Wrapping up a four-month study of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences' administrative structure, an internal planning committee has recommended that the college retain a central dean and its programmatic divisions. Furthermore, the authority and accountability of division leaders should be increased, advised the committee. The college's Steering Committee for Academic and Strategic Planning presented its report, accompanied by a minority report, last week to Dean Barbara Schneeman. The report is available on the Web at http://hibiscus.ucdavis.edu/caes-org/. Since spring, the college has been considering Schneeman's recommendation to revamp its administrative structure and strengthen the college's voice in campuswide planning decisions. Schneeman, who will return in July to her faculty position in the nutrition department, initiated discussions aimed at improving the college's organizational structure several months before her decision to step down as dean. The search for a new dean will begin during fall quarter. During the past four months, the 14-member steering committee appointed by Schneeman has sought input from throughout the college. The committee sponsored three town-hall meetings; a survey; a two-day leadership retreat involving college chairs, vice chairs, executive committee members and the dean's office; and a retreat with the dean's external advisory council. Numerous informal meetings with department chairs and faculty also were held. "We have gone through a fairly substantial process that started in earnest last July, shortly after the dean announced her resignation," said Jim MacDonald, chair of plant pathology and head of the steering committee. "Our objective has been to develop recommendations for the new dean to consider and to make candidates aware of important issues." The committee was originally charged last June with developing a comprehensive academic and strategic plan for the college by Jan. 5. But, after Schneeman's resignation announcement, it switched to a focus on the administrative framework and responsibilities of the dean and divisional leaders. Subsequent reports by the committee, planned for completion in early 1999, will address long-range academic planning issues as well as composition of the college's four divisions, MacDonald noted. The fall report advises that: The dean should be the central administrator of the college, providing intellectual leadership internally and high visibility for college programs to the public. The dean also should spearhead efforts to secure external funds, administer Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension resources, ensure inter-divisional and cross-campus interactions, and manage college space and land resources. The programmatic organization of the college, established in 1993, should be retained. Divisional leaders should be vested with authority and accountability for instruction and research (I&R-funded) positions. (Currently these divisions are administered by associate deans.) A title should be established for these divisional leaders consistent with their newly defined responsibilities. A process for recruiting and evaluating divisional leaders also should be implemented, recognizing their importance and accountability to the departments they represent. Budgetary flexibility should be increased to provide sufficient discretionary funds at the divisional level to develop high-priority programs. The position of associate dean for undergraduate academic programs should be retained. Functional, cross-college leadership should be provided for Cooperative Extension, international programs, distance learning, outreach and continuing education. The current budgeting formulas to the departments should, at least for the near future, be retained. Economist voices concern In a minority report, submitted to Schneeman with the main report, steering committee member Colin Carter, chair of the agricultural and resource economics department, voiced concern about the committee's recommendations. "Firstly, I do not think that adoption of the committee's recommendation would be in the best interests of the college as a whole, nor in the interests of departments like mine," wrote Carter. "Secondly, and more importantly, the [steering committee] report flies in the face of college faculty sentiment." Carter objected that the committee was not giving more weight to the results of its collegewide survey, in which most of the respondents expressed concern that vesting increased authority in the divisional leaders might weaken the college's unity. Furthermore, Carter said that the survey results suggested that many respondents favored suspending decisions regarding the reorganization until a new dean is appointed. In the minority report, Carter recommended that during the interim period before a new dean is hired, the college's reorganization strategy should be twofold. "First, we should be careful not to implement changes that will impede our ability to recruit a strong dean. Secondly, we should work to create an environment that will help the new dean succeed," he wrote, adding that the delegation of increased authority to divisional leaders might make the dean's position less attractive to potential candidates. MacDonald said he was satisfied that the committee report adequately reflected the opinions communicated to the committee during the past months in a variety of forums. "The survey, the three town-hall meetings, the leadership retreat, the dean's advisory council retreat and the numerous small-group meetings combine to form a mosaic of information, and all parts are important," he said. "Our task has been to analyze this mass of information and to prepare recommendations that help achieve the administrative objectives that faculty members have so strongly expressed." The committee will now move on to the task of academic planning. MacDonald said he is hopeful that issues such as the college's aging infrastructure, comparatively high work loads in some departments and possible mismatches of departments within divisions can be tackled during that process. Schneeman said she was pleased that the committee process has made the report, and input gathered by the committee, widely available to the campus community. Time for dean to consult "It is now my intent to consult with the college executive committee and department and program chairs regarding the recommendations," she said. "Their input, along with consultation with the provost's office, will allow me to determine what steps should be taken at present and how best to use the report during our search for a new dean of the college." She added that the strategic planning committee's next task, in conjunction with the college executive committee, is to focus on revising the college's academic plan. The recommendations from the academic plan review will influence the overall implementation of the recommendations regarding organizational structure. "I appreciate the willingness of our faculty and staff to dedicate their time and energy to considering the important issues that will shape the future of our college," Schneeman said. "While the process of organizational change can be frustrating at times, our evolution is essential to maintain the vitality of our teaching, research and extension programs." This quarter, the chancellor's office will appoint an advisory committee that will assist in the search for the college's new dean.