F A C U L T Y S... D e c e m be r 1 9, ... Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate

F A C U L T Y S E N A T E M E E T I N G M I N U T E S

D e c e m be r 1 9, 2 0 14

Faculty Senate Chair:

Ron Marston

Faculty Senate Chair-Elect:

John Adlish

Executive Committee member, Curriculum,

Assessment & Programs Committee Chair:

Melanie Purdy

Executive Committee member, Salary,

Benefits and Budgetary Concerns Committee

Chair:

Steve Bale

Executive Committee member,

Professional Standards Interim Committee

Chair:

Eddie Burke

Library Commitee Chair:

Tom Kearns

Senators for Allied Health:

Julie Muhle

Patti Sanford

Senators for Biology:

Jim Collier

Dan Williams

Senators for Technical Sciences:

Mike Schulz

Brian Ruf

Senators for Businiess Division:

Robert Kirchman

Nancy O'Neal

Executive Committee member, Student

Learning Outcomes & Assessment

Committee Chair:

Brian Ruf

Part-Time Faculty Issues Committee Chair:

Dawnne Ernette

Recognition & Activities Committee Chair:

Erin Frock

Senators At-Large:

Tommie Guy

Jay Jorgenson

Tom Kearns

Melanie Purdy

Senators for Computer Technology:

Cathy House

Judy Frederickson

Senators for English:

Julie Armbrecht

Robin Griffin

Senator for Physical Sciences:

Matt Leathan

Dan Loranz

Senator for Visual and Performing Arts:

Dan Bouweraerts

Brian Wells

Senators for Humanities:

Tom Cardoza

Wade Hampton

Senators for Math:

Shannon McCool

Lars Jensen

Senator for History, Political Science & Law:

N/A

Senators for Social Sciences:

John Coles

Absent: Shannon McCool (her proxy is Maria Arrigotti), Erin Frock (her proxy is Dolores Wonder), Dawnne Ernette (no proxy), Dee Dee Segal (no proxy).

Guests: Dr. Jane Nichols, Stephanie Prevost, Dr. Rachel Solemsaas, Ralph McMullen, Gabrielle Aviles, Elena Bubnova,

Michele Meador, Rich Olson, Maria Arrigotti. The meeting was called to order at 12:33 p.m.

Chair Marston: Please be sure to sign in on the sign in sheet (Exhibit A).

Order of Business: This Faculty Senate Meeting is on the last day of the contract year and we have a quorum. Thank you to everyone for being here.

Page 1 of 26; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.

Created: 4/22/2015; Rev: 4/22/2015

Appro val of Meetin g A genda (E xh ibit B)

Motion: To approve the meeting agenda for December 19, 2014 as submitted.

Movant: Dan Bouweraerts

Second: Melanie Purdy

Vote: Passed unanimously

Appro val of Meetin g Minute s from No vember 21, 2014 (E xh ibit C)

Motion: To approve the Faculty Senate meeting minutes from November 21, 2014 as submitted.

Movant: Melanie Purdy

Second: Tom Cardoza


President’s Repo rt - Pre sident Ma ria S heehan

In absence, no report was given.

Vice P resident of Academic Affairs’ Re port - Vice Pre side nt Jane Nichols

There are just a few items I would like to cover today and update today.

Position Searches this Spring

We anticipate at this time that we will begin searches for the following positions;

• Criminal Justice

• Vet Technician

• Automotive Diesel (we had filled this position last year and it has now re-opened due to a resignation).

• Nursing Position

• Fine Arts Curator-we have had a temporary in that position and will now open this up for a tenure track search.

• Logistic Management is an area in Business

• The Associate Dean of Planning and Assessment search is already underway in terms of our internal work. The search committee has been formed and has reviewed the announcement. That will be going out in time for us to fill that position in a very timely manner.

Textbook Taskforce

Thanks to many of you that are involved, to include the support from the Faculty Senate. We have added Ron Marston to the Committee and he can talk more about this when he gives his report. It’s become a very timely committee and I must say that we spent the first two meetings gathering information the current practice on campus and looking at other possibilities we might want to consider to improve our selection of textbooks and helping student afford textbooks.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Reasons for this taskforce are many of the students on our campus who do not buy textbooks and finding ways to address that issue so students can be successful in class. I anticipate and am hoping we will be coming to the March Faculty

Senate Meeting with that report.

Accreditation

Accreditation efforts are this year. I hope that you are all involved, paying attention to the tremendous amount of work to have our 7 year site visit in September.

The Accreditation Committee Chaired by Dean Bowen is working hard and they have collected information, they will be putting this, they will be doing an outline (a very rough draft). They will be holding forums in February/March for the

Campus to come and talk about this information.

My philosophy on accreditation is it’s our opportunity to look at ourselves and if we have everybody on this campus identify areas that we can improve, this is the time to do it. The Accreditation report gives us that self-examination that is so important.

Vice President of Student Services

The President at the PAC meeting Monday, made an announcement. Unfortunately, Dr. Sheehan is not with us today. She will come in February to talk more about this. I wanted to ensure that everyone knew that July 1st, she is planning to change Dean Estella Levario Gutierrez’s Position into the Vice President of Student Services. This is going back to the structure that was in place before the budget cuts started. It is necessary at this time as the Institution moves forward.

Making this decision to go back to the previous organization structure of three Vice Presidents is something the Presidents has been thinking about and she did announce that this will be done effective July 1st.

In essence this is how we have been functioning since I started. The Dean of Student Services answers directly to the

President. It is simply a reflection of how we have been functioning. If there are questions about this I will let President

Sheehan address these in February.

Vice President of Academic Affairs Dr. Nichols Resignation Announcement

With great regret I have to say that I will be stepping down June 30th. You will be hearing more about the search for my position. In order to search for that position we have to be clear on how the Institution is put together in terms of Vice

Presidents and responsibilities of the Vice Presidents.

Q&A

Q: Is there a search for another position that you did not mention in regards to Faculty?

A: There is a possibility of two more searches but they haven’t been officially been approved and gone through the process. I will get those to you as soon as they are official.

Chair Ron Marston: Are there any other questions for Dr. Nichols? Thank you very much.

Vice P resident of Finance and Administrative Services - Dr. Ra chel So lemsaa s

Search for the Vice President of Academic Affairs

This search is certainly going to be a difficult undertaking. I am glad that we have some really good representation from our campus that could help with this search. I have been designated by the President to Chair the Selection Committee.

Let me share with you who the other members.

• Representing the Faculty side-Faculty Senate Chair Ron Marston, Chair-elect John Adlish, Cheryl Cardoza, Ann

Fletcher, Michelle Montoya.

Page 3 of 26; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Rev.: 4/22/2015


• Representing the Administrative side to assist us we will have two Deans, Dr. Armida Fruzzetti and Dr. Lance

Bowen.

• Soon to be Vice President-Dean Estella Levario Gutierrez will also be part of the Committee.

• We will be also be joined by Thomas Dobbert.

• Representing the Classified side-Donna Clifford and Jeffrey Metcalf.

• Representing the Student side-Stephanie Provost.

In terms of a timeline, we are working hard to get the job announcement reviewed and posted. Most likely it will be a national search and in major publications as early as January. To assist us we are looking at an Executive Search

Consultant, so we can ensure we get a full national and diverse pool of applicants and candidates to apply for this position.

We anticipate if we do have an announcement we’ll have applications about the third week of February, (about February

20th). Then the committee can start reviewing those applications and in this process we are thinking around the third week of March for our Campus visit. The Campus is committed to being involved in the process in selecting the candidates. By April we should be able to make an offer and select the next Vice President of Academic Affairs.

Chair Ron Marston: Thanks to both of you for being here.

Before moving on to item #7, I need to back up. I neglected some housekeeping announcements that I should have announced at the beginning of the meeting.

Absent:, Julie Muhle (her proxy is Patti Sanford) Shannon McCool (her proxy is Maria Arrigotti), sitting in for Erin Frock is

Dolores Wonder, Dawnne Ernette (no proxy), Dee Dee Segal (no proxy), Robin Griffin (her proxy is Julie Armbrecht).

Thank you all for being here.

Sign-in log: Just a reminder to please sign-in if you haven’t yet or I am going to make Tara will track you down. She will do that.

Proxies: As a reminder to the Senate, proxies are supposed to be announced in writing to the Senate at least 24 hours in advance. Please be sure to do that in the future.

Presentation by Dr. Kyle Dalpe and Elena Bubnova, Enrollment Management System

DR. Kyle Dalpe

Thank you for having us today. We have asked to talk about the Enrollment Management System. We have left copies over here. I am not going to go into detail on every slide.

We started talking about Enrollment Management almost a year ago in January. Some of this should look familiar.

Enrollment Management is a concept and a systematic set of activities designed to enable educational institutions to exert more influence over their student enrollments. It came of a need to balance enrollment and to predict for the future and look at what’s coming in. It really started an in-depth process. This is a 30 year old definition originally.

What we are finding today is that in continuing this movement as an integrated approach. Facilitated from the highest level- TMCC has tried this in various areas. What we have found is this is a shared responsibility “shared governance”.

When we talk about who is involved, “the Stakeholders”:

External drives our market, these are the businesses and community. We want to be out there and in touch with that or we are going to be.

Internal the most important here are the Faculty, staff and students. This is the shared governance approach. These are the people that help us do these projects.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

So when we talk about Enrollment Management, those are the groups we look at.

At the top in the boxes at the top are what we have as Traditional Process Flow. This could be anything. This could be anything. Process flow for hiring Part-time Faculty, Process flow for running a committee, process flow for registration, and applications. Any process at the college. We envision it with this and we outline it like this.

What’s below in the circles, often are the experiences of the students. When we talking about looking at a systematic approach, we’re finding that this is more like.

Student in and Out Process

Coupled with that, this should look familiar-The Shoots and Ladder game. We want more ladders and less shoots for students. So what we are really talking about is access- getting in, completing and that’s very in-tune to the literature and at the same time.

Advisor

This ladder is the Student see’s the Advisor in advance of registration. Wouldn’t that be nice instead the last day or before they start classes?

PeopleSoft

Next this shoot is the PeopleSoft student information system goes down. This brings students down or sets them back.

TMCC EM Structure

• The President’s Office leads the enrollment management efforts.

• Enrollment activities involve al college departments.

• When everyone comes together to create Enrollment Teams-This has gone from 30 plus people to 6 people to 10 plus people. We are really looking at making this work as two groups instead of one. o

Solve issues that affect enrollment o

Develops strategies to support goals.

TMCC Enrollment Management Governance Structure

• Green box represents the leadership (Vision and Accountability).

• Then Shared governance (Feedback), goal setting, (the Master plan), showing where are and where we are going.

• EM Facilitation- Operational Oversight. That’s the President’s Office and representatives of the main divisions of the college (Deans, Academic Affairs, Student Services, Finance and Administration).

• EM Operational Pieces- Implementation

• Academic Affairs- Faculty Class Scheduling

• Student Services- Admissions, Financial Aid, Advertising, New Students

• Finance /Admin President- IT Cashier, Facilities

• President-Marketing, Human Resources, Advancement, Equity/Diversity

• Individualized Action Plan- Academic, Recruitment, Marketing, Communications, Payment Technology.

Enrollment Management Goals



Rev.: 4/22/2015

We have to be careful before starting a Marketing Plan without paying attention to setting goals, set the directions. We need to be able to have Predictable and Stable Enrollment so we can balance our budget so we can then look at how we can effectively remove barriers and FTE Impact.

The real discussion is not about how to advance it’s about how to make it survive.

• This linear perspective shows the Recruitment, Enrollment, Retention and Graduate. Under Recruitment you have

Prospects, under enrollment you have those enrolled, under Retention are the Students progressing through and their Success.

• Recruitment – Develop clear pathways to college application. Measure with Completion and the Actions or tactics.

• Enrollment – Develop clear pathways to enrollment. (Duel credit, Jump Start, Highs cools). Offerings by time and location.

• Retain – Develop strategies to facilitate student completion and persistence (Successful completion, Ws, Fn, Dates and policies).

• Graduate – Develop strategies to support student’s graduation, transfer and successful transition (Transfer, Skill

Certificates, Complete College America).

Elena Bubnova

TMCC is certainly not alone in this journey. Our sister Institution down south, is pretty much involved in the same type of efforts - reevaluating enrollment management, reassessing just about every practice on campus to ensure that they are maximizing their enrollment, they maximized their ability to serve their community.

A couple of weeks ago, Rachel, Kyle, myself and Estella were on the phone with CSN’s colleagues and counterparts, trying to understand exactly what they are doing and where they are in this very similar process.

CSN EM Process

Contracted Noel Levitz Consultants, nationally renowned experts in Enrollment Management. Involved in a very detailed and thorough process of analyzing their internal data, external scans, to create an outline for their enrollment management efforts and create an integrated approach for their Enrollment Management efforts and policies on campus.

Two Year process to outline and complete this.

Came out with a larger Enrollment Management Council- 30 Individuals representing all constituencies from across the institution. Within this Council there is a smaller Action Committee which is an action based made up of 6 individuals.

While sitting there listening to them and it was very similar to where we are. Listening and making notes as this is where we started last year with a very small group who mostly put out fires and react. Then, we tried to move into an action based group. As the year went on more people became interested and involved. We are getting close to a very similar structure (outline/SEP).

CSN was discussing their 2 year journey and research with the Consultants, they came up with an outline that we have already been working on. Which is an integrated approach to Enrollment Management that although it sounds cliché, everyone is responsible for enrollment management. Really bringing in every key player together and taking it out of one area and making an integrated approach. We mirror that structure right now. This validation was very good for us to hear. While listening, it became very apparent that we have already done so much and have many success just in that particular effort that we probably don’t take the time to stop think about it, talk about it and celebrate those successes that are related to our latest Enrollment Management efforts.

Success to Date



Rev.: 4/22/2015

• EM Discussion- CSN was discussing their 2 year journey and research with the Consultants, they came up with an outline that we have already been working on. o

Integrated approach - To Enrollment Management that although it sounds cliché, everyone is responsible for enrollment management. Really bringing in every key player together and taking it out of one area and making an integrated approach. We mirror that structure right now. This validation was very good for us to hear. While listening, it became very apparent that we have already done so much and have many success just in that particular effort that we probably don’t take the time to stop think about it, talk about it and celebrate those successes that are related to our latest Enrollment Management efforts. o

Culture Shift - Change in the normal ways of how we do things. We have a lot of new Faculty coming in with lots of great ideas and suggestions who are willing to take an active role in EM. Student Services are working hard to try and change and redirect some their energy and resources towards a more coherent, a more common direction and goals. We are all doing the best job we can. But, do we always deploy the resources, energy and efforts in the most efficient way as far as how we are trying to search students and how successful our students are and well they benefit from the support services, from the programs we put around them? o

Structure - There is a lot of effort and initiative here. We have to figure out a way to be more creative in putting ourselves out there. We are certainly in a tough competition. We have to do everything we can to be innovative.

• Outcomes-If it takes us to go out there and offer classes and work with our local school district, or Dean Bowen and Registrar Andy Hughes were involved with the National Air Guard to figure out since they have a ton of classroom space that goes unused and they have a need. So, why can’t we go out and offer instruction on the site? It is going to take some of that pretty significant initiative and energy. o

This may not be a huge portion of our budget now but as all of you know, under the new funding it’s going to get bigger and bigger. It is an important consideration for us. It’s certainly a reflections of how successful our students are. o

Last year we missed by a little bit. This year not only did we earned everything we lost last year. We crushed our goals and significantly decreased the “W’s”. That is something to be proud of. Everyone should take a moment to celebrate this. o

Performance Pool – We met the target this year. Over performing. o

Graduation Rate – We have some serious successes with our graduation rate. This has been a concerted initiative for several years. Although this only effects a smaller group of our students, these are the students that come to us fulltime. Some of the initiatives that were originally put around that particular new fulltime degree seeking group of Freshmen Students, we tracked to see how many of them graduated, within 150% of the time. Some of those initiatives have been scaled up to benefit overall student population. It’s important to track that one. If you look at the last 5 years, we have gone from single digits 6% of those students graduated in 3 years with a degrees up to 10%, up to 17%, up to 21%. We are expecting this year moving up to 25-27% of that group graduating in 3 years (which is a significant accomplishment for us). o

Ws – You are aware that we all got involved in the conversation about our students dropping out in rather large #’s. Certainly it’s important to understand why that happens and to try and reverse that trend as much as possible. Some students will walk away. Life happens. But is there anything we can do to everything we possibly can to keep those students in classes and help them to be more successful? There is a new funding formula that’s a pretty significant loss to we are looking at as well. So the entire campus was engaged in barest aspects of this initiative, right down to trying to reach out to students who were walking out, that drop the course. Giving them the opportunity to try and get back in immediately. We



Rev.: 4/22/2015

are trying to facilitate conversation with the Faculty Member and the student. Many Faculty went out of their way to try and put the all these ideas in front of students. To help the students be aware of certain support services that are available. Anything else that needs to be done to help them stay in the course and become successful. After just one semester, the result of the campus pulling together, we are looking at very significant drop in the number of W’s and the number of students that dropped their courses in Fall 2014. When you compare it to the number of W’s received in Fall 2013 were down by 9%.

