|
|
Reorganization Feedback
|
34 Records Found.
Displaying page 1 of 1:
| Name |
Date Submitted |
Feedback |
| Cindy Hooper |
9/19/2008 |
If some people think we won't be able to grow FTE without a major reorganization, they should ask the Division Chair that managed to add more than 1,600 enrollments over fall of last year: exactly how did she do it? |
| Brady Wells |
9/18/2008 |
Why is Academy of the Redwoods not assigned to an administrator in the organizational chart? It should officially be assigned somewhere so as not to discount it as one of CR's most viable programs. |
| Cindy Hooper |
9/12/2008 |
My Division Chair Justine Shaw helps me every single day with every problem I face—from digging up data for my program review to helping me get an easel fixed. She is in Creative Arts, every day, on demand, ready to assist with every conceivable student, staff, and faculty need. If we lose Justine (who is cherished by all of ALSS I assure you) will there be an administrator physically present in the Creative Arts complex ready to help with all of these day-to-day needs—no matter how small? |
| Ruth Moon |
9/8/2008 |
Susan Nordlof's comments of 09/02 led me to check my files for the followup survey that was done Winter 07. As you all may recall, the Division Chairs structure set up during Winter 05 was revisted during contract negotiations last spring and summer. Prior to those negotiations, the team conducted a survey of faculty to determine if their interests had changed. The survey results were pretty consistent with Susan's memory, and the previous "problem solving group" that was convened Winter 05. Here are the interests in priority order: 1) institutional stability; 2) effective upwards communication and a clearly defined structure; 3) effective downwards communication, effective supervision and administration; and 4) flexibilty in accommodating the diversity of units, faculty decision making power over areas and issues that affect them, faculty voice in policy setting, students' needs are met, and that authority should be balanced with responsibility. |
| Michael Richards |
9/7/2008 |
First, I would concur with Dr. Marsee's initial finding that our current committee system lacks a hiarchy and is in need of some revision. Faculty and staff really stepped up and reinvented institutional management here at the 11th hour under the tutelege of Tom Harris and with the help of some consultants. We knew there were some holes but, in the interest of maintaining accreditation the system had to become operational in a very short time. I am not in favor of reverting to the very top down, chain of command, system that lent itself to the mismanagement that got us in that abyss to begin with. I would prefer a more moderate approach such as was suggested by Dave Bazard in an earlier entry and well supported by other colleagues. I do have a concern that I haven't seen here yet regarding the proposed reorganization plan to fill all the positions from within. It's my observation that the previous administration used this very approach to install a number of under qualified managers who could then be easily influenced and susequently micro-managed from above thus relieving higher ups of responsibility while allowing them to manipulate outcomes. In conclusion it is my firm belief that whatever position(s) develop in the process of adding structure that College of The Redwoods Administration and Board of Trustees work collaboratively to concisely document the roles and responsibilities (the main body of work), how success will be measured and evaluated, and what previous training, education, and experience would be best suited for that position. Then the college should make every effort to fill that position with the best qualified person available not just whoever happens to hanging around looking for a promotion. I believe that's how you build a top notch management team that can get the job done in a manner consistent with WASC standards, while building collegiality and trust. |
| Michael Butler |
9/5/2008 |
I want to thank my colleagues who have posted clear and compelling thoughts to this board.
A lot of time and energy has been spent by the staff and faculty at CR to address two important issues over the past 5 years: facilities and organizational structure.
In the case of facilities, we were asked to help pass Measure Q, many of us did. We were asked to help with the remodel of our buildings once measure Q passed; again many of us did that work. In both cases many hours, days, months were spent in the interest of improving the educational experience of our students. Then 2 years ago with no consultation, the remodel plan was scrapped. Whether the reasons for scrapping the plans were correct or not I will leave for others to argue. The fact is that a large amount of time that could have been used for other productive activities (like rewriting course outlines) was wasted.
