MCC Faculty Senate Minutes
CTL Conference Room
DATE: November 21, 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
Harold Cranswick, Zone 5
Jack Hinze, Zone 6
Naomi Story, Zone 7
John Zikopoulos, Zone 8
Mona Scott (Member at Large)
Ann Stine (Member at Large)
Greg Pratt (Member at Large)
Erin Rawson (Member at Large)
Mehrzad Khorsandi (Member at Large)
David Nachman (Member at Large)
Members Absent:
Danene Richardson, Zone 4
Philip Carrillo (Member at Large)Attending Legislative Committee Meeting
Guests: Ed Lipinski
Paul Hietter
Wade Harris
Bill DeHaan
Joseph Luchenta
Frances Villarreal
Dave Yount
Chris Osgood
I. Call to Order: President Barry Vaughan called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM.
II. Additions and Deletions to Agenda: Agenda approved with additions
A. RFP Membership List, Staffing Committee (added by Charles Lewis)
B. Meeting on District Fiscal Process (added by Barry Vaughan)
III. Approval of Minutes: November 7 Faculty Senate Minutes were accepted with title modification unanimously.
IV. Guest Presentation:
Paul Hietter with assistance from Wade Harris and Bill DeHaan presented the proposed automated faculty homepage creation program. This program would automatically create homepages for all MCC faculty members (full-time and adjunct). The homepages would be based on a template that provides a consistent look and feel among faculty who choose to use the tool. The tool would provide all faculty members an Internet presencewith little to no effort on their part. It would also allow faculty who are comfortable with HTML to manually edit their homepage. In addition, the initial run of the creation program would include an opt-out tool for faculty members who do not wish to have their homepages automatically created and updated.
Because the homepages would be integrated with the MYMCC portal, students will see information regarding courses and instructors both before and after registration. In addition, this tool would provide students with a standard method of accessing course materials in traditional and distance learning classes.
This program is scheduled for completion by mid-February 2003. Paul will serve as the contact person for implementation. Announcements to faculty members will begin through emails in December. The development of the program has bee endorsed by TLTR (Teaching Learning and Technology Roundtable) and the Distance Learning Committee. Paul was now asking the Faculty Senate for its endorsement and support.
Discussion included:
Question: What about academic freedom?
Answer: Faculty members have control of the content.
Also, those who already have spent many hours on their
web homepages can keep their look and feel. And, the
index file will be linked into the portal automatically.
Question: How do photos get loaded?
Answer: When the faculty ID cards are issued, their photos can
automatically be inserted. Until then, photos can be
put in.
Question: What about the ease of updating materials?
Answer: The tool will be able to link updated materials by pointing
to the directory for updated information
Question: How will faculty be made aware?
Answer: Paul said he intended to SPAM the faculty with emails.
It was also suggested that flyers be sent through snail
mail, especially for adjunct faculty.
There was a unanimous consensus to endorse this homepage creation program.
Barry commended Paul for addressing the academic freedom and ease of use issues brought up last year with this revised version.
V. Treasurer's Report: Tax Issue: John stated that Charles resolved the tax number issue. It was also suggested that this be included in the SOP manual.
VI. Committee and Project Reports:
A. Student Outcomes Committee:
Chris Osgood, Chair of SOC provided a status report on the committeeıs work. She first defined outcomes assessment as a campus-wide assessment versus classroom assessment.
Chris reminded us about the areas we assessed: written and oral communication, scientific inquiry, arts and humanities, information literacy, numeracy, cultural diversity, problem solving/critical thinking, workplace skills, and developmental education. We have also gone to assessing selected areas and not all each year so that we can spend time on reviewing and addressing results as well as evaluating measurements better. She also described the process used before, during, and after assessment week by faculty members and the Office of Research and Planning. This year assessment week will be held from February 24- March 1, 2003.
Chris also presented and reviewed highlights from the Spring 2002 Assessment. The Office of Research and Planning will send any interested faculty member who has not already received a copy of the executive summary of the Spring 2002 results. Chris also distributed the new Assessment brochure that describes our college assessment program.
Highlights of committee work this year include
· the addition of workplace skills and their revision
· revision of oral communication outcome as not just being about making speeches, but broadening the focus of communication
· redefinition of information literacy as being different from technology literacy. The subcommittee is looking at a survey to see what faculty are teaching and their expectations of student technology skills
· ROC which the new subcommittee of SOC and stands for Results Outreach Committee. This group will be looking at the information collected, what we are doing with the information, and what can we do with the information. It will also be an intermediary between SOC and the Center for Teaching and Learning.
Question: What were the stages for students taking the assessments?
Answer: Pre-group were students who had 9 or less credits at MCC
and Post-group included those who had 30 or more credits.
B. Distance Education Committee:
Ed Lipinski, Chair of the Distance Education Committee reviewed the groupıs vision and mission and what they were doing. He stated that the vision and mission came from the TLTR. It is not a policy making group but identifies guidelines and opportunities in distance education. Ed said that his committee has been working on a resource guide draft that includes:
· Introduction to Distance Learning at MCC
· Delivery Methods, Course Access and Course Management Tools
· Developing and Maintaining a Distance Learning Course
· Faculty Preparedness, Training and Available Assistance
· Faculty Responsibilities.
Sections in the proposed Resource Guide also contained, but done by other areas of the college are MCC Responsibilities [Information Technologies], Student Support [Student Development and Services], and Academic Support Services [Library and Counseling].
Question: Is the goal to develop a fully accredited online program?
Answer: Ed stated that this was the original goal from the
administration. We are about two courses short.
Question: When do you plan to have guidelines done and will you
bring it Senate for approval?
Answer: Should be done by the next meeting.
Question: Is there a clearinghouse of best practices for distance courses
for faculty to review and learn from others?
Answer: We can work on the feasibility of having a clearinghouse in the
Spring.
VII. Old Business:
MCC All Faculty Reception: Barry reminded the Senate about the reception proposal. A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to have an all MCC faculty reception in the spring. Barry will ask people to organize the reception.
VIII. New Business:
A. District Curriculum Committee Issue: Sam Martinez stated that non-instructional people were involved actively on the District Curriculum Committee. This becomes a fundamental issue when curriculum is blocked or stymied by non-faculty, such as operational or student development staff who do not understand teaching, learning, and curriculum. Linda Evans, English faculty and curriculum designer for MCC has drafted a white paper stating the issues and concerns. Barry has been in communication with Linda who would like to refine the paper before bringing it to the Senate.
Another potential curriculum issue is with Student Services people who go to the District Curriculum Committee and who say they must shield or protect students from faculty. We need to raise faculty consciousness of this issue.
Faculty also need to be aware that the threat of year-around curriculum process is still present. Mary Vanis is a principal proponent of this because of her office (Business and Workforce Development). A problem occurs when faculty such as those from Rio Salado support year-around curriculum and encourage Vanis.
Having curriculum processed during the summer without faculty membersı input is dangerous. The euphemism of a floating calendar connotes no responses means approval, which is false and detrimental, especially when faculty are unavailable.
Barry said he has also talked to Dean Mee about this issue. Dean Mee supports
faculty control of curriculum. A recent incident involved an MCC program being held up by the District interim curriculum coordinator.
Question: Who are voting members and non-voting members of the
District Curriculum Committee (DCC)?
Answer: Only voting members are the faculty curriculum designer and the dean
of instruction for each college; others are non-voting members,
but considered resources. The issue is heightened when DCC
subcommittees are chaired by non-faculty who can influence the
agenda.
If current voting rights of one faculty and one dean of instruction per college are increased, then one of facultyıs fundamental responsibilities and roles will be compromised. Barry also pointed out that this was a violation of the RFP.
It was agreed that when Linda was ready with her paper the Senate will move a motion forward to the District Faculty Executive Council to keep faculty ownership of the curriculum. Linda Evans will also be invited to the meeting.
B. Constitutional Change: John Zikopoulos introduced his proposal for a
motion to continue dialogue with the department chairs association and include communication with the President and the Dean of Instruction. The intent is to promote thoughtful discussion of issues rather than a debate between faculty and administration. He cited the success of the recent joint meeting with Senate and Department Chairs Association and the benefits of getting and giving feedback on issues from both groups. This would also encourage both faculty groups being in the same room with the administration.
It was recommended that this be part of our Standard Operating Procedures rather than a constitutional change. John will come back with a motion at the next meeting.
C. Administration Report Card: Greg Pratt introduced his motion that the
MCC Faculty Senate shall develop a Report Card to assess the performance of the President and the Dean of Instruction. This report card shall be based on the job description of the president and the DI and shall be on a regular basis and distributed to the Mesa community beginning with the Spring 2003 semester and continuing thereafter. General discussion supported Gregıs proposal and he was asked to bring it back for voting as Old Business at the next meeting.
D. RFP Membership Distribution List: Charles Lewis stated that Linda
Canez felt that she not have to update the residential facultyıs distribution list. Charles suggested that Treasurer would be in a good position to do this. The group concurred. He also stated that Robert Seifert from the District IT department took it upon himself to block outside emails from unsolicited people after one of our faculty requested this be done. He will check on this. It was also discussed that this should go to FEC instead of Old Business.
IX. Information and Announcements:
A. President's Report:
1. Evaluating services of Faculty Assn. Attorney: Barry stated that a faculty member asked about evaluating our Faculty Associationıs attorney. A question was asked about the criteria. Basically, it would entail services rendered and the quality of his services. A senator said he was most pleased with the quality of the attorney and his services. It was recommended that Barry take this to FEC.
