MCC Faculty Senate Approved Minutes
CTL Conference Room
DATE: March 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
Phil Waclawski, Zone 2
Sam Martinez, Zone 3
Harold Cranswick, Zone 5
Jack Hinze, Zone 6
Naomi Story, Zone 7
Philip Carrillo (Member at Large)
Mona Scott (Member at Large)
Greg Pratt (Member at Large)
Ann Stine (Member at Large)
Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large)
David Nachman (Member at Large)
Members Absent:
Lyn Dutson, Zone 1
Danene Richardson, Zone 4
John Zikopoulos, Zone 8
Erin Rawson (Member at Large)
Chuck Horn (49% Representative)
Guests:
President Larry Christiansen
Chris Osgood
Maureen Zimmerman
Sally Kroelinger
Janice Jennings
Mike Sims
Debra Campbell
I. Call to Order: President Barry Vaughan called the meeting at 3:07 PM.
II. Additions and Deletions to Agenda:
Charles Lewis added two items: Fund I Summary Explanation and funding for joint Senate-DCA Retreat. Motion was passed unanimously to approve agenda with the additions.
IV.Guest Presentation: Dr. Vaughan welcomed and asked President Christiansen to discuss topics identified by the Senate. The President opened with a brief summary about a special Board of Regents meeting he attended on what the universities were doing in terms of tuition increase and changes on new admissions standards.
1. He then discussed the topic of faculty lines and the Staffing Committee. Dr. Christiansen described how the 303 FTE of RFP faculty positions were funded through the Fund 1 budget and 301 funds. He stated that of the 25 positions we received, 12 were Fund 1 positions and 13 were from 301 funds. He clarified that 301 positions were for workforce development programs, such as biotechnology and teacher education. A question was asked if those that were funded through 301 funds were permanent. The President stated that yes, as long as the workforce program stays so do the positions.
The President further stated that of the 303 positions we have, all but 35 were ³on the path of being permanent positions.² ³Of the 35, all but 12 remain in departments for the rest of the year.² 12 OYOs are not assigned to the departments; 13 are drawing salaries. He stated that program development lines are OYOs. The 13th line is FTE for the year. In the budget, we have 303 faculty lines and over time decisions are made to make them permanent lines or not. A question was asked whether OYOs were considered ³cushion?² The President responded that there were 12 non-appointive positions.
Question: Of the 303, how many are RFP positions?
Answer: 268; 23 are assigned to departments for unfilled positions such as
FMLA or being away. 12 lines are OYOs
The President then discussed the Staffing Committee concern of three of the
12 lines which deviated from recommendations of the committee. He stated that those 3 were for replacement of faculty member who left the college and for growth discussions. The President stated that he was concerned about budget flexibility, moving forward with new program, i.e. vet tech, and living up to a commitment he had made earlier. However, he had not been clear with
his message to the Staffing Committee. He also stated that the administrations was not always in sync with the committee, but would try to move together as a matter of communication. There are times when decisions were made in the past, e.g. when the Automotive program which was not ranked highly needed a position or the program would falter. Priorities are not always in tune with the departments. But he was comfortable to go with the Staffing Committeeıs Recommendations.
At this point President Christiansen said he was prepared to stop the hiring process and roll those positions as OYOs. He was also willing to call Brad, Chuy, and Wyn.
Barry said this is not what the Senate wants. Barry said our resolution was to ask the President to communicate his rationale for the deviation to the Staffing Committee, the DCA and the Senate. As President, he has the right to make the final decision for staffing. Barry clarified that the Senate did not ask the President to stop the hiring or contact the chairs.
The President said that staffing was less of a cause and effect process. As a college, we have issues such as being a big place, litigation, and District Office obligations about which the public need not know. He thought he was he started in the path of communicating the need for budget flexibility because of those issues. He suggested meeting with the President of the Senate, Chair of the DCA, and the Chair of the Staffing Committee to talk about the Staffing Recommendations. He also stated that the Staffing Committee needed to be the secondary conscience of programs.
Question: Will you be looking at reallocations of the 12 lines to staff positions this year?
Answer: Now looking at OYOs and are in early conversations on OYOs, but we need to be more conservative because of fiscal issues. Need to go back to the original list and look at OYOs such as the Chemistry one, the status of FMLA, and other scenarios. Maybe able to have a couple filled as permanent ones. The OYO process is difficult.
Question: Are adjunct faculty funded at MA, Step 4 and augmented when hired?
Answer: Adjunct faculty are funded through our push-pull account.
2. Recommendation of CIO (Chief Information Officer) The President stated that we have no leadership in technology and the original plan was to hold on the position because he didnıt want us to have any false expectations. It was now on hold because it is fiscal issue.
Question: Isnıt the old line still there?
Answer: We sent back one of the two dean lines, no sure which. Concerned about the bottom line when we are asked to send back funds to the DO. We got no new monies. Basically, we only have tuition rebates and basic inflation funds but they are being used for things like electricity.
Question: where would you like to take us about supporting technology decision making in the future?
Answer: Not sure if the answer is to hire another administrator.
Question: isnıt that what Mike Sims or Steve Budge was doing?
Answer: TLTR is doing strategic planning for technology. We had a false start with college-wide opportunity to discuss technology issues, such as PeopleSoft installation, new network installation, computer security, board-based planning, change, and other management things.
The network upgrade and PeopleSoft installation are fraught with unknowns. With every PeopleSoft installation, we have issues in the past. We need to look at virtual services and courses over the Internet. Weıre not in crisis mode. Need good, serious hearing on pros and cons. Money is a short-term issue. Do we not hire faculty or not hire administrators? Do we jump to crisis and not have any hidden agendas? At the Governing Board meeting, the $5 increase, which means $10 Million, will be discussed.
Question: What about 49% lines?
Answer: There are no 49% lines. When we have a retirement, the full line is freed up. If you have 6 retirees, three lines can be allocated to a department and three are open lines.
Question: when they go, does someone track positions?
Answer: If someone resigns on June 30, the position is listed as a vacant position.
Question: If the Office of the President and DI saw areas of growth ahead of time, wouldnıt the Staffing Committee have considered them?
Answer: Yes, but we were not clear. The 3 deviations could go back to OYOs.
Barry reiterated that you (President) suggested that; we (the Senate) did not suggest that, it was not our intention to have the three lines taken back.
President stated that he wanted to be practical and felt the growing issue. He was willing to interview OYOs. He knew how to be formal and second-guessing was not collegial.
Barry restated that the decision was the prerogative of the President. The issue was not about his decision. The question was about why those three areas were chosen because the decision caused discomfort and were explained by the DI, not the President.
Barry, Harold, and Charles will meet with the President about comfort level.
3. Downtown Campus: The President stated that the City of Mesa would like MCC to have a presence in the downtown area. They would provide free land. No Bond money would be used to purchase land downtown. He stated that this would be an interesting opportunity with a greater presence. It would eliminate the need to have leases at Brown/Country Club and Centennial Way campus. We would not ³bastardize² the Red Mountain or Dobson/Southern campuses for the downtown one. Itıs a placeholder and capital and operational budgets would be separate from current campuses. We need to balance the pros and cons. On the plus side, we would have use of a $90 MIL Performing Arts Center and $30 MIL Aquatic Center opportunities for MCC students. It could be an interesting opportunity to do innovative things, such as a Grade 11-14 joint degrees and ways to serve our students with ASU and a charter school. There is not enough to respond to growth in the Bond. Itıs a different pot of money.
4. Electronic sign: The DO wants each college to have a $100 K monument sign. We are currently in conversation about this. The President said that our studentsı priority is to have a $40 K Flagpole.
Barry thanked the President for taking the time to address the Senate.
V. Treasurer's Report (John): Absent
VI. Committee and Project Reports: None
VII. Old Business:
A. Resolution to President on hiring (Harold/Lyn): Harold asked that this
item be table for the next meeting.
B. Occupational Program Directors (Harold): Harold reported that he and the subcommittee met with Dean Mee. He stated that the data that they gathered from other collegesı program director helped to bring about resolution with the Dean. Basically, she agreed to the base pay of 3 hours of reassigned time or overload for each semester and supervisory pay according to the RFP for each occupational program director. This was a culmination of lots of work and input by many.
Question: Where is the substance of the agreement recorded and how does it become policy?
Answer: The Dean will send a message to HR and copy the department chairs.
Question: Is this for this year?
Answer: This is for this year; program directors have not been compensated yet this year.
Question: Will this mean 6 hours reassigned time/overload and supervisory compensation across the board, no matter what they do?
Answer: Interaction between the DI and Program directors will occur. There was some discussion about possibly combining some small programs under one to have some consistency in size. Discussion will occur with Department chairs and ADs.
VIII. New Business:
A. Theatre Outback Speed Bumps (Jack): This item was tabled until the
next meeting.
B. ITAC Senate Committee: This item was put on hold.
C. Fund 1 Summary: Budget Explanation. Charles will send senators an email on this item.
D. Thank you Letter to President: There was a general consensus that Barry send a thank you letter for attending the March 6 meeting clarifying our agreement with him about our intentions about staffing decisions.
IX. Information and Announcements:
A. President's Report:
1. Meet and Confer: Barry stated that he had not heard from Janice about the most recent events related to Meet and Confer negotiations. He said that basically negotiations are at a standstill. The Board has not responded to the teamnot even to accept, reject, or to offer a counterproposal.
2. FEC-PR firm: Barry shared that a PR firm made a presentation to the FEC. They proposed to work with us with several options, including as a lobbyist. They talked about focusing on facultytheir buy-in, faculty doing great stuff, being on boards and community connections. The firm members addressed targeted advertising, membership base interests, networking and other promotional activities about facultyıs good work and contribution. There was not discussion of a dollar amount yet. Based on our input they will return with a more specific proposal for consideration.
Comment: we could do with PR at home (MCC) like the New Faculty Experience.
B. President-Elect's Report:
1. FEC-The FEC voted to approve the Faculty allocation formula
recommended by the faculty subcommittee headed by Roy Cohen and
Carnella Hardin. The proposed formula will now go to FAC; FEC
voted to place FIPP on hiatus until a joint faculty and administrative
group to revise it; FEC voted to have the Districtıs Program Review to
be conducted by a credentialed, external consultant and not handled
an internal body.
2. Faculty Recruitment Commission: This is the group that created FIPP
and is not a good committee experience.
Question: Why did we receive Annaıs memo if FEC voted to place
FIPP on hiatus?
Answer: Rosemary did not send our motion until after the FIPP
announcement was sent. Did she hold it purposely?
3. Funding for joint Senate/DCA Retreat: There was consensus to pay for the retreat food and drink.
C. Secretary: Reminders: March 7, DCA/Senate Joint meeting and March 28 Faculty Social: Naomi reminded senators about the two upcoming events.
D. Chair Liaison Report (Harold Cranswick/Charles Lewis): Harold reviewed the results of the Occupational Program Director Compensation. He also said that the DCA met at the Red Mountain campus. The faculty at Red Mountain shared concerns and frustrations they had about scheduling, having a consistent person to make administrative decisions, and supervisory roles and titles for faculty at Red Mountain. For example, Victor Cornell supervises 60 math sections at RM. Barry and Harold will meet with Dean Mee about these issues. The Red Mountain faculty also felt detached. They like their independence but they had no one to turn to as defacto campus administrator. There appears to be a mixed message of a one college, two-campus culture when Red Mountain is treated as a separate entity for the Bond.
Question: Do we have a Red Mountain Rep?
Answer: We tried to VCN but no one was there.
Comment: Barry and Harold need to bring this back to Senate as an issue.
E. Board Report (Barry Vaughan): None
F. 49% Representative Report (Chuck Horn): Absent.
G. Legislative Liaison Report (Phil Carrillo or Erin Rawson): Erin stated that she got 21 responses to her request for faculty membersı home email. She asked the senators to encourage faculty members to send her their email addresses.
X. Senator Reports:
Members at Large
A. Phil Carrillo (Member at Large): None
B. Mona Scott (Member at Large): None
C. Erin Rawson (Member at Large): None
D. Ann Stine (Member at Large): None
E. Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large): None
F. David Nachman (Member at Large): None
G. Greg Pratt (Member at Large): Barry suggested
we pay attention to Greggıs emails on health care and studentsı
email. It was suggested we put Insurance issue on New Business. Gregg
suggested that Chuck Horn go to the Doug Dawson meeting.
Zone Representatives
A. Zone 1: Art/Foreign Languages/Reading/Speech Communication/Theatre Arts (Lyn Dutson): Absent
B. Zone 2: Business (Phil Waclawski): Phil reported trying to get in touch with Diane Johns, DO Payroll about spreading pay over 12 months. Barry encouraged Phil not to give up and keep making noise.
C. Zone 3: English/Philosophy (Sam Martinez): Sam asked about the District Curriculum Committee. Naomi stated that Lindaıs analysis was misrepresented as coming from FEC. She said that Rosemary Kesler and Alan Haffa attended the DCC meeting after the discussion had begun about the curriculum committee issues: membership and year-around curriculum. It was clear that the meeting was staged for the FEC reps. For example, prior to their coming,
VC Solley stated that ³year-around" curriculum processing was put on the back burner.² When Kelser and Haffa arrived they were told that DCC had voted against year-around curriculum processing which was not exactly what was stated earlier. Because membership was revised and non-voting members were labeled as resources and faculty members from the PIC subcommittee emphasized their support of resource persons, this was painted as a moot point.
After the two FEC members left, Dean Mee asked to table the motion to approve the document so that faculty could review the changes. VC Solley said this was not possible. Basically, the document was approved with four of us voting nay. Sam asked that copies of the document Linda wrote be sent.
D. Zone 4: Math/Music (Danene Richardson): Absent
E. Zone 5: Cultural, Social Science/Psychology (Harold Cranswick): None
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): Absent
XI. Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 5:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Naomi O. Story
MCC Faculty Senate Secretary