MCC Faculty Senate Approved Minutes

 

                                                           CTL Conference Room

 

                                                            DATE:  October 17, 2002

 

                             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)

Ann Stine (Member at Large)

Greg Pratt (Member at Large)

 

Members Absent:

Erin Rawson (Member at Large)

Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large)

David Nachman (Member at Large)

 

I. Call to Order:  President Barry F. Vaughan called Meeting to order at 3:10 PM

 

II. Addition to Agenda:

 

Steve Budge:  Guest presentation on TSC Research Report

 

III. Approval of Minutes; Minutes were approved unanimously.

 

IV.  Guest Presentation: Steve Budge gave the nine-page TSC (Technology Support Center) Research Report to the Senate.  He summarized its elements.

            Part I:  Research of Best Practices

                        The Evolution of the Help Desk

                        Best Practices

                                    People

                                    Process

                                                Problem management

                                                Change management

                                                Asset management

                                                Service level management

                        Technology (Software/Tools/Tracking System)

                        Implementation and Strategic Management

                        More Best Practices

                       

The report also included a bibliography, site visit list (CGCC, RSC, and ASU),

employees interviewed at MCC, web site links, and TSC Team Members (Steve,

Ed Lipinski, Chas. Moore, Bethann Partin, and Jonathan Baney).  Steve stated that Part 2 should be the implementation plan.  Discussion occurred.

Question:  Based on research, where should the Help Desk reside?

Answer:     The Help Desk should be an integral part of Information Technology

                        for communication and programming.

 

Question:  Were there any institutions researched that had Help Desks outside

                        of IT?

Answer:      No

 

Question:    Did you do any research on cost analysis of best practices?

Answer:       No, budget piece was not included.

 

Question:    Who chartered your group?

Answer:        ITAC did not charge this group‹Dean Mee approached

                        Steve to do it, not ITAC.

 

Other discussion:

            Implementation piece of report is a big hole.

            Not easy to implement without the recognition of the whole system.

            Do you get a sense of the parameters that fit or do not fit‹where we

                        want to go

            Not everything is broken.  How different of what we have now?

                        Can we fine tune versus start all over?

            Problem appears to be about accountability and the clear lines

                        of accountability.

            Strategic plan should include a CIO (chief information officer)

            Do we need a Dean of Technology‹absolutely?

            But, the research group was specifically told NOT to look at

                        organizational structure.

            Faculty Senate voted on a resolution on a specific proposal which

                        carries more weight.

            Encourage ITAC/Deans Council to move to next stage.

            Was Steve¹s report legitimate charge of ITAC‹No and not certain

                        that Dean Mee will come to ITAC with new model. Then ITAC

                        can move forward it next level.

            Chas Moore requested to meet with the senate about ITAC questions

                        from previous meeting.

            Suggest that we broadcast our feelings earlier.

            Wait until the Senate/Chairs Retreat for a stronger report.  Put on

                        agenda.

            What is the timeline?  Change is supposed to roll out in January.

                        Chas on sabbatical in January and Steve steps down in January.

            Lacks Best Practices on operations and organizational structure.

            Who is in charge of IT?‹IT and Media Services under Dean Etter.

            Why is it that the charge (for report) coming from dean that

                        is not in charge‹a lot of issues reflected in Academic

                        Computing Services proposal‹Dean Mee has responsibility for

                        instruction‹overlaps.

            Confusion of responsibility is issue.

            Student support and academic support lacking‹how do we integrate in

                        support needs.  Academic part of current system‹have two parts

                        or beef up current system to meet all needs,

            Need to converse with chairs.

            Need to research organizations and structures.

            Budget is at question

            Do you want a Dean of Technology or Director of Academic Computing?

            We are not in a situation where something will happen before the

                        Retreat.

            We appreciate the report, Steve.

 

V. Treasurer's Report:  John is now recognized as treasurer by DSFCU, so he

            will be able to report next time.

 

VI. Committee and Project Reports:  None-next time:  Chris Osgood

                        on SOC

 

VII. Old Business:

 

  1. FIPP:  Charles Lewis provided a context on the FIPP proposal.  He then moved that Senate approve the language changes to the MCC Faculty Intern Selection Process:  to allow for greater faculty and Department input concerning the selection of Faculty Interns, the following changes are proposed:

To be eligible for selection consideration, applicants must have:

            *identified an RFP faculty member in their field of teaching who

                        is willing to serve as a mentor, and

                        *obtained approval of the appropriate Department Chair.

           
Selection will be made based upon:

            *criteria outlined in the 2002-2003 FIPP Guidelines

            *Need for diversity in a specific discipline or department at Mesa

 

Consideration will be given to candidates who meet the minimum educational and/or vocation background requirements and some or all of the following criteria:

            *Teaching experience

            *Commitment to professional development

            *Evidence of community service

Motion was seconded and discussed.  Discussion included how diversity was restricted to minorities and interpretation differed across district; why we cannot take a stand on the whole issue of FIPP as a program (it¹s the chancellor¹s sacred cow); how many are going into disciplines that truly reflect underrepresented groups, issue of faculty at colleges reflecting diversity of students across the district versus at the college.  The motion was passed unanimously.

 

A second motion was made and seconded that approved the changes in language to the MCC Faculty Intern Selection Process be presented to the Department Chair Association for joint approval.  No discussion; the motion was passed unanimously.

 

  1. FPG Recognition:  Charles stated that Lo-An Tabar-Gaul preferred that no monetary stipend be allocated for her work; a plaque would be nice.  It was moved and seconded that Lo-An Tabar Gaul receive a plaque for her work on Faculty Profession Growth for 2001-2002 because she failed to receive proper remuneration for her duties as the college¹s faculty professional growth representative.  Motion was passed unanimously.  Charles will work with Erin on the plaque.

 

C.  Fall Retreat Details:  Barry reminded the senate that the joint Faculty Senate/Department Chair Assn. Retreat will be held on Friday, November 1,2002 from 4:00-7:00 PM in the Faculty Lounge.  Charles discussed food choice.  Based on efficiency and cost, he stated that Blimpies can provide sandwiches, sides, and drink.  He could send out information on particulars and have Harold to do the same with Chairs.  There was a general consensus by the senate for him and Harold to move forward.

 

Barry discussed agenda and meeting process.  Limit the meeting to 2 hours and 15 minutes with two working questions to discuss.  He stated that the chairs would like to discuss the Red Mountain issue.  Senate agreed and wanted to have ITAC as the second topic.  It was suggested that Charles and Harold prepare a one-sheet information sheet on working questions, background, tasks, and reporting and recommendation processes.

 

IX. New Business:

 

      A.  Drop-Add:  General discussion occurred on the issue of drop-add period

being too long.  This was difficult for technical courses, which needed a full 15 weeks.  Suggestion that we shorten the period.  Concerns included

            FTSE, advisement, and late registration.  Information to students on

            current policy should be made clearer to students.

   

  1. All Faculty Reception for MCC Faculty:  Barry stated that he¹d like us to

have a social and wanted to know if the senate would too.  It was discussed as a good for opening communication with our faculty about governance.  The senate suggested we bring this back as old business.

 

X. Information and Announcements:

 

  1. President's Report:
    1. Program directors¹ compensation:  Barry reported that he, Harold, and Linda Collins will be meeting with Dean Mee on the recommendations for Program director¹s compensation.

 

    1. Longmore lease property:  Barry stated that the President is currently having preliminary negotiations with the owners of the Longmore movie theatre about an agreement for a lease/purchase of that property with MCC.  The theatre owner would like to demolish the theatre and build a building to our specs if we are willing to lease it.  The Deans Council will meet on the possible programs that could be housed there.  Barry will keep us posted.

 

 

    1. Committee volunteers:  Barry is soliciting faculty assistance for following committees and asked zone reps to look for volunteers.

a.     International Ed. - to read minigrants

b.    Bookstore Advisory Council ­ to discuss any bookstore issues

c.     District Legislative Committee ­ to serve as MCC rep; Doyle is chair; and to foster legislative and lobbying agenda for faculty.

 

    1. Major bullets for Senate minutes:  a faculty member who suggested that 2-3 things could be bulleted to draw people to major topics of interest approached Barry.  After discussion, Naomi stated that she would try this out when she send the next set of approved minutes.

 

  1. President-Elect's Report:
    1. FEC (Faculty Executive Council) Charles reported.

a.     Ed Contreras gave his thoughts:  Faculty salary raises would probably not happen. Ed cited the ASRS rising cost.  He said that governing board would not communicate with the Meet and Confer Team directly even though it says so in the RFP. Ed focused on executive session only

even though faculty agreed about executive session as

being the board¹s domain.  Yet, he did not see the distinction between Meet and Confer and executive session.

b.    Meet and Confer: Salary was the single driving issue

based on faculty input and responsiveness to faculty. 

 

    1. Membership:  Charles encouraged senate, especially the zone reps to encourage new memberships.  He and Barry would be willing to speak directly to any potential faculty members.

 

    1. Staff report-Fall hires vs. recommendations:  Staff report passed Dept. Chair Assn.  Issue was on hiring outside recommendation list.  The Staffing Committee is set to meet with Dean Mee based on her availability.

 

  1. Chair Liaison Report:  (Harold Cranswick): Harold said that Barry mentioned the Program Director¹s compensation review earlier.  He is two-thirds done finding out about faculty participation on committees.

 

  1. Board Report: (Barry Vaughan):  Meet and Confer:  Moving forward and trying to get the Governing Board member to meet with team.

 

Art Strategic Conversation:  Barry asked Lyn to share.  She said she was

disillusioned with the conversation process because it was not practical

or profitable.  Other than an indication of a new AA in performing arts and a charter school for recruiting students, it did not appear that the

conversation increased the Governing Board¹s knowledge of the Arts. 

There were some misleading data on theatre group, cool PowerPoint

presentation, an articulate student speaker, but session was a mixed bag.

           

      E. 49% Representative Report:  Need a person

 

XI. 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):  Not here

 

D.   Ann Stine (Member at Large):  None

 

E.    Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large):  Not here

     

F.    David Nachman (Member at Large):  Not here

 

G.    Greg Pratt (Member at Large):  Barry welcomed Greg as the newest

member-at-large. 

Greg shared about EBAC.  More bad news:  It is likely that our increase will be 23% and not 16% but Rufus Glasper will ask the Board to support fully 16% increase which will cost $3.9 Million.  It is possible that employee health care and retirement will be sent to meet and confer.  Based on claims history our average age in 47 and imaging cost is expensive between $500-1,5000 for imaging, so data from zones not necessary because this is not discussable.  

Banking vacations and sick leave option will be tiered for new employees and lower for current employees.  Co-pay and deductibles

Would go up and discount on mail order will decrease.  Tell zones to

review PowerPoint slides to board.  He will give Naomi.  It¹s a done deal.

 

 Zone Representatives

 

     A. Zone 1: Art/Foreign Languages/Reading/Speech Communication/Theatre Arts (Lyn Dutson):  Speed bumps need on the south side because of lack of cross walks.  2/3-way stop signs on south entry near field were potential safety problem.  Jack was asked if he was on Safety committee; he has not been notified of meeting dates.

     

      B. Zone 2: Business (Phil Waclawski):  None

  

     C. Zone 3: English/Philosophy (Sam Martinez):  None

  

     D. Zone 4: Math/Music (Danene Richardson): None

 

     E. Zone 5: Cultural, Social Science/Psychology (Harold Cranswick):  None

     

     F. Zone 6: Technology & Design/Family/Consumer Science/Mortuary:  None Science/Phys. Ed. (Jack Hinze):

     

     G. Zone 7: CTL/Counseling/Library/Nursing (Naomi Story):  Naomi stated a concern from a constituent about amount decrease for those who get health benefit waivers because they have spouses or another source for benefits and get cash exchange, which is much less than actual benefit amount.  Naomi also mentioned hearing that the district was questioning MIL Faculty Fellowship Program and Learning Grants as budget cuts.  These were the only two direct faculty resources available from district that encouraged faculty learning, development, and innovation at the colleges.  She was asked to bring this back as new business next time.  Naomi also encouraged Senate members to attend and ask their faculty to attend the first Faculty Dialogue on Teaching and Learning on November 1 in the Kiva Room from 12-2:30 PM.

 

     H. Zone 8: Life, Physical Science (John Zikopoulos):  None

 

XI. Adjournment:  Meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM

 

Respectfully submitted,

Naomi O. Story

MCC Faculty Senate Secretary