"In a normal year, the annual schedule for the following year is put out to faculty in late March or early April.  FT faculty build their preferred schedules and then meet to work out any conflicts.  We don't use seniority, and we have control over our assignments.  We then submit our schedules to the dean.  I'm aware of a couple of cases in the last 20 years where a FT faculty has been asked to modify their schedule, but it's a rare occurrence.  PT faculty are offered courses based on seniority and can choose courses from the list presented to them."

If you could write a brief explanation for History, that would be most wonderful. 

Adrienne,
Thanks for the example.  I'm happy to add my experience.  I trust that you can maintain some sort of confidentiality of the sensitive data, given that I am the only full-time instructor in the discipline.  

I'll describe what happens in a normal, non-COVID year.  Since COVID, this process described below has been accomplished on a term-by-term basis.  Usually, the full time faculty sit down with the dean and administrative coordinator in a single, face-to-face meeting in the spring in order to make an annual schedule.  In the past, there were three full-time history instructors who participated in that meeting.  Now, with only one remaining full-time instructor, I alone meet and determine my yearly schedule.  It usually consists of a "rollover" from the previous year, but some changes may be suggested.  In my experience, these changes are usually suggested by the dean. Sometimes they are based on the previous year's enrollment numbers.  In these cases, different class days/times are considered or even different modalities, such as moving a classroom section to online.  This has certainly been a trend over the last decade.
In the past, full time faculty were more involved in determining the number, type, and scheduling options for the entire history schedule, including sections that would be taught by part-time instructors.  However, those decisions are now solely decided upon by the dean and his communications with those instructors.  Sometimes these decisions are based on student enrollment data, but often they are made for the convenience of the part-time instructor's schedule.
Finally, the dean's influence over the schedule in the past two years has grown in response to the directives of the administration.  Specifically, the provost (at the direction of the president) determined that LCC should offer 5-Week "Late Start" courses, in order to "capture" available tuition dollars from students who fail to register before the start of the term (for whatever reason).  In these cases, to fulfill these offerings, the dean has approached both full-time and part-time instructors to volunteer to teach these offerings...

, even though I greatly oppose this supposedly innovative idea.  (Data reveals that student enrollment numbers are higher in courses which award the same number of credits which can be achieved in less time that the normal 10-week term.  Many students are either not prepared or able to meet the demands of this accelerated class OR these courses are pared down in such a way to fit into only five weeks that they are simply NOT the same class as the 10 week-long version.)  

Regardless, as the only remaining full-time history instructor, I have very little control over the classes being offered by my discipline at Lane.  I cannot say with certainty, but I believe that this process above is similar for most other disciplines in Social Science.