-
va
r

RY
oy

a
)

VOLUME XI, NUMBER 20

3 INNOVATION ABSTRACTS

PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS aia TIN

ite Mee) Ole Vea (8. in| aah Mel ome O,elen 6.0/0 UL ONE Reig) ated ih mein ee FOUNDATION

 

Selecting A Chief Instructional Officer:

The Palomar College Experience

Academic search committees are much like the little
girl with the curl: when they are good they are very
very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. A
bad search is a frustrating and expensive waste of time
if a successful candidate cannot be selected; selection of
a candidate by a sloppy, rushed, or rigged process may
devastate an institution. A good search is composed of

two diverse but complementary components: process -

and philosophy. Each is critical to the eventual success
of the search and each requires proper care and plan-
ning for appropriate implementation.

During 1987 and 1988 the Palomar Community
College District undertook a nationwide search for an
Assistant Superintendent/ Vice President for Instruction
with a target date for employment of July 1, 1988.
Appointment of the search committee occurred in the
spring of 1987 with the active part of the search sched-
uled to begin the following September. Each area of the
college, including faculty, classified staff, executive
administration, middle managers, and students, inde-
pendently selected representatives. College President
George Boggs charged the committee to recruit, inter-
view, and recommend the best candidates available for
his final consideration and recommendation to the
Governing Board. Upon nomination by the committee
he appointed me chair, while agreeing that the commit-
tee would be free to select a co-chair to preside in my
absence, as necessary. At the organizational meeting
the newly formed committee received information on
recruitment, affirmative action, and legal requirements
from the Director of Human Resource Services and
Affirmative Action, an ex officio member. The commit-
tee agreed to meet again in September. At this time the
President, having given us our charge and a deadline,
stepped away from the process and allowed us to
proceed with the assigned task. He received regular
reports from the chair but allowed us the flexibility to
operate independently for the remainder of the search.

The committee convened again in the fall to review
timelines and establish ground rules. We determined a
quorum (9 of 13 members) and decided to keep and
ratify minutes of our meetings. The Chair and Director

of Human Resources proposed a timeline developed by
working backwards from the target employment date.
This schedule considered and allowed adequate time
for advertising and recruiting, developing forms and
questions, screening applications, selecting applicants
to interview, checking references, and making site visits
to finalists’ home institutions.

A difficult problem for any search committee is
scheduling regular mecting times around the individual
calendars of a very busy group of classroom instructors,
administrators, and staff. Each committee member
submitted a complete schedule which I plotted in graph
form. Miraculously, a free hour appeared each week.
(If this is not the case, the graph will likely show some
hours in which only one or two people are unavailable.
In that case, ] recommend selecting two alternate
meeting times and staggering the meetings between
these times. While one person may have to be absent
from a meeting, it won’t be the same person each time.)
Scheduling the interview blocks as far in advance as
possible is also critical so that everyone may clear
calendars or obtain substitutes for the period covered.
We agreed that regular business would be conducted at
each mecting once a quorum was established but that
we would nol consistently backtrack due to the absence
of any mernber. (It may be appropriate to establish a
maximum number of absences before a member is
replaced; however, this was not a problem with our
group.)

Three subcommittees worked to develop an applica-
tion form and screening documents from the applica-
tions and interview questions. We found it much easier
to edit forms and questions prepared by the subcom-
mittees than to create them as a group of 13. The assis-
tance of the Human Resources staff proved invaluable.
Competent support staff and excellent advice from the
Director ensured smooth operation within legal and
institutional requirements. Acknowledgment of this
work when the process is over is both appropriate and
appreciated.

Proper scheduling allowed for efficient use of time.
For example, screening forms were developed during

 

 

EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin