Minutes of the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

February 23, 2004

APPROVED

PRESENT: Bill Bedford, Judy Cater, Judy Dolan, Bonnie Ann Dowd, MaryAnn Drinan, Martha Evans, Brent Gowen, Anne Hohman, Barb Neault Kelber, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Dennis Lutz, Maria Miller, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Norton, Steve Spear, Sara Thompson, Fari Towfiq, Katie Townsend-Merino, Rocco Versaci

ABSENT:

GUESTS: Monika Brannick, Jose G. Celiss, Berta Cuaron, Daniel Finkenthal, Marsha Gable, Calvin One Deer Gavin, Charles Heinman, Julie Ivey, Doug Key, Karen Miffin, Mary Millet, Jack Miyamoto, Larry Roberts, Cecilia Rocha, Mike Rourke, Carlton Smith, Susan Snow, Anne Voth

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the president, Steve Spear, at 2:00 p.m., in Room SU-30.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes of February 9, 2004, were approved as amended.

Motion 1 MSC Dowd, Gowen: To suspend the agenda to address Information Item C,

Title V Grant.

Title V Grant Steve Spear introduced Calvin One Deer Gavin, Director of Grant Funded Educational Programs at Palomar. Calvin gave a brief introduction of himself and the goals of his department. His purpose was to talk about the grant funded programs that can lead to communications with departments and divisions about specific grants that may become available in the future. His main objective for being on the agenda today was to talk about their application for a Title V grant.

It is an application through the U.S. Dept. of Education, but due to governmental budget restraints, there was not enough time to complete the application for the coming year. Due to this time restraint, Calvin’s department will begin to work on the application now for next year, hoping to have more input and a possible task force in place for writing and preparing the application.

Calvin continued to explain the process for applying for Federal grants which are pertinent to a large educational institution such as Palomar College. He explained that marketing, such as T-shirts for students, is acceptable and is an actual line item in their budget. He continued by explaining the concept of grant funds, how such funding has been beneficial to him as an educational professional and administrator, and the creative change and opportunities it has given him to serve the students who need assistance.

Calvin provided a packet for each Senator which explained the department’s goals, its mission-vision values statement and the four grants they are currently working on. A Power-Point hard copy was also provided in the packet.

Calvin proceeded to explain why colleges should seek and obtain outside funds.

Obviously, money is in short supply and departments can apply for small sums

or go for bigger grants. He reminded Senators that faculty involvement in grant writing can be used as professional development and when a grant has been accepted it can be quite rewarding, both personally and institutionally.

Calvin cautioned that, in this time of limited resources for education, writing grant proposals should be very well thought out, carefully composed and written. The U.S. Dept. of Education has money available to be awarded to grant candidates but the needs are very competitive so each proposal should be perfectly presented.

TRIO Programs Calvin introduced Marsha Gable, Supervisor of Upward Bound Student Support Services. Marsha presented a brief background on the history of the Federal TRIO programs. They were developed out of the Johnson Administration’s War on Poverty. TRIO came about under the 1^st three programs developed to better serve the underserved populations. First one was Upward Bound, Talent Search and Student Support Services. On Palomar campus we have three Federal TRIO programs – Student Support Services, Upward Bound and EOC. These programs were designed to help students through the process of attaining a higher education through academic retention, to assist students with graduation, and/or for transfer to a four-year institution. Some of the services provided are tutoring, academic advising, cultural activities, college campus visits, and many monthly workshops. It was reported that statistics show excellent results for these programs in the area of academic retention and persistence. Many students are accepted in universities outside of California. Writing for a renewal of funding will soon begin inasmuch as this program is funded for four years, next year being the last year. Faculty interaction is valuable particularly with regard to writing letters of recommendation and support for students.

Calvin One Deer Gavin continued with an explanation of Title V. It is a large grant supported by the Bush Administration, was also supported by the past Democratic administration, and it is also a federal grant administered through the U.S. Dept. of Education. Institutions that have a large proportion of Latino and/or Hispanic students are eligible for the grant. Palomar College meets the eligibility requirements. Calvin introduced Cecilia Rocha of Gear-Up at San Marcos Middle School, and Jose Celis of Imperial Program at San Marcos High School. Cecilia explained further the criteria needed to qualify for a Title V grant. She reported that 25% of the FTE students enrolled at the institution must be Hispanic and 50% of that 25% must be low income, according to the Bureau of Census. In California there are 73 Hispanic servicing institutions and over 53% of those are community colleges. In the San Diego area there are 3 campuses designated as such: Imperial Valley College, San Diego State campus, and San Diego City College. Jose Celis, an Outreach Coordinator, explained some of the purposes of Title V – such as expanding institutional development of the colleges as well as to support institutional change. Jose offered a few examples of what such awards could be: an individual development award could range from $475,000 to $550,000; a cooperative development award could be from $550,000 to $750,00; this would be shared with another institution (like CSUSM or UCSD, etc.) These grants could help with retention rates, graduation rates, curriculum development, strengthening, and expansion.

