‘Criteria for evaluating Fernandez incomplete’

Members of the Northern Marianas College faculty have raised concerns about the criteria set by the Board of Regents in evaluating the performance of NMC president Dr. Carmen Fernandez.

In a recent meeting, members of the faculty senate pointed out that the “invitation” to provide input on Fernandez’s evaluation focuses solely on her work on NMC’s accreditation.

Frank Sobolewski, the honorary senate faculty president, said yesterday that faculty members believe there are other important categories that are missing in the board-approved criteria in evaluating the president.

“What the board approved was an evaluation form that limits [the evaluation to] the president’s accreditation work. The question of the faculty members is: Will the president be evaluated based solely on this standard?” Sobolewski said.

In a letter to Sobolewski on April 15, Board of Regents chair Charles V. Cepeda said the decision to invite all faculty and students to submit their input on the president’s evaluation is pursuant to board policy.

“The primary goal set by the regents was to focus on accreditation work so that the college would achieve reaffirmation,” Cepeda said, adding that they specifically requested the faculty’s input—through Sobolewski—on the president’s performance regarding accreditation.

Cepeda’s letter indicated that responses to the evaluation form must focus only on this issue.

“Please restrict your responses to answering the questions that are expressed on the attached evaluation instrument,” Cepeda told Sobolewski, urging him to summarize the faculty’s input in a manner that “accurately and fairly” represents their collective opinion.

The board, Saipan Tribune learned, would accept one submission from each of the three major campus constituents—students, staff, and faculty.

In the four-page evaluation form, it indicated that “the primary goal and objective set by the Board of Regents for the president was to focus on accreditation work so that the college would achieve accreditation reaffirmation.”

Cepeda earlier said the same evaluation form would be used by each regent in rating the president.

Missing categories

Sobolewski said, however, that there’s a need to raise the faculty’s concern to the Board of Regents because Fernandez’s evaluation should cover all aspects of her performance as NMC president.

Sobolewski says he had passed the evaluation form to all 60 instructors and non-instructional faculty members of the college.

“We believe that there are some other things that must be included in the evaluation form such as the personnel and financial issues and how these affect the president’s responsibilities,” he said.

The senate faculty has yet to finalize any official communication to the board.

All evaluation forms must be received by Sobolewski Friday noon. The board expects the faculty to submit its evaluation on April 30, with an oral presentation from the group’s representatives.

Fernandez’s two-year contract expires on May 6.

The deliberation as well as the decision whether or not to renew the president’s contract is set for May 5.

Evaluation form

The board-approved performance evaluation contains two parts. The first part comprises six questions that will be answered as outstanding, above satisfactory, satisfactory, limited, or not acceptable.

The following are Fernadez’s areas of responsibilities that faculty members are being asked to rate:

* Ensures institutional adherence to accreditation standards set by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges/Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges;

* Fulfills recommendations set by the accrediting commission and the visiting teams;

* Submits all requisite reports in a timely manner to WASC/ACCJC;

* Plans, coordinates, and prepares for WASC/ACCJC team visits; and

* Maintains professional working relationship with WASC/ACCJC staff and representatives.

Evaluators are also asked to provide any additional comments they may have on the president’s performance relating to these goals.

The same document asks raters to specify recommendations and suggestions for goals and objectives for the upcoming year in evaluating the college president.

“Please identify specific goals and objectives that the board of regents should consider in its consultations and discussions with the president,” it says.