During the August 19, 2024, meeting of the TMCC Planning Council, President Karin Hilgersom made passing comments about the importance of her chosen “theme” for this academic year, “pride and belonging,” as it related to onboarding new hires. According to the president, the Human Resources Department does not have the bandwidth to help new hires feel this “belonging.” She mentioned that she'd like to see a program where the department chairs take on these duties. The irony is probably lost on her that earlier in the meeting she announced a great new relationship with Great Basin College where TMCC provides several back-office functions for GBC, such as accounting, budgeting, and wait for it, human resources.

Previously, GBC entered into a similar partnership with the University of Nevada, Reno. It’s probably safe to say that the partnership did not work out. Why else would GBC look to TMCC for, essentially, the same services? It seems reasonable that TMCC can support the much smaller Elko-based institution, especially in HR where we are the only college in Nevada that employs two upper-level HR administrators; a chief human resources officer and a director of operations. As the middle child of NSHE, one wonders why it’s necessary to have such top-heavy staffing in HR, especially when the department operated successfully for decades with only one director. Perhaps the bandwidth could be widened if one of the administrators was replaced with two staff members.

HR staffing notwithstanding, the president’s desire to unilaterally change the duties assigned to department chairs is not an option. Chair duties are defined in Article 10 of the TMCC-NFA collective bargaining agreement, otherwise known as “the contract.” Modifying these duties is only permissible through negotiations with TMCC-NFA that result in either a new collective bargaining agreement, or an interim memorandum of understanding (MOU).

The likelihood of the chairs acquiescing to the president’s wishes are unknown at this time, but may be slim-to-none. , I just used lower case

That prediction is based on the reaction of the president to a request from TMCC-NFA. As the negotiations for the current agreement were nearing their conclusion in Fall 2022, NFA negotiators submitted a proposal to update the formula used to calculate release time for the chairs. The administrative negotiators demurred, claiming there was insufficient time to consider the ramifications of the proposal before the deadline for submitting the agreement to the Board of Regents. At the time, they implied that the issue could be considered for an interim MOU. Regents approved the new agreement on November 30, 2022. 

Upon returning to campus for the Spring 2023 Semester, TMCC-NFA officers made the request to start discussions about the formula in a meeting with the president and VPAA Jeff Alexander. President Hilgersom told us that she would only agree to the discussion if TMCC-NFA agreed to put the entire contract back on the table for additional revisions, especially for Article 10. She insinuated at that time that the department chair compensation was not justified by the negotiated workload. TMCC-NFA refused, leaving the existing formula in place. 

It’s no surprise, therefore, that the president would single out department chairs to absorb responsibilities traditionally assigned to HR. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no similar proposal for non-instructional managers to take on the responsibility of on-boarding new administrative faculty or classified staff. The suggestion, quite frankly, is mission creep, shifting administrative functions onto instructional professionals. 

Additional mission creep was evident in that same Planning Council meeting. Kylie Rowe, TMCC’s new Executive Director of Research, Marketing and Web Services, indicated that she hopes to recruit faculty members to assist with content creation, institutional branding, and PR campaigns. While it’s not unreasonable for willing faculty members to lend their skills to campus functions beyond their primary responsibilities, it is unreasonable to expect them to do it without added compensation. The contract provides for additional assignments where qualified faculty members can sign up for extra work related to their field of expertise and receive fair compensation, either in the form of release time, a stipend, or a combination of both. Even so, shifting more administrative responsibilities to the faculty is more mission creep that unavoidably dilutes their impact in the classroom. 

Mission creep is very real at TMCC. It’s even reflected in the mission statement that was developed in the shadows of the pandemic and has removed references to the College’s core functions of instruction and student success.

Read more >> The hollowing of TMCC’s mission

Here is the official TMCC mission statement from 2015, before President Hilgersom’s arrival: "Truckee Meadows Community College promotes student success, academic excellence and access to lifelong learning by supporting high-quality education and services within our diverse community." (Emphasis added) There is accountability here - the institution dedicates itself to support education and services with clear (and assessable) goals - student success, academic excellence, and access to lifelong learning. It is centered on the institution from the outset, and holds the institution accountable.

In the midst of the pandemic, when faculty were consumed with delivering quality instruction through unfamiliar modalities, and most of us didn’t really have the bandwidth to monitor administrative shenanigans, a new mission statement was crafted and adopted starting in the 2021-22 academic year: "Create a future you will love with accessible, innovative educational opportunities at TMCC. Together we can make it happen." Suddenly there is a "you." We assume the "you" is the student, or more accurately, the customer. The word "academics" has disappeared, as has "student" and "success." The word "support" is gone. It's now aspirational, rather than a statement of accountability. Because there is no longer a defined role for academics, it's natural that we're asked to be more "fuzzy" because the overall mission is abstract and fuzzy itself. 

With a mission like that, it’s no surprise that, increasingly, faculty members are no longer viewed as the institution's academic experts, and are asked to do our job the way the administration envisions it (being marketing content creators, software implementers, and taking on non-academic roles) while we still silently do the part of our jobs that we know is actually the most effective–engaging students, meeting their emotional and academic needs, finding the balance between support and rigor. 

