Faculty Senate Agenda & Minutes
Thursday, October 18, 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 10/18/07 meeting.
The agenda was accepted with the addition of attachment D.
3. Review the Minutes of the 10/4/07 meeting.
The minutes were accepted with one revision and pending review by President Charlene Dukes, who
attended the meeting and whose remarks were referred to extensively.
4. Calendar
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
October/November important dates
E. Senate meetings
i) Thu. 10/4, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
ii) Thu. 10/18, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
iii) Thu. 11/1, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
iv) Thu. 11/15, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
F. Board of Trustees meetings
i) Thu. 10/11, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
ii) Thu. 11/8, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
G. College-wide Forum
i) Wed. 10/3, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
ii) Wed. 10/17, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
iii) Wed. 11/7, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
iv) Wed. 11/21, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
5. Attachments
A.
B.
C.
D.
Minutes from the 10/4/07 meeting of the Faculty Senate
Letter from the Department of Language Studies regarding benefits
Academic Council proposal
Presidents Leadership Team meeting
1
6. Reports
A. Senate President
Mark Hubley reported that he received Dukes’ comments on the Academic Council proposal. She seems
to be generally positive. We need to look at her comments before discussing the proposal further.
B. Senate Vice President
Swazette Young reported that the Faculty Evaluation Committee needs a representative from
Developmental Education Division. Laura Ellsworth asked if Sean Fay is on the committee. Young
replied affirmatively. Young also reported that two Deans, Angela Anderson and Robert Barshay, and
June Fordham are also serving on the committee. Hubley said the main tasks of the committee are to
streamline the evaluation process, and ensure that chairs have the appropriate role in the process.
C. Representative from President’s Leadership Team
Eldon Baldwin referred to the attachment that he distributed. Upcoming issues on the agenda include
governance, digitizing the college code, updating handbooks. The current Faculty Handbook is largely a
cut-and-paste of college code, it is difficult to change, and not very readable. Hubley reported that Verna
Teasdale had contacted him about updating the Faculty Handbook, but he had not managed to move
forward on the issue. Baldwin said there is an interest in making an online handbook that would be more
usable with hyperlinks to the code.
Alan Mickelson informed the Senate that College Enrichment Day would begin with remarks from Dukes
followed by the honors convocation and an update on OwlLink. A box lunch will be served, followed by a
“chat” with the Senior Team in Queen Anne. The day will conclude with an Academic Affairs meeting.
Mike Gavin will discuss assessment.
Greg Weiss remarked that assessment is over-discussed, and people must be getting tired of meeting on
the committees when nothing gets done. Hubley suggested that by being forced to do assessment, even
if nobody else looks at the results, we see things that need to change. Nelson Kofie mentioned that
assessment is a key component of Middle States demands to make sure that our courses are up to par.
Weiss stated that we are the ones who know what is going on in the classroom, and we are constantly
assessing ourselves and our classes. Hubley referred to the academic profile exit assessment that has
been administered over the past couple of years. He said that the conclusions drawn from the data
appear to be flawed. The first report was based on a very small sample of students. More recent results
showed an average score of approximately 50%, which was viewed very negatively. However, that score
was within a couple of points of the national median. So why is that so negative? Ellsworth said that the
test will not be given this year; a different test is being considered. Various members of the Senate
pointed out that this type of exit exam has many flaws: for example, the students have nothing at stake.
Faculty knew of many examples where students who took the exam did not put any effort into it. Baldwin
said that assessment is in danger of becoming the latest item in a long list of college initiatives that have
come and may be going (e.g., critical thinking and learning-centeredness). If something concrete isn’t
done with assessment, then faculty won’t take it seriously.
D. College-wide Forum
i) Representative from Faculty Organization
Ellsworth reported that there was no vote on the proposal of the governance calendar out of concern that
moving CWF meetings from Wednesday to Tuesday would violate the bylaws. It appears there is no
violation, and the vote will occur at the next meeting.
Hubley asked if the issue of late registration was discussed. Mickelson said he felt that there is significant
opposition to having the late registration period occur before classes begin. There are concerns about
how the new ERP will accommodate late registration. Barbara Sanders said she has a hard time
believing that we can’t make adjustments to the software to accommodate our needs. Hubley echoed
Sanders’ comments. Mickelson said we need to hear from the technical gurus about the issue.
2
ii) Human Resources Committee
Rik Karlsson provided the following report electronically: The HR committee of the CWF began its
meetings for the semester on Sept 12. Its most recent meeting was Sept 26, during which the committee
took up the following business:
1. Review of committee work processes with a view to maintaining effectiveness and timeliness of
committee output.
2. Validation of the meeting schedule for the academic year as being every other Wednesday
morning from 9:30 – 11:00 a.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Oct 10. Wednesday is the
least conflicting day of the week for members with other meetings and obligations.
3. Took stock of the membership of the committee. Louis Renaud reported that the Faculty Senate
had decided that his assignment as the acting dean of the STEM division precluded him from
continuing to serve as an FS representative to the CWF. Since the HR Committee, under the
CWF By-Laws must have at least 3 members of the CWF sitting, the committee notified
governance that a CWF member should be identified as his replacement in that role. Mr. Renaud
desires to continue on the committee and has put forward a petition to serve.
4. It had been previously made known to the committee that Mr. Jerome Countee of Workforce
Development and Continuing Education (WDCE) had put forward a petition to serve to fill the
billet vacated by Dyanne Lyon, but that petition has not come before the committee. It should be
noted as well that Laurie Cunningham has also withdrawn as a member of the committee; Janice
Watley is no longer an employee of the college. The committee membership presently includes
Lark Dobson and Rik Karlsson, co-chairs, Karen Egypt, Denise Barino-Samuels (CWF), Joyce
McPherson, Ethel Shepard-Powell (CWF), Janice Goodwin-Alston, Linda Martin and Elana
Robinson.
5. The committee discussed interest in having a student representative as a member.
6. The committee discussed constituent issues that could come before the committee as well as
taking inventory of unfinished business such as the Alternative Work Schedule Policy proposal.
Other issues foreseen for discussion include the use of mandatory leave during winter and spring
break periods when the college is closed, the use of annual leave by newly employed classified
staff, increasing annual leave by one day, and instituting a supervisory training program
throughout the college.
7. Karen Egypt volunteered to be the spokesperson for the committee for reporting to the CWF in
the absence of the co-chairs.
iii) Budget Advisory Committee
iv) Campus Culture Committee
The committee will meet on Tuesday.
v) Learning Committee
vi) Technology Steering Committee
vii) Strategic Planning Committee
viii) Assessment Committee
ix) Facilities Committee
Questions were raised about the status of the traffic proposal previously submitted by the Senate.
Baldwin said there would be a meeting of the traffic committee on Monday at 2:00 PM. Rosanne Benn
offered to attend the meeting. Baldwin said the CWF bylaws do not specify any time frame for dealing
with proposals after they go to committee. The Executive Committee is supposed to assign a “due date”
when the proposal is sent to committee, but this “due date” is not being tracked. Things can stall, and we
have to stay aware of what is going on.
E. Chairs’ Council
David James addressed the chairs and asked them to think of ways to market our programs. There was
also a discussion of better organizing the program of late start classes to (1) make it more comprehensive
and (2) ensure that courses are offered across a range of times to make them more accessible to
students. Right now every chair does his or her own scheduling with little or no cooperation across
campus.
3
F. Adjunct Faculty
Janet Carlson reported that it appears that Human Resources does not maintain historical data on the
employment of adjunct faculty. Baldwin suggested that the new Colleague system should do a better job
of tracking employee data in the future, but it is unclear how much old data will be entered into Colleague.
G. Representative from the Student Governance Board
7. Old Business
A. Discussion of the Academic Council proposal
Hubley referred members of the Senate to the proposal for an Academic Council. Hubley also distributed
comments on the proposal from Dukes. Barbara Sanders asked about the status of the newly revived
Academic Regulations & Standards Committee. Hubley said the Committee would be dissolved when the
Academic Council is put in place. Hubley expressed some hope that the Council could begin operating in
the Spring ’08 semester. Hubley said that one important question to consider is, “Where does this
proposal go?” Will the Academic Council proposal require approval by the CWF, or can it be sent from
Academic Affairs straight to Dukes?
Nicolas Plants asked how many of the members of the Council would be faculty? It appears that some of
the positions outlined in the proposal may or may not be faculty. Hubley said that seven of the fifteen
voting members would certainly be faculty: (1) FO President, (2) one additional member of FO, (3 & 4)
two chairs, (5) Co-Chair of Curriculum Committee, (6) faculty rep from WDCE, and (7) faculty rep from
Student Services. Four of the fifteen would not be faculty: (1 & 2) two academic deans, (3) student rep,
and (4) Dean of Instructional Technology Services. The remaining four positions may or may not be held
by faculty. These are the chairs of AOAC, Gen Ed Task Force, Professional Development, and Distance
Learning Advisory Committee. Currently, the first three positions are held by faculty, and it is likely that
they always will be. The Chair of the Distance Learning Advisory Committee is a member of the ASO.
Hubley said that the proposal could be re-written to state that if the chair of any one of those first three
committees is not a member of the faculty, then another member of the committee who is a member of
the faculty would serve as the rep to the Academic Council.
Plants commented on the language of the first sentence in section II-A of the proposal, suggesting it is
inappropriate to suggest there are academic policies with “little or no impact on the broader college
community.” We need to change the language to reflect the importance of academics, and in keeping
with recommendations from Middle States we need to ensure that faculty has primary responsibility for
the academic program. How does this proposal meet the changes expected by Middle States? Hubley
said he envisions policies developed by the Council that would need to go through the CWF. For
example, the Program Mentoring system that is currently being implemented was developed in Academic
Affairs clearly involves a large contribution from people outside of Academic Affairs. The Academic
Council would appropriately need to work with the CWF on such a program.
Questions were raised about the possibility of the Academic Council setting policy or sending policies
directly to the President. Hubley said it makes sense to him that policies coming out of the Academic
Council would go through the VP of Academic Affairs. Hubley stated that the creation of this Academic
Council does not, in practice, create a truly new entity. Rather, the Council would build on a body that
currently meets and is called the Academic Team. However, the Council would (1) clarify the role of this
body, (2) clarify the process of moving proposals through Academic Affairs and the larger governance
system, and (3) clarify the relationships between various bodies/committees within Academic Affairs.
Leslie Wojciechowicz suggested that it is problematic for the VP to chair the Academic Council, when it is
the role of the Council to recommend to the VP. She suggested simply making the VP a voting member,
and have the Council report straight to the President of the College. This would remove a layer of
bureaucracy from the system. Hubley said that it is the role of the VP of Academic Affairs to report to the
President. Even if the Council were to send a policy to the President, the VP is still going to influence the
decision by the President. Swazette Young suggested that making the VP a voting member, but
otherwise removing the VP from a decision-making capacity places unreasonably liability on the VP.
4
Wojciechowicz said she believes it is a mistake to give the VP veto capacity over the Council. Weiss
stated that the VP’s most important role on the committee is to guide it to making good decisions and to
weigh in on the matters at hand. Hubley suggested that regardless of the specific role that the VP is
given in the Council, the VP will be making decisions. We have to work with the VP and trust that the VP
will work with us. If we find ourselves with a VP who repeatedly obstructs the council, then we will have to
deal with that situation. Baldwin stated that while the report from the most recent Middle States
evaluation may have said that “faculty” should have the primary responsibility for academic matters, the
actual Middle States standards are broader, including academic personnel in the decision-making
process. (Some relevant quotations from Middle States are attached at the end of this document.) He
said that Valencia has a number of governing committees that do report directly to the President.
However, this poses problems if the groups are not communicating effectively with each other.
Plants expressed concerns about redundancy—creating yet another committee is not going to solve
problems. We currently have a massive body, the CWF, which is getting little accomplished, and the
President says it won’t be involved in a large portion of decisions anyway. There needs to be a direct
interface between the faculty and the top administration. Hubley said that if the Academic Council is put
in place, then it will be up to the members of the Council specifically, and Academic Affairs in general, to
make things happen. It will be up to us to either flounder like the CWF or get things done.
A motion was presented that the Faculty Senate would take the Academic Council proposal, when
complete, directly to the President. The motion passed with 11 votes in favor, none opposed, and 2
abstentions.
8. New Business
A. Discussion of possible short-term disability and domestic partner benefits
9. Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings
A. Attendance by VP Dunnington; November 15?
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 PM.
Appendix
Some relevant quotes from Middle States:
Standard 4, Page 10, Characteristics of Excellence: eligibility requirements and standards for
accreditation (2004):
The primary goal of governance is to enable an educational entity to realize fully its stated mission and
goals and to achieve these in the most effective and efficient manner that benefits the institution and its
students. Institutional governance provides the means through which authority and responsibility are
assigned, delegated, and shared in a climate of mutual support.
The Commission on Higher Education expects a climate of shared collegial governance in which all
constituencies (such as faculty, administration, staff, students and governing board members, as
determined by each institution) involved in carrying out the institution's mission and goals participate in
the governance function in a manner appropriate to that institution. Institutions should seek to create a
governance environment in which issues concerning mission, vision, program planning, resource
allocation and others, as appropriate, can be discussed openly by those who are responsible for each
activity. Within any system of shared governance, each major constituency must carry out its separate but
complementary roles and responsibilities. Each must contribute to an appropriate degree so that
decision-makers and goal-setters consider information from all relevant constituencies. While reflecting
5
institutional mission, perspective, and culture, collegial governance structures should acknowledge also
the need for timely decision-making.
Standard 10, Page 29, Characteristics of Excellence: eligibility requirements and standards for
accreditation (2004):
For institutions relying on part-time, adjunct, temporary, and other faculty on time-limited contracts,
employment policies and practices should be as carefully developed and communicated as those for fulltime faculty. The greater the dependence on such employees, the greater is the institutional responsibility
to provide orientation, oversight, evaluation, professional development, and opportunities for integration
into the life of the institution.
Page 6, Final Report: Middle States Evaluation Team Visit (2005):
The Characteristics of Excellence state that "the institution's system of governance clearly defines the
roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making." While the Standard
does not spell out any particular form of governance, it does require "a well defined system of collegial
governance" which includes "written governing documents, such as a constitution and by-laws…" This
system needs to ensure that the faculty has primary responsibility for the academic program of the
college, as well as involvement in recommendations on faculty hiring, firing, promotion and tenure.
Standard 10, Page 28, Characteristics of Excellence: eligibility requirements and standards for
accreditation (2004):
Faculty are central to each institution’s teaching and learning activities, and faculty bear primary
responsibility for promoting, facilitating, assuring, and evaluating student learning. The faculty and other
qualified professionals are responsible for devising and developing an institution’s academic,
professional, research, and service programs within the framework of its educational mission and goals.
They are committed to all aspects of students’ success.
6