September 21 - 3:00 PM
Bldg 25 Conference Room
Senate Representatives: Lottie Bain, Richard Grotegut, Kay Harrison, Alan Kirshner, Bunny Klopping, Victoria Loukianoff, Susan Myers, Nancy Pauliukonis, Tim Roberts, Marge Segraves, Heidi Story, Carolyn Strickler, Teresa Sutowski, and Barbara Tull.
Others present, Jim Wright, Rob Smedfjeld, Ron Travenick, Steve Fajardo, Bob Bradshaw
Jim Wright handed out a template titled "Instructional Basic Program/Discipline Review Data" showing 2005-06 data for Mathematics. He explained that as part of program review, trying to come up with common set of data elements for all instructional programs. This form is a simplification of an older form we used to have. This form is simpler and we have better sources of data. Programs are not limited to what is on the form, but this provides a common set of elements to look at.
We are using the Math Dept as a pilot, as they will be doing a presentation to the Board next week. Every program will have one of these as data is updated. Rob will be putting together this template for the whole college.
Rob mentioned that the numbers on the template from Datamart are available on a website from the Chancellor’s office. Programs can look at these numbers and compare data with other colleges if they wish to do so.
The templates will include data for past three years to look at enrollment trends. For instance, if enrollment going up but instructors going down, a program could argue for more instructors.
Senators asked for clarification of terms used on this form. Full-time Faculty equivalent on this form is comparable to a full-time student equivalent (i.e. a full-time faculty is 15 unit load per semester). FTEF refers to instructional load and overload, this does not include reassigned time. “Zero loads” are not counted in FTEF. Cross-listed courses are only counted in one department. Full-Time positions=number of full-time faculty in the department. The form is not designed to describe everything your department is doing, but it is a starting point. If you want more detailed investigation into data as part of program review, talk to Rob. These charts will be produced next week for all the programs in program review last year, then Rob will move on to create these for programs in review this year.
2. Approval of Minutes (A) – Tull
Motion to approve minutes (M) Kirshner moved, (S) Story. Approved unanimously.
3. Calendar vote logistics (I/A) - Tull
Barbara emailed Senate information on printing costs for creating color copies of compressed calendars for all faculty. Kinko's will charge us around $545.00. All but two who responded via email felt we should put color calendars on web rather than incur printing costs. Alan Kirshner volunteered his laser printer to print color copies for faculty, he feels we should distribute information in the best way possible, and that both calendars should be printed in color for all full-time faculty. Other suggestions were to send faculty a link to color calendars, to add color calendars as an email attachment, and to post color calendars in departments and around campus. The ballot and the pro-con list will be black and white copies and could go into all mailboxes, FT and PT.
Motion: We place the pros and cons in mailboxes plus to FT faculty two color calendars which Alan Kirshner will produce (M) Kirshner (S) Harrison. Approved with one opposition. Motion Passed.
The question was raised whether or not to send out both 15- and 16-week calendars for consideration. It was suggested that PT faculty may tend to vote for the 15-week semester, as many night classes next semester will be taught in 15 week format. The point was made that the main calendar adopted by the college will not preclude shorter terms, as in current practice. The point was made that at the most previous full faculty vote only 15 PT faculty actually voted.
Handout – Pros and Cons or 15- vs. 16-week calendar (Tull).
The suggestion was made to create a section of advantages of adopting a compressed calendar, which would be true for both 15- and 16-week options. Suggestion was made to have an opening statement that explains why the Senate endorses the 16-week term. (The Senate endorsed the 16-week term via email vote prior to this meeting) The Senate needs to explain why the compressed calendar presents advantages and also why we endorse the 16-week option. The primary reason is that we would most likely be able to adopt the 16-week option by Fall 2006, and because of additional class time we know we will get additional apportionment.
Audience member asked the Senate if we endorse the 16-week, why send out both calendars? A Senator explained that at Flex Day, the Senate promised faculty that they would be given choices. The Senate should move ahead with decision to distribute both calendars with pros and cons and include the Senate endorsement. The additional suggestion was made to only include advantages, not disadvantages, for both calendar options.
Motion: The ballot goes out to FT and PT with a separate color ballot to PT faculty. If there is a disproportionate amount of PT to FT voters we will have to do a search to discover who is a “legitimate” voter (according to Senate bylaws). (M) Kirshner. Motion withdrawn.
Senators worked on revising list of advantages for both calendar options. Richard Grotegut will create this document. Barbara has the ballot box and we will be putting ballots into boxes. We will begin voting tomorrow.
4. Calendar ramifications (I) - Tull
Item tabled until next meeting.
Tull commented briefly that some colleges have asked their curriculum committee to specify classes that cannot be taught in intersession. The question was also raised about college service – if we have longer class days, what are the ramifications for college governance? Faculty may have a more difficult time serving, and there are potentially four months during which faculty would not be on campus to meet with administration to make decisions.
5. New enrollment information (I) - Travenick
Tabled item as it was included informally on agenda.
6. Revisions to the Faculty section of the Board Policy (I) - Tull
Board Policy is currently being revised. College Council is looking over two chapters of Board Policy this week, Academic Affairs and Student Services, in order to get in line with Ed Code. The Faculty section of the Board Policy has been appended to the UFO contract so it is legally part of the UFO contract. Most likely, this portion could not be changed without negotiating. Handout was passed out of this Board Policy Section along with an email from Jim Wright to Bob Bradshaw and Barbara Tull proposing the addition of "Innovative Projects" to satisfy the committee assignment requirements.
