standard 7- Faculty and Staff

Since the 1995 self-study, the budget process has been the primary mechanism for determining the number of faculty and staff positions at the college. Departments, in consultation with the vice president of academic affairs, have developed the annual fiscal operational plan (described in Standard 9) (7.1) which has included budgeted funds for existing full-time faculty and existing direct classroom support staff. During the years of fiscal restraint the statewide recession caused, the college maintained these amounts at a baseline level. The vice president of academic affairs, in consultation with department chairs, determined hourly faculty allocations (7.2). Historical data on WSCH per FTEF, discipline growth, and overall enrollments were considered in making decisions (7.3). Planning for staffing was ad hoc and reactive, often with the goal of increasing efficiency (increasing WSCH/FTEF) as the primary deciding factor. Despite the fact that new sections of classes taught by hourly faculty were the primary means for the college to grow, the basic budget allocation to the college from the district often limited the number of sections. At times, the college scheduled and staffed sections without funds in the budget to cover them. For a while, the district considered the college to be in debt to the district for these expenditures.

As a result, the administration, for the most part, had to disregard requests for additional full-time faculty during the recession. However, the college hired a few replacements for retired faculty from time to time in high WSCH disciplines. Despite the Title 5 (7.4) mandate that colleges must show progress toward achieving a ratio of 75 percent full-time faculty to 25 percent part-time, the percentage of full-time faculty remained between 45 and 55 percent between 1994 and 1998.

However, in the last two years, the new district policy on decentralization and the change in the allocation formula (7.5), accompanied by increased state revenues, have improved circumstances. Some hiring that has made progress toward 75/25 has recently occurred.

The college hired five full-time faculty members in 1999, mostly in disciplines that had requested new faculty for several years and were on a waiting list.

During the period of limited resources, classified hires experienced the same limitations. The college hired few replacement staff in any offices or support services and, as a result, many offices remained understaffed. Again, the college has made progress in restoring trades, custodial, and clerical staff to normal operational levels only in the last two years (see Standard 8).

The established process for deciding which disciplines could hire new faculty, assuming funds were available, has been that the Academic Senate Faculty Hiring Committee, which consists of full-time faculty from various disciplines, has solicited requests for new positions from all disciplines. Then the policy states that it is to review, evaluate, and prioritize the requests, taking into consideration a number of factors, including FTES, replacement of retirees, graduation rates, retention rates, growth rates, and program development goals (7.6). After the committee uses these criteria to produce a prioritized list of positions to be filled, the Academic Senate Executive Board is to review the list and submit it to the entire Academic Senate for a vote of confirmation. Then the Academic Senate president and the chair of the Hiring Committee negotiate with senior staff the final decision on which positions to fill.

The Instructional Measures System (IMS) provides data for decision-making. The IMS is a computer-based system that provides administrators, department heads, and interested members of the college community with current information concerning enrollments and instructional staffing. The system provides measures of full-time equivalent students (FTES) and full-time equivalent instructional faculty (FTEF), as well as other data.

The process for determining which office can hire classified staff has been primarily an ad hoc negotiation between various supervisors, faculty, and administration. After interested offices have submitted hiring requests, budget allocations and the needs of various programs and operations govern hiring decisions. Negotiations in the Budget Committee, with the senior staff making the final decision, have determined the allocation of specific positions.

The district adheres to the minimum qualifications for faculty hiring as the state Education Code mandates. In addition, Article 19 in the Agreement Between the Los Angeles Community College District and the American Federation of Teachers College Guild Local 1521 (7.7) provides peer evaluation to ensure the quality of faculty.

Since the college has only recently revised its mission statement and established measurable goals (see Standard 3), criteria, qualifications, and procedures for selecting all personnel have been related to the college mission statement and goals only in a general way. Strategies that tie measurable outcomes to the new goals have been developed, however, so personnel objectives are now to be directly related to the college's mission (7.8). In broader terms, the Board of Trustees Rules (Chapter 10 Article III.) describe district selection policies and procedures (7.9), and the Education Code mandates the minimum qualifications for faculty (7.10). Copies of the Board Rules, the minimum qualifications, and local hiring policies and procedures as established by the Academic Senate are available in the Office of Academic Affairs and are a matter of public record.