Investments in non-academic faculty and staff require justifications for those expenditures and expansions. Investments in software and licenses require the same. It is natural that those things are going to be assessed internally, and determined to be the reason for increased enrollment and retention, instead of faculty. Through this process, our everyday efforts are "disappeared", especially if we don't get on board with the apps, technology, software often purchased and implemented without faculty input but that can lead to more quantifiable data-driven reports and numbers. 

Faculty should be concerned about mission creep. It is a pervasive attitude that we should be happy to do extra work outside of our contract (for no additional compensation in either time or money) because ultimately it's for the good of the students and the mission of the college. These should not be mutually exclusive - faculty should absolutely do what's best for students AND we should be paid fairly for all of the work we do in that capacity. If a faculty member expands their efforts in this regard, they should be justly compensated, and if it's not in the contract, it should not be expected. When some faculty do those things out of the "goodness of their hearts," it actually erodes our solidarity and splits us as a bargaining unit. If we give so willingly, the administration doesn't even hesitate to take.

Fortunately, the TMCC-NFA Contract restricts the ability of the administration to force administrative duties on faculty, but more protection will be needed as we prepare for the next round of negotiations.

Read More >> How mission creep crept up on TMCC 

A year ago, I made a plea to the TMCC community to reverse the decline in faculty members fully participating in the commencement ceremony by donning their regalia and marching with the graduates. We also urged TMCC-NFA members to wear the satin stoles embroidered with the NFA seal that we provided, not only as a way to demonstrate our solidarity, but to celebrate a year of great accomplishments driven by the union. It is one of the most effective ways to prove that NFA does not consist only of “a small group of disgruntled older faculty members with axes to grind,” as we are often characterized by certain senior administrators. 

This year, with nearly 100 members, including about 55% of the teaching faculty, we hope to see a virtual sea of silver stoles moving through Lawlor Events Center as faculty march in procession. Commencement is one of the only times during the year when we as a group will even be visible to the regents and other dignitaries participating in the ceremony. For so many of these individuals, faculty only exist in the abstract.  When we blend into the background of the audience at commencement, we only reinforce that perception.

It also goes without saying that we march to honor our students' accomplishments. After 30+ years in higher education, I know the speeches are all going to sound the same and the applause lines are all predictable. But for the graduates, and perhaps for their families, it's all brand new. 

The diversity of the robes and the multitude of hood colors contribute to the formality and spectacle of the event. I hope the addition of the NFA stoles to the regalia will visually unify us and demonstrate to our students, the administration, and the Regents that the faculty are the foundation that supports the very mission of the institution.

Please wear your stole at commencement. For members who have not received one yet, TMCC-NFA officers will have them available in the robing room prior to the ceremony.

English Professor Mark Maynard became the second recipient of TMCC-NFA's Legacy Award which was presented at the year-end Happy Hours on April 26. He was recognized for his willingness to step-up on behalf of the Local. He has been a steadfast voice for faculty on the College Planning Council where he frequently must speak out in a group that consists mostly of individuals hand-picked by the President. Multiple faculty members have praised his detailed Planning Council notes, which are frequently the only source of information of the council's activities. 

Mark was also recognized for his student advocacy and completing a second Master's in Journalism to restore a program that was suspended when the previous instructor left the college.

Four other members - Tom Cardoza, Ben Davis, Tanja Hayes, and Martha Johnson-Olin - were also nominated for the award.

Cardoza was recognized with the Academic Freedom Fighter award for protesting the unfair termination of a fellow faculty member. In response to his action, the administration, without justification, removed Cardoza from his position as a department chair. Subsequently, with support from NFA, he achieved what conventional wisdom said was impossible, winning a lawsuit against NSHE. His courage to speak out and challenge those in power helped revitalized the role of NFA on campus.

Davis, Hayes, and Johnson-Olin received framed certificates as Outstanding Members. Ben Davis was nominated for being an effective representative for administrative faculty. He was also the sole TMCC faculty representative to make a public comment in support of cost of living adjustments at the June 2023 Board of Regents meeting.

Like Davis, Tanja Hayes was nominated for answering NFA's call to action when members were asked to show up and make public comment when the Board of Regents leadership invited the James G. Martin Center to conduct a governance workshop. Hayes' bravely called out the Board for embracing an ideological group that opposes academic freedom.

Martha Johnson-Olin's nomination not only recognized her consistent participation in TMCC-NFA's activities, but also for her stalwart defense of academic freedom and shared governance. Her faculty senate resolution condemning the James G. Martin Center ensured the TMCC faculty position became part of the public record. She is also vigilant for administrative overreach in curriculum decision.

UPDATE 2/14/2024: The TMCC Vice President of Student Services and Diversity provided a clarification: "[N]one of my Direct Reports received a 360 [evaluation]. The individuals that received a 360 report directly to [the Executive Director of Admissions and Records]." She added that the admissions and records evaluations do not include a campus-wide survey and utilize a form maintained by the Human Resources office.

