Members of the Budget Resource and Allocation Committee (BRAC) and the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) met on Friday in the hopes of formulating ideas for a more transparent and understandable administrative structure.
Many members of the IEC and BRAC were concerned that they did not even understand the current structure of administrative decision-making.
IEC member and instructor John Wood was confused how the IEC was involved in making recommendations which went to BRAC, a major decision-making body regarding the allocation and resourcing of college funds.
“[If the] IEC is the only group reading program reviews … I don’t understand how that gets to BRAC,” he said.
A main concern was how a program review’s importance played into the allocation of funding.
Joseph Futtner, dean of visual arts and media studies, said he constantly hears miscommunication and confusion around program review and how different programs are qualified for funding.
“I see less communication and I appeal to the god of the nimble [to fix it],” Futtner said. “I wish we had more of an ability to work on this stuff and rather than just always waiting and waiting for decisions to be made from other groups in the college. One of the greatest frustrations I have is just watching the clock on these processes.”
Presenters Stephanie Fleming and Crystal Kollross, members of the IEC, stood next to Jordan to explain the research and data they gathered while visiting other campuses and looking at their shared governance models.
“We’re just visiting other colleges and part of that process is asking what their programming model looks like,” Fleming said. “We couldn’t draw our integrated planning model [like other colleges could].”
The colleges Kollross visited had transparent structures that were easily understood, she said.
“We asked to every single person the same questions, they all explained it the exact same way,” she said.
Matt Jordan, interim associate dean of general education, led the group presentation regarding program review and the lack of transparency between recommendations and the decision making process. Jordan suggested that fixing these issues would not only keep the college’s accreditation intact, but would lead to a better, more open campus climate.
“It contributes to transparency a general feeling of fairness in decision-making. Those are the main reasons why we want to do it,” he said.