Faculty Senate Minutes
Thursday, November 5, 2009
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Accokeek 221 (Gwynn Room)
1. 1. Attendance: Please check-in on the attendance roster.
In attendance, Senate officers and delegates—Mark Hubley (FO President), Swazette Young (FO Vice
President), Kathi Linville (Nursing), Eldon Baldwin (at large), Rosanne Benn (Educational Development),
Laura Ellsworth (Public Safety & Law), Alan Mickelson (at large), Darlene Antezana (Liberal Arts),
Charles Thomas (CIS), Nicole Ives (BSBS), Leon Weaver (Student Services), Daniel Jones (at large),
Ned Judy (Liberal Arts), and Sherry Kinslow (Social Sciences). Others in attendance—Rik Karlsson and
Clyde Ebenreck
2. Review the Agenda for the 11/5/09 meeting.

Approved
3. Review the Minutes of the 10/15/09 meeting

Approved
4. Calendar
Fall 2009 important dates
A. College closed or no classes
i) Labor Day, college closed, Sat. 9/5—Mon. 9/7
ii) College Enrichment Day, no classes, Tue. 10/27
iii) Thanksgiving, no classes, Wed. 11/25; college closed, Thu. 11/26—Sun. 11/29
B. Other important dates
i) Last day to withdraw from 15-week classes, Fri. 11/20
ii) Final exam week, Fri. 12/11—Thu. 12/17
iii) Grades due, 4:00 PM Fri. 12/18
November/December important dates
E. Senate meetings
i) Thu. 11/5, 3:15—5:00 PM, Accokeek 221
ii) Thu. 11/19, 3:15—5:00 PM, Accokeek 221
iii) Thu. 12/3, 3:15—5:00 PM, Accokeek 221
F. Board of Trustees meetings
i) Thu. 11/12, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
ii) Thu. 12/10, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
G. College-wide Forum
i) Tue. 11/3, 2:00—3:30 PM, LSC B
ii) Tue. 11/17, 2:00—3:30 PM, LSC B
iii) Tue. 12/1, 2:00—3:30 PM, LSC B
H. Academic Council
i) Thu. 11/12, 3:00—5:00 PM, CAT 133
ii) Thu. 12/10, 3:00—5:00 PM, CAT 133
1
5. Attachments
A. Minutes from the 10/15 meeting
B. Candidates for still more elected positions (at end of this document)
C. Draft revisions of promotion and tenure procedures (at end of this document)
6. Reports
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Senate President
Senate Vice President
Academic Council
Representative from President’s Leadership Team
College-wide Forum
i) Representative from Faculty Organization
ii) Facilities Committee
iii) Human Resources Committee
iv) Budget Advisory Committee
v) Campus Culture Committee
vi) Learning Committee
vii) Technology Steering Committee
viii) Strategic Planning Committee
ix) Assessment Committee
F. Chairs’ Council
G. Adjunct Faculty
H. Representative from the Student Governance Board
7. Old Business
A. Update on benefits proposals
8. New Business
A. Elections for various committees
o
No action was taken as time ran out.
B. Tenure and promotion revisions
o
o
Work to streamline the promotion process is underway. (See attached draft at end of
these minutes.)
Discussion points:
 In order to qualify for promotion or tenure, performance ratings on last two
evaluations must be “fully meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations.”
 Should ILS and Dean make recommendations or just certify as to accuracy?
 Committee proposes that the primary ILS and Dean input is through the
evaluation process (A1 Response), and the evaluation rating amounts to
de facto approval or disapproval. In this case, the committee proposes
that only certification is needed during promotion and tenure processes.
 Some in the Senate feel that the ILS and Dean should have both the
right and the responsibility to recommend or not recommend and to
provide appropriate rationale. Clyde Ebenreck suggested that the ILS
should be able to exercise more subjective judgment at the start of the
process – with faculty grievance process available to protect the rights of
individual faculty members.
 Discussion of whether ILS and Dean will in fact rate a faculty member
with some weaknesses as “Needs improvement” rather than “Fully meets
2







