans we can get and see how the work can be divided up.
Deans must have knowledgeable and committed assistance if we are going to free them up go do any higher-level work. Deans have additional responsibilities. The college lost $100,000 in salary and benefits forever through the nonrenewal of a Dean’s position. The work must be re-distributed to the other Deans. They have taken on the extra work, but it ties them down to the internal work of the college. They need time to go out into the community and build partnerships to bring more money to the college. Jeanine Ghighi stated that Cosmetology is competing with the private sector. Most of the private schools have someone who is recruiting 5 days a week.