This is very significant.

We will be back in February to spend a little more time on some of these issues. We will be looking at all sorts of processes, infrastructure, student intake, student enrollment, registration, policies and policies in place, to make sure that all of these processes are running as smoothly and effectively as possible.

Developing a Strategic Master Plan

Doing some very serious pondering, thinking, analyzing, reviewing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and creating a coherent direction and plan for us to move forward. Addressing a lot of the processes and mapping out some of the processes we have in place to make sure that it’s all integrated and works well. Looking at all of our operations and continue working on an Integrated Enrollment Management culture on campus and as much as possible to create the steps for a sense of ownership and investment into making all of enrollment efforts better, more effective and efficient.

Mission Fulfillment Equation

How do we fulfill our mission? How do we become an excellent Institution?

• Access – Providing access to the members of our service community and who we serve, by creating relevant programing, creating job training opportunities for the citizens of the community, by actively recruiting students, collaborating with the Washoe County School District.

• Student Success- This used to be about enrollment, about FTE, about just getting them in. This is our pipeline to students that are coming in. Once they are here, making sure all of our resources are very well in tune to creating opportunities for and facilitating Student success. This is the absolute core and important and piece.

• Mission Fulfillment - More so than the enrollment in terms of making impact and significance of how many students successfully complete. This is what really matters at the end of the day. Weighed Student Credit Hours this is how a big portion of our budget. Performance Pools- How successful our students are. Making sure students accomplish their goals. Whether this it a degree certificate or receiving the skills that put them at their jobs.

Student Success this is how we will fulfill our mission, how we become an excellent institution that services the needs of its Community.

Dr. Kyle Dalpe

Thank you for listening to us today. As we meet with different groups, I want to thank you for part and everything that you have done. As we move into 2015, we will be outlining communications and what exactly on with everything that we wrap up in Enrollment Management. What we are looking long term, what we are looking at short-term. All of this Elena and I are going to map out the next 12 month so that we have a road map of where we are going. This will have the positive outcomes as the years go on, as far as enrollment goes. Thank you for having us today.

Chair Ron Marston: Are there any questions for Dr. Kyle Dalpe or Elena Bubnova? Thanks to both of you for being here.

Report of Facu lty S enate Chair Ron Marston

Textbook Taskforce



Rev.: 4/22/2015

At the December Regents Meeting the Chancellor and the Regents let the Senate Chairs know that they want the issue of

Textbooks explored.

Our Vice President Dr. Nichols must have been clairvoyant, she must have anticipated this, because last semester we started talking about this textbook Taskforce, which is going full bore here at TMCC. We are exploring the rising cost of textbooks, alternatives, the issue of fewer students purchasing the material for the courses.

The Committee, which I have just joined as Ex Officio, has an excellent group of members. It is really well represented.

It’s looking at a lot of different trends and options that are related to textbooks and other course material. The Chancellor is going to want a report probably by the March Meeting. I suspect that we will have that and we will share that with the

Senate probably at the March Meeting.

If you have questions regarding anything I am talking about, please raise your hand.

Q&A

Q: What is the Task of the Taskforce?

A: I don’t have the charges in front of me. Do you want to answer that Dr. Nichols?

A: The Task of the Taskforce is to bring recommendations forward to the campus, and to the Faculty Senate in relation to textbooks. Best practices, new ways of thinking about textbooks, there will not be any recommendations that take away from our current textbook policy. The Campus and the System have textbook policies in place which give clear priority to the role of the Faculty in this process.

Chair Ron Marston: I am going to jump and say when I sat in on the last committee meeting there were things that occurred to me as a Teacher that I had forgotten about. For example: If I commit to a textbook for more than at least four semesters, then that can be rented. I didn’t know that. That’s a huge savings to students. It is much less expensive to rent a book. I don’t keep in the back of my head that I can put textbooks on reserve in the Library. So, I think that some recommendations that will come out that will hopefully beneficial to both Faculty and Students.

Presidents Evaluation and Survey

This is another Initiative that came to the Faculty Senate Chairs from the Chancellor at the December Regents Meeting.

They expressed an interest in having an Evaluation Survey of the Presidents by the Faculty yearly (which we are currently not doing right now). We are jumping on this and Senate Chairs are more than happy to comply with this. We are going to coordinate this across all of the NSHE Campuses so that it’s done with some consistency from Campus to Campus as well as consistency from year to year.

This was is a request of the Chancellor. He wants longitudinal information that he can use when he evaluates the

Presidents since the Presidents are evaluated by the Chancellor. I am working with the other Chairs regarding the tools/survey we are going to use. We will probably have a common section of questions that are consistent throughout the

Institutions and then a section that each Institution can customize to make it work for that Institution.

This is just informational. We intend to have something done by the end of the Spring Semester in place and possibly a revision to the NSHE Procedures and Guidelines Manual that puts this in writing so that it doesn’t disappear a few years down the road.

System Level Responsibilities of the Chairs

It’s occurred to me and the other Senate Chairs that when you become a Senate Chair, that you may not know what the

Chairs responsibilities at a System Level/State Level are. What the interaction as Chair is supposed to be with the

Regents, the Chancellor and other Faculty Senate Chairs. So, I am working with the other Senate Chairs to put together some guidelines for the incoming Senate Chairs and the Chair of Senate Chairs, which I am right now.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

eLearning and eNcore Update

I’m sure you remember the discussion we had at the last Senate Meeting. I’m sure you also remember that the second committee report, “the eNcore Report”, was supposed to come out shortly. It has not come out yet. It probably will in

January (that is my guess).

I know that they are doing it differently than they did with the last report. That report was sprung on everybody. Not just the Faculty and Faculty Senate but also the Academic Deans and the Academic Offices, who didn’t have a chance to see that report before it went public.

I don’t think they are going to do it that way this time around. They are going to get feedback from the Academic Officers and the Faculty Senate or at least the Faculty Senate Chairs, before they release the final report. They have learned a couple of things from the way they did it the last report. I don’t know that much about the report, but from what I do know it seems much more reasonable than I was afraid it was going to be. That’s an observation of mine based of very little information. More by our next meeting in February and it will be a topic of the February Agenda.

Student Class Evaluations

Two issues here for the Senate to discuss, not necessarily today but in the Spring. There have been requests for establishing some guidelines for the Faculty on how Student Class Evaluations can be best administered especially if you have a class that has access to a computer lab?

• Guidelines on how to encourage students to do these.

• Open and close dates for the Evaluations, (the window that students are allowed to evaluate).

Currently it is set at this semester to open in week 12 and close on the date of final instructions. At the last

Faculty Senate Meeting we moved the end date the day the grades are due where pushed out to the last day of instruction for good reasons. There have been a couple of Faculty who would like the close date to be pushed up to maybe the week before or second week before instruction ends. The reason I was given from one Faculty

Member, is that if the evaluations can be done after finals are taken and the student have an idea of their grades,it could influence the Evaluation. This is something the Senate can take up and weigh in on and probably will be listened to. Web College is fairly agreeable in working with us on this issue. I expect there to be some debate about this. Personally for example, I am happy to have my students know what their grade is and what took place on their final test before they do the Evaluation. I like to do it this way, but I can understand that other Faculty may not feel that way.

Statement: It can increase animosity, if they know what their grade is before the Evaluation and if they’re not happy.

Chair Ron Marston: Yes, if they know what their grade is before the Evaluation and if they’re not happy, sometimes certainly.

Does our Student Representative want to weigh in on that? I imagine her perspective will be different.

SGA: Stephanie Prevost:

I think it’s important for you to be able to complete the course and to take the final prior to the Evaluation. I have had a couple of classes where the material I was told to study was not necessarily the same as the information on the exam.

That has a huge weight on how I review my Instructors.

Q&A

Senator Ruf: It is called a Course Evaluation, not a semi-course Evaluation.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Chair Ron Marston: I will have this on the Agenda for the February Meeting and have a discussion about this. We can also run it through the Professional Standards Committee if the Senate wants this issue to be explored a little further.

SGA: Stephanie Prevost: I can run it through the Student Government.

