Department Chairs Council meeting minutes
Thurs. September 19, 2013
Attendance: Carl Sjovold, Melissa Fellman, Carmen Hirkala, Shawn Weinsheink, Forrest
Newman, Doug Copely, Mike Richardson, Chris Seddon, Mari Carmen Garcia, John Polagruto,
Susan Griffin, Larry Johnson, Jon Zeh, Liam McDaid, Lonnie Larson, Barbara Toupadakis, Debra
Crumpton, Annette Barfield, Kris Janssen, Sharon Terry, Grace Austin, Amy Strimling, Daniel
Styer, Bob Martinelli, Jim Collins, Mary Turner, Monica Souza, Chris Daubert, Marisa AlviarAgnew.
Mike Richardson, Chair of the Physics Dept., presented departmental concerns and questions
regarding the college process of classified hiring.
This was based on an unexpected staffing change last year that resulted in decreased
technology support. Concern was voiced over how these decisions were made elsewhere, as
they greatly influenced their and other departments.
Background on this issue: It took 10 years to get the current level of tech-support that exists in
the Physics Dept. Eventually they got a position that was well-needed and provided solid tech
support. Over the past summer, he discovered that the support staff’s hours were cut in half –
with no warning or explanation. He would like to find out how this sort of event could happen.
Carl invited those in attendance to speak:
Bob Martinelli spoke to the “bigger picture”, why the college had to reduce classified staff. He
shared a planning document that is used along the way. The college has just come out of the
other side of a severe budget crisis. In his opinion, we survived it well but over the past 4-5
years we’ve been getting smaller as a college. He mentioned how Chancellor Harris had been
providing us with best-case/worst-case scenarios of the budget situation. He referenced the
fiscal 2013 budget and indicated that no one area of operations was targeted for reduction to
“solve” the budget problem. Reductions were planned for many decrease options. Once the
budget became adopted by the Board of Trustees, it became a working document. One option
was to reduce classified staff by 18 in fiscal 2012, 32.5 by fiscal 2013 and 62.5 by fiscal 2014
across the district. These decreases were based on attrition, not lay-offs. The allocation for SCC
was for losing 6, 6 and then 8 in 2014. These also incorporated an “average” salary that was
high, so as a result more positions had to be targeted due to their lower salaries. Prop 30
passed allowing movement to Budget Plan Y [from Plan X]. Had Prop 30 failed, things would
have been worse. Our portion ended up being, 6, 2, 11.1 FTE loss. New classified are expected
to be added in 2014-2015, and he advised faculty to make sure that they include new classified
hiring requests in their forthcoming Unit Plans. In order to comply with district mandates, the
vacancies would be managed by college service area. The deliberations to get to these
decisions were always painful. Some positions were placed on “hold” in the fill action. That’s
how we got to where we are – once a vacancy occurred, the position was targeted on the list.
Rationales provided for filling vacancies were requested/required by Departments. This
information is under continued discussion/evaluation but they are taking hard looks at where to
fill vacancies.
Sharon Terry presented her thoughts regarding a disconnect between Jim’s original concern
over shared governance and Bob’s procedure that was used for this decision-making. Sharon
referenced “the hiring rubric” and how she doesn’t understand it – it incorporates “operational
necessity” but questions whether it is included in the decision. Staffing changed because of
reassignments.
Mike responded that it is a mystery as to how operational necessity operates if they are not
consulted.
Monica Sousa spoke of a similar concern in her area.
Forrest Newman in Physics discovered Clara’s cut in position via email he received from her
over the summer = it took the department quite by surprise.
Mike said it seems like when decisions like this come down it does not seem to be a part of
shared governance. The resulting changes can be dealt with BUT when these changes occur
unknowingly and unexpectedly they result in problems. It would be helpful to allow for
planning.
Bob discussed “operational necessity” – included on the questionnaire that was mandated by
the district to look at alternative ways to staff a position [w/a temp. employee, reduced FTE,
reclassification…]. These are all personnel management tools, not evaluating a department’s
evaluation directly. Vacancies are examined for how long they take to be filled. Salary savings
from non-filled positions are accounted for.
Jim Collins spoke about some positions where individuals were working excessive hours without
compensation and he responded by cutting the hours. The department re-engineered how they
operated. Following an analysis of his area, he made the decision to make the staff cut to
Physics as other depts. [chemistry] were worse off. He felt he made the “least worst” decision
he could make. When the position was cut, he trusted the people making those decisions. He
hopes to address this resulting outcome through the unit plan.
Shawn: Spoke of a need for redefining “operational necessity”. He asked: who makes the
decision about how the FTE is best spent?
Mike followed that this can NOT be assessed without first talking to the department and how
the change will affect them. There is a cascade effect from the state finance dept. [whose
members often know little about what happens in the classroom] all the way to the classroom.
The process must include the people who are doing the work in the depts.
Bob: go back and read the strategic planning document? to discover how needs are prioritized,
classified and otherwise. The rank-ordered list goes to the district and a decision is made there.
In the situation they were in they relied upon the collective bargaining agreements. The current
issue of concern was made by management shared-governance.
Shawn: on budget committee action’s rankings in dept/division/college service levels.
Carmen questioned will classified leadership’s ranking of positions, even with holds, be
allowed/encouraged?
Bob: working on a summary, looking back, where new positions came on in the college. A
number of the “hold” positions he mentioned on the list are categorical. Conceivably funding
can be shifted.
Deborah Crumpton: She stated that while she is new to this organization, she did have some
thoughts on the matter. The easiest thing to do when changes need to be made is to default to
a rubric/check list. Shared governance is not a process, rather a cultural way of operating. It
takes the synergy of different groups aligning and coming together to make decisions. In her 6
years, she has not seen shared governance at SCC. Shared governance is dealing with “people
stuff” and come to a meeting of the minds and incorporating values. The road is going to get
more challenging and we should not take the “easy” way out [that is also less informed and
more dangerous]. She would like to hear how to make shared governance a reality.
Sharon: ditto on Deborah, plus she likes courageous decision-making. She would like a process
that is much more inclusive. It is about wanting to make sure you have every piece of data
needed before making a decision.
Susan: What is the timeline of classified hiring?
Bob provided a brief outline of the process.
Carl: wrap up. Encouraged the principals in this conversation to contact one another.