While in the past district advertising has been generic and designed primarily to increase the various pools of candidates, recently the district has begun to publicize discipline-specific new position announcements in various journals, newspapers, Websites, and other venues normally available to potential candidates. They contain the minimum qualifications and any other desirable qualifications the college adds (7.11). Applicants for faculty positions must first submit their applications to the district personal office. The personnel office then screens applicants to verify compliance with minimum qualifications, solicits references, and verifies transcripts (7.12). After that, it places qualified applicants in a district hiring pool by discipline. The hiring committee for each discipline at the college then screens the pool for potential candidates, contacts the candidates, and schedules and conducts the interviews. Finally, the committee forwards a minimum of two successful candidates' names to the college president. If the president selects one of the two, the college submits the candidate to the district for review and for authorization to hire.

The district Personnel Commission (7.13) determines the criteria and qualifications for selecting staff. Some of the staff hiring procedures are available on the district’s Website.

According to the district self-study (7.14), "The Board of Trustees . . . has primary personnel related responsibilities involving the chancellor, vice chancellors, college presidents, and general counsel. These responsibilities extend to hiring and evaluations. Except for the chancellor, the Board shares hiring and evaluation responsibilities with the chancellor for these administrative level positions (as of which are contractual positions)." The self-evaluation from the same study states that "the hiring of the chancellor, vice chancellors, college presidents, and general counsel are basically subject to the same personnel selection and hiring process.

These generally involve the hiring of an outside consultant to assist in conducting a national search. Selection committees are established with representation from various internal and external constituencies."

The college hires campus administrators in a procedure that district regulations determine (7.15). The president in consultation with senior staff and the Academic Senate has determined the number of administrators.

Knowledge of subject matter is an essential ingredient in selecting faculty. To ensure this, the State Academic Senate has determined the criteria for selecting faculty, including the minimum qualifications in the discipline, in a conscientious and lengthy process. However, individual campus hiring committees may attach desirable qualifications beyond the minimum. As a result, many committees include in-depth knowledge in a specific subject area or college teaching experience as additional criteria. In addition, the interview process itself often includes a teaching demonstration.

A discipline initially hires a full-time faculty member as a probationary employee for a minimum of three years and a maximum of five years. While on probationary status, a peer evaluation committee and students evaluate the instructor’s teaching effectiveness every semester in a formal process contained in the Agreement (7.16). Part-time faculty members are subject to the same hiring and evaluation procedures with a slightly different timetable and evaluation committee makeup.

According to Article 13.D.8.C of the Agreement, full-time faculty members must perform a minimum of ten hours per week of committee and campus activity work. The Hiring Committee communicates this policy to candidates during the interviewing process, and the evaluation process implies sanctions for failing to follow it.

The Catalog (7.17) lists all faculty and administrators and their degrees. The district is responsible for assuring that accredited institutions actually granted these degrees.

The college's new mission statement clearly states that educating people is the institution's primary charge. The seven new college goals support the mission, in turn, by emphasizing various means by which the college can accomplish this mandate. All of them specify interaction with people for their educational benefit in a variety of ways.

Because the business of the institution is people, it requires people to accomplish it. In substantiation of this, statewide community college personnel costs, as reflected in costs report annually to state Chancellor's office, take up 80 percent of community college budgets. Recently Mission College has spent 92 percent of its budget on personnel (7.18).

The challenge for the college is to devise the criteria that determine the proportion of the personnel budget to be spent on full-time faculty. As a guideline, the Chancellor's Office Report on Staffing and Salaries indicates that for every full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF), approximately 2.6 classified staff and administrators are budgeted statewide. Moreover, state law (1.19) mandates that the college must spend at least 50 percent of unrestricted funding on direct instructional costs (exclusive of library and counseling staff). A recent district budget document indicates that the college complies with the 50 percent rule (7.20). The college presently has 1.33 staff and administrators for each FTEF (7.21), indicating the college is not at the state average in overall staffing.

