Faculty Senate Agenda & Minutes
Thursday, September 20, 2007
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
1. Attendance: Please check-in on the attendance roster.
2. Review the Agenda for the 9/20/07 meeting.
The agenda was approved as written.
3. Review the Minutes of the 9/6/07 meeting.
Laura Ellsworth questioned whether it was Tom Knapp who made the change to the free use of the
Natatorium policy to exclude adjunct faculty, as indicated in the minutes. Was the decision made by the
Executive Council of the CWF? Alan Mickelson replied that the CWF minutes make no mention of who
made the change in the policy, and there was no quorum for the Executive Council. This section of the
minutes was left as written.
4. Calendar
Mark Hubley said that a member of the faculty was concerned that a change had been made to the dates
for 2008 Spring Break. He asked if anyone had any information on this. Nobody at the meeting had
heard of any change.
Fall 2007 important dates
A. College closed or no classes
i) College Enrichment Day, no classes, Tue. 10/30
ii) Thanksgiving Break, no classes, Wed. 11/21
iii) Thanksgiving Break, college closed, Thu. 11/22—Sun. 11/25
iv) Winter Break, college closed, Sat. 12/22—Sun. 1/6
B. Other important dates
i) Last day to withdraw from 15-week classes, Tue. 11/20
ii) Final exam week, Tue. 12/11—Mon. 12/17
iii) Grades due, Wed. 12/19 by 4:00 PM
September/October important dates
E. Senate meetings
i) Thu. 9/6, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
ii) Thu. 9/20, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
iii) Thu. 10/4, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
iv) Thu. 10/18, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
F. Board of Trustees meetings
i) Thu. 9/6, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
ii) Thu. 10/11, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
G. College-wide Forum
i) Wed. 9/5, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
ii) Wed. 9/19, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
iii) Wed. 10/3, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
iv) Wed. 10/17, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
1
5. Attachments
A. Minutes from the 9/6/07 meeting of the Faculty Senate
B. Memo from Sandy Dunnington (via Louis Renaud) regarding travel reimbursement
Hubley discussed this memo with the faculty. The memo states that any faculty that teach in two different
locations on the same day may be reimbursed for round-trip mileage. Kathi Linville mentioned that
members of the Nursing Department would like to be reimbursed for mileage for clinic work, but they have
been told in the past that there was no money available. The memo also describes a push to get $664 in
travel money for each full-time member of the faculty. The basis of this figure is that it would, on average,
allow an individual to travel to a major conference (with airfare, hotel, etc.) about once every three years.
C. Proposal from ad hoc Committee on Meeting Schedules
6. Reports
A. Senate President
Earlier in the day Hubley had a meeting with President Dukes and the other constituency leaders. Dukes
said that she intends to take some time in filling top vacancies. She also still wants to consider possible
realignments. Dukes is comfortable with people currently in their roles, and does not want to rush the
hiring process. Various members of the Senate agreed that since the process has not already begun, it is
best to take more time. This may mean that some or all of the top positions are not filled until July ’09.
Swazette Young and Hubley met with a committee to continue discussions about the formation of an
Academic Council. They hope to get a proposal to the Senate in October.
Dukes has offered to attend the October 4th meeting of the Senate, and Hubley hopes to have Dunnington
attend the October 18th meeting.
B. Senate Vice President
No report
C. Representative from President’s Leadership Team
Eldon Baldwin reported that this group met last Wednesday and will meet the second Wednesday of
every month. The team includes the President, the VPs, and the four constituency group leaders.
The first meeting was mainly a discussion of goals. The discussion was focused on the future and where
we want to be in 5 to 10 years. Governance was a topic of discussion, and Baldwin mentioned that the
issue of “learning-centeredness” needs attention. Another topic of discussion was enrollment. Current
enrollment gains are holding at 1.5 percent. Work force development is growing rapidly with 23,000
students, about half of the head count. Our adult education program is the largest one in the state.
Mickelson asked for clarification about the Leadership Team and the Senior Team. Baldwin said the
Leadership Team will meet once a month, and the Senior Team will meet twice a month
D. College-wide Forum
i) Representative from Faculty Organization
Ellsworth said that minutes are on the website. Committee reports should also be on website through
Document Management. Nothing new to report on old business. There was discussion of a new system
to track proposals. Students mentioned that the ATM and credit card machines were not working in the
cafeteria.
ii) Human Resources Committee
iii) Budget Advisory Committee
iv) Campus Culture Committee
Has not met yet, but plans to discuss the Natatorium issue.
2
v) Learning Committee
vi) Technology Steering Committee
Baldwin reported that student e-mail is expected to be set up next fall. Registration should run under the
new system by fall, as well. The new system will operate with Microsoft, not Novell, which runs
GroupWise. The technology staff does not think it will work well to try to run Microsoft and Novell, and
they want to get rid of Groupwise.
vii) Strategic Planning Committee
viii) Assessment Committee
ix) Facilities Committee
E. Chairs’ Council
Ellsworth reported that one issue on the agenda is faculty evaluation. It was suggested that Janet
Carslon attend an upcoming meeting. Hubley sent an E-mail to Cheryl Dover and Melinda Kramer to get
the ball the rolling on the faculty evaluation issue. He anticipated the formation of a committee of faculty
with the likely addition of a dean and someone from the VP’s office. Hubley said that any proposal to
change the evaluation process should ultimately come from the Senate.
F. Adjunct Faculty
Janet Carlson reported on a recent meeting of adjunct faculty, attended by nine of the most vocal adjunts.
Issues discussed at the meeting included the following: (1) The new Natatorium policy excludes adjunct
faculty and students. (2) Too many students park in faculty spots and better enforcement is needed.
Perhaps the college could hire students on commission to patrol parking lots. (3) The student activity fee
is same as it was in 1958. All other fees have gone up. (4) The language used by students and their
dress are causes for concern.
The Natatorium issue in particular has become another fiasco. If the intention is truly to phase in adjunct
faculty at a later date, then why was this not explained right away? Why did notification of the policy
come from Ethel Shepherd-Powell? This was another slap in the face for adjuncts. The tuition waiver
policy has also caused confusion. Adjunct faculty need to be treated with some respect.
7. Old Business
A. Faculty Social Security numbers on college documents
This issue appears to have been settled
B. Update of the Faculty Handbook
Hubley said there is a need to update all handbooks that are not current. Baldwin said he had spoken
with Verna Teasdale about a major revision, but they did not get through the task. Before anyone takes
on a major revision we need to bring things up to date.
C. Update on the Academic Council
This issue was discussed previously.
D. Faculty representation on the CWF (what about Louis?)
Hubley reported that in the spring election Louis Renaud was one of the top six vote-getters for the CWF
faculty representative positions. Renaud’s term ends at the end of the ’07-’08 academic year. A total of
eight faculty ran for the six faculty rep positions. Since Renaud is now serving as Interim Dean, there
have been questions of whether he should continue in that role. Hubley also reported that he spoke with
Renaud about the matter, and Renaud said he would be happy to stay in the position but if the Faculty
Senate decides otherwise he will step aside. Ellsworth commented that Renaud is now serving as an
3
administrator, and even though we hold him in high regard, we need to be careful about the precedent we
set. Iva Toler moved that the Senate remove Renaud from his position as faculty representative and offer
the position to the other faculty that ran in the election—first the person with the seventh-most votes, then
the next. The motion passed with a vote of 12 for, 3 against, and 1 abstention. Hubley said he would
notify Renaud and the CWF.
8. New Business
A. Group purchase of academic regalia?
Hubley said that a member of the faculty had inquired whether it would be worthwhile to try to get a group
purchase of academic regalia. Leslie Wojciechowicz suggested that attempting a group purchase would
be a waste of time, many get their gowns as hand-me-downs. Hubley said he would consider sending
out an E-mail at some time to see if there was much interest.
B. Conducting a comprehensive review of the faculty evaluation process
Charlie Thomas asked for more specific information on the process. Hubley said that he, Young, Dover,
and Kramer would soon meet to discuss how to proceed. He assumed they would form a committee to
draft a proposal, which would eventually go through the Senate. Faculty should be thinking about what
changes the would or would not like to see. Baldwin noted that any policy changes would have to be
approved by the Board of Trustees.
C. Need faculty to serve on a committee to compare Microsoft Exchange with GroupWise
Hubley said he would contact faculty and look for volunteers.
D. Updating the FO web site
Hubley said there is a sense of urgency to get a new FO website by Oct 1st. The “new” web site will refer
to pages on the “old” server. Hubley met with Mahbub Jamal to update and streamline the faculty
website. They will try to post agendas, minutes, etc.
E. Other new business?
Hubley suggested some kind of proposal stating that faculty choose which faculty represent them. For
example, in the Presidential Search process, faculty reps were selected by the Board. Department chairs
are recommended by their departments, but reviewed by the dean, the VP, and President before being
appointed by the Board. Greg Weiss asked how much the chairs interact with the VP. Some also
questioned the nature of the chair position as faculty vs. administrator.
Baldwin said that Heidi Elam raised the issue of a new CWF proposal form, and Baldwin suggested trying
to develop a system of numbering proposals that would work with the Faculty Senate proposal system.
9. Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings
A. Attendance by VP Dunnington; 3rd week in October?
B. Attendance by Pres. Dukes; 1st week in October?
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.
4