February 06, 2012 Meeting
Agenda
Academic Senate Meeting
蜜桃影视
Monday, February 6, 2012
12:00-1:00pm
Cougar Conference Room
Call to Order
Public Commentary Approval of Minutes
Agenda
Faculty Position Decision (Devine)
Budget Committee (3 members of the Academic Senate) (Devine) QFS update (Kulzer)
Faculty Ranking Sheet Review (Devine)
Hiring Committees for Faculty Positions (Devine)
Unfinished Business
Priority Registration
Special Admit High School Students Program Elimination Policy
President鈥檚 Report Announcements Adjournment
Minutes
蜜桃影视 Academic Senate Minutes February 6, 2012
12:00pm, Cougar Room
Present: President Bill Devine, Vice President Michelle Beasely, Secretary Geoffrey Dyer, David Berry, Don Bandy, Wayne Downey, Victoria Herder, Candace Duron, Susan Vaughan, Diane Jones, Shelly Getty, Ruby Payne, David Reynolds, Kanoe Bandy, Kelly Kulzer, Stephanie Walsh, David Layne, Tony Thompson, Rebecca Roth, Sharyn Eveland, Joseph Polizzotto, Gary Graupman, Jack Gallon, Sonja Swenson, Darcy Bogle
- Call to Order. Bill Devine called the meeting to order at 12:14.
- Public Commentary. Sharyn Eveland commented that the lunch was a 鈥渘ice change from pizza.鈥� Bill responded, 鈥淎fter the Super Bowl, no pizza or beer for a long time . . . I鈥檓 building up your immune system with carrots and 鈥�
- Review of January 9th Minutes. David Layne moved to approve the minutes, and Jack Gallon seconded the motion. Minutes were
- Faculty Position Summary鈥擳he senate voted to fill the position in Psychology that will be vacant soon, but did not create an official policy to always fill positions as they open.
Detail鈥擝ill Devine opened the discussion by stating that there will be a vacancy in Psychology and that Superintendent Dick Geise had asked the senate to follow policy on determining positions.
Geoffrey Dyer summarized the discussion involving criteria for ranking replacement positions at the January 6 meeting, explaining that the agenda item had been to discuss the criteria on the ranking sheet, but before that had happened, the senate had voted to fill the positions of full-time faculty that were retiring or resigning. He added that the senate had not articulated an official policy to always fill these positions first, but that he had sensed from comments made by Craig Johnson and Sonja Swenson during the January 6 meeting that not replacing positions as they had become vacant was an ongoing problem which had contributed to the many unfilled positions currently existing.
David Berry asked the senate if the 鈥済eneral feeling鈥� was to always replace positions as they became vacant.
Bill Devine said that it might depend on the position.
Kelly Kulzer asked if positions should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Bill Devine said 鈥淯nless we make a policy and decide to use it.鈥�
Jack Gallon said, 鈥淚 say we leave our options open.鈥�
Diane Jones said, 鈥淚n this case, I say we be consistent with what we鈥檝e done and replace.鈥�
Geoffrey Dyer pointed out that the motion from the January 6 meeting to replace the faculty currently resigning or retiring was not exactly fair, because of unfilled positions from past years, but added that doing so 鈥渟tops the problem鈥� of more unfilled positions building up.
Diane Jones agreed and said part of the success in requesting positions be filled now involved compliance with the fifty-percent law.
Victoria Herder said that filling positions 鈥渟hould be linked to program review.鈥� She spoke to the importance of program review in allocating resources and said that prioritizations should be done by division chairs.
Jack Gallon said 鈥淧sychology is very important鈥� and urged the senate to fill the position.
Diane Jones said, 鈥淭ime is of the essence. In a perfect world, we鈥檇 use program review, but we should at least act鈥� by filling the psychology position now 鈥渙r another one.鈥� [Note: documented program review processes will not be completed again until the fall of 2012, which would leave the psychology position鈥攐r any other one, for that matter鈥攗nfilled in fall of 2012 if it was contingent upon completing another step of program review.] Diane asked Sharyn Eveland鈥檚 opinion.
Sharyn Eveland said, 鈥淚鈥檝e got the position ready to go.鈥� Diane Jones moved to fill the position in psychology.
Jack Gallon seconded the motion.
The motion passed, but Kelly Kulzer (Was this Kelly? Or Kanoe?) voted against it.
There was no further discussion. Kelly Kulzer(Or Kanoe? I used a capital K in my notes鈥� stupid me!) said, 鈥淣o, with no further discussion.鈥�
Don Bandy said 鈥淭hat happens to me at home all the time鈥擭o, with no further discussion.鈥�
- Budget Committee. Summary鈥擝ill Devine asked for three representatives of the senate to serve on the new Budget Committee. He explained that the Budget Committee, a subcommittee of the Governance Council, required three representatives from the senate, per the committee鈥檚 charter. He explained that the committee will work with Strategic Planning to make recommendations to the Governance Council. Bill Devine explained that committee is supposed to meet for one hour a Victoria Herder added that Strategic Planning meets twice a month for ninety minutes. Sonja Swenson and David Layne volunteered. Sharyn Eveland said that she would speak with Rebecca Roth (who had left the meeting earlier) about potentially serving.
- Quest for Success Update. Kelly Kulzer gave a detailed presentation regarding the goals and outcomes of the projects currently funded under the Quest for Success Grant. She delineated the accelerated learning project, which has been completed once in fall in English and ESL and which is currently underway in math, explained what faculty inquiry groups (FIGs) are and what they have been doing on campus, told the senate about Vince Tinto鈥檚 forthcoming faculty development presentation
at 蜜桃影视, and delineated a new 鈥淪ummer of Success Academy鈥� program which would serve students who place into pre-collegiate English classes. After providing information and data, she welcomed volunteers and encouraged faculty to consider developing their own FIGs.
The accelerated learning project for English and ESL had success rates of 80% and 70%, which Kelly compared with significantly lower rates for sixteen-week courses. When asked what she attributed the success to, Kulzer cited the interaction between counseling and instruction, explained that students were encouraged to enroll in only one course during the eight week accelerated term, and also cited the time-frame in which the classes were offered.
[The presentation was incredibly detailed. For more information, please review Kelly Kulzer鈥檚 PowerPoint presentation from the February 6 meeting.]
After finishing the discussion, the senate burst into applause in acknowledgement of Kelly Kulzer鈥檚 work.
- Criteria for Ranking Faculty Summary鈥擝ill Devine brought forth a request from the Office of Institutional Assessment, Research & Planning that the totals from the ranking sheets used in January to determine which fulltime positions to fill be broken down by division in order to gauge if bias was present in the voting. Some senators vehemently opposed this request, and the conversation shifted to the language, interpretation, and application of the criteria on the faculty positions ranking sheet itself. No action was taken.
Detail鈥擝ill Devine began the discussion by explaining that Dr. Eric Berube had requested a breakdown by division of the totals on the completed faculty ranking sheets in order to determine if bias existed in the voting.
Sharyn Eveland said, 鈥淣o.鈥�
Kelly Kulzer asked if the request itself assumed that bias would be revealed by such an investingation. Sharyn Eveland stated that even if there was bias, knowing it 鈥渨ould do no good.鈥�
Bill Devine said that such an inquiry could potentially show 鈥渢hat we are unbiased.鈥�
Kelly Kulzer cited a backlog in the Office of Institutional Assessment, Research & Planning, stating 鈥渨e鈥檙e not getting the data we need now鈥� in a timely manner, citing a recent request for success rates that had not yet been granted, which she had addressed in her QFS presentation.
Sharyn Eveland suggested that the senate look at other elements of the ranking process, and pointed out that the criteria could potentially be revised. She used the example of the criterion 鈥淐ost of Position,鈥� which had been a source of confusion for evaluators using the form.