ORIGINAL POST: During the last two weeks of January, TMCC-NFA officers began to hear rumors that the TMCC administration was in the process of conducting 360° evaluations of the Leadership Team, presumably all executives who report directly to President Karin Hilgersom. Soon afterward, multiple administrative faculty members who belong to the TMCC-NFA bargaining unit reached out with concerns that 360° evaluations were also occurring for administrative faculty, mostly in a single administrative unit, Student Services. It is unclear if the subjects of these evaluations were informed well in advance that the evaluations would occur or provided the criteria upon which they are being evaluated.

In a 360° performance review, a supervisor gathers feedback about an employee from other employees, like co-workers, peers, subordinates, and people that share the same work environment. TMCC policies and the NSHE Code governing administrative faculty evaluations provide for "consultation with the professional and classified staff of the administrative unit." The evaluation process for non-supervisory administrative faculty (members of the TMCC-NFA bargaining unit) is defined in Article 12, Section 12.2 of the TMCC-NFA contract. The contract is a legally binding agreement between TMCC-NFA, the college, and NSHE. It supersedes other policies and does not give the administration authority to conduct capricious evaluations outside of the defined process for non-supervisory administrative faculty. So far, we have not learned of any individual covered by the contract being subjected to one of these evaluations. Nonetheless, it is our contention that any 360° evaluation that requests input from individuals outside the subject's administrative unit is a violation of these TMCC and NSHE policies, and it appears that is happening.

As we asked more questions, additional disturbing details came to light. We learned that the administration is not following the college's own Policy 4700, which designates the Institutional Research Office as the survey administration unit, nor are they deploying evaluation surveys through Web Services, a long-standardized practice. Several years ago, this same administration strenuously objected to TMCC-NFA using our copy of Survey Monkey to conduct faculty surveys, and we acceded to their demands only after we had reasonable assurances that the IR office and Web Services had established procedures for a fully confidential system to protect the identities of respondents. TMCC-NFA has been required to use this system for confidential surveys, such as the annual department chair evaluations, and we are not the only campus organization to receive this mandate, such as the Faculty Senate.

For some reason, the President's Office has purchased its own copy of Survey Monkey to administer the evaluation surveys currently occurring. Since a member of the president's staff is the license holder, they likely have advanced controls, including the ability to see names with responses. We find it alarming that the administration is now bypassing Web Services to conduct their own evaluations. This unilateral departure from established standards undermines the integrity of the process and erodes trust. It is an arbitrary disregard for shared governance.

Subsequently, we heard that supervisory administrative faculty who report to the Vice President of Student Services and Diversity are also being subjected to 360° evaluations at this time. Apparently, for some individuals, the surveys were originally sent out as unsecured PDF documents via email. Others reported receiving Survey Monkey forms. We do not know if the VPSSD's office has purchased yet another copy of the Survey Monkey software or if they are utilizing the President's office copy. We do know they are not using the campus-approved system in Web Services.

To the best of our knowledge, no one who is covered by the TMCC-NFA collective bargaining agreement is being evaluated in this way, so some administrators have questioned why TMCC-NFA officers would even care. Members of our bargaining unit, however, are being asked to provide feedback through these surveys, and they have concerns. Whoever holds the license for Survey Monkey automatically has full administrative control over the application, meaning that the license holder can see all details of a submission, including each respondent's identifying characteristics, such as their name or an email address. Even if the names or email addresses are masked by an auto-generated identification number, the license holder is still able to identify the individual tied to the number. The administration will assure everyone that they are conducting an anonymous survey, but there are no guarantees that it is confidential, let alone anonymous. The success of a 360° evaluation is wholly dependent on the ability of the respondents to provide candid feedback. When respondents are not confident their identities will be protected, their responses will not be truthful, and the evaluation is invalid. Worse than that, respondents fear that the source of truthful comments will be revealed to an supervisor and could lead to retaliation.

We also must wonder why the administration would opt out of using the campus-approved system. Is it because they are not confident in the ability of Web Services and IR to deliver on their promise of confidentiality? If that's the case, why do they demand that we use this system for our confidential surveys? If that's not the case, the only other reason we can think of is because they want greater control over the process. And whoever controls the process has influence over the outcome.

With that in mind, consider the situation in Student Services. While being the subject of a 360° evaluation, the VPSSD is simultaneously conducting 360° evaluations of her direct reports, the same people who are being asked by the President to provide feedback for the VPSSD's evaluation. Without ironclad assurances of confidentiality, it is likely that those subordinates are reticent to give honest constructive criticism out of fear of retaliation, leading to an evaluation that falsely skews to the positive. Is that the intent here?

The final irony is that President Hilgersom voiced strenuous complaints about the periodic evaluation process for NSHE presidents at the November 30, 2022, Board of Regents meeting. No other NSHE president spoke up when given the opportunity by the Regents. Hilgersom's stated concerns with the evaluation stemmed from what she called "inconsistency" in the process, which she characterized as "potentially damaging to the future of one's career." If the process for her evaluation is inconsistent and damaging, then why inject inconsistency into TMCC's evaluation process? Why spread the fear for one's career to other employees?