MCC Faculty Senate Approved Minutes
CTL Conference Room
DATE: February 6, 2003
Senate Web Site: http://www.mesacc.edu/organizations/employee/facultysenate/
Members Present:
Barry Vaughan, President
Charles Lewis, President-elect
Naomi Story, Secretary
John Zikopoulos, Treasurer
Lyn Dutson, Zone 1
Phil Waclawski, Zone 2
Sam Martinez, Zone 3
Danene Richardson, Zone 4
Harold Cranswick, Zone 5
Jack Hinze, Zone 6
Naomi Story, Zone 7
John Zikopoulos, Zone 8
Philip Carrillo (Member at Large)
Mona Scott (Member at Large)
Greg Pratt (Member at Large)
Erin Rawson (Member at Large)
Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large)
David Nachman (Member at Large)
Chuck Horn (49% Representative)
Members Absent:
Ann Stine (Member at Large)
I. Call to Order: President Barry Vaughan called Meeting to order at 3:05 PM.
II. Additions and Deletions to Agenda: FPG recognition
and Senate/DCA joint meeting were added under New Business. Deleted President-electıs items
Motion was passed unanimously to accept the agenda.
III. Approval of Minutes: Motion was passed unanimously to approve the minutes.
President Vaughan welcomed Chuck Horn to the Senate as our new 49% Representative.
IV. Guest Presentation:
Mike Sims as chair of the original Technology Sub-team gave a summary on the evolution of the current ITAC (Information Technology Advisory Council).
· The original sub-team was formed in July 2000 with Mary Vanis (at the time the dean of Red Mountain campus). This sub-team met in the Fall of 2000 clarifying its charge and purpose.
· When Mary left for the district office, President Christiansen asked Mike to chair the sub-team. He confirmed with the president that this sub-team could not be perceived as a political one. It would serve to provide deans with expertise to make IT decisions and to end political stalemate between deans regarding technology decisions.
· Mike made an open call to chairs for volunteers and the sub-team increased in size from 6 to about 30 people. Twenty-two or so were very active and met over the spring and summer of 2001 every other week.
· The charge of the group was to provide the president a preliminary document on a long-term information technology implementation plan. This included: a new organizational and administrative, a planning process, and critical need processes.
· The sub-team used the two plans developed by Brooke Estabrook and Bill DeHaan as starting points.
· On June 19, 2001 the Critical Need Processes and Services Report was given to the president. This report contained: the critical technology needs, planning processes, and proposed organizational structure.
· The September 6 report was the final one that included budget-planning flowcharts and the make up of ITAC. The sub-team also provided recommendations for an inclusive process that involved frontline people from IT, the faculty, and staff, and big-picture planning from the design perspective, and a consultant to trigger ideas but not mandate them.
Mike fielded questions and discussion followed.
Q: The Fall report did not include a recommendation for a Chief Information Officer, why not?
A: At that time, we did not want the former dean of Technology Services to come back. We wanted to have the best possible search and a structure for collaboration within the college.
Q: What is your perception of the current ITAC organization and what were areas of the report that were not of interest to the president?
A: The important aspect of the report that was ignored was the detailed assessment of the budget allocation with comparable colleges on IT services. And Iıve not been involved with the ITAC, but itıs my opinion that itıs political versus the organization intended. We did not want an approval body versus what it appears to be now.
Q: (question to Barry) Where is the CIO recommendation?
A: The President apparently presented it to the Leadership Council the Monday before the week of accountability. Neither Harold nor I were there and we found out about it at the convocation. It is a matter of us following up and placing pressure on the president.
Q: Would ITAC be a hindrance?
A: In some form, no. If we have a CIO, we (Senate, chairs, students, MAT,
Faculty, etc.) could give input ITAC could work in another form. On Page 4 of the Final Report, a structure was recommended with a mixture for leadership, vision, and expertise to give a CIO structure as an advisory board.
Q: (question to Barry) What can we do about ITAC?
A: We can as Senate make a recommendation asking for another layer of administrationthat we recognize what we need and the critical needs for technology support required.
A comment was made about the ambiguity of ITAC. Another comment was on how to deal with the Red Mountain campus and the possible downtown campus. We should make a request, not a trivial one, but one that is definitive about the need for technology services. This also impacts the chairs as well.
Q: (to Mike) If you were redoing the Final Report, what would you do?
A: Have a single point of responsibility for IT, keep the IT structure with an advisory, insist on a national search that involves a lot of faculty and staff, and assess the level of budget at the highest level for resources to improve services.
Q: Given what you said, do you think by using the plan and advocacy, there will be focus and clout?
A: The clout will be to work with the Dean of Instruction.
Q: (to Harold) How does DCA feel?
A: Chairs are concerned. At the joint meeting with Senate, we made a joint
recommendation, which was good. There is a stronger chance of things happening when we do this.
Barry thanked Mike Sims for his time and his efforts.
V. Treasurer's Report (John): John stated that we have approximated $10,000 in savings and a little over $6,000 in checking accounts. In our long-term accounts we have about $28,000. We have had an income of $753. He also said that each year we spend less than we take in. MCC gets a rebate in association dues based on our membership. A question was asked on the formula for allocation. Charles Lewis said he would check on how we are appropriated funds.
VI. Committee and Project Reports:
History & Traditions Committee: Lyn Dutson reported that there will be a retirement celebration in the Southwest Reading Room in the Library on April 17 from 11:00-1:00. Please invite people, including retirees to attend. This is a social event, but it is also an opportunity to collect archival information about the college.
VII. Old Business:
It was stated that the issue was about the number of hires in IA versus the understaffing in other areas.
Barry stated that Ron Etter spoke with him about a new process for staffing other areas. Ron asked about our staffing committee procedures to come up with a similar one for non-faculty needs.
It was recommended that Barry tell the President that a similar process (to our staffing committee) based on strategic plans be brought to Leadership Committee.
A point of information was presented that Ron Etter noted that when looking at our budget such issues like staffing requirements choices can be made. The President can choose to make hires in other areas where there is the greatest need. It should be no mystery for no voice or avenue for hiring. Ron was accommodating about where the money goes and how it goes.
It was suggested that Charles could soften the language of the resolution. It was also noted that the rationale could also be positively stated.
Another comment was that this was a strategic opportunity because 10 years ago, NCA said that the administration needed to improve its communication process. There was a sense that the President would not justify a change from staffing recommendations if we do not ask for a formal process.
A formal one would be difficult for the President to make arbitrary or ad hoc decision. He would also have taken the time to think about his justification, which could be a positive one.
It was concluded that we still have time to take another resolution to DCA. However, unlike the suggestion to have the President justify only to the staffing committee whose minutes are not public, it was recommended that Charles rework the language.
It was also noted that chairs are representatives of faculty and not just as advocates for their departments only.
Harold as chair of chairs noted that this was the first time that chairs had heard about the resolution. They need time to sift through the information and it was a late discussion item. So, it could be brought back to them again.
A question was asked about the intent of the resolution. It was stated that the issue was not about the rationale, but about making a thoughtful decision and using the time to think about the best one for the college as a whole.
Another question was on timing. If we ask that this be in place for next year it might be more positively taken.
A clarification was made that it was not the DI, but President who made the decision for staffing. The DI can recommend, but he would explain how the decision benefits everyone. The deviation would not be undone, but a process for justification would be added.
It was also noted that the staffing committee is not a Senate committee. The Faculty Senate president is charged with the selection of the staffing committee.
The staffing process is public. The list of staffing recommendations is given to the DCA and Senate by the chair of the staffing committee.
Announcement for staffing is not until September and if the recommended joint resolution is passed, the administration will need to make the justification then.
VIII. New Business:
A. College Security (Lyn) Lyn Dutson stated that it was brought to her attention about security cameras being placed in public gathering areas at the Red Mountain campus. There was no discussion with faculty about why cameras were placed where people convened socially, i.e., in the middle buildings. Jack was asked if he was aware of this. He stated that he has not been invited to attend any meetings with the security committee; it appears that they have gone a different direction.
A question was asked about surveillance cameras in the past. They have put surveillance cameras in the past when there have been reported or potential issues with students, but they were not permanent.
It was recommended by consensus that we invite Steve Corich and Ron Etter about both criteria for decision on the camera placements and the continual representation on the security/safety committee.
B. FPG Recognition (Charles) Charles asked that a correction be made to the December 5, 2003 approved Senate minutes. There was a general consensus to approve the language change and statement as follows
Item D should have read:
It has been brought to the attention of Charles Lewis that Jonelle Moore did not receive full compensation as Faculty Professional Growth Representative last year.
I, Charles Lewis, accept complete responsibility for allowing this inaccuracy to be carried through the approved minutes. Fully, it was my responsibility to read the unapproved minutes and make necessary corrections. I apologize to Jonelle for any discomfort or embarrassment this misstatement may have caused. Neither Jonelle Moore nor LoAn Tabar Gaul have requested or sought recognition or additional remuneration for their efforts as Faculty Professional Growth Representatives. Fully, the idea to recognize their efforts was my idea and I still believe it is deserved. Their efforts were above and beyond the requirements of the position. During their tenure the professional growth process at MCC was streamlined, they implemented a series of workshops at Southern and Dobson and Red Mountain. These efforts required a significant expenditure of time beyond the basic requirements of the position and deserve recognition. Thank you Jonelle and LoAn for your efforts.
C. Senate/DCA Joint Meeting (Charles) Charles said that the DCA recommended that the next joint meeting with the senate be on March 7 from 3:00 to 6:00 PM. There was general consensus approval of the date and time. Charles will check to see if we can have it again the in the Employee Lounge. A discussion occurred on topics for the joint meeting. Barry stated that at the last lunch with the President, he asked him about whether a contingency plan existed if ASU raised its tuition and entrance requirements. The president said, ³no.² The president raised the question at his Monday Leadership meeting and asked for a strategy session. Barry suggested that this could be a topic.
