Faculty Association & Faculty Senate Resolution of No Confidence in President Kress

Resolution of No Confidence

November 14, 2018

Resolved that:  The Faculty Senate and the unionized employees of the Faculty Association of Monroe Community College hereby register a Vote of No Confidence in our President and the CEO as appointed by the Board of Trustees.  Our grounds include gross violations of contractual agreements; failure to uphold the public trust; failure to hold senior officers accountable for serious errors; and for violations of the basic norms of collegiate shared governance as well as the express MCC Mission Statement and Core Values of Monroe Community College. 

It is our shared opinion that the President has failed to secure even the most minimum level of confidence from the employees at Monroe Community College, and has also failed to meet the standards of Chief Executive Officer of Monroe Community College in line with the Board of Trustees Policies and the standards of the State University of New York. 

We collectively agree that the above has created an environment unconducive to the public, taxpayer-supported education of our students. 

We understand the seriousness of what we are asking.  We jointly, respectfully, ask the Monroe Community College Board of Trustees to follow its public responsibility under New York State Law and BOT Policy 2.5 - Shared Governance and immediately carry out a full, open and transparent evaluation of the President/CEO and her management team.  Our total lack of confidence leads the co-signed parties to insist the Board of Trustees consider the dismissal or resignation of any member of the CEO’s selected team, including but not limited to the CEO, if found not to meet all appropriate standards.

Specific Averments Regarding Faculty Senate, Professional Staff, Faculty Association, and other Employees of Monroe Community College

