蜜桃影视

Agenda

---

Academic Senate Meeting

蜜桃影视

Friday, January 6, 2012

10:00-11:00am

Cougar Conference Room

Call to Order

Public Commentary Approval of Minutes

 

Criteria for Ranking Faculty Positions

Unfinished Business

Special Admit High School Students Program Elimination Policy

 

President鈥檚 Report Announcements Adjournment

Minutes

---

蜜桃影视 Academic Senate Minutes January 6, 2012

10:10am

Cougar Room

 

President Bill Devine, Vice-President Michelle Beasley, Secretary Geoffrey Dyer, Craig Johnson, Tony Thompson, Kanoe Bandy, Don Bandy, Dave Berry, Greg Golling, Lourdes Gonzalez, Sonja Swenson, David Layne, Diane Jones, Vicki Herder, Darcy Bogle, Shelly Getty, Juana Rangel-Escobedo, Candace Duron, Kamala Carlson, Sharyn Eveland, John Eigenauer, Ruby Payne, Wendy Berry, Rebecca Roth, Jo鈥檈ll Chaidez, Mike Mayfield, Marilyn King, Diana Champion, Jeff Ross, Joseph Polizzotto, Brian Jean, Eric Berube

 

• Public Commentary.

 

• Review of November Minutes. Minutes were approved with

 

• Ranking Faculty Positions. Summary鈥�David Layne moved to fill the positions of faculty who are retiring or resigning this year in the fields of history, science, and dental hygiene. Kamala Carlson seconded. The motion unanimously passed. Rebecca Roth moved to use the newest version of Eric Berube鈥檚 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet鈥� with additional clarifications to the Sharyn Eveland seconded, and the motion passed. Sharyn Eveland moved that each senator would be allowed to rank each position using the 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet.鈥� Dave Berry seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

 

Bill Devine began the meeting by explaining that the superintendent had asked the senate to rank five positions for approval. Sharyn Eveland asked 鈥渨hat about the other positions? Aren鈥檛 there twelve or fourteen?鈥� Bill Devine responded that the senate could put forth as many as they wished, but reiterated that the superintendent had asked for five, adding that those five positions would be subject to available funding. Bill Devine then explained that the task for the meeting was to determine a mechanism by which to rank the many positions that divisions hoped to have filled.

 

He passed out a handout that had two proposed ranking sheets. The sheets, which he had sent through email prior to the meeting, included criteria devised over much time by division chairs for determining the importance of a position. The second of these sheets, according to Bill Devine, reflected changes suggested by Eric Berube and other faculty members since Bill had sent the first sheet.

 

At this point Eric Berube interjected that the second sheet did not, in fact, reflect Eric鈥檚 changes and that, having noticed this from the emails, Eric had devised yet a third ranking sheet to more clearly articulate the criteria devised by the chairs, avoid ambiguity, add a new criterion regarding recommendations being guided by program review, and eliminate a criteria 鈥淔inancial Cost of Instructors鈥� which had been recently eliminated by the chairs.

 

When Bill Devine asked the group to begin a conversation about what the criteria on the sheets should be interpreted to mean, Craig Johnson asked the important question, 鈥淗ow will the vote take place?鈥� Bill Devine responded that he鈥檇 hoped to have senate members email their votes within twenty-four

 

hours of Monday鈥檚 senate meeting, after which point he would tabulate the results. Craig Johnson then pointed out that smaller divisions would have fewer members, potentially mitigating their chances of filling a position in their division. Bill Devine and Sonja Swenson both spoke to the fact that senators would need to vote 鈥渇air-mindedly鈥� and as a representative of the college as a whole, not just a division. Don Bandy made a joke about using his vote as his division chair saw fit. Craig Johnson suggested that each division be given only one vote to level the field.

 

At this point, Kanoe Bandy changed the course of the conversation. She explained that since there were far more than five unfilled positions, she thought it made sense to replace the positions of those faculty who are currently retiring or resigning and then rank all of the other positions after those positions of currently retiring faculty were filled.

 

David Layne moved to replace current retirees first, and Kamala Carlson seconded the motioned.

