ࡱ> npm'` 8bjbj 4l06hI5K5K5K5K5K5K5$~7h9Xo5&#&#&#o55J,$,$,$&#"I5,$&#I5,$,$y2|3 K_H#R2%4$5H63>;#>;$3>;34{ ,$)!!qo5o5"$ 6&#&#&#&# 8 8  Evaluation of the Instructional Administrative Structures at 鶹ӰƵ The 2008 California Collegiate Brain Trust Final Report noted that assessment of the current organizational structure of the District and each college is necessary for the institution to achieve the goals of becoming more efficient and generating cost-savings. The 鶹ӰƵ Division Chairs concur with this general statement. We firmly believe that regular introspective and frank assessment is an important component for the sustainability of the institution. Chancellor Hendrickson has requested a plan for changing the organizational structure of 鶹ӰƵ, which he identifies as including the Vice Presidents, Deans, Division Chairs, and Department Chairs. According to the Chancellor, the plan should address three goals: Reduce costs and/or improve efficiency (i.e., doing what needs to get done with less staff and lower costs), Increase accountability, and Enhance the Colleges focus on students. This paper uses these three goals to evaluate the current organizational structure and an alternative structure proposed by President Hartley. It also examines these structures in light of the recommendations of the CCBT Report and other relevant documents such as WASC Accreditation Report, the Colleges Shared Decision Making Document, the ACE/District Contract, and Ed Code. This analysis leads to the conclusion the current structure of Instructional Administration at WVCwhich includes a VP of Instruction, three Deans, and faculty who serve as division and department chairshas effective processes in place that address these goals. Moreover, within the past two years, these parties have worked collaboratively to improve processes and practices to further raise efficiency and accountability, while maintaining services to students. At the same time, the Division Chairs recognize that changes can be made to further raise efficiency and accountability while reducing costs, and we are committed to working with faculty, staff and the Administration to develop strategies to this end. The DCs have already begun a review of faculty reassigned time (FTEF) as division/department chairs and program leaders, and several DCs will be participating in the Academic Senates Organizational Review Task Force which will meet on May 28. Cost savings/efficiency For Instructional Administration, WVC uses a hybrid structure that includes a Vice President, three Deans, and Division and Department Chairs. The presence of faculty in this hybrid structure strengthens faculty buy-in for key administrative measures. It also helps the college avoid costly penalties involving the 50% law. Based on figures supplied by the VP of Administrative Services and the VP of Instruction, the combined cost for all WVC Instructional Administrators is approximately $1,194,000 each year. Costs are broken down by category in the chart below: Non-Faculty AdministratorsExpenseVP of Instruction172,797Dean of Instruction146,485Dean of Career Education157,669Dean of Information & Technology Systems154,894Total for non-faculty Administrators631,845 Faculty AdministratorsExpense8 Division Chairs241,86447 Department Chairs320, 189Total for Instructional Administrators562, 053 President Hartley presented the Academic Senate with an alternate structure that would replace the eight Division Chairs with three to five new Deans. If four new Deans were added, the total cost of Instructional Administration would increase to $1,569,000 or moreclearly not a cost-saving measure. It is important to note that the CCBT Report identifies cost savings in the areas of IT and Logistical Services ($455,000 and $500,000-$1M) that dwarf the entire budget for WVC faculty administrators. The Report also notes that Mission College spends significantly more on Instructional Administration than does WVC, a larger college. The Report advises changes to bring Missions structure in line with those of WVC while reducing inefficiencies resulting from a lack of effective communication among the Mission VP, Deans, and PGC. Under the current WVC structure, Division Chairs (DCs) have supported the VP and Deans in coordination of administrative functions as outlined in Appendix D of the ACE Contract (Division Chair Duties and Responsibilities). Working collaboratively and through consensus with department chairs and faculty, the DCs have implemented changes to generate cost-savings and improve efficiency. For example: The Performance Goals Committee (PGC) has implemented a process whereby all classes with enrollment < 20 students are critically reviewed and evaluated each semester. A set of guidelines for class cancellation has been drafted, where the criteria are flexible enough to take into account pedagogical needs and obligations of the college as defined in the Ed Code. During budget crisis years, PGC has revised the guidelines so that sections with < 25 students are critically reviewed. Working cooperatively with the VP of Instruction, the DCs obtained agreements from their respective department chairs to voluntarily raise class enrollment caps. In some cases, the departments voluntarily raised caps beyond the maximum allowed by the Load Book. Under this administrative structurewhich is based on cooperation and shared responsibility by all stakeholders, including faculty and classified staffgreater efficiency has been achieved. Recent reports indicate that WVC