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:

25% Class Cuts, or . . .

Academic Senate Reorganization Input / Suggestions (06/18/09)

With input from the campus community, the following budget and reorganization suggestions were presented by the Academic Senate in Spring and Summer 2009. Highlights, in red, were inserted in June as priorities that have budget implications.

Campus reorganization must be reviewed by all constituents. Several academic programs have been moved multiple times over the last 5 years. Collegial consultation prior to change is required by 10 + 1 agreements. Allow sufficient time for input on reorganization.

Legend: A = Cost Effective; B = Organizational Effectiveness; C = Campus Culture/Climate

Administrative/Institutional		In Agreement – 6/15/09 Memo
	Reduce the number of deans and keep the department chairs (A,B,C) Combine Vice Presidents for Human Resource and Financial/Business (A,B) (estimated savings of $160,000 dollars) Place moratorium on new administration positions (eliminate Instruction, Research) (A,B) (Cost savings of approximately $500,000 to $1 million) Put online and Continuing Education under existing schools (A,B) Eliminate center administrators, one dean over 3 centers, with either a supervisor or director (A,B,C) Establish Research Office (A,B,C) Place Accreditation under Research (A,B) Limit outside contractors/consultants (A,B,C) Replace Keenan & Associates with more cost effective consultant (A,B,C) Academic Senate be relocated under Superintendent/President as per Title 5 (B,C) Improve HR efficiency in hiring, evaluate advertising timelines and locations (A,B,C) Eliminate unnecessary supervisors and directors have one or the other. (A,B,C) Eliminate the $1.7 million in this year’s tentative budget for PT/OL since the college reduced the course offerings in the last two years (A) Concessions money from events need to go into the general fund. (A) Maintain Board reserves at 4% instead of the proposed increase (A)	(Reference: June 15, 2009 Budget Recommendation Memo) Pg. 1, Nos. 9, 19 Pg. 2, Nos. 34, 43, 47
Center
	1. Conduct a Cost analysis of centers and close those at a deficit (A,B,C) 2. Rent center space (A,B,C) 3. Return support staff to CV campus (A) 4. Evaluate FTE by credit and non-credit to centers. Use data to plan and project. (A,C) 5. Reduce number of deans, have one dean to cover all three centers, either one supervisor or director at each, not both (A,B,C)
Schools
	1. Reduce number of schools, consolidate programs on the CV campus (A,B,C) 2. Increase online offerings to maintain a competitive edge (A,B) 3. Obtain outside funding (A) 4. Condensed 4 day work week (A) (last estimated between $1 million to $2 million savings)
Employee Relations
	1. Offer Retirement incentives (A) – our last Golden handshake incentive offered by the district, saved an estimated $2 million at the time 2. VPAA: a) needs to participate more in curriculum and instruction, i.e., CC, APR, SLO (B,C) b) needs to advocate for faculty and academic issues, such as: (B,C) • Support faculty coordinators overseeing academic areas, i.e. tenure review, curriculum committee, and SLOs • Support Faculty leaders in off-campus professional development activities 4. Send out electronic weekly campus bulletin and post on campus website (B,C) 5. Analyze and go paperless wherever possible (A) 6. Increase public information via SWC website and other media outlets (B,C) 7. Improve communication between all constituencies (C) a. Joint communiqués between District and Academic Senate (C) b. Inform and collaborate before decisions are made (C) c. Adopt Google Calendar (C) 8. Value our employees and showcase those who do extraordinary things. (C) a. Solicit cost saving suggestions and reward them, i.e., a $5 Starbucks card, bookstore certificate (C)	Pg. 1, No. 11 Pg. 4, No. 80 Pg. 15, No. 295
Facilities
	Utilize corner lot for portable classrooms (A) Fundraise, i.e., Foundation could sell brick pavers for any construction or remodel (A) Make Technology purchases to keep infrastructure up to par (A,B,C) Re-evaluate technology replacement plan and timelines for faculty and staff (B) Obtain input from faculty for curriculum and instructional use as well as equipment lease agreements (A,B,C) Reduce evening hours in the Cesar Chavez building to two nights per week (A)	Pg. 5, Nos. 115, 116, 118 Pg. 6, No. 125 Pg. 7, Nos. 155, 160 Pg. 8, Nos. 173, 174, 175, 177, 178 Pg. 8, Nos. 182, 187, 197, 198, 199 Pg. 10, Nos. 200, 205 Pg. 12, No. 230

Legend: A = Cost Effective; B = Organizational Effectiveness; C = Campus Culture/Climate