Chair Ron Marston: Actually I think it would be fantastic to have the SGA weigh in on this. It would be something you could inform the Senate of. It would be great to get a survey of the Students on this.

Professional Development Workshops:

Just a friendly reminder that Professional Development runs Jan 14 th -23 rd .

• Convocation (which is the big meeting) is January 15 th which is a Thursday.

• The Faculty Senate has two Professional Development Workshops that we are sponsoring and involved in.

• “Contentious Meetings Workshop on January 23 rd at 10am. Ralph McMullen always gives a great workshop. I strongly encourage every member of the Faculty Senate to attend that Workshop.

• Dr. Purdy is also running a CAP for beginners. If you are plan on running any courses through CAP or know someone who is, I strongly encourage them to attend this workshop. It is Jan 15 th at 2:15 p.m.

• I have also notice that we have workshops that are being run by several of our Senators, Tom Cardoza, Cathy

House, John Coles is running a couple of them. Dr. Purdy is running a second workshop and Julie Armbrecht is also running workshops as well.

I appreciate all of you who are participating in this process.

Foundation Contribution

One last comment before I move to Dr. Adlish’s Report. You have probably seen in the past letters or emails from the

Foundation asking for your to make a contribution as a monthly payroll deduction. I think they may be backing away from asking Faculty due to uncertainty of our budget. I am going to encourage you to contribute; I can do that with impunity, so I am encouraging you to do this, even if you only contribute $10 a month. It’s not so much the dollar amount that helps them but the percent of employees who contribute that helps them. So, if you only contribute $10, it costs you nothing especially after taxes, but it does help the Institution and the Foundation and it helps us get money from donors.

Chair Marston: Are there any questions?

Report of Facu lty S enate Chair-E lect - Dr. John Adlish

Parking

Speaking of contributing to the college, there will probably be some parking fees that you can contribute to…In a year to year and a half because the state does not fund parking garages.

We are going to be dealing with this. There is a Parking and Transit Taskforce that has been started. I believe Steve Bale is on that taskforce. News from them will be coming out sometime in the future.

Administrative Evaluation Policy Changes

Just a couple of things that we have not mentioned yet, from the President’s Advisory Council:

• We are still moving forward with this.

• I Presented the President’s Advisory Council last Monday.

• So we are word-smithing. People are stuck on a couple of words here and there. But it’s not a problem. We will get those fixed.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

• Then we will send back to our first Committee Meeting in February and then back to the President’s Advisory

Council.

• Kyle Dalpe and I are working together trying to get this as part of the TMCC Bylaws. This will dovetail into the surveys of Presidents every year.

• This is a great idea that I think the Chancellor wants to survey the Faculty about the job performance of the

Presidents. I think that if the Presidents are going to be surveyed every year, there isn’t going to be much resistance for the other Administrators.

• We are going to have do some word changes. Dr. Nichols suggested at the President’s Advisory Council that we can still move forward with the Surveys in March and April. She will accept those. I am assuming that would be part of your data that would go into the Evaluations of the Deans.

• We are mainly focusing on the Academic side of the house. There is a lot of discussion around “Should we be responsible for doing Academic or the Administrative Faculty Surveys? For example the Director of HR, the Vice

President of Finance.

• Our primary goal right now is to get to the point where we really start to survey anyone who supervises Faculty. I have said that right now the Faculty are more interested in doing surveys that go to the VP for Deans and people who actually Supervise Faculty’s. This is some of the language that they want to have in there, to address all of this. We can put that in the wording.

• You may have some sort of tangential interaction with the VP of Finance but would you know enough to fill out a survey unless you had been in that role where that person supervised you?

• We will go ahead and start developing survey instruments in February and then try and get those out towards the end of March or beginning of April to the Faculty for anybody who is being supervised by a Dean. Then we will get the language and the Bylaws changed hopefully within the next year. Bylaw changes have to be approved by everybody on campus.

That ends my report.

Chair Ron Marston: Thank you John. Are then any questions?

Let’s move on. We have the Consent Agenda to approve. I hope you have had a chance to look at the Consent Agenda, especially if you had a course run through CAP.

Consent A genda (A CTION) (E xhib it D)

Motion: To approve the Consent Agenda

Chair Marston: Any deletion or changes to the Consent Agenda? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion to approve the

Consent Agenda. All those in favor?

Movant: Wade Hampton

Second: Dan Bouweraerts


Abstentions: None

Dan Bouweraert: Chair Marston, I just wanted to make a comment here that the Committee worked hard on a whole bunch of stuff for the CAP Committee on getting these done is a lot of work. I wanted to point out that our Chair Dr. Purdy does a fantastic job in regards to doing this. I want to point out that the CAP Committee has done some excellent work this semester and has put through a ton of classes and I think Dr. Melanie Purdy has done an excellent job in doing that.

Chair Marston: I could not agree with you more Dan. That is far and away the hardest and most workload of any of our

Standing Committees.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Dan Bouweraert: Way to sell it!

Chair Marston: …and we are looking for a new Chair…and the most rewarding position.

Committee Repo rts

Student Government Association - Stephanie Prevost, SGA President

• Getting ready for Spring Welcome Week. It’s going to be the first two weeks of the Spring Semester. There will be a lot of fun events in the Student Center including events to showcase the clubs and organizations we have on

Campus.

• In response to our Audit, they finally approved our response.

• New Club Funding Policy - Instead of Clubs requesting money for specific things, we are going to give them a chunk of money if they register at a certain time in the semester. Clubs that register within 4 weeks of the semester starting will receive $200, within 8 weeks they will receive $100. If you have Faculty who would like to start clubs, there is more opportunity for money out there and we are always looking for Club Advisors.

• We are planning on putting a question on the Student Government Election ballot to gauge support of a

Transportation Fee. This may towards a parking structure and other options for parking as well as address a service gap in public transportation that we have. All of North Reno, North Valleys and NW Reno, there is currently not a direct bus route that runs starting at UNR to TMCC. I know this has been brought up by Faculty Senate, but it is also a concern for Faculty because students are walking up this hill. It affects about 2800 students that live in that area and also around 1000 who are co-enrolled between here and UNR. I am not in support of fees to pay for this because last Spring the Board of Regents approved to raise our tuition by 4% every year for the next 4 years.

So the students are paying more and more and our tuition has increased over 50% over the last 5 years. I have reached out to the Chancellor of Board of Regents, (Chancellor Klaich), to see if we can get some sort of System

Support as well as to see if we can work with UNR as there are so many students that are co-enrolled between the two colleges.

• This all very preliminary. The Chancellor has asked me for numbers on how many students this is actually effecting. So I am looking for a way to do this without putting it on the backs of the students.

Chair Marston: Thank you Stephanie. You are probably already aware that Dr. Solemsaas is on the RTI Blue Ribbon

Committee for Transit.

SGA President: Stephanie Prevost – RTC is not really an option for this service gap. They have quoted us $225,000 per year to re-instate the route that was here 2 years ago. Our biggest option so far is that UNR has some shuttles that they are currently not using that could run between UNR and TMCC. This would help with part of the gap because then students from the North Valleys can take the 7 Route down to UNR, and then it wouldn’t be as much as going all the way to the bus station downtown. This would help, but UNR has quoted us around $40,000 a semester for this. Student

Government voted whether or not to take out of our reserves to do a pilot for this. We didn’t have the data that we thought was sufficient in order to use that huge chunk of our reserves. So we are trying to figure out other options.

Q&A:

Q: Dr. Melanie Purdy: So if students come from the North Valleys all the way to the Center. If they get off at the

Boomtown stop that is a long walk.

A: SGA President: Stephanie Prevost – Yes, and they have to walk up this hill which doesn’t have any sidewalks. It’s even dangerous to drive better yet walk up.

Chair Marston: Yes. It is not too viable in the Spring semesters especially when it’s 15 degrees outside.

Tom Cardoza: I know I have said this before but just for the record I see those students walking up the hill every single day on my way in. It is a problem and a safety issue



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Maria Arrigotti: I was walking on that road and a police officer pulled up and told me I shouldn’t be walking here as it’s not safe by the jail. We are okay with a student walking there.

SGA President: Stephanie Prevost – The biggest issue is that there is not enough money anywhere. So, we are hoping we can find a way to do this without increasing our tuition more and more and more every single year.

Chair Marston: Thank you Stephanie very much. The Classified Council Representative is not here today and has no report so we will move onto Recognition and Activities. Erin Frock is not here today but Dolores Wonder is here in her place. Thank you for being here.

Recognition and Activities Committee - Dolores Wonder

Distinguishing Faculty Award

Professional of the Month – The deadline for applications for both Teaching and Service Nominations was last Friday Dec

12th.

• We have a very nice selection of Nominees that will be notified after the holidays.

• The Selection Committee is in the process of being formed.

• Finale selections will be made at the end of April and announced at the Spring Commencement.

Professionals of the Month:

• Congratulations to the following Faculty who were recognized as Professionals of the Month - Gabriela Brochu from

Humanities and Cheryl Scott from Intuitional Research.

• Just a reminder, that anyone can nominate someone to be a Professional of the Month. Just go to the website and applications are right there and they are very easy to do.

• We have a lot of great people that are working at our Institution and this is a great and easy way to recognize our staff.

Activities

Annual Holiday Party: We had a great time at the Annual Holiday Party and hope that everyone else did. We hope that everyone who attended received the special treat from our Committee and Safe and best wishes for the Holidays! We look forward to working with you next year.

Chair Marston: Thank you. Any questions for Dolores?

Library Committee - Tom Kearns, Chair

There was no new business so there is nothing to report.

Part-Time Faculty Issues Committee - Dawnne Ernette, Chair

Chair Marston: The Part-Time Faculty Issues Committee has not met since the last time we met and that Chair is not here as well. So we will move on to the Professional Standards Committee.

Professional Standards Committee - Eddie Burke, Chair

Policy Statement Admin Evaluations

• We are working with John Aldish on the language of the Administration Evaluation. So, John will be bringing that new version to us I believe in February.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

• This is the draft language that has already changed. The vote would be moral support that we do need this sort of statement in our bylaws and policies.

Chair Aldish: What we are looking for is the Faculty Senate to say yes or no to support of annual evaluations with input from Faculty and Classified for Administrators who supervise faculty.

Chair Burke: As note: This language has not been formalized yet, but it will be coming back here, so this is not the last time.

Faculty Annual Evaluation Edits

The Committee Recommended three relatively minor edits.

The following 3 edits are proposed to the Academic Annual Evaluation document:

Item #1: The annual plan shall include activities from April 2nd of the first year to April 1st of the next (since the faculty have to submit their previous year’s annual plan by April 1st every year).

Q: For all Academic Faculty that this makes sense. Does this apply to Administration?

Chair Burke: I haven’t gotten to that one yet. We will work on that as parallel but this one is just the Faculty at this point.

Item #2: The plan shall include a clause where the faculty member is allowed to include unforeseen activities, e.g. summer committee work. If a faculty member is involved in summer work (outside of their contract) they should be able to apply that work to their next annual plan. We did have some issues that last summer where one Faculty Member that was on Sabbatical was asked to come in and do a Faculty Search and then couldn’t get credit for this on the Annual Plan.

So we would like to include a “clause” here that “if you do come in to do some unforeseen work over the summer, then you can apply that to your next year”.

Item#3: If you look at your Annual Plan document, which I have a copy of here, at the very end it says Chair/Dean comments. There are serious concerns that the Chair is using that to evaluate the Faculty Member. We would like clarify that somehow to say “The Chairs are there to verify the contract.

The following was added by Chair Marston:

From the NFA contract, Article 12:

• 12.6 The Department Chair/Director shall review the faculty members’ self-evaluation for accuracy and completeness. The Department Chair shall state in writing his/her conclusions under the section titled Department

Chair’s Comments.

• 12.7 The Dean shall review the contents of the self-evaluation written by the faculty member, and the conclusions of accuracy and completeness as stated by the Department Chair/Director. The Dean shall comment on the annual report under the section titled Dean’s Comments. Alternative to #3: Under “Chair Comments” section, add verbiage from NFA contract to serve as instructions for Department Chairs and a reminder that their task is to check for accuracy and completeness.

So as part of the contract it has to say "Chairs Comments", but I think we have to edit that to say that it is mostly for verification. I think we can add a little line to say that this is really to verify the contents of the Annual Plan and the actual

Dean does the Evaluation.

Chair-elect Adlish: Chair Burke if we change that won’t we have to change the NFA Contract?

Chair Burke: Yes. But I think we can add a little star there saying “No, this is specifically the Deans ‘who do the evaluation. The Chair is there to verify. So I think that would still be within the NFA Contract?

Page 15 of 26; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Rev.: 4/22/2015


Chair Marston: Yes. That is why I added this. We can’t do what it says in #3. We can’t change Chair comments because that is the way it’s written in the NFA Contract, unless we modify that in the NFA Contract as well. It is coming up for renewal, so we have that option.

I added that information and a suggested alternative, which I think might address in the issue that you were trying to address in first place, which is the department chairs aren’t supposed to be evaluating, they are supposed to be checking it for accuracy. I think that if had that verbiage/sentence was added into the Annual Evaluation it would be clear what the responsibility of the Department Chair and that would probably be helpful to the Department Chair also.

Chair-elect Adlish: Could you send this back to the Committee because the intent is to make sure that the Chair is not the supervisor/signator in the Annual Evaluation but there might be Faculty that would want their Chair to put some comments there. I would actually advocate for this because we have pushed it to the Dean. So it’s the Dean who really does the Annual Evaluation. Now with all of the Merit Changes, maybe some Faculty would like to have support of their

Chair. So if the Chair feels that they have done a great job, you go to the Dean and then you have the Chair’s support as well? Why can it not like an optional? What I don’t get is that if the Faculty wants the Chair’s comments, why can’t the

Chair and the Faculty do that?

Chair Burke: Will that match with the NFA Contract?

Chair-elect Adlish: You would have to change the NFA document anyway. That process will come to negotiations we may want to change that. I just don’t want to exclude that, if you have trouble with your Dean but your Chair say “Wow!

He’s doing a great job”. There should be a place there where the Faculty Member could include comments from the Chair.

I think it would make it easier in the Appeals if we have those coming up in Merit as well.

Wade Hampton: I don’t’ think we want to platform for vendetta from the Chair. I think that is the repeated fear wouldn’t it?

Chair-elect Adlish: Well I’m saying it could be an optional thing. So that way no one would have to do it.

Lars: Chair verification actually puts a big job on the Chair because now you’re asking the Chair to verify every single statement and every single Faculty Member’s report.

Chair Marston: That is currently their responsibility.

Chair-elect Adlish: Lars, the Chairs really just meet with the Faculty Member or at least email them back and say “I’ve read through it, it looks good, or what did you mean by that”? It’s really just a verification.

Lars: My main point was that we discussed last time how the timeline for the Evaluation is very hard to follow. In the case where the Faculty Member gets an evaluation and needs to appeal, the whole appeals process is basically scheduled off contract. Which is not very desirable for the Faculty Member, I think. I was wondering if we could consider going from

April to April, going from January to January. In other words ½ a year off from the contract, that gives the Faculty

Member ½ year to resolve the appeals process. At that point the following year would be the year where the Faculty

Member is on probation. I think that would be a much better process for the Faculty Member because you would have the appeals process, you have not had time for it. There really isn’t enough time for it right now under the current proposed version before July 26 th isn’t enough time “A” and “B” you are taking the Faculty Members unpaid time for resolving these issues. It shouldn’t be that way.

Chair Marston: This is an issue that we can discuss further. If we want to change the whole structure of the timeline, that’s going to require a change to the Bylaws and a changed to the NFA Contract. That is something we can look at but there is no way that would happen in time for Spring 15. So, I would suggest that we move forward on the assumption that the timeline has already been established and what’s in the Bylaws and the NFA Contract is what we have to work with. So let’s work within that structure and consider these edits in that context. Then if we want to completely revising the timeline, we can do that for Spring 16.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Dan Loranz: I have a question regarding the 2nd point “Unforeseen Activities”. It seems that the time going from April

2nd to April 1st that the 2nd point becomes irrelevant. Am I misunderstanding somehow?

Chair Burke: Yes. Let’s say that a person submits their Annual Plan and doesn’t know of some work that could happen.

We just want a clause in there just to say this could be inserted. We could change the Annual Plan. The Faculty Member has the choice to change the Annual Plan at any time. They can revise the Annual Plan. We just want to make sure that there is verbiage in there to say “Yes, some unscheduled summer work was available for the next year. There are several places where we could possible change the language a little bit to verify or clean that up.

Chair-elect Adlish: We have almost to the end of March to submit Annual Plan changes. Maybe you guys can start looking at changing that process instead submitting 16 changes all the time. I used to get those on my desk. Couldn’t it be done that when you do your annual self-evaluation that there is a block down there that says changes after the day I submitted because it can get really ridiculous if we keep sending them in every week.