expectations.” Debate as to whether or not it would be wise to provide a
middle category (to create parallel to ABCDF), and still require a “B” for
promotion and tenure. No consensus.
 Rating of “Needs improvement” requires a specific plan for improvement
– plan might be managed through the Center for Teaching and Learning.
 Chairs want to reduce their workload during the promotion process.
 Some chairs do not want to make to make promotion recommendations,
and instead prefer increased emphasis on evaluation.
Significant contributions:
 Plan to develop a rubric for identifying significant contributions.
 Eldon Baldwin cited work earlier this decade included a mechanism for
faculty to apply for official “precertification” of significant contributions
during the year immediately following the contribution. There appeared
to be support for a recommendation to include this mechanism in the
new plan.
Last year there were 23 promotion applications and 16 tenure applications (some
were concurrent applications from the same person.)
There appeared to be general consensus on a recommendation that promotion
and tenure committees be enabled to review applications and portfolios online.
Promotion (tenure?) may be tied to performance pay.
Promotion and tenure are very similar at present.
 Committee is open to exploring the possibility that promotion and tenure
processes have more differences. Consider the view that promotion is
bestowed by the employer, whereas tenure is more a matter of approval
by peers.
 Mark Hubley suggested that the administration is raising expectations
that faculty be more engaged in regional and national organizations.
 Baldwin explained institutional history when the administration at first
suspended new tenure awards and later controlled the number of new
tenure awards each year. Promotion and Tenure processes were
reworked after Dr. Williams agreed to remove administrative restrictions
on tenure applications.
Baldwin asked about a proposal that was formerly called “Continuing
Professional Engagement.” Hubley said that a plan is being considered to
provide some form of continuing “promotions” every five years after full professor.
Discussion will be continued.
D. Testing Center restrictions



Discussion of concerns with Assessment (Testing) Center. Increased student
enrollment had increased stress on system – particular with the number of exams
that end on Monday. Students facing long waits in line. Faculty not permitted to
submit new exams on Monday.
Baldwin reported discussion during CWF and new Student Services VP Lee indicated
a plan would be announced during the coming week.
There were suggestions that an upcoming system for registering students for tests
will speed up the process.
E. Other new business?

Hubley reported on a meeting about the Faculty Grievance Committee (FGC) (present
were President Dukes, Alonia Sharps, VP Dunnington, Hubley, and Nadene HouserArchield)
o Purposes of the meeting included (1) addressing problems encountered when
the FGC recently tried to investigate a faculty grievance, and (2) to discuss
discrepancies in the Code related to the FGC and Grievance/Review procedures
in Title 3.
o History:
3

o
o
o
The committee has drafted revised bylaws, and the Senate has
discussed these bylaws.
 The Senate previously expressed the opinion that the FGC and its
bylaws should be separate from the Faculty Organization. This would
make the FGC more independent.
Issues discussed:
 FGC access to the Board of Trustees
 Ability of the FGC to conduct an investigation
 Recognition of the value of the FGC
 Desire to establish working groups to resolve Code discrepancies
Administrative opinions:
 President Dukes took the position that the existing bylaws of the FGC
had never been approved by the administration or Board.
 The purpose of the FGC is restricted to informal review of grievances.
 The Title 3 Grievance rules provide the only formal review process under
the jurisdiction of HR.
 The original grievance that led to this meeting dealt with appeal of HR
action taken under Title 3. The grievance dealt with voluntary report of
an incident that might be interpreted as a physical assault on a student.
Physical assault is a Code violation, and hence Title 3 action by HR is
required. Appeal of HR action taken under Title 3 must follow the appeal
process outlined in Title 3; involvement of the FGC was inappropriate.
 CSO process of conflict mediation and informal resolution is consistent
with this approach.
 An Ad Hoc committee will be established to work through the remaining
difficulties, Code discrepancies, etc.
Hubley suggested the Faculty Senate and FGC consider the following
recommendations:
 For non-faculty-specific issues, the Title 3 process is fine, with FGC
playing an informal role of mediation and conflict resolution if the grievant
desires.
 FGC is still needed to deal formally with faculty-specific issues (e.g.
Academic Freedom). In this role the FGC authority and processes
should be parallel to HR authority in Title 3 processes (e.g., investigative
powers, appeal to the president, review by the Board of Trustees).
 HR is not equipped to deal with faculty specific issues – specifically with
respect to Academic Freedom.
9. Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM.
4