The 2-dean model at CR was not working for many faculty and staff. A rather tumultuous period ensued in which many hours, days, months were gladly given in the interest of finding a better way to administer our college and make the environment one that was more student centered. Interest based bargaining was used with a large representative part of the college to create the current division chair structure. While there are still flaws and adjusting the current system to fix those is needed, the college as a whole came to the conclusion that the division chair model was the best fit for our institution. That work should be honored. It would be a large blow to an already shaky moral for this work to also have been done in vain.
|
| Steve Stratton |
9/5/2008 |
The proposed Org chart for Administrative Services has been re-posted for your review. |
| Ruby Jager |
9/4/2008 |
This forum is probably the first that I’ve seen in my 6 years at CR where all can read and provide feedback about a proposed reorganization plan. The comments posted in this forum are thoughtful, persuasive and reflect a sense of common purpose. Our last Accreditation Report to ACCJC states on Pg 25, “Staff, faculty, and administrators districtwide can “see” exactly who is making decisions, how they are making them, and why they are making them as they are.” So, I would like to see how the information and questions gathered in this forum will be addressed and provide CR the much needed momentum for change that encompasses all.
I noticed that IR department (in the proposed plan) will reside under VP but the President mentioned at the town hall meeting that IR reports to him. What is the rationale to have Institutional Research (responsible for district-wide data collection and reporting) to report to VP vs. the President?
|
| Debbie Williams |
9/3/2008 |
After reading the comments and listening to people in the feedback sessions, it seems that we might want to examine the infrastructure from the bottom up, for a change. A functional working/learning space
should be clean, healthy, workable, and have structure. This applies to students, faculty, support staff, administration - everyone. In order to attract students to our fine college, a prospective student should be able to depend on speaking to someone when they call or drop in anywhere on campus and have a pleasant environment for learning and in some cases, living. The staff should have standard operating procedures that conform to everyone, with allowances for circumstances. Faculty should be able to depend on procedures that support their teaching needs. There is so much on campus that is wanting and which could be alleviated by having sufficient staff to support our daily routines. With a little cohesiveness and the ability to depend on routines, some of the management issues may fall into place.
I would also like to mention that the feedback regarding Directors has been very encouraging. You can't just keep changing the Titles of extraneous personnel (the 4th, 5th, etc Vice President vs the "Big Deans") to make it all better. |
| Cindy Hooper |
9/3/2008 |
We definitely need more "foot soldiers" in our new organizational model. Frank Martinez has just retired, and Dan McKenzie is about to retire. These guys are essential to keeping our classrooms safe, orderly, and conducive to quality instruction. |
| Prudence Ratliff |
9/3/2008 |
I concur with Hillary Reed. Of the 20 programs eligible for Career Technical Education (CTE) funding through the CCCCO 11 are within the Business and Technology Division. Actually, all of the programs within the Businsess and Technology Division are considered CTE programs and are eligible for CTE funding. The other programs we offer that fall into this category include Forestry, Natural Resources, Addiction Studies and Early Childhood Education which are scattered throughout the other divisions. I also wonder if it would be more inclusive to have a "Dean of Career Technical Eduation" rather than a "Dean of Health Occupations & Vocational." A Dean who represents all of the Career Technical Education programs would be able to better levarage funds for all the CTE programs and garner a better understanding of CTE in general. |
| Hillary Reed |
9/3/2008 |
The title that Pru suggests "Dean of Career Technical Education" seems much more fitting than "Dean of Health Occupations and Vocational." After all health occupations is vocational. One particular area should not be emphasized over another in dean's title. |
| Eileen Ayers |
9/3/2008 |
My questions are regarding clerical support staff with the current model vs. clerical support staff with the proposed model. Will new clerical support positions be created to support the Dean positions? Will current clerical support staff positions be reclassified if supporting Deans rather than Directors/Managers? Will clerical support staff be expected to absorb added workload for Dean positions? I question this because the suggestion at the Town Hall Meeting was that the budget would only be impacted by $10,000 or could even be a "wash" with the proposed model. |
| Trish Blair |
9/3/2008 |
