Thursday, May 4, 2011
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Gwynn Room, A 221
In attendance: (President) Mike Gavin; (Vice President) Rosanne Benn; (delegates) Kathi
Linville – Nursing; Sadra Thomas – Learning Foundations; Janet Carlson – Learning
Foundations; Danny Jones – At-large; Scott Huxel – Math; Nancy Meman – Allied Health;
Michelle Klein – STEM/Sciences and Engineering; Len Sekelick – Liberal Arts; Laura Ellsworth
– Public Safety and Law; Darlene Antezana – Liberal Arts; Eldon Baldwin – At-large; Alan
Mickelson – At-large; Danny Jones – At-large; Charlie Thomas – IET; Jean McEvoy – Library;
Bekki Zeigler – Biology; Nicole Ives – Liberal Arts. Also in attendance: (invited guest) Vera
Bagley; Jackie Sumner – Liberal Arts (alternate elect); Clyde Ebenreck - Philosophy.

The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm.

Faculty Senate President Mike Gavin began the meeting with his report (see below).
Once a quorum was reached at the meeting, the agenda for the 5/4/11 meeting passed unanimously.

10-Month Contract – Regarding the 10-month contract, Gavin pointed out that the Senate cannot vote yet, noting that the description is first to go to the Chairs’ Council as an information item and that the chairs can submit comments. Gavin indicated that some significant changes that have been made to the document are based on input from the
Divisions. For example, any request for the faculty to appear will have an expectation to provide a month’s notice; this notation has been added to the document. Gavin also pointed out that “as needed” has been added to bullet point three. As far as the “nine hours” of registration and advising assistance goes, this time can be split up between the fall and spring semesters. Gavin referred to concerns about the contract being defined after the fact. Scott Huxel asked about expectations for College-wide governance, and
Gavin responded that officers, but not members, of groups like the Faculty Senate, are expected to be available over the months when 10-month faculty are not under contract.
Danny Jones asked who will define “as needed.” Gavin indicated that the idea is to leave this type of decision mostly in the hands of the chairs and deans. Jones asked whether a faculty member could teach 30 credits over 12 months, and Gavin’s answer was that this would not happen. Clyde Ebenreck asked if a reason was given, and Gavin said that he recalled hearing that to do so would be a scheduling nightmare for chairs. Charlie
Thomas made reference to salary issues that have taken a backseat to this type of concern on the part of the Administration. Antezana asked for clarification on whether there is a need to discuss and re-issue contracts for the coming year. Gavin replied that there will not be a need for a new contract given that the document defines call-back times within the dates that already appear in the contract. Kathi Linville asked whether the Senate will have a meeting on 5/19/2011, and Gavin answered that there will be a meeting if more

input from the Senate is necessary. It was suggested that Survey Monkey could be used to gauge support for the document. Gavin commented that he prefers to get input from the Senate, if need be, but that he would notify the Senate by next Thursday about whether the Senate would meet one more time in May 2011. Ebenreck commented that
Gavin has done a great job of producing this document and that the Administration will pass something no matter what. The document is not a contract but rather a description of the faculty’s responsibility related to time. Ebenreck observed that this is not a contract and that the Administration could change this. Antezana asked whether there is any punitive action attached to the document, and Gavin replied that there is nothing punitive attached to it. The Vice President of Academic Affairs can call the faculty back, plain and simple. Laura Ellsworth pointed out that her impression is that defining these things for ourselves behooves us more than waiting for these things to be defined for us.
Gavin commented that voting on this is important and that he views the process itself as important. Gavin added that committee leadership, for certain, would be called upon to meet as needed. Antezana referred to the nine hours of faculty assistance and pointed out that the increase to nine hours would be related to advising in all likelihood. A question was asked about whether part-time advising would continue, in reply to which Antezana and Huxel commented on changes in the advising structure. Jones asked about sanctions that might be imposed, and the point was made that the Administration’s goal is not to be punitive by defining the 10-month contract.

College Refund Policy – Vera Bagley distributed a handout on the issue and spoke of a graduated refund policy. Bagley referred to course refunds and course add/drops, noting that students are now being held financially responsible for a percentage of tuition past a certain date, even when students change nothing more than a course section. Linville observed that this could have an impact on nursing students. Len Sekelick asked about how students would be notified of their financial responsibilities and expressed hope that the policy would be clear and well-publicized. Bagley noted that students are to be bombarded by information about the refund policy from multiple sources. Jones asked about how the refund policy will tie in with financial aid, and Bagley answered that students will still be responsible for what is owed. Jackie Sumner expressed concern that the impact on ESL students could be especially high since there could be confusion about how the refund policy works. Bagley noted that publicizing the refund policy would include special efforts to reach out to groups such as ESL students.

