Draft Faculty Senate Minutes
Thursday, October 7, 2010
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Gwynn Room, A 221

Mike Gavin called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.

The agenda was approved, as were the minutes for the 9/16/10 Senate meeting.

Mark Hubley brought up the confidentiality agreements that have been distributed by
Lark Dobson for faculty to sign. Hubley expressed concern that faculty members do not
know what they are signing. Other members of the Senate expressed reservations about
the document and agreed to discuss the matter further.

Late Registration
Barbara Sanders spoke about arguments for having a late registration period dating to
2003 in the Faculty Senate when a policy was instituted by a vote of 23 to 8. Sanders
spoke about the success and retention of students as something that such a policy
engenders. Sanders mentioned that she will be presenting the issue to the Academic
Council next week. Sanders said that for first-time and beginning students, who are most
at risk, limitations on late registration are wise. Gavin asked if the proposal is to get the
Senate’s approval to present this to the Academic Council, and Sanders answered that
this is what she is seeking. The motion passed unanimously. On a related note, Hubley
brought up concerns about students who have not paid their tuition bill for the current
semester. Alan Mickelson suggested that the issue might be more appropriate for the
Academic Council to discuss. Several Senate members commented that the College
would not repeat in the future this practice of allowing students who have not paid their
tuition bills to remain on rosters and in classes.

Promotion and Tenure Modifications
Hubley discussed the history of proposed modifications for promotion and tenure
requirements. Hubley spoke of concerns related to time in rank that Drs. Charlene Dukes
and Sandy Dunnington noted. These times have been lengthened in the proposed
changes to the promotion and tenure guidelines. Another change is that a faculty member
must wait until fulfilling the entire time in rank before applying. The proposal moves
associate professor back one year, full professor back two years, and tenure back two
years. The College has had lower time in rank requirements than other colleges.
Possible bumps in pay are offered in the proposal for post-tenure faculty. Danny Jones
and Kathi Linville spoke about implementing the changes and expressed concern that the
College might try to limit the number of tenure slots, as was done in the past. Hubley has
expressed to Dukes that instituting this change will not bring on a tidal wave of
applications for post-tenure increments. Tenure will not bring a salary increment.
Several members of the Senate including Eldon Baldwin mentioned the long gulf
between achieving tenure under the proposed changes and being able to apply for a salary
increase. Baldwin saw the proposed post-tenure salary increments as being watered
down. Hubley pointed out that there is currently no salary increment. Baldwin called for
having a timeline so that everyone can see how long a wait there would be between salary
increments. Hubley agreed with Baldwin that the gap between salary increments would
be six years long, which Baldwin expressed would lead to more faculty seeking income
outside of the College. Clyde Ebenreck mentioned that the AAUP standard is seven
years for tenure, and Hubley replied that a faculty member would apply for tenure in the
seventh year and start his/her eighth year as a tenured faculty member. Hubley indicated
a third issue that Drs. Dukes and Dunnington brought up, that is, the notion of pulling an
application that has been rejected by a division committee and dean, and that there was
agreement on this issue. Hubley noted that only a problem with procedure, process,
and/or fairness would justify an appeal. Therefore, a “no” from the division and dean
would bring the application to a stop. Sherrie Kinslow and Linville felt that this was a
good idea. Others on the Senate and faculty members present had reservations.
Ebenreck noted that there has been at least one case were a college-wide committee
overruled a division committee. Ebenreck said that he thinks that the choice to let an
application continue must remain that of the faculty member who submitted the
application. Rosann Benn mentioned that she has seen a case of a faculty member who
was turned down by a division-wide committee based apparently on personality issues,
and the decision was overturned by the college-wide committee. Mike Gavin suggested
that Hubley come up with a chart of the timeline to bring back to the Senate. Baldwin
noted that it is the college-wide committee’s decision to turn down the application.
Kinslow spoke of her concerns related to remediation in terms of the contents of a
portfolio. Kinslow spoke of the need to have clear written guidelines, and Gavin
indicated the need to have guidelines that are concrete rather than ephemeral.
Mike Gavin spoke about the Administration’s reluctance to allow tenure to continue
should a faculty member accept a position as an administrator. Gavin suggested seeking
a compromise where there would be some period during which a faculty member could
retain tenure. Hubley asked what the administration’s reasoning was for instituting the
loss of tenure policy. Gavin answered that it has to do with the College’s inability in
terms of staffing and financial limitations to keep a teaching line open. Several members
of the Senate expressed consternation at this notion. Baldwin expressed that this loss of
tenure needs to be clearly communicated in any job advertisement. Baldwin said that this
also runs counter to the College’s succession planning.

