AS YOU KNOW, Saddleback College got spanked during its last go-round with the Accreds. Like Irvine Valley, Saddleback must now produce a “Focused midterm report [FMR] on issues of Commission special concern.” Unlike Irvine, however, Saddleback College will be subjected to yet another team visit!
Ouch!
According to the Accred commission’s January 31 Action Letter, the FMR should especially emphasize Recommendations 2 (start planning!), 4 (dump unprofessional hiring procedures for execs!), 5 (cease board micromanagement!), and 6 (overcome hostility and despair!).
The Action Letter is based, of course, on the November ’06 Progress Report Visit Findings. Have you read them?
Recently, a colleague suggested that I read through that document carefully. I recommend that you do the same.
I am particularly struck by the section of the document concerning Recommendation 6: to overcome the plague of “hostility, cynicism, despair, and fear.” It is literally the end of the document.
Here, in its entirety, is the “conclusion” of that section. (I have added the section headings.)
Conclusion:
[DIFFERENT SIDES:]
It is difficult for the team, as outsiders, to fully assess the cause of the climate issues in the district. These issues are of long duration and have produced many scars that run deep. On the one hand, the faculty and classified leadership present a picture that depicts them as being downtrodden and overworked. The board and the administration tell another story. There are probably any number of individual variations and takes on these themes that fall in between these two poles. So where is the cause of this problem?
[THE COLLEGES VS. THE DISTRICT:]
By their own admission, a primary source of the hostile climate that has plagued this district and its two colleges is the chronically strained relations between the colleges and the district. It is not unusual in a multi-college district to have tension between the desire for autonomy at the colleges and the need for accountability or oversight by the district.
[THE GROUNDLESS CHARGE OF PARSIMONY:]
There is a perception by faculty, staff, and administrators at Saddleback College that the district is sitting on a pile of money and doesn’t share it sufficiently with the college. The team did not find evidence for that assertion. The district has funded numerous construction and modernization projects at both colleges. The district has negotiated generous contracts with the bargaining units such that they are among the best paid in the state. The list of positive district actions could go on. The point is that the district has shared resources with the college and is supporting the college in an appropriate manner.
[THE CULTURE OF CONFLICT, INCLUDING FACULTY:]
The chancellor, to a certain extent, appears to be a lightning rod for much of the blame for strained relations. However, after seeing firsthand and hearing anecdotal evidence about the actions of constituent leadership, especially the faculty leadership, the constituent groups must own up to their part in causing and sustaining a negative environment. It is almost as if there is a culture of conflict that is relished by some parties in the district, not for any great principle, but for the sport and enjoyment of conflict itself. This culture of conflict is fueled by a power struggle between the various groups. There are many secondary problems generated by this type of culture. One is that it is unproductive and wastes valuable time that could be spent on more important issues. Another is that the power that is being contested is illusory in that in this day and age there are myriad limitations on the power of any group, including the board. The worst problem is that such conflicts take the focus from students and they cause people to look out for their own interests rather than the interest of students.
[“WHEN THE BOARD BEHAVES BADLY”:]
It is apparent that the SOCCCD Board and the chancellor would like more credit for the positive actions that they have taken on behalf of the colleges. Unfortunately, when there are still examples of micromanaging or examples of board members disrespecting individual managers (or others, including one another) in open session meetings before the public, it has the opposite effect. When the board behaves badly, it sets a negative tone and message throughout the district. It tends to undo whatever good has been done as they are not given equal weight in most people’s minds. While there is sufficient blame to go around to all parties for contributing to the climate described in this recommendation, it remains the board to show the way in moving the district and the colleges to a better place.