Another factor that affects the share of the budget that the college ought to spend on faculty is the Title 5 requirement that districts must make progress toward the 75 percent/25 percent full-time/part-time ratio. In fact, the regulation has recently been updated to state the following:

Furthermore, in reporting on the compensation of part-time teaching faculty, the Bureau of State Audits published in the California State Auditor Report on California Community Colleges (CCC) in June of 2000 that current Chancellor's Office standards stress the importance of maintaining a balance between part-time and full-time faculty to ensure the quality of a CCC education. It goes on to state that the need for this (75 percent/25 percent) balance arises because full-time faculty must provide services in addition to teaching, such as committee work, curriculum development, and program continuity, that the Chancellor's Office considers important.

It should be noted that in order to make progress toward 75 percent/25 percent, growth must be staffed at that ratio or the college will fall further behind. Because it costs more to hire full-time faculty, the college needs an additional incentive to put more emphasis on the category of faculty, and particularly full-time faculty, in planning and budgeting for growth.

As the chart above indicates, despite the district's substantial compliance with Title 5 (7.22), the college has been woefully short of full-time permanent faculty for many years. The impact on programs, committees, and governance has been decidedly negative.

However, the college plans to hire five new tenure-track faculty members for the spring 2000 semester. Together with the 1999 hires, this indicates a desire to make progress toward the 75 percent / 25 percent goal at the college. With a new permanent president who has stated that making significant progress in the next three years is an administrative goal, the college needs to plan aggressively for budget allocations for new hires and for the burden extensive hiring places on current permanent faculty during the tenure evaluation period.

When planning for adding full-time faculty, the college needs to carefully determine where the greatest need for new faculty lies. For example, incoming student assessment scores indicate that the new incoming students increasingly lack basic skills. This would indicate a need for more faculty to serve in this area. As the college implements the new assessment and planning process, specific disciplines will be able to create measurable objectives with associated performance indicators that rationally support the need for new faculty and tie them to the college mission and goals.

The college is growing and increasing its use of automation and technology. This creates a need for more technologically trained support staff. In compliance with the Agreement between the Los Angeles Community College District and the AFT Staff Guild Local 1521 (7.23), a fund reimburses clerical/technical unit employees for tuition for any job-related courses taken. The Staff Guild Agreement states that "Employees whose job duties require changes and/or advancement in level of skill due to the implementation of changes in technology shall be trained in accordance with Article 8, Work Environment." Supervisors must support their staff in applying for these.

Fall Semester	Mission College
	Regular	Hourly	Reg Status Classified	Full-Time Equivalent Students
1995	47.5	68.8	108	3,484.1
1996	52.8	76.4	103	3,629.6
1997	53.0	64.5	105	4,347.8
1998	54.6	60.2	100	5,532.3
1999	55.6	79.3	107	5,709.4
2000	NA	NA	121	NA

During the period of declining revenues, the number of regular status classified staff declined. By 2000, both classified and faculty hiring has improved. A factor important to determining where the college needs to hire classified staff is the college's plan for changing hours of operation, such as compressed schedules, weekend classes, and PACE. The ratio of staff to FTES at the college is about equal to the district as a whole. This means that the college is staffed adequately in numbers while certain offices and programs are experiencing shortages. This indicates a possible need for re-allocation of present staff and retraining. The new assessment and planning process will allow offices and programs to create a plan to allocate classified staff in keeping with the college goals. The responsibility for making this plan lies with individual offices. These offices will have to be trained in the new planning process in order to plan for and obtain adequate staffing including reallocation and retraining of present staff where indicated.