Chair Marston: Chair Purdy is next. That was a part of the discussion when we originally set this process. The Deans and I had to agree that they want don’t want to be sprung in your self-evaluation that you made changes to what you said you were going to do. The Deans need to be able to approve the changes you are making before and we’re giving Faculty all the way up to the month before to make changes. I think that Dan has a good point. Between that and between items

#1 you are pretty much covering the #2 scenario. Though it seems to me that what this is really trying to grasp is whether Faculty are off contract or not. It’s not worded that way but I think that seems like that the intent. It can also be put stated as summer activities when you are not on contract.

Comment: The issue was that Annual Plans were by the end of June and you submitted your Evaluation and then they could work in May and June and then told that was from your proceeding year and you already received an evaluation for that. So it was a perceived injustice. So, we just take off the table that anyone might say “You were off contract it doesn’t count”, that is just the point. I agree it’s redundant, but it might be a necessary redundancy to protect Faculty from arbitrary actions.

Chair Purdy: I just want to clarify what John was saying. That you are thinking where the line where the Chairs can submit their comments. But I don’t think that could always submit good comments. If someone has on a negative, we can’t just say that you can only put comments only if they’re supporting someone. I just want to make sure I understood.

Senator Bouweraerts: I agree that the Chairs are not Evaluators. I see this as saying “Eliminate Chair Comments”, because they are not the signatory. They are not the one doing that. What I am saying is if you want to have support going to your Dean, you could have an optional box saying “Comments here”. People who want support from their Chair could have a place to write that. It doesn’t have to be negative as well. When this comes through the appeals process, they will go back to the Department Chair too. So if your Chair thinks you’re doing great but your Dean doesn’t. It would be nice the support of the Chair along with you going through the appeals.

Chair Purdy: I think that the converse could be true too, if Chair has an issue but cannot write anything because it’s not supportive.

Statement: They can’t write anything anyway because that’s not their job.

Chair Purdy: But that’s “writing something”.

Statement: It sounds that per the NFA Contract the comment box needs to stay. But I think under 12.7 it stated in there, then I don’t feel obligated to write anything. I was the one that brought it to Professional Standards. I didn’t like being pressured to say something about every single Faculty Member and therefore become part of the evaluation process. That shouldn’t be my job.

If there are Chairs that want to do what Chair Adlish suggested and say something nice, to help the person then they have that option under the comment box. But at least under 12.7 we’re covered in saying I don’t need to say anything about you, I am just saying you did your job.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Q: The Chair’s job is advocacy for the Faculty and the department.

A: Yes but sometimes the Chair gets pressured into saying things they don’t really want to say. Now that it’s tied in with money, I think we need to be careful with that.

Q: At the same time I don’t think I don’t think that just a binary check box is necessarily a good idea either. What happens if you have a person that didn’t do one thing, you’d mark no? So the ability to at least write something that says this is complete to the best of my knowledge, is good for me. I think every Chair ought to know their job is not to evaluate the Faculty they ought to read the contract, quite honestly. But maybe there are other issues I am not seeing here.

A: It wasn’t more in 12.7 stating in there it wasn’t more for me to know, it was more for the Faculty to know, “Hey I didn’t say anything about but that’s not because I don’t like you, there’s no need to say anything and here is the NFA Contract why I don’t’ have to say anything”. It’s more to let the Faculty know.

Q: So are you saying that a check box would work here “Yes, No, did, or did not”?

A: Sorry I guess I am overcomplicating it. If we could just insert 12.7 and then we have to keep the comment box for the contract. So, keep the comment box, but insert 12.7 so that all of the Faculty can see that’s not my job.

Chair Purdy: so if you don’t say something it doesn’t mean it’s good or bad. It’s just you are evaluating not whether they did it or not their person.

A: Yes.

Chair Marston: This I essentially what I am saying for an alternative. But the verbiage that’s basically 12.7 in there.

Chair Ruf: 12.6 only mandates that the Chair conclude accuracy and completeness. That is all it mandates.

Chair Marston: Are there any other comments on this? This is an action item. We can take these one at a time, three of them here, or take them as a group. You need to consider what you would like to do for item #3. You can vote to approve as submitted by the committee. You can vote to approve the alternative I’ve suggested or you can make some other suggestion.

Tom Cardoza: Chair Marston, I would really feel more comfortable if I talked to my department before I voted on this. I don’t know how everybody else feels. Is it possible? I hate to do this to Chair Burke because I did this to you last time.

But is it possible to put this off one meeting or is it urgent that we do it now?

Chair Marston: I don’t think it’s that urgent that we have to do it now.

Dr. Adlish: How do you feel about the first two?

Tom Cardoza: The first two are great. I don’t’ think anyone would have any issues.

Chair Marston: If the Senate is agreeable lets vote to approve these as three individual items.

Maria Arrigotti: Chair Marston, I don’t think we can vote on #3. It violates the contract right? We can’t have a check box.

Chair Marston: Actually, we can say whatever we want. But it is incongruent with the NFA Contract. Even though that is opening in the Spring, we can’t have ours be incongruent with it for what we are doing in April. The intent is to get this stuff done in time for our April evaluations. Pushing it back to February is cutting it a little close but it is doable.

Chair Burke: Could you vote on items #1 and #2 and then send #3 back to us?



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Chair Marston: If the Senate wants to do it that way.

Lars: “Chair Verification”, does that mean that the Chair has verified that the Faculty Member has done all of the things that we reported or does it just mean that it’s verified for accuracy and completeness as 12.6 says? Maybe you could specify that the Chair verification means Chair verification in accordance to 12.6 for accuracy and completeness because that doesn’t imply that you check all the items in the plan. Then have a space for comments of course. Then it’s not necessary to put in a comment.

Chair Marston: Let’s move forward on the vote for the first item. Let’s keep things moving. Is there any further discussion on item #1?

Administrative E va luation Edits Item # 1 (ACTION) (E xh ibit E)

Motion: To approve the Administrative Evaluation Edits Item #1

Chair Marston: All those in favor of Approving Item #1?

Movant: na

Second: na


Abstentions: None

Chair Marston: Any discussion on item #2?

Administrative Evaluation Edits Item #2 (ACTION) (Exhibit E)

Motion: To approve Administrative Evaluation Edits Item #2

Chair Marston: All those in favor?

Movant: an

Second: na


Abstentions: None

Chair Marston: Any discussion on item #3?

Tom Cardoza: I’m still not entirely clear on what we are voting on.

Chair Marston: We are voting on item #3 as it is written from the Committee.

Dr. Adlish: So if we vote no, it will send it back to the Committee, give you time to go back to your department and give us time to work with the NFA Contract.

Q Can we motion an amendment to reflect what Lars and others were saying with regard to reflect the NFA wording?

Chair Marston: We can do that but we are going to end up wordsmithing this I think. It’s a really bad idea to on the fly come up with policy statements.

Q: But if it’s reflecting the wording of the NFA, that wouldn’t be wordsmithing would it?

Chair Marston: That would be basically approving the alternative there. It says that verbiage from NFA contract to serve as instructions. It seems that is really what we are talking about. You guys could approve that. That’s not approving the actual verbiage, it’s basically approving the concept of the verbiage I suppose. That would at least mean getting something done for item #3.

Let’s vote on item #3 as it was submitted at first. Then if someone wants to make a motion to vote on the alternative verbiage we can vote on that as well.

Dr. Adlish: So the original item 3# Chair Burke, does that include the items that say the following was added by Chair

Marston?

Chair Burke: No.

Dr. Adlish: So we would only be voting on item #3?

Chair Marston: Yes, exactly, just item #3.

Administrative Evaluation Edits Item #3 (ACTION) (Exhibit E)

Motion: To approve Administrative Evaluation Edits Item #3 as it was submitted first.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Chair Marston: Vote on item #3 as it was originally submitted? All those in favor?

Movant:

Second:

Vote: For: 2 Against: 19 Motion Fails.

Abstentions: 3

Chair Marston: I will entertain a motion to vote on alternative #3, if anyone wants. Any other discussion?

Q: What are we voting on?

Chair Marston: What you are voting on is to approve adding verbiage from the NFA Contract as instructions for the Dept.

Chairs and a reminder that their task is to check for accuracy and completeness.

Q: Is that 12.6 & 12.7 you want to add in there?

Chair Marston: It does not specify that. It would be up to the Committee to decide exactly what to write there. But again, we are voting on intent here.

Administrative Evaluation Edits Item #3 (ACTION) (Exhibit E)

Motion: To approve Administrative Evaluation Edits Alternative for Item #3.

