Faculty Senate Officers Meeting

Faculty Senate Officers’ Meeting

September 26, 2008

In Attendance: Ron Liss, Andre Ruesch, Matt Fontis, Bethany Carson, Mechele Hesbrook

Workload

·  Ron expressed appreciation for the adjunct faculty member who has agreed to be on the Workload Committee, but he emphasized that full time faculty members are also needed for the committee.

·  Faculty Senate Officers will solicit other members at the larger senate meeting today.

Convocation Faculty Senate Meeting

·  Ron emphasizes that the college is only having “convocation” for one hour each semester, but faculty can meet throughout the week at any time.

·  Faculty members are concerned that since convocation is the only even that is obligatory before the semester begins, it would be a much better time for the senate to me than to try to schedule another meeting during which time faculty are not required to be on campus.

·  Ron agreed to have Faculty Senate during January’s convocation and during next fall’s as well, but he emphasized that by the third or fourth time we have a convocation week rather than a day, there will be more people who are actually involved in the weekly activities and then there can be a senate meeting at any time.

Jack

·  Faculty Senate will communicate with OIT in order try to design a “box” for Faculty Senate on Jack in order to make it even more user-friendly.

·  Ron would like to get away from all-user emails eventually, but he understands that for now, email is a good tool to use in order to get faculty involved with senate meetings.

·  Some thought that Faculty Senate announcement process would not only include all-faculty emails, but there would also be a link to Jack in those emails.

Scheduling Trainings/Meetings for Faculty during Faculty Senate

·  TAC is one example of committees or groups that have scheduled meetings during the regular Faculty Senate Meeting times. TAC is aware of this and is willing to change this.

·  There have also been banner trainings during Faculty Senate.

·  Ron has discussed this issue with the deans, and he would like to bring this up at governance council and will encourage campus groups to not schedule meetings during this time. Ron also volunteered to put this on the agenda for governance council.

Core Adjunct Faculty

·  The idea of creating a “core” adjunct faculty came up about a year ago, and Ron has been interested in taking a look at this.

·  One of the most important issues to consider about creating a “core” adjunct faculty is that the money to pay core faculty more is the same money that we can use to bring in more full time people.

·  Ron believes that it might be more important to bring in full time faculty members and also wonders what the benefits and requirements of a core faculty would be. They would receive more pay and guaranteed course assignments; they would also be required to participate in committee work and be more involved in the college.

·  It was asked what the difference between a core adjunct faculty and a part time faculty member is.

·  It was suggested that the college might look first at creating a right balance of full, part time, adjunct faculty members rather than just focusing beginning a core adjunct faculty group.

·  It was proposed that more adjuncts be moved into halftime positions; however, Ron explained that this would cost the college more overall. Two half-time people cost more than one full time person. Instead, Ron will be pushing to get rid of half-time positions in order to add more full time ones.

·  Ron asked how faculty would like to proceed with this issue, and it was emphasized by the senate that until it is know what money is available, it is difficult to know how to proceed.

·  It was proposed a joint statement of intent be created in order to move adjuncts into a position where their service is better recognized.

·  At Montgomery, adjuncts had to do professional development in order to move up in rank.

·  Ron proposed defining what a core adjunct is as a first step and then answering the question of why we want them and what we hope to accomplish by having them. He emphasized that there are some adjuncts at SFCC who want to be adjuncts, who don’t want to be full time faculty.

·  It was brought up that resentment might arise among faculty as some adjuncts become core faculty since this designation might blur the line between the responsibilities of full-time and core faculty members.

·  The question of how people are moved from half time to full time was also brought up. Would there be a whole new hiring process? Would the half timer be fired if there is a better full timer?

·  It was agreed upon that it would be better to have more full time faculty. This is the ideal, and we should explore ways to make this happen.

·  This year SFCC moved two half-timers into full-timers. Ron didn’t have to advertise for this.

·  Ron would rather not hire half-time candidates again.

·  Ron is not guaranteeing that the college has money to add even one full-timer for next year.

·  It was agreed upon that it would be nice to have the administration recognize the importance of adding more full-time faculty and Ron volunteered to come to talk to senate any time about this issue or any other.

Jill: Policy 2-2

·  We revisited Policy 2-2. Two major additions were identified: the need to describe loitering as an inappropriate behavior, and the need to recognize that there are certain places where a student may “hang out” and certain places where this is unacceptable. Jill will draft this and bring it back to Faculty Senate.

·  The Code of Student Conduct already prohibits threatening behavior, and describes this in two places within the document.

·  It was suggested that students be required to have a physical address in order to talk classes. But, it was also suggested that perhaps the problem is not about having a physical address or not, but how we can address the behavioral problems that might arise from not having an address. We can add a section to the student code of conduct on loitering.

·  The Code of conduct is a Policy: 2-1.

·  If a student refuses to sign off on an action plan, this doesn’t lessen the student’s responsibility for the next steps in the procedure. Students’ refusal to sign does not stop the ability of the college to act. There will still be a corrective action plan, and this will be applied if the student signs or not.

·  Faculty members are still wondering if the policy should state that the action will still be taken forward whether or not the student signs off. Action is still implied, but perhaps it needs to be emphasized.

