Taft College Academic Senate Minutes
February 6, 2012
12:00pm, Cougar Room
Present: President Bill Devine, Vice President Michelle Beasely, Secretary Geoffrey Dyer, David Berry,
Don Bandy, Wayne Downey, Victoria Herder, Candace Duron, Susan Vaughan, Diane Jones, Shelly Getty,
Ruby Payne, David Reynolds, Kanoe Bandy, Kelly Kulzer, Stephanie Walsh, David Layne, Tony Thompson,
Rebecca Roth, Sharyn Eveland, Joseph Polizzotto, Gary Graupman, Jack Gallon, Sonja Swenson, Darcy
Bogle
1) Call to Order. Bill Devine called the meeting to order at 12:14.
2) Public Commentary. Sharyn Eveland commented that the lunch was a “nice change from pizza.” Bill
responded, “After the Super Bowl, no pizza or beer for a long time . . . I’m building up your immune
system with carrots and apples.”
2) Review of January 9th Minutes. David Layne moved to approve the minutes, and Jack Gallon
seconded the motion. Minutes were approved.
3) Faculty Position Decision. Summary—The senate voted to fill the position in Psychology that will be
vacant soon, but did not create an official policy to always fill positions as they open.
Detail—Bill Devine opened the discussion by stating that there will be a vacancy in Psychology and that
Superintendent Dick Geise had asked the senate to follow policy on determining positions.
Geoffrey Dyer summarized the discussion involving criteria for ranking replacement positions at the
January 6 meeting, explaining that the agenda item had been to discuss the criteria on the ranking
sheet, but before that had happened, the senate had voted to fill the positions of full-time faculty that
were retiring or resigning. He added that the senate had not articulated an official policy to always fill
these positions first, but that he had sensed from comments made by Craig Johnson and Sonja Swenson
during the January 6 meeting that not replacing positions as they had become vacant was an ongoing
problem which had contributed to the many unfilled positions currently existing.
David Berry asked the senate if the “general feeling” was to always replace positions as they became
vacant.
Bill Devine said that it might depend on the position.
Kelly Kulzer asked if positions should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Bill Devine said “Unless we make a policy and decide to use it.”
Jack Gallon said, “I say we leave our options open.”
Diane Jones said, “In this case, I say we be consistent with what we’ve done and replace.”
Geoffrey Dyer pointed out that the motion from the January 6 meeting to replace the faculty currently
resigning or retiring was not exactly fair, because of unfilled positions from past years, but added that
doing so “stops the problem” of more unfilled positions building up.
Diane Jones agreed and said part of the success in requesting positions be filled now involved
compliance with the fifty-percent law.
Victoria Herder said that filling positions “should be linked to program review.” She spoke to the
importance of program review in allocating resources and said that prioritizations should be done by
division chairs.
Jack Gallon said “Psychology is very important” and urged the senate to fill the position.
Diane Jones said, “Time is of the essence. In a perfect world, we’d use program review, but we should at
least act” by filling the psychology position now “or another one.” [Note: documented program review
processes will not be completed again until the fall of 2012, which would leave the psychology
position—or any other one, for that matter—unfilled in fall of 2012 if it was contingent upon completing
another step of program review.] Diane asked Sharyn Eveland’s opinion.
Sharyn Eveland said, “I’ve got the position ready to go.”
Diane Jones moved to fill the position in psychology.
Jack Gallon seconded the motion.
The motion passed, but Kelly Kulzer (Was this Kelly? Or Kanoe?) voted against it.
There was no further discussion. Kelly Kulzer(Or Kanoe? I used a capital K in my notes—stupid me!)
said, “No, with no further discussion.”
Don Bandy said “That happens to me at home all the time—No, with no further discussion.”
4) Budget Committee. Summary—Bill Devine asked for three representatives of the senate to serve on
the new Budget Committee. He explained that the Budget Committee, a subcommittee of the
Governance Council, required three representatives from the senate, per the committee’s charter. He
explained that the committee will work with Strategic Planning to make recommendations to the
Governance Council. Bill Devine explained that committee is supposed to meet for one hour a month.
Victoria Herder added that Strategic Planning meets twice a month for ninety minutes. Sonja Swenson
and David Layne volunteered. Sharyn Eveland said that she would speak with Rebecca Roth (who had
left the meeting earlier) about potentially serving.
5) Quest for Success Update. Kelly Kulzer gave a detailed presentation regarding the goals and
outcomes of the projects currently funded under the Quest for Success Grant. She delineated the
accelerated learning project, which has been completed once in fall in English and ESL and which is
currently underway in math, explained what faculty inquiry groups (FIGs) are and what they have been
doing on campus, told the senate about Dr. Vince Tinto’s forthcoming faculty development presentation
at Taft College, and delineated a new “Summer of Success Academy” program which would serve
students who place into pre-collegiate English classes. After providing information and data, she
welcomed volunteers and encouraged faculty to consider developing their own FIGs.
The accelerated learning project for English and ESL had success rates of 80% and 70%, which Kelly
compared with significantly lower rates for sixteen-week courses. When asked what she attributed the
success to, Kulzer cited the interaction between counseling and instruction, explained that students
were encouraged to enroll in only one course during the eight week accelerated term, and also cited the
time-frame in which the classes were offered.
[The presentation was incredibly detailed. For more information, please review Kelly Kulzer’s
PowerPoint presentation from the February 6 meeting.]