Chair Marston: We have a motion and a second if there is not anymore discussion. All those in favor?

Movant: John Coles

Second: Brian Ruf

Vote: For: 21, Opposed: 1

Abstentions: 2

Motion Passes

Chair Burke: So does it have to come back to us? Technically it doesn’t have to.

Chair Marston: Technically it doesn’t have to. I would suggest that it could just move on to whoever is going to make the edits to the documents.

Chair Burke: I’ll bring it back.

Chair Marston: Okay. We have more, right Eddie?

Merit Appeals Process

The second is the Merit Award Appeals Committee. This came up to you last meeting and Tom asked for more time for digestion and regurgitation. It is the same items as before from the last meeting. I am just wondering if the Faculty

Senate is willing to take a vote.

Q&A

Tom Cardoza: I would like to discuss one item if I may which is #5. I think that if Faculty are going to put themselves on call during May and June and essentially forgo travel plans, forgo vacations, forgo lots of things in case they get called in.

Then we ought to just strike #5 and allow them to put this on their annual plan even if they’re not called to serve because essentially they are making that sacrifice. They’re saying I will serve if called. Then we say you put off that vacation but hey we didn’t need you so tough. It’s just my two cents. I think it’s important that Faculty get credit for basically putting themselves out there and be willing to stay in town and do this stuff.

Wade Hampton: If they’re teaching here on Campus in June, then they would be staying around anyway.

Tom Cardoza: Maybe I can’t say. It certainly can’t hurt to allow Faculty the opportunity.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Brian Wells: Get a check box for good intentions. Alright!

Chair Marston: Yes, I completely understand that point. You may want to suggest that it be written in there even the other way around. Even if they’re not chosen they are still allowed to use it on their Annual Plan. If we are silent on the issue it’s very likely as a Dean would say “Well, you didn’t have to serve on that committee so I’m not giving you that credit”.

Tom Cardoza: Right, that sounds good.

Chair Burke: Their argument could be that you volunteered you should admit appropriate accommodations to be here appeals process. You will have the choice to be on this committee or not. You don’t have to serve on that committee.

You may be traveling and obviously should not be the case that you serve on this committee.

Tom Cardoza: I see both sides. I just don’t think we need to necessarily be cutting the feet out from underneath the

Faculty any more than is already happening. It’s just my two cents. We can vote it as a motion.

Robert Kirchman: Is someone put this in their plan and then just by the luck of the draw, or absence of luck of the draw and are not assigned a case, then they’re having to re-optimize their plan. They have to do something else to make up for this thing. It’s not a single cost.

Maria Arrigotti: That’s not true because we changed the dates of the Annual Plan. This is for the next Annual Plan. So then you’d have an addition 10 months to figure out other stuff to do.

Chair Marston: Actually that’s true. This activity would take place after April 2 nd so this would be going on next year’s

Annual Evaluation.

Tom Cardoza: True, I’m just making a point on principle. I have absolutely no intention of ever serving on this. Just for the record, it’s never going to happen. But I think for those who do, we ought to give them that one little bone.

Chair Marston: Are there other comments or discussion?

Wade Hampton: You can change your Annual Plan all the way to March 30 th .

Maria Arrigotti: It’s like not paying a firefighter if there’s no fire. If you had to do work on this committee then you could come in for a couple days in the summer if you want to count it. So, if you want to count that you did something then come in and serve on the committee.

Chair Burke: You should know well in advance. This notice for volunteers is going to go out next January. So, you’re going to get a notice from the Faculty Senate. Do you wish to volunteer?

Chair Marston: No. It depends on whether this passes or not.

Chair Burke: There has to be an Appeals Committee. That’s in the NFA Contract. Regardless, of what we say here. We have to establish the Appeals Committee.

Wade Hampton: Again, I think those who are teaching and if you know you’re going to be teaching in June it wouldn’t be any skin off your nose to be up for the committee. This is a little bit of planning and that’s already scheduled.

Q: Chair-Elect Adlish: Can we just amend #5 to say that “Members who serve on the Committee use it on their Annual

Evaluation?

A: Chair Burke: It’s up to you.

Chair Marston: We can move to make such an amendment.. We would have to vote on that first or move to strike that one all together or pass it as is. Someone will need to make that motion.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Judy Fredrickson: Sure I will. Can we change #5 so it reads as only the “may not” use changes to “may use”?

Q: Chair Marston: So I believe the motion here is to strike the “not” from #5 which completely reverses it’s intent.

A: Chair-Elect Adlish: No I was saying “if they serve” on a committee then they get to apply to the Annual Plan.

A: Judy Fredrickson: Yes, that’s what I mean or did I not read it?

Q: Chair Marston: So, we’re striking the 2 nd not. Not the 1 st not.

Q: Chair Burke: Is that not covered at the end of #4? Service on a committee will count towards the following annual evaluation.

A: Chair Marston: No, this is addressing if you’re not serving on the committee.

Chair Burke: This is specifically for people who volunteer and did not serve.

Chair Adlish: Never mind because #4 covers it. I motion to strike #5.

Chair Marston: Let’s stay on Roberts Rule a little bit at least. We have a motion and I just heard a second from Tom

Cardoza. This is a motion to revise what we are voting on: To strike the second “Not” in #5.

Q: Can you read it through?

Chair Marston: #5 would read, If members of the pool are not assigned an appeal they may use the activity on the annual evaluation. Let’s vote on that change first and then we will vote on the whole thing.

Q: We’re just striking “NOT”?

Chair Marston: Let’s vote on that change first and then we will vote on the whole thing.

Brian Wells: Who will need to have approved this so that it becomes reality? Where does this go after this recommending body?

Chair Marston: This is a process. I believe this will just live on the Faculty Senate section of the Website. I don’t know

Michele, do you want to weigh in on that?

A: Michele Meador: Yes, I guess it would be on the Faculty Senate Website.

Chair Marston: The Bylaws, the NFA contract already spell out what we have to do. This is just how we are going do it so I think we pretty much own this.

Michelle Meador: It’s a procedure in my mind.

Chair Marston: Yes, a procedure.

Dr. Adlish: Do we have a box on the Faculty Annual Plan that has this committee listed on it?

Chair Burke: Not specifically this committee but there are committees. It’s covered by the committee.

Wade Hampton: Is it time for us to vote or move on?

Chair Marston: We are voting on the change. So if there is no further discussion. All those in favor?

Merit Appeals Committee (ACTION) (Exhibit F)

Motion: To revise to strike the second “not” in #5.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Movant: na

Second: na

Vote: For: 21, Opposed: 2 Motion Passed

Abstentions: 1

Chair Marston: That passes. Now we are voting on the revised all 6 of these as we just heard and revised them. Are there any further comments on the rest of this?

Brian Ruf: So on #6 then. If I review 6 appeals and you review only 5 do I get 1/6 more merit than you then?

A: The last sentence covers that.

Brian Ruf: But if I am doing more work I want more credit.

Chair Marston: I can answer that question. No.

Okay, thank you.

Chair Marston: I just want to remind the Senate that we’ve never done this before. It’s all brand new stuff. We have to do it at least once to see how it goes. We will probably be back here next semester or the semester after that, in the Fall probably, making revisions to this process.

I also will remind you that we may not be funded for Merit Pay. That was a done deal months ago that we were going to be funded, which is no longer the case.

So you all know, the Governor’s Office releases the state budget Jan 15 th . We will at least have a better idea on whether we will have Merit Funding at that time.

Chair Marston: Hearing no further discussion, lets vote to this document that came Professional Standards. All those in favor?

Merit Appeals Committee (ACTION) (Exhibit F)

Motion: To approve the revised Merit Appeals Document that came from Professional Standards.

Movant: na

Second: na

Vote: For: 23 Opposed: 1

Motion Passes

Abstentions: none

Salary, Benefits & Budgetary Concerns Committee - Steve Bale, Chair

Absent. He cancelled his last meeting. There is no report.

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment (SLOA) - Brian Ruf, Chair

Chair Ruf: I defer to Chair Purdy in CAP.

Chair Marston: Alright.

Curriculum, Assessment & Programs Committee - Melanie Purdy, Chair

So, like Dan said, we did a ton of work. Thank you both submitters and reviewers. Hopefully Spring will be a little lighter.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

What we did other than pass a million things as a Committee. We completed all of the GenEd evaluations for AA/AS

GenEd. Thanks to everybody who worked on that.

The discussion came up that we will probably moving forward with the Diversity Classes in the Spring. So I we’ll be working with Dr. Deadmond to identify which Diversity Courses haven’t gone through yet. Those will get evaluated to match the criteria that was passed a couple years ago.

We also had a catalog change to the English Curriculum for AA/AAS. Basically we modified it to match NSHE. So students no longer need to do 6 credits of English. They need 3 credits which include English 102 or 114. So if someone comes in with the 101 they no longer have to go back and do it. If they place in the English 102 that’s good, then they came make the credits up in electives. So we think that’s a good change for our students.

We also revised wording on the Skills Certificate because a number of them were Skill Certificates that you earn after 4 years of working in an Apprenticeship program. So they really awesome Skill Certificates but they didn’t meet the

Verbiage that we had in the Catalog. So we made one more change that says “Certificates can be designed as stackable credentials within a system associate tracks instead of R. So it give that latitude to have Skill Certificates along the process of a degree or apprenticeship.

In the Spring we will be working on the AAS GenEd, in terms of not the mapping criteria though we will continue to work with SLOA on that. Again what that is trying to identify if a course wants to be GenEd for AAS, what are the requirements for that. We will be looking at the format of it and probably revamp it through CAP to look more the AA/AS so we’ll be pulling the poly side, diversity and most likely human relations course out of the Core of GenEd into additional degree requirements and those can be met in number of different ways. So, look for that coming through and discussion on that.

Another plug to the Workshop, you don’t have to be new to the Curriculum process. We always have fun meetings.

Chair Marston: Thank you Chair Purdy. Moving on to Old Business, Is there any Old Business?

Chair Ruf: I just diverted my time, not my report. So I can give my report now?

Chair Marston: Go ahead.

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment (SLOA) - Brian Ruf, Chair

On Dec 12th we had our SLOA meeting. We took an existing AAS approved GenEd Course and worked through using the

AA/AS GenEd Mapping criteria to see if it even came close to what we were hoping it would. With some slight rewording and wordsmithing we will be able to use those same criteria sheets for the different areas under the AAS degree for GenEd

Mapping. So CAP will have an easier time with it.

The class we took was English 107 (technical writing), which is not a transferable class as it stands right now.

Since the AA/AS GenEd packets seem to work fine, the committee was broken into 7 groups of 3. Each group gets a separate section of the GenEd requirements for the AAS degree. Those went out today. Each group is supposed to have their comments and markups back to me by Feb 6th for our meeting on Feb 13th.

That is my report.

Wade Hampton: I move that we extend the meeting by 5 or 10 minutes. Is that necessary to do?

Brian Ruf: Well, we only have 1 minute left now.

Chair Marston: There is a motion on the floor. Is it 5 or 10 minutes?

Wade Hampton: What is necessary? 10 minutes.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

Chair Marston: Is there a second?

Chair Adlish: Second. We’re wasting time.

Motion- To extend the meeting by 10 minutes.

Chair Marston: All those in favor of extending the meeting 10 minutes? Show of hands please.

Movant: Wade Hampton

Second: Chair Adlish

Vote: Passed. For: 14

Abstentions: None

Judy Fredrickson: Can Cathy House be my proxy? I have to leave. I have another appointment. Sorry. Thank you.

Chair Marston: The motion passed let’s move on.

Old Business

Chair Marston: Hearing none, let’s move on.

Ne w Bu siness

Chair Marston: Is there any New Business?

Q: Lars: I heard the President was going to appoint the VPAA of Student Affairs.

A: Chair Adlish: Yes. You’re right.

Q: Lars: I was wondering if the Faculty Senate should weigh in on that process and then make a statement because I think again continuing the time honoring tradition of this Institution of hiring from the inside without a proper search. I think that when you hire at any level like that you certainly need a national search. So I think we should weigh in on that.

Chair Marston: Does anyone want to jump in on that?

Chair-elect Adlish: Yes, actually I would like to because the President was dinged with bad communication in her 3 year evaluation. I was the first who knew about that between the two of us. When I went to the President’s Advisory Council, she just said “I’m appointing Estella. We’re reorganizing so we are three VP’s. Thank you very much. She’s done a great job and deserves the title”. So, I mean the President has asked me before this came up to say to the Faculty. That if they have ideas on how we can improve communication, this might be one of them.

Chair Marston: These are two separate issues. She did apologize to me for that by the way.

• There is the issue of communication among the upper administration.

• The issue of the President from appointing from within, without doing a search.

Chair Purdy: But the issue is the appointment, not the creation of the position. I think the VP of Student Services is a necessary position that we have been lacking for a long time. The issue is the appointment. Is that correct?

A: Lars: Yes, it’s the appointment.

Robert Kirchman: Lars, what would nature of your action be. When you say “weigh in”, those were your words.

A: Lars: To recommend a national search.

Chair Marston: The Senate can pass a resolution expressing our concern with the process or whatever we want to do. It doesn’t sound like you have come prepared with such a resolution Lars so, I would suggest that for the February meeting



Rev.: 4/22/2015

that if you want the Senate to pass such a resolution that you or somebody have it drafted and on the Agenda as an actionable item so that it can come from the full senate.

Lars: My recommendation would be to do a national search. So, I would certainly not mind making a motion to that extent, but I think it would require a little bit of discussion so we hear what everybody else thinks. I think we are 50 th in the nation, this state when it comes to education. If we want to improve our standing we need new blood. That’s obvious.

Wade Hampton: Does she have the right to do that?

A: Chair-elect Adlish: She has the right to do that.

Q: Chair Purdy: That’s what happened with Dr. Nichols. She was interim and the she was appointed. We didn’t have an issue with that, so why would we have an issue with this? I understand what you’re saying, but the Chair Ruf brought up a good point too. But maybe we can discuss it more.

Lars: I think she was appointed over the break and we didn’t have a chance to give any input on that. It was already done. I don’t believe this is already a done deal.

Chair Purdy: But this senate didn’t come back with a resolution that we didn’t like it.

Chair Marston: There is a difference here. Dr. Nichols position wasn’t changed. She went from the Interim Vice

President to the Acting Vice President with the Student Services position it is title change. It’s Associate Dean, I believe.

Is that’s what it is? She is Dean now. She went from Interim Dean to Associate Dean to Dean and now to Vice President.

Chair Adlish: It’s a salary change too.

Chair Marston: Dr. Nichols pointed out this is the way that Student Services was structured back in 05 when we had a

Vice President.

Chair Ruf: But that person was already in that position. Just because we bump it to a Vice President now, do we fire that person and do national search?

Chair Marston: We have done that before. We followed a similar process before.

Wade Hampton: Armeda was Acting Dean and then there was a national search.

Chair Purdy: That was a different thing too. That was Acting Dean to Dean. This is a person operating in the position the whole time.

Brian Wells: Any way you slice it. It’s an administrative review process. It’s an issue say what we think about it.

Chair Marston: I would encourage the Senate through Lars or the whole Senate if you/we are not happy with this process that we make a formal statement or resolution at the February meeting. So, work on that between now and February.

Chair Marston: Is there any other New Business? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion-To adjourn the meeting

Movant: Melanie Purdy

Second: Brian


Abstentions: None

Adjournment at 2:40 p.m.

*Adjournment time will run no later than 2:30 p.m. unless approved via motion by the Senate.



Rev.: 4/22/2015

F A C U L T Y S... D e c e m be r 1 9, ... Faculty Senate

Appro val of Meetin g A genda (E xh ibit B)

Appro val of Meetin g Minute s from No vember 21, 2014 (E xh ibit C)

President’s Repo rt - Pre sident Ma ria S heehan

Vice P resident of Academic Affairs’ Re port - Vice Pre side nt Jane Nichols

Position Searches this Spring

Textbook Taskforce

Accreditation

Vice President of Student Services

Vice P resident of Finance and Administrative Services - Dr. Ra chel So lemsaa s

Report of Facu lty S enate Chair Ron Marston

Report of Facu lty S enate Chair-E lect - Dr. John Adlish

Consent A genda (A CTION) (E xhib it D)

Committee Repo rts

Student Government Association - Stephanie Prevost, SGA President

Library Committee - Tom Kearns, Chair

Part-Time Faculty Issues Committee - Dawnne Ernette, Chair

Professional Standards Committee - Eddie Burke, Chair

Administrative E va luation Edits Item # 1 (ACTION) (E xh ibit E)

Salary, Benefits & Budgetary Concerns Committee - Steve Bale, Chair

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment (SLOA) - Brian Ruf, Chair

Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment (SLOA) - Brian Ruf, Chair

Old Business

Ne w Bu siness

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib