SWC Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra Resigns

A belated Happy Thanksgiving to everyone as we announce some more good news: Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra has resigned from his position effective today.




Chopra announced his resignation with a global email sent to the SWC campus community:

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:41 PM

College Community,

Effective today, November 30, 2010, I will resign from my position as Superintendent/President.

Until the Board can meet to discuss this matter, the vice presidents will serve as administrators in charge on a rotating basis and will perform day-to-day duties on behalf of the District. Following is the schedule:

· December 1-2 Vice President Suarez

· December 3 Vice President Kerns

· December 6 Vice President Alioto

· December 7-8 Vice President Meadows

It has been an honor to serve the students and community of Southwestern College. I wish you all a happy holiday season and all the best in the future.

Raj K. Chopra, Ph.D.
Superintendent/President
Southwestern College
619.482.6301

Onward!


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead

Award-winning SWC Sun Shut Down

Twenty-six press awards, and what does the college do to the Southwestern College Sun? Cancel the first issue.





As reported in Southwestern Board Must Go!, twenty-six reporters just received San Diego Press Club Excellence in Journalism Awards. The administration has responded . . . well, it hasn't responded. Nothing. No press release. No "way to go." Nada. (And given that faculty union president Andrew MacNeill sent an email informing SWC Superintendent/President Raj Chopra and PR man Chris Bender at 6:40 this morning, there's really no excuse.)

Shortly afterward, The SWC Sun released the statement, "Publishing Crisis Update: Issue #1 Canceled." The statement points out that district PR claims that they were working to quickly resolve the crisis were "misleading or false."

Also revealed in the statement are four areas of concern:

(1) Suspension of the printing of the Sun.

(2) The threatened arrest of Branscomb [faculty adviser to The Sun] and three students who were stopped by campus police for removing a journalism computer from the journalism lab.

(3) The district's plan to remove the Sun's link from the home page of the college's website.

(4) An administrative prohibition of campus employees from talking to Sun journalists without the permission of district spokesperson Christopher Bender.

By now, the first three are still shocking but familiar to most. The fourth is downright flabbergasting.

How many times does the administration and Board of Southwestern College have to be taken to task for First Amendment violations? And how can they be stopped?

Step 1: VOTE IN A NEW BOARD THIS NOVEMBER!

Watch for mailers that should be arriving soon, and please share and display. Let's Save Our Southwestern College!

Feels Like Old Times

It was just one year ago that the Save Our Southwestern College blog got its start. The issues at the time: ham-handed administration, threats to freedom of speech, accreditation headed for the rocks.

My, how things haven't changed.



One of our first posts linked to a News 10 story:
College President Accused Of Targeting School Paper

Sounds familiar, don't it?

Posted the same day was a set of links to coverage from The Sun documenting problems with Raj Chopra's management going back to March of 2009:
If No News Is Good News . . .

After that came a series of posts documenting the efforts of people on the ground--faculty, staff, and students--to get the college back on track. In October 2009, nine documents were posted, including a copy of the Academic Senate's Vote of No Confidence in Raj Chopra and materials explaining the importance of Shared Governance (a key area that the Accrediting Commission later found lacking).

Also posted in October '09 were alternatives to the 25% class cuts, a timeline documenting issues with adversarial leadership, other cost-saving suggestions, and the first Governing Board meeting protest, including transcripts of some of the speeches.

But wait! There's more--much more, and if you care to take a deja vu walk down memory lane, just start back in September 2009 and work your way forward. It's a lot of reading, but a lot has been going on for quite some time.

Southwestern's issues (and this blog) didn't start with the teachers' suspensions. That event merely put both the college and the blog on the map. The people who care, the people who know, the people who work in the midst of mismanagement, greed, ignorance, ineptitude, and spite (to name just a few oughta-be deadly sins) have been trying to spread the word, trying to Save Our Southwestern College.

Will you help them? More importantly, will you help the thousands of students who depend on SWC for their education?

Please visit the sites of the candidates currently running against Board incumbents. Please contribute. (See left sidebar.)