Jack Gallon stated, 鈥淭here are intangibles, too.鈥�
Geoffrey Dyer revisited what occurred at the January 6 meeting of the senate, explaining that the sole agenda item had been to discuss the criteria on the ranking sheet in advance of applying them, and
reiterating that since much of the January 6 meeting was used to determine to fill positions of faculty who were resigning or retiring, not all of the criteria had been discussed [see January 6, 2012 minutes]. He also said that it was difficult for him to complete the ranking process, since the division chairs who had presented on January 9 had interpreted the standards differently. Although some of the vagueness, such as the phrasing of a few of the criteria, had been discussed on January 6, not all of them had.
Consequently, chairs interpreted the criteria differently. He cited the criterion 鈥淕E/Transfer鈥� and explained how two different divisions had presented differently for the same criterion. He also pointed to the Sociology presentation and how it differed from the Studio Art presentation in including the total number of students enrolled in the courses as opposed to merely the number of students in the major. He attributed these discrepancies to the lack of a proper discussion and understanding of the criteria themselves and added that it made applying the criteria to the different presentations extremely difficult.
Darcy Bogle added that three of the criteria did not relate in any way to Student Services, although there are unfilled Student Services faculty positions that were evaluated with the criteria. She also said that there could be a problem 鈥渨hen you see two [scores of] forties [forty is the highest possible score the ranking sheet can sum] and a zero.鈥�
Sharyn Eveland said, 鈥淚鈥檓 hearing two things very clearly.鈥� The first point she echoed was need to 鈥渓ook over the criteria and discuss exactly what they mean,鈥� and the second was 鈥淧eople were comparing the positions against each other, instead of ranking each on its own merit.鈥� She felt senators should 鈥渓ook at each [position] individually.鈥�
Kanoe Bandy asked if the second suggestion was 鈥渆ven possible.鈥� Sharyn Eveland asked 鈥淗ow do you grade your students then?鈥�
Kanoe Bandy indicated that on a given assignment, it was possible for each student to get an A.
Sharyn Eveland, relating this system to the ranking of faculty positions, she said 鈥淚t鈥檚 possible that they could all get forty.鈥� She added that, 鈥淎s chairs, if we all knew what [the criteria] meant, I could just do a narrative.鈥�
Sonja Swenson explored the possibility of the same template being provided for presentations, and referred too to the differing interpretations of the criteria, explaining that she 鈥渄idn鈥檛 list that art was a GE requirement,鈥� in reference to the Studio Art Position presentation she had delivered on January 9.
Sharyn Eveland, again, suggested that all chairs use the same format.
Sonja Swenson reiterated Darcy Bogle鈥檚 point that the criteria don鈥檛 all apply to counseling.
Kanoe Bandy said, 鈥淚 ranked counseling really high because they serve our entire student population.鈥�
Geoffrey Dyer asked, 鈥淚f we all agreed on the meaning of the criteria, couldn鈥檛 IAR&P populate the template with the appropriate data, and chairs could simply supply a narrative,鈥� referencing the amount of time on the January 7 weekend chairs spent preparing their presentations.
The discussion ended without action.
- Hiring Committees for Faculty Positions. Summary鈥擝ill Devine inquired about senate representation on hiring committees. A brief discussion exploring existing procedure ensued, and no action was
Detail鈥擝ill Devine began the discussion by explaining that Superintendent Dick Geise had recommended that the senate have representatives on hiring committees.
Sonja Swenson said that 鈥淒ivisions should handle that.鈥�
Bill Devine asked, 鈥淪hould I recommend to Dr. Geise that chairs recommend representatives?鈥�
Sharyn Eveland asked, 鈥淚sn鈥檛 there a written policy? Haven鈥檛 chairs had that responsibility delegated to them already by Dennis McCall?鈥�
Kanoe Bandy pointed out that 鈥淐hairs represent the senate.鈥�
Sharyn Eveland added that 鈥淗R is doing it now because they think it鈥檚 the division chairs鈥� responsibility.鈥�
Victoria Herder added that 鈥淧eople could be excluded because committees often meet in the summer, and it bounces right back to the chairs.鈥�
No action was taken.
8) Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 1:00pm.
鈥揗inutes submitted by Geoffrey Dyer on March 2, 2012, as transcribed from his handwritten notes from the meeting.