surpassed the 12,000 student mark and we have exceeded the 525 WSCH/FTEF target that was set by the District Goals Committee earlier in the year. According to the Chancellors report to the DCC, these efforts have contributed to a $4 million increase in revenue in just one semester. Accountability/effectiveness Under the current instructional administration structure, accountability has been achieved through close and consistent interaction and communication between all parties involved, through the decisions/actions of the Performance Goals Committee (PGC) and through decisions of resource allocation that specifically address performance of departments/divisions. For example: Through the Division Chairs, PGC has worked collaboratively with department chairs to set realistic plans for course offerings that involve strategic analysis of past enrollment trends and at the same time, reflect improvements on past performance. That is, the goals set by the plans are challenging but achievable. Departments that are not meeting their targets are subject to review and questioning by PGC, and as noted in the Contract, in such instances, PGC is able to impose class cancellation and management. Because of the collaboration and direct interaction between the DCs (all of whom serve on PGC) and the department chairs, as well as the Division Chairs being accountable to each other, PGC has seldom had to resort to this extreme measure. Through PGC, FTEF have been reallocated based on WSCH/FTEF targets and actual WSCH/FTEF attained, as well as pedagogical needs and Ed Code obligations. Distribution and ranking of augmentation funds are distributed in accordance with the Program Review process (which is mandated by accreditation) and in light of department performance. Performance and efficiency of departments are also taken into account in the ranking of new faculty hiring by the Division Chair Council. Two specific criteria address this issue in the New Faculty application. Division Chairs undertake supervisory duties to ensure that faculty are accountable to the college and students. Routinely, this includes handling of absence reports and faculty obligations in fulfilling required office hours, for example. Less commonly but more seriously, it involves drafting specific actions for improvement and monitoring progress in cases where an instructors performance falls short of College expectations or violates District policies. Specific accountability measures District WSCH/FTEF Goals. It is noteworthy that this past year, following the release of the CCBT report, the Division Chairs questioned the use of the 525 WSCH/FTEF as the target and suggested that, given the fiscal situation of the District, a higher WSCH/FTEF ratio be used as the target. Despite the suggestion, the target 525 was adopted as the goal for the 2008/09 year (at the direction of the representatives from the District Goals Committee), and as noted above, this goal has been surpassed. WASC Accreditation. The Accreditation team praised the model of shared governance at WVC, and the collegial spirit of the DCC in particular. It is worth noting that WVCs accreditation was fully renewed, even though the period covered included a severe budget crisis and Work To Contract protest against measures instituted by non-faculty administrators. Student Focus While questions remain among the Division Chairs as to the Chancellors definition of this goal, it is nevertheless true that under the current structure, student needs and issues are being met with a high-level of attention and consideration. Department and Division Chairs serve as the first-line and second-line of authority relative to student-faculty concerns/complaints. In most cases, this structure has been able to deal with these kinds of issues satisfactorily (from the perspective of both the student and faculty) without direct engagement of the Dean or VP of Instruction. Thus DCs serve as an effective administrative tier where students are able to voice their concerns and seek resolution of issues. Because department chairs and division chairs are in daily contact with students in learning environments, the college is better able to assure that funds are spent in ways that serve students most effectively. As budget administrators, DCs sign off on department/division budget expenditures. In addition, allocation of certain funds (for example, augmentation funds) are determined with input from Division Chairs who have more detailed understanding of the resource needs of their departments within the context of the needs of the overall college.. Through the Program Review process, departments must think ahead about how to best serve their current students and changing populations. Evaluation of demographics for the Program Review assures that departments pay attention to the needs of underrepresented groups and form plans that address access, retention, and success of special populations. The DCs have worked to ensure that departments and programs understand the broad needs of the diverse student population, and of the changing demands in education in general, and in community colleges, in particular. DCs teach for 50% of their assignment, and thus are in almost daily contact with students and their learning needs. DCs work closely with department chairs in revising curriculum and reviewing SLO progress to meet emerging needs of a rapidly changing and diverse student body. DCs also teach while serving as chairs. As such we are in direct contact with students on a