Meanwhile, here's the roll call of press pieces on the most recent free speech mess at SWC:

Sun Under Attack (from the SWC Sun)

Southwestern College Bars Student Paper from Printing (from the Huffington Post)

College Newspaper Threatened by Contract Policy (from SignonSanDiego)

Students Claim Administrators Looking to Shut Down Newspaper (from 10 News)

Southwestern College Halts Publication of Student Newspaper (from The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Student Journalists Say College Trying to Squelch Them (from Inside Higher Education)

Now is the time for change. Es tiempo de cambiar. What will you do to make it happen?

SWC in the News

Yesterday's issue of the San Diego Reader features an article titled "Southwestern College's Proper Snack Bar."


In the article, author Susan Luzzaro highlights several questionable spending decisions made by the SWC Governing Board and Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra.

The article focuses on the continued outsourcing of tasks for which the college already has salaried personnel: communication services, a pension consultant, a snack-bar consultant, and a technology consultant. The cost of these contracts exceeds $235,000.

For more details on this dubious spending, please see the entire article, and be sure to check out comments from the community as well.

Muzzle, Muzzle, Who's Got the Muzzle?

Turns out it's Chris Bender, in charge of SWC Community and Media Relations.

The following is adapted from the “When Will They Ever Learn?” file, SCEA (SWC faculty union) Newsletter:


As we previously reported, Southwestern College’s administration has won a national award from a prestigious institution, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Due to the Chopra administration’s reaction to a peaceful student protest which resulted in the suspension of four faculty members, it was awarded the Jefferson Muzzle. The Jefferson Center created this annual award to call “attention to those who in the past year forgot or disregarded Mr. Jefferson’s admonition that freedom of speech ‘cannot be limited without being lost.’” (http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/).

This award is the latest result of the Chopra administration’s egregious behavior in regards to students and faculty speaking out against wrong-headed decisions and mismanagement, and just as the faculty suspensions before it, this award made national news (see our earlier post for a list of the outlets and articles). Naturally, it was also covered by our own Southwestern Sun, a paper whose work has won awards of the honorable sort, in their April 13-26, 2010 edition. (See "College Administration Named One of Nation's Worst First Amendment Violators")

Chris Bender, PR man for Chopra and the Board, took issue with the article in the Sun, and felt it was appropriate to respond by emailing the student who wrote the article to complain that the administration’s point of view wasn’t presented to their liking. Here are his issues as quoted from the email he sent to the student:

1. When we talked, you indicated this would be a small item. Conversely, it’s the lead item in the paper. If you were changing the story in any way, I believe I should have been informed so I could have decided if the college’s response was appropriate.
2. The college’s response (my quote) is literally the last item in the story, whereas the story is front-loaded with quotes from other people. To me, that is not balanced. We deserve the opportunity to respond and respond early, especially if the story is about a member of the administration. They way this story is set up, no one would even know our view if they didn’t make the jump (and the jump isn’t even on the correct page).
3. You cite VP Alioto when VP Alioto is not even mentioned in the public documents released by the Jefferson foundation: http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2010/#item08. Such a citation is misleading. The last line of the public release clearly states: “Southwestern College’s administration clearly merits a 2010 Jefferson Muzzle.”
   

I’d like a quick response on all of these points.
(Chris Bender, Friday, April 30, 2010 10:31 AM)

Now we could go point by point, and in fact, Sun advisor Max Branscomb, also a winner of honorable awards and the man who should have received the email, did just that, but the email speaks for itself. Even after receiving their Muzzle and being named “one of the nation’s worst First Amendment violators” as the headline from the Sun declares, the Chopra administration continues to attack the First Amendment by attempting to intimidate a student journalist.

It should also be pointed out that in the article in question, Bender refers to the suspension of the four faculty members and the Muzzle award as an “issue” of “public safety.” He goes on to say that “the Jefferson Center has confused protecting free speech with protecting people.” This is a curious assertion for anyone who was actually there at the time of the event, as Bender wasn’t, and even more curious in light of the fact that the Chopra administration has failed to devise an emergency notification system for the campus as required by the Clery Act, federal legislation designed to ensure colleges take steps to protect their people.

