Faculty Senate
F A C U LT Y S E N AT E M E E T I N G M I N U T E S
No vember 21, 2014
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
Executive Committee member, Student
Learning Outcomes & Assessment
Committee Chair:
Brian Ruf
Library Commitee Chair:
Tom Kearns
Part-Time Faculty Issues Committee Chair:
Dawnne Ernette
Recognition & Activities Committee Chair:
Erin Frock
Senators for Allied Health:
Julie Muhle
Patti Sanford
Senators for Technical Sciences:
Mike Schultz
Brian Ruf
Senators At-Large:
Tommie Guy
Jay Jorgenson
Tom Kearns
Melanie Purdy
Senators for Biology:
Jim Collier
Dan Williams
Senators for Businiess Division:
Robert Kirchman
Nancy O'Neal
Senators for Computer Technology:
Cathy House
Judy Frederickson
Senators for English:
Julie Armbrecht
Robin Griffin
Senators for Humanities:
Tom Cardoza
Wade Hampton
Senators for Math:
Shannon McCool
Lars Jensen
Senator for Physical Sciences:
Matt Leathan
Dan Loranz
Senator for History, Political Science & Law:
N/A
Senators for Social Sciences:
John Coles
Senator for Visual and Performing Arts:
Dan Bouweraerts
Absent: Robin Griffin (her proxy was Julie Armbrecht ), Dan Loranz (his proxy was Dave Boden).
Guests: President Sheehan, Dr. Jane Nichols, Stephanie Prevost, Dr. Rachel Solemsaas, Rich Olsen, Fred Lokken, Travis
Souza, Kyle Dalpe, Sharon Wurm, Michele Meador The meeting was called to order at 12:34 p.m.
Chair Marston: Please be sure to sign in on the sign in sheet (Exhibit A).
Order of Business: Introduction of new member of Senate-Dee Dee Segal. She is our Classified Council Representative.
We used to have a Classified Council Representative on the Senate, it’s in our Bylaws. We haven’t had one for a couple of
years. Thank you very much for being here.
Page 1 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Created: 1/8/2015; Rev: 1/8/2015
Approval of Meeting Agenda (Exhibit B)
Motion: To approve the meeting agenda for November 21, 2014 as submitted.
Movant: Melanie Purdy
Second: Dan Bouweraerts
Vote: Passed unanimously
Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 17, 2014 (Exhibit C)
Motion: To approve the Faculty Senate meeting minutes from October 17, 2014 as submitted.
Movant: Melanie Purdy
Second: Tom Cardoza
Vote: Passed unanimously
President’s Report - President Maria Sheehan
I want to begin with an apology for the upset and the misunderstanding regarding the eLearning Task Force. If you have
been watching email, then you know it has caused quite a bit of consternation that I deeply regret. After I finish talking
hopefully you will feel that there is no need for upset. When there is upset, it takes away the concentration this Institution
needs for students especially this time of year. I know how crammed everything is and how difficult this time of year is for
all of our Faculty. I am sorry that has distracted our key mission here at TMCC.
•
Broader issue is the respect of the role of Faculty. Please know that is paramount especially in discipline areas
where you have the expertise.
•
We work together, Administration and Faculty. We’re never going to disregard the input and the expertise of
Faculty at this Institution.
•
We are very lucky to have the leadership we have here at TMCC.
•
We would never say that “This is something we think nobody wants, but here you go”. That is not going to
happen.
I know there is going to be a little bit of a discussion on this.
•
Know that the Chancellor is on the same page in terms of not going down a pathway that has not had consultation
with the Faculty that is deep and involved before moving forward.
•
The discipline experts are going to know how to resolve an issue.
•
We are going to go to you and ask you, “Here’s a problem, how do we resolve it.”
•
The Administrations’ responsibility is to find resources if we possibly can, or to raise resources needed to
accomplish what we need to accomplish and then working together to find a solution.
I want to thank Ron Marston. Ron you’ve gone into the “Lions Den” on a number of occasions.
•
You have been the advocate for Faculty when I wasn’t there and no one else was there. Ron spoke and your input
was heard.
Dr. Nichols just told me that the University has come up with something different than what it was a week ago. This is
good news for us in terms of where we want to go. I don’t want this to dampen the relationship between Faculty and
Administration.
Page 2 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
•
We have to work together.
•
There is not an intent here to disregard the critical input that we have from leadership at this Institution.
•
The leadership at this Institution is extraordinarily good.
This is morphing by the day. On the 7th of Nov, when I talked with the Chancellor, I let the Chancellor know we would not
be participating in a Pilot at this point in time. The Chancellor never said, “You must participate.”
•
You are going to hear what we might be able to do to take the lead.
•
For over 100 years, Community Colleges have taken the lead in remediation.
•
Do we really want to give that up?
•
How is that we want to lead? That is the question that will be on the table.
We will look for the input that will help us come to the solutions that we need. I am proud of the work of this Institution.
•
Regarding pre-requisites.
•
The issue of remediation.
•
All Community Colleges are doing this across the country.
Every time I hear that a Community College is leading, I go right to that Institution and want to find what they are doing.
•
3 years ago I went to the System in New York. What we heard was that they were making all kinds of outstanding
leaps and bounds in the area of remediation.
What I found as I really dug for the details, was that they were not doing much more than we are already doing. But, they
were getting a lot of attention and focus on their efforts.
I want to acknowledge the efforts of this Institution.
•
I think it has been extraordinary.
•
Let us continue to push the envelope on what innovations can be for the future.
I think the answers are in this room.
•
With your colleagues we can lead in an area that we should not advocate. That leadership should not give that
leadership role to the University. The Chancellor agrees. We had an opportunity to talk with him briefly. Then Dr.
Nichols talked with him some more. He said some things that I think are very encouraging about our Faculty.
Especially about our dependence on the innovative spirit of the Faculty at this Institution.
I am proud of what we’ve done.
•
I encourage you even more. Reaching for the highest level of excellence.
•
A lot of gains have been made.
•
We can never stop pushing the envelope.
•
This means never dropping our rigor or we are no longer a college.
The online remediation effort is not going forward today. You will hear about this from Dr. Nichols. It’s now about how do
we want to forge the future for ourselves.
Yesterday while I was in a lengthy meeting with the Chancellor. He is an extraordinary leader and does an incredible job,
with 13 individuals going 13 different ways. He is taking a special interest in what is going on with Community Colleges.
He has said “Our Community Colleges are not adequately funded. Yet, with the limited resources you are asked to do
everything and you are asked to do it with the students that are the hardest to serve”.
Page 3 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
•
This is a revelation that we are dealing with very tiny budgets.
•
He can now communicate that to the Board of Regents, who has spent most of their time focusing on the
Universities. Now they’re turning their focus.
•
I was very encouraged by this.
•
Every Community College is now going to have to turn their focus to what the issues are.
•
What the Board of Regents are going to hear from the Chancellor is “Yes we are underfunded and yes we’re are
asked to do the hardest job. Let’s look for some solutions along the way. Including the competition with the
University”.
•
All of these things have been acknowledged by our Chancellor. We are making incredible progress there.
At the Ad Hoc Standing Committee of Community Colleges meeting this morning, they acknowledged and came to
approval of the requirements for the Charge of the Advisory Council.
•
The first meeting is February 4th.
•
We will try and televise it. It will be a critical meeting. We will have all the members of our Advisory Council in
place. There will be 8-12 members. No announcement of who they are until we make our requests and acceptance
of the individuals that we’re asking to serve.
•
There will be 4 meetings a year.
•
They will take on some meaty issues, then make recommendations to the Community Committee.
•
The Community Committee will then make recommendations to the Board.
•
We will be talking more about this at the Advisory Council Meeting on Dec. 15th.
Mention of the Vice Chancellor of Community Colleges. The Board Committee did approve the position description for the
Vice Chancellor of Community Colleges.
•
Serving in that role primarily now is Frank Woodbeck.
•
My recommendation would be to appoint Frank Woodbeck to that position. We can then move on seamlessly
without having to go backwards before moving forward.
The Collaborative are doing a number of things:
•
Looking at how we can save money.
•
Come up with some cost savings.
At the retreat on the 4th of November, we talked about 15 different items. A few of the items discussed were:
•
A Communication Plant (that way everyone knows what’s going on).
•
Admissions and records.
•
IT.
•
Shared purchasing.
•
There will be more information at the December 15th Advisory Committee Meeting. -
Check the website for the
Agenda items.
