Tri-County Technical College
Faculty Senate Minutes
Date: January 23, 2013
Location: Fulp 400
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Members Present: Amoena Norcross, Todd Crisp-Simons, Cheryln Brown, Penny Edwards,
Jason Poole, Chris McFarlin, Lisa Walton, Marilyn Vickery, Ashley Brady, Sue Andrus (for
Marla Roberson), Tom Lawrence
Members Absent: Tony Logan, Corey Evans, Steven Mathena, Marla Roberson, Tony Young
Guest: Chad Gregory
Presider: Amoena Norcross
Approval of Minutes: With several editing corrections, it was motioned that the November
2012 minutes be approved. The motion was seconded. The minutes, with changes, were
approved unanimously.
Old Business:
1. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
Professional Development Day
Amoena met with Sharon Colcolough and Deborah Brock regarding the Professional
Development Day issues. She shared with them the results of the survey that was sent to the
faculty in the fall where about 75 percent of the faculty responded and said they would prefer an
annual professional development day the week prior to the beginning of the fall semester. The
remaining 25 percent wanted it every two years during fall break which are the general election
years. It was communicated to Sharon and Deborah our recommendations to schedule
Professional Development Day the week prior to the beginning of fall semester: Jump Start
classes are no longer going to be offered, child care may or may not still be an issue, and
information obtained at a Professional Development Day scheduled before the semester would
be more easily implemented by faculty in the classroom at the beginning of the semester.
Faculty also would like to see more sessions that relate to faculty development rather than
personal development, and an invitation should be extended to adjunct faculty and temporary
staff. Sharon explained that the issue is non-exempt status of temporary staff and some
permanent staff. They are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act which means TCTC must
pay them if they attend Professional Development Day. Adjunct faculty are exempt and not
covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, so they would not be paid. Requirements to pay
temporary staff but not necessarily adjunct faculty could be problematic, but Deborah and
1
Sharon both agree the entire college community should have the opportunity to attend
Professional Development Day.
The other issue with the current scheduling of Professional Development Day during our Fall
Break makes the break virtually non-existent. Sharon also serves on the Academic Calendar
Committee and she would like some input from the Senate regarding a separate October fall
break like there is in non-general election years. Would faculty then be more amenable to a
Professional Development Day scheduled on Election Day every two years?
Sharon’s concerns about having Professional Development Day scheduled the week before
classes pertain to not all staff being able to attend. Todd brought up the idea of having separate
Professional Development Days, but Amoena reminded Faculty Senate that we had discussed
this option, but organizationally, the College wants to create more unity among different areas of
the College.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
Senators will obtain feedback from constituents about a Professional Development Day
scheduled on Election Day if a separate fall break is also included in October. Feedback should
be reported by our February meeting. There are also changes being discussed regarding
performance evaluations for full-time faculty, and pertinent information for our professional
objectives will be disseminated through Professional Development Day.
2. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
College Attendance Policy
The Jan. 11 memo from Scott Harvey announcing the new College-wide attendance policy
states, “Over the past few weeks, the Provost’s Council, in collaboration with the Faculty Senate
and Financial Aid Office, approved a new Attendance policy.” This attendance policy was not
developed in collaboration with the Senate. Provost Council met on January 8th , and at this
meeting Amoena was informed of the new attendance policy. On January 9th , the policy was
sent to Executive Staff for approval, so this short timeframe did not allow for input from Faculty
Senate. The new attendance policy is driven mostly by financial aid guidelines. Tracking
attendance electronically was probably going to be implemented anyway because of early alert
systems being investigated by the Title III group. Additionally each department has the option of
having its own attendance policy.
Marilyn brought up the problem of the automatically generated email sent to students that
appears as if it came directly from the instructor. Furthermore, emails generated earlier in the
semester were missing the student’s name. Other issues are also prevalent. 1. Faculty are upset
that the email sent to students appears to come directly from the instructor’s email address even
though the instructor did not compose the email. 2. Some of the wording in the email was
questioned such as the student being allowed to make up work (some instructors do not allow
make up work). 3. There was some objection to the tone of the memo being too coddling and
excusatory.
2
A separate question was asked: If this is the law, is Clemson also required to do this electronic
recording of attendance? Amoena explained that Tri-County agreed to be an attendance taking
institution. York Tech was fined $170,000.00 for not taking attendance accurately when they
were audited by the Federal Government. If Tri-County were to be fined at this level, adjunct
faculty teaching loads could be reduced and full-time faculty loads would consequently increase.