Adjunct Responsibilities and Recognition - Janet Carlson and Nicole Ives spoke concerning adjuncts performing tasks without financial compensation. Carlson noted that she and Ives came up with a list of ECHs, providing examples such as representation on the CWF, the Senate, and other committee work on matters such as retention, mentoring,
ALANA, graduation, and the like. Carlson pointed out that, to date, all of this time has been donated rather than paid. As far as the adjuncts go, including those participating on
College committees, only face-to-face time related to classes is paid. Carlson pointed out that the Administration wants certain things of the adjuncts and that this proposal is what the Adjunct Committee has produced to address the matter. Carlson noted that the
College wants the adjuncts to help but does not recognize the adjuncts for being here at the College. Gavin noted that Dr. Dunnington asked him to come up with a list of hours

that adjuncts could be paid. Gavin asked whether Carlson and Ives feel comfortable with this charge, and both indicated that they welcome to opportunity to improve the consideration given to adjuncts. Next, Eldon Baldwin indicated that 30 hours equals an
ECH and suggested using a multiple of three hours for any adjunct activity so that it could be easily divisible. An average amount is $22.00 to $25.00 per hour. Baldwin noted that this is not reassigned time. This could be reflected in the beginning of the contract. Ives suggested that some element of job security could be added. Carlson and
Ives indicated that contracts are for only one semester at a time. Carlson said that for the fall the adjunct committee will be working on finding from other colleges how they handle such adjunct matters. Baldwin referred to the “rift policy” pointing out that the
College does not want to be legally held to keep its adjuncts for more than a single semester. Also, while adjunct/full-time faculty guidelines from Middle States exist, these guidelines are not binding. Carlson referred to meetings she has had with Dr.
Dunnington in which there has not been agreement on the role of the adjunct faculty.
Carlson emphasized that it is important for the Administration to understand that the adjuncts are not a monolithic group and represent a range of motivations for being at the
College. Ebenreck suggested that certain matters of this sort could be worked out between an individual adjunct faculty member and the chair of that adjunct faculty member’s department.

Reports:
A.
Senate President
Orientation/registration – Gavin indicated that the period for “late registration” is to be defined as the week before classes start. Gavin also referred to a conference in
Santa Fe, NM the week before classes begin. Late-start classes are to be reserved for after other classes begin. Janet Carlson asked about course sequencing, and Gavin replied that students would have to follow necessary course sequencing.
College Calendar –Nancy Meman volunteered to serve on the committee.
Emeritus – Gavin noted that the Board of Trustees voted to accept the Emeritus Status proposal. Gavin was unsure whether the procedures and necessary documentation for emeritus status would be in place in time for the 2011 commencement ceremony.
Several Senate members reminded Gavin that Dr. Dukes could name individuals to emeritus status this year without the new official forms being available. Gavin replied that he has spoken with President Dukes about this and will speak with her again about naming faculty to emeritus status without the forms this year.
B.
Senate Vice President
Application Procedure – Rosanne Benn spoke on this matter and noted that the new procedure will be in place starting in the next fiscal year to begin in July 2011. The
Salary and Benefits Committee is to be invited to go to the training. The new procedure will allow for applicants to make changes and to include attachments to an employment application. The Senate was provided with a handout highlighting these

changes. Benn noted that it is better to have detailed information. From the bullet points there would be enough information for the hiring committee to decide whom to request be contacted for an interview. Ebenreck asked whether this will apply to the hiring of adjuncts as well, and Benn answered that it will be used for hiring adjuncts as well. Gavin commented that whatever is easier will be done. Ebenreck noted that choosing whom to interview based on a CV is desirable. Ellsworth mentioned disliking the interview questions that have been used for many years across the
College. Baldwin noted that the questions came about to address affirmative action requirements and suggested that Alonia Sharps and June Fordham should be contacted to find out which specific questions may be connected to affirmative action concerns. Alan Mickelson asked how an applicant would respond to a point, and
Benn indicated that the instructions would ask for applicants to provide details related to the item.
C.
College-wide Forum – Ellsworth referred to a meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 and the committee and constituency reports. These reports can be found on the portal.
The Board of Trustees approved the union contract. There will no longer be an employee category known as “classified staff.” There are now three different groups and both union and non-union employees.
D.
Chairs’ Council – Ellsworth noted that the next meeting would be on Monday.
Andristine Robinson from Student Services Operations is to address problem behavior on the part of students. Also, software training is to be a topic of discussion.
E. Adjunct Faculty – Janet Carlson indicated that she will not be continuing as the liaison to the adjunct faculty. Carlson noted that Dr. Dunnington wants to bypass the
Adjunct Committee and its recommendation. Carlson said that Dr. Dunnington wishes to select a liaison on her own.

Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings – There is a clause in the contract that violates the social media policy adopted by the Board of Trustees in February, 2011. The need to use
OwlLink and e-mail was given as an example.

The meeting adjourned at 4:47 pm.