Clearly from everyone's feedback there are numerous questions that need to be addressed regarding the reorganization. Whether it be related to the structure per se and how things ended up under which proposed dean, or more related to staffing, questions need to be addressed. Whether or not one philosophically agrees or disagrees with the proposed structure, the financial impact should be considered with great care before a decision is made. Personally, I hope we will be able to consider in written form, the budget ramifications of the administrative structure options . It's not sufficient in this time of fiscal restraint to just go with "it's a wash". I would like to see numbers for each of the options, including any support staffing changes as Eileen mentioned, backfilling costs or other fiscal considerations for the "old" new structure vs. the proposed structure. I also think we need to look "down the road" to additional costs related to workload. No administrative structure change is going to have a one year only impact on the budget. I am not convinced that the the proposed deans can do their "old" jobs as well as the dean related tasks without additional staffing. Related to that, the question arises as to whether the proposed deans who have been selected internally actually have the skill base to do the job without assistance. This is not to suggest that any of them lack skill, as our managers and directors are competent and hard working. However no one is a master at everything. I think it is imperative that we carefully consider the fiscal impact not just this year, but over a two, three and four year period. |
| Sheila Schindler |
9/3/2008 |
A wise person once told me that it took three years to be successful in a role as administrator. The first year is spent taking it all in, getting to know what works and what doesn't work in the organization, getting to know your staff and their concerns and getting to know the student population and what works and doesn't work for them. The second year is when you start discussing plans for a positive change based on those observations, and the third year is when you start putting those changes in effect.
With all respect, Mr. Marsee, I feel you are making changes too quickly. Please get to know us first, get to know our programs, find out our concerns, find out what's working for us and what's not working at College of the Redwoods. Earn our trust. We need you to earn our trust. Get us back on track with accreditation, help us come together on the new building construction. There is plenty of healing and old issues to resolve before we start putting new ideas into motion.
We want you to be the guy that gets us back on track, and you have the energy to do it, just get to know us a little more first. |
| John Anderson |
9/3/2008 |
Is the "President's Reorganization Chart" and the "Administrative Services Reorganization Chart" supposed to be the same document?
|
| Cindy Hooper |
9/2/2008 |
As my colleagues have eloquently stated, we have just come through an enormous upheaval within our institution, and have carefully (and collaboratively) forged a structure that works pretty well for us, and apparently works for our accreditation overseers as well. I feel that all we need are a few structural adjustments at this point--like Dave Bazard has pointed out--perhaps the reinstatement of a VP for Student Services/Learning to help Dr. Snow-Flamer with the work-load. |
| Ruth Moon |
9/2/2008 |
Lots of questions here in this forum. I do hope there will be some answers. I am curious about the IT split question. I think IT's biggest problem is simply not enough staff, how will splitting them solve that? |
| Susan Nordlof |
9/2/2008 |
First off, I want to express my heartfelt agreement with both Dave Bazard and Dave Arnold. Our current Division Chair structure works well for faculty (in the academic programs particularly), whereas the “Big Dean” model has been tried in the past at CR and has failed. There are alternatives to relieve Dr. Snow-Flamer of his excessive duties than to gut the Division Chair system and to replace it with a structure that the faculty know from experience does not work for our areas and divisions. Several years ago, when the college went through yet another in our continual cycle of reorganizations, the faculty identified a number of our priorities for mid-level administration–priorities which are not addressed by the “Big Dean” model: “good two-way organizational communication,” “decision-making at the lowest possible level,” “faculty advocacy and voice in policy and resource decisions,” “opportunities for faculty to get experience in a leadership role” (not to mention “the stability of the organizational structure over time”). I do not think these priorities have changed over the past three years, and I do not see them being met in the proposed management structure. I will add that this structure is extremely vague regarding the parts of the management structure that most affect faculty: the discipline areas and the divisions. Under such a structure, what will be the duties of the proposed Deans? The reduced Division Chairs? The Area Coordinators? And without these crucial details, how can the faculty possibly give our blessing to administration’s proposal? |