Section 68.46(g) of Clery states that SWC must establish, “Procedures to immediately notify the campus community upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat occurring on campus.” To date, the college hasn’t developed such procedures and shows no signs of doing so.

The Chopra administration is willing to harass students and faculty in the name of public safety, but comply with the law? Not so much.

But wait, isn’t there a Freedom of Expression committee working to right all of these wrongs? Sure, and the ACLU has responded to the committee’s proposed policy and procedures with a six-page letter dated May 7, 2010 outlining the Constitutional issues with the new policy that’s being brought to the Board for a first reading at their June meeting. The ACLU’s objections include the fact that the new procedure “unconstitutionally authorizes censorship based on the content of speech,” and that the “Permit provision presents Constitutional problems.”

Furthermore, FIRE has been excluded from the revision process entirely, as noted in a May 12, 2010 letter from the organization: “While FIRE was initially invited to offer input into the drafting process, we were subsequently denied the opportunity to do so.” The letter concludes with the following:

A fundamental condition of teaching and learning in any accredited public institution of higher learning in the United States is that the institution respects basic First Amendment freedoms. For many months now, SWC has proven it does not do so. Not only does SWC maintain an unconstitutional policy, but it has failed to produce a replacement policy that passes constitutional muster.

The SCEA finds it appalling that the Chopra administration, with the blessing of the Board, continues to operate in this manner. Its initial actions resulted in national condemnation, but instead of being humbled and attempting to ameliorate the situation, they continue down the same path. Chris Bender spams our email day in and day out with missives that laud this administration and Board at the same time they try to smother the First Amendment rights of any who would disagree with their wrongheaded decisions through intimidation and arrogant disregard. They hide behind claims of “public safety” while flaunting federal law. They continue to bring shame and dishonor to our college, and they show no signs of stopping.

And the Muzzle Goes to . . . .

The Administration of Southwestern College!

That's right folks, Dr. Chopra & Co. are again making headlines with their receipt of a not-so-coveted 2010 Jefferson Muzzle. The award was granted by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, in part "for promulgating and enforcing a policy limiting even peaceful and non-disruptive protests to a designated 'free speech' patio."

One of ten winners, the SWC Admin has the distinction of being the only community college thus recognized. Way to go, guys!

A sampling of coverage:

Greg Lukianoff for the Huffington Post: Muzzle Tov, Southwestern College and Your "Free Speech Patio"!

William Creeley for FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education): Southwestern College Receives Jefferson "Muzzle" Award for Egregious Censorship

Dissent the Blog: Southwestern College administrative rat bastards get major "muzzle" prize

CBS News: Free Speech Group Gives "Muzzle" Awards

The story has also appeared in USA Today, Fox News, and countless other news outlets, both mainstream and specialized. (Try a Google search of "muzzle award" "Southwestern College" and you'll get over 5,000 results.)

Governing Board Matters

Yes, it does.

First, in case you haven't noticed, tonight the Governing Board is holding (as we speak) yet another "special" "closed" meeting regarding the evaluation of Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra. We've lost count of how many of these meetings have been held so far, but suffice it to say that the faculty's previous evaluation hasn't been a factor.

Meanwhile, speculation rages on the outcome: will Chopra be greeted by a buy-out? or another hefty raise?

Second, the SCEA PAC recently released candidates' statements for the upcoming Board election:

Below are statements written by the candidates in response to the following question: “Imagine that we are telling our faculty about you. Provide a short paragraph that we may use as a sound bite when describing your candidacy.”

