Respondents across the university’s administrative posts and in faculty governance agreed that the university has experienced significant administrative change. Secondary analysis on administrative change demonstrates the accuracy of these responses. Indeed, it is difficult to find an area of leadership untouched by change.
Since the last WASC review, California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) has new leadership in the President and Provosts offices. President F. King Alexander and Provost Karen Gould together and individually have generated a great deal of change. President Alexander has increased the campus’ visibility by participating in regional and national venues as an expert in public higher education, particularly in finance and in the development of new public policies. This role has been especially important in a period of increased competition for uncertain resources. He has called for an “internationalizing” of the campus in curriculum and research, paying special attention to applied research that benefits both surrounding communities and society at large.
Provost Gould has also ushered in many changes in personnel and policy. She has reorganized the Office of the Provost by creating a second Vice Provost, who will handle Graduate Affairs, new programs, and other policy concerns. Associate Vice Presidents for Undergraduate Affairs, Personnel, Academic Technology, andResearch & External Support either have been or will be hired in the near future. A search for an Assistant Vice President for International Education and Global Engagement is underway.
Provost Gould has also made positive changes to Academic Affairs budgeting strategies and work load policy. She has initiated a student summer scholarships for faculty/student research projects, as well as personally organizing an ad hoc committee to revise the university RTP document that had become lodged in a university committee for three years. In general, Provost Gould has been instrumental in creating new and different way to look at problems and policy alternatives.
Appointed a few years prior to the massive leadership changes, Vice Provost for Planning and Budgets, David Dowell, has assumed the daunting task of enrollment management which was largely ignored for years. To assist him in that is task the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment was created, thus creating the potential for data-driven enrollment, retention, and graduation decisions.
Leading this university through its first major donor campaign, President Alexander has completely reorganized the Division of University Relations and Development, including hiring a new Associate Vice President, Andrea Taylor, who, in turn, has made numerous positive changes. In spite of some resistance, changes have resulted in increase accountability for development officers and created rational shifts in work expectations and goals. Vice President Taylor also has brought a more organized and strategic approach to the university’s development activities.
Others administrative changes can be found in the in recent appointments of three new Deans among the seven colleges that make up the university; Engineering, Liberal Arts, and Business Administration. Each of these Deans has initiated a series of policies to increase the productivity, student successes, and identity of their respective colleges.
The President has appointed a new Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance, a position playing a crucial role in budget plans and allocations
The position of Director of University Research was abolished. The newly-created position of Associate Vice President for Research and External Support was assigned supervisory responsibilities for the Office of University Research and is housed in that office. External funding has increase under the leadership of the last two Associate Vice Presidents. A new position, Director for Research Compliance, was created.
The university has hired a new Athletics Director and the Forty-Niner Shops, Inc. now has a new Chief Executive Officer and General Manager.
In 2005 the responsibilities of Academic Computing Services (ACS) were moved under authority of the University Library. A new organization was formed, Library and Academic Technology Services (LATS). The newly formed LATS organization began a process for merging and evaluating the services and functions formerly provided by ACS. Services that are now provided by LATS that were the responsibility of ACS are
In November, 2006 the Financial Management Information Systems (FMIS) was moved to report to the Controller instead of the Associate Vice President of Financial Management. This was accomplished at the same time as the new Controller was appointed. In July, 2004 a cash management and investment position was added to the Controllers office.
University Services was created and Information, Management and Analysis (IMA) was split into Information Technology Services (ITS) and Enrollment Services, with the latter assuming responsibility for Student Administration application programs.
Human Resources Management has changed structures and names several times and Parking and Transportation was split.
10 of 12 respondents indicated how the changes affected decision making. 1 indicated that the changes would occur next year, so a response isn’t possible at this time and 1 respondent indicated that the changes were positive, but did not elaborate on what the changes were.
2 respondents indicated that decision making is now more centralized
2 respondents indicated that decision making is less centralized
4 respondents indicated that decision making is now individualized based on the parties involved or the activities of the organization
2 respondents indicated that the lines of communication have become clearer
General Analysis: The organizational changes have altered decision making in ways that are specific to the organization.
A total of 14 responses were received to this question. Of these 14 responses,
Overall, approximately 71% of the survey participates responded positively about the administrative organizational changes that have taken place since the last WASC review, approximately 21% responded in a neutral manner, and approximately 7% felt the changes resulted in less effective decision making.
Communication lines between all constituencies were improved in various ways such as, having better knowledge of chains of responsibilities, development of division intranet sites and development of newsletters. Net result appears to be more cooperation and better reporting lines but there are instances of negatives such as that it takes more time to build consensus. Perhaps the most important is the fact that things that worked before reorganization did not suffer.
Communication remained as effective as before or it improved in particular in quality. Another effect that may have contributed to improvement is new stronger leadership.
A total of 15 responses were received to this question. Of these 15 responses, only five were affirmative, indicating that organizational changes in the Academic Senate resulted in their work being affected in some way.
The senate abolished the Graduate Council effective Fall, 2005, and gave its duties with respect to reviewing proposed new graduate programs and reviewing academic policies to the Educational Policies Council, which was renamed the Curriculum and Educational Polices Council (CEP). The senate also added three additional committees to the list of four that already report to the re-named council. Reorganization also resulted in the creation of the Program Assessment and Review Council (PARC) to replace the Program Review and Planning Council (PRAP).
Another respondent noted the creation of the Library Advisory Committee and Faculty Advisory Committee on Technology (FACT), with the former apparently function well, while the latter has yet to identify its mission.
The third respondent, a member of the Division of Administration and Finance deals directly with the Resource Planning Process (RPP) Task Force and commented on the Academic Senate’s decision to change the faculty representation on the task force. Faculty representation on RPP remained at five representatives, but the Chair of Graduate Council was no longer a separate representative since it was consolidated with Program Review and Academic Planning Council. The fifth faculty seat on RPP was assigned to the Chair of Faculty Personnel Policies Council.
The third respondent also viewed the Senate’s decision to eliminate the University Organizational Services Committee as positive. In their opinion, the committee was not particularly effective, and it was labor intensive for the division to provide support to the committee members.
The fourth respondent considered the previous organization for program review and assessment to be somewhat difficult. The reorganization streamlined the process.
The first respondent provided information on the results of organizational changes, noting that all curriculum and policy, whether graduate or undergraduate, is now handled by CEP. All program reviews are handled by PARC and the Senate’s approval of a Timeline and Responsibilities document for student learning outcomes assessment has provided an effective framework for action and decision-making. Previously, Grad Council handled policy and program review for graduate programs.
The fourth respondent noted that decision-making is now centered around one Academic Senate Council that works in parallel with the one Academic Affairs VP who has the portfolio for program review and assessment. The respondent works closely with both.
The first respondent indicated that decision making has become much more effective, especially in the area of program review and student learning outcomes assessment.
The fourth respondent noted that decision-making has been consolidated into one responsible body instead of three, resulting in decisions being made on a more informed and speedy basis.
The fifth respondent considers decision making to be more effective in as much as new programs, changes to existing policies, and new policies have a direct route to the senate. The occasional need to check with the Graduate Council has been alleviated. In addition, the reduction of the councils from five to four resulted in the elimination of the question each year as to which four of the five chairs would serve on the Resource Planning Process Task Force.
The first respondent noted increased activity and communication in the areas of student learning outcomes assessment and program review. Additionally, a considerable backlog of program reviews was cleared away in the first two years of PARC activity.
The fourth respondent has found communication is more streamlined, more targeted, and the information more often gets to the persons who need it to make informed decisions, a finding echoed by the fifth respondent.
Three respondents noted that communication has become much more effective, with one sensing that the campus is responsive to the new program review process and that participation in it has been sincere. In respect to outcomes assessment, there has been steadily increasing participation and communication as to what departments and programs are finding out about student learning.
One respondent suggested that external confirmation from the campus community might affirm the effectiveness of the Senate's changes.