Policy on Faculty Tenured at PGCC becoming Administrators and Salary Issue
Gavin introduced Dr. Dunnington and said that she would discuss the issue of rank and
tenure and salary. Gavin initiated the discussion by noting that someone qualified might
not apply for a position based on the potential of losing tenure. Hubley echoed this
concern saying that the pool of applicants might be reduced by having such a policy.
Hubley asked how much of a financial burden this might place on the College. Dr.
Dunnington replied that this is a personnel issue and one that has specific guidelines that
must be followed. Dr. Dunnington indicated that this past year this became quite an issue
and that the President and the personnel office would not allow for an administrator to
retain tenure. Dunnington indicated that it is not appropriate for someone in a position as
a dean who is evaluating faculty to retain rank and tenure. Dunnington noted that while
some community colleges contacted allowed for certain administrators to maintain tenure
for some time, no colleges allowed for tenure to be kept permanently. Ebenreck asked
about administrators who have been hired with tenure in the past. Dunnington replied
that she was asked if she wanted to have rank and tenure when she was hired as an
administrator, and she found this to be a contradiction. Ebenreck suggested that tenure
that a faculty member has earned should not be lost. Dunnington argued that there is one
classification for someone’s employment at the College—that someone is either a faculty
member or an administrator. Hubley commented that he sees himself as someone who
has found himself in this position and also spoke of some job candidates that might have
an interest in taking an administrative position for a number of years with the option to
return to a teaching position. Gavin highlighted that Hubley’s point is that a faculty
member does not lose value upon becoming an administrator. Linville asked whether an
administrator could take a teaching position after being an administrator. Dunnington
said that, if a teaching slot were available, an administrator who had previously been
faculty could return to a former rank. Dunnington spoke of the costs associated with
funding for positions and that there are requirements she must meet as the chief academic
officer. Charlie Thomas asked if other colleges’ practices including CCBC and
Montgomery College have been checked. Dunnington replied that of the colleges
contacted no college allowed for a continuation of tenure permanately, but that CCBC
allowed for a person to maintain tenure for two years. Gavin said he knows that tenure is
something that is earned, and Gavin and Hubley spoke of being able to return to a
teaching position as something that would be warranted based on prior teaching. Hubley
said that he saw those being affected negatively to be those members of the faculty who
might be interested in serving as an administrator for only part of their careers. Baldwin
asked about succession planning. Dunnington said that succession planning was not
brought up as part of this matter. Sanders asked where this [procedure] is in the
implementation process. Dunnington answered that the procedure is currently in place
and has been applied already; Dunnington emphasized that this is a personnel procedure
rather than a policy. Dunnington said that no one from the inside or the outside will be
hired with tenure or eligible for tenure. Gavin brought up people who have been hired on
an interim basis into an interim position who have gone on to seek these administrative
jobs on a permanent basis and noted that this notion runs counter to the procedure.
Dunnington spoke of a difference between going into a position and going into an interim
position. Hubley noted the importance of having this procedure in the PAB so that
everyone is clear that accepting an administration position would lead to loss of tenure.
Dunnington replied that tenure should not be considered something to be transferable
from one position to another. Dunnington agreed to make sure mention of the procedure
will go into the PAB. Gavin spoke of the procedure as something that the faculty would
like to have reconsidered. Dunnington answered that she would take this back to the
President.
Next, related to salary and hiring, Dr. Dunnington spoke about faculty hired this past
summer. Dr. Dunnington spoke about two individuals who have been placed in a hiring
category that will allow them to qualify to apply to be a full professor in their second year
even though the promotion and tenure guidelines will be changing. Hubley said that on
the committee the argument was made that if someone has the background to be a full
professor, that the person should be hired as such. Ebenreck said that he understood that
the reason faculty are not hired into the rank of full professor is so that they can be
evaluated at PGCC. Hubley noted that new hires, even full professors, are evaluated in
the first year and second year under the current faculty evaluation process. Dunnington
expressed that she would like some input on this in November 2010. Hubley noted that
this matter could be incorporated into the promotion and tenure process. Dunnington
repeated that she will speak to the President.

Reports:
A. Senate President
Update on 10-month contract committee
By the next Senate meeting, Gavin said that the committee will have met. Gavin
expressed his wish to have a document available for the Senate to review and discuss on
how to address the College’s needs and provide clearer guidelines on what a 10-month
contract means. Gavin said that the bone of contention has been that technically we are
under contract for the entire dates of our contract. Gavin said that we do about the same
or more than faculty at other colleges in terms of how much time we spend on campus in
an academic year. Gavin pointed out that recent developments based on conversations
with Dukes and Dunnington suggest that the weeks in January will remain safe in that the
time should remain in use as they have been. Gavin noted that one stipulation that Dukes
and Dunnington insist on is that those who hold leadership roles such as the president of
the faculty organization as well as chairs and key members of certain committees would
have to be available over the time between semesters in January, as well as over the
summer months when needed.
Update on Faculty Handbook
Hubley indicated that Carolyn Hoffman has a nearly complete faculty handbook
but that the handbook does have some missing sections, including an update of the
faculty organization’s bylaws. Hubley said that he and Gavin have a document that must
be approved by the faculty. Hubley said that the completed document, once approved,
will be given to Dukes, Dunnington, and Lark Dobson. Gavin referred to an out-of-date
hard copy of the document. Mickelson referred to an upcoming hearing at which having
a current handbook would be needed. Hubley answered that there is a draft faculty
handbook that contains the faculty organization bylaws. Baldwin referred to the last hard
copy having been updated by [the retired] Charles Hansborough. Baldwin spoke of
competing versions, of which the version on the Web site was the most current. Baldwin
said he believed it was taken down because it was not being updated regularly. Baldwin,
who has the version spoken of on his computer, offered to send a copy to Hubley, Gavin,
and anyone else who wants one. Linville asked about the documents related to the
evaluation, and Hubley said that that is part of the document.
Update on Faculty Emeritus Proposal
Alan Mickelson indicated that those on the committee, which was formerly
chaired by Bob Barshay, are Mickelson, Ned Judy, Barbara Johnson, Ray Gross, and
Mary Helen Spear. Mickelson said that the committee has received a response from Dr.
Dukes and will be considering it at their next meeting.
B. Senate Vice President
Update on job application process for faculty positions
Rosann Benn indicated that the salary and benefits committee met for the first
time. Benn said that the proposal from last year will be discussed as well as the
application process, along the lines of what to include in terms of what questions to ask
and what is asked at an interview.
C. College-wide Forum
Laura Ellsworth spoke of the ex officio senior team members and resource people
and pointed out they had a pretty good response to serve. The notion of a smoke-free
campus will be discussed at the next meeting.
G. Chairs’ Council
Mark Hubley indicated that the educational plan can be accessed via Owl Link.
H. Adjunct Faculty
Janet Carlson noted that the MCAPDconference was held. Dunnington provided half
of the funding. Mickelson said that the other half of the funds came from the Teaching
and Learning Center. A meeting was to take place the following afternoon.
Update on Awards for Adjunct Faculty: Carlson spoke of continuing efforts to
recognize adjunct faculty and snags encountered in honoring faculty for length of service.
I.
Representative from the Student Governance Board
Gavin mentioned that he looks forward to having the current Student Governance
Board member attend Senate meetings.

Old Business
No old business was discussed.

Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings
Limited Access to Websites for Faculty will be discussed.
Gavin said that we will discuss the situation with clocks on campus.
Baldwin said that he wants up to speak about the gas leak and how it was handled.
Gavin said that we will be discussing the confidentiality agreement in the next
meetings.

Adjournment was at 5:15 p.m.