| Susan Nordlof |
9/2/2008 |
My second comment refers not to the management structure but to the Refined Integrated Planning Model proposal. Dr. Marsee has told us that, rather than “shared governance,” he prefers the terms “collegial consultation” or “participatory governance.” In last Friday’s Town Hall meeting, he promised to explain these terms to us at a later date–presumably to explain how they differ from “shared governance”–yet he also referred to them as “synonymous to shared governance.” To my mind, faculty need a clear articulation of how Dr. Marsee interprets shared governance–and the alternatives he prefers– before we can weigh in on the proposed planning model. On the surface, at least, the proposed model seems to demote the Academic Senate from its current position as an essential partner with the Board and the President when it comes to governing the college. Instead, the new model places the Academic Senate down several levels in a planning hierarchy, beneath the Cabinet (Senior Staff, perhaps?), the College Council (chaired by the President), and the Board. |
| Trish Blair |
9/2/2008 |
Firstly, let me say that I totally agree with the suggestion of reconsidering the two VP structure. That would decrease the the number of programs reporting to the combined VP position and allow for both the academic house and Student Services to have someone whose primary focus is on each one's respective needs. Beyond that, I have some questions about the proposed reorganization. There is a proposal of 5 deans, one of which will come from the faculty. Presumably the load of that faculty member will be covered by some associate faculty. But what about the other dean positions? If the remaining four positions are to be filled by existing managers/directors, then are we faced with hiring new people or backfilling positions to take over the duties of the new deans? If so, has that been figured into the financial scenario which suggests a "wash" in terms of cost? If not, then has there been study or consideration done of the workload of those managers/directors who will become deans? Most of our managers and directors are swamped with their current workloads. Is it reasonable to think that they can continue doing the day to day running of their areas plus pick up the adminstrative duties of the dean? |
| Ruth Moon |
9/2/2008 |
I just finished reading an interesting series of articles authored by Jeff Marsee for the WACUBO newsletter, “Ten Steps for Implementing Change,” and the first step is “align leadership style with organizational culture,” which I wonder how that has been done here at CR. See newsletters beginning with Oct. 2002: http://www.wacubo.org/newsletters/newsletter.shtml I have a huge file of various re-organization plans from back to 2000. For a while it seemed after every summer it was something different in Fall. We have faculty here with years of experience under various models. We created the Division Chairs structure through hours of interest based problem solving in a process that was nothing if not participatory governance, collegial consultation, and/or shared governance, whichever phrase you like, it was all those things. That structure has since been amended twice, both times through a collective bargaining process that included extensive research, data collection, and interviews with various stakeholders. This is a very different process than the current proposal and comment process. |
| Ruth Moon |
9/2/2008 |
“Shared governance” vs. “collegial consultation” vs. “participatory governance”
The recommendation to use the latter two terms comes straight from the League, with their emphasis on the Board and the CEO: http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3359
and since the League makes claim that “The term ‘shared governance’ does not appear in law or regulation,” (although it does actually occur in Ed. Code three or four times) “Consult collegially” is the phrase primarily used in Ed. Code. The League is very explicit in stating that governance is strictly the province of the Board, and while it is of course preferred that all participants and stakeholders be in agreement when presenting recommendations to the Board, the final authority rests with the CEO, and in the case of disagreement, the CEO has the final say. A Google test shows that the majority of common usage goes with “shared governance,” 172,000 hits, adding “california community colleges” 9,250 hits; while “collegial consultation” alone has 3,850 hits, with the CCCs phrase only 430; and finally “participatory governance” results in 68,400 hits, with the CCCs phrase 2,310. A quick scan of the results shows that the three phrases are being used in slightly different ways. Participatory governance seems to be used in a context that includes all groups, classified senates, unions, councils, etc. The collegial consultation seems to show up mostly in lawsuits. FWIW. Honestly, I had never heard of the other two. However, the State Senate agrees with the League and has a position paper at http://www.asccc.org/Publications/Papers/Participating_college_governance.html The question I have, is do you walk the walk? Call it what you will, will you do it?