Assuming the college will embark on an ambitious hiring plan, the faculty hiring policy becomes a critical factor in making progress in an effective manner. An examination of the minutes of the Hiring Committee and memos (7.23) issued over the last several years reveals a lack of strict correspondence with the approved hiring procedure. The procedure, if followed carefully, is very thorough and provides a fair and empirically supported means of decision-making. The current committee and its new chair have recently re-examined the policy, re-issued guidelines, and have stated that they intend to strictly adhere to the policy. As the college implements the assessment and planning process, the hiring committee's policies and procedures must make use of measurable outcomes in its planning.

Article 19 of the Agreement, last revised in 1999, mandates the regular and systematic evaluation of faculty. According to the contract, faculty evaluation, when performed conscientiously, can enhance faculty performance and promote excellence by providing positive reinforcement, constructive advice, and specific recommendations for improvement. The policy states that the evaluation of regular faculty members, which occurs every two years, must include knowledge of subject areas, effectiveness, performance of responsibilities, and recent professional growth. Article 13.D.8.C. of the Agreement further states that all faculty must be involved in college activities, such as the evaluation of students' performance, curriculum development, sponsorship of co-curricular groups, college or district committee work, faculty meetings, or in service training or staff development. In 1996, the Academic Senate formally adopted a resolution that all faculty members must teach to the course outline of record. This resolution is thus a component of "performance of responsibilities" and is subject to evaluation.

The faculty evaluation process involves both peers and students. The peer evaluation committee observes the instructor's performance (7.26) and considers the completed Student Evaluation Forms (7.27). The Agreement also includes a provision for an additional administrative evaluation in Article 19 H 7 c. Although the evaluation identifies strengths as well as weaknesses, the Performance Report indicates specific areas for improvement should an instructor need to develop skills in one or more categories. The follow-up process to help the instructor improve may include class visitations, use of media for self-evaluation, a review of literature, and the arrangement for an updating of background knowledge.

Each of the seven classified staff collective bargaining agreements (7.28) addresses the procedure for evaluating specific employee groups. Personnel Commission Rule 702 authorizes evaluations and states that all classified employees shall be "evaluated on the basis of merit and fitness and shall assure the efficiency of the classified service." Evaluations of all classified staff occur yearly in a process the Personnel Commission controls. Evaluators submit recommendations for improvement to the Personnel Commission and the college Personnel Office. They can also submit an additional report on outstanding performance of duties.

The chancellor is the Board designee for evaluation of district administration and college presidents. According to Standard 7 of the district self-study, "The evaluation results are shared with the Board. A new process has been instituted whereby an outside consultant is brought in to conduct personal interviews to ascertain goals and objectives and interviews with campus and LACCD constituency groups' performance perceptions of these administrators."

In theory, the faculty evaluation procedure seeks to enhance performance and promote excellence. Among all faculty and staff, only 40 percent agree that teaching effectiveness is the principal criterion for selection and retention of faculty. (Among regular faculty, the corresponding percentage is only 34 percent). While this result can be a reflection of the operation of a tenure-based system (and strong union environment), it may also reflect insufficient weight given to teaching effectiveness in the formal evaluation process.

Overall, 66 percent of all faculty and staff regard the performance evaluation process as a serious attempt to evaluate job performance [FSS, #18]. Regular and hourly faculty display the highest extent of agreement (67 percent and 72 percent, respectively) while that of classified staff is slightly lower (63 percent). These positive perceptions are somewhat at odds with the actual operation of the evaluation process. Considering full-time faculty, the effectiveness of the process to evaluate knowledge in the field is questionable. With many small disciplines within departments, including disciplines with one full-time or only part-time faculty members (see Standard 10), the peer evaluator may not be from the same subject area as the person evaluated. Also, in the case of small departments and one-person disciplines at the college, faculty members become closely associated with one another. As a result, peer evaluators may be reluctant to criticize or suggest improvements to colleagues, leading some to question the effectiveness of the process. In addition, in recognition of time constraints that are the result of heavy teaching loads, peer evaluators may put little emphasis on critically evaluating professional growth, even though 87 percent of faculty agree that currency in the field should be part of the evaluation process [FSS, #30]. Evidence exists that participation in institutional service may also not be adequately evaluated. For example, an examination of committee membership reveals that participation on college committees is not spread equally among all faculty members. However, in defense of the evaluation process, the student satisfaction survey indicates that 84 percent of students are pleased with the quality of teaching at the college [SS, #24].

