SCC Values

Collaboration – Online Comments Raw

3. Areas where Shoreline has done a good job of demonstrating collaboration:

  • Facilities planning, Strategic Planning
  • In creating partnerships outside the institution, such as the Puget Sound Center and the Work Source Center, with other colleges (as in Edlearn), and with employers such as Boeing and the Automotive Dealers Association.
  • I think that faculty (with some very isolated exceptions) have done a wonderful job of collaborating.
  • SCC has demonstrated collaboration in the areas of strategic planning, faculty relations and curriculum development.
  • I think the college just talks the talk, but doesn't walk the talk.
  • The increased use of the college intranet to get information out to staff (net news, messages through the PIO etc.)
  • Communication seems to have improved somewhat between administration and faculty. Some good things have come out of Joint Union-Mgmt, etc. Contract negotiations seem to have gone well last time.
  • professional technical programs/business & industry, e.g., auto tech prog
    library media services
    distance learning
    diversity services
    governance structure, e.g., curriculum committee
  • Most grant work requires collaboration. The governance structure uses collaboration. The Faculty Senate, for example, brings people together from various disciplines. The Web development program brings together people from various areas of expertise.
  • None
  • Choosing Administrators-having meetings open to all campus. I've especially been impressed with the Presidential candidates. It gives everyone a chance to see who is applying for the job, and feel like their imput is important.
  • I think the college has done a good job encouraging faculty and staff to sit on committees and to work together on projects--this gets a mixture of disciplines and opinions represented. The FACES project, student activities office, Expanding Your Horizon's event, and campus clubs are good examples of people working together successfully. These however are not decision-making bodies--certainly not places where campus-wide issues are discussed.

Where should Shoreline staff focus efforts to demonstrate collaboration?

  • Examining the changes in society and our market of students, and creating programs to match those needs in timely fashion.
  • Within the college, enacting collaborative processes in our own decision-making. We are doing better at this already in many ways: faculty collaborate across disciplines to teach interdisciplinary courses, faculty and staff are being consulted in the college's decision whether to pursue the eArmyU contract, and we are working together across the whole college on our accreditation self study. Still, there is a lot left to do in terms of transcending intra-institutional barriers between program areas and between other traditional divisions of the institution (areas which report to different VPs, for instance).
  • Administrators need to collaborate with faculty. At the moment we just say we are doing this, but faculty are sceptical. For example, Jack Hanson and Carol Henderson just sent a proposal regard EArmy, which tye want the faculty to provide input about. However, as is common with Jack Hanson, there's a very short timeline, with no understanding about faculty availability for responding yet again to a very short timeline. Carol Henderson says she wants input, but there's a feeling that the decision has already been made, and no one in the adminstration really wants to hear about faculty concerns regarding already full online courses and no release time to develop new ones.
  • More efforts in the budget area.
  • The faculty and "staff" do collaborate very well. It is the top down that is a problem.
  • This institution "talks" collaboration, but rarely walks the walk. The governance system involves committees chaired by the people the committees are mean to advise - this is useless. Deeply ingrained implicit power structures effect the day-to-day decisionmaking of the campus, and should not. This is one reason I was so opposed to an internal candidate for the President's position - too many longstanding relationships (or lack thereof) influence the way things happen. This is not healthy or productive.
  • Evaluation of the Governance structure for effectiveness and inclusiveness. Greater openess about existing bodies that shape policies and procedure (they may not be called governance, but they manage and give leadership). Increased attention to opportunities for classified, faculty and student awareness and participation - particularly for classified staff.
  • Still need to work on getting information down to the level of facult. Seems to often get bogged down in middle management and faculty don't hear of deadlines until the last minute. There often seems to be a pretense of collaboration, but when decisions are made, the input from those beneath often is ignored. For instance, I heard that when the faculty feedback from presidential interviews was given to the Board of Trustees, they said they appreciated the input but didn't actually read anything we wrote. If this is true, it's just astounding!
  • Decisions that will directly impact instruction are sometimes not made by anyone who actually spends time in a classroom with students.
  • WED vs. Instruction vs. Student Services
    Marketing
    Faculty/staff professional development
  • Governance and teaching.
  • Greater communication and consideration between faculty and administration. Decisions from the latter seem too often to come from nowhere, without faculty input.
  • Budget process. Facilities/Space Utilization. Master Plan.
  • The way members of committees are chosen-especially for classified staff.
  • I think the college's commitment to collaboration (in terms of decision-making) is purely for show. I know that in the past people have complained that decisions were being made without valuable input. There has been a move to correct that by implementing interdisciplinary (and staff) committees, assessment teams, etc. So, there are opportunities to give input and feedback (some of which faculty and staff have to initiate); however, there is no system in place to ensure that these committees are communicating with each other and with the appropriate administrator. As a result, recommendatiosn are made that affect others and they don't even know it. The truth is, ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of an administrator. It's my assessment that most of us "non-administrators" feel like in the end, our opinion doesn't matter anyway so why bother giving it. In sum, until this campus has a good system of procedures, administrators who actually know the procedures and will implement them fairly, and administrators who listen to and consider the feedback of its' committees we will continue to have a facade of a collaborative atmosphere.