|
| Ruth Moon |
9/2/2008 |
Here are the problems I see with hiring 5 or 6 new deans:
1) cost, per dean, per year, approximately 150K or more
2) timing of the hiring cycle is bad for academic hires
3) right now there are 20+ similar vacancies state wide, last summer, it was 45+
4) too many generals, not enough foot soldiers
5) if promoted to dean from middle mgmt, that just leaves a gap at middle mgmt level & who will then do that work?
I agree with everything said here by others. What guarantee do we have that these new deans will actually do us some good? Will we get managers who view faculty as employees to be controlled and supervised?
|
| Cindy Hooper |
9/1/2008 |
I also agree with Dave Bazard's observations and concerns here. |
| Mark Winter |
9/1/2008 |
I want to address the proposal for a Dean of Distance Education who would manage three separate but related functions: ITS, the LRC, and DE. First, I wholeheartedly support the creation of an administrator in charge of DE. I would, however, suggest a title change to Dean of Learning Resources and Educational Technology. A Dean of DE would be a misnomer in that DE is only one of the three functional responsibilities. Currently, the LRC and ITS currently have staff, facilities, and budgets. Even if DE triples in size in two years, adds an instructional designer, and maintains a program coordinator it would still be the smallest of the three Dean responsibilities in term of budget, personnel, and facilities. Including non-DE instructional technology functions, such as support for hybrid and technology-enhanced instruction, would be reasonable.
My second recommendation would be that distance education scheduling authority should be transferred from the current system of Directors, Division Chairs and Campus VPs to the DE Dean. However, this authority is potentially problematic. While I think the Dean should determine whether or not a class and its instructor be scheduled, I would be concerned if the Dean had the authority to manage the DE schedule independent of the instructional areas.
|
| David Arnold |
9/1/2008 |
All,
I fully agree with the points David Bazard has raised.
D. |
| David Bazard |
9/1/2008 |
If the primary reason for reorganizing our administrative structure is that there are too many positions reporting directly to the VP of Learning and Student Development, then we should consider another solution: reinstitution of a VP of student services and a VP of academic affairs. This would reduce the VP areas of responsibility but maintain the Division Chair structure that has worked well during the past two years. I second Dave Arnold’s call for maintaining the Division Chair structure. The Division Chair is a “front-office” position that handles student, community, and faculty issues that were not addressed by our previous Dean models. I don’t think it is fully appreciated how many issues are resolved at this level rather than burdening other levels of administration. Division Chairs know the subdisciplines within their divisions and they meet weekly with the VP. This allows direct responses to several levels of problems. As cochair of the program review committee, it was very clear to me that our ability to complete 72 instructional program reviews and 82% of our course outlines in 9 months was a direct result of having Division Chairs in place. For this reason the ACCJC stated in the April Team report:
“The team commends the faculty for taking a lead role in completing the work necessary to fully implement the Commission's recommendations. “
I am concerned that the Dean of Instruction will not be able to respond to the distinctly different issues of transfer, vocational, and athletics educations that will reside under one Dean. This point is elaborated upon by Hillary Reed higher in this thread. We cannot expect the large body of Division Chair work to be effectively done by a Dean, by a diminished Division Chair position, or pushed down to Area Coordinators. However, that appears to be the only way to make this reorganization “cost neutral”.
A second rationale for the reorganization is that we cannot adequately address program review issues under the current structure. I feel it is too early in our development of a sustainable planning process to make that claim. We were able to address some program review issues last year, but the real problem was adjusting to a new system and a system that, in some respects, proved to be too cumbersome. The ACCJC identified these problems, but they did not describe a problem of too many positions reporting to one VP. In fact, ACCJC stated in their May letter:
“The Commission noted that the institutional foundation and momentum are in place for continued progress and quick resolution of these remaining deficiencies.”
Therefore, it is not clear how the proposed reorganization will enhance planning, how the Deans will fit into the planning structure, or how this reorganization will address ACCJC issues. This is not a time to rearrange our “institutional foundation” A large scale reorganization at this point has the potential to derail our current momentum and move us back to the pattern of “fits and starts” previously noted by the ACCJC.
|
| David Arnold |
9/1/2008 |
My first thought concerning "Learning and Student Development Reorganization Chart," specifically the column headed by Dean of Instruction.
What I like about our current organization is the fact that our division chairs are a strong and immediate advocates for the immediate needs of instruction in the classroom. My first concern regarding a Dean of Instruction is the fact that this adds another layer (in the past, some would call this a "buffer") between the faculty and students in the classroom and eventual contact with the president and board. So, I need to hear a convincing argument of how such a Dean would improve the communication that already exists.
D. |
| Ruby Jager |
8/29/2008 |
In the new reorganization plan, the ASC has been seperated from the LRC- under the new Dean of Distance Ed. The ASC serves one of the largest number of students on and off campus in providing online tests. Why is the ASC not being included in the distance learning initiative the college is embarking upon and what are the specific reasons for the department to be under the Dean of Enromment Management and Student Development? Also, what is going to be the new role of ASC in serving the needs of our students and faculty since it was reorganized recently? |
| Cindy Hooper |
8/29/2008 |
There can be (and should be) a fluid connection between Distance Ed, Hybrid courses, and technology infrastructure and support in standard classroom environments. I think that IT needs to be be expanded and have unified oversight too. As an aside: there are many Macs on this campus--they need robust and systematic support as well. |
| Hillary Reed |
8/29/2008 |
I have concerns that not all vocational programs are well represented in the new structure. Currently, I am assuming that the Dental Assisting Program would fall under the category of Dean, Health Occupations and Vocation. However, only Nursing and Law Enforcement/Safety are listed. While the Dental Assisting Program has many similarities to nursing, we are quite different in the tasks, duties, and curriculum we teach. Furthermore, the Dental Assisting Program has many similarities with other vocational programs offered at College of the Redwoods that most do not consider. Besides polishing wheels, Dremel Tools, and "grinders", some of the more obvious similarities are structure, funds, and job placement. Many of our applied technology programs at College of the Redwoods offer certificates similar to our Dental Assisting Program, but are currently represented by the Business and Technology Division, which is proposed to be headed by the Dean of Instruction. The majority of these certificate programs are held in the applied technology buildings, accredited by outside agencies, and prepare students for vocations/ job placement and/or credentials through National and State Board Exams. It seems to me that all programs that qualify for funding as vocational programs and offer certificates should be under one dean. Similarities are not only threaded throughout our programs, but our students as well.
The College of the Redwoods proposed structure needs to take a closer look at the programs that would be under the responsibility of "The Dean of Health Occupation and Vocation." In the reorganization we need to be better represented, not just categorized.
My hope is that the reorganization structure can better represent all programs including those programs such as mine that have similarities to many, but unlike any other.
|
| Brian Van Pelt |
8/29/2008 |
In the talk on Friday, August 29 in FM100, it was mentioned that I.T. would be split up. While one half of I.T. would be under Distance Ed, there was only passing mention of where the other half of I.T. would land. Can we please see the full org structure so that we can offer informed opinions? |
| Pat Watson |
8/29/2008 |
I would like to know how you envision splitting ITS and putting part of it under Distance Ed.
There is not now, and can never be, a clear distinction between our support of instructional and administrative needs. |
1 |
|
|