•
Anyone can put an agenda item on to the meeting, but they must provide backup information as well.
I wish you all a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving Season. Thank you.
Chair Ron Marston: Thank you President Sheehan. I want to piggyback on one thing about the Advisory Council.
•
They were approved today. The original draft did not include the Faculty Representative on the Advisory Council.
•
After some push back from the Faculty Senate Chairs, they added the Faculty Representative.
Page 4 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
•
We now have a Faculty Representative on the Advisory Council going forward, that was chosen by the Faculty
Senate Chairs.
Q&A
Q: Which Advisory Council?
Chair Marston: This is the new Institutional Advisory Council.
Q: The Vice Chancellor of Community Colleges?
Chair Marston: Yes. All of the four Community Colleges will be doing these. Their first meeting as President Sheehan
said is on Feb. 4th. I think they’re going to try and use it as an opportunity to promote the Community College, but they
may not televise it.
President Sheehan: We have something extraordinary happening. The President of the AACC, will kick this off.
This has never happened before. This is the outcome of the very painful process that we went through last year (the
special committee on SB391). Originally this was to take us out and then we were not a part of the Nevada System of
Higher Education, with funding unknown. It has morphed to a very good place from where it started.
Chair Ron Marston: At the meeting this morning that I watched on YouTube, I thought it was very positive and I am
happy to see that the outcome from SB391.
Comment - Senator Jensen: Education is the main product we put out at this Institution. My concerns pertain to:
1.
The "deals" we are making with other partners. These deals are not in the interest of the education and hence the
college as a whole. Too many times deals get made without proper involvement of academic departments.
Administrators making the deals don't necessarily understand the details and the academic ramifications of these
deals because (for good reason) they often don't have the academic insights needed, that only a faculty member
has. Often times the intent of these deals is simply to get more students through faster. It is important that we
keep in the back of the mind that this is not all there is to "student success." College is not just about getting
students through fast, but perhaps rather about putting academically competent students out so we can satisfy
employers, and students can get jobs. I would like to give a specific example of the deals that this administration is
making without proper departmental involvement. Which clearly shows some lack of understanding of the affected
academics on the part of administration:
2.
The understanding of the Math Department is that TMCC administration is pushing to offer Math 95 and Math 96 in
the High School and allow HS students to get dual credit for it. This will mean that HS students will be waived from
taking the Accuplacer when they come to TMCC/UNR and can be placed straight into College Math. In the past 9597% of HS students have placed into remedial math after graduation. Keeping in mind that Math 95 and 96 are
substantially smaller (and easier) versions of Algebra I and II. This means that TMCC/UNR will be accepting
students, with no more math skills than previous and go straight into college classes without having to take a
placement test. Matters could be even worse if HS are permitted to take Math 95 and Math 96 IN PLACE of Algebra
I and II, and receive dual credit. This may be part of the plan - we don't know. These kind of policies may induce
HS to lower their level and eliminate Algebra I and II as mandatory courses for all students. Then we'll be dealing
with even worse prepared HS graduates in a few years.
3.
The co-requisite (stretch) idea that allows less prepared students into our courses. Asking for this is essentially
asking us to make the boundaries of our classes’ fluid. Academic departments are built up around the courses they
offer. This is a threat to the whole academic structure of the department. The Math Department already has good
options for students who don't make it into a class for reasons of a low placement score. We have recently
changed policies to permit students to re-take the Accuplacer. Now a student can simply brush up a little and
retake the placement test again for a better score.
Page 5 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
4.
The outsourcing of education to 3rd parties. Our main product at TMCC is education, and instructors are the
experts. We should not outsource anything to 3rd parties whose primary reason to be in education is to make a
profit. It is evident that such companies will not uphold academic standards.
5.
The last hiring process was close to scandalous. It is essential that faculty become in charge of the hiring process
to the extent possible, and that we conduct an honest nationwide search for new faculty. An institution rises and
falls with the quality of its faculty. For a state like NV, which consistently ranks in the 40s among states in any
meaningful statistic about education, it is critical that we conduct nationwide searches and hire from the outside.
Among the major flaws of the last round of hiring was that the Administration took charge with a heavy hand. They
didn't advertise the positions properly, and as a result the pool of candidates was limited. We ended up hiring a
number of local candidates. We need outside blood in this state if we want to get better and rise in the ranks
among states, educationally.
6.
Deans can veto academic policies approved by a department. We have examples of approved departmental policies
where the Dean’s place more weight on the effect the policy may have on numbers short term, rather than the
soundness of the academic reason behind the policy, and hence has proceeded to veto the policy.
7.
Web College informs online instructors that they shouldn't give proctored finals because: This is counter to the idea
of what an online course is. It is burden on students to have to come in for a final. This advice, if followed will
obviously improve pass rates and make Web College look good, but it is not academically responsible in the eye of
many instructors.
8.
Administrators keep polluting the academic environment with administrative issues. The academic side of the
house gets pestered constantly with retention numbers, enrollment numbers, graduation numbers etc. These
issues, which are not the issues of primary concern to Faculty have brainwashed the Faculty to the extent that
departmental actions and initiatives are often being driven by the effect they may have on the numbers, instead of
being driven by academic considerations. The constant administrative interference has created a new normal in the
departments. New faculty members are passively accepting the new normal because they don't know any better.
9.
The effect of the Administrative interference in the academic issue eventually results in instructors becoming
corrupted by it and eventually lowering classroom standards the level the students in the class.
An overall picture is beginning to form where, from a Faculty point of view, it appears that Administration is optimizing
short term gains at the price of doing damage to our long term interest, education. This is done by promoting policies that
improve numbers with little regard on the impact these policies may have on academics. In other words, the approach to
education at TMCC has become about getting more students through school faster rather than about putting out
academically solid students and graduates.
President Maria Sheehan:
Lars I want to thank you. Let me just say one response to that. In a larger arena it’s a whole issue of communication. As
you were reading through the list of things it appears there is a jumble in terms of what’s clear and what’s understandable
and what’s correct. The issue of communication is one that we can spend more time on. It is one that came up with
Classified Council. We can never do enough of it in order to clarify what is fact from what is fiction. I thank you for your
comments and they are something we will most definitely take under consideration. We never have enough clear
communication. I think there a number of misperceptions and there isn’t time to bring them all up here.
Chair Ron Marston:
Thanks you Lars and thank you Dr. Sheehan. You raised a ton of issues Senator Jensen. We don’t have time to visit those
right now. This is not an Agenda item but we can certainly take this apart and look at them individually.
Comment - Senator Jensen: I just want to provide to feedback as a Senator from the Academic side of the House.
Vice President of Academic Affairs’ Report - Vice President Jane Nichols
I am pleased to be with you today. I want to bring you up to date and a few key issues. I am happy to respond to a few
things although I don’t want to get detail since it is not an Agenized
Page 6 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
eLearning Report
I want to postpone my report on the eLearning report until after the Chair’s report and which time I will talk about that and
then I will answer questions.
Spring Enrollment
We have been working hard to increase enrollment for Spring. We are already way up in enrollment and we are only a
week into the official registration.
Some of the programs like our “Jump Start Program” to reach out to High School Students have certainly been one of
those initiatives to help try to meet our target for enrollment. This is part of the increase we think in enrollment.
We don’t know all of the reasons for the increase, but another is you who are doing such a good job with your classes and
also reminding students to register for Spring.
That’s the good news/bad news. There are going to be requests for Faculty and for Academic Departments to put more
sections where we don’t have enough sections to meet student needs.
I want to give you a heads up that this conversations will certainly be taking place. I will be working with Dean’s who will
be working with the different departments to see if it is possible to open new sections and keep our Academic Integrity and
our Rigor at the same time to meet the student demands.
Jump Start
This program is nothing new. We have always had High School Students that have had the ability to come and take our
classes.
It’s simply a new method of reaching out to those Students who are qualified and recommended their high school to take
some of our courses.
Accreditation
We will have an Accreditation Visit for our 7 year Accreditation in September 2015.
There were many people some of you looking around that I see had parts of that report to submit to the Accreditation
Committee.
The Accreditation Committee will be meeting on December 10th to look at the first draft of our Accreditation Response.
That will be then wordsmithed and worked on.
By the time you come back in January. Probably in February and March there will be a number of campus forms to
distribute the documents, to talk about Faculty input and have a campus conversation about Accreditation.
