Faculty Senate Meeting
Minutes
In Attendance: Brad Sarchet, Nancy Johnson, Christina Dwyer, Jana Bryant, Gladys Green, Ray Wonder, Michael Buonanno, Meg Hawkins, Susie Hutchins, Jane Duke, Isera Tyson, Cheri Kittrell, Nikki Mitchell, Margie Robertson, Floyd Winters, Jeff Grieneisen, and Courtney Ruffner
Minutes taken by: Jeff Grieneisen
Call to Order:
Courtney introduced herself as president and Jeff Grieneisen
as
Agenda: Faculty Senate Survey Results
Prioritize
(what we really want looked into the most)
New
or Additional Items
Goal: To
adopt five items that Faculty Senate can reasonably address
Survey Explained: The meeting began with a discussion of the Survey conducted via Flashlight. Courtney distributed an abridged document of the survey results, and explained the process of the survey:
· the survey was sent to faculty on both campuses
· the survey was sent first to full-time faculty, and then opened up to all faculty -this opening resulted in the last thirty responses of the survey
· the survey was comprised of questions originating from faculty members
Courtney briefly defined the role of faculty senate president: in sum, to provide a voice for faculty on issues that affect the entire body of faculty.
Some discussion ensued regarding whether faculty senate
should represent the
voice
of the faculty even in the event of departmental issues
The meeting progressed through the faculty senate survey (see attached). Highlights of significant discussions are as follows:
· Q1 the cafeteria question—discussion ensued regarding the role of conducting survey simultaneously on both campuses limits findings (where one campus may be happy with a service that another is not).
· Q4 the Lakewood Ranch recycling question—discussion was that this should happen, as it may be a legal requirement, and so faculty senate may not be the correct body to address the issue, and further, most present agreed that other issues take precedence
· Q6 the overloads question—ten people on the survey identified that they are forced to teach overloads (rather than simply being offered the opportunity). A significant discussion ensued regarding both the legality and potential for further implications.
· Q7 hiring/firing question—might be further defined, as program managers and department chairs, who legitimately are in a position to hire/fire, may have answered the question. But if one person was simply a regular faculty member, this becomes a serious issue.
Discussion ensued regarding the nursing program, where teaching overloads is required. Further discussion regarding whether this is a faculty senate or departmental issue revealed that it is faculty senate because of the potential for further abuse.
This
discussion led to discussion of faculty union. One member reports that unions
also work the other way, where a faculty member is not permitted by a union
representative to teach overloads.
This led
to further discussion of Success Rates and Promotion—what “counts” toward
community service is at issue. One member explains the necessity of defining
and limiting service requirements because of past abuse.
·
Discussion led to
question of whether faculty had a vote as to the implementation of success
rates
·
Most faculty feel that
they were invited into the success rate discussion only after it was “an
established fact” and only to “set ranges”
·
One member present
feels that the Success Rate issue will “crumble if challenged,” as it affects
how one can grade, and this further led to discussion of violating academic
freedom
·
Final discussion on the
issue resulted in agreement that success rates should be used as a tool to make
self-reflections when possible and to identify problems rather than to punish
or reward.
· Q8 Employee Parking question—care must be taken to identify where the parking would be placed. Problems are ones of respect and integrity. This resulted in a significant discussion:
·
Discussion revolved
around the notion of respect and integrity on the part of students who “beat
out” instructors for space, and the difficulty of maintaining classroom
authority
·
Discussion also
involved a question of administrative respect for instructors
·
Q9 Bookstore Question—Note as made that an
external study has praised our bookstore as a profit-generating business.
Complaints of bookstore involve its not ordering enough copies of books, but we
can rely on students ordering from alternative sources (
·
Math department has a
bookstore liaison
·
Instructors might order
extra desk copies of STUDENT textbooks
·
Copies of textbooks
should also be ordered for the campus libraries
The survey was rounded out with a discussion of questions 14 (re: academic freedom) and 15 (other issues). Specific questions not addressed above were dismissed with little discussion as unimportant in the context of the overall vision of faculty senate at this time.
Meeting time for next Faculty Senate: Monday, October 16 at
·
Faculty Senate President’s
Meeting with Drs. Pappas and Rosen will take place on October 10
·
Frequency for Faculty
Senate general meetings may be monthly, if deemed productive
Faculty Senate Webpage: We are going to code the Faculty Senate webpage to allow anonymous posts, as email is traceable and may inhibit faculty from forwarding questions or issues.
Faculty Senate survey was not posted to web site because of the site’s availability to anyone outside of MCC.
One member discussed the implications of a traditional model of deanship, where a dean is a tenured faculty member position rather than an administrative position, and the dean is on a rotation.
Issues unrelated to the immediate business involved discussion and definition of AAUP, and overcoming faculty apathy. One member reported “we should need a bigger room.” Issues and observations include:
· Surveys help to create involvement
· Many faculty are unaware of what faculty can do
· Some colleges provide a day where all afternoon classes are cancelled once per month to create a time for Faculty Senate meetings
FINAL RESULT OF MEETING:
Based on the meeting and all present, Faculty Senate should address the following issues, in order from most to least votes:
· (tie) Creation of Faculty Parking
· (tie) Examination of Academic Freedom (in terms of forced overloads and faculty hiring/firing of adjuncts)
· Revisiting/Redefining the Role of Success Rates as tied to promotion/step increases
· Reduction of Required Office Hours to meet state mandate of 10/week
· Visit the expectation of faculty serving on too many committees