Issues and ideas for NMC board consideration

[B]By OSCAR C. RASA[/B] [I]Special to the Saipan Tribune[/I] [I]Editor’s Note: The following is the complete text of a presentation the author gave to the Northern Marianas College Board of Regents on May 20, 2011.[/I] [B][I]First of a two-part series[/I][/B] [B][U]ISSUE 1: NMC Human Resources[/U][/B] [B]- The current process does not always support the hiring of the best candidates. [/B]

Hiring candidates for faculty, staff, and administrative positions needs to go beyond limited advertising and procedural interviewing according to NMC’s established processes. Advertising for positions should be widespread to include electronic means such as open bulletin boards from professional societies. Involvement with stakeholders facilitated through Skype-based public forums should be the standard, not the exception. Also, at NMC Human Resources staff contacts references as opposed to faculty search committees who have better knowledge of the kinds of questions to ask the applicant’s references. One solution is to have committee members call references under the auspices of Human Resources staff so that important questions could be asked without compromising the integrity of the process.

[B]- Staff members with little knowledge of academic qualifications are making key decisions.[/B]

Faculty should have the responsibility to evaluate candidates for faculty positions and should also be involved in choosing their immediate supervisors and their dean. Opposed to this, the current practice at NMC is to have Human Resources complete the evaluations. Although this can be legally expedient, it can be disastrous in selecting the best candidate. Human Resources should provide oversight to the process to ensure legal guidelines are met, but also allow the selection to be made by those with curricular expertise or administrative pertinences, and not a Human Resources clerk.

[B]- Hiring decisions are often made with little input from those most affected by the hiring.[/B]

The recent hiring of a faculty member in the School of Education serves as an important example of why the system is not working. The candidate applied for an Elementary (kindergarten through fifth grade) reading education position. His credentials and experience were in the area of secondary school English (ninth through twelfth grade) and English as a Second Language—areas very different from Elementary reading. Elementary reading focuses on things like recognizing sight words and deriving meaning through illustrations, repetitive syntax, and linguistic redundancy deconstructing what is written to make meaning. Secondary English focuses on using literature to promote writing and the proper use of language for personal and public reasons—constructing the written word to establish meaning. In the end, he was made an offer by the interim president despite low rankings by the selection committee and concerns shared by the SOE director. His inexperience means that there is not a program for him to teach in at the SE and the SOE will continue to need to adjunct its reading courses.

[B]- Searches are poorly advertised and often stretched out for unreasonable times.[/B]

One way that a power base of individuals in an organization can remain in control is to eliminate the opposition through a variety of subtle tactics. This appears to be the case at NMC. By limiting the advertising of positions, controlling who is “eligible” and stretching out the timeline for extensive periods of time, the candidate pool is artificially limited. This also allows the appointment of “unqualified” sycophant employees with little or no opposition from the college community members who are led to believe that good candidates are not available. In reality, quality candidates need to have timely decisions so that they can commit to an institution or seek other offers. Few candidates can wait for months at a time to see if they will be hired. They go elsewhere, further limiting the available pool of applicants at NMC. An interesting example is that a candidate with an educational doctorate, a masters in Business Administration from the top-rated Katz School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh, and a bachelor’s degree in Accounting was not even interviewed for the chief financial and administrative officer position. The candidate was informed that “recruitment” for this position would be put on hold.” (Editor’s Note: Mr. Rogelio Madriaga [MBA from UH] was eventually appointed to the post.) There is not a saving measure to the institution since Mr. Madriaga was being paid through ARRA funding and will now be funded through the college personnel budget.

[B][U]ISSUE 2: The Board of Regents[/U][/B] [B]- Board members are carefully chosen based on their outstanding qualifications but do not seem to receive proper training by the institution once they assume the position. [/B]

As you know from the business community, it is critically important to provide board members with unbiased, accurate, comprehensive, and timely information that will assist them in making unified, strategic decisions in support of the institution and the Commonwealth. For NMC, this includes providing and understanding the nature and context of higher education, which is distinctly different from government, business, or the military. Board education and development is a primary responsibility of the president and should be a continual process, not limited to crisis situations such as potential loss of accreditation. Time needs to be set aside for discussion of current and emerging issues so that the institution can pre-plan as opposed to reacting to circumstances. This process does not have to be time-consuming but issues should be summarized for consideration and potential further discussion by board members. If needed, the board chair can request a retreat in order to discuss topics in depth.

[B]- Board members do not appear to receive the information that will assist them in making unified, strategic decisions in support of the institution and the Commonwealth.[/B]

The board’s most important function is to ensure strategic direction for the institution. In the strategic planning process, boards need to contribute to the envisioning and prioritizing of the plan with their ideas, ensure full participation in the process, as well as a final approval of the plan. If you look at the membership of the committee undertaking this task on May 17, you will see that the board is not represented. The make-up of the committee is also suspect because it does not lead to an understanding of the role of the different stakeholders. For example, the wife of the director of Institutional Effectiveness overseeing the process was chosen to represent SOE without input from the SOE faculty or director—the every people she is representing. What is even more unacceptable is that there is not a single student or public representative on the current Strategic Planning Task Force. An environmental scan, which could help establish the context and avoid problems, was not undertaken. With respect to making unified decisions, just as the board chair and president need to adhere to the doctrine of “no surprise,” the board always displays a unified voice, thus portraying a strong and unified group. Board meetings should be more about formalizing decisions and informing the public than internal debate on issues.

[B][I]To be continued tomorrow.[/I][/B] [I]Oscar C. Rasa is a former speaker of the CNMI House of Representatives.[/I]