Faculty Senate Minutes
Thursday, December 4, 2008
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
1. Attendance: Please check-in on the attendance roster.
In attendance, Senate officers and delegates—Mark Hubley (FO President), Swazette Young (FO Vice
President), Len Sekelick (Liberal Arts), Vince Cipriani (WDCE), Janet Carlson (Developmental Ed),
Nicholas Plants (at large), Laura Ellsworth (Public Safety and Law), Charles Thomas (Computer and
Engineering Technology), Barbara Sanders (Student Development Services), Daniel Jones (at large),
Kathi Linville (Nursing), Alan Mickelson (Learning Resources), Scott Huxel (STEM), Michelle Klein
(Sciences and Engineering), Rosanne Benn (Developmental Ed), Nelson Kofie (Anthro, Econ, Soc), Iva
Toler (Health & Human Performance), Eldon Baldwin (at large). Others in attendance—Lynda Ihekweme
(SGB).
2. Review the Agenda for the 12/4/08 meeting.
The agenda was approved as written.
3. Review the Minutes of the 11/20/08 meeting.
The minutes were not available at this time.
4. Calendar
Fall 2008 important dates
A. College closed or no classes
i) College Enrichment Day, no classes, Tue. 10/28
ii) Thanksgiving Holiday, no classes, Wed. 11/26
iii) Thanksgiving Holiday, college closed, Thu. 11/27—Sun. 11/30
B. Other important dates
i) Last day to withdraw from 15-week classes, Fri. 11/21
ii) Final exam week, Tue. 12/9—Mon. 12/15
iii) Grades due, Wed. 12/17 at 4:00 PM
November/December important dates
E. Senate meetings
i) Thu. 11/6, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
ii) Thu. 11/20, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
iii) Thu. 12/4, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
F. Board of Trustees meetings
i) Tue. 11/13, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
ii) Thu. 12/11, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
G. College-wide Forum
i) Tue. 11/4, 2:00—3:30 PM, LSC B
ii) Tue. 11/18, 2:00—3:30 PM, LSC B
iii) Tue. 12/2, 2:00—3:30 PM, LSC B
H. Academic Council
i) Thu. 11/13, 3:00—5:00 PM, HTC 133
ii) Thu. 12/11, 3:00—5:00 PM, HTC 133
1
***Next Senate meeting February 5, 2009
5. Attachments
A. Minutes from the 11/20 meeting
B. Various forms related to the Faculty Evaluation Plan
6. Reports
A. Senate President
Mark Hubley reported that there had been a discussion in the Academic Council about the college’s
academic standing policy. Currently, our levels for good academic standing do not meet those required
by financial. For example, up to 20 credits, PGCC requires a minimum GPA of 1.0 for good academic
standing; financial aid requires a 1.5. The Council believes that the PGCC minimum standards should be
brought up to those set for financial aid. There were some questions in the Council about whether grades
in developmental classes should be counted toward academic standing. This might provide a better
picture of the progress of the majority of our newer students. On the other hand, since developmental
classes cannot be counted toward the credit-based GPA, this would mean calculating two GPA’s for most
of our students. This could be confusing and we were not sure if Colleague could track two GPA’s.
Someone asked how other colleges do this. Barbara Sanders said that various colleges do things
various ways.
Hubley said that Academic Affairs is planning to hold a meeting the afternoon of inauguration day.
B. Senate Vice President
Swazette Young reported that a proposal is being circulated for review by members of the Salary &
Benefits Committee.
C. Academic Council
See the President’s report.
D. Representative from President’s Leadership Team
Eldon Baldwin reported that the PLT would meet next Wednesday. One topic of discussion is dealing
with the new generation of communication. The topic of learning centeredness and changing the
institutional culture remains to be dealt with. Hubley said he would like to bring up the issue of program
mentoring in an upcoming meeting.
E. College-wide Forum
i) Representative from Faculty Organization
Laura Ellsworth mentioned a report by Verna Teasdale, Heidi Elam, and Cassandra Moore-Crawford on
the Periodic Review Report due to Middle States next year. One part of this report will deal with
governance. Middle States was critical of our governance system, citing the need for governance to be
separate from strategic planning, and the need for academic professionals to have oversight of academic
affairs. Our response will include the CWF as an answer to separating governance from strategic
planning, and the Academic Council as an answer to putting academic professionals in charge of the
academic program. Things may not be perfect, but major steps have been taken.
ii) Human Resources Committee
This committee will be meeting on Wednesday. One topic of discussion will be recognition of years of
service by adjunct faculty.