·  Jill acknowledged that SFCC doesn’t have an expulsion policy and we do need to create one.

·  Jill might work with Patricia Finn and the college attorney on this issue.

______

Faculty Senate

September 26, 2008

In Attendance: Andre Ruesch, Matt Fontis, Bethany Carson, Mechele Hesbrook, Dawn Wink, Patty Lee, Gary Cook, Patricia Finn, Michelle Stobnicke, Debra Rivera-Sommer, Michael McKittrick.

A question was raised about how Faculty Senate sub-committees function. Because Faculty Senate sub-committees are committees, they need to follow regular committee rules and guidelines.

Note cards regarding issues faculty members would like to see addressed by the senate (filled out at the last Faculty Senate meeting at the Ojo Caliente retreat) were read to the gathering. The issues and questions were the following:

·  Faculty Senate Elections. It was wondered when a “real” election would be held, but it was noted that elections were already held late last spring.

·  Unionization

·  Greening Curriculum

·  How to revitalize Faculty Senate. It was noted that we will be able to have our regular meeting directly after convocation for the next several semesters. It was also suggested that meeting times be announced more regularly by email and that it might catch more faculty attention if specific issues to be addressed in the upcoming meetings were listed in the email. Everyone is looking forward to having a regular Outlook meeting scheduled for all faculty. This should be in place by next week.

Rank

·  One argument that has been made in the past against this is that inequity is built in to the rank system since it recognizes people with terminal degrees more than those without. This brought up the need to recognize equivalency between experience and degrees when dealing with rank advancement. It seems to some that this should remove the inequity concerns of those who have been against rank in the past.

·  It was brought up that this is not the only argument against rank—there has been a history of people against rank because of the inequality that it necessarily creates just by dividing people by title and because it is another requirement to show documentation of performance rather than just showing teaching ability.

Food and Sustainability

·  It was noted that in Dr. Garvey’s speech at the faculty retreat, he said that the first thing that a school interested in true sustainability would need to change would be its food services. This seemed interesting in comparison to Sheila and Ron’s response to the food services issues that faculty senate has brought up.

·  It was noted that if SFCC had the best little cafeteria in town, the college would attract so many more people—it would really be a true campus center.

·  Meridee noted that it could be difficult to take the exiting structure of the food services and create what we would like. Instead, it might be better to wait until the college remodels food services and then we can create what we really want.

·  Meridee gave some background on how various pressing problems at the college have been solved. When she came in, OIT was 4% of operating budget—a lot less than usual budgets; no one understood banner, new software had not been installed, and business reports were being done by hand. That was her first priority. Also, there was no emergency system or business interruption system, both of which became her second priority. Financial Aid was also a big issue. All of these were priorities that necessarily took precedence over food service changes. Meridee emphasized that it’s not that the administration doesn’t understand the issues of sustainability and food services; it’s that there were other priorities. We are a young school and we are just beginning to think about future plans.

·  Meridee noted that food services will begin serving student-produced food on Wednesdays which seems to be a small, good step.

·  It was asked if it would be possible to have an organic café here. Meridee emphasized that there are several issues that need to be understood. Students are usually poor, and organic foods are expensive. She did recognize that there might be creative ways to make this happen with grants or subsidies. Also, the college community needs to realize that not everyone wants to eat the same foods. There are so many needs that must be addressed. SFCC must look at best practices.

·  Meridee emphasized that instead of trying to be everything to everyone, perhaps we can become more of a branded, mission-based café so that we don’t have to try to do everything. If we have a niche then we can pursue those needs rather than trying to do everything.

·  One major issue is the cost of creating such a café. Meridee asked what we are willing to give up in order to obtain the other things that we want.

·  It was brought up that if the board and the college community make a statement that sustainability is our primary mission, then that’s a very different statement than stating that meeting our students’ needs is our primary goal.

·  It was brought up that there are smaller institutions (St. John’s, The College of Santa Fe) that do seem to be able to offer more choices and better choices. Meridee does acknowledge that this is possible, but it’s just not possible this year.

·  It was asked if the college has looked into contracting our food services, but it was also brought up that the Cisco model of food services is unsustainable.

·  Meridee brought up that we are in an economic downturn—we have no new money. The architects working on the new buildings at SFCC are on board with sustainability ideals, though. Faculty Senate will have the opportunity to talk with them, too, and we can use this programming time to make decisions like the ones we’re discussing.

·  When it was asked if the junk food machines could be removed, Meridee emphasized that SFCC students are not children and we should not place our values on them.

Payroll Issues

·  Faculty members noted concerns with the way pay appears on paychecks. It was noted that pay can be difficult to track without an itemized invoice system—either on the check itself or on a separate invoice. There are some separate payments that are listed on paychecks, but it is difficult to understand what these are for and how many payments are made or are going to be made.

·  Gilda noted that the pay stub should have a breakdown by position: full time work and part time work.

·  It was noted that two years ago, faculty had asked that pay be itemized on checks—as many other institutions already do.

·  Meridee is not sure what to do about this situation but suggested that we talk about what we’d like to do. She can investigate this and come back to us about it.