To: The Faculty Assembly

 

From: The Search Task Force

 

Re: Administration response to Faculty Assembly Recommendations on Search Procedures.

 

In December, 2005, the Faculty Assembly passed 10 resolutions aimed at improving the search process for new faculty hires at Ramapo College. The Assembly asked the administration to respond to its resolutions before April. Lorraine Edwards, Stephen Roma and Bea Cronin offered a response on March 9. While this response took into account a number of the Faculty Assembly¹s recommendations, it failed to grapple with many key issues. Contrary to past practice at the College, it also insisted on shifting the control of the hiring process from faculty to deans. It obfuscated the need for genuine consultation regarding how search procedures should be designed in the first place. Worst of all, without waiting for further Faculty Assembly input, the administration sent its ³revised² procedures (in abbreviated form) to the Board of Trustees for approval.

 

Below are the Search Task Force¹s responses to the administration¹s March 9 document.

Since the Faculty Assembly has already passed its recommendations, we do not believe further decisions are necessary. However, in light of our original recommendations and our current response, we urge the Faculty Council in the strongest possible terms to renew its discussions with the administration to produce a more sensible set of search guidelines which, after Faculty Assembly consultation, it resubmits to the Board. We also ask the Council to demand an explanation for the lack of prior consultation in the administration¹s recent action.

 

STF Response to the Administration¹s Search Procedure Commentary:

 

  1. The purpose of the STF recommendations, strongly endorsed by the Faculty Assembly, was not to rehash past errors but to create a productive environment for future searches. While the administration has ultimate authority and ³managerial prerogative² on how searches are designed, administrative decisions in general and the search process in particular require faculty consultation. Consultation is not simply a sharing of perspectives; it includes a process by which the administration genuinely listens and seriously takes faculty views into account before rendering a decision. When this is not done in respect to the search process, it leads to considerable anger and confusion that is counterproductive for all parties. For this reason, the essential component of our first recommendation was that all changes in the search process be approved by all parties before dissemination. We hope for a joint commitment on this point.

 

  1. We appreciate the administration¹s recognition that in respect to the formation of search committees, the Dean should collaborate with convening groups. Faculty positions in particular require that search committees be formed by convening groups because it is such groups that have the professional competence to academically determine the requirements for a position. While deans have the skills to administratively balance the search committees¹ determinations within the structure of competing administrative pressures and responsibilities, they do not, nor should they be expected to hold competences for identifying program lacunae of particular majors. By working together in a collaborative process, the convening group¹s search committee as approved by the dean can appropriately function in this role.

 

  1. For similar reasons, full faculty job descriptions must originate from the search committee and then be submitted to the Dean for approval, not vice versa. Without such a process, the search committee will have greater difficulty approaching the search in a clear and reasonably unified fashion. We are heartened that the administration agrees that search committees should approve all ad copy before its release, and accept the other deadline issues that timely publication demands.

 

  1. We are in basic agreement with the administration that potential search committee members should ordinarily recuse themselves from hires that involve candidates whom they have previously hired. Nevertheless, because of the specific nature of certain faculty searches, it may be imperative to involve members who have so participated; we reiterate that this decision should be made by the search committee (or convening group) with Dean approval.

 

5. We still await discussion on our specific recommendations regarding the

Affirmative Action monitor; we also hope the final DAC report to be released in

May will incorporate these recommendations.

 

  1. We are pleased that the Oct. 31 language from the Provost will be incorporated

into the search procedures.

 

  1. We appreciate hearing that the administration shares our concern regarding

equity and the hiring of internal candidates into full-time positions. Of course

we are also mindful of AFT contract rules granting internal candidates the right

to apply for full time openings. Nevertheless, we see little evidence that the

structural factors that increase the number of temporary hires are being

addressed, or that guidelines are being put in place to make sure that searches for

temporary hires are broad and unbiased. In other words, we find no acknow-

ledgement of our recommendations to help achieve a fair process for internal

searches that is also respectful of the rights of internal candidates.

 

8. The administration would be wise to accept the ranking of candidates, our

original recommendation. As professionals, the faculty take their

responsibilities seriously and want that to be reflected in their final judgment.

Anyone with experience in the academy knows that those hired realize that many

factors go into a hiring decision. Ending up as number 2 or 3 in a notable

pool would hardly be viewed as a demoralizing experience. On the other hand,

the right of ranking would recognize the reality and value of faculty input.

  1. We agree that searches should not go forward without AA review and

concurrence, but a limit on such review must be stated in order to assure

timely hires. Such a limit could be an appropriately resolved through

Faculty Assembly consultation, but a one-week turn-around appears

reasonable. Among our first suggestions we provided earlier opportunities for AA to identify and take action on potential difficulties with degree verification, translation, etc.

 

  1. As time goes on, more institutions are using an on-line application system, and

certain flaws are being addressed. Our original recommendation was a sensible

one‹to keep the dual application system in place for two more years to allow their solution. After all, we want to do our best to attract quality candidates, some of whom are still put off by the on-line approach. Why not make this gesture? We also reiterate the importance of having more attachment possibilities, beyond the five now allowed; and of adding e-mail responses to

the applicant a) when the application is received, noting the presence of specific documents; b) when the search has been completed.

The Faculty Assembly has strongly endorsed our 10 recommendations. We urge that

The administration truly engage them in the spirit of genuine consultation.