There are also questions concerning the effectiveness of the evaluation process for classified employees. Classified staff evaluations may not be uniformly accomplished in a timely manner. For example, about 40 percent of classified staff indicate that their performance reviews are not conducted at required intervals [FSS #78]. Moreover, only 34 percent of classified employees agree that follow-up since their last performance review is adequate [FSS #19]. Despite these problems associated with the formal evaluation process, 60 percent of classified staff maintain that they are given positive informal feedback about their job performance, when warranted [FSS #75], indicating a relatively good informal process.

In order to ensure the effectiveness of administration at the college, the procedure established in the administrator's contract for evaluation must be adhered to and where a need for improvement is indicated, staff development must be provided.

To meet the college goal of managing human resources in order to effectively "enrich and expand educational programs," the college has a staff development program in place designed for the professional growth of faculty and classified staff. The program provides faculty with opportunities for the improvement of teaching skills through campus and district workshops (7.29). Opportunities for both faculty and staff include support for conference attendance and on-campus forums and workshops.

Title 5 (7.30) mandates that a portion of the academic year is designated as time for instructional improvement activities in lieu of teaching. The intention of these activities is to improve instructional abilities and broaden the faculty's professional background. The Agreement governs the days that are set aside. The instructional improvement coordinator, a faculty position, oversees instructional improvement activities and faculty compliance. The college Website includes a list of instructional improvement guidelines and a list of activities that the Staff Development Committee sponsors at the college and at other institutions (7.31).

Article 5 of the Education Code provides for the creation and funding of a staff development fund. The district allocates the staff development funds to the college, and the Staff Development Committee, which includes representatives of administration, faculty, and staff, disburses them. The committee members have attended staff development conferences, and they develop, organize, and promote all staff development activities throughout the college year. In order to assess needs at the campus, the committee has conducted a survey to assist with its planning (7.32).

All permanent employees at Mission College can apply for $250 per year from staff development funds for conference attendance. Additionally, faculty may apply for $200 from the Academic Senate (7.33). The college budget for staff development for 1999-2000 was $16,500. These funds are usually used for conference attendance. In addition to the staff development program, the Agreement also provides for 50 percent tuition reimbursement for faculty (7.34). The Academic Senate, the Office of Academic Affairs, and Administrative Services process and approve faculty conference attendance applications and requests for staff development funds. Classified staff have a similar policy, and the Staff Development Committee processes classified applications.

A series of faculty-led forums on such topics as the "Implications of Science on Religion and Philosophy," "Sexual Issues in the Classroom," and "Ethics and Integrity in the Classroom", widely attended by faculty and staff, are examples of current staff development workshops (7.35). Also, the Staff Development Committee sponsors an orientation at the start of the semester for new and returning faculty. The committee coordinates with the Faculty User Group to help establish a liaison between the faculty and Computer Systems Services, the technology support staff, including developing training for the planned installation of a new district e-mail system.

The Staff Development Committee plans to include activities related to the new assessment and planning process because faculty, administration, and staff will need assistance with writing measurable objectives and attaching performance indicators. One workshop has already been conducted (November 14, 2000).

The committee is further coordinating with the Technology Mediated Instruction Committee to train faculty in online education and in using online materials for the classroom (7.36). These two committees are also assisting in the development of a technology plan and in training on the new technology (See Standard 6). In addition, through the current Title III grant (7.37), the Staff Development Committee assists faculty members with developing Websites, creating interactive CD ROM's for the classroom, and designing other supplementary online materials for their courses. A campus e-journal, El Timbre (7.38), disseminates campus news and events, resources on the Internet, creative contributions from faculty, and other related information.

