Minutes o= f the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

April 25,= 2005

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glenn Akers, Rosa Antonecchia, Mark Bealo, Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Bonnie = Ann Dowd, Molly Faulkner, Candi Francis, Robert Gilson, Brent Gowen, Anne Hohma= n, Barb Neault Kelber, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Nort= on, Patrick O’Brien, Jose Rangel, Fari Towfiq, Katie Townsend-Merino

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sherry Gordon, Shayla Sivert, Lori Waite

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Judy Crowe, Sarah Foglesong, Ruth Larson, John Woods

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

CALL= TO ORDER: &= nbsp; The meeting was called to order by the president, Katie Townsend-Merino, at 2:00 p.m., in Room SU-30.

Appr= oval of Minutes: &n= bsp; The minutes of April 18, 2005, were approved as amended.

Publ= ic Comments: &nbs= p; There were none.

Anno= uncements: &= nbsp; Senators welcomed guest Ruth Larson.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators congratulated Molly Faulkner on successfully defending her dissertation.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino reported that Action item E on today’s agenda, “Senate Bill 5: The Students Bill of Rights,” was being removed because the bill died in committee.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Responding to some inquiries she received about the hiring list developed at the Instructional Planning Council meeting, Katie Townsend-Merino indicated tha= t no changes will be made to the list. Changes made within individual department= s will be addressed during the next hiring cycle.

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Levy: To suspend the agenda to address Action item A, Committee Appointments/Elections.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments:

Moti= on 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Brannick, Dowd: Faculty Senate approval of the following committee appointments:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Academic Standards & Practices Committee=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Leanne Maunu Languages and Literature (05- 07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Academic Technology Committee=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Steve Perry &n= bsp; Arts, Media, Business, and Computing S= ystems (05 - 07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; =

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Adjunct Faculty Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Jenny Fererro = Social and Behavioral Sciences (05= -07)

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Bookstore Advisory Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Brenda Wright = (04-06)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Jerry Houser &= nbsp; (05-07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Curriculum Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Pat Hahn Arts, Media, Business & Co= mputing Systems (05-08)

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; =

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Elections Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Craig Chamberlin (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Equal Employment <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Opportunity Advisory Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Fari Towfiq &= nbsp; (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Martin Japtok = (05–07)

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; =

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Equivalency Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Stan Levy &nb= sp; = (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Kathleen Sheahan = (05–07)

= &nb= sp; = = Facilities Review Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ken Swift &n= bsp; = ; (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Government Affairs Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Michael Arguello = ; (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Institutional Review Committe= e

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bruce Gan &nbs= p; &= nbsp; (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Instructional Plan= ning Council

= &nb= sp; = Theresa Egkan = (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Karen Huffman = (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Chantal Maher &n= bsp; (05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Personnel Standards & Pra= ctices Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bob Alidaee = (= 05–07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Professional Procedures Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Susan Snow &nb= sp; (05-= 07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sue Musgrove = ; (05-07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sabbatical Leave Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; David Boyd &nb= sp; Arts, Media, Business and Computing Sy= stems &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; =

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; (05-08)

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Safety & Secur= ity Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Michael Finton &= nbsp; (05-07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Karen Mifflin = (05-07) &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp;

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Strategic Planning Council

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Jose Fernandez &nbs= p; (05-07) &= nbsp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Vocational and Technical Educational Act Planning and Advisory Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Paul Stachelek &nbs= p; (05-07)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Wade Rollings = ; (05-07)

Motion 3 = &nb= sp; MSC Laughlin, Nebelsick-Tagg: Faculty Senate acceptance of the results of the ballot for the following committee appointments:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Vice President of Human Resources Hiring Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Kevin Barrett

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Academic Review Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Elvia Nunez, Student Services

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Susan Snow, MNHS

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; International Education Advisory Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Byung Kang

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Scholarship Committee

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Patrick O’Brien

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Susan Snow

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Brenda Wright

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators briefly discussed simplifying the process for those faculty members who wis= h to provide statements. Patrick O’Brien volunteered to create a form that could be filled out and submitted at the same time faculty submit their nam= es to the Committee on Committees.