Sara Thompson asked Calvin when he begins preparing for the Title V grant, if he will be asking various departments and persons to contribute to the support of the grant or assist in the writing of such grant. Calvin reiterated that he will be asking for representation from the various campus groups for the task force throughout the year to solicit ideas that fall within parameters of the regulations for Title V as explained in the handout provided to Senators. After priorities are established, the budget can then be allocated to meet these priorities through the governance process. As a result of information reported at meetings with Vice President Cuaron, it is determined that most of what happens with Title V will be instructional. It was further reported that we will have a year in which to develop priorities.

Calvin reiterated that Palomar College has been designated as a Hispanic serving institution and that such status has to be applied for annually. We have resubmitted the information for renewal and he expects that there will be no problem maintaining this status. Any faculty member wanting professional development or extra experience in grant applications would be welcomed on the task force. Any help from or involvement of the faculty is certainly appreciated by Calvin and his associates.

Motion 2 MSC Dowd, Drinan: To suspend the Agenda to address Information Item B-

TERB Procedures.

Sara Thompson explained that Anne Voth, TERB Coordinator, is attending the meeting to answer questions that have arisen over the past year regarding the TERB process, as well as preparing the way for the new TERB coordinator who will be appointed this semester. Sara proposed some guidelines for the discussion, including questions asked of and by the TERB coordinator and members of the board, which includes Vice President Cuaron. Sara suggested that Senators ask a question, have the question answered thoroughly and then if there is a conflict with the answer perhaps one short follow-up question be allowed and answered, then the issue be closed and the meeting continue on with the next person’s question being addressed. At the end perhaps a list of questions and/or issues that have been satisfactorily answered or not and then continue from there.

At this point it was asked if Dr. Miyamoto and Dr. Rourke would clarify why they were present at this meeting. Dr. Miyamoto replied that he was asked by the President of the Faculty Senate to be present to assure the appropriateness of Senate discussion on personnel matters. Dr. Rourke also replied that he was here by request.

Mary Ann Drinan asked to present a short written statement but Sara intervened and asked Mary Ann if she were willing to wait until after those who have specific questions went ahead and then come back to Mary Ann’s presentation. Mary Ann agreed. Steve Spear asked if they could address questions from the floor. Anne responded that questions were submitted to her from Senators and she would like to first address those questions.

Anne requested that the following questions and responses be included in the minutes.

February 23, 2004

TO: Faculty Senate

FROM: Anne Voth, Tenure & Evaluations Coordinator

SUBJ: Questions About TERB

Prior to today’s meeting, I received the following questions from senators that I would be happy to answer:

1. What are the main functions of TERB and how much time is spent doing each?

TERB meets at most two times a month each meeting a maximum of 50 minutes. TERB meets to discuss and act on requests for changes to the written evaluation plan, to annually review and revise, if necessary, the policy and procedures on tenure and evaluation, to develop plans for continuing improvement of all phases of the existing plan including forms, to discuss research and initiate experiments, to refine and improve the evaluations process, and to consider problems, complaints, and concerns of the faculty.

If a Tenure and Evaluations Review Committee recommends that a probationary faculty member not be rehired the TERB critically reviews the probationary faculty member’s evaluation packet to assure that it complies in substance with the evaluation plan and procedures and that it is complete and consistent. The TERB will critically review all probationary faculty evaluations that result in an overall rating of substandard or unsatisfactory in order to assure that they comply in substance with the evaluation plan and procedures and that they are complete and consistent. If a Tenure and Evaluations Committee has serious disagreement regarding the evaluation rating and/or employment recommendation, the committee may request mediation by the TERB. After a consensus is reached, the Tenure and Evaluations Committee will determine re-evaluation frequency to monitor progress in area(s) needing remediation.

The TERB will review evaluations of tenured faculty for the following reasons:

a. The peer review committee recommends an overall rating of substandard or unsatisfactory.

b. The peer committee refers the evaluation to the TERB.

c. The division dean refers the evaluation to the TERB. This step is taken only when, in the judgment of the dean, an inconsistency exists. When such an inconsistency occurs, the evaluation is returned to the Peer Review Committee for further explanation and support of the recommendation. If the inconsistency remains, the evaluation is referred to the TERB.

If an evaluation is referred to the TERB for any of the above three reasons, the TERB will review the evaluation materials, request more information if necessary, and meet with the Peer Review Committee to reach a consensus. Only the Peer Review Committee can offer remedies which must be agreed to by the evaluee and the TERB. Should the matter involve the Dean then the TERB only acts as a mediator between the Peer Review Committee and the Dean. In none of these cases does TERB have the power to change the evaluation recommendation.

The TERB does not ever see any evaluations that have an overall recommendation of Standard Professional Performance or High Professional Performance.

A TERB member would devote at most 1 2/3 hours a month to these functions.

2. What are the main duties of the TERB Coordinator and how much time is spent at each?

Managing the Tenure and Evaluations program.

Coordinating all faculty evaluations.

Monitoring the progress of tenure and evaluations review for all probationary faculty.

Monitoring the department evaluations of all temporary and adjunct faculty.

Notifying tenured faculty of when their peer reviews must occur.

Monitoring the progress of all peer review committees.

Submitting final signed evaluations for tenured faculty to HR and sending a copy to the evaluee.

(The TERB Coordinator’s signature on the signature page of the evaluation only verifies that the process has been completed.)

Appointing randomly selected faculty to tenure and evaluations review committees and peer review committees when needed.

Developing materials that describe procedures and answer questions about the evaluation process.

Conducting tenure and evaluations review and peer review workshops for faculty. - Rather than conduct formal workshops I spend many hours on the phone or via email answering questions

f IS. Chairing the TERB – At most 1 2/3 hours per month. (1.3% of my 80% release load)

Conducting tenure and evaluations review orientations for new faculty. (These were called First Fridays) – A few hours per year.

6. What kind of concerns does TERB deal with?

In my tenure as TERB Coordinator, I have had a number of faculty members call me for various reasons. Among them are the following: approval for a TERB approved alternative for either the Student or Peer part of the evaluation, complaints/concerns about questions on the Student Evaluation form, complaints/concerns about the Report forms, etc.; these are all questions involving the process. The concerns that are under the TERB’s purview are that of process and procedure, not complaint’s regarding specific faculty members’ evaluations and their results.

7. If a faculty member has a concern with their own evaluation, do they come to TERB?

After an evaluation is completed (committee members and administrators signatures), the TERB has no jurisdiction. The TERB is not a place to appeal one’s evaluation. TERB has no power to change the outcome of any evaluation. Neither the TERB Coordinator nor TERB play any part in the overall recommendation. That is given by the probationary or peer committee. The place to go with this kind of concern is back to the committee, to file academic due process or to file a union grievance. But neither one these involves the TERB. Once the evaluation is complete, the report is in the hands of Human Resources.

8. If someone feels that something in their evaluation file doesn’t belong there, how can they get it removed?

They would have to discuss that with the Vice President of Human Resources. TERB would have no say in the matter.

I appreciate the opportunity to answer the questions that were submitted to me and will be glad to answer any future questions you might have. Please feel free to email me or drop by my office.

Discussion continued with a question interjected after Anne’s response to Question #1, that question being: inasmuch as the office of Vice President, Human Resources was mentioned several times in her response, what is the position of Human Resources within the evaluation process and TERB? Dr. Miyamoto replied that he does not get involved in what TERB is charged to do. If there are questions asked regarding evaluations, personnel issues, things that are in his jurisdiction he gets involved; otherwise, he does not get involved in anyway with TERB.

Bonnie asked Anne to clarify what happens if there are problems in the review process for those who already have tenure. That is, if there is a problem, how does the TERB board deal with it; and, secondly, if there is a grievance, what process exists for the faculty member to deal with it? Anne’s reply was that she had only stated concerns of faculty, not necessarily to the tenure or review process. She also responded that a tenure committee would send the evaluation of a probationary faculty to TERB as would a committee working on a tenured faculty member’s evaluation.

Steve Spear thought that perhaps these questions would be answered further in Anne’s presentation. Rocco stated that if a question becomes apparent at any time, why can it not be asked at that time? Sara clarified that there is no problem with asking questions, but the question being dealt with at this point is: Is there anything other than the peer review as a tenured faculty member that the board deals with?

