Faculty Council Minutes
Attending: Joel Berman, Mark Bollenback, Amy Bosley, Tom Byrnes, Jackie DiMartino, Jean Marie Fuhrman, Bob Gessner, Carin Gordon, Gloria Hines, Clay Holliday (for Chris Wettstein), Ilyse Kusnetz, James Leonard, Graeme Lindbeck, Suzanne Lynch, Lisa Macon, Melissa Pedone, Lana Powell, Dave Rogers (ex-officio), Michael Shugg, Bill Snider, and Rose Watson
Action Items
Minutes:
The January minutes were approved with one correction: omitting an excess word in the section for Professional Development Implementation Plan.
Approval of Faculty to the Endowed Chairs Committee: These faculty were appointed to serve on this committee: John Tobia, Osceola, Political Science; Gladys Stromberg, Osceola, ESOL; Diane Brown, Osceola, Humanities; Gloria Hines, West, Student Services; Susan Dauer, East, Communications; Kay Smith, West, Communications; Rachel Waite, East, Humanities; Rita Swanson, West, Nursing; and John Niss, East, Mathematics. The Council recommended that John Niss serve as the chairperson.
Approval of Faculty to Design a Model for Honors and Student Success: These faculty were appointed: Amy Bosley, East, Communications; Eileen Oswald, East, Communications; Christy Cheney, East, Student Success Program; Gloria Hines, West, Student Services; Debra Hollister, East, Social Sciences; Noy Sparks, West, Humanities; Ed Frame, West, Humanities & Foreign Language; Larry Herndon, West, Answer Center; CoCo Hutchinson, East, Student Success; Katy Sheppard, East, Student Development; Soledad Townsend, Osceola, Student Services; Rose Watson, East, Communications; Lisa Dennis, West, Communications; Ron Colburn, Osceola, Humanities, Communications & Social Sciences; Boris Nguyen, West, Mathematics; Debbie Garrison, East, Mathematics; Dianne Ashe, West, Social Sciences; Pattie Smith, East, Science; and Phillip Bishop, East, Achieving the Dream and Learning Communities Director.
Related to the approval of faculty to design a model for
Honors and Student Success, some members of the Council expressed concern that
administrators may no longer affirm the principles of shared governance,
possibly evidenced by the composition of some committees with too little
faculty representation. Consequently, a
Council member asked Tom Byrnes to pursue the issue of principles of shared
governance so that administrators can voice their stance on them. In addition, the Council supported the notion
that it must make a statement about its stance toward these principles, and it
expressed interest in a meeting with administrators, perhaps on
Discussion/Approval
of Charge Given to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee:
The Council approved the document presented by this Committee with three minor changes: (1) changing 2006 to 2007; (2) changing 2008 to 2009; and (3) deleting “In 2005-2006 (until implementation begins).”
Discussion/Approval of the Charge Given to the Professional Development Implementation and Oversight Committee: Essentially, during this discussion, the majority of the Council divided into two camps. On the one hand, some Council members wished to identify issues with which this committee may grapple and address them now; on the other hand, other Council members advocated a plan that would enable the committee to begin its work and contend with issues as they arose, the Council in turn tackling these same issues in a similar fashion.
The Council also discussed these matters in relation to the committee:
· The Council encouraged the committee to resolve issues if a dean and a faculty member were unable to agree upon activities to include as part of a professional development plan.
· The Council agreed that the committee not give the impression that one activity appeared better than another.
· A Council member called for the inclusion of a statement such as “The Committee functions as a final arbiter only when a dean and faculty member cannot agree upon the appropriateness of an activity to include as part of a professional development plan,” to which some Council members expressed reluctance to the inclusion of the term “final arbiter,” as it invites potential problems.
Finally, the Council approved the charge with the addition of this statement: “This committee will be instructed to accommodate individual circumstances and needs in relation to the professional development of faculty.” Also, the Council proposed sending an invitation to the co-chairs of this committee to communicate their ideas with the Council, the co-chairs receiving the charge with the addition beforehand so that they can prepare accordingly.
Discussion/Approval of Recommendation to Buy Class Climate: Tom Byrnes discussed limitations of data-collection vehicles to gauge student evaluation of instruction currently in use at the College, then listing the benefits of Class Climate. In response, several Council members presented their concerns with Class Climate. For example, some members expressed concern with the cost, training, and selection process, asking if only Class Climate and Flashlight were compared or if several data-collection vehicles were compared. A Council member queried Byrnes if anyone at the College had consulted with other schools already using Class Climate as a means to identify benefits of and drawbacks to use of Class Climate. Another Council member wondered about the compatibility of Class Climate with Banner, and several Council members questioned the objectivity of the document touting the benefits of Class Climate, as the company promoting Class Climate produced the document. The Council ended this discussion by declaring that it was not yet ready to vote on this issue.
Discussion/Approval of Policy Regarding Changes to Student Assessment of Instruction Forms: Some Council members expressed concern over the omission of the “not sure” response, several advocating inclusion of it. In addition, one Council member raised the possibility of adding a “not applicable” response. Furthermore, some Council members questioned the composition of the scale, recommending a 5-point scale as opposed to a 4-point scale. The Council voted to replace the revised #11 with the original #11, and recommended delaying a vote on the overall document until it had resolved issues with the revised document, such as the inclusion of “not sure” and “not applicable” responses.
Discussion/Approval of Changes to the Evaluation of Pre-Tenure Faculty: As for a review of pre-tenure faculty with their respective deans after each term of the tenure process, the Council approved this change. As for classroom observations of pre-tenure faculty by their respective deans during each fall and spring term of the tenure process, the Council approved the original, requiring the first two observations but making the last four optional. Finally, as for mid-term student assessment of pre-tenure faculty during each fall and spring term of the tenure process, the Council approved a motion to require these assessments during the first two semesters but to make them optional thereafter.
Approval of Grade Changes Document: The Council approved the recommendation of the elimination of the WF grade. Prior to this approval, a Council member raised the subject of financial aid implications related to the elimination of this grade option. Next, the Council approved the recommendation to apply grade forgiveness to each student attempt at a course. Finally, the Council rejected the recommendation of a pass/fail or satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading scheme for all preparatory courses. There were 2 no votes.
Time Docked for Faculty: Due to limited time, the Council opted to postpone discussion of this issue.
Discussion Items
General Education Learning Outcomes and Program Review:
Kurt Ewen presented the proposal for General Education Learning Outcomes that enables interested parties to complete the review by December 2007, and he identified the proposed timeline with its outcomes (Spring, Summer, and Fall) that would allow the College to complete the review by this date. In addition, he presented a timeline that specified outcomes by month and by parts of each term. Finally, from the Council, Ewen requested feedback about the general flow of the timeline, as well as other issues, concerns, etc. In response, the Council concentrated upon the selection of faculty to participate in the review, emphasizing the fact that it, not the deans, would select the faculty.
Discussion of Alternative Delivery Developments:
Amy Bosley expressed concern about potential problems with the evaluation of online teaching faculty with Quality Matters because it does not address teaching practices. Essentially, Bosley called for a taskforce to investigate this matter.
Information Items
6-6-0-0 Update:
According to Dr. Shugart, the College will neither abolish nor alter this issue without faculty input, adding that he hopes to reach a final decision regarding 6-6-0-0 contracts by the end of this term.
Dr. Stone has not yet initiated a discussion of this issue.
Reports
West – Reference to a 4-month faculty member discussing health-coverage issues related to 4-month faculty, calling for more discussion of this issue
Osceola – Nothing to report due to postponement of campus’s Faculty Council meeting
East – None
Other Reports
None
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at
The next Faculty Council meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 29, 2007, beginning at 2:30 P.M., at the Osceola campus, in Room 2-219B.