NMC faculty is divided on Fernandez’s renewal

Faculty members polled on the accreditation work of Dr. Carmen Fernandez are split in their evaluation of the Northern Marianas College president.

According to Faculty Senate president Frank Sobolewski, out of the 54 evaluation forms recently passed out to instructional and non-instructional faculty, only 29 submitted responses and the answers received reflected ratings that are both favorable and unfavorable for Fernandez.

“The faculty is much divided on the responses. Some rated the president’s accreditation performance unfavorably while others favored the president. We have a split stand and opinion [on the evaluation result],” Sobolewski told Saipan Tribune yesterday.

He refused to disclose specific details of the evaluation results pending the board’s acceptance. Sobolewski is expected to present the results of the poll to the regents today.

He expressed his gratitude to all 29 members who participated in the evaluation, saying their feedback may help the board make a fair decision on the renewal of the college president’s contract next week.

Sobolewski, when asked about the non-participation of almost half of the faculty, said there are many reasons behind the members’ decision.

“First, they felt that the faculty input is not going to affect the board’s decision on Fernandez’s renewal one way or another. Also, I still believe in the existence of the climate of fear on campus because retaliation may come next to their answers. Others simply don’t want to be involved because they know that the evaluation sheet lacks some important aspects like personnel, financial, physical and technological aspects—categories approved and are important to the ACCJC,” he said.

The board is scheduled to deliberate and decide on the president’s contract renewal on May 5.

In the four-page evaluation form the Board of Regents issued to the faculty, it said “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.”

The performance evaluation had two parts. The first part comprised six questions that were to be rated as outstanding, above satisfactory, satisfactory, limited, or not acceptable. It also asked raters to specify recommendations and suggestions for goals and objectives for the upcoming year in evaluating the college president.

The board is expecting an oral presentation from the faculty today.