Draft Faculty Senate Minutes
Thursday, November 4, 2010
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Gwynn Room, A 221
In attendance: (President) Mike Gavin; (Vice President) Rosanne Benn; (delegates) Charlie
Thomas – STEM/Information and Engineering Technology; Jean McEvoy – Learning
Resources; Scott Huxel – STEM/Mathematics; Nancy Meeman – Allied Health; Janet Carlson –
Learning Foundations; Michelle Klein – STEM/Sciences and Engineering; Mark Hubley – PLT;
Barbara Sanders – At-large; Eldon Baldwin – At-large; Sadra Thomas – Learning Foundations;
Len Sekelick – Liberal Arts; Leon Weaver – Student Development; Alan Mickelson – At-large;
Barry Berube – Health, Nutrition, and Physical Education; (guest) Swazette Young

Mike Gavin called the meeting to order at 3:26 p.m. The agenda for the 11/4/10 meeting
was approved.

The minutes from the 10/21/10 meeting were approved.

Faculty Organization Bylaws
Mike Gavin indicated that he sent the bylaws via email to the faculty with a request for
any feedback. Gavin received a single comment from Nick Plants concerning the
“purpose of the Faculty Organization” related to the bylaws’ reference to “learningcenteredness.” Gavin said that Plants underscored the absence of any mention of the
College’s philosophy of education in the document. Hubley commented that, while he
does not object to some mention of philosophy of education in the document, he feels that
philosophy of education is not directly linked to the bylaws of the Faculty Organization.
Hubley recommended including a reference to the philosophy of education in the faculty
handbook. Barbara Sanders supported advocating for the general inclusion of philosophy
of education since it is something to which a great deal of emphasis has been given at the
College. All agreed that moving forward with a vote on the bylaws soon is the prime
goal. The Senate will vote on the bylaws at its next meeting. As far as a philosophy of
education goes, Gavin said that he would ask Plants for some input on what to include
related to philosophy of education. Hubley, Nancy Meeman, and Scott Huxel felt that the
elimination of the term “learning-centeredness” would be sufficient, but Hubley would
support a brief addition concerning philosophy of education should Plants decide to draft
one for inclusion in the bylaws. Eldon Baldwin indicated that when he was working on
the bylaws document in the past—a process that has gone on for numerous years
already—“learning-centeredness” was the philosophy that the College was pursuing.
Baldwin pointed out that the faculty sees itself as the main proponent of learning at
PGCC, and for this reason, a philosophy of education does have a potential role. The
motion to move forward with having Plants provide some input on philosophy of
education was approved.