Although 64 percent of all faculty and staff agree that the college provides them with adequate opportunities to update their knowledge and skills, the extent of agreement among employee groups varies [FSS #20]. Regular and hourly faculty members have the highest extent of agreement (67 percent and 74 percent, respectively). Among classified staff, however, agreement is substantially lower (56 percent), which may indicate that the college is not adequately serving this group.

A problem regarding the process for conference attendance approval is that recently the Office of Academic Affairs has denied some applications for conference attendance too late in the process for plans to be cancelled. The Academic Senate and the administration need to evaluate and revise the process for approval and criteria, and all parties must adhere to the established policy.

According to the district self-study, Board Rule 10301 (7.39) prohibits any consideration other than fitness for the work as a ground for selection, assignment, promotion, or transfer of faculty.

Title 5 governs the district hiring policies, as listed in the Board Rules (7.40) and the district Personnel Guide (7.41), as they relate to equity goals for hiring faculty and classified staff. The district’s affirmative action program director develops, implements, and updates the Title 5 (Section 53003) (7.41) mandated district faculty and staff diversity plan. The director monitors the selection process and implement plans to remedy any under-representation identified in the diversity plan, and the college’s compliance officer monitors the process on campus.

The Personnel Commission is the authority for fairness in classified hiring. The commission follows state laws, equal opportunity rules, personnel guidelines, and civil service guides for California. The district employs the merit system (7.42) in hiring and promotion. Periodic review and revision occurs at the district level.

Article 16 of the Agreement (7.43) ensures fairness in the hiring of hourly faculty through a system of seniority. A reverse seniority system governs summer session employment in a similar fashion as Article 15 indicates (7.44).

A goal of the college states, "the college environment…will be diversified." Board Rule 1202 contains the district Non-Discrimination Policy, and Board Rule 101301 contains the Affirmative Action Policy (7.45), which was last amended in 1990. It states that "a vigorous affirmative action program will ensure appropriate utilization of certain protected groups in specific areas and levels within the district work force through the implementation of specific result-oriented procedures and activities (7.46)."

Seven collective bargaining agreements, many Board Rules, personnel guides, and the rules of the Personnel Commission determine personnel policies and procedures. These have various histories, many originating with the Los Angeles Unified School District from which the LACCD separated in 1968 and have evolved "organically" over time. The various bargaining agreements sanction equitable administration of policies and contain grievance procedures as a means of redress in instances when employees violate procedures or rules. All policies are available in the Office of Administrative Services and the Office of Academic Affairs (7.47).

The district office and the college store personnel files for both faculty and staff. At the college, Academic Affairs keeps all pertinent information about faculty in the faculty personnel files. The college Personnel Office holds the classified files containing all staff evaluations. Title 5 regulates and the Personnel Commission Rules outline the process for obtaining permission to review personnel files. Each bargaining unit contract outlines the items contained in each file and how long they are to remain in the file. Personnel files may contain letters of acknowledgement and commendation as well as those of a derogatory nature. The personnel office at the college forwards copies of letters to the district office. All personal files are strictly confidential.

The Personnel Commission Rules contain procedures for creating new classified staff job categories (7.48). Interviews with program managers and office supervisors who have experienced the process of creating new classified positions describe this process as cumbersome and unresponsive to program and college needs and requirements. In at least one instance at the college, a classified employee was reclassified to a position that did not include all duties, possibly for budgetary reasons. In this case, the employee was told to stop the extra activities. Also, the commission has not been reclassifying staff positions quickly enough to accommodate the changing conditions at the college. When reclassification does take place, it is based on conventional criteria. These criteria do not always reflect technologically based job content, which may substantially increase the level of responsibility in the new position and require application of additional critical thinking skills to administrative duties. To reflect the needs of the college, new and reclassified positions must accurately reflect the responsibilities of the employee. For current open positions, the district must offer tests frequently enough to create sufficient lists of prospective candidates. To decrease turnover in classified staff, a career ladder should be available so that when employees attain degrees or advanced training, advancement opportunity is clear.