I want to remind you that the purpose of Accreditation in a perfect world it is also an opportunity for the campus to do
self-examination.
This is an opportunity to look at strengths and weaknesses and come together with a sense of where we need to go and
what we need to do for improvement.
I ask for your input and coming to those forums as they go forward.
Associate Dean of Assessment and Planning Search
This is going forward. You will be seeing an announcement go out regarding this position and that search.
Page 7 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Next year is our base year for the 2017 legislative session. I know that seems a long way off but it’s really not. That will
be the year that is critical to us in building more state support for the college and in the years to come.
You will be seeing an announcement go out about that search.
Faculty Search in the Spring
There will be Faculty searches in the Spring. I will be talking more about this at the December Faculty Senate Meeting.
President’s Advisory Council
The new name of our PIO Office is Marketing and Communications. It very clearly and more accurately reflects what they
do and the role they are playing for the Campus.
Dr. Dalpe is here today.
Textbook Taskforce
•
Has had one meeting.
•
You have representatives on that taskforce.
•
At some point after this next meeting we will be seeking campus input on the results of the study we are doing and
what we doing and what were are going to be coming forward with.
•
Stay Tuned. We welcome your input.
Before answering questions on anything accept the eLearning taskforce, I want to hold that off until later,
I will say that
the President is right about communication. But it’s also a great reminder for those of us who sit in these seats that we do
need to communicate better and both ways. Not just telling you what we’re doing but also getting your input.
On Dec. 5th I will be coming to the Math Department I am coming back from the Board of Regents so I can be here and
talk with you and the Math Faculty. I am always open to talk to Faculty and I do hope all of you feel free to come by and
talk with me. The “erosion of academic structure” breaks my heart. That’s the phrase that was used. I have spent my
whole life trying to build academic integrity and excellence, so whatever we are doing to make you think that, we want to
take a good look at.
Q&A
Chair Ron Marston: Are there any questions for Dr. Nichols?
Q: What is the study on the Textbook Taskforce?
A: The study is on how we choose textbooks, what our current practice looks like, how many books are put on reserve in
the library and how often do student use those books. Is that a good model? Should we be doing more? Is that working?
Are these good models?
Another is the cost of textbooks for students. Are there anyways we can address the costs for students. In general I would
say those are the two primary purposes of the Textbook Taskforce.
Chair Ron Marston: Are there any other questions for Dr. Nichols? Thank you very much.
Vice President of Finance and Administrative Services - Dr. Rachel Solemsaas
Thank you for opportunity to provide an update in the Senate. I have been coordinating with Chair Marston about how we
can serve you better. A big part of that of course is managing our resources, particularly on infrastructure side.
Parking
Page 8 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
We are about to plan and have to come up with some recommendations and strategies with regards to parking.
•
When we have a discussion of parking, we definitely have to look at all of the alternatives, which would then
include transit services.
•
I have already worked with Stephanie Prevost so we have representatives from the Students.
•
We certainly need the input and feedback from the Faculty.
•
Our overflow parking that DRI has graciously provided for us, they are in the process of slowly leasing that
property. We have to anticipate that we will have to look for alternatives.
•
That is about 400 parking stalls.
•
Unless we find an alternative we will be short.
•
Fine Arts Center- The President shared with you the vision about the Fine Arts Center. That particular building will
displace some of the parking itself as well.
•
Better to plan now and have some strategies so we can anticipate. It may be a year or two before we put it into
place, depending on funding.
•
We want to make sure that we have that dialogue and define the institutional choices.
Q&A
Q: Can you talk little bit about what is going to happen with the overflow parking with DRI? I was going to mention it as
part of the Advisory Council.
Dr. Solemsaas: We have been given notice that DRI will begin to lease those properties and have some prospects. That
particular spot is prime property. That is the place they want to lease first. So they have given us notice to start looking
for alternatives.
Chair Marston: I will add to that we do have two Faculty Reps on this Parking Taskforce. They are Steve Bale and Kreg
Mebust.
Q: Tom: We used to have an RTC bus that used to come up Virginia and then up to the campus. It doesn’t appear to
anymore. Are we working with RTC at all to get better bus service to campus? I pass students everyday walking from
Virginia Street all the way up to campus.
A: Dr. Solemsaas: Yes, definitely. That is why I have said that this Taskforce is not going to be just about parking. It is
going be parking and transit. Call it the Mobility Task Force.
•
I’m a representative of the Blue Committee for RTC. Unfortunately, I have to report that they are facing deficits so
they are looking at more service reductions. We are hoping we have a voice in their Boards decision.
•
There are alternatives. That is what we want the Taskforce to look at first.
•
UNR is certainly another resource that we can tap into. There is a cost but it is not as expensive as RTC.
•
We have already talked to RTC about the service gap at Raggio and UNR Students and Staff on the NW Side. We
are hoping to see if we can leverage existing routes and what’s UNR’s capacity to help us cover those.
•
If we are going to have parking issues we want to make sure that people have access to the bus system.
•
Our transit use has grown over 400%, since we implemented the discount. We know this is something we need we
will have more users than UNRs’.
SGA: Stephanie Prevost
The Student Government voted on whether to use money out of our reserves to do a Pilot Program for shuttles that would
come from UNR to TMCC, but it was just too much money without an unknown need of how many students would be using
the shuttle system and it would be a large chunk of our savings for Student Government so they voted against doing it,
Page 9 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
but we are in SGA election this year and are going to ask a question on the ballot to implement a transportation fee. This
may help us partner with UNR in order to pay for transportation between UNR and TMCC.
Jim Collier: It seems that would benefit our enrollment to establish a shuttle maybe in cooperation of the UNR shuttle, up
to TMCC and down to UNR. Many UNR Students might come up here and take classes.
Dr. Solemsaas: That’s exactly what we want the Taskforce to address. We need to communicate. We need the resources
to do that. Hopefully we can come up with some strategies and solutions to make that happen.
Report of Faculty Senate Chair Ron Marston
If the Senate doesn’t mind I am going to take items slightly out of order and go straight to the eLearning Report first.
eLearning Initiative
I want to start off with a little information, a little context. On the screen is the summary of information about the
eLearning recommendations that came out last week. There are also printed copies of this. For a little bit of context:
•
This report goes back to 2012, which was the beginning of the Katzs report which some of you may remember. It
was a study done system wide at the request of the System to come up with some recommendations for eLearning
within NSHE.
•
Fall 2013 a little over a year ago, a Steering Committee was formed again at the state level. Two Work Groups
were created at that time.
•
One was Remediation-Math and English Remediation.
•
The other was the eNcore- which was looking at GenEd Classes.
•
The report that you have and probably looked at last week, is from the Remediation Subcommittee.
•
There is a second Subcommittee that has yet to release its recommendations.
•
I have brought this issue up at almost every Senate Meeting in the last year. The concerns I have been hearing
over this last week, these are the same concerns I raised back in December 11 months ago.
The top five bulleted list items on the projector are the summary of what the Chancellor has recommended based on the
report that he received from this eLearning Taskforce. The eLearning taskforce had two Work Groups.
•
Remedial Math Work Group
•
Remedial English Work Group
This is where the Faculty input came into this Taskforce, through these two Work Groups.
•
All the Institutions including TMCC had English and Math Reps on those Working Groups. The Worki Groups made
recommendations to the Taskforce then the Taskforce made recommendations to the Chancellor. Not every
recommendation that came from the Faculty driven Work Groups were adopted by the Taskforce and consequently
by the Chancellor.
I will open up the floor for questions and discussion. But first we will hear from President Maria Sheehan and Dr. Nichols.
President Maria Sheehan:
I was out of town when the Chancellors and I have regretted that repeatedly. I apologize for not being around to engage.
History
2 ½ years ago, the report came out by Richard Katz, which went to the Board of Regents on the possibility of Nevada
moving forward with a more concerted effort in online education. That’s the bottom line.
Page 10 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Out of that then came a Taskforce that was named by the Chancellor on eLearning. Out of that came the 3 Work Groups:
The remedial workgroup, which had English and Math and then the GenEd Work Group.
The report that came out this week: if I were writing a textbook on communication, it would be my chapter one on what
not to do. I know that the Chancellor did not understand that having had a Faculties Representative on a Work Group did
not mean that everybody in the System knew what was going on and bought off on it. That is indeed what happened.
•
The Work Groups that were clearly given a charge to come up with recommendations but not to do anything with
them because they had to go the Chancellor first, to be vetted.
