January 19, 2006
Members Present: Dan Alford, Richard Bautista, David Babel, Myrtho Blanchard, Janet Bush, Fran Emory, Marsha Fisher, Barbara Hatheway, Joey Horobetz, Barbara Howard, Zina Jemison, Charles Kellermann, Marjorie Kinnaman, Kim McManus, , Irene Osterman, Bill Shannon, and Ruth Stanton.
Members Absent: Miguel Corrigan, Myles Embrey, and Maria Nieto-Shahsavarian.
1. Call to Order: Fran Emory called the meeting to order at 2 p.m.
2. Approval of the Minutes: The minutes were approved as distributed.
3. Chair’s Report: Fran announced that the faculty subcommittee selected three faculty members as recipients of the President’s Sabbatical award for the academic year 2006-2007. They are
Teresa Blier,
Linda Simmons,
Jenny Sullivan,
Fran will put an announcement in the Intercom and the awardees will be announced at Fall Convocation.
The faculty subcommittee will meet to discuss ways to increase the number of applications.
There was no other report from the faculty subcommittee.
4. Classified Subcommittee: The classified subcommittee met to consider nominations for the Classified Emeritus honor. One person was nominated and the subcommittee agreed that her College service merited the honor. She is Julia Bowden, who retired from the Controller’s Office.
5. Old Business:
A. Hiring Procedures for Teaching Faculty: Fran asked Janet Bush to take the chair so that she, Fran, could participate as a committee member in the discussion. Fran also asked Barbara Howard to present the major aspects of the draft procedure document to organize the discussion. The academic deans had discussed the draft earlier and both Fran and Barbara were very familiar with the document.
On the procedural side, the deans are concerned about the amount of time it will take to process an appointment through this process. They feel that appointments might fail because a dossier cannot be completed and an offer made before the good candidates receive other offers. Sticky issues for them include getting the official transcripts and getting the written letters of recommendation. There are substantial new responsibilities being allocated to HR. They are:
1. Preliminary review of the applications for minimum credentials.
2. Evaluation of the applicant pool for diversity and authorization to proceed with the search.
3. Evaluation of the compositions of search and interview committees.
4. Training of search and interview committees.
5. Review of candidates proposed for interview according to the VCCS 10 and 29.
6. Candidate contact if qualifications exceed pay range.
7. Notice to the dean of cleared candidates.
8. Repeat of steps 5 through 7 if any approved candidate declines an interview.
9. Processing of appointment documents.
10. Sending letters to all applicants who were not interviewed.
Even though we are starting the hiring process early, the division deans fear that slow processing through the campuses and through HR, Affirmative Action, and the President’s Office could result in good candidates withdrawing from the search. HR needs to be adequately staffed to keep up with the workload and all offices need to establish reasonable service levels to make sure the process runs smoothly and expeditiously.
Also on the procedural side, there were a few technical issues. First, the production of three letters of recommendation should be a part of the requirements for application for the position. Putting the acquisition of those letters at the end of the process is likely to result in candidates being unable to put the letters together quickly enough.
Some on the Committee thought that the requirement that a person with no knowledge of the subject matter should not be required to be on the committee.
There was concern about the strict construction of the interview. Often candidates respond to questions in a way that makes other questions appropriate follow-ups. It makes sense in such cases for the interviewers to alter the order of the questions. The PSC would like to see the word “preferably” inserted prior to the words “in the same order,” in the two places this is discussed in the procedure document.
Apparently, it is not unusual as an interview commences for committees to give each candidate a copy of the questions to be asked. Many said that this helps to keep the interview on track and prevents the need for a candidate to ask that the question be restated, especially when the question has a number of parts. All agreed that the questions should not be sent out in advance, but many thought that giving each candidate the questions at the interview improved the process and was not in any way unfair.
Committee members also suggested that the travel support for out-of-town candidates be clarified. They believe that the mileage listed is one-way mileage, but that is not clear. They thought it should be made clearer.
The Committee thought that someone should develop a script
for the division dean to use in contacting selected candidates. All agreed that no offers can be made except
from the President, but all also agreed that the dean should contact the
selected candidate to make sure he or she is still interested in the position
and would consider an offer seriously if offered at the expected salary
rate. This is a tricky business to make
sure no candidate quits his or her job and moves to
On the policy side, many on the committee saw the procedures as being extremely restrictive and bureaucratic. There was not a clear consensus among them that the procedures as proposed will have any effect on the quality of the new faculty appointed at the College. Nevertheless, the committee passed the following resolution:
The Personnel Services Committee supports and accepts the concepts in the document and requests strong consideration of the issues described above prior to the acceptance of the proposal as established procedure.
B. Signing up for Health Benefits: Myrtho Blanchard explained the differences between classified and faculty orientation programs. The faculty have two choices of retirement programs, while the classified have only one. At one new faculty orientation, the HR staff wore buttons intended to remind faculty that they needed to choose their retirement option and needed to make that choice early. A member of the classified staff thought that the buttons had something to do with making a health insurance choice. This staff member neglected to sign up for health benefits in time and this caused a number of problems for both the staff member and the Human Resources staff. These problems have been resolved and the staff member now has health insurance coverage through the College.
C. Other issues: The time being close to 4 p.m. the Committee agreed to postpone discussion on telecommuting policies for teaching faculty (Dan Alford), update on salary studies (Myrtho Blanchard) and the new application for retirement (Fran Emory). These matters will be discussed at the next meeting.
6. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.