Norma Hernandez:
I bring 31 years of community college experience working at various levels, from faculty to management and as a successful CEO at Southwestern College. My focus has always been on student achievement and in working collegially with faculty, staff, administrators, and students to support an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning. I am a firm supporter of the concept of shared governance; have implemented processes that are inclusive in decision making; and practiced transparency and open dialogue with all groups and individuals on campus. I am a problem solver and consensus builder and I care deeply that Southwestern College continue to become a premier institution of higher education for the communities it serves. Throughout the years, I have built strong ties to various community groups and continue to be involved with business and workforce organizations and with grassroots community groups.


Tim Nader:
Tim has previously been elected as Mayor of Chula Vista and was also elected twice to the Chula Vista City Council. Tim is experienced in handling complex issues and large public budgets. As a city official, he explicitly recognized the importance of Southwestern College to the future of the South Bay. Most of Tim's family were professional educators - his dad taught education at Fresno State before moving to Chula Vista, where he was a school teacher for 25 years, his mom was a credentialed teacher who substituted in local schools and his sister was a high school teacher in Riverside County. Tim has a strong sense of the importance of education to individuals and to the community as a whole, the importance of retaining and listening to experienced faculty, and the importance of academic freedom. Tim also has a strong record of understanding the role of elected officials in overseeing the performance of appointed officials and making sure employee and community input is given serious consideration in decision-making. With our support, Tim can be part of a stronger Board that will respect and listen to faculty, and restore the respect of the community.

Mitch Thompson:
I have come to know the faculty of Southwestern. I believe in the goodness, decency, commitment, dedication and wisdom of the faculty of Southwestern. How dare anyone stand in the way of their lifelong mission and purpose to educate others!! I will provide leadership and decision making that all will be proud of. I will stand with the faculty and make change happen so that noble mission can again be fulfilled to its greatest potential. I will bring back democratic principles to the governance of Southwestern College. I will make decisions that are based on full consensus building with faculty being at the center of that effort. The people of Southwestern College will again see a team of people dedicated to excellence in education moving in a common direction for the citizens of the South Bay. We will come out of this dark period of Southwestern's history with a renewed sense of common purpose and a renewed hope that we can achieve the great potential and hope that education has always brought to our community and its prosperity.

Evaluation Still Matters: A Suggestion

As the Governing Board prepares to evaluate Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra, faculty union president Phil López offers the following suggestion in an open letter to the Board and college employees:

From: Philip Lopez

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:30 PM

To: 'Pick Nick Aguilar'; Jorge Dominguez; Jean Roesch; Yolanda Salcido; Terri Valladolid

Cc: Fulltime Academic; Adjunct Faculty; Classified Contract

Subject: S/P evaluation: A suggestion

As part of its responsibility to evaluate the Superintendent/President, the Governing Board is attempting to create an evaluation instrument with goals that are fair, objective and measurable. Here is a suggestion:

GOAL: Every year, the Actual Ending Balance as reported in the CCFS – 311 report should be within 10 percent of the budgeted ending balance for that year.

For example, if the budgeted ending balance for fiscal year 09 – 10 is $8.133 million (which it is), then the Actual Ending Balance reported in the CCFS – 311 report that will be issued in October, 2010 should be no more than $8.946 million.

Of course, my 10 percent suggestion is just that—a suggestion. The Board could choose another number, or it could require that the actual ending balance be “reasonably close” to the projected ending balance.

And that’s precisely the point: During the past three years, the differences between projected ending balances and actual ending balances have NOT been reasonably close. On the contrary, in fiscal year 07 – 08, budget projections were off by 56 percent; in 08 – 09, they were off by 148 percent; and this year (as of 12/31/09), they are off by 86 percent.

Governing Board members believe that this year, SWC is operating on a budget deficit of nearly $6 million; however, it is a virtual certainty that this year will produce a budget surplus. In plain English, we will NOT lose money this year. Instead, we’re going to make money.

The budget drives nearly every decision made at SWC. Relatively accurate budget projections should be required of the Superintendent/President or his designee. Otherwise, we might find that we’re cutting services to our students while we’re putting taxpayer money into an unnecessarily large reserve fund, one that’s nearly three times what is recommended by the Chancellor’s Office. We might find that we’re cutting classes by nearly 20 percent at the same time we’re putting money in the bank.

