Draft Faculty Senate Minutes
Thursday, March 3, 2011
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Gwynn Room, A 221

Rosanne Benn called the meeting to order at 3:18 pm.

The Agenda for the 3/3/11 meeting and the Minutes for the 2/17/11 meeting were
reviewed and approved.

Related to nominations for committee participation, Danny Jones volunteered to serve on
the College-wide Appeals Committee, and Kathi Linville and Beth Adkins volunteered to
be the alternates on this same committee. Scott Huxel volunteered to serve on Collegewide Promotion Committee as an alternate. Danny made a motion and Laura Ellsworth
seconded the motion to approve the nominations, and the slate passed unanimously.
Composition of College-wide Appeals Committee:
Members: Jeffrey Snodgrass, Angela Rabatin, Brenda Teal, Tonya Fridy, Danny
Jones
Alternates: Kathi Linville, Beth Adkins
Alternates for College-wide Promotion Committee:
Michele Dickson, Scott Huxel
Alternates for College-wide Tenure Committee:
Ennis Allen, Tonya Fridy

Rosanne Benn referred to a couple of sentences that Mike Gavin sent out that are to go
into the faculty handbook. Jones asked if there was a way to know if there have been
changes to a class roster, and Huxel pointed out that the way to check is to see if there are
any changes in the number of students. Eldon Baldwin suggested using BlackBoard to
provide such updates.

Student Advising
Scheherazade Forman, Dean of Student Development Services, and Christine Barrow,
Dean of Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, addressed the Faculty
Senate on plans for a new model for student advising at PGCC. Forman spoke about the
strategic initiative and addressed a comprehensive retention plan, including the use of
resources, importance of advising, and learning processes. Forman noted increased
student enrollment and reduced resources and pointed out that the College will look at
what can be done better by looking at data. Forman indicated that the College’s advising
model and how things are done here at the institution are topics for certain meetings that
have been taking place and that another meeting is to be held to go over the data. Barrow
said that in looking at campus advising, the goal was to look at credit and non-credit
advising, looking at advising from a comprehensive perspective. Barrow spoke about
shared, centralized, and decentralized models of advising and posed the question: what
kind of model do we as a College want to have? Barrow said the committee needs to
decide what type of model is to be followed, and she noted that they are looking at usage
at different hours of the day to see when peak advising demand occurs. The committee
meets from 1:00 – 3:00 every other Friday. Forman mentioned that there is a “webinar”
for committee members to attend. A number of faculty members are involved on the
committee. Eventually, the idea is to involve all faculty members in some way,
depending on specific needs and particular strengths. Barrow asked for ideas to be
forwarded to her, Forman, or other faculty members on the committee. Barrow said it
will be important to get input from various people from across the College. When the
two opened the floor to questions, Benn spoke about the intricacies of the advising
process and her own experiences with providing advising to students, oftentimes in
situations that require her (or any person providing advising) to have knowledge of and
access to the information on all the little pieces and hiccups involved in the process.
Benn pointed out that faculty do not deal with many of these specific advising
circumstances and do not know necessarily what advice to provide to students. Benn
added that the intended purpose of Owl Link was to allow students to work more
independently. Forman responded by saying that a component of the information is
sharing information, adding that what specific faculty will provide advising in a specific
case and for what discipline(s) will need to be defined. Forman noted that the training
will be transparent and called the process a living one that will be tweaked on an ongoing basis. Forman also referred to the times that will be used to provide advising and
emphasized the importance of what is being done between midterms and the time the
final grade is assigned. It may be the case that faculty will not place students in their
courses but could provide feedback at different junctures throughout a given semester.
These aspects are being discussed. Barrow referred to the intake level of advising and
noted that faculty could be assigned based on their own particular knowledge and
familiarity. Benn noted that this makes the advising process sound easier than it is
because any given student who seeks advising may not actually be in the “advising
category” selected in terms of what advising a particular student actually needs. Forman
noted that sharing experiences that have not been pleasant should be a part of the process
and that this is a model that is being created so that things that do not fit can be dealt
with. Linville asked if this is for all students, and Barrow replied that this advising model
will be for all students regardless of entry point. Linville asked to what extent it is
correct to advise the student against his/her wishes. Barrow replied that this issue will be
addressed by the training. Darlene Antezana noted that there are 24 advisers. Barrow
and Forman agreed that this number is correct. It was also pointed out that there are 24
people around the table (on the committee) with six of them being faculty members.
Forman noted that whatever the new advising model looks like once in place, it will
require a mindset change for lots of people. Barrow noted that it is not necessary to get
advising and register on the same day. Benn noted that Colleague is not set up to remove
students who have failed prerequisite courses. Forman replied that this is another
discussion and noted that prerequisites, early registration followed by withdrawal, and/or
a student’s de-registration/being dropped after a significant part of a student’s bill has
been paid are all issues that can be handled through automation. Eldon Baldwin noted
that he has not seen addressed in his 40 years at the College that the faculty have never
been notified of when advising is taking place. Along these lines, Baldwin called the
faculty an untapped resource. Forman referred to notifications that go out after midterms
as a means to begin to tackle this issue, and she said that it is her impression that the three
priorities will allow for things to get into order with faculty advising. Baldwin pointed
out that historically mentoring programs have failed at the College because of random
placement. Baldwin commented that he has natural access to his own students and that
mentoring his own students is the most natural connection. Forman referred to a
partnering during the past holiday season between advising and the various mentoring
programs and referred to tutors, mentors, and peers as a source of advising. Barrow
mentioned that peers could also be tapped to be part of the shared advising model.
Barrow said that one committee aim is to avoid having someone not knowing where to
send a student for help. Baldwin brought up access to data as an important aspect of
advising. Forman agreed that having a streamlined process in place to allow for data to
be used as part of the advising process is an underlying goal. Once again, Barrow
welcomed comments to be sent to her or Forman. Forman said that Mike Gavin is being
kept in the loop about what is going on with the committee’s work. Linville pointed out
that in nursing all faculty are involved in student advising and asked whether Barrow and
Forman were aware of this. Barrow and Forman were aware of the model followed by
Nursing and said that input from Nursing could be useful in the process of developing a
model for the entire College. Barrow and Forman also offered to provide updates on the
committee’s progress. Jones asked what the timeline is, and Forman said that the model
will exist by the end of the current fiscal year, adding that the model should be
implemented in the following fiscal year.

