To: Kay Fowler, Faculty Assembly President
From: Search Task Force: Hank Frundt, Chair, Paramjeet Bagga, Maria Bautis, Constance Crawford, George Gonpu, Sam Ali Mustafa, Elaine Risch
Re: Search Task Force Report
Date: November, 2005
In May, 2005, the Faculty Assembly charged the Search Procedures Task Force to investigate the process by which Ramapo conducts faculty searches. It asked that the Task Force provide recommended changes to the Faculty Assembly for its November 30th meeting. In order to develop recommendations, the Task Force first began by ascertaining the experiences and viewpoints of Ramapo faculty and applicants. We:
A. surveyed those who had been hired within the last two years. 23 of 30 replied.
B. surveyed the experiences of all search chairs over the past three years.
32 search chairs responded.
C. surveyed the experiences of the 6 current deans
D. surveyed those applying for current positions (24 replied to date. This survey continues).
E. conducted an informal survey of anecdotal experiences in each unit
The Task Force also met with the directors of Human Resources and Affirmative Action, who expressed their willingness to discuss current search procedures and review possible changes that included our recommendations. The Task Force expresses appreciation to all participants for their very useful feedback. Task Force subcommittees then reviewed survey results. The common perception that emerged is that current search procedures are cumbersome and contradictory. They need to be simplified. For significant number, applying on-line is also daunting. After careful deliberation, the Task Force offers the following general recommendation, along with ten specific recommendations which will be submitted to you for mail ballot. A background document detailing the basis for these recommendations can be found at [link]. We ask that after debating these resolutions, the Faculty Assembly submit them for ratification by a mail ballot that allows each recommendation to be endorsed individually.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations:
General Resolution: Resolved that the Faculty Assembly endorse the ten recommendations made by the Search Procedures Task Force as presented below and request that the administration carefully review current search procedures with an eye toward their simplification, incorporating the Task Force recommendations. The Faculty Assembly further requests that the administration submit all changes made as a result of this review to the Faculty Assembly (FA) for ratification by April, 2006 toward implementation as of Fall 2006. Future changes to ratified procedures proposed by the FA or proposed by the administration would be reviewed and approved by both the administration and the FA.
Recommendation 1 Re: Determination of Search Procedures: We recommend that the administration carefully review current procedures with an eye toward simplification, incorporating the Task Force recommendations, and submitting all changes to the Faculty Assembly (FA) for ratification by April, 2006 to be implemented as of Fall 2006. Once ratified, future changes must be approved by both the administration and the FA.
Background to Recommendation 1 (brief version): The process by which procedures are established and changed is not clear. In the most recent versions and ongoing changes, the faculty have been excluded.
Recommendation 2 Re: Search Committee Composition: We recommend that search committees be formed by the convening group which has been awarded the faculty line and approved by the responsible dean;
We also recommend that the dean monitor the appointment of an out of unit representative, which we view as highly desirable (but not required). The outside member might usefully serve as Affirmative Action (AA) monitor.
Background to Recommendation 2 (brief version): The process by which search committees are established currently varies among units. (See below for more on AA monitors, the inclusion of conveners and students on the search committee.)
Recommendation 3 Re: Job Description and Advertisement: We recommend that the search committee write the job description in consultation with the dean;
We reiterate our two positions, passed by the FA in May, 2005:
a. All advertising copy for a faculty position should receive approval from the specific search committee before its release.
b. Each search committee will suggest target journals for position advertising. The appearance of such advertising will be mutually determined with the administration. We make an additional recommendation about the role of the search committeešs Affirmative Action representative in increasing outreach (see below).
Background to Recommendation 3 (brief version): Many units have experienced outside changes in the language of the advertisement, and publication delays.
Recommendation 4: Re: Role of Convener: We recommend
appropriate role for a program convener involved in each particular search, which
the dean documents in a written paragraph that is forwarded to AA. Ordinarily, the convener does not chair the search.
Background to Recommendation 4 (brief version): Role of Convener in searches requires clarification.
Recommendation 5 Re: Affirmative Action Monitor: We recommend that the search committee, in consultation with the dean, appoint one of its members (such as the outside member) as the affirmative action monitor. The monitor will undergo special training given by AA. The monitoršs role includes:
a. serving as liaison from the outset with the Office of Affirmative Action on all aspects and phases of the search, and consulting with that office on a regular basis.
b. making sure that the searched position is promoted in timely fashion in locations accessible to minority applicants
c. documenting the numbers of candidates that apply, the numbers of qualified candidates, and those from protected classes as defined by AA
d. forwarding the committeešs choices for campus visits, and final candidate recommendations to the AA office
Background to Recommendation 5 (brief version): The role of the affirmative action
monitor has been subject to various arrangements
Recommendation 6 Re: Role of Students: We recommend that:
a. Search candidates teach a class after which all students in attendance submit written evaluations
b. students of a particular field meet with the candidate, discuss issues of concern, and fill out an appraisal.
c. As an option, one or two senior students be invited to participate as a full search committee member, with the following qualification: student members will not be present at the final selective deliberation [current policy approved by the Provost].
Background to Recommendation 6 (brief version): All parties agree that the role of students should be encouraged.
Recommendation 7 Re: Internal Candidates: We recommend
Background to Recommendation 7 (brief version): more than half of the internal candidates who have applied to full time positions in the past 3 years have been hired, raising substantial questions of equity.
Recommendation 8 Re: Ranking of candidates: We recommend that where feasible, a search committee recommend at least three candidates. Where this is not feasible, the search chair and affirmative action officer should provide a written explanation. Committees are allowed to rank those recommended, but they must also provide qualitative judgments.
Background to Recommendation 8 (brief version): Although current rules do not allow ranking, 62% of search committees effectively rank. Faculty overwhelmingly support ranking.
Recommendation 9 Re: Affirmative Action Review: We recommend that a search committeešs AA representative, search chair and dean make certain that the AA office is continually appraised about a search process so that, should a question arise, it can intervene before rather than after a committee develops its recommendations. In addition, once the packet goes forward to the provost, AA would be expected to act within one week. Otherwise, the search would then go forward.
Background to Recommendation 9 (brief version): The faculty strongly supports affirmative action.
Recommendation 10 Re: The on-line application system: We recommend:
a. For the next two years (i.e. 2006-2008 or until the system is upgraded), candidates may submit their application on line, in paper, or both. If they only submit in paper, the search chair will have the responsibility of entering essential information, as mutually decided with AA, into the on-line system.
-proper navigation and backspacing
-the list of various recommended attachments
-the time it may take (usually an hour)
-the difficulties one is likely to encounter such as being timed out.
-the instructions for saving information and later re-entering the system
-a contact person and number to call for personal assistance
-a computer location where difficulties are less likely.
Finally, the site should indicate that while an on-line application is preferred, the applicant is also able to submit a written application and additional materials.
This on-line application preference should also be noted in position advertisements.
c. Review procedures for adding attachments. The number of potential attachments should be increased to ten in number (including letters from colleagues, student evaluations, papers, artistic presentations etc. Some searches require several more than the current three). Procedures for how to translate items from onešs CV into on-line categories, etc. should be specified or made seamless. Clear rules for backspacing and returning should be included here as well.
d. Candidates be able to review and edit all the on-line materials they have prepared before making their final submission
e. Candidates receive acknowledgement of submission by separate e-mail
f. Foreign applicants be given clear instructions on visas (see below)
Background to Recommendation 10 (brief version): Half the search chairs and about a third of applicants encountered difficulties in using the on-line system, especially with adding attachments and being ŗtimed-out˛. The system requires improvement and flexibility.