Assignment+2.1+Decision+Making

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000196 EndHTML:0000009277 StartFragment:0000002631 EndFragment:0000009241 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/lab-user9/Desktop/Assignment%202%20Decision%20making.doc **Assignment 2.1 Our Decision Making Process at CIU #10**

The decision making process at the Central Intermediate Unit # 10 is an interesting animal that has undergone evolutionary changes over the last 5 years. In order to understand the present, the past needs to be explained. As recently as 5 short years ago, our decision making process was a top-down monarchy trying to hide in the guise of a participatory democracy. We, as an organization, were extorted to participate enthusiastically in plans that were crafted with minimal input from the lower echelons. Needless to say, it resulted in less than optimal results. We had a chief administrator in place that was nearing retirement. Up until that point she had been an excellent leader, but seemed to lose her perspective. The organization foundered and lost support of the member districts. When she retired 4 years ago, the post was filled for one year by the Assistant Executive Director (a former Special Education Director). She was selected after a difficult and divisive internal selection process. She was determined to stop the slide of the organization and begin to develop a functional decision making strategy with the cooperation and support of the upper management team. Unfortunately, she served only one year before taking a position in another IU. This left our IU with an Acting Executive Director for the next 11 months. Through his courageous actions, this strong, handsome, brilliant man made incredible strides towards a bold new IU. His reputation-Legend; his status-Godlike; his name-lets just call him Richard Jones. J During the 11 months that I was acting Executive Director, I tried to follow the lead that had been established earlier and did my best to ensure that the decision making process was as transparent as possible. The Superintendents Advisory Council became truly “advisory”. Attendance at the SAC meetings went from 1 supt. To all 12 and the VoTech directors. We investigated new directions to follow, some as radical as checking to see if our IU should be dissolved and absorbed within our neighboring IU’s. At the end of my tenure, the feeling was that the CIU was listening to our customers, not just talking to them. The new Executive Director has taken this process to greater heights. The decision making process in our organization involves all stakeholders including parents, faculty, staff, outside organizations, district administrators, and internal staff. He has set up a mechanism for the proliferation of new ideas/services with a structure that promotes and encourages new ideas. Senior administrative staff (Cabinet) consisting of the Ex. Dir., Business Manager, Special Ed. Director, Curriculum Director and Nonpublic/Technology Director, meets every Monday morning to map out the week and address new items. The Program Director team, composed of the Directors of every program in the CIU, meets every month to discuss issues and ideas. The Management Team composed of all CIU administrators meets bimonthly. Ideas flow freely without adverse judgement as we seek to maximize opportunities for growth. Primary focus is to grow the CIU in terms of capabilities, services and staffing with all decisions viewed through that filter. Capacity is examined for each new service to decide if we can adequately provide a new service before deciding. Decisions flow up the chain of command with final recommendations made by the Cabinet to the Executive Director. It is an open process that everyone seems to have bought in to. A good example of this process was the way that it was used during the fiscal crisis last year. When it became apparent that the budget was not going to be passed on time, the Cabinet met and formed a contingency plan. The plan was shared with the Directors team and feedback proffered. The revised plan was then shared with Management Team and once again feedback was solicited. Finally, the Cabinet took the plan and suggested revisions and finalized a recommendation to the Executive Director. He made the final decisions based on input from all parties and published the plan. Fortunately, the full plan did not need to be implemented, but the process worked very well.