2
iii) Budget Advisory Committee
iv) Campus Culture Committee
v) Learning Committee
vi) Technology Steering Committee
Baldwin reported that CAT 303 has a wealth of advance technology capabilities and is available to
instructors looking to use technology in new ways in the classroom. The college is hoping to have
Internet access in all classrooms, and there is hope that everything will be wireless in three years.
vii) Strategic Planning Committee
viii) Assessment Committee
ix) Facilities Committee
Rosanne Benn addressed various issues that came up at the last meeting, including signage on campus,
the need for clear directions at elevators, especially for people with disabilities, and campus
beautification. The Traffic, Access, and Parking subcommittee discussed improving bus service to the
Metro station, and it was noted that Dr. Dukes attended a town hall meeting about the proposed purple
line.
Hubley brought up the issue of food/drink in classrooms, and he thought the Senate and Facilities
Committee had agreed on a policy that would ban food/drink in certain “lab” classrooms, but allow
food/drink in other rooms at the instructor’s discretion. Hubley recalled that Facilities would draft a
proposal, but he isn’t aware of any progress. Hubley asked Benn to raise the issue at the next meeting.
F. Chairs’ Council
Ellsworth noted that Christine Barrow is circulating a spreadsheet among the departments asking for the
identification of problems in rooms.
G. Adjunct Faculty
Janet Carlson reported that four adjunct faculty members are being sponsored by academic affairs
professional development funds to attend the AFACCT conference on January 8 and January 9 at Anne
Arundel Community College in Arnold, Maryland.
H. Representative from the Student Governance Board
7. Old Business
A. Faculty evaluation process revisions
Hubley referred to a package of documents related to the faculty evaluation process. He asked the
Senate to first discuss the proposed Form B and the various objectives given for the teaching
observation. Baldwin asked to clarify that the second page of Form B gives examples, but is not a rubric.
Hubley then moved to Form C, the student evaluation. Hubley said the purpose of this document from
the chairs’ perspective is to evaluate the instructor. Thus, questions about the student were removed. It
was generally agreed that the 16 questions are an improvement over the current document. Various
minor corrections were suggested. Nicholas Plants suggested that qualitative questions are more
valuable for improving teaching and making a course better. Hubley said that the chairs do not view
improving the course as the primary purpose of this document; it is to evaluate the instructor. Hubley
suggested that course assessments (e.g., AOAC) have the goal of improving courses, and instructors can
always do their own evaluations.
Next, the various Form D documents. Baldwin suggested changing the five current ratings, and after
discussion the Senate came up with a four-rating system: (1) unsatisfactory, (2) needs improvement, (3)
3
fully meets expectations, and (4) exceeds expectations. It was generally agreed that the meanings of
these terms are much clearer than the current terms.
Schedule of evaluations. Ellsworth suggested that faculty receiving 5 ECH (e.g., collegian center
coordinators) should be reviewed every other year along with department chairs. Hubley noted the line
allowing either a faculty member or an ILS to request an evaluation in any year. The Senate suggested
that if the ILS requests an evaluation and the faculty member disagrees, then the dean should decide
whether or not it gets done. Len Sekelick suggested that if either the instructor or ILS requests a special
evaluation, the request should be put in writing.
Timetable. The Senate suggested that student evaluations be conducted during a time period beginning
when half the class is complete and ending immediately before the withdrawal date.
Hubley said that a revised plan (at least parts of it) will have to go to the Board of Trustees for approval.
He said it was his tentative plan to call a meeting of the Faculty Organization early in the spring semester
and ask the faculty to review and comment on the revised plan. Perhaps we will have a referendum.
Baldwin reminded Hubley to check what the FO Bylaws have to say.
B. Other old business?
8. New Business
A. New business?
9. Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings
A. Update on Senate progress over the past year.
B. Other items?
10. Adjournment
It was not noted when the meeting adjourned.
4