•
The Work Groups sent in a report, not everyone agreeing, and there being a lot of Faculty that disagreed with
parts of it.
•
Then the Chancellor taking that report without vetting it with the Presidents and making a decision on what he felt
was the right thing to go forward with.
•
The Chancellor pulled out 5 recommendations out of 20 broad recommendations that were in that report.
•
In general, it varies by campus what the response was. We were particularly hit hard because of the
recommendation # 2. Which was where both UNR and we were going to do a “Pilot Project” for math and English
remedial with an external vendor.
•
The reality is that both our representatives and Fred Lokken are here, and our Faculty did not anticipate that
recommendation coming out in quite that format. To some extent incomplete to what was actually discussed.
So, here’s where we are today.
•
We are not going to do an outside vendor unless the Math Faculty might decide to do an experiment in a year or
two if they decide to do so.
•
If the English Faculty decides to do that they would be assigned to do that anyway.
•
The primary driving force in considering something like that is if students are unable to get seats in a class on any
given semester. This not an issue we have in general. We do in pockets, but in general this is not an issue.
•
We don’t have to provide a third alternative where in person, online, our online and a vendor online in order to
make sure all students have an opportunity to enroll in the classes they need and progress toward a degree.
•
At this point in time, that is off the table. So you can ignore recommendation #2.
Let me talk a little bit about recommendation #3. Recommendation #3 says, state wide expansion of co-requisite remedial
courses (stretch courses) math, English with statewide placement scores.
•
One of the things that has made this confusing is that long before the eLearning Taskforce was created, the
System has been focusing on remedial math and remedial English until those Faculty felt really beatup. Those
Taskforces have gone forward and have been going forward long before this eNcore effort started. They will
continue to go forward.
•
In my opinion is really not a recommendation at all. It’s an inappropriate document in an inappropriate place.
•
It’s a conversation that will be going on with remedial math and remedial English and the English Faculty and the
Math Faculty at each Institution.
•
How will that play out? Clearly I think that the Regents will be considering a policy that encourages us to do
supplemental instruction/co-requisites, whichever you want to call them.
•
We are already doing this. If you want to look at the spring or fall schedule, we’re way ahead of the curve. We
are already doing all of these things.
•
I get pretty defensive about this because our Faculty are already stepping up in English and in math and doing
these things.
•
This is not a change in what we are doing in many ways, it’s a support of what we are doing. Whatever happens in
this I will keep you informed about this.
Page 11 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
I have to tell you as the last part of the slide shows, there is another report coming. The other report will address many of
the things that were not addressed in the Chancellors 5 recommendations, which will be general education online and
campuses working together for common learning outcomes or common courses or common whatever.
As the President said this morning, we do not anticipate the problems with communication and vetting and thorough
consultation with Faculty on that report that we got on this report. Things have slowed down. That report will not go out
by the Chancellor until it has been vetted by the Presidents, the Vice Presidents and the Faculty Senate.
Q&A
Q: Senator Ruf- What I understand was this was a 3 tier evaluation that was a recommending body that gave their
recommendations to another body, then gave their recommendation to the Chancellor.
Dr. Nichols: I think that’s accurate. I would have to ask Fred. Fred, is that what happened? Fred: It went from the
Workgroup to the Taskforce to the Chancellor.
Q: Senator Ruf- So in each step how many recommendations were removed?
Fred Lokken: To my knowledge none were removed at the Taskforce level. We accepted the report for the remedial math
and English. They were asked after it was first submitted they were asked to go back and find a way which they could
provide substantiation data for their positions that took a chunk of the month of May because they were all trying to finish
their classes. So this was what at the end of May and various aspects of the report, each of the recommendations on the
report were brought up and discussed, approved and then the report was moved forward.
Comment - Stephanie Prevost: This is in regard to item#2 that you said to ignore, but I have letters from three
different students and I just wanted to read one of them in regards to removing all remedial math and English courses to
an online system and using a third party vendor for that.
•
I know several students that have gone through the math skills center at least 2-3 times and they do have an
instructor assigned to them. Who they meet with for 10 mins a week, I understand that you’ve said you are not
completely doing away with remedial in class courses, even expanding that online only element I think would be
detrimental to students as a whole.
Dr. Nichols: I will say that yes, you’re right. There was never any intent that this replace anything. It was always in
addition too, as a “Pilot Project”. You may know that for the Math Skills Center, we have expanded the opportunity for
those students to take in person classes as well as the Math Skills Center because we do understand that many students to
better in a classroom setting or in a lab setting or maybe online. But we would never cut back on our own offerings.
Comment - Senator Wells: I have been hearing about in the hallways is about bullet point #4 under the Next Steps and
Questions. Where it says “Same course content statewide. Who controls content? Things like textbook choices, Professors
Teaching to their strengths and control of the content. These are the concerns I’ve been hearing.
Fred Lokken: We need to understand that we’re dealing with a very narrow, something that doesn’t currently exists
discussion. So anything that an individual institution does, anything that the departments at that institution do, is not
touched by this. This is a new option recommended through the Katzs report that would develop a set of general
education classes that would be co-offered at hopefully all 7 institutions. In doing so then, the issue here is to realize they
would be delivered here online and that they may be students that are even residing in Nevada. There may be students
that are in other states that find that these are the classes they want to sign up for. So any of the discussions about
support for them are really beyond the notion of those students that can be supported in the current campus environment
that each of the 7 institutions have created. It’s what you do now when you have a student who is not physically able to
visit any of the 7 campuses. How are they helped? That’s what the discussions for remedial math and English through
their work group and what’s been guiding this discussion as we go forth. I just wanted that clarification.
Q: The majority of opinion was something other than this recommendation?
Page 12 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair Marston: My understanding is that the Work Groups made their recommendations to the Taskforce, and there was
actually a survey of the Taskforce members about what level they agreed with the recommendation coming from the Work
Groups. From there the Taskforce made their recommendations based on the survey. Is that accurate Fred?
Fred Lokken: Yes, that is very accurate. Then with the understanding that with any recommendation that might have
majority support of the Taskforce, the Chair, the Co-Chair the Chancellor and Mark Fink from UNLV, had established the
practice that a minority view could be expressed. We’re finding that with the E-and
Core Work group that sometimes there are one or more individuals that really want something to be heard so
they offer it up as a minority plank so it appears officially in the report, indicates that it wasn’t necessarily solidarity on
that point and offers up a different point of view. That is all it’s really supposed to be.
Q: Senator Coles: I would like clarification on the “We’re not going forward with the Pilot for third party vendors”. Is UNR
going forward with a third party?
Dr. Nichols: I was in conversation this morning with Prevost, Kevin Carmen at UNR and we have kind of mutually agreed
that neither one of us are going forward. So UNR is not going forward. The Chancellor has accepted that. The President
and I talked to him this morning and he understands our reasons and that recommendation will be more or less removed if
you will from his Agenda.
Q: Chair Bale- A questions that came to our Salary, Benefits Committee from some of our Math Faculty. I have already
talked about this with Vice President Nichols. The question was a number of years ago. President Sheehan came to the
Faculty and specifically to the Math Faculty and told them to stop teaching remedial math online because it wasn’t
statistically beneficial. What now is going to change system wide to make it statistically beneficial?
Dr. Nichols: I wasn’t here then. The only thing I can say to you is coming in and looking at it historically that if that is
still the case then we will not do online. But we are doing some online and I think our data are looking more hopeful for
student success. Other colleges are having more success. We’re learning more about why students don’t succeed and if
you remember we put certain criteria that only certain students could go into online. What we didn’t do then and what
we’re trying to do now is build-in a “hold their hand” we’re trying to build in a someone who checks on them every single
week and ask how they are doing and if they’re checking in. Unlike the students in your class we know exactly what kind
of work they’re doing. How often they’re doing it and when they’re not. Why? Why spend all that time and energy when
they could just be in a classroom. Because it’s not always possible, some students prefer the online and it’s the world we
live in. We are competing with all the other colleges out there. We want the students to come to us. If they data is the
same, the President will not change her mind.
Q: Chair Marston: Is this memo is a part of the Regents Agenda in Dec? What will they be doing with this?
Dr. Nichols: I had not asked that question. Normally, our report comes out. The Regents are very interested in this
topic. The Chancellor gives a report to the Board and generally the Board will make a motion to support the Chancellor
and the report and his work. It is in my experience that would be done. So I would anticipate if it is an Action Item that
would be the action taken.
Q: Were you saying it would be revised to remove item #2 under the Summary of the Chancellors recommendations
before the Board of Regents votes on it?
Dr. Nichols: The material is already out for the Board of Regents so I would anticipate at the Regents Meeting that the
Chancellor will indicate that is not going to happen.
Q: Chair Marston: Is this remedial process going to wait for the eNcore report so they move forward together or are these
two independent things that will take their own tracks down?
Fred Lokken: I honestly don’t know. The process will be different and we always recognize that it will be for this because
we have at this point in time approximately 25 draft recommendations that the work group has identified. Hopefully the
Page 13 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
last meeting of the workgroup is this coming week Tuesday. We have 7 Faculty, one from each of the Community
Colleges. Crystal Swank represents TMCC in that dialogue and each of the 7 DE Directors, which comprise a 14 member
group. Based on final agreement of what week we have come up with recommendations and then have to go through
more of a vetting process. Dr. Nichols and I have been talking what really should have been used to earlier on. For us, we
have at least 3 of the recommendation that we’ve punted on. We’re not the experts on things related to Faculty and so
we’ve recommended that the Academic Vice Presidents of the Institution make the best recommendations so their needs
are represented. Under this scenario we know that it will have to move onto the Academic Vice President for review. Then
the Presidents need to be involved. On Tuesday I want the group to agree that we advocate that there be somewhere in
this step a Campus wide forum, so faculties have a chance to come in so we have honest reaction at each one of the
Campuses. The good news is that we have been operating with this deadline of Fall2015, which was still in place in
May/June. But it looks like we are now able to have more breathing room. We asked to be able to move onto the March
meeting.
Q: Chair Marston: At the bottom of the list here, are the “Next steps and Questions”. I am expecting that some of these
may be addressed in this eNcore Report that’s coming out at some point. None of this is addressed at all and I don’t think
it was intended to be in this remedial report that we’re talking about. Is it that a fair thing to say and is it also fair to say
that some of the content that comes from the eNcore report would apply to the processes/procedures for this remedial?
Fred Lokken: That’s exactly the charge. It’s called the Gen Ed courses, notion of Gen Ed. We got 95% of the charge that
was given to the Taskforce. Everything from naming what this contortion would look like to how it would be governed to
how it would be structured and organized, how it would be represented, how will textbooks be handled, all the Faculty
issues, Student Services, literally it’s a shopping list. The currently draft is 45 pages. We are now re-writing it to 8 pages.
We had a lot of questions to look at and a lot of questions to answer. Exactly, it’s called the charge.
Q: Tom Kearns: The honest truth is nothing is ever said about Accessibility. What will happen is that something will be put
into place and then we’ll have to build-in accessibility. Can ADA requirements or accessibility in the midst of this.
Fred Lokken: We required a set of guiding principles be approved by the eLearning Taskforce before this group was
formed last March. ADA compliance, commitments to and agreed to set of standards. There were a number of things that
no matter what we did, was to answer them so there was an accessibility section.
Q: Did you find the item on the Faculty Senate?
Chair Marston: No, I do not see it on there. If I find it I will follow up with what the Regents intend to do (note: it was
not on the agenda).
RPAC Report - Retirement Plan Advisory Committee
•
We have two representatives from the Faculty Senate.
•
Dan Williams is our Faculty Rep as well as a System Level Faculty Senate Rep- Brad Summerhill. in the minutia and the details I can send you the actual reports.
•
Very low fees.
•
Good transparency.
•
Consultants available to Faculty.
-
If interested
Is a pretty positive report.
Parking Task Force
Dr. Solemsaas has already covered this information. So, if there are not question about it, I will move forward. I will say
that it is very likely in my personal opinion that we will eventually end up with parking fees and parking permits. I don’t
know where we are going to find the money to create a parking garage and parking lots.
Q: Will this impact the employees at the Campus like it does with UNR or is only going to be past to students?
Page 14 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair Marston: This only my “Ron Marston’s Opinion”, everyone will pay just as it is at UNR. I will be a sad day when
that happens. It’s the reality of the economic world we live in right now.
Part-time Instructor Taskforce
I mentioned this at the last Senate Meeting- The summary was released right after. Overall this is very positive for our
Part-Time Faculty. Remember that this Senate does represent all Faculty here. This is on the Agenda for the December
Board of Regents Meeting. I imagine it will be approved and these will be changes to the NSHE Handbook. This may
affect the Senate with some of the things we do here.
Shared Governance Participation - from the Taskforce report:
Institutions shall provide shared governance opportunities for part-time instructors to communicate their concerns to
campus administration and participate in the development and implementation of policies and procedures related to parttime instructors.
What this may precipitate is that this Senate over the last three years has voted on whether we want a voting part-time
faculty representative. This will probably precipitate another go round of that process. So, keep this in mind. This body
already represent part-time faculty in that we have a Part-time Faculty Committee and a Parttime Faculty Chair. That
position does not have a vote currently.
Q&A
Q: Senator Jensen: Haven’t we spoken enough times on this issue? Does it make sense to keep bringing the same issue
up again and again?
Chair Marston: Perfectly valid question. What I would say is say is that we voted on this twice. Both times the tally was
very close. I believe it was defeated once by two votes and then again by one vote. If it had been an overwhelming
majority that was not supported by the Senate then I would say let’s not waste our time, although I can’t say that as the
Chair. Committees can bring any resolutions for votes to this body. But because it was such a close vote I think it is valid
for us to revisit.
Q: Senator Jensen: By extinction then, you’re saying that if next time you vote it through with one vote we will have to
vote on it again the following year or is the goal just to get it through? I don’t see why the closeness of the vote has any
impact on how often we vote on something.
Chair Marston: If it were very clear that the full Senate would not want this, then there isn’t much point bringing it back.
But it isn’t that clear. It was very, very close. In fact the reason it was defeated last as I recall was due to having several
abstentions. That’s what actually brought it down. It is not up to me or you to decide what can come to the Senate, the
standing committees have the right to bring action items to the full Senate and the Chair does not and should not have the
ability to say no to that. It is up to the full Senate to decide.
Q: Senator Kirchman: I’d just like to suggest that in regards to this and all other issues independent of previous voting
outcomes that we continue to follow our rituals and parliamentary procedures.
Chair Marston: That’s absolutely right.
Q: Senator Ruf: The way I read it, it says “shall provide…..and there is more provisions for shared governance than just
Faculty Senate on this campus.
Chair Marston: That is a good observation. There are other pathways; I mentioned to the President yesterday that the
President Advisory Council might be a spot for a Part-time Faculty Representative. I researched whether or not we have
ever had a Part-Time Rep on the President’s Advisory Council, and we have not.
Page 15 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Q: Senator Hampton: That sounds like a very good idea. Then the person who is here can vote. That would be another
way. It’s pretty miniscule anyway, but at least it’s giving them some voice.
Q: There isn’t a motion on the floor for this?
Chair Marston: No, it’s just information and discussion.
Report of Faculty Senate Chair-Elect - Dr. John Adlish
I am going to go to “B” first.
President’s Advisory Committee
•
It’s been brought up to the President’s Advisory Council about having a slight organizational change within
regarding the way that we get in contact with businesses or they get in contact with us.
•
We don’t have a central person where businesses would call us that need services or if they want to help us with
something.
•
Instead we have all of these different areas where a business would have to go to. It’s difficult to map this out if
you’re a business or entrepreneur.
•
What’s being suggested is to come up with a single point of contact. This would mean to find the person that can
be that contact person.
Kyle Dalpe: That’s correct. In fact today we had a request from E-Dawne business they’re bringing into town next week.
This is a perfect example of when a business asks for certain information from us. We need a single point of contact for
services for employers. This would include things like do we have a job fair, how do we place graduates, do we have an
internship program, online job boards, workforce training. That is just five of the things we offer employers and they are
all headed by a separate person. That’s why as Don said we need a point of contact/liaison. We are trying to build that
into existing resources and not run out and hire someone.
Parking
The parking lot that is dirt right now that has the fence running along it, within 1 year to 1-1/2 years will be gone.
•
When that is done, what are the provisions?
•
What are we going to do next?
•
The answer can’t be to show up at 8am, or to say fine, I’ll teach an 8 am class.
•
This is a serious thing. The state of Nevada does not give monies to colleges and universities for parking garages.
You have to have fees.
•
The parking fees have come up again.
•
We need to begin instituting these fees so we can start to pay for a parking garage.
•
The last academic master plan, or facilities master plan had a parking garage right out where the Facilities is now
located. It would be built down so you could walk across the parking lot in the daytime without any tunnels and
get up here to campus safely.
•
If that parking lot goes away within the next 12-18 months, all of us are going to have issues with parking we will
need lights and sidewalks way down there for safety.
•
These are some very important issues that Faculty.
•
Students can be late for class. Administrator/Faculty cannot.
PIO: Marketing and Communications
PIO is now called Marketing and Communications. Is that correct?
Page 16 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Kyle Dalpe: It is.
•
It’s not a change that requires board approval.
•
We are sharing with groups and will also have an email send out possibly this afternoon that will clearly identify
what identify what this does.
•
Marketing and Communications is what we’ve done for years.
•
The Public Information Office was set deep within the Institutions Advancement Office a few years back, so it is
kind of confusing. Renaming will hopefully help clear that confusion up.
Q&A
Q: Is this more than just a name change or are you actually making changes to duties of the people who are there?
Kyle: Kate Kirkpatrick will serve as the Director of that office. That is a job upgrade for her. That’s the capacity she has
been in since the beginning of this calendar year. There is more shuffling in there but there are is additional staff.
Q: And no additional budget?
The marketing budget will be the same. It’s actually been reduced over the past couple of years. The only increase in
budget we received was a one time the Foundation gave us $240,000 over three years to run a completely new campaign.
Administrative Evaluation Council
We will have an Advisory Council that advises the Community College with members from the Community and Business.
President Sheehan had suggested to look internally at the organizational charts and structure. I’m not sure what exactly
that meant.
This was mentioned at the President's Advisory Council.
Q&A
Q: Chair-Elect Aldish: Do you know anything about the Advisory Council Committee?
Kyle Dalpe: No. The Community College Committee met this morning. Out of that is coming this Institution Advisory
Council.
The idea is that this Council meets February 4th.
Information from that Institutional Advisory Council goes to the Boards. Then to Community College Committee. Then to
the Board of Regents.
This Advisory Group comes out of the SB391, as a way for us to hear at a higher level everything the community needs
and for us to be responsive.
When we got started with the Business Services in order to make sure that we are responsive. Otherwise we might throw
ourselves into another cycle of the Colleges aren’t responsive to the Community. So, the Advisory Committee is a piece of
that and begins February 4th.
Administrative Evaluation Committee
The Administrative Evaluation Committee has been meeting and has been making some progress.
•
I presented this first draft to Professional Standards Committee and the President’s Advisory Council.
•
My goal was to then get this in there because we have to go through multiple readings and PAC, then we back to
the Faculty Senate for approval.
•
The top paragraph is what we started out with and that is what the Committee had recommended.
Page 17 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
•
Professional Standards approved this.
•
I then took it back to the Presidents Advisory Council. We had a pretty good discussion there.
•
o
Administration Concerns: The Institutionalization and the wording that went along with that.
o
We want this to get into the TMCC Policy Manual and the Board of Regents Bylaws.
“Deans, vice presidents and other administrator who supervise faculty will be evaluated on job performance at
least once every two years. The evaluation of deans and other administrators who supervise faculty, will include a
surveys of faculty and classified staff who are supervised by the administrator. The faculty senate chair or his/her
designee, the faculty senate chair-elect or his/her designee, a representative from Human Resources and the VPAA
will meet to review the survey results and supervisee comments on a date prior to the date on which the VPAA
issues his/her final evaluation of the administrator. The results of evaluations of vice-presidents will be forwarded
directly to the President and the president will meet with the senate chair, chair-elect, and a representative from
human resources to review the survey results. If the evaluation results in an unsatisfactory rating, a job
performance evaluation will be required in the following academic year”.
•
The first part of this draft where it states: Deans, vice presidents and other administrator who supervise faculty will
be evaluated on job performance at least once every two years. This is the biggest sticking point.
•
Several Administrators who would like to see this change.
•
Rich Olson from HR is on the Committee and as we’ve discussed this, it would really change or override the Board
of Regents Handbook so that is says this is our evaluation process.
•
We want it to say that potentially we don’t change that the BOR Handbook states that Administrators are to be
evaluated every year.
•
We want to do is to add to this so that there is faculty input and faculty survey input that goes into those
evaluations.
•
The survey input could be up to two years.
•
Chair Burke suggested every year.
•
VP suggested three years.
•
I am leaning toward every year now because it would make it easier to put into the process.
•
For example, if this was a dean. The faculty would be surveyed and then that would go with the out the VP, the
Senate Chair, Chair-Elect and a representative from HR will meet to go over the evaluation.
•
This is for transparency and accountability.
•
I will be re-working this with some of the changes that Administrators want me to add in there.
•
It will come back to the President’s Advisory Committee, Professional Standards, then they will approve it.
•
What is on the Agenda today is does the Faculty Senate approve having input from Faculty that every year/two
every two years from the Faculty on their Dean, on the Vice President or anybody who supervised faculty on
campus?
•
This way we can get the support of Senate to say “Yes, we agree to have the policies in place. In both the Bylaws
and the Policy Manual”.
Q&A
Q: Dan Williams: Additionally that we will also be surveying classified people who work with the Dean, with the
Administrators as well? Since this is the Faculty Senate we are focusing on the Faculty. But other’s will have input as well.
Chair-Elect Aldish: Yes. Exactly.
Q: Are you asking us to vote on something today? Eddie Burke from Professional Standard will.
Q: Senator Kirchman: I think it’s a great policy and thanks to you John and everyone else’s input. Skipping to the punch
line: "If the evaluation results in an unsatisfactory rating, job performance evaluation will be required in the following
academic year”. Is that the longest and sharpest teeth we can put in this thing?
Page 18 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair-Elect Aldish: Probably not, but what we are trying to look for here is some sort of parenting. If it were something
egregious, that on harassment or something illegal that is a whole different route that has to go to and HR.
Chair Marston: I want it to be clear that this draft voted today has already changed or is in the process of changing from
what you are really voting on. This vote needs to be a little bit more of a symbolic vote. We support the Administration
being evaluated in some manner similar to what is on the screen here. We are a little bit backwards here because this
went to the President’s Advisory Council on Monday, 5 days ago. It should have been approved by the Senate first but the
PAC allowed us to run them parallel. As John said they are already proposing changes to the verb age and it is not nailed
down yet. I want to make sure that you are clear on this when we get to the vote. There is not really much point in
having discussion about the detail of the policy as it sits here because it is likely to be different.
Consent Agenda (ACTION) (Exhibit D)
Motion: To approve the Consent Agenda
Chair Marston: Any deletion or changes to the Consent Agenda? Hearing none I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
All those in favor?
Movant:
Second:
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
Committee Reports
Student Government Association - Stephanie Prevost, SGA President
•
SGA is done with our events for the Fall.
•
Last week we did a scholarship and community lunch.
•
What we are planning now is for Welcome Week.
•
We are also starting an initiative to get a question on the SGA ballot on implementing a fee for the Fine Arts Center
that has been presented in the master plan.
•
The Taskforce that Dr. Solemsaas was talking about regarding transportation. SGA is planning on getting as much
participation in elections this spring as we can so we can get a real gauge of student support on a transportation
fee that would go towards parking as well as shuttle from UNR.
Classified Council - Dee Dee Segal
•
A few things going on…fundraisers, fundraisers, fundraisers.
•
We have our fitness fundraiser that will be going on from Jan-April. Groups of 5 people putting in $20 apiece. It’s
kind of like the Biggest Loser. I have some flyers here. You can sign up if interested.
•
Turkey raffle- This is an annual thing. I also have those here for sale. .50 for 1, 3 for $1, 15 for $5. The proceeds
will benefit Classified Council. We have at least 10 turkeys we are raffling this year.
•
Silent Basket Auction coming up. That will be happening on Dec. 3. The deadline to donate baskets would be Dec.
1st. Please see Tony Hippart about that.
Chair Marston: Thank you Dee Dee for being here. Donna Clifford who is the President of the Classified Council
suggested that since we have Dee Dee on our Senate now, that she is happy to have a Faculty Representative on the
Classified Council. If you are interested, please contact me.
Page 19 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Recognition and Activities Committee - Erin Frock, Chair
Distinguishing Faculty Award
Professional of the Month – We are accepting applications for both Teaching and Service. Nominations are open until Dec
12th.
•
These are the big awards that are recognized at Commencement every year.
•
I am sending around a nomination form.
•
If there is someone you feel strongly you would like to nominate this year please let me know.
•
Nominations are open until Dec 12th.
•
Then we will be forming a Committee to review nominations.
•
If you are interested in being on the Awards Committee please let me know.
Activities
Our annual Holiday Party will be Wednesday, Dec 10th from 3-5 pm in the Student Center.
Chair Marston: I’m sure you can all think of a distinguished colleague in the teaching or service categories. Please
nominate one of your fellow colleagues for such an award.
Library Committee - Tom Kearns, Chair
•
This reflects November’s Committee Meeting. We discussed our two successful panels.
•
The Middle East Panel was attended by 85 students.
•
The Second Annual Monster Created, Monsters Invented and Monsters Within Panel-was attended by 118 students.
•
All the Professors involved did a great job and really raised the academic thought in thinking throughout the
discussions.
•
In the spring we are going to have two more functions
o
•
One is a panel of local growers and chefs.
Professor and writer Jennifer Hutley Smith present her newest and latest book.
Part-Time Faculty Issues Committee - Dawnne Ernette, Chair
This morning was our last meeting for the semester.
Part-time Faculty of the Month Award
•
November: Sharon Hanson from CNA
•
December: Carmen Negra from the Division of Business
PTI Taskforce
•
We are looking forward to hearing what the Board of Regents has to say and what they decide.
•
The Committee is working on revising a document that was developed previously that has to do with best practices
for Part-time Instructors. We will go further with that in February.
Professional Standards Committee - Eddie Burke, Chair
Policy Statement Admin Evaluations (Action Item)
This is the item that John Aldish mentioned earlier. 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.
Page 20 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
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.
Policy Statement Administrative Evaluation (ACTION) (Exhibit E)
Motion: to Approve the Policy Statement Administrative Evaluation
Movant: NA
Second: NA
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
Merit Appeals Process
Part of the NFA contract now is if you disagree with your Annual Evaluation you can have an appeal. This is an NFA
Contract Statement regarding grievances and Annual Performance Evaluations.
Based on this language, Professional Standards has come up with some suggestions of those Merit Appeals Committee.
There will be a separate Faculty Administrative Appeal.
Suggestions for the make-up for the Merit Award Appeals Committees.
Academic Faculty Appeals Committee
•
The members of the academic faculty appeals committee (MAAC) are selected by faculty senate, who shall gather
a pool of twelve (12) tenured faculty members to form four (4) different sub-committees. The members in the
pool must be available to work off contract from mid-May to mid-June. Service on a committee will count toward
the following annual plan. If members of the pool are never assigned an appeal, they may not count this toward
the following annual plan.
•
When a faculty member submits an appeal to the faculty senate chair elect, their appeal is assigned (by the faculty
senate chair elect) to one of these four sub-committees.
•
Each sub-committee shall review as close to an equal number of appeals as possible.
Administrative Faculty Appeals Committee
Formation of the separate administrative appeals committee would be similar to above.
Q&A
Q: Senator Wells: Julie Muhle is the NFA Acting President or VP for today right?
Julie Muhle: Secretary.
Q: Senator Wells: Have you heard anything in NFA about changes, because they are still renegotiating the contract 15 to
this article 13?
Julie Muhle: We had a meeting today. We did not talk about this at all.
Page 21 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair Marston: I can probably address this. That Article 13, we are not voting on. This was passed by the NFA last
semester. I don’t anticipate that they are going to revisit it; there is no reason for them to. We have not implemented it
for the first time yet. I don’t know why they would pass it then the next semester make changes to it. So I don’t think
that will happen.
Chair Burke: Regardless we are stuck to this contract as it is right now. Chair Marston: That is true also.
Senator Jensen: I just want to say that the time scale in the document, I think the latest you can get the result from the
Appeals Committee is the 26th of June. The process can drag out for 40 days if you read carefully. That brings us back to
May 1st and that is not including any time it takes to setup meetings and actually set down that committee members. So if
the faculty member gets their evaluation on May 1st, it’s virtually impossible to stick to a time frame.
Chair Marston: We labored over that time line. We have a very short window. We could not push forward the date that
faculty have to turn in their evaluations any more than we have. It is already earlier than we would like. We couldn’t push
back when they had to be done by due to July 1st obviously when contracts are signed. HR needed it a week prior to that
because it is a lot of data for them to assimilate and work with, so I think the June 26th is the deadline. The NFA President
Hammett insisted that there be, I have it written as 5 days of time in between all of these steps. She insisted that it be 10
days to give faculty ample time to mole over things. No one could come up with a better time line that what we have
established here. NFA is on board with this. I am on board with this as the Senator.
Senator Jensen: I am just pointing out it is almost impossible to stick to the plan if it drags out.
Chair Marston: I respectfully disagree with you. One way or another we will find out in April or May.
Q: Chair-Elect Aldish: I see here it says the Chair Elect. There should be a provision there to say in June, I will be gone
most of the month. Should we have something that says Chair-Elect or designee?
Chair Burke: That’s not covered in the contract? Can I actually change that?
Chair Marston: That’s not addressed in Article 13 at all. That’s only in our document.
Chair Burke: I’m okay with that, I can write it or designee.
Chair-Elect Aldish: I have no problem doing it. I am just only here for a couple of weeks. Senator Jensen has already
pointed out it’s a tight timeline.
Chair Burke: So you’re saying that #2 should be changed to “When the faculty member submits an appeal to the faculty
senate Chair-elect or his/her designee, their appeal is assigned (by the Faculty Senate Chair-elect or his/her designee)….
Chair Bale: For clarification, we are having a Faculty Senate Election for a new Chair-Elect. They take office June 1st so
you become the Chair on June 1st. Chair-Elect Aldish: I don’t take office until July 1st
Chair Bale:No, they take office June 1st.
Chair-Elect Aldish: I don’t think that’s correct. All of the contracts don’t go from June 1st.
Chair Bale: I understand that.
Chair Purdy: I think that is a good addition.
Chair Burke: We can probably leave that wording in and just add designee.
Chair-Elect Aldish: It might be a good addition. Since there is not guarantee whoever follows me will also be here.
Page 22 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair Burke: We could leave this until the next one and just use it as a 1st trial and then leave it until the next one? Is
that a better idea?
Senator Jensen: The other thing I would say is I go abroad every year. If you get a bad evaluation from May 1st and
you’ve scheduled summer vacation starting a few weeks later, that’s not really fair to the faculty member. Their paid for 9
months a year and the other 3 months, I don’t think you can involve the faculty member in committee meeting beyond
May 20th, beyond the end of the contract.
Chair Burke: We are stuck with the contract as written. That’s what the contract states, so yes.
Senator Jensen: Does the contract says what to do if the faculty member is out of the country, in the amazons or
whatever, what is the faculty member can’t be reached? You are asking a faculty member to work during a time when
they are actually not paid to.
Chair Marston: Senator Jensen, it’s a voluntary process. If you don’t want to serve on the Merit Appeals Committee then
you don’t serve on it.
Senator Jensen: I am talking about the member who has received the unsatisfactory evaluation.
Chair Marston: So you’re saying that if the Faculty Member decides to appeal their decision and they’re planning on
going out of the country? That is a valid question.
Senator Jensen: I t’s not so much what the faculty member’s doing, it’s the fact that you are asking the faculty member
to sort this out at a time which is in contract. What I am saying is these issues should be resolved before coming forth.
Chair Bale: There’s not merit then. It has to be done before the Merit Evaluation. If you don’t have to apply for merit
then there is no grievance.
Chair Marston: The faculty member isn’t really doing the work here. The Appeal Committee is doing the work and the
Administrator and the Dean is doing the work. The Faculty Member initiates the appeal process. Some of that happens
within the contract of the Faculty Member. The other half happens after that. The Faculty member has to participate in
the process but I don’t think it’s accurate that they are doing the work here.
Senator Jensen: Well when you respond to the appeal. You have 10 days to respond.
Chair Marston: That’s correct. That would probably be done via email.
Senator Jensen: We have to protect the faculty member, right?
Chair Marston: Senator Jensen, I would entertain alternate suggestions for a timeline from you. Not at this meeting.
Q: Can we possibly motion it that Chair Burke asked to table it until next month?
Chair-Elect Aldish: He’s already asked the question. Anyone can call for the vote. Brian has already said can we motion
to call for the vote?
Senator Brian Ruf: Call for a vote?
Chair Marston: Calling for the vote requires that we vote on whether we call for the vote. That requires a two-thirds
majority, which will be a waste of time. I would just ask the Senate if they want to pass this or table it.
It could be brought back at the next Senate.
Chair Purdy: I am in favor of tabling it.
Chair Marston: It’s already an action item on the floor. So, if we want to table it then Eddie would just withdraw.
Page 23 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair Burke: I withdraw.
Annual Plan
We are revisiting the Annual Plan Document. I will have some suggestions coming to you at the next meeting, with
possible changes to annual plan document. I am hoping this will be relatively minor, insignificant changes.
Chair Bale: Are we going to extend the meeting?
Chair Marston: It’s up to you guys. You can either call to end the meeting right now or call to extend it.
Chair-Elect Aldish: I motion to extend the meeting until 2:45 pm.
Motion: to extend the meeting until 2:45 pm
Movant: Chair Adlish
Second: Tom
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
Salary, Benefits & Budgetary Concerns Committee - Steve Bale, Chair
Sabbatical Committee
We met today. We finalized our work.
•
Meeting Monday morning with the President, so that is going forward.
Q&A
Q: Chair Purdy: The names are what is going forward. Right? Chair Bale- Yes.
Bylaws Change (Action item)
Was brought forth for a 1st reading at the last meeting.
•
We changed that verbiage in order to satisfy that a change in the bylaws to those charges for the Salary, Benefits
Committee in line with the new salary scale that was changed from the steps.
Bylaw Change (ACTION) (Exhibit F)
Motion: to Approve the Bylaw Change
Movant: Chair Adlish
Second: Tom
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
TMCC Summer School Policy
Page 24 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Redline version of the TMCC Summer School Policy that went through the Salary and Benefits Committee. The only
signification with the red vs the blue, is that we had some changes in one meeting and then some changes in another. Or
changes that came up in the next meeting. This was passed in total at the last meeting. Since having it passed, I have
had meetings with both the VPAA Dr. Nichols and President Solemsaas questions whether or not this is prudent. Both
indicated that they hope we pass it today even though it may not end up being the final policy. They think it’s a good step
forward. I will represent that they both told me that. The research and in the findings:
Truckee Meadows Community College
•
Faculty who teach in Summer school and are on a “B” contract during the academic year, and whose class has a
maximum student capacity of 18 or more, regardless of enrollment, will be paid 1.875 percent of their base
contract amount from the TMCC salary scale per contact hour. The per-contact amount cannot exceed the faculty
member’s range nor be below the part-time faculty rate. For classes that are below the student capacity of 18, the
compensation rate shall be negotiated but shall not be less than the part-time rate used during the spring
semester immediately preceding the summer session.
•
Faculty who are part-time during the academic year will be paid for summer teaching on a per-credit basis
according to the same part-time rate used during the Spring semester of that academic year.
•
Should a financial exigency be declared, the president or designee may, in lieu of cancelation, negotiate and
establish a mutually agreeable rate less than the maximum provided above for each instructor.
•
Faculty may teach nine credits in Summer school. Additional credits may be taught under extenuating
circumstances when recommended by the department chair and with the approval of the dean and the vice
president of academic affairs. Compensation above the maximum or full load will be compensated at the part-time
faculty rate only.
•
Faculty who are on an “A” contract during the academic year will be considered as teaching an overload and be
compensated at the part-time rate unless their contract specifically requires a Summer school load in which case
they will not receive any additional stipend.
•
*To be included in BoR Procedures and Guidelines Manual Chapter 3.
I propose this policy for your vote.
Chair Marston: Vice President Solemsaas had to agree with Steve that the amount of money we’ve been saving by
dropping some of the faculty salaries to accommodate lower class sizes is miniscule and fairly insignificant to the big
picture. However, she did have some concerns about this. Remember this is in Board Policy. Remember this has to be
approved by our Vice President, President, Chancellor and the Board of Regents. She had some concerns whether that
would happen. What I believe will happen so all of you know, assuming you vote to approve this today, this draft will be
used as the foundation moving forward for a Summer School Pay Taskforce that will have faculty and administrative reps
on it. It will probably be administered by VPFA Solemsaas, to come up with a policy that may be this or may be different.
She has promised this will be the foundation of the committee moving forward.
In order that a policy is drafted, that will
actually pass the President’s desk and the Board of Regents.
There are some timing issues with getting this on certain Regents Agenda’s for some strategies to get it to pass.
Q&A
Chair Purdy: So if we pass this, it really saying yes we like it so get the Taskforce going?
Chair Marston: Yes.
Summer School Draft Policy (ACTION) (Exhibit G)
Motion: to Approve the Summer School Draft Policy
Movant: n/a
Page 25 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Second: n/a
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment (SLOA) - Brian Ruf, Chair
Chair Ruf was unable to give his report. This will be available at the next Faculty Senate Meeting Chair Purdy will cover
some of Chair Rufs’ report in the CAP Committee Report.
Curriculum, Assessment & Programs Committee - Melanie Purdy, Chair
Cap Committee is the rock of this committee. We have 9 new courses, 40 Revisions, 24 GenEd reviews and 5 PEC’s last
month, all in 2 hours. Thank the people who work on that committee for getting your items through.
PreReqs for GenEd-You saw the statement. You approved it on the Consent item. It basically said that the student was
responsible for these strongly recommended pre-reqs. So, Dr. Nichols brought forth a recommendation that we approve
that says we don’t need that and that the departments have the power and the expertise to bring forward their own prereqs.
So in CAP we are glad to look at pre-reqs that you may for your GenEd courses.
General Education Outcomes Mapping AA/AS
BAS Degree
We passed the GenEd curriculum for the BAS. Which was in the Agenda for CAP that I sent out last week and is an action
item. We brought forward the foundation for the BAS which really there isn’t a lot of room for creativity on because it is
code determined. I am asking you to vote on that today.
The Code requires:
•
6 credits of English-1 has to be 102.
•
The AA/AS don’t require this
•
Next month we will bring forth some recommendations on how to tailor an AAS to this.
•
Mathematics-3 credits-This doesn’t have to be AAS, but it has to be transferable and have the GenEd Criteria.
•
Same for Natural Sciences, Social Sciences.
•
For a total of 24 credits
•
Plus 6 credits of Diversity/NV Constitution.
•
120 Credits needs to be completed.
•
32 Credits at TMCC
•
40 Upper Divisional Credits.
Q&A
Chair Marston: This was pretty much a mandated by the Handbook. We have to essentially follow this. Unfortunately it
is not a perfect transfer from our AA/AAS. They are a different set of GenEd.
Chair Purdy: That’s not necessarily true. Only the English is different. We can use our AA/AS or AAS GenEd providing
they are transferable courses. That is something we are working with.
Page 26 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015
Chair Marston: Bottom line is you will have to advise students who are in an AAS program and plan on getting a BAS.
We don’t have any BAS degrees yet, so it’s not something we need to worry about right now, but we will.
Chair Purdy: For the people developing their AAS like Fire Science, they design their AAS to marry into a BAS. Any other
comments?
Q: Senator Jensen: Aren’t six math credits required? Chair Purdy- No, only three credits for the AAS.
BAS General Education Criteria (ACTION) (Exhibit H)
Motion: to Approve the BAS General Education criteria
Movant:
Second:
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
Old Business
Chair Burke: This was asked at the last meeting. The last day a student evaluation has to give you their evaluation, it
was listed as the day that grades are due. It will now be the last day of instruction for that individual course.
Senator Jensen: Don’t we get a say about what day we’d like it to be? I would suggest two weeks before the semester
ends.
Chair Marston: Travis wants to address that.
Travis-First of all, the Dean’s provided the window. They were the ones who said evaluations start week 12. After hearing
the concern from the Faculty Senate I went back to Dr. Nichols. They all agreed that the last day of instruction was
appropriate. So, I did not poll all faculty but I did go straight to the Administration.
Chair Marston: This is a great example about how a senator can make a change in the system (TMCC wide), a change
for the better.
New Business
None
Motion- to Close the meeting
Movant: Melanie Purdy
Second: Tom Kearns
Vote: Passed unanimously
Abstentions: None
Adjournment at 2:45 p.m.
*Adjournment time will run no later than 2:30 p.m. unless approved via motion by the Senate.
Page 27 of 27; Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
TMCC is an EEO/AA institution. See http://eeo.tmcc.edu for more information.
Rev.: 1/8/2015