ACCREDITATION '98

It is the goal of the institution that staff be sufficient in number and diversity to provide effective instruction, student services, support services, and administration. Saddleback College carefully selects its faculty, administrators, and classified staff in order to meet the educational objectives of the institution. Due to fiscal restraints the College is not replacing vacancies as they occur. There are over 30 faculty vacancies and over 20 vacancies in the classified staff as well as several vacancies in administrative staff.

The College has created a process for prioritizing full-time faculty and classified positions in order to support programs and services when critical staffing situations arise or funds become available to support hiring.

There is a perception that staffing levels at Saddleback College are not sufficient to maintain program integrity, student services, support services, learning resources, and administration. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents to the Institutional Effectiveness Survey (IES) felt that the current number of faculty and classified personnel in their divisions is not appropriate to meet the educational goals of students (Ref. 7.1). As an example, the Liberal Arts division experiences a staggering ratio of approximately four part-time to one full-time faculty. The majority of full-time vacancies in all employment groups have not been replaced. The non-replacement of staff has resulted in heavier reliance on fewer full-time employees to carry out day-to-day tasks. Prior to the administrative reorganization imposed by the Board of Trustees in July, 1997, approximately 75 percent of the respondents to the IES agreed that there were a sufficient number of administrators to provide effective instructional and support services (Ref. 7.2). This survey, however, was administered to the College community in May, 1997, and since then, faculty reports to the Academic Senate have documented the negative impact on instructional programs and support services brought about by the administrative reorganization (particularly the removal of Deans and/or the change in their areas of responsibility) and by the reduction in reassigned time for chairs. Nearly 50 percent of respondents did not believe that the College maintains a sufficient number of classified staff overall to provide effective instructional and support services (Ref. 7.3).

The minimum qualifications for faculty are defined by Title V. The application and selection processes are defined by District policy.

The selection criteria for full-time faculty are determined by the division, the appropriate Vice-President and the College President. Job announcements which list the selection criteria are published in standard journals and periodicals and widely advertised. The Board of Trustees has elected to change the effective past practices for hiring senior administrators through the Vice-President level. The new policy allows the Board of Trustees to participate in any level of the hiring process, including making the final decision (Ref. 7.4). Classified job descriptions in existence at the time of the 1991 reclassification study were approved at that time. The job description for any position established since then was written by the division and approved by the appropriate bargaining unit and through the administrative process. Classified job listings are distributed throughout the College and to the public through an established mailing list. Additional advertisements are placed in publications as appropriate. Applicants for all faculty, administrative and classified positions are paper screened, interviewed and selected on the basis of these published criteria.

The College president oversees the implementation of the hiring policy. Each applicant must meet the minimum qualification requirements as established by the Statewide Academic Senate and adopted by the California Community College Board of Governors. The objectives of the hiring policy ensure that the District hires candidates who are fully qualified and competent as judged by their peers and potential supervisors, and that the hiring process is conducted in a consistent and uniform manner.

In accordance with institutional objectives, an affirmative action officer is a member of each hiring committee. Prior to the approval of the official position announcement, the affirmative action officer establishes a goal using data from the State Chancellor's office (as per the District affirmative action plan) for race, ethnic, and gender diversity for the position.

The Office of Human Resources is responsible for the advertisement of all job announcements, however, specialized advertising for faculty positions is many times referred back to the division. Since division budgets are allocated for instructional purposes, adequate advertising does not always occur. Commitment by the Board of Trustees to funding for faculty positions does not come in a timely enough manner to advertise effectively for a satisfactory pool of candidates.

Knowledge of the subject matter is the principal criterion for the selection of faculty and procedures for the selection of all personnel are clearly stated and directly related to institutional objectives. To ensure that the faculty member selected has knowledge of the subject matter, the ability to teach effectively, and the potential to contribute to the mission of the College, applicants undergo a rigorous hiring process. The first step of the hiring process is the screening of the applicant files, during which the candidates are scored and ranked. The departmental hiring committee interviews top candidates, based on those who best meet the criteria and qualifications. The provisional finalists are chosen by the committee and their references checked. The President and Vice-President for Instruction interview the finalists and make the final selection. This complex hiring process helps to ensure that the best candidate is selected for the position.

Responses to the IES indicated that a large percentage of those polled (approximately 63 percent) agree that the hiring process encourages selection of the best qualified individuals for full-time faculty positions (Ref. 7.5). Fifty-seven percent of the respondents held the same opinion for part-time faculty hiring (Ref. 7.6).

A list of full-time faculty and administrators, the degrees they hold, and the names of the granting institutions, is published annually in the Saddleback College Catalog. All degrees are from accredited institutions. Equivalency is established if the degree held is from an institution outside the United States.

This process has historically served the District satisfactorily.

The College has established procedures and criteria regarding evaluation of all staff groups. Faculty are evaluated once every three years. Part-time faculty are evaluated within the first year of employment and once every six semesters thereafter. For each category of staff there is a formal performance evaluation review form which is completed by the appropriate administrator or supervisor, in accordance with respective collective bargaining agreements. There is a student evaluation process that may be utilized by faculty at their option. While recognizing that faculty evaluation is currently a contractual item, the Saddleback College Academic Senate is currently reviewing a peer evaluation process developed and passed by the Academic Senate at Irvine Valley College (IVC). The Vice President for Instruction evaluates division Deans and the President of the College evaluates the Vice President for Instruction and the Vice President for Student Services.

The evaluation process for classified staff is not clearly defined in the collective bargaining agreement. There are no definitive guidelines stated regarding who actually evaluates an employee's performance. In many areas of the College, classified staff are evaluated by a division Dean and not by a direct supervisor. In some instances, evaluations are performed by a faculty member serving as a department chair and forwarded to the division Dean for approval. Evaluations are done on a yearly basis for classified employees beyond their probationary period of employment as directed by past practice.

Faculty evaluation procedures are a contractual item. The District adheres to the provisions of California Education Code 87663 regarding those special districts in which faculty evaluation procedures are collectively bargained. Peer evaluation is an option offered to faculty undergoing evaluation, but it is not required.

Historically, concerns have been expressed that evaluations of part-time faculty and part-time classified staff are not always communicated in a timely or systematic fashion. At this time there is a problem getting evaluations done at all in the absence of chairs and under the guidance of overworked Deans lacking the time and discipline-related expertise to make such evaluations. The current Board concept of 'Deans as generalists' does not allow for the kind of discipline-specific evaluations necessary in measuring both quality of performance and adaptations of current trends in the discipline. Because of these problems, the effort to maintain the quality of part-time faculty may be compromised.

Classified employee evaluations are not guided by contractual terms or by Board Policy. Due to the July, 1997, administrative reorganization, the areas of responsibility for Deans has been greatly expanded, resulting in Deans evaluating employees with whose work they are not familiar.

The evaluation instruments for all employee groups stress effectiveness of performance and encourage personal and institutional improvement. The goal of the faculty evaluation process is to encourage teaching excellence. A similar process is in place for the evaluation of academic division deans. A written summary of administrative effectiveness is developed by the Vice President for Instruction and reviewed by the administrator and the Vice President. A similar process is also used by the Vice President for Student Services to evaluate the administrators who serve under the aegis of Student Services.

The goal of the classified evaluation process is to encourage increased job knowledge, quality and quantity of work, and successful interaction with other employees, students, and the general public.

The instructor evaluation form has not changed significantly over a number of years. Many faculty have expressed a desire that the evaluation form be made more indicative of instructor teaching effectiveness and professional development, however, this is a collective bargaining item.

At the classified level, there are concerns that supervisors do not always integrate the written evaluation into the total supervisory process to make it a tool for employee improvement. Severe reductions in classified staffing levels have resulted in increased workloads for many employees. The evaluation process does not reflect this, particularly in the areas of quality and quantity of work accomplished.

The criteria utilized for the evaluation of faculty (Ref. 7.7) assess not only knowledge of the subject taught, but instructor attitude towards the subject, students, and the College and community. The evaluation provides for administrator comment on commendable techniques and qualities, and takes into account instructor attendance and record keeping.

Faculty concerns relate to the apparent lack of depth in evaluations and to their lack of usefulness as a tool for teaching improvement. This relates directly to the content and structure of the evaluation report form itself. Except for the space allotted for administrator comments, there is no place on the form where an evaluator might address teaching effectiveness, scholarship or participation in institutional service. Concern has been expressed that evaluations of part-time faculty are not always communicated to the employee in a timely or systematic fashion. In addition and more importantly, as noted above, there are problems in getting evaluations done at all appropriate to areas of expertise.

Faculty, classified and administrative personnel are encouraged and provided opportunities to participate in staff development seminars and workshops. Funds provided by the state are made available for professional development. Applications are reviewed by a staff development committee comprised of members of the same employment category. Faculty are also afforded "flex time" to attend professional development activities presented at times other than the designated In-Service weeks at the beginning of each semester.

Staff development committees (administration, classified leadership, faculty, and classified) provide an important mechanism for distribution of staff development funding. There have been some concerns voiced, however, that the distribution of faculty development funds seems inequitable. Both the Faculty and the Classified Staff Development Committees have published guidelines in place which limit the total amount of funding one faculty or staff member may receive within one academic year. Monies allocated in one cycle which go unused are rolled over into the next cycle of funding This makes it difficult to apportion funds evenly for each of the four faculty and ten classified granting cycles. Also, the number of requests for funding changes at different times of the year and this makes precise, equal apportioning of funds nearly impossible to achieve. Some faculty perceive that the criteria for the grant process need to be fine-tuned to reflect relevance to instruction as an important factor in funding.

Approximately 40 percent of all the respondents (faculty, staff, and administrators) to the IES did not have enough knowledge about the availability of staff development funds to take advantage of them (Ref. 7.8).

The Faculty Development Committee and the Classified Staff Development Committee each conduct annual surveys to determine the types of staff development activities desired for the coming year. Requests for funding are reviewed by staff development committees comprised of members of the same employment groups. These committees plan and execute staff development activities. Requests to present programs during In-Service are submitted to the administration for information prior to a formal program being created. All participants are required to submit written evaluations of all funded activities.

The planning and evaluation of staff development programs has been quite successful, with considerable input from all levels of employees. Faculty programs attempt to focus on a theme which is carried through the In-Service week. At the end of the week, all staff receive an evaluation form to fill out and return which assesses the success of the current In-Service week and solicits topic suggestions for the next In-Service program.

A written policy, consistent with Accrediting Commission Policy on Non-Discrimination and diversity and the California Education Code, exists to ensure equity in all employment procedures. An Affirmative Action Plan (Ref. 7.9) has been established and distributed to keep the institution aware of what is needed to meet its staff-diversity goals. An affirmative action officer serves on all District hiring committees.

Several Board Policies (BP 4000, 4000.5, 4001) (Ref. 7.10) regarding employment practices for academic and classified personnel were revised in 1993 and 1994. They conform to appropriate laws addressing staff diversity and provide for a work environment free from prejudice and inequity. The College is vigilant regarding the impact of legislation on employment diversity issues. Written employment policies are designed to ensure fairness in all procedures.

Employment equity assessments and achievement reports are completed on a regular basis.

The goals and timetables for employment equity are not regularly revised. In light of the recent administrative reorganization, these goals and timetables need reevaluation.

The development of personnel policies is part of the shared governance process. Procedures for the selection of all personnel are clearly stated and directly related to institutional objectives. Job descriptions for all staff positions are available in the Office of Human Resources and are adhered to in all selection procedures.

Eighty percent of the respondents to the IES believed that the College's hiring procedures encourage the selection of the best qualified individuals for vacant positions (Ref. 7.11). The recent action of the Board of Trustees to create a new hiring policy for senior administrators, however, has caused some concern about possible favoritism, and casts doubt on whether hiring policies are equitably administered.

Federal and state law, the Education Code, employee agreements and Board policies regulate privacy of information concerning employees.

Provision for confidentiality of personnel records is clearly stated in the Employment Procedures Manual, Administrative Regulations, Administrative Handbook, the Education Code, and the collective bargaining agreements and the District carefully follows those guidelines. The District has constructed a series of electronic firewalls in the District computer information network to protect the security and confidentiality of personnel records. To date, there have been no complaints or grievances filed concerning the accuracy or confidentiality of personnel records.

Back to the Accreditation '98 Home Page