In response to numerous district-wide complaints from classified employees, their supervisors, and program managers, the Board of Trustees in the fall of 2000 began to analyze the effectiveness of the Personnel Commission.

The commission had not met publicly with the Board for over twenty years. Therefore, under the Board's leadership, classified staff representatives and the Personnel Commission held a joint public discussion of issues in September 2000. At the meeting, the commission agreed to hire a consultant to investigate perceived problem areas and to coordinate the dialogue between classified staff and the commission. The primary issue that the consultant will investigate is a commitment to change promotion procedures to facilitate lateral movement and upward mobility for employees. Both classified staff and management are interested in eliminating the Personnel Commission and the merit system while maintaining a policy of fairness in hiring.

According to the district self-study, the Affirmative Action Plan has been effective in hiring very diverse faculty and staff members and is being evaluated as a statewide model (7.49). Generally, the plan as it has been implemented District-wide, provides a diverse pool of applicants for faculty and staff hiring at the college. Nevertheless, there is still serious underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities among the instructional categories at Mission. Moreover, according to the college compliance officer, inconsistent adherence to standard and consistent practices during hiring procedures at the college indicates committee members need further training in this area. Training of several new affirmative action representatives has taken place and more is planned. Overall, 61% of faculty and staff agreed that the college was making a serious attempt to meet its diversity goals and this percentage did not fall below 50% for any individual employee group [FSS, #13].

Also according to the district self-study, "The various collective bargaining agreements, Board Rules, Personnel Guides, etc., no longer form an entirely coherent whole." This finding is corroborated at the college, where less than a majority of faculty and staff maintain that information related to personnel policies and procedures is clear and easily available [FSS, #14].

Collective bargaining agreements are available to employees and personnel information is increasingly becoming available on the district's Website. Thus, the impression that personnel information is not easily available may reflect the need to more widely disseminate the sources of this information and provide training in accessing them. The district intends to continue efforts to revise, streamline, and consolidate the documents, eliminating those that are outdated. The process may include simplifying procedures and improving access to these documents by using contemporary technology.

Classified staff members at the college do not have access to an up-to-date handbook outlining policies and procedures, so the college needs to develop one.

A disparity exists between the confidence with which faculty members initiate grievance procedures and with the relative reluctance to do so on the part of classified staff. Examination of this aversion through interviews reveals that a significant number of classified employees at the college believe grievance procedures should not be initiated, even when supervisors violate rules and the bargaining agreements, because they feel their work environment would be negatively affected. Interviews with clerical staff also reveal that some supervisors treat classified employees unevenly in evaluation, work distribution, and allotment of new equipment. The college must initiate an evaluation of the management style of all supervisors of classified personnel and begin a comprehensive training program to ensure equity and fairness.

Instances in which faculty evaluations have not been kept confidential have occurred. Both classified and administrative staff must review and follow procedures for maintaining confidentiality.

16. Beginning in the 2001-2002 planning cycle, departments, disciplines, and offices will use the new assessment and planning process to create measurable objectives that rationally support the need for new faculty, staff, and administration. The college will make measurable progress toward the 75 percent / 25 percent ratio of full-time to part-time faculty. The college will use the same process to re-allocate existing classified staff or to recommend retraining where indicated.

17. The college endorses the Board of Trustees’ current project to assess the effectiveness of the Personnel Commission. The college recommends that this assessment evaluate all promotion procedures with the intent of facilitating lateral movement and upward mobility for employees. The college recommends that the process further evaluate the effectiveness of the Personnel Commission with regard to its responsiveness to the needs of the college for hiring adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff.

18. In the 2000-2001 academic year, the college will initiate an evaluation of the management practices of all supervisors of classified personnel and begin a comprehensive training program to ensure that every staff member is treated with equity and fairness. Using the assessment and planning process, the college will evaluate all recent reclassifications with regard to actual duties and program and office needs.