By Alex Graf
You know those faculty performance reviews students are supposed to fill out at the end of every semester, gauging what we think of our instructors’ performance? Turns out teachers, and select staff and students do the same thing for administrators such as deans and vice presidents.
At least that’s what the Academic Senate, a legislative body at CSUDH that represents faculty and other staff, voted on last Wednesday, Oct. 10. Members of the Academic Senate recommended the names of eight administrators to be reviewed by individuals who “regularly interact with the administrator participating in the review process,” according to presidential memorandum 2018-01.
The recommendation consisted of six of CSUDH’s seven college deans (all but the College of Natural Science and Mathematics) and two vice presidents. The deans are Joseph Wen, J. Kim Mcnutt, Mitch Avila, John Davis, M. Gary Sayed and Stephanie Braysley, while the two vice presidents selected were Chris Manriquez, of information technology, and Carrie Stewart, of university advancement.
Nathlyn Hirohama, staff representative of non-academic affairs for the Academic Senate, said President Parham asked members of the Academic Senate to recommend a list of administrators for review.
“The review that we’re talking about is something outside of [a performance review.]” Hirohama said. “It’s almost like a peer review for the people that report under [the administrators], so the people within that division would be able to provide input if they want…It’s important for these administrators because they are in charge of so many people and so many processes. I think people should be able to give feedback…These [administrators] are running the university. They make decisions that affect everybody.”
While there are 19 administrators due for review, the president’s office asked the Academic Senate to narrow the list down to roughly a third of that number in order to ensure reviews are thorough and meaningful. The Academic Senate ultimately voted between two options. Option A consisted of six deans and Associate Dean Lynda Wilson while option B, six deans plus two vice presidents, is the choice they opted to recommend to the president’s office.
“I voted for option B,” Hirohama said. “I wanted the vice presidents included…Why is it more important for associate deans to be reviewed rather than a vice president… why wouldn’t [vice presidents] go first?”
According to presidential memorandum 2018-01 from former CSUDH president Willie Hagan, the president or respective vice president will seek feedback from up to 15 people who “regularly interact with the administrator participating in the review process.”
These individuals will include two faculty members recommended by the Academic Senate, one student recommended by the Associated Students Inc., individuals recommended by the immediate supervisors of the administrators under review, and other individuals, such as peers recommended by the administrators under review. The president or respective vice president can also seek feedback from “external constituents and others” as they see fit.