2. Curriculum Issues: Already discussed.
3. All-Faculty Emergency Meeting Update: Barry reported that at FEC colleges reviewed results from their meetings. Overall, faculty members felt that we should be proactive rather do a negative approach in dealing with the Board and administration. The PR Firm proposal to do a grassroots campaign on faculty was consistent across the colleges. Barry also stated that he sent a summary across the college about the results of our meeting to all faculty and college leadership. A question was asked about whether we should have another follow-up meeting. It was generally agreed that we should not call a meeting if nothing else has occurred, i.e., not really an emergency meeting.
4. Barry also reported on his meeting with Rufus Glasper and several faculty about the budget process. It was a productive meeting on how the budget is put together. Barry recommended that we review the budget report that Ron Etter gave us. A suggestion was to connect our budget process with strategic planning.
B. President-Elect's Report:
1. Safety Survey-FEC: Charles reported that there was a safety survey being sent out. Apparently, a District person went ahead and distributed it without input and this was an FEC issue.
2. Membership: Charles said that our membership was now 221.5 or 79.8% of our faculty. This would keep our FEC membership at five representatives.
3. Staffing Committee: Charles stated that he sent an email refuting Dean Meeıs announcement. He said that her statement was not entirely accurate in that positions were named that were not all consistent with recommendations of the staffing committee. The committee considered the comprehensive nature of the college and did review continuing needs of departments. The staffing committee recognized the administrationıs rights to name position and it stands ready to meet with the administration.
Question: Was that Staffing Committee an RFP one?
Answer: It is a recommending committee appointed by the Faculty Senate President independent of the Dean of Instruction.
Question: Have you asked the Dean of Instruction to respond?
Answer: No, the staffing committee recommends to the President, not to the DI.
Question: Why is there an assumption that we only get positions
from District allocation and not from internal fundingother colleges supplement with their own funds?
Answer: We could ask the President for the rationale. People come to MCC not because of the administration, but because of the faculty.
Charles will take the question of the rationale of departing from the recommended list to the Department Chairs Association.
C. Chair Liaison Report (Harold Cranswick):
Harold reported that he met with the Dean of Instruction about the Program Director Compensation proposal. She asked that the subcommittee do more work to clarify issues about small programs in which the proposed formula may overcompensate the director. Harold also stated that the Dean said she would provide him with a list of the program directors because he was having trouble getting a complete list. It was suggested Ron Etter might know who and how they were compensated.
D. Board Report (Barry Vaughan): None
E. 49% Representative Report: No one appointed.
X. Senator Reports:
A. Phil Carrillo (Member at Large): Absent, but he is at the Legislative Committee meeting at the District Office.
B. Mona Scott (Member at Large): None
C. Erin Rawson(Member at Large): She asked about accessing Information Technologies (Help Desk)ITAC is on hold, so use current system.
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): None, however, Greg did report that there will a very important Board meeting on November 26 at 6:30 PM when groups will ask the Board to support 100% funding for the 16% increase on health insurance. He encouraged everyone to attend to demonstrate endorsement. Greg also summarized the impact of ASRS & LTD Increase from 2.49% to 5.5%. This would mean that if the Legislature passes the increase then employees would automatically lose an additional 3% of their salaries across all groups. He stated that the impact on the average faculty salary would range from a 1.1-1.7% decrease for single faculty member or a 2.8-4.4% decrease for someone with a family on the core plan.
Zone
Representatives
A. Zone 1: Art/Foreign Languages/Reading/Speech Communication/Theatre Arts (Lyn Dutson): Lyn is working on the paper phone book. Charles said he contacted Ron Etter who stated that if people wanted a print version, he would make them available.
B. Zone 2: Business (Phil Waclawski): None.
C. Zone 3: English/Philosophy (Sam Martinez): None.
D. Zone 4: Math/Music (Danene Richardson): Not here.
E. Zone 5: Cultural, Social Science/Psychology (Harold Cranswick): Harold had four items:
1. Question: what is faculty senate doing to do about IAıs hiring numbers?
2. Only funds identified for staffing appears to come from the district, but this is not true. There appears to be money on campus. Our college chooses to use funds for other purposes. We should ask other colleges how they use additional dollars for faculty positions. Charles said he would contact other presidents about Fund 1 flexibility and different allocations.
3. Is there a flow chart of some our committees and the flow into district committees? How do things work?
4. We need a brief summary on important FEC issues, i.e. Barryıs column rather than wait until FEC meeting minutes.
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): Issue of staffing results was brought up. John also had similar concerns as those stated by Harold.
XI. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 5:11 PM
Respectfully submitted by,
Naomi O. Story,
MCC Faculty Senate Secretary