Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Personnel decision making. Participant responses illustrated that personnel decision making leaned toward the local college and was more likely to occur at the local
college than at the system for the decision items asked about on the survey. Table 4.3 summarizes the frequency of participant responses for personnel decisions.
Table 4.3


Frequency of Participant Responses for Personnel Decisions

Decision Item	Local College	Primarily the college, with some input from the system	Shared equally between the college and system	Primarily the system, with some input from the college	State system
Adjudicating faculty grievances	1	3	2	0	0
Allocating vacant faculty positions among departments at individual colleges	6	0	0	0	0
Appointing senior college administrators (including vice presidents)	6	0	0	0	0
Authorizing out-of-state travel for faculty members	6	0	0	0	0
Determining faculty salary schedules	0	2	1	2	1

Table 4.3 (continued)

Determining administrator or staff salary schedules	0	1	2	2	1
Determining affirmative action targets for academic hiring	0	1	3	1	1
Granting faculty tenure or promotion	0	2	3	0	1
Hiring new faculty members	6	0	0	0	0
Total	25	9	11	5	4

Participants perceived that the items “allocating vacant faculty positions among departments at individual colleges,” “appointing senior college administrators (including vice presidents),” “authorizing out-of-state travel for faculty members,” and “hiring new faculty members” occurs exclusively at the local college. Although employees are employees of KCTCS and not the individual colleges, policy outlined that college presidents were responsible, without delegation, for appointments, and were also responsible for hiring all employees, which helped explain participant perceptions about the location of decision making for these decision items.
The items “determining faculty salary schedules” and “determining administrator or staff salary schedules” indicated that participants perceived differently the location of
decision making for these items. Both of these items were explored in phase two and what emerged from interviews and documents was a system-wide salary schedule according to faculty rank and administrator or staff band level. Moreover, policy indicated that college presidents were responsible, without delegation, for recommendations on salaries and salary changes. This dispersion in participant responses in the context of policy on salaries suggested that either presidents may have perceived the location of these decision items leaned toward the system because the policy is system driven. Moreover, participants may have perceived that the salary schedule was clear and flexible enough to permit application at the college level, and for this reason, participants perceived that decisions concerning faculty, administrator, and staff salary schedules to be more shared.
Moreover, participant responses for the item “granting faculty tenure or promotion” were somewhat dispersed but centered around shared decision making. This item was explored in phase two and interview and document analyses indicated that the tenure and promotion process involved a college faculty committee that reviews and recommends candidates to the college president, who then reviews and forwards recommendations to the KCTCS chancellor. A system faculty committee reviews and recommends candidates to the KCTCS president, who then reviews and forwards recommendations to the KCTCS Board of Regents.
The fact that the decision making process for granting faculty tenure or promotion involved both the KCTCS president and college president, as well as system and college level recommending committees, could explain why participant responses centered around shared decision making. However, some participants may have perceived that
granting faculty tenure or promotion occurs at the local college, with some input from the system because the colleges are the main instructional units of the system. Similarly, participants may have perceived that granting faculty tenure or promotion occurred at the system because the KCTCS presidents makes the final recommendation to the KCTCS Board of Regents or because the Board of Regents, which is closely aligned with the system and KCTCS president, has final authority over awarding of tenure or promotion.