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what is happening, isn’t it?

The proposal I’m offering to the Governing Board—that budget projections be reasonably close to reality—is absolutely objective and measurable. Furthermore, it is a goal, not a requirement. If the District suffered an unanticipated mid-year budget cut, or if we benefited from a sudden infusion of cash, then, of course, a Superintendent/President should not be held responsible. What this proposal will do is simple: It will ensure that budget-based decisions at SWC are based on a budget that is reasonably accurate.

Philip López
SCEA President

College is on Probation, but President Chopra Flunks

Last week, the Southwestern College Academic Senate gave faculty the opportunity to evaluate Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra.

Here are the results.

Sun Shines on the Voice

SWC Sun reporters Sean Campbell and Lyndsey Winkley guest at The Voice of San Diego!

Their article presents a cogent overview of Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra's behavior and campus conflicts leading up to recent issues with the college's accreditation: Southwestern College Pushed to the Brink by Brutal Power Struggle

Congratulations, Sean and Lyndsey! Thank you, Voice, for finally listening!

Meanwhile, you might be wondering why we haven't posted links to any of the other news pieces out there. So far, we've found a lot of misinformation and sloppy reading of the accreditation report. You can expect a post with links once we've composed a debriefing.

A couple points to keep in mind:

First, the college is in trouble--yes. We here at Save Our Southwestern have been saying this since before the accreditation report came out, before the free speech and faculty suspension disaster. If you'd like to see the documentation, just look back at the original posts made on this blog.

Folks at the college have been saying it (and trying to get the attention of WASC--the accrediting agency) since the Board forced Ron S. Dyste (friend of then-GB member David Agosto) on the college as Vice President of Academic Affairs, leading a popular and collaborative president, Norma Hernandez, to resign.

Most importantly, the college will survive. Administrators and board members come and go, but the heart of SWC will beat on. The real work of the college is done on the ground by the many full- and part-time staff (classified, faculty, and hourly). We're here; the college is here. Please support us and Save Our Southwestern College.

Evaluation Matters: Faculty Respond

Today, faculty leadership responded to the Board's decision to call a special meeting to evaluate Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra without soliciting any input from the campus community.

Both Valerie Goodwin-Colbert, Academic Senate President, and Phil López, SCEA President, addressed Governing Board members in open letters, asking that they reconsider the evaluation's timing and implementation. "It is in the spirit of promoting an environment of transparency, trust and responsibility that I am asking that the evaluation processes are made public" wrote Goodwin-Colbert. López asks, "How can the Board evaluate the Superintendent/President without a clear process for doing so and without input from any constituent group at SWC, whether it is academic administrators, classified managers and directors, classified staff, faculty, or students?"

The text of both letters as well as a survey presented by Goodwin-Colbert appear below.

An Open Letter to the Governing Board Philip Lopez Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:38 PM To: 'picknickaguilar@cox.net'; Jorge Dominguez; Jean Roesch; Yolanda Salcido; Terri Valladolid Cc: Fulltime Academic; Adjunct Faculty An Open Letter to the Governing Board In accordance with Accreditation Standard IV.B.1, Governing Board Policy 2435 states, in part, that “[t]he Governing board shall evaluate the Superintendent/President using an evaluation process developed and jointly agreed to by the Board and the Superintendent/President.” To my best knowledge, no such process exists. This fact raises one simple question: How can the Board evaluate the Superintendent/President without a clear process for doing so and without input from any constituent group at SWC, whether it is academic administrators, classified managers and directors, classified staff, faculty, or students? An equally simple answer to this question is that you cannot. The evaluation of every other District employee requires input from several sources and many individuals. For example, a tenured faculty member is evaluated by a Dean, two peers, and every student in every one of his/her classes. The evaluation process for non-tenured faculty members is even more rigorous. Any evaluation process for the Superintendent/President—arguably the most important District employee—must be open and available to the public. It should also be relatively comprehensive and include input from a wide spectrum of the campus community. The current Board policy was adopted on March 12, 2008. On Thursday, January 28—nearly two years later—the Board is proposing to evaluate the Superintendent/President without a clear process in place and without formal input from anyone on campus or in the community. I urge the Board to delay the evaluation of the Superintendent/President until you have complied with your own Board Policy 2435, especially since the accreditation report from WASC—information that should be important to all of you—will be available soon, maybe as early as next week. Finally, over the past several weeks when I’ve expressed my concerns about the campus climate and faculty morale, I’ve been told not to worry, that things are going to change, that the Board and top administration have a renewed commitment to shared governance. So consider this a litmus test. Surely, a strong commitment to shared governance requires that members of our campus community share our thoughts and concerns with you before you evaluate the Superintendent/President. If Board members value our input, then it should be required as part of process of evaluating the Superintendent/President. If our input is not required and not part of this process, then the message you are sending us is clear: Collegial consultation with all campus stakeholders is neither valuable nor valued, and shared governance is a sham. Philip López SCEA President