Regarding Faculty Senate elections for delegates and alternates, Antezana said that
everything is set for faculty to cast their ballots using Survey Monkey.

Regarding the addition of guidelines on roster checks to the Faculty Handbook, Jones
suggested changing the language, “faculty must,” to “faculty are expected to.” Huxel and
Antezana agreed that the language of “faculty must” is likely the way that Dr.
Dunnington wants the lines to read. Several member of the Senate found errors in the
language and suggested fixing the language. Ellsworth noted that checking rosters is
something that some faculty are not doing and that this is why the policy is to be
formalized. Baldwin noted that this language is designed to catch faculty who are not
fulfilling their responsibilities, but he also pointed out that it is not only faculty screwing
up. Several members of the Senate emphasized that it should be pointed out that Owl
Link is the official roster. Baldwin pointed out that the Owl Link Web browser
information and the Portal information do not always coincide. Baldwin asked whether
there is a reference to Q grades in the handbook. Ellsworth found and read the section in
the handbook. Baldwin made a point about linking Q grades to roster problems; this
comment lead to a discussion about how late in a semester a Q grade can be assigned.
Baldwin noted that the third week is not the final cut-off for assigning a Q grade. Huxel
mentioned that the fifth week is the last date by which all financial matters must be
resolved and pointed out that, if a Q grade is assigned after the fifth week, the College is
responsible for the repayment of any tuition/financial aid paid on behalf of the student.
Huxel disagreed with Baldwin’s idea of linking the checking of rosters with the assigning
of Q grades. Huxel made a motion to include the language to indicate that the rosters are
expected to be checked for each class and weekly thereafter. The motion passed, but
Alan Michelson and Kathi Linville opposed the motion.

Reports:
A. Senate President
A report was presented on behalf of Mike Gavin. The Academic Council has
been considering sending students to Continuing Education if they do not meet
the “floor score” on the placement exam. The possibility of establishing a “floor
score” policy is being examined at present. Baldwin noted that there are statistics
from OPAIR in the spring 2011 report that show that no one passes future courses
if their initial placements are at the lowest level. There ought to be a development
threshold. Antezana pointed out that students below a certain level cannot be
served. The Academic Council is also considering the requirement to have
students take certain classes/fulfill certain requirements by the time students
complete a certain number of credits in order to keep students on track. By the
time students have 15 credits, it is going to be recommended that students
complete certain program/transfer/graduation requirements. Dr. Dukes is working
on a salary improvement plan but doubts that the budget will allow for such
increases for some time to come. As far as benefits for domestic partners go, the
College has given itself six months to implement a plan. The implication of
waiting is that the Maryland Legislature will have voted on the measure at the
state level and that the outcome will provide some structure that the College will
be able to follow.
B. Senate Vice President
Regarding the Application Procedure, Benn indicated that the Salary and Benefits
Committee members were to look at a “webinar” at Rossmeier’s request.
Concerning the Promotion and Tenure referendum status, a total of 55 people
have voted to date with 44 voting for the changes and 11 against them.
C. College-wide Forum
Ellsworth indicated that the CWF met this past Monday. There will be a new
natatorium proposal that is to stipulate that the natatorium will no longer be free
for employees. Ellsworth noted that Dr. Dukes did not find it fair that students
must pay to use the natatorium while employees may use it for free. Ellsworth
also noted that Gavin brought the inclement weather proposal to the CWF, and
that Dukes agrees with it and will have the Senior Team including Tom Knapp
consider how to address the issues raised in the inclement weather proposal.
Also, the CWF was informed that there will be no 3% increase for faculty, no $50
increase for adjuncts, and that money cannot be moved around in the budget for
salaries. The only money moving around will be for the purpose of updating
infrastructure.
Ellsworth pointed out that a topic of discussion at the CWF was that PGCC
employees are the only public employees in Prince George’s County who have
not been furloughed since the start of the recession and the county’s financial
crisis and the only employees to get a raise last year.
D. Chairs’ Council
Ellsworth referred to the program review procedure and noted that it was not
well-received by chairs. Ellsworth explained that this procedure is a rubric-based
model that the chairs and faculty had not been consulted on or given the
opportunity to provide input. Ellsworth noted that deans Barrow and Rosicky
presented the proposal. The amount of work being tasked to chairs, by virtue of
this procedure, is incredible, with the bulk of the work falling directly on chairs.
Again, there were no faculty members and no department chairs involved in this
process. It was to take the place of the academic program review. Antezana
added that the rubrics were to require a break-down into five categories along
with minutes, agenda, and all e-mails. Ellsworth and Antezana agreed that the
volume and detail required would be onerous.
E. Adjunct Faculty

Old Business

Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings

Adjournment