Faculty Council Minutes
East Campus
Attending: Joel Berman, Mark Bollenback, Amy
Bosley, Tom Byrnes, Jackie DiMartino, Robert Gessner, Carin Gordon, Gloria
Hines, Ilyse Kusnetz, James Leonard, Graeme Lindbeck, Suzanne Lynch, Melissa
Pedone, Lana Powell, Sandy Shugart, Michael Shugg, David Sutton, Kay Walter,
Rose Watson, and Chris Wettstein
Action Items
Minutes:
The March minutes were approved
with two corrections: (1) the addition
of Chris Wettstein’s name; and (2) the changing of Roger’s Rules of Order to
Robert’s Rules of Order.
PDT: Allison Sloan: Report from the Professional Development
Oversight and Implementation Committee:
1. PDT is sending an email with "PDT
At-A-Glance" out on Monday to FC, IAC, and FD to review and send comments
to Allison Sloan by the end of May. Members of the Faculty Council are welcome
to distribute the email to respective senates for comments. Members of the PDT
committee will review these notes and make adjustments in the June meeting of
PDT. The booklet would contain a title
page, communication page, update from PDT, decision tree with workshops, PD Plan
Form, Record of Completion, and, last but not least, the actual PD Plan (19
pages).
2. Members of the PDT committee would like
to set a date for the PD Plan form to be completed in December. The committee
is recommending December 14th of each year due to the fact that since the
program stops on May 14th, it would be easier to remember. The
committee would like the middle of the month to include as much of the term as
possible without going into Christmas break each year.
3. Allison Sloan would be happy to attend
the next Faculty Council meeting to answer any additional questions.
Approval of Faculty Members:
1. The
following faculty were approved for the General Education Committee Taskforce:
Robert Gessner, David
Williams, Lisa Dennis, Pat Smith, Andrew Alexander, Philip Bishop,
Ray Enger, Bonnie Oliver,
Aaron Powell, Diana Ciesko, Carl Creasman, Suzanne Lynch, and Yolanda Gonzalez.
2. The
following faculty were approved for the Learning Council: Tami J. Rogers and
Susan Stone.
3. The
following faculty were approved for the Planning Council: Jean Marie Fuhrman,
Winter Park Campus.
These
issues were raised in relation to the Planning Council:
• Questions arose with the appointment
of John Niss, as he will soon be on Winter Park Campus
and not East Campus.
• It was suggested another name be
chosen as East Campus representative.
• It was suggested that this might be a
good time to have faculty representation collegewide and not from specific campuses.
• History shows that faculty
representation should be from the campus on which they teach to facilitate the
reporting of information.
• The Council needs contribution from
each campus culture because each campus is different.
• Niss’s position will be opened up for
an East Campus Representative to serve on the Planning Council.
4. The
following faculty were approved for the Professional Development Implementation
and Oversight
Committee: Elizabeth Morrison and Paulette Smith.
5. The
following faculty were approved for the Learning Day Planning Committee:
Yolanda Gonzalez and Jill
Sebacher. Two additional faculty members
are still needed to serve on this committee.
Discussion/Action Items
Approval of Software for Student Assessment of Instruction:
1. The need
for student assessment system was approved.
2. There are
only 2 firms that have software and hardware, and both have submitted quotes.
3.
Some members of the
Faculty Council raised these issues:
• Should the College not consider all
options?
• Does the College want to purchase
this software and hardware?
• Does the College want a system to
handle the complex surveys it would like to deliver?
4. It was
suggested by Dr. Shugart that the faculty make recommendations about the type
of software needed with research
into how the software works and that faculty then make a proposal for the software chosen.
5. It was
suggested to name faculty to work with technical team.
Discussion of Tenure Review Committee Procedures:
The Council discussed the Tenure Review Committee Process
and agreed to recommend the following:
1. A
reaffirmation for the college community that the role of the Tenure Review Committee
is to provide oversight in order to
allow full confidence for faculty that their interests are well represented in the tenure process with
full upward transparency and oversight of the tenure decision.
2. A
consistent timeline for nominations, election and meetings of department tenure
review committees.
3. Training
for members of tenure review committees so that they fully understand their
role and responsibilities.
4. Guidelines
for communication with the department faculty about their opportunities to
provide input and the tenure review
committee that represents them.
5. A form for
the submission of the recommendations of the Tenure Review Committee that includes the signatures of TRC members.
6. It was
suggested that the form for the submission of the recommendations of the Tenure
Review Committee contain a
“minority report” check box and a line for statements as to why the faculty member agrees or disagrees with the
decision.
Discussion with Sandy Shugart (shared governance and other
issues):
1. Dr. Shugart
thanked everyone who took part in load banking.
2.
Dr. Shugart stated
that an issue that continues to “buff back” is the compensation system. The
basis is the contract. Supplemental contracts are separate contracts.
• Dr. Shugart was very encouraged with
the collaboration meeting on May 18.
• Issues:
a)
b) Where is the College headed with
temporary faculty contracts?
c) Professional Development compensation
component is very challenging.
3.
Dr. Shugart provided
an update on the legislature: He
reported that the budget is already on the table, and he discussed the
tentative 5% increase, PICO issues, and capital funding issues.
Policy
Approvals
Student Academic Conflict Resolution:
1.
Dave Sutton stated that
the committee came up with the following:
• Idea of having much of the process
handled locally, but having a collegewide overview. The hope and intention is that the problem
would be resolved on campus, and if it has to go
that far, it will be reviewed by the Provost.
• Language is included to allow that
when things get really tense, the CLO has the final say if a change is going to be made of some
substantial nature.
• The idea of an Ombudsman has been
added. The Ombudsman would be a potential mediator who could help bring
resolution between a faculty member and student without going
to hearing. Some faculty don’t want to totally let go of the idea of being able
to have a
hearing, so the policy contains the idea of an Ombudsman who can mediate, but, at the same
time, a formal process is still in place.
2.
Bill Mullowney stated:
• This policy combines the former Student
Academic Grievance policy and the Student Administrator
Grievance policy.
• Now student disputes are broken into
policy and procedure.
• The Final Grade procedure has a
couple of features. It provides for a committee hearing but
makes very clear that there is a process leading to the hearing. Students who
choose this
process will first go to the professor to solve the problem. If that doesn’t
work, the student
would next go to the dean, who would call the professor back into the process. The student would
then go to the provost for final resolution, or the student can go to the Provost and state
he/she would like a committee hearing.
• In this process, the academic
judgment of the faculty member is not under the microscope.
Papers will not be re-graded, nor will there be questions about the academic judgment.
3. The policy also states that once the
term has ended and the final exam is over, a student will receive an “F” if he
or she did not show up to take the final exam. “I” can still be awarded, but at
an earlier time. “WF” and “WP” are awarded at the applicable times.
4. A Council member stated that in Part E,
Student Final Grade Resolution Committee Review Process, the words “sixty (60)
days” need to be added to the part where the student meets with the Provost, as
it is very arbitrary.
5. The same Council member also asked if cases
involving cheating would go through a Student Conflict Resolution Committee.
Bill Mullowney said no, but there is one caveat: Cheating is a dual violation.
It is not only an academic violation, but also a violation of conduct.
6. Dave Sutton stated that the one
difference in the policy is that the CLO will confirm or negate decisions made
by the provost. The provost in this policy is put in the position of convening
the committee and being the “captain of the ship.”
7. Once the decision goes through the
committee, then to the provost, and finally to the CLO, the decision is final.
There is no appeals process.
8. Concerns were raised by Senators from
Osceola Campus. They stated Osceola Campus faculty felt overwhelmed with all
the policies to be reviewed. The Osceola Faculty Council Senators were
uncomfortable voting on this issue until further discussion with Osceola faculty
members.
9. Because of the amount of policies the
committee has received, Dr. Shugart called for some policy conversations on
each campus that would engage a large audience and not just a committee.
10. Dr. Shugart stated that he might want to
look into adding to the job description of the Assistant Provost that he or she
becomes the “policy custodian” on the campus. He or she could sit in on all the
Faculty Council meetings, listen, learn, and answer questions about policies
that might arise. This would provide a contact person for definitive answers.
11. It was asked that when sending policies
to the committee, instead of putting changes in blue or red, could underlines
or strikeouts be used. This would help those who don’t have color printers.
12. A Council member stated that it would be
very helpful to have the faculty members who worked on policies to be present
when discussing policies.
The policy was shelved. Bill Mullowney will make the
sixty (60) day change that Carin Gordon suggested. The policy will be sent out
to the Council members, who will then send it out to faculty for discussion.
Bill Mullowney stated that he would be happy to attend meetings to discuss the
policy.
Student
Code of Conduct:
1. A Council member who was on the
original subcommittee that created the new Student Code of Conduct policy
stated that there was not much change from the old policy but that what was
most important to the subcommittee was the Standard Classroom Behavior section,
which was made more explicit, better stating the power the faculty already
have.
2. One of the major organizational changes
is that it places the administration of the Student Conduct Code with the Vice
President of Student Affairs with cooperation of other offices.
3. This policy provides much more detail
than the prescribed Student Code of Conduct.
4. Specific policies, i.e., cell phone
usage in class, does not have to be stated in the syllabus to be enforceable.
A motion was made to approve the Student Code of
Conduct Policy, and it was seconded and approved unanimously.
Class
Attendance Policy:
1. The concern from Osceola Campus is as
follows: In the policy section, who is defining what is an emergency? The words in the policy create an unclear
pronoun reference problem.
2. It was suggested that the policy be
only 1 sentence: “Students are expected to attend all classes for which they
are registered.” In addition, it was
suggested to rework the procedural part to include examples.
A
motion was made to approve the policy section as a 1-sentence policy, with
approval of the procedures part at a later date. The motion was seconded and
approved unanimously.
Class
Attendance and Grade Records:
1. The line “Students are expected to
attend all classes for which they are registered” is now unnecessary since it
is now part of the Class Attendance Policy.
2. The policy states that faculty should
be taking attendance every day.
3. The lines in the old policy “submitting
these records to the office of admissions and records on forms provided by that
office” will be removed.
A
motion was made and seconded to approve the policy with changes. The policy with changes was approved; there
was one nay vote.
Final
Examinations Policy:
1. Questions arose about online classes.
Quite simply, there isn’t a final exam period for online classes.
2. Questions arose whether a final exam
period was necessary for any type of class and also whether a final exam policy
was necessary.
There
was a motion to table this policy and form a workgroup. The motion to table was
seconded and approved unanimously.
Grade
(Progress and Final) Policy:
1. Under Policy, paragraph 3, line 2, “A
grade must be recorded for every credit student,” is vague, and it should be
changed to “A grade must be recorded for every course in which a credit student
is enrolled.”
2. It was mentioned that faculty members
are unaware when a student is taking the class for a third time This is frustrating when instructors attempt
to input a final grade of “W,” “WP,” or “WF,” as the system will not take it
and a letter grade must be awarded.
3. Tom Byrnes stated that he would consult
Renee Simpson to see if a notification could be put into the software so that faculty
are informed when a student is taking a class for a third time.
A
motion to approve the policy with changes was seconded and approved
unanimously.
A
motion to approve the procedures as they are was seconded and approved
unanimously.
Academic
Dishonesty Policy:
1. It was suggested that the first
paragraph of the policy be extended to include “At the option of the professor,”
which is part of the first line of the second paragraph.
2. The procedure will now begin at “The
Dean of Students or designee may be furnished with written notification of the
occurrence and the action taken.”
3. Cheating is both a conduct code
violation and academic dishonesty.
4. Bill Mullowney will write a statement
to the effect: “Conduct code violations will go to the Dean of Students and
professors will cede control. Academic Dishonesty violations can go to the
Ombudsman.”
A
motion to approve the policy with changes was seconded and approved
unanimously.
The
procedure portion will be rewritten by Bill Mullowney and voted on at another
time.
Travel
Policy:
A motion to approve the Travel Policy was seconded
and approved unanimously.
Student
Fees and Refunds Policy:
1. This policy (06-14) is still under
revision. The policy states that military service and death in the immediate
family are the only reasons for refund after the deadline (10 days after
classes begin—full terms).
2.
Faculty Council
members feel this policy needs to be addressed further and question the fact
that military service and death in the immediate family are the only reasons
for refund.
Faculty
Contracts
1. Current faculty contract is out of date
and muddy.
2.
Intent of the new
contract is to make it more user friendly.
3.
Breakdown of the new
contract:
Paragraph 1: Salary, how it is pad, deductions, etc.,
faculty salary schedule
Paragraph 2: Benefits
Paragraph 3: FRS and CCORP
Paragraph 4: Boiler plate, final grades, etc.
Paragraph 5: Policies and procedures of the college
Paragraph 6: Reduction in forces, reduction in legislative
funding, etc., which is not a policy change.
4. Faculty Council members were
uncomfortable voting on a new contract at this time. It was suggested that
voting be postponed until autumn.
5. It was suggested that both the old
contract and new contract be emailed to the Faculty Senate presidents. Bill
Mullowney will include a detailed explanation of changes in the email. Copies
will be distributed to faculty at Senate meetings. Each Campus Senate will then
schedule meetings with Bill Mullowney to discuss any concerns faculty may have
about the new contract.
6. It was suggested that both the
distribution of copies and meeting with Bill Mullowney be postponed until
autumn.
Discussion
Items
Invitation
to President or his designee:
·
This item invites the
President (or designee) to every Faculty Council meeting with voice.
·
Some Faculty Council
members felt that other faculty would not bring their concerns to the meetings
if the President was attending the entire meeting.
·
It was mentioned that
the Faculty Council President attends the President’s meetings and is not asked
to leave when sensitive issues are being discussed.
·
It was decided that
the Faculty Council would invite the president to all meetings and that no time
would be suggested for his arrival or departure.
Campus
Reports
Osceola
Campus:
• The Student Code of Conduct Policy is
rife with punctuation problems. A
Council member asked Bill Mullowney to email him or her the policy so that he
or she could make the necessary corrections.
• Leadership team is discussing security
issues at the present time.
West
Campus:
• Professor Lindbeck will be out of the
country for a month, and Bob Gessner will attend meetings in his stead.
Elections
• Elections must be held within the
next 2 weeks.
• Two Items:
1)
Proposed constitutional amendment
2)
Michael Shugg for Vice President/President Elect
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at
The next Faculty Council meeting is scheduled for
the West Campus, 6-202.