eR PU BAR i Se mR NER EAS AE ES ENT 2 ML,

the advertising period.

Prior to the formal screening, the committee did a
“holistic” application screening where they were
presented with three dummy applications and directed
to screen as though these forms and the candidates
they represented were real. We discussed our individ-
ual screening line-by-line to compare scores and ensure
the screening device was adequate for the task. This
process allowed us a better understanding of how we
were screening individual qualifications and saved
later debate over the qualifications of actual candidates.
The Human Resources staff pre-screened applications
for the minimum qualifications. I reviewed those
screened out, as did anyone on the committee who
chose to do so.

After application screening, each committee member
submitted no more than 15 names as possible interview
candidates. One candidate was endorsed by all 13
members, several others received two or fewer en-
dorsements; many received from 1-12. Each member
had the opportunity to defend any candidate chosen.
Ultimately, we agreed to interview those candidates
having cight or more endorsements. During the
scheduling time, questions were finalized and a holistic
interview held with the chief instructional officer of a
neighboring campus. We used this as a check on our
questions for quality of content and to eliminate any
ambiguities not readily apparent in the process. We
were also able to hear a set of answers from a person
working successfully in a position comparable to the
one we hoped to fill.

Each candidate received by mail a packet of material
describing the college and the district. Prior to the
interview each was given a tour of the campus and an
opportunity to meet staff. A copy of the questions was
provided for reference during the interview. Adequate
time was allowed for complete answers and for follow-
up questions from the committee. Following the oral
interview each candidate was required to respond in
writing to a final question within a designated time.
These essays became part of the interview evaluation.

Extensive reference checking followed the inter-
views. We checked official references, and each
committee member assumed the responsibility for
talking with his or her counterpart at the current and
previous places of employment. For example, our
Business Manager talked to other chief financial
officers while I spoke with library directors. In the case
of our in-house candidate, we had the unique opportu-
nity to interview ourselves! Seriously, critical facts, pro
and con, emerged from these conversations which

were consistent from person to person and within
affirmative action guidelines.

The committee then met to recommend finalists for
the President’s consideration. The finalists were
invited back to campus to meet with the President, the
Executive Administration, the Faculty Senate, and
representatives of other campus groups; a site visit by
the President and the search committee chair followed.
At the site visit, we met with the College President, the
Academic Senate President, academic deans, and other
staff conversant with the candidate’s qualifications. As
chair, I made a recommendation to the President fol-
lowing the site visit. He then weighed the recommen-
dations and his own impressions and decided on his
recommendation to the board.

Trust, hard work, and confidentiality were the
hallmarks of this process, as was the work of an out-
standing support staff. We on the committee agreed to
recommend no one with whom we could not live.
When only two finalists were recommended, the
President accepted our judgment. We in turn allowed
him to make the final recommendation based on the
factors previously listed.

Much has been written about the mechanics and
philosophy of academic searches. Our search worked
well, primarily because the members of this committee
operated as a team and kept institutional needs ahead
of departmental considerations. Discussions were fre-
quently spirited and, at times, emotional. A high level
of candor evolved and with it an equally high level of
trust. Over time the group stopped operating asa
collection of individuals and began to work as a team.
In our deliberations, issues were brought out which, in
previous searches, may only have been discussed by
one or two members rather than by the entire commit-
tee. We were able to vent our concerns and frustra-
tions to each other and resolve them asa group. Time
invested in the planning and organizational stages
saved an infinite amount of grumbling and second-
guessing in the later stages of the process. Confidenti-
ality was a by-word from the beginning, and institu-
tionally the result has proved very successful.

Judy J. Cater, Media Services Librarian
For further information, contact the author at Palomar

Community College District, 1140 West Mission Road,
San Marcos, CA 92069-1487.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

September 22, 1989, Vol. XI, No. 20

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1989
Further duplication is permitied by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

10

 

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizatonal Development (N/SOD),

EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscnptions are available to nonconsor-
tium members for $40 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundaton.
Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and once during the summer. ISSN 0199-106X

 

 

—