Another way in which community college faculty--especially vocational faculty--build community connections is through administrative activities. Of these, the most important and widespread is advisory committees for vocational programs. In our survey we asked whether a faculty member's institution or department had a "curriculum development" and "program advisory" committee, whether they served on the committees, and whether it included business or community representatives. Eighty-eight percent of full-time vocational faculty indicated that such a curriculum committee was convened in 1994-1995; the figures for a program advisory committee were 86% for vocational full-time instructors and 68% for full-time academic faculty. In both cases, vocational faculty were more likely to serve on such a committee, which was far more likely to have business or community representation. For example, 33% of full-time vocational faculty report that the curriculum development committee at their school had such representation, and 90% said that the program advisory committee did. This contrasts to 18% and 64%, respectively, of full-time academic instructors.
Our case studies confirm the pervasive nature of advisory committees. All four schools visited expect each vocational degree or certificate program to convene an advisory committee. In three of the four schools, annual or bi-annual committee meetings are required by the state as a condition of funding for vocational programs. Additionally, in these same three schools, committee approval is required before the state will approve curricular changes to vocational programs. The voting members of the advisory committees include practitioners from community workplaces; ex officio members include deans, program coordinators or department chairs, and other faculty.
Across all four sites, advisory committees were the most frequent "top of mind" response to questions concerning how faculty built and maintained connections with local labor markets. These committees are the best evidence of policymakers' and institutions' intentions to foster college-community linkages. They are also one of the few institutionalized and required--as opposed to ad hoc and voluntary--mechanisms for linking at the faculty level. Although institutions rely upon advisory committees as the cornerstone of their efforts to maintain responsiveness to local labor markets, respondents at all four sites acknowledged that the quality of the committees varies widely. At best, these advisory committees allow for true college-community engagement and provide opportunities for advisors to serve as "critical friends" to the college and stimulate program improvements. At worst, they are devoid of true content and serve as window dressing to satisfy state policymakers or institutional leaders.
An advisory committee meeting we observed at one college points to some of the problems advisory committees may encounter. The meeting, held on behalf of the Medical Laboratory Technology program, was scheduled for 1.75 hours. Attending were about six institutional administrators and faculty and six community members, representing five different health care organizations. Two of the community members were college alumni. The agenda covered such items as the program budget, admissions and enrollment data, a report on clinical affiliations and placements, development of a new phlebotomy diploma program, a job market needs analysis, curriculum review and approval, and requests for input on continuing education offerings that the college could provide. That the group was able to complete this ambitious agenda within approximately one hour says something about the level of discussion. Virtually every recommendation or goal mentioned by college administrators went unchallenged, despite the best effort of these administrators to generate discussion. Even allowing for the possible inhibiting effect of the observers, this advisory committee meeting provided little feedback, strategic direction, or information to the college.[20]
In addition to the direct effect of the advisory committees on curricula, the committees are also viewed as a place to recruit part-time faculty since membership is comprised of practitioners who care about educational issues. Often, members who become part-time faculty maintain their seat on the committee as community representatives. While these members may be in a strong position to connect the concerns and needs of college and community, their independence and objectivity is somewhat threatened by their role as employees of the college.
Although advisory committees are by far the most important administrative means of promoting faculty-community linkages, other governance activities also contribute to linking. All four colleges, for example, are involved in private fund-raising, which provides occasional opportunities for some faculty to directly interact with business leaders in their field. A midwestern college, for example, was opening a new health sciences building that had received support from local businesses. One west coast college had received private funds for an auto body shop, and the other west coast college we visited was building a new theater for its fine arts division and a computer simulation laboratory for its business division with private funds. The southern campus received extensive private support for campus gardens integral to its horticulture program.
Participation in campus governance also provides faculty with exposure to information and data about local labor markets. For example, two of the four schools visited had commissioned extensive demographic and economic studies of their service region within the past three years; one-third had conducted a less extensive study; and all four use U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and other public data to better understand the local economy. Although these reports are widely available, those faculty who participate in campus governance are most likely to be aware that the information exists and know how to access it.