page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5

March 28, 2003

AIC on Administrative Instability

Turnover

Progress Report (April 1, 2003)

1. Summary of the original problem:

The committee on administrative instability has determined the following based

on the findings of the committee reports in 1994 and 2000

. The 1994 report states

8.2 The team recommends that the College and System stabilize the

administrative staff of the College to insure the continuity and effectiveness of

leadership, as well as limiting the disruption to the operating and planning

procedures caused by frequent changes in the administrative staff (8C)

Some members of the committee were worried that the problem might have been

overstated in the 1994 report and, with the instability which occurred in 2000, the

problem may seem worse than it is. Nevertheless, the committee has taken its

task very seriously and has done its best to analyze whatever problems exist.

The 2000 report recommended:

. The team recommends that the college analyze factors that may be

contributing to administrative instability and turnover and develop appropriate

local responses . (Standard 10B .4)

The 2000 report, however, has some validity because several administrative

positions had temporary occupants due to unusual conditions . The provost left

suddenly for reasons not internal to Leeward Community College after holding

her position for one year . The Dean of Instruction became Interim Provost and

the Assistant Dean became an Acting Dean of Instruction . To add to the

impression of administrative instability our Dean of Students accepted a position

on the Manoa campus which meant that a counselor was serving as an Acting

Dean. The assistant dean positions by their very nature are likely to be occupied

for a shorter period of time than other administrative positions due to the

ambitions of those occupants to advance as well as their desires to go back to the

classrooms.

2. Present status of the problem:

Because the University of Hawaii and Leeward Community College are going

through needed changes, it is necessary that even more acting administrators

occupied positions, a problem which should be resolved soon .

The committee believes that administrators are under paid and less prepared than

they should be for the position and they do not receive appropriate feedback on

their performances.

Further, administrators are over worked and are too confined to their offices,

which interferes with keeping in touch with the campus.

Various disparate duties side track them in accomplishing needed tasks.

Necessarily, the composite of these problems, affect the morale of the

administrators.

. Proposal of a solution:

We proposed the following solutions.

That all administrators should be paid a salary equal to or higher than the highest

paid faculty member. However, this is a concept and not a rigid formula to aid in

determining appropriate administrative pay.

As previously indicated in the report, the committee believes the job may be more

attractive if the college offers administrators professional liability insurance.

Problems of inexperience should be addressed . First, internships to faculty and

staff interested in becoming administrators should be provided and secondly, on

the job training for administrators once they have accepted their positions should

be an integral part of the position.

Ongoing evaluations by other administrators and relevant faculty members with

feedback to those being evaluated might add to administrative stability . There is

now an evaluation process, however, administrators don't appear to receive

enough feedback from the process.

Previously the policy was for the Provost to discuss in some small degree with

each administrator his or her evaluations without showing those evaluations to the

administrators . -

The Provost is still treated in a similar manner by the Chancellor and he is not

aware of who his evaluatee group is.

Some pressures relating to working conditions have been minimized for

administrators by the hiring of a grant writer and creating temporary positions for

publications specialist and a person to make catalog changes and help with related

subject matter . Further, a person has been hired as Fund Development Officer .

The President of the University has instituted a recommendation that all

administrators are expected to follow, which requires that they spend at least one

day a week out of their offices

. They may attend meetings, visit various parts of

the campus or catch up on needed work at home among other things.

We further recommend that the college make every effort to send administrators

to conferences which 1) may be a benefit to the college, and 2) may benefit them

individually.

Review by the campus community:

The committee plans to share its recommendations with the campus community

by individual email or by hardcopy if requested

. The nature of the subject, in the

opinion of the committee, does not warrant a campus wide meeting.

Following a visit to Leeward Community College from October 23-26, 2000, the

evaluation team made the following recommendation in its Evaluation Report:

"The team recommends that the college analyze factors that may be

contributing to administrative instability and turnover and develop

appropriate local responses"

(page 7).

This recommendation was a carryover from the 1994 team visit, and this team

was concerned that, since that time, the College had had three provosts in two

years and numerous deans and assistant deans in acting and interim positions.

While the team recognized that there were external factors for this administrative

instability that were beyond the College's control (e

.g., budgetary constraints and

declining enrollments), the team asked that the College focus on analyzing and

modifying the local factors within its control

. A specific suggestion was made to

give administrators constructive feedback of their strengths and weaknesses so

that they could make changes in their areas of weaknesses.

As explained in the College's 10/7/02 Interim Report, the Accreditation

Implementation Committee on Administrative Instability and Turnover studied

this recommendation and felt that the instability at this college reflected a national

and University of Hawaii system trend of administrative turnover

. Nevertheless,

the Committee proposed several solutions it felt could help the College's

administrators : pay increases ; insurance coverage for professional liability;

appropriate on-the-job training and administrative internships

; more meaningful

and helpful evaluations and feedback for professional growth and improvement;

opportunities and funding to attend conferences

; and relief from heavy workloads

and stressful working conditions through additional staff.

Some of these suggestions, especially those requiring additional funds and

system-wide agreements, were not within the College's control

. However, since

the Committee's. suggestions were made, Provost Mark Silliman has tried to

implement two of them

. The first, administrators receiving constructive feedback

on their job performances, was already in progress . All administrators are

evaluated every year.

In recent years, the UH administration sends by e-mail to selected faculty and

administration a form asking for evaluations of administrators . These evaluations

are confidential and those doing-the evaluating simply return them after

completing the evaluation . Previously, provosts were simply giving verbal

comments to administrators . Now, however, Provost Silliman has shown each

administrator the evaluations and has allowed them to keep a copy for their own

use.

Two administrators consider the new process to be an improvement . None of the

others worked as administrators under the old system except that some of them

commented favorably on the present plan . Although the provost has asked for

such feedback for himself, a response has not been forthcoming from the

Chancellor's Office, which evaluates the provosts of all the community colleges.

Leeward administrators are mostly following President Dobelle's suggestion of

spending a day out of their offices . As indicated in the 2000 Report, the AIC

Committee recognizes that morale is an important issue and the effect of

aforementioned concerns are not yet determined because of the short time of their

implementations .

The second suggestion, additional staff to relieve the heavy administrative

workload, has proven much more difficult to implement . Provost Silliman

appointed a committee to determine if the College's programs and services would

be improved if changes in its organizational structure were made, a move strongly

recommended by then-Chancellor Joyce Tsunoda

. After its investigations, the

Reorganization Committee concluded that changes might be beneficial . However,

before going ahead with specific changes at the college level, as had some of the

other community colleges, Provost Silliman decided that it would be better to wait

until the larger reorganization changes proposed by the newly appointed

University of Hawaii System President Evan Dobelle were put into effect.

Under this new UH system reorganization, the Office of the Chancellor for the

Community Colleges is being replaced with the Council of Chancellors, the

Provosts of the community colleges are evolving into Chancellors, and Chief

Academic Officers (CAO) are being created at each community college . The

Provost becomes a Chancellor and, though an actual job description has not yet

been written, the Chancellor will be in charge of budget and external factors . The

degree of his authority over factors on the rest of the campus is yet to be

determined

. The CAO's position will be something like a super Dean over

Student Services, Office of Continuing Education and Training (OCET) plus his

previous duties overseeing the Academic programs and their support services .

•

Therefore, it would put the Dean of Student Services and the Director of OCET

under the CAO along with 3 other officers : two Assistant Deans will be made

Deans, placing them online with the heads of Student Services and OCET (the

position of Assistant Dean of Instruction will be upgraded and titled the Dean of

Arts and Sciences, and the Assistant Dean for Academic Services will also be

upgraded toDean of Academic Services) . A new administrative position, Dean of

Career and Technical Education, will be added on the same line.

Two major administrators will work directly under the Provost/Chancellor:

1) the already existing Director of Administrative Services, and 2) the proposed

Director of Planning, Policy, and Assessment

. They will not be directly under the

CAO but will have the status on campus similar to the Deans and other Director.

Under the present structure, the Dean of Instruction oversees all six of the

College's academic divisions

. Under the proposed structure, the Dean of Arts and

Sciences would be responsible for four divisions, and the Dean of Career and

Technical Education for two

. Such a division of labor should go a long way to

address the evaluation team's recommendation.

It is also hoped that placing student services and OCET functions directly under

the CAO will better coordinate the campus affairs, especially since there is often

overlap between the various services.

The plan was unveiled in January, and there has been great discussion regarding

its merits throughout the campus

. Both the Faculty Senate and the Campus

Council have struggled with trying to understand its positive and negative effects.

Nevertheless, the Faculty Senate passed the reorganization proposal on

Wednesday, March 5

`h,

while the Campus Council approved it on Thursday,

March 6

`h.

Both bodies wanted it understood that constituent faculty and staff be represented

in the development of job descriptions, as well as the selection process for the

new positions and their eventual occupants.

The AIC Committee on Administrative Instability needs to revisit the subject

later, because, with the administrative structure in a state of flux, it is too early to

institutionalize proper evaluative procedures as required by other AIC committee