After finishing the discussion, the senate burst into applause in acknowledgement of Kelly Kulzer’s work.
6) Criteria for Ranking Faculty Positions. Summary—Bill Devine brought forth a request from the Office
of Institutional Assessment, Research & Planning that the totals from the ranking sheets used in January
to determine which fulltime positions to fill be broken down by division in order to gauge if bias was
present in the voting. Some senators vehemently opposed this request, and the conversation shifted to
the language, interpretation, and application of the criteria on the faculty positions ranking sheet itself.
No action was taken.
Detail—Bill Devine began the discussion by explaining that Dr. Eric Berube had requested a breakdown
by division of the totals on the completed faculty ranking sheets in order to determine if bias existed in
the voting.
Sharyn Eveland said, “No.”
Kelly Kulzer asked if the request itself assumed that bias would be revealed by such an investingation.
Sharyn Eveland stated that even if there was bias, knowing it “would do no good.”
Bill Devine said that such an inquiry could potentially show “that we are unbiased.”
Kelly Kulzer cited a backlog in the Office of Institutional Assessment, Research & Planning, stating “we’re
not getting the data we need now” in a timely manner, citing a recent request for success rates that had
not yet been granted, which she had addressed in her QFS presentation.
Sharyn Eveland suggested that the senate look at other elements of the ranking process, and pointed
out that the criteria could potentially be revised. She used the example of the criterion “Cost of
Position,” which had been a source of confusion for evaluators using the form.
Jack Gallon stated, “There are intangibles, too.”
Geoffrey Dyer revisited what occurred at the January 6 meeting of the senate, explaining that the sole
agenda item had been to discuss the criteria on the ranking sheet in advance of applying them, and
reiterating that since much of the January 6 meeting was used to determine to fill positions of faculty
who were resigning or retiring, not all of the criteria had been discussed [see January 6, 2012 minutes].
He also said that it was difficult for him to complete the ranking process, since the division chairs who
had presented on January 9 had interpreted the standards differently. Although some of the vagueness,
such as the phrasing of a few of the criteria, had been discussed on January 6, not all of them had.
Consequently, chairs interpreted the criteria differently. He cited the criterion “GE/Transfer” and
explained how two different divisions had presented differently for the same criterion. He also pointed
to the Sociology presentation and how it differed from the Studio Art presentation in including the total
number of students enrolled in the courses as opposed to merely the number of students in the major.
He attributed these discrepancies to the lack of a proper discussion and understanding of the criteria
themselves and added that it made applying the criteria to the different presentations extremely
difficult.
Darcy Bogle added that three of the criteria did not relate in any way to Student Services, although there
are unfilled Student Services faculty positions that were evaluated with the criteria. She also said that
there could be a problem “when you see two [scores of] forties [forty is the highest possible score the
ranking sheet can sum] and a zero.”
Sharyn Eveland said, “I’m hearing two things very clearly.” The first point she echoed was need to “look
over the criteria and discuss exactly what they mean,” and the second was “People were comparing the
positions against each other, instead of ranking each on its own merit.” She felt senators should “look at
each [position] individually.”
Kanoe Bandy asked if the second suggestion was “even possible.”
Sharyn Eveland asked “How do you grade your students then?”
Kanoe Bandy indicated that on a given assignment, it was possible for each student to get an A.
Sharyn Eveland, relating this system to the ranking of faculty positions, she said “It’s possible that they
could all get forty.” She added that, “As chairs, if we all knew what [the criteria] meant, I could just do a
narrative.”
Sonja Swenson explored the possibility of the same template being provided for presentations, and
referred too to the differing interpretations of the criteria, explaining that she “didn’t list that art was a
GE requirement,” in reference to the Studio Art Position presentation she had delivered on January 9.
Sharyn Eveland, again, suggested that all chairs use the same format.
Sonja Swenson reiterated Darcy Bogle’s point that the criteria don’t all apply to counseling.
Kanoe Bandy said, “I ranked counseling really high because they serve our entire student population.”
Geoffrey Dyer asked, “If we all agreed on the meaning of the criteria, couldn’t IAR&P populate the
template with the appropriate data, and chairs could simply supply a narrative,” referencing the amount
of time on the January 7 weekend chairs spent preparing their presentations.
The discussion ended without action.
7) Hiring Committees for Faculty Positions. Summary—Bill Devine inquired about senate
representation on hiring committees. A brief discussion exploring existing procedure ensued, and no
action was taken.
Detail—Bill Devine began the discussion by explaining that Superintendent Dick Geise had
recommended that the senate have representatives on hiring committees.
Sonja Swenson said that “Divisions should handle that.”
Bill Devine asked, “Should I recommend to Dr. Geise that chairs recommend representatives?”
Sharyn Eveland asked, “Isn’t there a written policy? Haven’t chairs had that responsibility delegated to
them already by Dennis McCall?”
Kanoe Bandy pointed out that “Chairs represent the senate.”
Sharyn Eveland added that “HR is doing it now because they think it’s the division chairs’ responsibility.”
Victoria Herder added that “People could be excluded because committees often meet in the summer,
and it bounces right back to the chairs.”
No action was taken.
8) Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 1:00pm.
--Minutes submitted by Geoffrey Dyer on March 2, 2012, as transcribed from his handwritten notes
from the meeting.