It was pointed out that the technology issue was still a topic of concern from the first meeting. Red Mountain was also still an unresolved concern.
Possible topics:
1. IT recommendation
2. Red Mountain
3. Bond
4. Impact of ASU Tuition Increase
It was suggested we make recommendations to the administration and we should hold administration responsible. We should not condone their lack of response to our recommendations.
We should also boil the topics to two issues only and let the Senate and DCA leadership decide on the two.
On the topic of the Impact of ASU, we can ask the President for a separate meeting to involve the college. It was also recommended that Andrea Greene and the Fiscal office be involved if we needed data or fiscal information. Harold pointed out that when the chairs were working on creating the fall schedule a while ago, they were asked to plan for more sections.
IX. Information and Announcements:
A. President's Report:
1. Zone representativesı election-April 20 Barry reminded senators about elections and soliciting nominees.
2. Innovative Project: Barry stated that he is chairing the committee for the Innovative Project Grant cycle. Information will be forthcoming.
3. Faculty Recruitment Commission/FIPP subcommittee: Roll over to next meeting.
4. Faculty social planning: Naomi is looking into a date, time, and place.
Hilton Pavilions is one. Possible dates were recommended.
5. Downtown campus: Roll over to next meeting.
6. NCA Self-Study kick-off: Roll over to next meeting.
7. 1/28 FEC Update: MCLI Review, IC member appointment, Convocation 2004, Whistle Blower legislation: Roll over to next meeting
B. President-Elect's Report:
None
C. Chair Liaison Report (Harold Cranswick): Harold reported on several items.
1. Final exam schedule: Harold has distributed a recommendation to adopt a new Final Exam schedule. The new schedule will alleviate many of the current problems by having every class offer their final exam at the same time as the class is held during the semester, except for evening classes. Evening Classes would hold their final exams on the same nights just one-half hour later. Harold is asking for everyone to review the new schedule for potential problems.
2. He is working with the Records people about the timing of official
class roster for weekend classes, which often start, and/or end before faculty get their rosters.
3.The DCA has scheduled their end-of-the-year breakfast for May 9 in the Kiva Room at 7 AM. Every effort is being made to make sure the invitation list includes all of the appropriate people.
D. Board Report (Barry Vaughan): None
E. 49% Representative Report (Chuck Horn): Chuck asked what Senate expected from him. He also said he would be polling the 49% about major concerns. He stated that he, as many other 49% faculty, was not asked about membership, so he sees increasing enrollment as one of his goals. Barry stated that he expected Chuck to open communication lines with the 49% faculty and to solicit their concerns and participation.
F. Legislative Liaison Report (Phil Carrillo or Erin Rawson): Roll over to the next meeting.
X. Senator Reports:
Members at Large
A. Phil Carrillo (Member at Large): Phil had a question about faculty social security numbers on class rosters and their removal. He will check with Carol Petersen as recommended and report back to the group.
B. Mona Scott (Member at Large): None
C. Erin Rawson (Member at Large): Erin stated a concern about why some faculty do not give finals on Finals Week. Charles will take this to DCA.
D. Ann Stine (Member at Large): Absent
E. Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large): Mehrzad asked about whether
Evening class finals were given on the last class meeting as she had experienced at her previous college. It was pointed out that the evening class finals are given in the Finals listing in the class schedule.
F. David Nachman (Member at Large): None
G. Greg Pratt (Member at Large): None
Zone Representatives
A. Zone 1: Art/Foreign Languages/Reading/Speech Communication/Theatre Arts (Lyn Dutson): Lyn stated the on-going issue about safety related to the ASU Shuttle Bus. We need a pull up for buses. We should bring this up with Steve and Ron when they come to our meeting. Lyn also asked about a faculty social after graduation. In the past, faculty convened after graduation somewhere off campus. Lyn also encouraged people to attend the 2/26 Brown Bag with the President to talk about the possible 3rd Downtown Campus. She also suggested that it might be good for a budget comparison for such a campus as Mike did for the Technology issue.
B. Zone 2: Business (Phil
Waclawski): Phil asked about the
timing issue with
Final exam scheduled for the 5:20 PM class. He also asked about the ability to spread our paychecks to
12 months. Barry stated that it
was reported at FEC that this was not an issue as originally thought; he will
make a request at FEC.
C. Zone 3: English/Philosophy (Sam Martinez): Faculty at Red Mountain wanted designated parking. This will be brought back as New Business at the next meeting.
D. Zone 4: Math/Music (Danene Richardson): None
E. Zone 5: Cultural, Social Science/Psychology (Harold Cranswick): What is the protocol about sending cards to faculty? Just send request to secretary.
There is a need for speed bumps on lane behind Theatre Outback. This will brought back as New Business.
F. Zone 6: Technology & Design/Family/Consumer Science/Mortuary Science/Phys. Ed. (Jack Hinze): None
G. Zone 7: CTL/Counseling/Library/Nursing (Naomi Story): None
H. Zone 8: Life, Physical Science (John Zikopoulos): None
XI. Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 5:31 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Naomi Story
MCC Faculty Senate Secretary