Bonnie replied that her question is related to concerns previously addressed by the Faculty Senate, with regard to the TERB board not meeting. Is there a process to deal with problems that might come up in a review process of a tenure faculty member? Bonnie asked for clarification on how such situations or problems are handled within TERB.

Anne stated that she feels all of these questions are answered in her statement. TERB is only sent peer evaluations, which come under three conditions. In all cases TERB acts immediately between the peer committee and the dean. TERB never takes a stand, changes a recommendation or comes up with a recommendation. Their only function is to see that the evaluation process is done properly and completely. Sara clarified that TERB has only jurisdiction in the event a faculty member has received a “sub-standard” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation. If that happens, TERB’s only role is as a mediator dealing with that issue only.

Motion 3 MSC: Dowd, Drinan: To extend the meeting until 4:00 p.m.

MaryAnn asked a question regarding probationary faculty members where issues had come up in the past. How many of them had been referred to TERB? It was reported that there were three probationary faculty who had issues and were denied the ability to continue on a tenured track position. Anne was asked to explain what were the actions taken by TERB. Anne countered that there were three tenure committees that made the decision and TERB had no role at all in any of the recommendations. TERB's only involvement in such a case is to look at the evaluation packet to see that the evaluation is complete, consistent and in compliance with the evaluation plan and procedures. Discussion followed whether there is any automatic review of committee recommendations by TERB, particularly when a faculty member is denied tenure. Anne stated that in the year these issues occurred TERB did meet to see that all the documents were complete and consistent and followed the process. Beyond that, TERB has no involvement, at all, in the actual recommendation or the overall evaluation. Even in the case of a “sub-standard” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation, whether it be a peer or tenure committee that comes to TERB, again, it will be checked to be sure the process has been followed but no further action taken. At that time it is the responsibility of the peer committee to come up with the remediation.

Next question asked: Is there any grievance process that a faculty member can use to remedy an evaluation with which he or she is unhappy? And, what is the course of action, other than a letter rebuking the evaluation in the file that a faculty member can take? It was stated that no member or members of TERB can make such a judgment call. It now becomes a union issue. At this point, Bonnie addressed the question of Dr. Miyamoto. He spoke first about probationary faculty being denied tenure; there is a protection process in the Ed Code giving the right to appeal. Otherwise, he as Vice President of Human Resources never gets in the middle of what a peer evaluation committee has done. He does not get involved between V.P. Instruction and Deans in terms of their recommendations for evaluations. Furthermore, Dr. Miyamoto stated that there is an academic due process in the Faculty Handbook but it may not be useful in evaluations procedures.

The next question addressed the faculty members’ recourse for dealing with a negative report or letter being placed in their personnel files. Dr Miyamoto stated that anyone has the right to see what is in his/her file. He also stated that everyone has the right to attach a letter to anything that one feels is inappropriate in their file.

All documents stay in the individual’s personnel file. This is a right that is equal for all employees as defined in the Ed Code. He went on to refer to what things can go into a file or be removed. He also said that these are questions being worked out with the union and are negotiable. At this time, the current process is status quo.

Sara addressed the two questions now on the table. One refers to TERB and seems to be answered inasmuch as their board has nothing to do with a grievance outside of a peer review or evaluation. The other issue, which has nothing to do with the TERB Coordinator, is the grievance process. Sara pointed out that while this is an important issue it is not what Anne has been asked to address with the Senate. Discussion continued regarding how the Senate wants to continue this meeting.

Dr. Miyamoto was asked, again if there is or is not a procedure that governs the personnel files of faculty. He replied that there is always a procedure if persons are not happy with what is in their files, talk with Human Resources. If things are put in the file by due process then he has no involvement in it. Those items will stay there. If Deans, or whomever wishes to write letters of recommendations, accommodations, or whatever, he has nothing to say about that either. He said that all he does is make sure that individuals know something has been put into their file and notifies them that the they have the right to see it, if they so desire. Dr. Miyamoto’s was asked who says what goes in a personnel file? He responded that if just anyone wants to put something in that is unprofessional or personally demeaning, then he would probably not allow such material to be put into another person’s file.

The next question asked of Anne Voth: Who makes the decision that TERB will or will not meet with a faculty member who wishes to be heard? The questioner asked Dr. Miyamoto if there is any rule or regulation that allows him to put items in a persons file without informing that person? Dr. Miyamoto answered that if things go into a person’s file, especially if it is derogatory, that person will be notified that such an item has been placed in their file. The individual has 10 days to respond to the notification if they wish to do so. This also is required by the Ed Code.

Anne Voth stated that she had 2 questions regarding what issues TERB does deal with. She noted that she has answered both questions in her written statement (#6, #7), which will be provided to the Senate Secretary after the meeting to be incorporated into these minutes.

Anne was also asked: If a faculty member comes to her as the TERB coordinator, who makes the decision that the problem should be addressed by the TERB board or just the Coordinator? Anne answered that she makes the decision, as that is the job of the Coordinator.

The Vice President of the Senate intervened at this point in the questioning in order to move the discussion inasmuch as it seemed the question that was asked of Anne had been answered sufficiently.

Anne was then asked about three probationary faculty who were not rehired. There was a question as to whether the members of the TERB board present at this Senate meeting recalled reviewing those files.

Teresa indicated that she was on sabbatical during some of that time but could recall one. No other TERB members present were serving at that time with the exception of one, who indicated that she couldn’t recall specifically the particular files, but the group did send back evaluations which did not follow proper procedures.

Bonnie Dowd stated that there is a need that TERB matters be handled by the collective group in that it protects the individual in the position of coordinator and does not give the impression of one person making decisions without the input of others. She further noted that the issue is whether TERB has been dealing with issues as a group. If they have, the entire group should be held accountable for decisions they make, rather than just the coordinator. Anne indicated that once an evaluation is completed it is forwarded to Human Resources. She indicated that regarding the issue at hand, she did contact the Vice President of Human Resources and informed him that the faculty member in question was not happy with her evaluation. She was then told to contact the faculty member, which she did several times, sending copies of her correspondence to members of the board.

In response to a question regarding what steps a faculty member should take when dissatisfied with their review, Anne indicated that the Faculty Manual states that due process should be followed. Because TERB has never addressed the issue, there is some uncertainty on how to proceed. Doug Key added that the faculty member should follow the existing grievance process, which would involve other faculty.

MaryAnn Drinan stated that if a probationary faculty member has been denied reappointment for tenure, according to Education Code they have a right to a hearing. They can pursue that with the Public Employment Relations Board and have a hearing, and the PFF would be very much involved in that hearing. However, if a faculty member chooses to file a grievance over a satisfactory rating in the peer review process and they believe it should be higher, the academic due process should be followed. The law is interpreted that you are not harmed with a satisfactory rating even though you believe it should be higher. She added that another issue is the number of files on individuals, where they are maintained, and who has access to them. There have been statements made that they are kept in Human Resources after the evaluation process, but she has accompanied individuals to Human Resources to look for them and have been unable to locate them, or in some instances have found multiple files.

There was a question posed regarding what steps a faculty member could take if a negative letter was placed in his/her file. Steve Spear indicated that when he was in a similar situation, he followed proper procedure by requesting a meeting with the Vice President for Instruction, the Vice President of Human Resources, and the campus police. He stated his objections to the letter and his reasons why, and the letter was removed.

Rocco Versaci requested that we deal specifically with this issue because of the differences in these two cases. Specifically, a faculty member made requests to the TERB Coordinator regarding a particular letter in October and November of 2002.

There was a comment made by the Vice President of Human Resources about whether it was appropriate for the Senate to be discussing personnel issues.

Anne Voth briefly outlined the letters written and her response to them. She then answered questions posed to her regarding the letters and subsequent complaints filed against other faculty members.

After further discussion, it was stated that there was overall agreement that there is a need for a process to ensure that individuals can be heard by someone who is outside of the immediate situation. MaryAnn Drinan added that many of these issues are addressed in the district contract with PFF, including the issue of Academic Due Process, which is a broader concept than the process of grievance or what the Education Code provides for a hearing. She indicated that the contract does not address disputes between two faculty members, although the grievance process will specifically address issues in their purview. She did stress the need for a specific policy on the safety and security of faculty files as well as their access to them.

Dr. Miyamoto pointed out that the Human Resources office has never been involved in faculty evaluations or the tenure process. That office holds only the personnel file on each employee of the district. Those are separate files.

Discussion followed on Academic Due Process and the need to “fix it” so it cannot be denied.

Those present were reminded that all Tenure & Evaluations Review Board processes are Academic and Professional matters and must go through the Faculty Senate.

The issue of Tenure and Evaluations Review Board Procedures will be brought back for Senate action on March 1, 2004.

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary