Docstoc

Questions Asked of Faculty and

Document Sample
Questions Asked of Faculty and Powered By Docstoc
					Summary Notes : Open House meeting with Faculty and Staff Leaders

Friday, February 24 11:00 – 12:10

Present: Kyle Higa, Lorri Taniguchi, Shanon Miho, Ron Pine, Jennifer Higa-King, David
Panisnick, Alapaki Luke, Ross Egloria, Kara Kam, Cynthia Smith, Preshess Willets-
Vaquilar, Elton Ogoso


The goal of the meeting was restated – to provide faculty and staff serving on
governance committees this year and in years past (going back to 2006) the opportunity
to give feedback on some general questions. These questions were a follow up to
items addressed in other fact finding, including the recent survey. The discussion
touched on a number of topics, summarized below.



# 1 and # 2 GOVERANCNE ROLE IN BUDGETING

((1. Is the current governance structure, and are existing processes, sufficient to ensure
necessary inclusion and participation? How can we improve?))

It was pointed out that prior to 2009, there was little structured opportunity for input.
Budget committees existed but were small and did not meet frequently. Since the
creation of the Planning Council, there has been improvement. Now all three major
governance groups (FSEC, SSEC, KKW) have the opportunity to rank priorities. Current
system entails a Budget Committee made up of representatives of the three governance
bodies. Budget committee does preliminary compiling of budget proposals; then the
ranking goes to governance bodies for ranking, then PC summarizes findings of the
governance bodies.

The consensus was this system is more inclusive but requires a lot of time and
responsibility on the part of members.

Areas still needing to be improved based on last year’s experience of this process:

      Timeliness of information provided – not enough time for governance committee
      members to review, clarify proposals and seek input prior to ranking.

      Sometimes inadequate level of information provided to committee members;
      must have full explanation of rationale behind proposal including rationale, link to
      the strategic plan etc., so can make informed decisions. Hard for those not from
      a program to be able to evaluate importance without adequate explanation; also
      hard to weigh relative merit of personnel requests versus equipment requests.
       Inadequate communication between groups – lack of time to learn of actions of
       other committees and reasons for their decisions; need minutes to be done and
       shared quickly.

       Need clarity of information related to whether items are roll over items, or new
       expenditures?

Suggestions:

       Need to make sure that requisite informant related to budget proposals is posted,
       and this should include justification informaiton. This should be available to all
       faculty and staff so they can provide feedback to their governance
       representatives. This would help in raising awareness of the entire campus of
       the budgeting processes, opportunities for input into prioritization, and the bases
       for final decision.

       Key is to *make clear* the bases for proposal; make clear the reasons for ranking
       – and the decisions by governance committees need to be recorded in minutes
       and shared in a timely manner

       There should be reporting to the campus by administration at the start of Fall
       semester as to what final decisions were made during the summer. Need to
       ‘close the loop’ on the process by making clear final decisions, as well as *why* -
       the bases of these decisions.

       Seems this year that the timing is better (two rounds of prioritization before PC
       compiles rankings of other governance bodies.) This year – rankings have been
       posted with rationale, including links to strategic planning.

       It was observed that the current process underway (Spring 2012) appears to be
       improved in terms of allowing more time for evaluation and ranking. The criteria
       by which items were to be ranked is clear. We should follow up after this cycle.



# 1 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE/SYSTEM - STAFF

There continues to be a problem with staff having the necessary opportunities to
actively participate in governance responsibilities. Though there was a letter of support
from the Chancellor to supervisors to encourage them to support staff participation in
committee activities, it remains difficult for staff members to get the time off to serve;
since they are often front line, it is difficult to get released from primary duties to serve,
and it requires getting coverage, which can led to resentment from peers. There is no
professional credit or reward to serve. Finally, the SSEC authority is based on
Chancellor’s charge which is seen as more tenuous in terms of governance authority,
as compared to FSEC.


# 3 COMMMUNCIAITON

The group discussed problems with the representative system on which governance is
based. There are a number of identified issues:

There is a lack of adequate communication between representatives and their
constituencies. The responsibilities to ensure adequate notification, input and
solicitation of constituent opinions lies with *both* faculty/staff representatives who do
not adequately inform and solicit input and faculty/staff who do not show the motivation
to stay informed or provide input. One example cited was lack of general faculty/staff
members of governance committee members of the background of budget proposals
prior to being asked to rank them. Broader constituents are even less aware.

There seems to be a general lack of awareness or appreciation for the role of the
representative.

One point discussed is that currently there is inadequate orientation of new faculty and
new staff and new lecturers. They do not know the governance structures, what
different committees do, what opportunities there are to give input or serve.

One key problem with ensuring adequate communication is lack of updated and
accurate list serve mailing lists. Given the importance of email communication, it is
imperative that these are kept current. This used to be the duty of Human Services;
then some list serves have been maintained by IT departments but they do not know
the updated personnel information. Different people are in charge of different list serves
and loss of continuity when this is a committee chair. Many lecturers are not on
important lists, not receiving important information. There is a long lag period in
updating with new names.


Suggestions:

       The Chair of a committee should take a more active role in directing

       Need to institutionalize better orientation – this should be done via orientation
       materials – online? Printed handbook? Explain the acronyms. . This could
       include a more user friendly org chart making clear *who* to go to with a
       particular concern; or a FAQ section about committees
      There has been some changes in FSEC representation that will hopeful improve
      communication however representative structure will have to be reviewed due to
      implications of reorganization, to ensure necessary representation

      Representatives should be actively reaching out to constituents to gage opinion

      Need to stress responsibility on part of faculty who have issues or concerns, or
      items for budgeting, to contact their reps.

      Must identify process and those directly responsible for maintaining up to date list
      serves. Should it be an HR based group (since they know about personnel
      changes?? Or Division Chairs? With good list serves; could facilitate
      communication – and help in assessment as well. CLT should take up this topic.

      Should identify those with the specific, tasked responsibility to ensure necessary
      orientation regarding governance processes, responsibilities and opportunities
      for input. Perhaps the division chair? Or department liaisons? Or immediate
      supervisor?

      Need to ensure proper training and orientation for committee leaders, perhaps
      some kind of mentoring system.

      Must be continually emphasized and reiterated that in all forums, communication
      must be collegial

      Should go back to having liaison people sitting in on each other’s committees.
      (might facilitate budget ranking).



# 4. ASSESSEMNT OF GOVERNANCE GROUPS

It was discussed that there are required FSEC end of year reports expected of
committees. These self-generated reports could be the basis of a form of ‘assessment’
or ensured accountability. But these reports have not been completed consistently and
some governance committees have not done this regularly.

SSEC has not been carrying out consistent assessment – but did carry out a recent
survey.

It was noted that FSEC was carrying out a survey this semester.

Suggestions:
       Should there be some means of committee member evaluating *themselves*,
       evaluating the committee work – be inclusive of committee members. Also
       constituents need to be solicited as part of that assessment.

       SSEC will look into better orientation for SSEC constituents and assessment.
       This is needed not only to ensure staff voices are heard but also to increase staff
       sense of responsibility to participate.

       It was suggested that there be a template to make clear the expectations of the
       end of the year reports. Provide a clear structure for end of year reports. FSEC
       should look into doing this kind of formalization of reporting for committees.
       Laulima could be used to issue reports *and* then could ask for feedback on
       these reports – using these reports as a basis to solicit assessment feedback.



# 5. CURRENT ADMINISTARIVE STRUCTURE

It was noted that there is still a problem with a great deal of turn over of administrators;
time is lost as they have to get up to speed. This frequent change in leadership slows
down decision making.


# 6 CONTINUITY

There is a problem of new committees not necessarily being aware of pending/standing
issues. There needs to be a way to institutionalize the memory of committees. One
possibility is to have, as part of end of the year reports, to include issues to be carried
over to the next year.

Need to have a clear hand off between outgoing and incoming committee.

Committees should be preserving in records/minutes key trends, longitudinal history of
key decisions, of the issues debated, of the reasons for decisions (so later committees
do not have to reinvent the wheel.)


Suggestions:

       As part of template for end of year reporting – include: what issues are pending;
       what issues does next year’s committee need to deal with. Formally merge the
       end of the year reports with a form of assessment of the committee.

       There needs to be some form of training of committee members regarding
       important expectations such as necessity to include in committee minutes (e.g.
       recent template issued by the Standard Four committee. )
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS

1. Is the current governance structure, and are existing processes, sufficient to
ensure necessary inclusion and participation? How can we improve?

I do believe the structures and processes are in place. Now, we need to concentrate on
full implementation of these processes. To a large degree the faculty are at fault here,
participatory governance requires participation. For the most part the means are
available, except as noted below, but they are under utilized. This may indicate a
morale problem or perhaps the difficulties of an aging faculty mixed with newcomers
and few members who fall between those extremes.
----------------------------

I believe the structures are appropriate and an improvement from what it has been.

However, improvements for staff participation in the governance processes are very
much affected by lack of support by supervisors and administration. A letter from the
Chancellor doesn’t solve the problem. It may help in some situations but for the most
part there has to be a culture shift that embraces and appreciates the work that every
member on campus does whether they are a faculty, staff or student. I’m not talking
about in the sense of formal recognition but genuine appreciation which is exemplified
with action in also assisting staff in participating and helping staff to find ways that this
might be done.

I’m sure many of you on this Std 4 understand what I’m talking about. It’s like preaching
to the choir, but SSEC is down to 4 people who show up for meetings. Everyone who
makes it there gives up something to be there… we all feel bad that we aren’t doing a
better job. It hurts when comments like minutes need to be posted “immediately or
promptly” (can’t remember what Ron said) as we all understand the necessity for
documentation and transparency, but it’s been difficult for us to even meet let alone
document/post, and get things like ranking the budget items and get feedback from
counterparts (they get invited but no one comes). I know we (SSEC) is working towards
changing how we get members and that will eventually help, but only 2 “real” voted in
members (Preshess and Elton) and 2 “adopted” members (Kyle and Lorri) who attend
most of the meetings. Even as we go through this, I suppose it’s not evident that SSEC
is going through this, but never once have I heard Preshess say that Admin asks or
cares? Where is that? If this is important enough in a genuine way to Admin or the
campus, shouldn’t there be at least some thoughtful conversations about it?

Some of us feel that although it was a milestone to get parity with governance though
the accreditation process in the past, there needs to be more support from
Administration. Like Cynthia said, it’s the same folks trying to do things so until that
changes, it’s almost doomed to fail at some point.

I don’t think that the campus knows how close it is that we (SSEC) may have to close
shop. I’m serious. Survival. In the past, we had issues of finding reps to serve on
committees representing staff on campus-wide committees. Now, we worry if any one
of us leaves SSEC that there will be NO SSEC. Seriously, this is a major, major
concern. Preshess is only one person and is the chair, not sure if Elton would ever take
over, Kyle was chair before and Lorri doesn’t feel she can give it the time it needs. So,
it’s down to whether Elton will take over when Preshess’ term expires or if she steps
down which is a very real problem.

In addition to just “surviving” as a major governance group, SSEC was asked by Ken
about 2 years ago to take over Staff Development Council but this has not formally
happened yet, because SSEC doesn’t want to take full responsibility for professional
development for staff not getting done when it’s clear to us that HR has a major role in
this area. SSEC has voiced and agreed to consider taking the Staff Development
portion of team and morale building side as well as personal development which is more
manageable for a volunteer committee takes on. Taking on Staff Development
Council’s professional development responsibilities when clearly this was a part of HR’s
job is best kept there.

Thus, when SSEC is barely surviving and may be forced to take on HR’s
responsibilities, it is clear this will shift what energy and time is left on things that were
not in the purview or this group. It may appear appropriate but the timing poor to
transition all of what Staff Development Council (SDC) was supposed to do totally under
SSEC. Although it makes “sense” when the hierarchy is analogous to FSEC’s model
(handled expediently by Jerry Cerny & his committee) where FDC is under FSEC, the
concerns by the members of SSEC are very real because the Chief Personnel Officer
(CPO)/HR tasked to oversee SDC is not doing their job. Currently as it stands, the Vice
Chancellor for Admin Services is responsible for SDC as this was an advisory group to
the CPO/HR for them to do professional development.

In short, not overly exaggerating, we’re close to hitting rock bottom. I believe if you
speak individually to each of the four who actively serve /assist on SSEC, we are all
worried about SSEC’s survival.

--- ---
I have not heard complaints regarding the selection process for committees. The COC
voting and appointment procedures seem fair and inclusive.

Regarding non-member participation: A master schedule is distributed with dates and
times of meetings of major committees. Most are announced to the campus a few days
ahead of time. All are open to the campus. However, most are simply not interested.
Very few non-members attend meetings.

-------------
No
Townhall meetings and emails are a good start, but these usually
provide a forum with few specifics and limited ways to add comments.
The posting of powerpoint presentations after the meeting is OK, but
they should go up BEFORE the meeting so interested persons can come
with questions during the presentation. Then there needs to be a way
to add comments, ask questions and get informed replied on the same
website as the powerpoint presentation so all can see and follow the
thread of the conversation. Emails can be used to alert all to
important issues and changes that appear.

We have no real "suggestion box" for anonymous gripes. We have no
blog on the web for collecting comments, questions and replies.

We have few online resources for most of the information we need to
make informed decisions and comments. We cannot see the comments and
ideas of others unless they happen to email everyone. (But then they
get in trouble for email "blasting.")

Each program should have a website to keep their members informed and
provide an avenue for group discussion. (Laulima can fill this role,
but there may be better ways. The college's people need to be trained
to use it and not just told it is available.

----
Input from the Staff Senate Executive Committee is considered for campus decisions
but obtaining representation remains difficult. A chancellor’s memo requested that
internal processes be created to facilitate staff participation on the SSEC.

http://programs.honolulu.hawai.edu/intranet/sites/programs.honolulu.hawaii.edu.intranet
//files/SSEc-memo-staff-participation_1.pdf

However, this memo is largely a symbolic gesture as it provides for no deadlines,
alternatives, or enforcement actions. As a result, there are incentives neither for staff
supervisors to encourage service on the SSEC nor for staff themselves to serve on the
committee. Until these exist, there will be a rather narrow leadership ranger among
staff limited to those willing and able to take on additional workload without
compensation and or those who have supervisors willing to make accommodations.



2. Are the processes in place for making decisions on budgeting and planning
working? How can we improve?

The processes are in place. However, communication is lacking to some degree on the
side of governance bodies. For example, the last posted minutes for the Planning
Council are from November 2011. These need immediate communication in order to
generate relevant discussion and feedback. In addition, as noted above, faculty
engagement in the processes is less than one might hope for. Even timely minutes
often remain unread. That said, it must be noted that we have come a long way,
especially in the development of the procedures and processes for cross campus
communication and input based on assessment rather than "kitchen cabinet" politics,
although such politics do remain an issue.

-------------------------

I think it’s good that many of the supporting pieces of the budgeting and prioritizing
project for the groups are well thought through.

I think that it would be nice if the grid that’s given for the groups are given are sort of
broken in tiers where things that are already happening or really are required to happen
are bunched together and the other personnel ”A” items are placed together and other
“B & C” items together.

Also, perhaps a consideration rather than rank High, Medium, and Low (I know it’s a
simpler way but afford a numerical system where the points for each group are added
together and averaged versus someone having to be pressured to change their score
when all do not have the same score.

The processes are in place. However, communication is lacking to some degree on the
side of governance bodies. For example, the last posted minutes for the Planning
Council are from November 2011. These need immediate communication in order to
generate relevant discussion and feedback. In addition, as noted above, faculty
engagement in the processes is less than one might hope for. Even timely minutes
often remain unread. That said, it must be noted that we have come a long way,
especially in the development of the procedures and processes for cross campus
communication and input based on assessment rather than "kitchen cabinet" politics,
although such politics do remain an issue.

I think it’s good that many of the supporting pieces of the budgeting and prioritizing
project for the groups are well thought through.

I think that it would be nice if the grid that’s given for the groups are given are sort of
broken in tiers where things that are already happening or really are required to happen
are bunched together and the other personnel ”A” items are placed together and other
“B & C” items together.

Also, perhaps a consideration rather than rank High, Medium, and Low (I know it’s a
simpler way but afford a numerical system where the points for each group are added
together and averaged versus someone having to be pressured to change their score
when all do not have the same score.

-------------------

This is the first year that we have insisted that the Program Reviews must justify budget
requests. The Chancellor will not allow an end-of-year grab what you can. Prioritization
is performed by the governance committees FSEC, SSEC, ASUH, and KKW.
Consolidation is then performed by the Planning Council. The PC does not prioritize.
The Chancellor insists that the PC is not a “super” senate.

 Bottom Line: the process is as fair as possible.
-----------------------

As FSEC rep last spring semester I had to vote on over 100
budget items in the last meeting of the year. They were listed in a
spreadsheet with no explanations, reasons, justifications etc.
It was an empty exercise done in less than two hours.

This new policy should be quickly implemented. It has been almost a
year since it was adopted:COLLEGE POLICY HCCP #4.101 April 29, 2011
SUBJECT: Integrated Planning, Resource Allocation, and Assessment

In future, budget items should be listed on a website for the College
community members to see with links to justifications and supporting
materials and to persons to contact for further information. This
should be done weeks ahead of any voting.

The college budget should be similarly transparent for all to see on
the web. After all we are spending the public's (our tax) money.
Shouldn't it be made public?

A website with a spreadsheet for maintenance and repairs needs to be
made public. It should show the buildings and major equipment, when
bought, repaired, repainted and when they are to be replaced or
repainted. In Hawaii the condo associations are required by state law
to have such planning documents for major repairs and to set aside
money ahead of time.

You would think a public institution would be required to do at least
as much with public funds. Instead we make a new list for the
Legislature each year begging for whatever maintenance and repair
money somebody thinks we can dare ask for. How much more powerful to
come with a list of deferred maintenance and show how many years
behind we are in maintaining public property.

Since a major cost is computers and office equipment, a similar
spreadsheet should be public showing the items available, their
location, repair status and expected replacement date and cost.
----------------------

Budgeting and planning are inclusive in the sense that the process seeks participation
from the constituent groups on campus, many of whom offer their prioritization of
funding proposals. However, there doesn’t appear to be guidelines for HOW
committees make that prioritization beyond a popular vote or perhaps to assuage the
most vocal member of a particular committee. Moreover, there does not appear to be
weighting, qualitative or quantitative, for how each committee’s prioritization contributes
to a final tally. In addition, although there are numerous statements about the necessity
of integrating the Annual Reports of Program Data with budgeting decisions, there Is no
clearly defined documentation of HOW this is to take place (i.e. Does an unhealthy
program secure X% or number of dollars for remediation? Are there instances where a
healthy program takes priority for funding, beyond a health or safety issue? Why or why
not?). Administration would need to provide the framework for Committees and the
Planning Council to prioritize among its budgeting choices, but that requires knowing
the college and program objectives, criteria, and consequences up-front, not as we go
along. Program budget requests must explain HOW a particular item contributes to
fulfilling a strategic plan item and the consequences for not securing funding.




3. Are communication mechanisms and practices ensuring the campus
community is sufficiently aware of issues , aware of their opportunities to provide
input, and aware of final decisions and bases for these decisions? How can we
improve?


Other than what I already stated, I compliment all on this campus for the many Townhall
meetings on various subjects held to precisely address this need and all those
committees that do post minutes publicly and currently. Often it is the faculty who fail to
attend these meetings or to find other means of input that pose the problem. I have
addressed some perhaps relevant causes above.

--------------------------

Generally speaking I’m sure people know, but once again the opportunity to leave their
office to participate is not as available to all. It’s not all admin’s fault because we didn’t
try too hard to schedule open meetings are ask Admin for support, but that’s the kind of
thing you need and shouldn’t have to beg for. It should be coming from Admin to push
from their side to encourage the staff or faculty person to seek out meetings/giving input
in this process.

It’s a strain for a small group like us who barely can schedule a meeting to then push
and pound the pavement for participation.
Other than what I already stated, I compliment all on this campus for the many Townhall
meetings on various subjects held to precisely address this need and all those
committees that do post minutes publicly and currently. Often it is the faculty who fail to
attend these meetings or to find other means of input that pose the problem. I have
addressed some perhaps relevant causes above.

Generally speaking I’m sure people know, but once again the opportunity to leave their
office to participate is not as available to all. It’s not all admin’s fault because we didn’t
try too hard to schedule open meetings are ask Admin for support, but that’s the kind of
thing you need and shouldn’t have to beg for. It should be coming from Admin to push
from their side to encourage the staff or faculty person to seek out meetings/giving input
in this process.

It’s a strain for a small group like us who barely can schedule a meeting to then push
and pound the pavement for participation.
------------------------------

Let me repeat what I said above regarding non-member participation: A master
schedule is distributed with dates and times of meetings of major committees. Most are
announced to the campus a few days ahead of time. All are open to the campus.
However, most are simply not interested. Very few non-members attend meetings.

The same can be said of Town Hall meetings. Usually there is poor attendance.

All committee minutes are posted online for all to read.

I think we do everything reasonably possible to promote participation and keep the
campus informed.
------------------------
 The communication of substantive decisions is frequently lacking. Change in
organization and staffing are done quietly and without explanation. For example, a
number of executive appointments were made without the benefit of the competitive
application process, unlike every other position in the college. It seems that these
leadership positions require even greater scrutiny than lower-level ones because they
have greater scope and importance. There are other administrative decisions with
functional consequences (transferring or not filling positions) that do not seek additional
input, do not appear to be well-considered or consistent, and are not announced to the
campus at large. The lack of transparency, whether intentional or accidental, has led to
mistrust and gossip. Administration, even if it invoked its executive privileges to make
decisions without inclusiveness, as a matter of courtesy should probably at least make
announcements accompanied by brief explanations.
4. Is there sufficient assessment taking place of governance bodies and/or
processes? How can we improve?

Good question. I would be interested to hear the answers. I hope the results of this
survey and minutes from this meeting will be posted and this posting communicated to
the campus.
---------------------------

No, definitely not. It would be nice if there were some “canned” questions that we
always use both in faculty and staff surveys of our governance bodies that could include
processes and participation and needs. Once again, for us to make these up takes up a
tremendous amount of time. The staff meetings last summer took many hours to plan,
execute, and review. It affected our office operations considerably because the
workload couldn’t be distributed at some point.

Assessment could be simple and on survey monkey. Maybe someone can come up
with the template (we can try to participate in its development), but an expert like Ross
and some others might know best what it basically could be composed of.

SSEC/SDC did a survey back in May that was shared with you (participants who
participated in a workshop were the main group asked to give feedback).
Evaluation after staff meetings were done also reinforced info.

In regards to the May SSEC/SDC survey, SSEC is keenly aware that staffs who
submitted input to that survey really wants to know the status of what is happening with
their responses. Like Ross mentioned about the budget process, it would be nice to
close the circle on a process like this that happened.

We are aware the for the May SSEC/SSDC survey that a copy was forwarded to Vice
Chancellor of Admin Services and to the Chancellor. We were told that this was shared
with Admin. But, has anything happened after that?
Staff who really gave their input in this survey keeps asking whether any action will be
taken from what was shared.

Will accreditation speak to those comments in that survey? Many of us know the value
of accreditation in addressing areas that need improvement. Thus, in essence, as with
genuine support of staff, actions speaks louder than words and this would validate to
staff that the process, whether it be a survey on workshops and ranking of importance
of prioritizing what is important in the workplace this be reinforce what SSEC/SDC have
been saying as their voice will be heard.

If possible, could you please address as to the status and what will be happening with
those staff survey comments and others? This will mean a lot of many staff.
-------------------------------
The recent faculty/staff survey should be adequate. Be sure the results are widely
distributed.

------------------------

A major issue externally is that there are many important assessment activities such as
the Annual Reports of Program Data and Strategic Plan that are controlled at the
system level to the point where the college loses sovereignty over its own affairs. The
responsibility for self-assessment rests with the programs and college administration,
not from a system office divorced from the reality of the program’s functioning. The
result is the creation of an inflexible apparatus that allows the system office to appear
relevant even as the data measures and program health calls don’t fulfill the needs of
the colleges or programs.



5 Is the current administrative structure and Chancellor’s overseeing of this
structure meeting the needs of the College.

I think the re-organization has addressed some of the problems and both students and
faculty will be better served. I appreciate the continuous inclusive dialogue that has
been engaged in on this issue.

--------------------------

No. I don’t believe that the Chancellor and his team are meeting these needs of the
campus in its entirety. I think we’ve taken strides in improving, but like I mentioned
before, there is lack of support by Admin for SSEC to operate and survive.

Admin deals with crises all the time. As a campus we are not optimally moving towards
prevention/planning. Sadly, we are crisis drive most of the time even if our work and
offices because from top/down this is the case.

Admin invests more with Planning Council and not had reason to think maybe that
SSEC was having major problems. SSEC was created and is a Chancellor’s committee
just as much as CLT was created and is a Vice-Chancellor of Academic Affairs’
committee, and SDC was created and is a Vice Chancellor of Administrative committee.
FSEC being a BOR committee is weighted as such and SSEC is not on par even if our
leadership says SSEC is an equal. It does not feel like we are an equal when in the
reorg process SSEC never got the last draft although it was said we did/were to. In
many cases, this happens likely as an oversight, but no one knows. On the whole, we
tend not wanting to rock the boat in making a big thing of things, but some staff are
intuitive and ask.
----------------------------

One piece of advice for Administrators and everyone else:
    -    Remember to be fair and reasonable in listening to complaints/concerns and
         listen to all sides before making a decision.
    -    Friendly information given to you as an Administrator to act on may be slanted to
         a certain degree. Be fair and research information before passing judgment or
         making a decision.
    -    Communication should be timely, kept open and honest.
    -    Seek help and information from subject matter experts and others in making
         decisions.
    -    Nurture kindness and civility in how you treat everyone. Think first and watch
         what you say and do as you can’t put words back in your mouth after you say it.
    -    Be patient and give benefit to the doubt and don’t prematurely jump to
         conclusions and pre-judge people/outcomes based on past experiences;

Enveloping a culture of Kina`ole that we aren’t reactive and make a rushed decision.
That our actions are balanced, well-thought through and not personal and that we can
be proud of. "Doing the right thing in the right way, at the right time, in the right place,
  to the right person, for the right reason, with the right feeling, the first time."

-------------

 Nothing is perfect, but I think the present personnel are the best we have had.
Primarily because we don’t have that “us against them” attitude. They are cooperative
and listen to campus concerns.

----------------

There has been a disturbing trend over the years for Chancellors to be absentee
landlords from campuses for long periods, presumably to do fundraising and other
publicity-increasing activities. J However, there has never been an evaluation of the
effectiveness of these activities and their ultimate value to the college. The first priority
for the Chancellor is actual governance of the college, to know what’s vitally happening
with programs, to understand the community, and to know the faculty and students. For
too long, excessive amounts of work has been shifted onto the Vice-Chancellors at
HCC, if not every community college in the UHCC system. This has resulted in
overworking these positions and causing issues to fall between the cracks as the big
questions remain unanswered. Leadership begins at home and starting at the top.



6. One issue identified is the need to better ensure continuity and institutional
memory in committees from year to year. Do you have any suggestions on how
we might achieve this?
Better, more precise minutes, more diligent postings and an expectation that new
committee members will be mentored to take leadership roles and assume
responsibility for being informed.

----------------------

 My only comment would be about the problem with continuity and memory in
committees from year to year. It seems that consistently posting comprehensive
minutes would resolve this problem. I know that this is something where efforts to
enforce this have been made over and over again, but if I understand item 6 correctly,
that would be my suggestion. Also, if each committee could track their issues in a
spreadsheet format and then be able provide the status somehow, such as completed
(date), pending (what?), overruled, etc., that would be a good way to recap each year.

Annually have each group review and add milestones that need to be added as an
addendum to charter or bylaws. Nice to have a “historical” portion that would have a
simple format with entries like this

For example:

Milestones (this is not a governance group thing but something like this)


1991               SDC created by Bob Hirata, Director of Administrative Services as
                   advisory to Personnel Officer. Personnel officer assigned to plan and
                   develop a staff development program for civil service and APT employees
                   at HCC and serves as advisor to the group.

1992               Summer Institute for all Staff by Beth Nakamura, Pacific Rim Seminars
                   paid by Director of Admin Services

2003               Staff Advisory Council born

2005               Lorry Suehiro Retires;
                   Eileen Torigoe promoted to Personnel Officer

2006               Eileen Torigoe, Personnel Officer transferred to KCC (11/06)

2007               New Personnel Officer, Sharene Moriwaki (4/07)

Better, more precise minutes, more diligent postings and an expectation that new
committee members will be mentored to take leadership roles and assume
responsibility for being informed.

----------------
Do NOT elect or appoint the same people from year to year to achieve continuity. Major
committees should have term limits to ensure new blood is infused into the committees.
Continuity can be maintained by ensuring new members read past minutes and
pertinent policy documents as well as talk to previous members
 -------------------------

One idea is to stagger the terms of serving members so that at any one time, only a
third of the membership changes. That would require a multi-year commitment for
those who aren’t ex-officio members of a committee, however.


.




________________________________________________
Questions Asked

1. Is the current governance structure, and are existing processes, sufficient to ensure
necessary inclusion and participation? How can we improve?

2. Are the processes in place for making decisions on budgeting and planning
working? How can we improve?

3. Are communication mechanisms and practices ensuring the campus community is
sufficiently aware of issues, aware of their opportunities to provide input, and aware of
final decisions and bases for these decisions? How can we improve?

4. Is there sufficient assessment taking place of governance bodies and/or
processes? How can we improve?

5 Is the current administrative structure and Chancellor’s overseeing of this structure
meeting the needs of the College.

6. One issue identified is the need to better ensure continuity and institutional memory
in committees from year to year. Do you have any suggestions on how we might
achieve this?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:3/19/2013
language:Unknown
pages:17