Senator Kirshner provided a history of development of policy in current format - a former professor needed a way to demonstrate that we were working 40 hours a week, so these are the things that are included in this section of the contract. Jim Wright added that the aim of the Board Policy review is not to open up negotiations, but to open up flexibility for faculty to be involved in other activities in place of committee assignments, such as learning communities, developing new learning strategies, new approaches to assessment of learning outcomes, etc.
Question was raised why developing new online classes, new learning communities, new collaborative learning strategies, and new approaches to the assessment of learning outcomes isn’t just included under “Curriculum Development 3.2.4” portion of Board Policy related to faculty? Discussion pointed out that teaching Online courses and learning communities can be substantially more work than developing a traditional course. This is an opportunity for faculty to get “credit” for the activities they are involved in. Thanks were given to Dr. Wright and the administration for allowing faculty to be creative and for fostering innovation in instruction. The task at hand is to work out the details of how it will be done. These assignments could be called “innovative projects”.
A question was raised concerning Lecture vs. Lab – why are online course considered Lecture? The point was made that administration was willing to work with us, but historically this is how faculty wanted it.
7. Increasing Participation on Campus (I) - Tull
Barbara expressed concern about the health of the Senate. She asked how can we get more people involved? She commented that everybody on Senate is doing at least one if not several other things. She is currently serving on the State Academic Senate committee on Academic Senates, which also encourages more diversity. Our Senate is primarily white.
Comment was made that it always seems to be the same 25 people involved with everything. We are confronting a problem in that we can’t get people to serve on committees. Another Senator explained that there was much more involvement when we had a “faculty hour” with no classes. If we pass 16-week schedule, maybe we can look at having another college hour. A suggestion was made to start identifying those who serve on no committees. Kay will be sending out list of vacancies on committees. Rob said when he looked at it, it was rare that a faculty isn’t doing his or her share, generally they are doing some other activity other than committee work. Many faculty advise clubs, for instance, that meet weekly. This, however, doesn’t resolve the problem. Since this is just information item maybe next time people can make additional suggestions for how to encourage involvement in campus leadership.
Another point was made that the Senate formally appoints all committee membership, however, many committees are put together informally without Senate involvement. This can be a problem when committees start making decisions about policy that impact all faculty, as there may not be adequate faculty representation. This matter is complicated by Task Forces and potential for lack of Senate involvement with campus decision-making.
Jim suggested that an ongoing active academic dialogue could increase faculty participation. For instance, faculty who are doing program review should be allowed or required to share findings with everybody else. He encouraged the Senate and CAPAC to provide a forum for faculty from programs doing review to come and engage with the Senate. This would provide a good dialogue across disciplines.
Kirshner explained that at one time, faculty were divided into small groups and they walked around and met people and found out what was on 3rd floor, for example. Would like to see small group approach to faculty orientation reestablished.
There are some additional recommendations in the 2002 accreditation goals for faculty involvement. Barbara is going to an accreditation workshop on Friday and may get more suggestions. We need to delineate with College Council the roles of each, as well as that of CAPAC. A dialogue with these three groups could produce a list of the roles of each group.
8. President's Report (I) - Tull
Barbara announced that Alliant Senators will be meeting with our Faculty Senators on Sept 27 at 3:30 in Video Conference Room. If interested or if you have any issues you would like discussed email Barbara. Alliant University is currently renting space at Ohlone, but we are moving toward a formal agreement in which Alliant will be offering upper-division and graduate courses.
Barbara received a letter asking us if anyone is interested in serving on Board of Governors. You must be a tenured faculty member with leadership experience in an academic environment and have knowledge of statewide issues. Experience in leadership at state level is preferred. If anyone is interested contact Barbara. We must have materials in by Monday November 7 (hardcopy mailed).
Exemplary program award applications are due at the Senate office by October 21. If there are any programs we want to put forward, please contact Barbara.
Area B will be allowed this year to nominate students for two scholarships, one for a transfer student and one for a continuing student. If you know of any students you would like to put forward, please contact Barbara.
Move to adjourn (M) Harrison, (S) Bain. Adjourned 5:00 pm.
Senators for 2005 - 2006
Building 1 & 5 Bunny Klopping
Building 2 & Hyman Hall Kay Harrison - Committees Chair
Building 4 & Smith Center Teresa Sutowski
Building 6 & 7 Marge Segraves
Building 8 Carolyn Strickler Rep to CCLC
Building 9 & NOC vacant
Counseling and LR&IT Susan Myers Secretary
Deaf Studies & Special Services Nancy Pauliukonis
Exercise Science & Wellness Lottie Bain Treasurer
Fine Arts, Business, & Broadcasting Janel Tomblin-Brown (Fall)/Tim Roberts (Spring)
Health Sciences Heidi Story
Lang. Arts & Soc. Sci. (English & ESL) Barbara Tull President
Lang. Arts & Soc. Sci. (other depts.) Alan Kirshner
Math, Sci., & Tech. (ASTR, BIOL, BIOT,
CAOT, CHEM, CS, & PHYS) Richard Grotegut
Math, Sci., & Tech. (other depts.) Victoria Loukianoff