Recording attendance in the Attendance Tracker takes very little time. However, there are still
some glitches with the system. Some faculty have noted that their list of students was not
available, and one person received an e-mail stating that attendance had not been recorded for
one class, but this faculty member was certain that s/he had recorded attendance in the
Attendance Tracker. Holidays and spring break also need to be addressed in the 14-day policy
because it may affect many students who only have class once or twice a week. If a student is
dropped and then reinstated, then faculty must submit a success plan to Financial Aid. Totally
online classes need to be reported by Wednesdays now.
The question was asked if there is a template for the success plan we need to submit to Financial
Aid if we reinstate a student. Amoena believes there is no template available so that the faculty
member has the freedom to create a success plan for the student based on specific course
requirements, etc.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
The Senate agreed that it has enough feedback from constituents. The Senate agreed on a
recommendation that the attendance notification email sent to students be revised quickly, and it
should be obvious that it was generated by the registrar’s office not by the individual instructor.
Amoena will meet directly with the Interim Provost to communicate these concerns and
recommendations.
New Business:
3. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
Nominations for Faculty Senate President for 2013-2014
This item will be on the agenda for the rest of this academic year. Amoena will not be a
nominee for this office. Nominees must be full-time faculty who are currently serving on the
Faculty Senate. Amoena asked senators who are full-time faculty to consider being a nominee.
The Faculty Senate President receives one course released time either in the fall or the spring.
Dr. Buckheister, the former Provost, strongly believed that Faculty Senate should have an
influence on academic matters. Even though the new provost has yet to be named, the Faculty
Senate does not want to lose its empowerment. Amoena is available to discuss how much time is
involved. Chris said he would consider being a nominee.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
None.
3
4. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
Faculty Choice Scholarship
The Faculty Choice Scholarship was created by the Faculty Senate under Lou Ann Martin’s
leadership, and anyone can contribute monies to the scholarship. Amoena contacted Debbie
Nelms regarding the date when the recipient needs to be selected because it is the Faculty
Senate’s responsibility to choose the recipient of that scholarship. A copy of the nominating
rubric was sent to everyone on the Senate. A copy is also currently under the Faculty Tab in
eTC. Is this rubric used as a guideline for letters of recommendation, or is it filled out as the
recommendation itself?
Current requirements for this scholarship are students fill out a standard form for any type of
scholarship, the student also writes a letter, and two letters of recommendation from faculty are
required. Last year, the rubric was used by some faculty in lieu of writing a letter. Penny
mentioned that how the rubric was to be used has been discussed before and there was mixed
feedback. A Faculty Senate workgroup that reviews applicants for the scholarship has also used
the rubric to score applicants. Also, faculty have used it as a guide to write a recommendation
letter for the student. Amoena iterated that Debbie wants to know exactly how we want to use
the rubric this year. Because it is called Recommendation Rubric, it sounds like the student
comes to faculty and asks that the rubric be filled out. Todd felt if we are using this rubric as an
evaluation tool, then faculty must cover all of these items in their letters. Penny read last year’s
minutes regarding this issue. She explained the criteria and the requirements from the students.
The action was that the 2011-12 Faculty Senate President was going to meet with Lou Ann and
Debbie Nelms for additional information, but this meeting was never reported.
Applications will go out to students mid-February and they will have until mid-March to apply.
Awards are made and students are informed mid- to late-April.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
The Senate agreed that the rubric should be used as a guideline for faculty to write their letters of
recommendation, NOT as the recommendation itself. The Senate still wants 2 letters of
recommendation. Amoena will communicate the Senate’s position to Debbie.
5. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
Tobacco-Free Campuses
Rebecca Eidson, on behalf of Executive Staff, has asked the Faculty Senate for input
implementing tobacco-free campuses. Specifically, Executive Staff is interested in what the
benefits and possible risks are if campuses become tobacco-free. Rebecca is also getting input
from SGA and the Staff Advisory Board Chair. This input will then go to the President’s
Advisory Council. Executive Staff will make the final decision.
There has already been some input from both smokers and non-smokers and the general feeling
is that instead of creating a total non-smoking policy, the College needs to start enforcing the
current policy of designated areas and/or making the consequences more severe for violators.
4
Currently, there is supposed to be a $100.00 fine imposed for using tobacco in tobacco-free
areas. It is uncertain whether the tobacco-free areas are policed and whether (& how many)
citations are issued for violations.
The following issues were raised if tobacco-free campuses were implemented. 1. Would this
policy include smoking in vehicles? 2. If smokers began smoking off campus on Woodburn St.,
property owners may complain (cigarette butts, etc.). 3. There are also faculty members who
don’t have time between classes to leave the premises.
There was concern that complaints about implementing tobacco-free campuses may come more
from faculty and staff than students because employees are not as free to leave campus.
Employees who smoke already pay higher insurance premiums, etc. It was suggested that the
designated smoking areas be moved further out from the central area of the campus. With this
option, others don’t have to walk through those areas to get to campus.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
Senators will get input from constituents about the benefits and potential risks (e.g., a student
deciding not to attend the College, etc.) of such a policy. Input should be sent to Amoena by
February 6th. Amoena will send us a draft of the summary before sending it on to Rebecca.
6. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
Last Day of Exams and Grade Submission Day
The Calendar Committee is considering incorporating a reading day at the end of the semester.
For example, classes would end on a Monday, Tuesday would be a reading day, and exams
would begin on a Wednesday. A reading day would be a day for students to study. Faculty are
interested in another day being added for grading. For example, if the last day of exams is on a
Monday, grades should be due by noon on Wednesday. It was suggested that grades should be
due at noon on the second day following the last final exam day.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
Senators will get feedback from faculty about including an additional day for grading after the
last day of exams. Summer and seven week courses during the semester are very compressed, so
including an additional day for grading could pose a problem for these shorter semesters.
7. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:
Faculty Contact of Students on Financial Aid Warning
Chad spoke about the email Rob Massey asked advisors to send to students who have been put
on financial aid warning. His concern is that students will see faculty advisors as financial aid
information resources when most faculty are not fully informed about the details for Pell Grants,
Stafford Loans, Life Scholarships, etc. If course load is part of the problem, contacting the
advisor should be secondary after the student has gone to Financial Aid.
5
Penny read the email Rob sent advisors: “Each semester there are many students who are placed
on financial aid warning status that could get back on financial aid if they were more aware of
the resources available to help them succeed….” Attached then is a list of the advisor’s students
who are on warning. The list also explains why a student may be on financial aid warning. The
email asks the advisor to contact each student and offer the student assistance with his/her
financial aid status. An included boiler plate message mentions that “…it may be necessary to
make changes to your schedule to make it easier for you to succeed.” The message then tells the
student the last day for drop/add and gives the student 2 to 3 days to make a decision. Students
should not be perceiving faculty as financial aid experts. Students should contact Financial Aid
for clarification of their own unique funding situation.
The Senate agreed that a student should first contact Financial Aid, and then the Financial Aid
counselor can route the student to his academic advisor (if necessary) instead of the other way
around. Financial Aid can address more of the financial aid issues than faculty can. This
process would also cut down on the student getting the run around.
Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:
Amoena will bring up this issue when she speaks with the Interim Provost about the attendance
notification email and will request that it be added to the agenda for the Provost meeting on
February 7th.
Comments/Concerns:
The issue was raised that more professional advisors may be hired and that provisions may be
made to pull some advising duties away from faculty. If the conversation is actually going in
that direction, will faculty be involved in that conversation? Currently, the professional advisors
are taking up any necessary overload or if there is a specific need for their expertise. Rob
Massey, Stephanie Evans, Kay Rhodes, and Emily Danuser are assigned a case load of students
who have completed orientation. This pilot program assigns them as that student’s advisor for
the first year and then the student will be assigned a faculty advisor in the department of his/her
major. Amoena will report updates as they become available.
Amoena has mapped out the meeting dates for the semester and will email members with
meeting requests.
Cherlyn asked about the training for online courses. Do faculty need to complete the training
only if they intend to teach online courses, or is everyone required to take it? She had heard that
everyone is supposed to take the training. Amoena was under the impression that you only had
to take the training if you want to teach online. Chad said there was an original deadline that
said if you plan on teaching online in the future but currently are not, you have until this date to
take the training. Only faculty who are certified may teach an online course unless hired after
that deadline. Amoena will check with Margaret Burdette and Sara Shumpert. There have also
been changes since last semester to the faculty credentialing form, and the only change noted is
that you must be specific as to the name of your credentials.
6
Next meeting: Will be on Thursday, February 21, 2013, 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Adjournment at 3:24 p.m.
Name of Recorder: Marilyn Vickery
7