Elections Committee

Report: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Stan Levy reported that the Elections Committee is meeting on Monday, May 2^=
nd to count the ballot for the new Senator positions.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino added that one of the candidates listed on the ballot from = the Math department has withdrawn her name from the Senate election due to other commitments. She also reporte= d that after the ballot had been distributed an error was noted because only one of the two candidates from the Math department could have been elected as ther= e is currently a Senator from that department. It was not specified on the ballo= t to only vote for one Senator from that department. A separate ballot for that department was to be distributed to correct this error but it is no longer necessary because one of the candidates has withdrawn.

Curriculum: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Teresa Laughlin reported that the Curricunet training sessions for this semester h= ave been completed and more will be scheduled in the fall.

Motion 4 = &nb= sp; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Gowen: To suspend the agenda to discuss Information item D, TERB Revisions to Evaluation Procedures.

TERB Revisions

to the Evaluation

Procedures: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Copies of the following first draft documents of the Procedures for Evaluation of Part-time Faculty and Procedures for Tenure and Evaluation of Probationary Faculty were provided for discussion:

First Draft – Evaluation of Part-time Faculty

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Procedures for Evaluation of Part-time Faculty

A. Purpose<= /p>

The evaluation process for part-time faculty= is designed to provide meaningful feedback on job performance, to recognize and support excellence, and to encourage improvement. Each faculty member is encouraged = to identify and address areas of professional growth.

In accordance with Education Code, Section 87663, a part-time faculty member will be evaluated during the first year of employment with the District, and at least once in every six subsequent semesters using the following procedures:&= nbsp; A part-time faculty member who has a break in service of three consecutive semesters or more, for any reason, will be considered a first-t= ime, part-time faculty member for the purpose of evaluation.

B. The Evaluator

The department chair/program director or designee shall evaluate ~~adjunct~~ Part-time faculty.=

C. Criteria for Evaluation

The Standards of Performance for Faculty form the specific criteria for evaluation with the exception of Standard 12. Part-time faculty members are not = required to participate in department/program meetings, serve on College/District committees, and maintain office hours.&nbs= p;

The following information shall NOT be used = in the evaluation process:

1. = Race, sex, color, age, religion, ancestry, creed, national origin, political beli= efs, marital status, sexual orientation, medical condition, physical or mental disability, or Vietnam-era veteran status.&= nbsp;

2. = Anonymous letters or material with the exception of the student evaluations that are a component of the evaluation process.

3. = Information that, in the judgment of the evaluator, is unrelated to the evaluee's performance as specified in the Standards of Performance for Faculty.<= /o:p>

4. = The private life of an evaluee.

D. Evaluation Procedure

1. = The Department Chair/Program Director will obtain student evaluations from one = or more classes. Students will evaluate part-time faculty using the Student Ratings of Instructor Form.

2. = The Department Chair/Program Director to whom the part-time faculty member repo= rts (or his/her designee) completes an in-class observation using the Classroom/Video Observation Form.

~~&n= bsp;~~

3. = The Dean or first level administrator (or his/her designee) to whom the part-ti= me faculty member reports may complete an in-class observation using the Class= room Observation Form. The observi= ng administrator shall notify the faculty member that he/she is to be evaluated during the semester. This not= ice shall be given at least one (1) week prior to the in-class observation.

&n= bsp;

4. = The Department Chair/Program Director (or his/her designee) reviews the student evaluations and in-class/workplace observation(s) to complete the Part-time Faculty Evaluation Report. The evaluator shall suggest improvements, as appropriate, and determine re-eval= uation frequency to monitor progress.

5. = The Department Chair/Program Director (or his/her designee) will schedule a mee= ting with the part-time faculty member to review the student evaluations, in-cla= ss observation(s) and Part-time Faculty Evaluation Report. The part-time faculty member will = be provided a copy of the student evaluations in the form of scanned results with typed student comments and of the Part-time Faculty Evaluation Report.

6. = The part-time faculty member is allowed ten (10) faculty duty days from the date the Part-time Faculty Evaluation Report is presented to review and submit comment(s). This ten (10) day period may be extended only with the mutual written agreement of the Vice President for Human Resources or designee and the faculty member.

7. = The Part-time Faculty Evaluation Report shall be filed in the evaluee’s official personnel file. This evaluation will not be filed until the faculty member is provided notice an= d an opportunity to review and comment.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

= &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Procedures for Tenure and Evaluation of Probationary Fac= ulty

Purpose

The tenure and evaluations review process is designed to ensure that the Palomar Community College District maintains a standard of excellence in what may be considered the final stage of the sea= rch and selection process. Granti= ng tenure grants membership into the College community. Therefore, the decisio= n to recommend the granting or denial of tenure is a more critical decision than= the initial decision to hire. Hir= ing does not guarantee tenure. The recommendation to grant or deny tenure is based upon the careful scrutiny o= f a probationary faculty member's job performance during the tenure and evaluat= ions review process.

The minimum degree requirement for tenure as= a District faculty member is the bachelor’s degree or equivalent from an accredited institution or an equivalent foreign degree. This requirement will apply to fac= ulty teaching in vocational programs effective January 1, 1995.

The Governing Board may grant an exception to this policy when rare and compelling reasons justify such an exception and = when the Tenure and Evaluations Review Board and the Faculty Senate recommend th= at an exception be granted.

Tenure and evaluation is a four-year evaluat= ion process for probationary faculty and concludes with either granting tenure,= or deciding not to rehire, in accordance with the provisions of Educati= on Code, Sections 87608, 87609, 87610, and 87740. Probationary faculty will be evalu= ated by students each semester during the first three and a half years. The full evaluation process will be conducted during the fall semester of the first, second, third, and fourth years of employment. For facu= lty hired with a starting date of the spring semester, student evaluations will= be performed during the spring semester, and the full evaluation process will = be initiated in the fall semester.

A peer review process is part of the evaluat= ion of probationary faculty, is mandated by Education Code section 87663, and is achieved through tenure and evaluations review committees.

Evaluation of probationary faculty is a progressive process within the department.= The full evaluation process during the fall semester will incorporate student evaluations of the previous spring semester as well as progress on prior evaluative recommendations.

1. = During the first year, the Governing Board will, by March 15, either 1) enter into= a contract for the following academic year, or 2) not enter into a contract f= or the following academic year and state the reasons why. (Education Code sections 87608 and 87610)

2. = During the second year, the Governing Board will, by March 15, either 1) enter int= o a contract for the following two academic years, or 2) not enter into a contr= act for the following academic year and state the reasons why. (Education Code sections 87608.5 a= nd 87610)

3. = During the third year, no recommendation will be forwarded to the Governing Board,= but a full evaluation will result in an overall performance rating and a designation of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

4. = During the fourth year, the Governing Board will, by March 15, either 1) grant ten= ure or 2) not employ the probationary employee as a tenured employee and state = the reasons why. (Education Code<= u>, Sections 87609 and 87610) Bec= ause the decision to grant tenure must be made in time to meet the March 15 deadline, no student evaluations will be required during the spring semeste= r of the fourth year.

All tenure and evaluation reports shall be forwarded by the Tenure and Evaluations Review Coordinator to the Human Resources Office. The report becomes part of the faculty member’s personnel file.

Criteria for Tenure and Evaluations Review

The Standards of Performance for Faculty form the specific criteria for tenure and evaluation for each faculty position a= nd are reflected in the evaluation forms.&nbs= p;

The following information shall NOT be used = in the tenure and evaluation process, nor shall such material or information be referenced in any committee records:

2. = Anonymous letters or material with the exception of the student evaluations that are a component of the evaluation process.

3. = Information that, in the judgment of the tenure and evaluation committee, is unrelated = to the evaluee's performance as specified in the Standards of Performance for Faculty.

4. = The private life of an evaluee.

Tenure and Evaluation Committee Membership

A Tenure Evaluation Committee (TEC) will be established for each probationary contract faculty member to include the following six (6) academic employees:

1 = The Department Chair/Program Director or his/her designee will serve as chair.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Should a probationary (contract) f= aculty member have an assignment within two or more Departments, the Department Ch= air from each Department will serve as Co. Chairs of the TEC. The original committee chair (s) s= hall continue to serve on the committee throughout the four-year process when feasible.

2 = The Vice President responsible for the faculty member, or his/her designee.<= o:p>

3 = The Dean or first level educational administrator to whom the probationary facu= lty member reports, or his/her designee.

4 = Two (2) permanent faculty members from the evaluatee’s discipline selecte= d by the Department Chair. If the = size of the Department or other circumstances do not facilitate such an appointm= ent, a permanent faculty member from a related discipline will be appointed by t= he Tenure and Evaluation Review Coordinator in consultation with the Department Chair/Program Director.

5 = A permanent faculty member from another Department recommended by the TERB Coordinator and approved by the Vice President responsible for the faculty member.

If a committee member is unable to serve, a replacement shall be selected in accordance with the above descriptions

The probationary faculty member may challenge upon notification of the committee members by the TERB Coordinator within t= en (10) faculty duty days of appointment any of the three faculty members assi= gned to the probationary faculty member’s TEC. Each challenge must be in writing,= must provide a clear statement (s) of the reason (s) for the challenge, and be post-marked or actually received by the TERB Coordinator within (10) faculty duty days of the appointment of the challenged faculty member (s). The challenge may be granted only = upon a majority vote of the entire TERB.

Tenure and Evaluation Committee Chairperson<= o:p>

The Department Chair/Program Director or his= /her designee will serve as chair. Should a probationary (contract) faculty member have an assignment within two or more Departments, the Department Chair from each Department w= ill serve as Co. Chairs of the TEC. The original committee chair (s) shall continue to serve on the committee throughout the four-year process when feasible.

The committee chair shall:

1. = Convene tenure and evaluation committee meetings each semester.

2. = Coordinate the activities of the committee to adhere to the Evaluations Calendar and contact the Tenure and Evaluations Review Coordinator if problems arise.

3. = Compile all evaluative data in a manner to facilitate the review by TEC members.

4. = Draft the Tenure and Evaluation Report after reviewing all evaluative date and conferring with TEC members.

5. = Schedule a meeting with the evaluee and TEC members to discuss the results of the fa= ll semester full evaluation and to review the Tenure and Evaluation Report.

6. = Obtain the evaluee and committee members’ signatures on the Tenure and Evaluation Report.

7. = Meet with the evaluee at the end of the spring semester to review the student evaluations for that semester and to offer suggestions for further growth.<= o:p>

8. = Submit the Tenure and Evaluations Report with all supporting evaluative materials = to the Tenure and Evaluations Review Coordinator on or before the deadline indicated in the Evaluations Calendar.

9. = Represent the committee to the Tenure and Evaluations Review Board.=

Tenure and Evaluation Committee Responsibili= ties

The evaluation of the probationary faculty (contract) member by the TEC is a flexible and careful process designed so = that the probationary faculty member maint= ains a standard of excellence in the final stage of the selection process. = The evaluation should be a careful and comprehensive scrutiny of the evaluee's = work performance.

The TEC, within its discretion and under the coordination of the TEC Chair, may hold meetings with or without the attend= ance of the evaluee. However, the TEC shall meet with the evaluee at least once a semester to provide support and assistance, as needed, and to communicate a= ny concerns the TEC members may have about the evaluee's job performance.

Each individual member shall:

1 = Know the tenure and evaluation process.

2 = Attend Tenure and Evaluation Committee meetings.

3 = Meet with the evaluee prior to the in-class or workplace observation and small g= roup instructional feedback session.

4 = Review the evaluation materials:

a. = The evaluee’s course materials

b. = Composite of student evaluations with typed comments

= c. = Three written classroom observation reports<= /p>

= d. = Report of small group instructional feedback=

= e. = Previous Tenure and Evaluation Report and Summary Spring Semes= ter Report(to be developed)

= f. = Professional Development Contract and Professional Improvement Data

The committee shall= :

1. = Discuss the evaluation materials during the TEC meetings.

2. = Assist the committee chairperson in writing the Tenure and Evaluations Report and<= span style=3D'color:black'> rating a probationary faculty member’s overall performance as “High Professional Performance,” “Standard Performance,” “Substandard Performance,” or “Unsatisfactory.

3. = Suggest strategies for further growth.

4. = Recommend (in the first, second, and fourth years) that the evaluee be rehired, not be rehired, or be granted tenure, as appropriate. In the third year the evalu= ee will be rated as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” The tenure and evaluations review committee shall request mediation by the Tenure and Evaluations Review Board when there is serious disagreement regarding the evaluation rating and/or employment recommendation.

5. = Develop a plan for monitoring progress in area(s) needing improvement.

In the event that suit is brought against any District employee as a result of participation in the tenure and evaluations review process, the District shall assume full responsibility for costs of legal defense and payment of compensatory damages. The District shall assume liability= for payment of punitive damages awarded against a tenure and evaluations review committee member who acted within the course and scope of his or her Distri= ct employment and who acted in good faith, without actual malice, and in the apparent best interests of the District if payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the District.

The Tenure Evaluation Report and any recommendations by the TEC with regard to any continuing employment or to t= he granting of tenures shall be sent to the Tenure and Evaluations Review Coordinator. The Tenure and Evaluations Review Coordinator will review the complete evaluation packet to ensure that all required data is complete and that the evaluation procedures have been properly followed. If the latter conditions have been met, the Tenure and Evaluations Review Coordinator will submit the TEC recommendation to the Superintendent/President, who will rev= iew and send the recommendations to the Governing Board.

Method for Tenure and Evaluation =

The committee membe= rs shall review:

1. = The Professional Improvement Form submitted by the evaluee describing goals for student contact, institutional service, professional service and other activities. A copy of the eva= luee's current approved Professional Development Contract must be attached to this form when submitted.

2. = Materials submitted by the evaluee that are used in the classroom or work place, such= as syllabi, exams, etc.

3. = Student evaluation by the appropriate constituency.

A = For instructor s, student evaluations are obtained from all contract classes be= ing taught by the evaluee. In the= fall semester of the first, second, third and fourth year a small group instruct= ion feedback is obtained from a class selected by the evaluee. Student evaluations are completed = by the remaining contract classes.

B = For counselor s, student evaluations are obtained from all contract classes, if any, being taught by the plus= two sets of at least fifteen (15) student evaluations obtained following counse= ling sessions between the and stud= ents.

C = For librarian s, student evaluations are obtained from all contract classes, if any, being taught by the plus= two sets of at least fifteen (15) student evaluations obtained following bibliographic instruction or small group orientations conducted by the .

4 = A class or work place observation by committee members transpires in the fall semester of the first, second, third and fourth year of evaluation. At least three TEC members schedul= e a class observation with the evaluee. The TEC member confers with the evaluee prior to observing the class= or work place. The class observa= tion form is completed by each committee who observes a class.

5 = When appropriate, an evaluee without a bachelor’s degree may provide documentation and arguments of compelling reasons to justify granting tenure. The decision is subje= ct to review and approval by the Tenure and Evaluations Review Board and requires approval by the Governing Board of the rationale for the request for an exception.

The Probationary Faculty Member

The evaluee will have access to all informat= ion used in the evaluation process. In order to protect the anonymity of students, written comments must be shared orally or be typed and given to the evaluee.

The evaluee shall:<= o:p>

1. = Know the tenure and evaluations review process.

2. = Submit the Professional Improvement Form to the tenure and evaluation committee ch= air by the date indicated in the Evaluations Calendar.

3. = Submit materials used in the classroom or work place to the committee chair by the date in the Evaluations Calendar.

4. = Meet with the TEC Committee each semester.

5. = Meet with the TEC member performing a class observation prior to the class or wo= rk place observation.

6. = Submit specific written goals and plans for addressing the suggestions or recommendations of the TEC.

7. = Provide evidence that areas needing further refinement have been improved and/or corrected.

8. = Meet with the TEC Chair and members to review the Tenure and Evaluation Review Report and other evaluative materials.

9. = Written comments in regard to the Tenure and Evaluation Review shall be filed within ten (10) faculty duty days from the date the report was presented to the TEC Chair. This ten (10) day peri= od may be extended only with the mutual written agreement of the Vice President for Human Resources or designee and the faculty member.

Katie Townsend-Mer= ino asked Senators to consider volunteering to assist Judy Crowe with the task = of reviewing and rewriting the procedures as a result of the recent changes to= the tenure and evaluations review process due to the signing of the contract.

<= /span>

Judy provided an overview on some of the proposed changes to both drafts:<= /p>

<= /span>

· = Beginning in the fall semester, all tenure track faculty hired will be under Article = 17 rather than the Faculty Manual. There are major differences for part time faculty and some for probationary faculty in Article 17. There are only a f= ew changes with the permanent faculty tenure-track, including an additional me= mber on the committee.

· = With relation to adjunct faculty members, when a classroom observation is perfor= med, it can be done by either the chair or a designee. An additional classroom observation may be done by a dean or first level administrator or designee, with a requirement that notice be given to the faculty member prior to the observation.

· = The Part-Time Evaluation Report is completed by the department chair. This repo= rt already exists but has not been used in the past.

<= /span>

Senators briefly discussed the process, if one exists, regarding handling student complaints= and where they should be handled and if they are considered in the evaluation process. It was noted that st= udent complaints fall under the Student Grievance Policy and not under the TERB procedures.

<= /span>

· = Duties have been specified more clearly for the Tenure Evaluation Committee Chair.=

· = The probationary faculty member may challenge any 3 faculty members appointed to the Tenure & Evaluation Committee. The committee includes 1 faculty member-at large who is appointed by the TERB Coordinator and approved by the Vice President of Instruction, and 2 department members. Evaluees who do not agree with the makeup of the committee can submit their reasons to TERB who will vote to accept or reject the committee membership.

· = Evaluees can elect to participate in an instructional feedback session with students from a class they select. If possible, one member of the evaluation committ= ee would be a department member or a committee member chosen at large.

· = There will be student evaluations on all contract classes in the spring semester.= A simple one-page form will be developed that the committee chair will use wi= th the evaluee. At the bottom of the form a section will be added asking for suggestions for future growth.

· = A full evaluation will occur in the third year.

· = Items 5,6, and 7 under “Method for Tenure and Evaluations Review” have been removed. They do not appear in Article 17 and should not be included.<= o:p>

<= /span>

Judy Crowe added t= hat the policy needs to address how to deal with evaluations that are not returned = on time. She reported that on av= erage, only 18% are submitted on time or early.

<= /span>

Discussion followe= d on the proposed changes. Senator= s were urged to email suggestions or comments to Judy prior to next week’s meeting.

Motion 5&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Gowen: To extend the meeting until 4:00 p.m.

Moti= on 6 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Dowd: To suspend the agenda to address Information item A, = Impact of Athletics being in both Instruction and Student Services.

Impact of Athletics

Being in both Instruction<= /p>

and Student Services: &n= bsp; Katie Townsend-Merino indicated that this issue was being brought forward based primarily on hiring and the processes by which the Instructional Planning a= nd Student Services Planning Councils came together to prepare the faculty hir= ing prioritization. There was concern expressed by some members of IPC that because Physical Education is = 75% in Instruction and Athletics is in Student Services there is a dual opportunity for them to advocate their positions while other departments have only one opportunity. Sue Norton added that it does upset the process to ask for a PE teacher and a Coach during the same hiring cycle.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; In response to a question from a Senator, John Woods indicated that it has been many years since a faculty member has been hired for Physical Education onl= y without including Athletics. He reported that non-contract faculty, in terms of retention and transfer numbers, are significantly lower than contract facul= ty in head coaching positions. It is a matter of time and availability. He add= ed that there has been a commitment by the departments both on the Instruction= al side and Athletics/Student Services side to make that commitment. John stated that it is very difficu= lt to find individuals in the middle of the day when typically contact practices = with student athletes occur and there is a struggle to fill those head coach positions. He added that what some see as an advantage for Athletics he see= s as a disadvantage because they do not get to advocate for their positions until the list is already put together. John also expressed concern that retired faculty positions have not been replaced.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion followed on how many departments have suffered similar challenges in recent years. Sue Norton added that the Instructional Planning Council continues to discuss the best interests of the students as a whole and the ongoing challenges in making recommendations for replacements where there is the greatest need. Senators agree= d that it was important that an email from the Vice President of Instruction go to= all departments inviting them to attend the IPC meeting and participate in the = initial discussions when prioritized lists are being created to ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to substantiate their departmental needs.

Moti= on 7 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Gowen: To suspend the agenda to address Action item D, Learning Outcomes Council.

Lear= ning Outcomes

Coun= cil: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Barb Neault Kelber provided copies of the revised governance structure form for = the Learning Outcomes Council. At the Learning Council meeting of April 7, the = Vice President for Instruction presented a request for approval of the revised governance form, with the request for additional reassigned time, as a sign= al of support for the faculty’s role in the work of Learning Outcomes. V= .P. Cuaron was willing to make the case for funding through her office, and man= y thought that the issue could be separated from the larger context of negotiated reassigned time and the decreases the Senate is currently working to accommodate. Because the issues of new reassigned time for faculty are unresolved, Barb asked that approval for the increase in reassigned time be removed from the Senate agenda on April 18, and indicated that the Coordina= ting Committee was withdrawing their request. They will ask that the status quo = be maintained in terms of structure and reassigned time for the next academic = year. After next week’s Senate meeting, it is hoped that Council and Commit= tee members currently serving will have the opportunity to volunteer and contin= ue to serve.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Brief discussion occurred on the minor changes to the document.=

Moti= on 8 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Dowd: Faculty Senate approval of the Governance Structure Group Request for the Learning Outcomes Council; Coordinating Committee.

Moti= on 9 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Laughlin: Faculty Senate approval of the following release time distribution for the Student Learning Outcomes Council for the next academic year:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 50% for the Learning Outcomes Council Coordinator

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 20% for the four Coordinator Committee positions

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; The Senate directs the Committee on Committee to call for volunteers to serve on the Coordinating Committee and Council for one-year terms ending May 2006. =

Moti= on 10 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Laughlin: Removal from the table of Senate/Coordinator release time a= nd stipends with new contract.

Sena= te/Coordinator

Rele= ase Time and

Stip= ends with New

Cont= ract: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino indicated that as discussed last week, those in faculty rea= ssigned positions will be asked to do job studies to provide data on the appropriate amount of release time needed for each position.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; There was discussion on whether a resolution should be presented to PFF or whethe= r it is more appropriate to schedule a joint council meeting or if the Senate President should send a letter instead to discuss the Senate’s dismay with the reduction in FTE. It was suggested that the Senate and PFF Joint C= ouncil meet to discuss the Senate’s concerns regarding the reassigned time reductions.

Moti= on 11 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Bealo, Gowen: The Faculty Senate directs the Faculty Council to bring the matter of release time and stipends to the Palomar Faculty Federation and discuss it formally and seriously.

Moti= on 12 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Gilson, Kelber: Faculty Senate approval of the following release time distribution:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 60% for the Academic Technology Coordinator

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 60% for the Professional Development Coordinator

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 60% for the Tenure & Evaluation Review Board Coordinator<= /p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 20% for the Curriculum Committee Co-Chair

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; The proposed release times were discussed, particularly with regard to the Curriculum Co-Chair and the fact that the position should be at more than 2= 0%.

ADJO= URNMENT: &= nbsp; The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary