Re: Hiring Task Force Report

Date: December 15, 2003

To: President Kieft

From: Rick Crosser, Jim Drake, Lupe Martinez, Ben Monroe, Elizabeth Ordonez, Dorothy Snozek, Ellen Susman, Greg Watts

Our charge was to explore how the hiring process might be streamlined.

We believe that much of the process must be done at the department or unit level, while complying with all federal and state laws. The committee reviewed the current hiring process and consulted with Tamy Calahan, Dr. Percy Morehouse, and Dr. Cheryl Norton.

Our conclusion is that the hiring process is indeed cumbersome and that the amount of paperwork involved in hiring has caused the college to loose many excellent candidates to competitors

However, the committee also believes it cannot rewrite the college’s current hiring guidelines, Best Practices for Diversifying the Workforce: Your Guide to a Successful Search (the “purple book”), because none of us have the legal skills required. Rather, the committee recommends that appropriate independent legal council be hired to sift through the document to determine what is absolutely necessary by law and what is extraneous.

Though we cannot be certain as to what has to be in the guidelines, we feel that because our process so often differs from that of other colleges, there is great potential for changes to be made. Because of time constraints, most of our work focused on the hiring process for full-time tenure-track faculty. Though the committee was not always united on what changes should be made, we would like to propose the following for future discussion:

The role of the Vice President of Academic Affairs should be minimized to speed up the hiring process. He/she must only be responsible for overseeing how positions are allocated among the schools, and it must be the Deans’ responsibility to allocate those positions to departments and programs. To this end, if a faculty retirement, resignation, non-renewal, or other absence occurs, the Vice President of Academic Affairs would promptly notify the Dean promptly upon learning of the occurrence whether the position is to be shifted to another school. The Dean must then promptly notify the Chair of the Department that a search for a replacement faculty may begin. Again, this process should take no more than two weeks. Should two weeks pass without decision from the VP or Dean, the Department Chair where the opening has occurred must be able to assume that he/she can fill the position and begin a search. In this circumstance it would be at the discretion of the Department Chair, to fill the position with either temporary or tenure-track faculty.

There is no need for the VP of Academic Affairs to approve position announcements or search pools. These tasks should be done either by EOO, H.R. or the appropriate Dean.

Because the Handbook for Professional Personnel states that the Chair “provides the department with direction and leadership in . . . personnel matters” (p. 24), as much responsibility and authority as possible should be vested with the Chair. We have attached a sample of how the “Best Practices” section of the “purple book” might be rewritten to clarify it and ensure that as much as possible of the hiring process for full-time faculty positions is contained at the department level. Funds for searches should not come out of existing departmental operating budgets. There was uncertainty among the committee members as to how much of a role Deans should have in the process.

The “Charge” process should, like the college’s sexual harassment training, be done online.

Because the college Handbook mandates that “All external searches for exempt positions (faculty or administrators) will be national in scope,” (p. 5) departments must be able to conduct searches in way that conforms to national protocol. In some fields this includes interviewing at annual meetings. The college must find ways to make it possible for departments conducting searches in such fields to recruit and interview at these meetings. The college must also make it possible for departments to advertise in the appropriate national arenas, usually professional journals, without tapping their OCE budgets.

Deans should inform Chairs about how many candidates the budget will allow to invite to campus, keeping in mind that the Handbook, suggests that at least the top two should be brought to campus.

Departments must know as soon as possible what the salary range is going to be for their position. In the past departments have wasted money bringing candidates to campus who would not have come had they known what the salary was.

There is a need for better data than CUPA in determining salaries, as it does not align with our demographics.

There was some debate among committee members as to whether the hiring process should be shifted to the Human Resources office. It might be advantageous to have HR do some of the preliminary legwork on searches (such as eliminating candidates who do not meet minimum requirements in close coordination with Search Committee chairs). HR, if charged with this task regularly, might be more efficient than Departments that conduct searches only irregularly. Also, there are confidentiality issues with applications going directly to departments. Finally, there would be an advantage in running the process through HR as they could incorporate all of the salary and benefits concerns.

The “Qualified-Not Interviewed Report” must, of course, comply with Federal Guidelines, but it should not require narrative explanations. A checklist with possible reasons for elimination could be submitted. A selection process is inevitable, so perhaps reasons for elimination could be included on a template (such as, not best qualified for position; not best suited for institutional mission, etc.). Information can be collected for record-keeping purposes only.

In the “Interviewees Report” EOO should check only for discriminatory practices and advise on correcting any unlawful practices that are identified. This could occur at the end of a search process, or only when a complaint is filed with the college. The current process is overly defensive (and thus cumbersome).

The committee had extensive concerns with the ability of the college to create and maintain a diverse faculty and recommends that the college research why many minority faculty have left the institution. Improving retention will streamline the hiring process by eliminating its necessity in many cases.

The committee is concerned with the issue of hiring “the most qualified candidate” for a position and why many candidates, regardless of status, have left the institution in recent years.

We respectfully thank you for the opportunity to offer our suggestions and welcome further discussion.

Suggested Revisions to the “Best Practices” Section

(All of the following assumes that we are writing a new “Best Practices” Section that will apply only to the hiring of full-time faculty. For administrative hires the existing document will have to remain in effect or a new one written.)

Pages 5-6: These should be eliminated since they cover material that should be part of a charge (which would ideally be done online).

Page 7: The first paragraph should begin “The department chair oversees the formation of the search committee and the appointment of a search committee chair.” The second paragraph, referring to “the recommending hiring authority” should be deleted.

Page 8: Could be eliminated.

Pages 9-12 should read as follows:

Roles and Responsibilities of the Department Chair or Institute Director

Upon learning that a search is to be conducted, the chair will inform all offices involved that a search is to be conducted, including the Human Resources and Equal opportunity offices.
The chair will write or oversee the writing of a position announcement.
The chair will oversee the formation of a search committee and the appointment of a search committee chair. The chair may be on the committee if so desired.
The chair will authorize and approve the expenses to be incurred by the committee, including:

Type of mailing to be used (bulk, individual, mailing lists, etc.).
Search firm, or search consultant costs.
Interviewing costs.
Advertising costs incurred beyond the advertising paid for by the Equal Opportunity Office.
Other necessary and appropriate expenditures.

The chair will review candidates selected for on-campus interviews and the plans for interviews.
The chair will accept or reject recommendations for appointment received from the screening committee.
The chair arranges for payment of interview expenses.
The chair ensures that status letters are sent to unsuccessful applicants.
The chair ensures that the Appointment Recommendation Form is completed and approved & coordinating employment eligibility verification issues with Human Resources.
Chairs may delegate duties at their discretion.

The Screening Committee Chair is responsible for:

(All enumerated tasks should remain as they are, except 7 and 13, which should be deleted.)

The Screening Committee Members are responsible for:

(All tasks should remain as they are, except 3, where the phrase “recommending hiring authority’s” should be deleted.)

Delete the bold phrase: “The recommending hiring authority has the discretion to appropriately limit the involvement of the screening committee and specific directions which will be given to the committee prior to the start of the search process.”

The rest of the page can remain as it is.