daily basis, and are very aware of student issues. Moreover, as faculty, we are obligated to hold 3.3 office hours each week designated for students. DCs are available to students in a way that Administrators without teaching obligations cannot be. In addiiton, as members of departments DCs are accountable their colleagues, who have additional direct contact with the students. Conclusion This analysis reveals that the current structure at WVC already addresses the goals of cost and effectiveness, accountability, and student focus well. Certainly, the structure can be improved and strengthened, and Division Chairs are prepared to work with faculty, staff and Administration as we seek In addition, there is room for improvement. We suggest targeting specific approaches and areas for improvement. : Cost/effectiveness Reduce number of departments by ___%. It is important to note that this may not reduce the sum of assigned time needed for administering these larger departments. The resulting efficiencies would be in the areas of fewer Program Reviews and more coordinated projects identified in them; more cooperation in the deployment of classroom space; greater sharing of other resources such as computer facilities and smart classrooms. Accountability Student Focus RI,FGSacmu$%9:=JUVAopD&&B'}'(')[)o)*ԶԶ街zzHhՆh)s%hh)scHdhdhdhՆh+Hh5>* h5>*)Ն)Ն)ߪՆ)ݪՆ)ުՆ)ܪՆ)52ۦ- <50RSq , - C RL & FdhEƀܪՆ.gdL & FdhEƀܪՆ.gddhgd $dha$gd8 s t HI:<=UV$dh$Ifa$gdldhgdL & FdhEƀܪՆ.gdnX?$dh$Ifa$gdldh$Ifgdlxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 la$dh$Ifa$gdlqX$dh$Ifa$gdldh$Ifgdlxkd_$$Ifl0tl t0644 laqX$dh$Ifa$gdldh$Ifgdlxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 la8@qX$dh$Ifa$gdldh$Ifgdlxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 la@Afnonnn$dh$Ifa$gdlxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 laopnn$dh$Ifa$gdlxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 laqX$dh$Ifa$gdldh$Ifgdlxkdr$$Ifl0tl t0644 laqX$dh$Ifa$gdldh$Ifgdlxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 lann$dh$Ifa$gdlxkdL$$Ifl0tl t0644 la()DFdhgdxkd$$Ifl0tl t0644 laeYC;;dhgdhdh^hgd)soՆd&^ hdh^hgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgdS !K#]L & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgddhgdK##$eL & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgd$q%A'B'c'e]]dhgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgdc'[)****+e]]]]dhgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgd**///&11114455=55555+6l6u6666666ıxxeO+hhh)scHdhdhdhՆ%hhOycHdhdhdhՆHhՆhOy%hhOycHdhdhdhՆHhՆhOyHhՆhOyhh5%hh)scHdhdhdhՆHhՆh)sHhՆh)s%hh)scHdhdhdhՆHhՆh)sh h5>*+-/eL & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgd/23eL & FdhEƀܪՆgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgd34444666]8MMhdhEƀܪՆ^hgd)s hdh^hgd)s hdh^hgdL & FdhEƀܪՆgd]8^8m8o8p8~88dhgd hdh^hgd)s6^8m8p8~88 h2h+hhh)scHdhdhdhՆ%hh)scHdhdhdhՆ21h:p/ =!"#$% ]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655a]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655a]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655ak$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ ak$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ ay$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ /  ak$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ ak$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ ak$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ ay$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655/ / a@@@ SNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k( 0No List @O@ +H List Paragraph ^m$n@n  Table Grid7:V0_HH@H )s Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ0lRSq,-CstHI: < = U V    8 @ A f n o p ()DFSKqABc[!""""#%'*+,,,,...]0^0m0o0p0~00000000 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000RSq,-CstHI: < = U V    8 @ A f n o p ()DFSKqABc[!""""#%'*+,,,,...]0^0m0o0p0~00000000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000*6805 @oK#$c'+/3]88 !"#$%&'()*+,-./12348T  # AA@0(  B S  ?=Mtb=Mtki=M\%_=M^=Mb=Mlb=M^=MW=M4[Z=Md_=MDa=MTb=M|^=MV=Mw[=M^=M0[>>CJ]]bi  0     BIQQahpp0    8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace `Z""o,w,035>"E"r*t*. .0333333  8 A f FSBc-V...^0~000hSG!)VU%!HML1(b`iRm._ zlUV9{ eh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo( m ^m `OJQJo(=^=`OJQJ^Jo(o  ^ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o }^}`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(p^p`OJQJ^Jo(o @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(P^P`OJQJ^Jo(o  ^ `OJQJo(V9{U%_ zL1hSG!`iR                                                      !,I- <[b)sOy=    8 @ A f o p ^00@@W0@@Unknownlance_shoemaker janis_keaGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qh2ۦ2ۦ2ۦ<C)X<C)Xx24dg0g0 2QHP(?Rj-2The 2008 Community College Brain Trust report noted that assessment of the current organizational structure of the District and Janis Kealance_shoemaker$      Oh+'0(4HT`p     The 2008 Community College Brain Trust report noted that assessment of the current organizational structure of the District and Janis KeaNormallance_shoemaker3Microsoft Office Word@0@H._@,Y_@2_<C)՜.+,0 hp  d West Valley Community CollegeXg0' The 2008 Community College Brain Trust report noted that assessment of the current organizational structure of the District and Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345689:;<=>@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\^_`abcdfghijkloRoot Entry F@E_qData 71Table?b;WordDocument4lSummaryInformation(]DocumentSummaryInformation8eCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q