November 2003
An Independent Newspaper
LCCEA and Faculty Council hold 2nd meeting on governance
by Bill Griffiths
Following are highlights of the second joint meeting on governance held Oct. 31 by the Faculty council and LCCEA. The quoted remarks are edited and abridged.

Jim Salt, Bob Barber, Stan Taylor and Karen Louise White summarized the current state of the Task Force on Governance. 12 additional faculty attended.

Functional Councils/Committees

Jim Salt listed the functional councils or committees the task force is considering. A College Council which includes representatives of the other councils would oversee and have a “soft veto” over the other councils
  • Technology
  • Enrollment Management and Student Services
  • Facilities and Physical Environment
  • Budget/Finance and Business
  • Diversity
  • Academic Affairs
  • Human-Resources / Staff-Development / Organizational Climate
  • Planning
Bob Barber indicated the process is somewhat fragmented as the members of the task force meet in small groups and contribute ideas to an “idea stream.” Eventually these small groups will get together and resolve the idea stream into the recommendation to Mary Spilde.

Ken Zimmerman: Are these categories decided on at some level?

Jim Salt: There is nothing at this point that is decided on.

Bill Griffiths: Are there any other models being considered?

Jim Salt: Not at this point.
continued
New Timeline for Governance Task Force

In an email to the faculty on Nov. 7 Bob Barber announced a new timeline for finishing theGovernance Task Force's recommendation  to Mary Spilde. The date was moved from the beginning of November to the end of fall quarter. Staff discussion of the Task Force’s recommendation will take place during January and February. Mary Spilde will take her decision to the Board by March when the new system will be set up. The new system will become operational during the spring quarter.
Interview

Faculty Council Co-Chairs Mason Davis and Bob Barber

On Nov. 5 Bill Griffiths interviewed Faculty Council Co-Chairs Mason Davis and Bob Barber.

Bill: You both have served on the Executive Board of LCCEA. How is your perspective as co-chairs of the Faculty Council different from the view as Executive Board members?

Mason: I see it more as looking at the perspectives of individual faculty members or groups of faculty. They have different means to have their voices heard. As leaders of both it is important to provide as many avenues for faculty to be truly represented and maximize their position in the decision-making structure. It’s not a matter of “either/or” it’s a matter of being as inclusive as possible and to recognize that some venues appeal to some faculty members more than others.

Bob: The legal framework that the union exists in provides certain specified functions for the union to address and makes others permissive. I suppose it would be interesting to consider what academic issues might fit in with the permissive scope of bargaining, but as a general matter the Faculty Council is able to exist outside of that particular constraint and provide an avenue for faculty to participate where the issues don’t have to necessarily be tied into formal union scope and topics.

Bill: In the last contract there was an attempt to bring more things regarding shared governance into the contract such as insuring the role of the Faculty Council. Dennis [Gilbert] often argues that including aspects governance in the contract is a way to guarantee the structures and processes agreed upon.

Mason: That’s a valid point especially in areas of potential disagreement. Having the contract is a tremendous tool where there is a limited supply and great demand for the allocation of resources. Certainly to be able to bargain those and to be able to have the legal background to say “yes you must do this” is incredibly important. I think there are other areas where there is not necessarily the potential for getting into an adversarial relationship as long as we all maintain we have the same goals.
continued
wsg 11/11/2003
http://math.lanecc.edu/newsletter/news&opinion.html
 
What Makes a Great Workplace?
by Gary Mort 
The same day that I met informally with a few colleagues to discuss governance at LCC I received and read an issue of my professional journal (Chemical and Engineering News 27 October 2003) which discussed ideas surrounding "what makes a great workplace?"  particularly in the context of attracting and keeping diverse candidates.

Thinking about governance, I realized that I was really thinking about the relationship of the employee and the employer As Madeline Jacobs pointed out in her lead editorial greatness exceeds both the tangible (salary benefits) and the intangible (security), "Truly great places to work are defined by more than job security, they're defined by their culture. A great job culture is, as MasterCard likes to say, priceless." In preparing the companion article  Louisa Dalton found that truly great workplaces, "have a culture that acknowledges the value of the employee. It exudes an environment of trust, respect, fairness, open communication, mentoring, and collegiality. It's a place where employees are really engaged and where their opinions are sought and listened to. It's a place that inspires people to want to get up every day and go to work. (See for examples Winning Workplaces.)

As I think about how these principles apply to me and my relationship with LCC I find myself asking myself the following questions:
Do I know when decisions that will affect me are being made? And what effort to I have to expend to be aware of those decisions?

Can I become involved in decision making, particularly when the decisions made will impact my ability to do my job? And will that participation be meaningful or perfunctory?

If I am not part of the process but I have information (or perspectives) which I believe decision makers should have, do I have (or more important am I offered) a clear channel to provide that information?
.continued
Letters
Letters (3).
Past Issues
10-20-2003