Special Governing Board meeting & Academic Senate request Valerie Goodwin Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:56 AM To: Yolanda Salcido; Jean Roesch; Jorge Dominguez; Nick Aguilar [picknickaguilar@cox.net]; Terri Valladolid; Chris DeBauche [howsemewzyk@hotmail.com]; ASO PRESIDENT Attachments: Evaluation (1).doc Date: January 28, 2010 To: Southwestern College Governing Board members From: Valerie Goodwin-Colbert, Academic Senate President In lieu of the Special Governing Board meeting tonight, may I encourage you as guardians of the institutional due process, that an evaluation process, tools and timeline for the evaluation of the Superintendent/President have not been publicly communicated and accessible, before the evaluation is administered or finalized by the Governing Board. In accordance to Southwestern College District Policy 2435 Evaluation of the Superintendent/President, the ‘evaluation process is required to be developed’, and to this date the public have not had prior communication of that process. It is in the spirit of promoting an environment of transparency, trust and responsibility that I am asking that the evaluation processes are made public. Your special meeting tonight should be used to establish the process, including tools and timeline, which will be used over the following month to do an accurate and public process. This is critical in the coming days as we receive the Accreditation status and ACCJC mandates for Southwestern College to maintain Accreditation, with the amount of attention in that report that focuses on trust and building a campus environment to be healthy again. The Academic Senate approved Tuesday an evaluation tool, a very thorough survey, which will be dispersed to all faculty within the next several hours electronically. The survey is one of many evaluation tools that have been used in the past and we are promoting this tool again to give the Governing Board as much input as possible in decisions that would otherwise be considered ‘blind’. The accumulative responses and results will be presented to you as Governing Board members, before the February Governing Board meeting for your review and capability to utilize a broader evaluation of the Superintendent/President’s performance. I have attached the survey tool for your review and how this could be a fair and complete evaluation instrument used not only by faculty but by the campus community as a whole. Thank you for your continued service to Southwestern Community College District. Superintendent/President Evaluation FACULTY REPORT The letter “grades” below reflect the grade points which will be used to complete the evaluation. Please enter the grades points (4-0) only in the boxes next to the questions. Use N/A as needed. A = (Excellent) Greatly Above Expectation, 4 grade points B = (Good) Above Expectation, 3 grade points C = (Average) At Expectation, 2 grade points D = (Poor) Below Expectation, 1 grade point F = (Unsatisfactory) Significantly Below Expectation, 0 grade points N/A = Not Applicable LEADERSHIP Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president inspire faculty to do its professional best? To what extent does the Superintendent/president act in a manner that motivates other administrators to high standards of fairness, enthusiasm, honesty, integrity and accomplishment? To what extent does the Superintendent/president promulgate a vision, including a specific set of goals and priorities that employees are inspired to follow? To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate effectiveness and diplomacy in working with others and in maintaining productive relationships? To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate the ability to make good judgments, rally support, and give appropriate direction when it is called for? To what extent is the Superintendent/president well organized, able to make other managers work as a team and produce quality work? To what extent does the Superintendent/president’s personal style include originality, creativity and a sense of humor? Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the leadership ability of the Superintendent/president? Comments: PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate knowledge of the responsibilities of the position of Superintendent/president and how well does she/he integrate this knowledge into the operation of the district? To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate understanding of local and state finance; and institute sound accounting procedures bthat assure fiscal confidence, integrity and reasonable balances among the competing interests of compensation, capital and maintenance and reserves? To what extent does the Superintendent/president foster reasonable strategic planning that includes program review, local demographics, long-range community needs and incorporates this data in the local district master plan? Comments: COMMUNICATION SKILLS Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president communicate clearly and persuasively in written and oral messages? To what extent is the Superintendent/president an open individual who listens carefully, is respective to others, welcomes new ideas, keeps his/her office door open? To what extent does the Superintendent/president communication effectively with the community at large and build understanding and support for agreed upon district goals and needs? To what extent does the Superintendent/president convey clear ideas of where the district is now and where it is going? Comments: SHARED GOVERNANCE Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate understanding of AB 1725 and honor its mandates? Does this include: Effective hiring policies? Effective peer evaluation for full-time and part-time faculty? Effective tenure evaluation procedure? Effective management evaluation procedures? Satisfactory Faculty Services Areas (FSA) and competency standards, including equivalency? Commitment to achieving 75/25 ratio of full-time to part-time faculty? To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate a commitment to open development of the district budget and policies? Does this include: A voice for both senate and union? Sharing of reliable data? Reasonable cost of living adjustments? Reasonable benefits package? Reasonable faculty support Reasonable deferred maintenance and capital? To what extent has the Superintendent/president fostered a governance structure that promotes collaborative, consensus driven decision making? To what extent does this governance structure allow adequate time and opportunity for all faculty constituencies to provide input prior to decision making? To what extent do the Superintendent/president’s final decisions on major policy issues generally reflect the views of faculty leaders? Comments: COMMITMENT TO INSTRUCTION Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate a commitment to teaching excellence? Does this include: Clean, well kept classrooms? Adequate, up-to-date instructional equipment? Adequate duplicating services for class materials? Reasonable class size? Adequate tutorial support? Adequate counseling support? Adequate instructional support (library, video, etc.)? Cultural pluralism and student diversity? Faculty control of curriculum development? Special recognition for outstanding teaching? Encouragement for innovation? Adequate student grievance policy? Adequate sexual harassment and discrimination policies? To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate a commitment to high Quality, balanced instructional program? Comments: RELATIONSHIP WITH FACULTY AND FACULTY ORGANIZATIONS Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president actively promote unity, cooperation and harmony among senates, collective bargaining units, administration and other employees groups? To what extent does the Superintendent/president support senate and/or collective bargaining activities by granting reasonable reassigned time to carry out duties? To what extent does the Superintendent/president accept the recommendations of the senate in academic and professional matters? To what extent does the Superintendent/president assure that senate leaders and faculty have adequate and convenient access to local governing board trustee meetings? To what extent is the Superintendent/president supportive of Title 5 Regulations? To what extent does the Superintendent/president support the collective bargaining process as a valid tool for resolving employment issues in a fair and equitable manner? To what extent does the Superintendent/president use his/her influence to encourage negotiators to reach agreement on proposals in an efficient, timely manner and non-controversial manner? To what extent does the Superintendent/president require managers to know the collective bargaining contract, honor its provisions and keep abreast of changes? To what extent does the Superintendent/president promote prompt and fair resolution of conflict between administration and employees? To what extent has the Superintendent/president been able to create a high level of morale at Southwestern College? Comments: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Grade Points To what extent does the Superintendent/president actively support and fund campus teaching resources centers and/or similar professional development programs? To what extent does the Superintendent/president support a professional development leave (sabbatical) program at Southwestern College? To what extent does the Superintendent/president actively support faculty-driven flex day programs and activities? Comments: Please use this space for additional comments, as appropriate: