Interview with Dr. Sue Lorimer Dean of Planning Research & Development   Back to ARC Institutional Report index

Sue’s official title is Dean of Planning, Research & Development. She is responsible for overall institutional planning and chairs the college’s planning council. She is also the accreditation liaison for the college and supervises the research department. They have a combination faculty person/researcher position that’s open. Also have a research analyst and clerk. Manage staff development (CTL) and ITC. Also all IT campus-wide support.

The other part of her job is serving on the President’s Executive Staff (PES), made up of the three VPs and the president and Sue.  She does everything that they don’t do. A chance to be at the table for a lot of big picture issues.  Reports directly to the President.

The District has a strategic plan and all the colleges are supposed to align their planning with that.  Easy, because it’s very broad.  They try to link planning to resources.  But resources come in many different ways and with many different requirements.  They have institutional goals but are also accountable to the state and the district. The Council tries to look at broad college-wide objectives.  Also have the Educational Master Plan (EMP) process. More operational.  People work from their unit areas and consider them the experts and look at what their goals and objectives are and how they align to this process.  And how to get the things done that they need… what changes in curriculum, staffing, equipment, staff development.  They renew that every year.

In Jeffrey’s case with Biotech, the next step is the Curriculum Committee.  Then they look at different resources that they might need to support a new curriculum. It then comes to PES as a report, not for an approval.  Sue puts together a planning process so that the dept can go through what it needs and then go through the regular structures to get those. If everyone uses somewhat the same format, then it’s easier for the decision makers to compare apples to apples. But different instructional areas are so different in the resources that they need that the complexity is difficult. They try to give the decision makers as much info as possible so they can make the best decision. That in the context of all the regulations they have to meet.

ARC has gone with a pretty decentralized way of doing things. Philosophy is that the people at the level doing the work know best what it is they need.  And they are part of a District that runs a lot by formula. e.g. How much goes to each VP area.  Once that money is allocated out, those areas have almost complete say over what they do and then that trickles down; how they divide that up into their specific areas.  So we try to keep it decentralized. That’s why the EMPs are so important, so they are thinking through a coherent process and there is some accountability.

The VPs have the major day-to-day power over operational budgets.  They tend to allocate those by formula. Partnership for Excellence (PFE) had specific standards tied to it. So ARC asked people to put in proposals that met the governor’s criteria and the district’s goals.  Those were ranked and then funded.  One problem was that those who made a great presentation tended to get the funding.  That may not have been where the greatest need was.  The gung ho instructors tend to get the funding. But, for the benefit of students, other departments might need resources.  You can’t rely on the free market system all the time.

Another piece is the Unions.  Negotiating at those levels too.  It all adds to the various levels. Faculty, white collar, blue collar, and supervisor unions. Actually do a fairly good job with all unions. With PFE, unions supported what the colleges wanted to do, but made sure that so many new positions are hired.

Around 350 FT faculty. About 66% FT.  Have been making progress in trying to make 75% target. Because growing so fast and because many faculty have retired recently, 1/3 of faculty has been replaced in the last 3 years.  Has some tremendous implications when trying to move an institution forward because the experienced faculty is leaving, the new untenured folks are concentrating on classrooms and the middle layer has to do all of the committee work. Risk of burning out the middle layer.  And trying to maintain a culture in a college. Trying to use new people to do things better than they’ve been done in the past is an interesting challenge.

The operating budgets come through the VPs.  Staff development dollars come through an oversight advisory committee to distribute moneys to those various committees.  The state instructional equipment dollars got to the instructional deans.  And they get the requests from their areas based on PFEs.  Matriculation dollars work through student services.

The decentralized philosophy has been a long-term ARC process.  Not the same at all the district colleges. Marie (Pres) is in 5th year.  Keeps departments from fighting for dollars.  And people that don’t understand an area don’t have to make decisions about those areas. The fighting takes place when percentages are determined and they stay in place for a long time. Pres=10%, SS=11%, AS=38%, Instruction=balance.  (This is just General Fund dollars.  So SS has many other sources of funds.)

When new general fund dollars come in, 80% go into the bucket… used to improve salaries and pay for benefits. Don’t know how much until year is over. So, every year a conservative projection of the bucket is paid throughout the year.  At the end of the year, any money left in the bucket comes back in lump sum salary payment. Another nice thing is that everyone gets a lump sum payment during the first few weeks of school when you’re trying to motivate faculty and inspire them to grow.  Also, District philosophy is never spend money until they have it.

The other 20% is new dollars for new costs. Last year it went toward energy costs increases.  New FTEs come from growth dollars.

The XYZ budget.  Start out spending at the lowest level and then move up if things are going pretty well.  Hopefully finish up on Z budget.

ARC curriculum responds to needs of the community. So, as immigrants grow, add ESL. As high tech grows, more emphasis there.  If we don’t respond to needs, we’ll be in trouble.

Research is about Institutional Effectiveness, projecting enrollments, etc. One of the things we see is that more and more students are less and less prepared.  It will be a challenge to serve all those students and bring them up to the level they need. This comes back to balance; don’t want to become just a remedial college because then you’ve left out the whole workforce and don’t want to just do workforce because then you’ve left out the whole transfer element.  But you have to go where the numbers are.

Technology at times will be a real asset and at other times our undoing. Infrastructure in this large an institution, the kind of money that has to go in is just amazing.  The range at which people come to us in technology skills that come to us is also amazing. The more affluent schools have all the latest, greatest gadgets and expect AR to be teaching at that level and our people to be prepared.  And then there are people at the other end of the spectrum who don’t have that experience at all and we need to help bring them up to where they can use technology.

The more we rely on technology, the more it’s critical that our systems work. And one of the bucket and hiring issues is that the state rewards us for hiring faculty.  It does not reward for hiring classified staff and managers.  So with our growth, we are really falling behind.  In IT particularly, good classified staff are expensive; often more than faculty.  So here we try to automate as much as possible.  Easier to get money for equipment and software than for a new position.  So then the training to keep up is at a high level and then when it doesn’t work…  What happens when an $800 In Focus bulb burns out?  Or when one needs repair?  Faculty is relying on them.  What do you replace it with?

In California, we don’t know where money is coming from or how much. We have to think where will we be 3 years from now when the equipment needs to be replaced.  Do some cascading of equipment down to next level, but can only do that for so long.  Hundreds of students pounding on a computer causes rapid depreciation. So been working on online classes and web-enhanced.  Will perhaps help with some of the classroom issues.  Probably one of the places we need to explore is part online and part face-to-face. Online is not for every student.  Some faculty resist and some want the latest and greatest.

One of the access issues is solved if you have alternatives to online classes for students.  That resolves the legal issues.  Have open labs, but not very many.  Stations in library and ITC and offer free e-mail.  Working on public access network for wireless connections. Not convinced how much it will be used.  Trying to avoid security issues when students plug into an open port.  Information Access requirement is being explored. However, do not have resources to guarantee access to every student, so cannot make it a degree requirement.  Everything electronic has to be made available also in hard copy. Looking at how to identify web-enhanced classes in catalog so students are fully informed.

Expanded to McLennan in a Public Safety Training Center.  Bringing in large contracts from police, sheriff, fire, fish & game, etc.  When you do that there is money to be made, but you are committing to a facility and support services. What if they change they mind a few years down the road?  This is discussed at the executive level. Can we afford not to commit.  If we don’t do it, will Sierra CC steal our students?  Much of this is political.  As a district, trying to get away from starting new colleges and instead starting new centers.  Don’t worry about athletics, etc.  Working with Natomas in placing a center at a new High School. Trying to share resources with CSUS and library. Not sure where the dollars are going to come from. Make a small initial investment and then hope for bond issues, etc.

Don’t worry that they won’t have students, because ARC is so low cost.  Worry rather that over time too many top-notch students will be pulled away and will be left with nothing but remedial. Then you have an institution that isn’t that stepping stone that you want.  You need those good students mixed in with the students that need help, as tutors etc.  Don’t want that top layer taken off.

Controversial project was funding for honors students.  When there is so much need at remedial level you think why fund the honors level?  Just because they are honors does not mean they are not high risk.  May be as important to keep those students involved and engaged as other students.  They may be very bright but they may not have a lot of money or may be working too many hours or may get bored in classes or may not have a clear path in mind.  Need to get them into a learning community where somebody takes an interest in them. Honors classes tend to be smaller.  They tend to specialize in a particular area.

ARC should be able to balance the different groups of students (e.g. transfer, remedial, vocational).  That’s their history.  The challenges are out there but it’s a commitment that people have.  Being large, you can have a lot of diverse things going on and still mange to do that. Between 7th and 10th largest of 108 CCs in the state. Enrollment around 30K students. Largest inst of higher education in Sacramento.

One of the things in the high tech area with Intel we discovered that people need training on the latest and greatest thing and they have people with the tech skill but not the teaching skills. So we send AR faculty in to get trained in the technical aspects and then provide training there.  Looking more at the technician area because others are going on to 4-year schools. They provide equipment, software, etc. But if it’s different than the ARC standard than IT staff has to develop those skills.  Have partnerships with Toyota.  They do sections here and then work at a dealership.  So they are actually doing training.  The dealers provide state of the art equipment to train on.

Biggest issue right now is growth. How in the world are we going to keep serving this community?  If bond passes that would be a big piece in helping.  But then we build the buildings and fill them with teachers and students but where do we get the custodians and clerks and all those support people in our current environment. A scary thought.  And keeping up with the technology. It is going to be difficult form a funding and training standpoint.  Training is about $8K per staff. When we send faculty to get up to date on the latest and greatest in specialized areas it’s $8-9K a pop.  Issue about getting faculty in the specialized high tech areas.  Easier recently.  But those faculty have great expertise in the field but have no teaching experience. Someone who’s been in industry for 20 years has no classroom experience, particularly if they run into diverse students.

Key Effectiveness Indicators are measured every year and compared over 5-year span.  Enrollments and students success, by demographics and various areas such as transfer.  Also take a look every 2 years at some of the issues that are most important to us in the success of our students.  For example, transfer rates were down. In particular, number of freshmen straight from high school were declining.  But no reduction in high school graduates. Had gotten complacent about recruiting and CSU and UC were recruiting more aggressively. So when something is off we do an in-depth study.  Professional development: 2 days Fall and 2 days Spring, plus offerings during the semester for faculty and staff.