Faculty Handbook
Gavin spoke about the process of drafting the Faculty Handbook and said that he hopes
this process can be completed by May 2011. Gavin said that this process will be
somewhat cumbersome since the Faculty Handbook must be reconciled with the College
Code. At the same time, the College Code itself will need to be updated as well. The
parts of the Faculty Handbook that the Senate must update are the sections on “purpose
of tenure and academic freedom” and “responsibilities.” Gavin called for volunteers
from the Senate, perhaps two members to work on each section needing updating.
Hubley spoke about work that Carolyn Hoffman has been doing to update the Faculty
Handbook. At the same time, Hubley stressed that PGCC plans for there to be a common
college handbook, parts of which will replace the need to include similar information in
the Faculty Handbook. Hubley noted that the Board of Trustees approves changes that
are to make their way into the Code. Baldwin predicted that some people in the
administration will want to reinterpret some portions of the Code. Baldwin and Hubley
agreed that procedures and policies should function in unison. Baldwin pointed out that
the bylaws are not policy. Hubley pointed out that the Faculty Organization’s bylaws
would not overlap with the College Code. Gavin noted that we are currently operating
without a handbook; it must be updated without violating the College Code. For this to
be achieved, the process may require some changes in the College Code. Baldwin
indicated that preparing the document as an electronic document would allow for the
document to reside on a site, with the incorporation of individual parts to be included as
they are approved. Baldwin added that this would improve the situation by allowing
there to be work towards a finished product without the need for it to be completed in its
entirety in order to proceed. Gavin expressed his agreement with using an electronic
format. Hubley spoke of putting a document with a total of eight chapters on the
MyPGCC portal. Baldwin expressed his desire to have this process be a coordinated
effort among different constituency groups at the College. Charlie Thomas asked what
the timeline for finishing would be. Gavin indicated that six of eight chapters are
accounted for and said that Baldwin’s idea of using hyperlinks was a good one. What is
needed is not merely a simple proofreading, but rather an overall comparison and
reconciliation of the information found in the Code and the Handbook. Alan Mickelson
expressed concern that, if Alonia Sharps currently is revising the Code, it becomes
difficult to compare the Handbook to what is essentially a moving target. Hubley
indicated that he agreed with Gavin that it is important to move forward and that a list of
changes could be presented to Alonia Sharps so that she can incorporate such changes
into the updated Code. Baldwin referred to a time in the past when the system was paperbased during which the Vice President of Administration and Finance was the keeper of
the Code. Subsequently, the Code was placed on a disk in the early years of
computerization. Unfortunately, there was an error on the single disk where the Code
resided, and this error made it such that the computerized file for the Code became
impossible to retrieve. Since that point, there have been several different versions of the
Code floating around campus but only as versions on paper, with no definitive version.
Several committee members noted that having a current, uniform version of the Code is a
priority for the entire PGCC community. Hubley stated that the number one goal is to
write each chapter of the Faculty Handbook as the Senate believes each chapter should
appear and that the Senate should determine whether it says what we believe it should
say. C. Thomas asked for clarification on the exact needs for updating the two chapters
that are to be reviewed. Baldwin emphasized that if we do not start to work now, we will
be in the same position we have been in for years without an up-to-date Handbook.
Everyone agreed that moving forward on the two chapters is a goal. Baldwin stated that
moving forward on things piecemeal is how to proceed rather than waiting to have a
complete document to get approved all at once. Huxel, referring back to the Mickelson’s
concerns about the Code as a moving target, asked which version of the Code would
serve as a reference for making the necessary comparisons. Hubley said that those
volunteering to help out with this effort would consult with Alonia Sharps as needed.
Gavin said that Sharps is aware that this process is underway and is prepared to consult
on matters related to the Code. Nancy Meeman volunteered to work on the “faculty
responsibilities” section. Gavin will assist with this section as well. Baldwin noted that
we must ask Sandy Dunington whether her office is still responsible for the faculty
handbook. Gavin answered that Dunnington’s office is still responsible and that from
Academic Affairs the next step is onward to human resources, then the President, and
then the [Board of Trustees’] lawyer. Mara Doss will be putting up the first six chapters
on the portal by December 2010. Mickelson offered to take the “academic freedom and
tenure” section and to consult with Clyde Ebenreck, if Ebenreck is willing, to take a look
at the chapter in terms of AAUP guidelines. Hubley noted that the possibility of making
incomplete and/or unvetted documents publicly available can bring repercussions.
Hubley spoke of times over the past three years he has been working on updating the
bylaws when he has received a barrage of emails expressing concern about some point or
other when certain details have been put forward. Hubley suggested that holding off for a
couple of weeks to get feedback can be beneficial.

Emeritus Faculty Proposal Status Report
Mickelson indicated that the committee considering emeritus status for faculty presented
a report to Dr. Dukes. Mickelson distributed documents concerning the emeritus status
issue to the Senate, including a response from Dr. Dukes to the committee on its
proposal. Mickelson said that Dr. Dukes’ comments were incorporated into an updated
document from the committee. Mickelson made a motion that the revised emeritus
proposal as amended be accepted by the Faculty Senate. Hubley noted that there should
be an attempt to incorporate those who hold a terminal degree other than a Ph.D. and
asked if the proposal applies to both faculty and administrators. Mickelson replied that
he has communicated with Rhonda Spells about the proposal and that the administrative
staff plans to pursue a proposal that uses the same language as the proposal from the
faculty. Mickelson noted that the proposal with Dr. Dukes’ changes has more rigorous
requirements. Mickelson said that he would like to accompany Gavin to any meeting
with Dr. Dukes. Hubley noted that the Senate should have time to review the document
more carefully and suggested tabling further discussion on the motion until the next
meeting. Hubley noted that there is no mention of community service expectations for
administrators as being a requirement for the potential granting of emeritus status, while
this would be required for the faculty. This is something that needs to be reconciled.

Reports:
A. Senate President
Gavin indicated that he has spoken to Lark Dobson about the faculty’s concerns related to the
confidentiality letter. Dobson has taken the faculty’s concerns to Dr. Dukes, and the matter is
under discussion. Gavin said he will report on any updates concerning the matter.
B. Senate Vice President
Rosanne Benn reported that the Salary and Benefits committee met on Tuesday, 11/2, and that
several issues were discussed. Benn referred to the proposal concerning the Hendricks’ salary
study that the committee under the chairmanship of Swazette Young presented to Dr. Dukes in
May 2010. Young confirmed the May date and the topic of the May meeting with Dr. Dukes.
Benn indicated that no response was given at the time but noted that Dr. Dunnington wants to
meet on 11/11 at 12:30 with the current and prior committee members to discuss Hendricks’
report and the Salary and Benefits’ proposal. Benn referred to the College’s administration as
having been the body that requested that Hendricks carry out the salary survey. Benn wondered
whether Dunnington would be supportive of the proposal from Salary and Benefits. Benn also
spoke of movement on the issues related to the application process at PGCC. Benn will meet
with Laurie Cunningham on Tuesday, 11/9/10 in the afternoon.
C. College-wide Forum
Gavin noted that the CWF has been considering the non-smoking policy proposal at its recent
meetings. Gavin indicated that the decision is that current policies will be enforced and smokers
will be prevented from smoking within 25 feet of building entrances. The CWF views increased
enforcement of existing policy related to smoking on campus rather than the elimination of
smoking outright as a decision that respects both those supporting a smoke-free campus and
those who wish to respect smokers’ rights. The CWF agreed to support a smoking-cessation
program across campus. On another matter, the Academic Council extended an invitation to the
faculty co-chair on the CWF to serve on the Academic Council as well. Tom Knapp from the
Executive Council and CWF expressed an interest in sitting on the Academic Council. While
Knapp is welcome to attend any Academic Council meeting, as can other members of the PGCC
community, Gavin and Dunnington disagreed with Knapp’s idea to join the Academic Council
because having Knapp on the Academic Council would dramatically change its makeup. There
is no resolution to this matter.
D. Chairs’ Council
Hubley noted that at the most recent Chairs’ Council meeting there was a brief discussion about
the Laurel College Center and how students are added and included on BlackBoard. A matter
under discussion was whether it is appropriate to expect students to begin work before classes
start. Upon hearing this in today’s Faculty Senate meeting, Huxel commented that for online
courses he expects his students to have their BlackBoard accounts set up prior to the start of
classes and be ready to go. Hubley pointed out that the discussion concerned expectations for
students in face-to-face classes as well. Len Sekelick disagreed with the notion of expecting
students to complete any class work before the actual start of classes. Huxel replied that he
communicates with students via BlackBoard before the start of classes but does not have
mandatory assignments before the actual start of classes. Huxel noted that Distance Learning
holds an orientation for online students before the start of classes. Hubley ended by saying that
for now PGCC students at Laurel will have to be added manually to BlackBoard. Hubley
indicated that the chairs also voted to support initiatives from TPC, the technology planning
committee at PGCC.
E. Adjunct Faculty
Janet Carlson indicated that she and Alan Mickelson met with Dr. Dunnington a week ago
Monday. Carlson said that the adjuncts’ dinner is being reinstated for the spring 2011 semester.
Carlson noted that the cost of the dinner itself will come out of Mickelson’s Teaching and
Learning Center’s budget and that there will be 40 attendees invited. Department chairs and
divisions will nominate and choose 40 specific adjuncts to attend the dinner. Having specific
names of individuals will increase accountability. Dunnington will pay the adjuncts for the time
they spend to attend the dinner out of the Academic Affairs’ budget. Paying the adjuncts who
attend will be something new. Carlson indicated that she, Mickelson, and Dunnington also
discussed the notion of having for the adjuncts Saturday workshops to cover issues related to
navigating the terrain at PGCC along with topics such as how to handle emergencies that may
occur. Another consideration is what conferences in the area might be available for adjuncts to
attend with the encouragement of Academic Affairs. The adjunct committee also brought up
length of service recognition. Carlson mentioned the possibility of using Survey Monkey to
gather from the adjuncts their information about length of service at PGCC. Carlson, who will
not be returning to PGCC after the current semester, expressed concern that her limited time
remaining at the College will have an impact on the extent to which advancing adjunct-related
matters at PGCC will be possible since the College has not yet identified a new adjunct liaison to
replace her. Carlson pointed out that Dr. Dukes replied to an adjunct faculty member’s question
at the evening session on College Enrichment Day about recognizing length of adjunct service by
bringing up that those who provide casual labor are not given recognition on College Enrichment
Day either. Carlson was disheartened by this response. Huxel indicated that he received a
recognition certificate and pin after ten years of adjunct service in 2007 before being hired as a
fulltime faculty member in 2008. Carlson and Mickelson were surprised to hear that Huxel
received such recognition. Carlson said that she had not heard of any adjunct getting such
recognition over her twenty years of service at PGCC. Michelle Klein suggested that perhaps
someone who arranged for Huxel to receive the recognition believed he was a fulltime employee.
Hubley suggested that Carlson contact Andrea Lex, the dean of OPAIR (Office of Planning,
Assessment, and Institutional Research), to get Lex’s assistance with putting the adjunct survey
on the College’s own Survey Monkey site.

Prior to adjournment, Janet Carlson referred to a couple of recent vehicular accidents that
involved students from PGCC, one that resulted in a student ending up in a coma and
another that caused the death of a student. Carlson said that she has been emphasizing to
students over her past twenty years at the College that they must be careful. Carlson
asked the Senate members present to encourage their own students to be careful as well.

The meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m.