1. Failure of the CEO to demonstrate minimal efficiency and effectiveness in the negotiation of each of past three successive labor contracts with the Faculty Association (FA).  In her first three contract negotiation cycles with the FA, the CEO has had to resort to taxpayer-funded mediation due to lack of preparation, diligence, and unwillingness to engage in direct dialogue.
2. The CEO’s attempt to influence, in clear bad faith, a campus evaluation by the Faculty Council for Community College’s (FCCC) by reporting to the President of the FCCC that a Vote of No Confidence had taken place when, in fact, no motion had been considered by the Faculty Senate.  The CEO made no attempt to contact the Faculty Senate President for clarification prior to contacting the President of the FCCC.
3. Unilateral and highly punitive change without prior notice to the contractually-negotiated cost-sharing health care provisions for retirees (Article 27), who have faithfully served the tax-payers of Monroe County and New York State, that will result in litigation costs at student and taxpayer expense.
4. Intimidation of employees - including women and employees of color - who have asked for contractually negotiated union assistance or who have served in positions of elected authority on the Faculty Senate.
5. Failure to keep accurate personnel records and to correct basic errors in the years of service awarded to employees. The error rate exceeds basic Human Resources industry standards and regularly approaches 10%.
6. Reversal without prior notice of the contractually negotiated and State-mandated Letters of Agreement on the need for progressive discipline and due process practices.  The refusal of minimal communication, forewarning, or consultation, despite explicit contractual agreement to discuss with the FA matters of personnel “prior to any final disciplinary action” (LOA 2/18/11), that have included late additions of complaints to official personnel records (Article 6).  This occurred despite the fact that State-mandated organizations such as the Faculty Council of Community Colleges designate one of the “three areas” of working models of collegiate “shared governance” as including shared “managing of personnel matters.”
7. Routine instances of inconsistent, unpredictable, and dangerously capricious employee discipline practices, including arbitrary suspensions with and without pay.
8. The CEO’s decision to restrict access by requiring all BOT communication be funneled only through the Board Secretary (employed in the President’s office) which is in clear violation of the MCC Core Value of Integrity.
9. The CEO’s continuing failure to facilitate even minimal improvements in the channels of communication between the Board of Trustees and its employees is in clear violation of MCC Core Value of Integrity.
10. Reversal of 30-year precedent of Salary Equity implementation which originally resulted from a class action wage discrimination charge and subsequent management settlement (Article 46) has produced cases of employees being denied long-anticipated salary and retirement adjustments.
11. Contrary to the spirit of the explicit terms of Article 46, Section A, Management’s decision to reverse, without prior notice to union officials, the universal implementation of Salary Equity, has disproportionately harmed female employees and employees of color.  Management has now, after much discussion, finally conceded to partial financial settlement to some affected personnel.
12. In violation of the basic tenets of Academic Freedom, Management-proposed changes to the BOT Policy on Academic Freedom that would have made the evaluation of student work a responsibility of the institution rather than the responsibility of teaching faculty.  Management was subsequently forced to withdraw this policy change.
13. In clear violation of MCC Core Values and Mission Statements, Faculty Senate Resolution 1.1.6.4 on college-initiated withdrawal was suspended against Faculty Senate recommendation and prior to review by committee.  In the first semester of the suspension, the total rate of failing grades across the entire college increased nearly 3%.  Among MCC’s African American student population, failure rate increased 4.5%.  This change in practice has a potential long-term effect on a student’s ability to transfer and can have the same impact as a course withdrawal on financial aid, albeit several semesters after leaving Monroe Community College.
14. Academic Provost-level decision to forbid faculty-initiated withdrawal of students who do not meet basic standards of academic expectation.  This could potentially put the College at risk of invalidating reports required for accurate federal and state-level reimbursements.
15. Enrollment declines for each year of the current CEO’s administration.  These declines continued beyond the demographic and economic forecast and are out of line with comparable SUNY community colleges.  During the CEO’s appointment, enrollment at MCC has declined by over 35% - the fourth-highest decline in the SUNY system.  No official accountability or responsibility has ever been assigned or taken.
16. The addition of a new taxpayer and tuition funded law firm retainer fee to perform the basic managerial services of chief contract negotiator currently listed in the job description of Assistant to the President.
17. The unilateral removal of the position of General Counsel and its outsourcing to a private, out-of-area, law firm had the foreseeable effect of nearly eliminating legal advice sought by employees since all legal questions for the law firm must be approved by appropriate Vice Presidents.
18. A trend toward bloat in management confidential-level positions during a period of extended enrollment decline.  Since 2010 the reduction in full-time teaching and staff positions have kept pace with enrollment decline.  However, during the same 8 year period, management-confidential level positions have increased 28% (e.g., the move to six associate vice presidents for Academic and Student Services when, at its enrollment peak, Monroe Community College employed just two).
19. In a clear violation of the MCC Core Value of Empowerment, the president made insulting remarks in public to writers of the student newspaper - The Monroe Doctrine - on the issue of how informed students were about the operations of the College.  The CEO publically remarked “You don’t read your email, you don’t read the paper, though maybe that’s a good thing.  We don’t seem to spell things correctly in it  [the Monroe Doctrine].”  
20. Reversal without prior notice of change to the 40-year implementation of employee Tuition Waiver agreement (Article 49), Management was forced to subsequently withdraw this highly impactful and unilateral move.
21. Against the tenets of MCC’s Mission Statement and Core Values of Inclusivity and Collaboration, sustained attempts by the CEO and Management to downsize and underfund the Global Education and International Services department (GEIS) demonstrates, at the very least, a lack of understanding the impact of this collaborative effort.  The goal of this program was to create meaningful connections among students, faculty, and wider global organizations and communities.
22. Following the CEO’s poor media performance in October 2017, in response to a racially-charged tweet that moved Monroe Community College’s diverse student body to self-organize rallies and information sessions and to demand accountability from its highest leadership, the CEO blamed a lack of faculty diversity on professional staff and faculty.  However, in 2011, the Faculty Association took the initiative and provided to both the CEO and management of Human Resources recommendations for increasing diversity in hiring as early as 2011.  These recommendations were not implemented.  Further, the President’s Action Plan on Diversity was implemented without any direct consultation with shared governance organizations.
23. The inability of the CEO’s management team to develop a clearly written procedure for hiring at Monroe Community College.  In the Spring of 2016, the Faculty Senate Special Committee on Administrative Affairs (SCAA) submitted a researched recommendation to shorten the hiring process and retain more diverse candidates in the job pool.  Again these recommendations were not implemented.
24. In clear violation of the MCC College Mission and the MCC Core Value of Stewardship, there has been repeated and regular turnover in management confidential-level positions that has deprived the institution of much needed institutional knowledge, and has predictably lead to inefficient use of the time and labor and the concomitant over-taxing of all hiring and recommending committees, such as the Faculty Senate’s Special Committee on Administrative Affairs (SCAA).  SCAA been involved with more than 50 hiring searches for director or higher-level position in just the last four years.
25. In clear violation of the MCC Core Value of Stewardship, the CEO and her management team regularly inflate budgetary predictions allowing for supposed under-budget fiscal year accomplishments and which regularly adds to the College’s fund balance at the expense of a 50% increase in student tuition rates over the last 10 years; the fourth highest tuition increase in the SUNY Community College system.
26. In clear violation of the MCC Core Values of Integrity and Inclusiveness, the CEO made public comments to campus African American and Latino Affinity groups that the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Association respectively were chief impediments to diversity in hiring at the College.
27. Unilateral reduction in both number and regularity of contractually negotiated contract administration and Joint Committee on Labor/Management Cooperation meetings (Articles 40 and 53).  The clear intent of these contract articles is to use labor/management committees to resolve mutual concerns via the crafting of Letters of Agreement and Memos of Understanding if/when necessary outside of the pressures of contract negotiations.  A predictable result has been near total lack of timely discussions regarding the cooperative administration of the collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Trustees of Monroe Community College and their employees.
28. Repeated failures by the CEO’s Contract Administrator to correctly communicate the terms of the FA contract to college employees.  The most extreme and recent example was a widely distributed and highly inaccurate communication in October 2018 regarding management’s calculation of 2018 salary equity distributions.  Subsequently, the Contract Administrator had been forced to revise and admit the error in its communication despite having all data necessary to make correct calculations and communication to employees as of June 1, 2018.
29. Failure to implement the recommendations of the taxpayer funded Labor-Management Relations specialist from Cornell University School of Labor Relations in 2014.
30. Attempts to improperly influence the Faculty Association internal discretion regarding the allocation of contractually-negotiated release time for its staff members (Article 3 - Section E, Article 37).
31. Failure to award contractually negotiated salary increases on September 1 for employees hired prior to September 1, a unilateral move management was forced to subsequently withdraw.
32. Unprecedented, regular and extended delays in the production of contractually negotiated June 1 Salary Equity lists in each of the years 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 resulting in delayed raises, loss of interest on monies deposited into faculty retirement plans, and overall confusion amongst the rank and file on pay.
33. Deliberate misrepresentation of management’s own internal delays in the payment of awards from the Salary Equity list by false attribution of Board of Trustees’ policy.
34. Failure to anticipate and respond to the need to negotiate contractually relevant changes in the Academic Calendar resulting in a) unnecessary and costly delays in bargaining a successor agreement; b) adjunct teaching faculty working extra hours without additional pay; and c) 10-month contract employees working in violation of contract terms.
35. Increase in labor/management complaints and grievances that are increasingly requiring costly taxpayer funded arbitration because of lack of good faith attempts to resolve inevitable differences prior to arbitration stage (Article 44).
36. Clear violation of MCC’s Core Values of Integrity and Empowerment in the misuse of MCC’s EthicsPoint Hotline in direct violation of MCC’s internal standard to not use anonymous reports that do not fit the definition of ethics violations.  The predictable effect has been an increased experience of bullying and a general atmosphere of intimidation among all employees.
37. Reversal without prior notice of the mediated agreement to use Joint Committee on Labor/Management Cooperation meetings (Article 53) to resolve mutual concerns via Letter of Agreement regarding the downtown Rochester campus.
38. Specifically a unilateral change to parking access by downtown Rochester campus faculty and staff without negotiation while retaining the private underground parking rights for Management.
39. The failure to provide the Faculty Senate with timely assessment data regarding the senior management team’s frequent CEO approved reorganization plans and the effectiveness of these decisions, despite assurances this data would be provided at the time of implementation.
40. The high frequency of CEO-approved reorganization (11 reorganizations since 2014) and office relocation have created an atmosphere of chaos.
41. The clear violation of MCC Core Values of Collaboration and Stewardship in the unilateral negotiation and implementation of multiple agreements with area high schools to create pathways to dual high-school and MCC diplomas without any consultation with the College’s Dual Enrollment office, Faculty Senate, or Faculty Association (Article 47).
42. The Shared Leadership Coordinating Council (SLCC), which was created as an advisory and not a shared governance body, has been increasingly tasked with shared governance decisions in conjunction with the President’s Office.  The predictable effect has been the minimizing of the collective voice of the MCC Faculty Senate via circumvention.
43. SLCC meetings have been scheduled for the last three years during a time when it is difficult for students to be present due to Student Government Association meeting schedules.  The CEO and her management team have been aware of this issue but unwilling to make a change.  This same conflict exists with the recent plans for a President’s Expanded Council.
44. Reversal, without prior notice, of the widespread higher education practice of preserving tenure and right-of-return for qualified employees hired into management positions not covered by the collective bargaining agreements.  Initial responses from the CEO claimed this was just the practice of an earlier single provost.  After protracted discussion Management has since had to retract this comment and publicly acknowledge this change violated MCC norms, not to mention terms and conditions of employment dating nearly back to the College’s creation.
45. Unilateral reversal in 2014, without prior notice, of management’s contractual agreement to provide health insurance options to all employees by attempting to move to a self-funded model of health care provision - a highly-impactful change that Management was forced to subsequently withdraw.
46. Direct opposition to the securing for Chairpersons any additional compensation during each of the last three contract cycles, although chairperson workload necessarily increased as a result of the CEO’s own policies.
47. In clear violation of  MCC’s Core Value of Inclusiveness, at the October 2018 Board of Trustees’ meeting, the CEO directly singled out newly hired temporary employees as holding positions that are “opportunities to increase diversity at the College in the future,” with the predictable result of increasing fear in these particularly vulnerable employees regarding their future employment at MCC.  
48. Failure to produce an effective campaign to increase the enrollment levels of the downtown campus.  The CEO repeatedly made a case for the relocation of the downtown campus premised on the claim of an average enrollment of 3200 students.  Current enrollment is less than half and still no plan has been developed to increase student population.
49. Implementation of a CIVITAS system, without prior consultation or input, resulting in costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to students and taxpayers, while the number of full-time teaching faculty, professional staff, and support staff positions continue to decline each year.  An explanation of the cost effectiveness of this system has not been produced nor do decisions seemed to be based on the data produced by this new reporting database.
50. Course substitutions approved at the management-confidential level of employment did not involve the consultation of department chairpersons responsible for the courses being substituted leads to unnecessarily drawing into question the integrity of the granted degrees.
51. Fiscal miscalculation and mismanaged roll-out of health care insurance beneficiaries audit that was not required and which cost the students and taxpayers of New York State $35,000 for no demonstrable benefit.
52. The unilateral choice to move to taxpayer and tuition-funded mediation in the Spring of 2015 after less than 10 contract negotiations sessions with the Faculty Association negotiation team, claiming financial hardship as the reason to end collective bargaining after only 5 months.  Management somehow subsequently secures $3.5 million in additional funding to offer for faculty and professional staff one-time retirement incentives after the taxpayer-funded mediated contract of 2015 was settled.
53. The creation of Academic Master Plans and Advisory Board Guidelines without input from Faculty Senators and shared governance bodies.  Feedback was only requested after plans were developed by a small group of predominantly management-confidential employees.  Management was eventually forced to withdrawal these plans.
54. The Policy Portal initiative, as currently implemented by the President’s Office, reduces the voice of the Faculty Senate by encouraging shared governance representatives and constituents to contribute anonymously rather than encourage deliberative dialogue at open Senate meetings.  As currently administered, the Policy Portal initiative reserves comments to posts only to the original poster, decreasing the transparency among and between the branches of shared governance.
55. Unilateral appointment of director-level positions and above without a public search is in violation of BOT-approved Faculty Senate Bylaw Article IX, Section 2, Part E2.
56. In direct contrast to the CEO’s contractually required responsibility to “attract and retain qualified faculty and administrative staff of the highest caliber,” her administration has maintained a consistent pattern of offering contracts to women of color at the minimum salary rank possible, leading in many cases to refusals to accept initial job offers, as well as overall low morale given the implicit statement made by offers in light of the fact other employees have been offered starting salaries above the minimum.  This consistent pattern suggests to many minority employees and potential hires that they are not considered by the CEO to be of the “highest caliber” even though a contract offer has been made.
57. CEO’s personal choice to cut the Diversity Council release time hours in Fall of 2010.  Funding has yet to be restored.
58. Unilateral removal of Strategic Planning Initiative monies from Faculty Senate Planning Committee without prior notice or opportunity for discussion that has only been partially restored by management through direct employee pressure.
59. CEO’s failure to disclose on annual Conflict of Interest statements her compensated service on the Directors Advisory Council of M&T Bank where the College financial resources are on deposit.
60. The regular contestation of even minimal compensation for the increasing number of work-required trainings for adjunct faculty.
61. The denial to Article 32-eligible adjunct faculty of the right to promotion in specialized disciplines that lack Master Degree specific certification.  
62. Failure of the CEO’s senior managers to work toward the transition to full-time employment when possible of long-term employees in grant-funded positions or long-utilized ‘temporary positions,’ leaving valued and seasoned professionals in a position of total insecurity from year to year, and without clear directions with regard to basic employment policies such as vacation allocation when transitioning from one grant-funded or temporary assignment to another. 
63. Across-the-board requests for professional staff to work extra and atypical hours given the failure to hire replacement employees.  The CEO’s senior managers have yet to present a coherent, predictable, and reliable method for leave time approvals to provide staff with the opportunity to use accrued vacation.
64. College-wide lack of adequate and regularly updated job descriptions in violation of Article 54.  This failure has predictably lead to an increasingly routine of adding workload to professional staff and teaching faculty, forcing the BOT’s employees to be increasingly responsible for work substantially beyond their title, rank, or pay grade.
65. In clear violation of MCC’s Core Value of Integrity, entire sections of the most recent Middle-States Accreditation Self-Study Report were redrafted and eliminated specific suggestions and concerns at the College.
66. In clear violation of MCC’s Core Values of Integrity and Excellent, following a Great Colleges to Work For survey which showed extremely high levels of employee dissatisfaction with senior leadership and the CEO specifically, the following year the CEO spent thousands of dollars to commission a second survey that assessed employees’ dissatisfaction only toward their “supervisor.”
67. The members of the Faculty Senate and the unionized employees of Monroe Community College respectively insist that the current evaluation system for senior leadership - a system that is assumed to consist in “dialogues” and “regular conversations,” should be replaced with a formalized and objective system of evaluation, particularly, as noted by Middle States, in light of the significant number of reorganizations (Middle States Commission on Higher Education Evaluation Team Report - Standard 5).
68. The members of the Faculty Senate and the unionized employees of Monroe Community College respectively insist that the current evaluation system for the President/CEO of Monroe Community College - a system that is assumed to consist in “dialogues” and “regular conversations,” should be replaced with a formalized and objective system of evaluation (Middle States Commission on Higher Education Evaluation Team Report - Standard 5).

Appendix

In support of this resolution, and following New York State law 8 NYCRR Part 606, etc., your employees jointly offered the preceding list of averments in accordance with the Board of Trustees of Monroe Community College and the Chancellor of the State University of New York’s (SUNY) following policies as well as in accordance with the statutorily-authorized Faculty Council for Community Colleges’ (FCCC) definition of the “three areas of shared governance,” which include “curriculum, budgeting, and managing personnel matters,” as well as the prior approved Monroe Community College Mission Statement and Core Values Statement. 

Violations of FCCC Category I - Climate of Shared Governance

Violations of FCCC Category II - Institutional Communication

Violations of FCCC Category IV - The President’s Role in Shared Government

Violations of FCCC Category V - Faculty Involvement in Shared Governance

Violations of FCCC Category VII - Joint-Decision-Making

Violations of Kress Employment Contract - Article 1 Employment

Violations of Kress Employment Contract - Article 1.2 Employment

Failure to Implement Standard 5 Recommendation of Middle States Evaluative Report 2016

Violations of Board of Trustees Policy 2.14 - College Administration Policy

Violations of the Monroe Community College 2017-2021 Diversity Equity and Inclusion Plan

Violations of the Contractual Agreement between the Faculty Association and the Monroe Community College Board of Trustees 2015-2018

Violations of Monroe Community College Senate Bylaws

Violations of the Monroe Community College Administration Policy Conflicts of Interests for College Officers and Non-Contract Employees

Violations of MCC Mission Statement and Core Values Statement

FCCC Category I - Climate of Shared Governance

Criteria 1 - “The Trustees, administration, and faculty model collegiality, respect, tolerance, and civility toward other members of the campus community and each other.

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “Rather than collegial, the relationships among the constituencies are poorly established, adversarial or divisive; decisions are often made arbitrarily or without clear, formalized process for input agreed upon by constituent groups.”

Criteria 2 - “Negotiations and communications among college constituencies are open and carried out in good faith  and in an atmosphere of trust.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “Decision-making processes and their related communications are not always open and clear, leading to perceptions of arbitrariness, personal deal-making, and distrust.”

FCCC Category IV - The President’s Role in Shared Government

Criteria 1 - “The president accepts, and only on rare occasions overturns, faculty/campus governance decisions, especially in the areas in which faculty has primary responsibility.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “The president frequently and arbitrarily overturns faculty/campus governance decisions and recommendations in the areas in which faculty have the primary responsibility; the president bypasses faculty/campus governance decision-making processes in areas of faculty responsibility; the president does not communicate clearly and in a timely manner, his or her rationale for the rejection of or changes to faculty/campus governance decisions or recommendations; the president does not meet regularly with faculty/campus governance leaders or include them in ceremonial events.”

Criteria 2 - “The president seeks meaningful faculty/campus governance input on those issues (such as budgeting) in which the faculty has an appropriate interest but not primary responsibility.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “Decisions in which faculty have a serious and appropriate interest but not primary responsibility are made without sufficient consultation or input from faculty/campus governance; faculty/campus governance is not sufficiently involved in planning and budgeting, even though these affect achievement of institutional goals and educational priorities; the president does not routinely accept the recommendations of faculty/campus governance, especially regarding curriculum and academic standards; and the president fails to systematically respond to recommendations in writing or in a timely manner.”

FCCC Category V - Faculty Involvement in Shared Governance

Criteria 1 -  “The faculty have access to and participate in faculty/campus governance processes. Faculty understand and value the purpose of shared governance.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “Faculty/campus governance is discouraged...faculty view shared governance as ineffective; faculty and faculty/campus governance fail to protect and promote the principles of academic freedom and the right to participate in shared governance and at times misuse or abuse those rights.”

Criteria 4 - “Faculty interact respectfully with the president, the board of trustees, administration, student governance, fellow faculty members and other constituents of the college community.”

Definition - Exceeds Expectations:  “Faculty are knowledgeable and respectful of the organizational structure of the institution and the authority of the president, the board and the faculty; faculty follow the protocols and policies of the institution; faculty/campus governance leaders have established a respectful and collegial relationship with the president and the board, administration, student governance and each other, resulting in effective shared governance and informed decision making that will benefit the college and the students; tensions arising from inevitable conflicts are not discouraged but are systematically and transparently explored and ameliorated for the purposes of better decision making.”

Criteria 5 - “The roles between faculty/campus governance and collective bargaining are clearly defined and understood.”

Definition - Exceeds Expectations:  “Faculty/campus governance and collective bargaining roles are clear and well respected by each; issues of common interest are addressed appropriately in each venue and collaboratively when necessary; faculty/campus governance leaders and collective bargaining work collaboratively to direct issues to appropriate body; liaison relationships exist between both bodies to perpetuate the sharing of information.”

FCCC Category VII - Joint-Decision-Making

Criteria 1 - “Institution recognizes joint responsibility for decision-making in the area of long range planning.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “The local board and administration are not sufficiently consultative or inclusive of faculty/campus governance, student governance and other appropriate constituent groups in the development and assessment of long-range or strategic plans; the planning process is strictly administrative and not necessarily formalized or clearly articulated; academics or educational programming is not central to long-range or strategic planning goals.”

Criteria 2 - “The institution recognizes joint responsibility for decision-making regarding existing or prospective physical resources.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “Decision-making regarding existing or prospective physical resources is done by administration arbitrarily and without consultation; the impact on constituencies and end users is not sufficiently considered, and input regarding the impact is not sufficiently sought.”

Criteria 3 - “The institution recognizes joint responsibility for decision-making in the area of budgeting.”

Definition - Does Not Meet: “The institution’s shared governance system does not include a planning and budgeting committee; budget prioritization is determined with little to no input from faculty and staff; planning and budgeting is viewed as an administrative and board function only.”

Criteria 4 - “The institution recognizes joint responsibility for the selection and evaluation of the president and senior administrators.”

Definition - Does Not Meet:  “...evaluation/assessment of college president and senior administrators does not sufficiently include faculty or faculty/campus governance leadership perspectives.”

Violations of Contract “Agreement with the President of the College” - Article 1. Employment - “The Board, acting on behalf of the College, employs the President and the President accepts employment as President according to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement to act as its chief executive officer and to, among other things, oversee and coordinate all day-to-day activities of the College, attract and retain qualified faculty and administration staff of the highest caliber and promote admissions…”

Violations of Contract “Agreement with the President of the College” - Article 1.2 Employment - “The President shall faithfully, diligently, and competently to the best of the  President’s ability exclusively devote the President’s full time, energy, and attention to the business of the College and promote the interests of the College.”

Failure to Implement Standard 5 Recommendation of Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Evaluation Team Report , 2016

“The president is evaluated by the Board of Trustees through a process of dialogue between the president and board using an evaluation tool that includes some standard metrics and also areas of special focus which are tied to the strategic plan. The board does independent evaluations that include ratings and comments that are then shared with the president through the human resources department. Other administrators are evaluated by the president through continuous formative evaluation discussions where dialogue between the president and administrator determine the set of goals also aligned to the strategic plan. Regular conversations allow for self-correction and continuous evaluation to occur throughout the year. There is not a formal process in place for other faculty and staff to evaluate administrators although there are varied informal processes occurring in various departments for administrators. Significant Accomplishments, Significant Progress, or Exemplary/Innovative Practices Non-binding Suggestions for Improvement In light of the reorganizations, the visiting team suggests that the College may review evaluation process for administrators.”

Violations of Monroe Community College Administration Policy 2.14

Background - “The Board of Trustees respects its role in policy and governance, assigning operational responsibility to this leadership, with its primary delegate being the College’s Chief Executive Officer, the President...The College’s Administration is a recognized constituent within the Shared Governance Policy; its liaison in that policy is identified as the President.”

Section 1 - President, Part 2 - “Responsibilities”

A. “The president serves as the Chief Executive Officer with full authority to administer the affairs of the College in accordance with the bylaws, resolutions, and policies of the Board.”

D.  “Responsible for supervising and coordinating the activities of the College officers and other key administrators.”

H.  “Recommends actions on the planning and management of College facilities.”

K.  “Provides administration, direction, and support in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the academic governance and collective bargaining processes.”

N.  “Responsible for the preparation and publication of College policies to be made accessible to all members of the professional staff of the College and to the public.”

Violations of the Monroe Community College 2017-2021 Diversity Equity and Inclusion Plan

 Part II - Current Campus Diversity and Inclusiveness Assessment

“Emphasis on diverse hiring practices is noted at MCC. Each division has Affirmative Action Coordinators who work to ensure diverse applicants receive full consideration for employment opportunities. Search committee members are trained on inclusive hiring practices prior to serving on hiring committees. Job postings are reviewed for inclusive language and suitable qualifications by the Coordinators and Human Resources staff to ensure candidate pools are not biased. Human Resources strives to advertise job postings across multiple sources and platforms to attract diverse candidates for consideration as well. Although divisions provided responses to professional development and training, much of the information was limited and repetitive. The Diversity Council recognizes there is a need for additional education, preparation on inclusive hiring practices, and a commitment to hiring a more diverse workforce.”

“The Diversity Council identified three areas of focus for our diversity plan: access, attitudes, and appreciation. Access involves creating structures and relationships that help diverse candidates attain equity, both in the educational and employment arenas, and become contributing members to the College community. Attitudes refers to the receptiveness of our existing College community to diversity, how the College creates a welcoming environment for newly hired employees, and how the College promotes and encourages diverse thoughts throughout the College community. Finally, appreciation relates to how the College community values the input and impact of diversity on the educational and employment experiences.”

Violations of the Monroe Community College Administration Policy Conflicts of Interests for College Officers and Non-Contract Employees

Section 3. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: “An Employee shall disclose a conflict of interest: (a) prior to entering into any contract or transaction involving the College; (b) as soon as possible after the Employee shall learn of a conflict of interest in any other context. Such disclosures must be made in writing and submitted to the Human Resources Office. Disclosure of the material facts surrounding the Employee’s conflict of interest shall be made to the President.” Date Established: December 18, 2006. Responsible Office: Human Resources. Date Last Revised: March 5, 2018.

Section 4. “Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Failure to adequately disclose a potential or actual conflict of interest shall constitute cause for dismissal.”

Violations of the Monroe Community College Mission Statement

Definition - “Mission Statement” of Monroe Community College : “Monroe Community College, through access to affordable academic programs, leads excellence and innovation in higher education, inspires diverse students to transform their lives and communities, drives regional economic development, and builds global engagement and understanding.”

Violations of the Monroe Community College Core Values Statement

Definition - “Core Values Statement” of Monroe Community College” :  “Monroe Community College values integrity, excellence, empowerment, inclusiveness, collaboration and stewardship.  These values help guide our behavior as MCC students and employees.”

Definition - “Integrity” - We believe in promoting an environment of honesty and authenticity, in being accountable and ethically responsible for our policies and actions, and exemplifying a high standard of civility.

Definition - “Excellence” - We pursue and develop the highest educational standards by encouraging creativity and risk-taking; by continuously assessing and improving programs, services, and policies; and by exceeding learner and community expectations.

Definition - “Empowerment” - We are committed to supporting learners as they develop the skills to overcome obstacles on their paths to intellectual, professional, and personal growth.

Definition - “Inclusiveness” - We nurture an institutional culture that ensures fairness and equity for all, while respecting and leveraging our diversity.”

Definition - “Collaboration” - We encourage meaningful partnerships among colleagues, departments, and divisions within MCC as well as with local, regional, and global communities.

Definition - “Stewardship” - We are accountable to our stakeholders for responsible management of the human, fiscal, physical, and environmental resources and information entrusted to us.