Department Chairs Council meeting minutes September 25, 2014 In attendance: Carl Sjovold, Chris Seddon, Kelly Gould, Melissa Fellman, Bill Doonan, Mike Hunter, Paul Estabrook, Ken Fitzpatrick, Debra Crumpton, Amy Strimling, Grace Austin, Dianne Heimer, Rachel Spangler, Marisa Agnew, Barbara Toupadakis, Mel Duvall, Daniel Styer, Susan Griffin, Robin Roffey, Jeff Karlsen, Chris Daubert, Mari Carmen Garcia, Sheley Little, Beth Forrester, Kris Janssen, Mary Turner. Bill Doonan on “The History of SCC in 100 Objects”. Proceeds of the sales of the published book will go directly toward scholarships. We currently have only 2 objects! Annette Barfield (LRCFT Union representative) and Ginni May (Academic Senate) spoke about recent changes in evaluation procedures for Department Chairs. There is a change in that now the Dean and Dept. Chair will meet yearly to discuss their evaluation. It is NOT okay to solicit information about a person you are evaluating. Student complaints need to go directly to the Dean, not to the peer evaluation team. There is a peremptory challenge for seeking to remove a member of one’s evaluation team. The process is confidential. The person being evaluated can freely talk about the process, the evaluators may not – we can talk to our review team or Annette Barfield or Robert Perrone. Signing the evaluation form simply indicates that you participated in the evaluation process, NOT that we agree with what the Dean’s report contains. Maintain open communication with the person you are evaluating during the entire process because we want to help them do better. The process is not punitive. The process is transparent. You do NOT have to provide recommendations on the evaluation form. It is better to put nothing than to put something silly (e.g. use colored chalk) because it can be perceived as demeaning. You can have a conversation about potential recommendations rather than written ones. Recommendations that are included MUST be addressed (in the future) by the person being evaluated. Mary suggested writing: “There are no formal recommendations. The team has some enhancement considerations.” Then the faculty does not need to respond to these. Selection of peer evaluation committee: Some Dept. Chairs will talk to the person being evaluated to see if they are okay with the composition of their team. Generally, the Academic Senate president will approve the team composition. It is to be mindful that the person under evaluation is getting a fair evaluation. Remember it is a faculty-led evaluation, the Dean facilitates it. Annette’s #1 complaint received from faculty is that they often feel they are “forced” to sign a document that they may not have agreed with (entirely). The evaluation concludes at the time of the final team meeting. If an evaluator disagrees with some part of the evaluation, the evaluator is encouraged to file a “minority report” in which they document their disagreement with some element of the evaluation. Randy Clem, manager of the College Store, discussed some recent concerns concerning the SCC College Store. Based on decreasing sales, Randy lost 3 FTE this past year. Overhead remains high and profits have decreased. He encourages us to be more timely in submitting our textbook orders – it would help the store staff tremendously. A sizable number of textbook orders were submitted late last term – this has large repercussions for the operation of the store.