Present: Steve Brown, Erik Kramer, Roxanne Metz, Mike Richards, Bob Brown, Anita Janis, Connie Carlson,
Kerry Mayer, Ahn Fielding, Crislyn
1. Full-Time Faculty Flex Form :

The revised form was reviewed by the committee. A FAQ document will accompany the form when it is sent, along with instructions and clarifications on due dates and hours.

The committee discussed the change in required flex hours. The Guidelines for the Implementation of the
Flexible Calendar Program indicate that “the specific number of hours that equals one academic work day should be determined through the local collective bargaining and shared governance processes” and that “current practice reflects an average of six hours to one academic work day”. Until or unless a local decision is made regarding the number of hours in an academic work day, CR will require full-time faculty to fulfill 24 hours of flex obligation, equivalent to the four flex days in the college calendar. This current interpretation does not preclude the college from designating a different number of hours in an academic day.

The college is required to dock the pay of faculty who are not in compliance with flex, but the college cannot require faculty to do more than the required minimum of 24 hours.

The committee had a brief discussion about how the number of flex days relates to the term length multiplier and the number of hours scheduled for a course.

The current practice is to do a review of faculty plans. Connie Carlson (Associate Faculty Coordinator) and Crislyn Parker (Administrative Assistant to the VPI) will work through area coordinators and deans, and report back to the committee on compliance. Recommendations to audit plans should start with
CRFO. Kerry Mayer will oversee this to develop a formula for compliance.

Currently there is no process to dock pay. Wages and working conditions should be documented in the
CRFO contract; however state law trumps contracts and the academic calendar is approved by the state.
There currently is no mention of flex in the faculty contract. Only the associate faculty evaluation form mentions flex. The district and CRFO may need to collaborate on the best way to communicate this requirement to faculty.
2. Update: Associate Faculty Flex Plans

45 associate faculty have successfully completed their online form (of about 204). There are still problems with the online format, which is being looked at by technical services. Connie will email all associate faculty to try again, by division so area coordinators or deans can assist. People with technical difficulties should contact Connie.
3. Convocation/Flex Week Survey Results:

Survey will be posted on the web, with the exception of the opened ended responses. The survey included many good comments on assessment and the technical workshops. The largest problem is providing people at the other sites with quality workshops. Since technology improvement is in the annual plan, we hope to increase participation by other sites.
4. Other/Future Agenda Items

Suggestion for spring flex is an assessment activity.

November agenda item is planning for spring.

Last year there was a miscommunication regarding the January flex program. The committee chair sent an email outlining the recommended flex activities based on the committee’s evaluation, discussion and surveys, but the Academic Senate co-presidents had anticipated having an opportunity to review and sign-off on the flex program. The committee’s recommendations for January Flex will be sent to the
Senate, the Professional Development Committee, and Administration. Recommendations related to
SLOs are forefront.

Activity Suggestion: a program review process activity.
Meeting Adjourned: Next Meeting November 27, same time.