 

As further discussion, Sharyn Eveland said that 鈥渃urrently retiring鈥� should include Patti Bench鈥檚 faculty position. Kanoe Bandy clarified that she did not mean to include Patti Bench鈥檚 position in that number. Sonja Swenson said that Patti鈥檚 position had been discussed in other meetings, and that Patti had said there was not a need to replace her position since her duties were already being covered. Sharyn said that covering Patti鈥檚 responsibilities had resulted in a double-load for another faculty member. Kanoe Bandy answered that Sharyn鈥檚 concern was justification for a new position, but that it wasn鈥檛 what Kanoe had meant.

 

Tony Thompson pointed out that Terry Brothers鈥� position had never been filled. Marilyn King interjected that Sandy Jennings retired and was not replaced last year.

Jeff Ross reminded everyone that there was a motion and a second on the table to replace currently retiring faculty. He called Kanoe鈥檚 proposal 鈥渟o clean.鈥�

 

Sharyn Eveland clarified that 鈥渃urrently retiring鈥� also referred to Rick Miranda鈥檚 resignation, and that the three positions to be filled first were science, history, and dental hygiene.

 

Diane Jones said that the senate should still rank all three positions and send them forward. Bill Devine asked how the recently retiring positions should be ranked.

Mike Mayfield said that science, history, and dental hygiene should each be given a rank of number one, with whichever position earning the most votes being ranked as number four.

When there was no further discussion, Bill Devine took a vote. The motion unanimously passed. Craig Johnson thanked everyone for supporting Kanoe Bandy鈥檚 idea.

Bill Devine then tried to bring the discussion back around to what he had set out to discuss: the criteria used to rank positions. He referred to Eric Berube鈥檚 newest 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking

 

Sheet鈥� and read the first criterion, 鈥淚mmediate Impact on Existing Programs,鈥� and asked faculty to explain what that meant.

 

Marilyn King responded with the example of how in dental hygiene, accreditation requires that a certain professor to student ratio be maintained in order to retain accreditation and the program itself.

Sonja Swenson said that in all disciplines there is a similar impact.

 

Kanoe Bandy asked if the discussion about the interpretation of the criteria for ranking faculty was still relevant in light of the motion that had just passed.

 

Sharyn Eveland and Bill Devine both said that the discussion was important, since there were more positions to rank and since the senate needed a clear process and mechanism for making these determinations.

 

Jeff Ross then asked what 鈥渋mmediate鈥� meant in the first criterion for ranking faculty positions.

 

Craig Johnson said that 鈥淲e used to have a 鈥榮tatutory requirements鈥� ranking that鈥檚 missing,鈥� referencing Marilyn鈥檚 King鈥檚 point.

Sharyn Eveland said that the statutory requirement criterion was no longer necessary since breaking a statutory requirement was an immediate impact. She then explained that these criteria for ranking faculty were voted on for the last two years and that at a recent Division Chairs meeting, the chairs weighted the criteria and put them in order of importance.

 

Don Bandy asked if the word 鈥渋mmediate鈥� was still relevant to the first criterion since recent retirements are being replaced first.

 

Sharyn Eveland said yes because 鈥渋mmediate鈥� does not necessarily mean today. She explained how the ranking sheet allowed voters to assign a value to each criterion in order to determine a collective sum for each prospective position.

 

Geoffrey Dyer then changed the subject again by asking the question which Craig Johnson had posed at the beginning of the meeting: How, exactly, would the remaining positions be ranked? Geoffrey Dyer said that although everyone agreed to rank science, history, and dental hygiene as first, the senate had not agreed if every senator would receive one vote or if every division would, and said that he was still unclear on the process.

 

Craig Johnson said that he still believed that giving every senator a vote was a disadvantage for smaller divisions, although he personally had no problem with it, since his division is very large.

 

Jeff Ross said 鈥淚t is what it is鈥� and said that in all probability, only two new positions would be filled beside the three that were ranked as first. He suggested that perhaps each division simply suggest one position to bring forward, since most of them wouldn鈥檛 be filled anyway.

 

Kanoe Bandy said that as the division chair of Applied Technology, she had four positions she needed filled. She added that since she knew she wasn鈥檛 going to get them, she didn鈥檛 want to spend the bulk of her weekend preparing a presentation for each of them. She said that she believed that faculty needed to continue to advocate for unfilled positions and that all unfilled positions should be requested, ranked, and recorded in meeting minutes continually. She added that a division鈥檚 first choice for a new position within their division may not be the division鈥檚 first choice for a new position for the entire college. She said that she would like to see all of her own division鈥檚 positions listed, but that she was not going to  give four presentations.

 

Diane Jones responded that simply having the information that there were four unfilled positions in Applied Technology was helpful. Diane said that she would like to know how many positions each division wanted.

 

Always the eager facilitator of communication, Bill Devine sprung to his feet and began wielding a dry- erase marker. The senate was transformed into a chorus of voices, and Bill wrote the following list of sixteen positions on the board:

Kanoe Bandy explained that Don Bandy not only teaches history but also health, rendering the kinesiology position 鈥渉alf new.鈥� Sharyn Eveland explained that although a new psychology professor was hired last year, classes had been previously taught in sociology by a retired psychology professor.

 

Geoffrey Dyer again said that he wanted to know what the process, exactly, would be for determining the positions, since Craig Johnson had expressed one view about the number of votes per division which others had disagreed with. Sonja Swenson said she thought it best if every senator receive a vote and the vote take place on Monday, January 8, 2011.

 

Craig Johnson suggested that FTE be used as a criterion. Sonja Swenson said that FTE was addressed by other criteria.

Brian Jean said that the criteria in general were too vague, calling them 鈥渕umbo jumbo.鈥� He cited the criterion 鈥淟inked to Program Review and Planning鈥� and asked, since all faculty were part of units that completed program reviews, how this criterion could apply any more or less to any potential position.

 

Sonja Swenson responded that the positions themselves should be based on recommendations from program reviews.

 

Eric Berube said that program reviews use many different variables to plan and recommend. He gave the example of FTE as a variable that would be considered in program review. He said that program reviews included an analysis of FTE, and that many completed program reviews included recommendations for new positions.

 

Brian then pointed to the criterion 鈥淔inancial Cost of Instructor鈥� and asked why the criterion was included and what it could mean.

 

Kamala Carlson answered that this criterion had been struck through and moved to the bottom after previous discussion in another meeting. It became clear that some senators were looking at the earlier version of the criteria, and some were looking at the new version which Eric Berube passed out at the meeting, contributing to the confusion.

 

Diane Jones said that Eric Berube鈥檚 newest 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet鈥� was more clear that either of the earlier versions and that she thought the senate should use it to rank positions.

 

Sharyn Eveland reiterated that the criteria themselves were developed in previous years and had only recently been weighted and reordered.

 

Robin Polski referenced Kanoe Bandy鈥檚 earlier comment about the number of available positions and asked if each division should only recommend one position.

Sharyn Eveland and Kanoe Bandy both responded that divisions should not be limited in the number of positions that they can recommend or request.

 

David Layne echoed and affirmed Diane Jones鈥� suggestion that Eric Berube鈥檚 newest 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet鈥� be adopted.

 

Kamala Carlson pointed out that the sheet was confusing because some of the criteria were phrased as questions in complete sentences and some were phrases.

 

Eric Berube agreed that Kamala was right.

 

Rebecca Roth moved to use Eric Berube鈥檚 newest 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet鈥� to rank faculty positions but suggested that clarification be added beneath the criteria to dispel confusion.

 

Sharyn Eveland seconded the motion. The motion passed.

Sharyn Eveland summarized Geoffrey Dyer and Craig Johnson鈥檚 concerns about the number of votes cast relative to the size of the division and the actual process of ranking the positions based on the number  of votes.

 

Sharyn Eveland moved that each senator would be allowed to rank each position using the 鈥淎cademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet.鈥�

 

Dave Berry seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Bill Devine then asked how much time should be allowed for votes to be turned in. Sonja Swenson suggested twenty-four hours, and the group agreed.

 

Meeting was adjourned at 11:05pm.

 

鈥揝ubmitted by Geoffrey Dyer

Supporting Docs

---