Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

August 22= , 2005

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glenn Akers, Rosa Antonecchia, Mark Bealo, Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Bonnie = Ann Dowd, Molly Faulkner, Candi Francis, Brent Gowen, Lawrence Hahn, Julie Ivey= , Barb Neault Kelber, Teresa Laughlin, Kalyna Lesyna, Stan Levy, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Patrick O’Brien, Jose Rangel, Fari Towfiq, Katie Townsend-Merino

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Robert Gilson, Lori Waite

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; John Ashbury, Donnie Boyle

&= 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.

Approval of Minutes: &n= bsp; The minutes of May 9, 2005, were approved as amended.

Publ= ic Comments: &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino welcomed Senators back for the fall semester. She reminded = everyone of the Senate Orientation scheduled for next Monday from 3:00 p.m. – = 6:00 p.m. New and returning Senators are invited to attend.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie announced several Senate resignations due to conflicting schedules and announced a call for nominations will be distributed soon to fill those sea= ts.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senate members thanked and commended Katie for her presentation at the Fall Plenary Session on August 19.

ASG:= &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Katie indicated that she contacted the Associated Student Government President Ne= ill Kovrig inviting ASG members to attend the weekly Senate meetings and/or pro= vide a written statement on issues or activities within the student government.<= o:p>

Pres= ident Deegan: = Katie provided the following report on issues discussed in her weekly meeting with President Deegan:

= · = The process & procedure for the implementation of the 2005-06 budget. There= was discussion on the need to follow the recommendations of the Fiscal Stability Task Force and the Two-year Fiscal Plan.

= · = The English Department continues to meet and discuss the designing of a criteri= on related study on how to place students in the appropriate courses.

= · = The Bond Consultants have completed their survey of the community about whether= it will support a bond. The preliminary results of the survey will be dissemin= ated for review.

= · = Mr. Deegan will obtain faculty input on the possibility of the commencement spe= aker being a faculty member chosen by the students.

= · = Mr. Deegan will be interviewing an interim candidate on Thursday for the Vice President of Finance & Administrative Services position. Joe Newmyer wi= ll be leaving the position in mid September.

Palomar Faculty

Fede= ration: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Julie Ivey reported that the Palomar Faculty Federation has scheduled five meetin= gs with the district to renegotiate the reopeners. She added that a joint meet= ing with the PFF, the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board, and the Senate will also be scheduled to discuss the evaluation procedures. <= /p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Julie also reported that Perry Snyder has been elected as the part-time faculty member representative on the PFF Board.

Lear= ning Outcomes

Coun= cil: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Barb Kelber invited everyone to attend the Campus Explorations Ethics seminar every Wednesday from 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. in room ES-19. She asked Senate members to encour= age students to add the course to their schedules (class # LC 74993).

Comm= ittee Reports: = ; Katie Townsend-Merino asked those Senate members who are Senate committee chairs = and coordinators who have not provided their end-of-the-year reports to do so w= ithin the next two weeks.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments: &= nbsp; Monika Brannick announced that there has been some confusion on the membership sta= tus of those serving on the Benefits Committee. Although several individuals are appointed, there are no terms assigned to anyone. Katie Townsend-Merino add= ed that there was also some concern expressed by PFF that because the issue of benefits ties in with PFF, that a Governance Structure Group Request form should be completed and sent to the Strategic Planning Council for further discussion on the specifics of the committee structure.

Elec= tions: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino reported that because of some recent resignations as well as some unfilled seats from last semester, there are currently several Senate vacancies. Stan Levy and Bonn= ie Dowd agreed to review the Senate membership roster and identify which terms= are vacant so that a call for nominations can go out this week.

Curr= icunet: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Teresa Laughlin encouraged everyone to attend one of the Curricunet training sessi= ons scheduled for Tuesday, August 30, Wednesday, August 31, Tuesday, September = 6, Wednesday, September 7, Thursday, September 8, and Wednesday, September 14 in ro= om B-8.

Acad= emic Standards

& Practices Report on

The = uses of F/FW/INC: = It was recommended that an agenda item relating to the use of F/FW/INC be tabl= ed until the Academic Standards & Practices Committee meets to discuss the issue= . It can then be brought to the Senate for discussion and/or approval.

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Brannick: To table the issue of the uses of F/FW/INC and the Placement of the Drop Date.

The “Study 25-35

Hour= s/Week” at

Cal = Poly: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino reported that a former Senator brought this issue forward l= ast semester. The 25-35 Program, initiated by the College of Science<= /st1:PlaceName> and Mathematics in 2002, informs freshmen that the national recommendation = for college study time is two hours per unit per week, or 25 to 35 hours. The h= eart of the program is presented in the classroom the very first period of fresh= men courses, when faculty members contact high school and college and describe = and how to study and learn at Cal Poly. Throughout the quarter, teachers encour= age new students to invest time to reach academic success.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie indicated that any Senator can bring this issue back for further discussion= by requesting that it be placed on the agenda.

Prof= essional

Proc= edures Report: = Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg distributed copies of proposed changes to Board Procedure 17= 7, Academic Due Process.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators were encouraged to review the document prior to next week’s meeting w= here it will be presented for approval.

TERB: Issues for

Disc= ussion and

Nego= tiation: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MaryAnn Drinan provided the following list of issues that TERB, the Senate, and the= PFF need to discuss:

Specifics Re the Contract Itself and the Faculty Senate’s Proposed Changes to t= he Evaluations Process

Part-Time Faculty

1.&n= bsp; There is an unclear definition of “faculty duty days” as it applies to part-timers in Section 17.8 of the contract. The definition is important because it refers to the amount of time that part-timers will have to comme= nt on their own evaluations report. TERB could support a simpler definition th= at will essentially give part-timers 2 weeks (10 working days excluding Saturd= ays and Sundays) to respond. This is equivalent to full-timers. PFF must approv= e.

2.&n= bsp; The contract= calls for a “summary form” to be used after the evaluations of part-timers at the time when the Chair or designee discusses the results wi= th the evalueee. The contract states that this form is “to be developed = as part of this agreement.” The TERB office has a part-time evaluation report that is exactly the same as the full-timers report, though it appear= s to be rarely used. In the interest of continuity and stability in this first y= ear of the contract, the same report form can be used with the questions regard= ing office hours and committee work deleted.

Probationary Faculty

1.&n= bsp; Section 17.1= 2 of the contract says: “probationary faculty members will be evaluated at least once in each academic year….” The Senate is reviewing a requirement that the 3^rd year of probationary service to the district also be a time when a full or extensive evaluation report be completed. The Senate reviewed but did not vote on this in the spring semes= ter.

2.&n= bsp; Section 17.1= 3.1 identifies the composition of the Tenure Evaluation Committee (TEC) members= hip. Prior to the contract, there was only one permanent faculty member from the evaluee’s discipline (plus the chair) on the committee. The contract requires 2 discipline members to serve on the TEC (plus the chair). This is= not an issue for the incoming new faculty. However, should all 2^nd, = 3^rd, and 4^th year probationary faculty now have 2 discipline members assigned to their TECs as well? In the absence of direction from the Senate and/or PFF, the TERB will assign a new faculty member from the evaluee̵= 7;s department to all probationary faculty tenure committees, as this is requir= ed, without exception, in a strict interpretation of the contract.

3.&n= bsp; Last spring,= the Senate considered a new requirement - that probationary faculty be evaluate= d by “in-class or workplace observation and small group instructional feedback.” If this = is the case and the proposal passes the Senate, several related decisions must als= o be made. They are:

a.&n= bsp; Does the Sen= ate want the new evaluation procedure to take place immediately?

b.&n= bsp; Will all probationary faculty be required to use this evaluation or does the Senate = want to apply the change only to the incoming probationary faculty this y= ear, then apply the change to all future years as well?

c.&n= bsp; Does the Sen= ate want to make the change effective next academic year?

d.&n= bsp; If the Senate wants to enact and implement this immediately for all probationary faculty; then, further questions must also be addressed. Are there sufficient faculty trained to use this procedure? Can training sessions be scheduled before October so that committees will be trained and probationary faculty will be well informed about this new process? Is there the expectation that committ= ee members themselves will do this or will some faculty experts conduct the session on behalf of the committee?

e.&n= bsp; Must the PFF= then negotiate this with the district for the change to take effect? If so, nego= tiations must occur ASAP so that there will be stability and reliability in the probationary evaluation process.

4.&n= bsp; Regarding probationary faculty, there is no specific requirement that the TEC develop= a remediation plan together with the evaluee should problems arise; though, t= he contract says the TEC members meet with the evaluee, in part, to communicate any concerns” the members have about job performance. The Senate is considering requiring a remediation plan. This is consistent with what is required of full-time faculty in a similar situation.

Tenured Faculty

1.&n= bsp; The Faculty = Manual provides options for Student Evaluations and options for Peer Evaluations f= or tenured faculty who are facing periodic peer review. The Senate is consider= ing eliminating all these options because the contract requires in-class evalua= tion (presumably along with student evals).

2.&n= bsp; The PRCs of tenured faculty will now consist of 3 faculty members rather than two. The tenured faculty member may challenge any of the 3 faculty who are involved = in his/her specific evaluation.

All Faculty

1.&n= bsp; The contract requires that all faculty evaluations committees meet with the evaluee to discuss outcomes. All chairs or designees meet with part-time faculty who h= ave just been evaluated. All TEC committee members meet with probationary evalu= ees, and all PRC members meet with tenured faculty being reviewed. To ensure the contract is being followed, TERB will need to have some information regardi= ng the meeting between the committee and the evaluee. It could be a simple statement that indicates when the meeting or meetings took place, who atten= ded, and a statement that the evaluation report was discussed.

2.&n= bsp; Some clarifi= cation is needed regarding who specifically manages the files and timelines for faculty who have 10 days to comment on their own evaluations. Is it TERB or= HR?

3.&n= bsp; The contract= has no timelines regarding when a dean may submit comments during the peer revi= ew process of full-time faculty. TERB needs closure on this issue. Deans can be required to submit comments before the faculty member signs the final evaluations report in the TERB office. In this way, the evaluee will know t= hat the report is complete and can decide whether comment is necessary.

4.&n= bsp; Who has responsibility for the evaluation procedures regarding the Child Development Center faculty? Two faculty at the center do have the same status as other faculty members. Does TERB have this task? This is a likely a PFF issue.

Department Chairs Evaluation

1.&n= bsp; This is a new responsibility for TERB. The contract does not provide any timelines for ch= air evaluations in Article 12.4 except to say it will be held in the spring. TERB will develop the necessary timelines so that evaluations can be completed and returned to chairs by Ma= y 1.

Mary Ann Drinan, TERB Coordinator As revised on August 2= 0, 2005

Katie Townsend-Mer= ino added that three Senators are needed to volunteer to serve on a working gro= up with TERB and PFF. It is hoped that those appointments can be made at next Monday’s meeting.

<= /span>

Katie also added t= hat last semester former TERB Coordinator Judy Crowe brought forward the first draft of the proposed Procedures for the Evaluation of Part Time Faculty and Procedures for Tenure and Evaluation of Probationary Faculty. She distribut= ed copies and asked that Senators review them again for further discussion at = next week’s meeting.

<= /span>

Senate members dis= cussed the recommendations, including the addition of a third-year full evaluation= , as well as the need for a remediation plan. Senators also supported the propos= al to add a mentor program for probationary faculty.

Expansion of the

Nurs= ing Program: = ; Katie Townsend-Merino indicated that two presentations were made to the Governing Board over the summer months on the possible expansion of the Nursing Progr= am.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg stated that the Nursing department has begun the research on= the expansion of the program at the direction of the Governing Board. She repor= ted that there have been some meetings held with the Nursing department, the Vi= ce President of Instruction, and the Dean of the Mathematics and the Natural &= amp; Health Sciences on adding students to meet the needs of the community while meeting the requirements of the Board of Registered Nurses (BRN) and the National League of Nursing. (NLN).

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; A proposal being discussed is the possibility of adding a separate weekend and evening program that is administered and funded by Contract Education. The program is estimated to cost approximately $500,000 for an additional 20 nursing students. A coordinator would be hired through Contract Education, = and would work directly with the Nursing Department, the BRN, and the NLN.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Lengthy discussion followed on whether current Nursing department faculty members c= ould be hired as independent contractors through Contract Education, the fee structure for these courses, and whether it is the same degree offered. It = was pointed out that this would be the first academic program that would be off= ered both departmentally and through Contract Education. Concern was expressed by several Senators that an academic program would be run outside of the academic department.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bonnie Dowd added that Fiscal Stability Task Force discussed as part of its work l= ast year the need for a process to be developed by which the total cost of new programs is reviewed before proceeding.&nb= sp; She asked if this had been done. Several Senators stated that= while clearly more nurses are needed to serve the community, program approval is = an academic and professional matter. Senate members agreed that a lot of additional discussion needs to occur on this issue before any action is tak= en.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; This issue will be brought back for further discussion and action on August 29.<= o:p>

Facu= lty Council/SPC

Facu= lty Member Cross

Comm= unication: &= nbsp; Katie Townsend-Merino indicated that she would like to improve communication betw= een faculty members serving on the planning councils and the Revenue Allocation Committee. She is suggesting that the faculty members on SPC and RAC meet w= ith the planning council faculty members once per month to hear what issues each council is currently discussing. Senators members supported the idea, and suggested that she contact not only the faculty on those councils, but also= invite members of the Senate to these meetings as well.

Stat= ewide Info on

75/2= 5: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Katie Townsend-Merino provided copies of data presented by the Chancellor’s Office on the percent of FTEF attributable to full-time faculty. Senate mem= bers discussed the document, including the fact that out of 72 colleges Palomar = is tied for 57^th lowest, and is number 11 out of 15 of the same siz= ed districts.

Sing= le Sign-On

for Students: &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Bonnie Dowd reported that there is now a single sign-on for students for both eServices and Blackboard. The user name is their student ID number; the password is what they have established in eServices. Faculty who have not established their passwords in eServices need to do so as well if they will= be using Blackboard. The upgraded Blackboard Learning System is directly tied to PeopleSoft.

Gove= rning Board

Repo= rt: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Katie provided the following report on the Governing Board meetings held over the summer months:

= · = Michele Nelson attended a workshop on Diversity of Faculty and suggested that facul= ty consider participating in the “Museum of Tolerance” program that has been used at other colleges as a tool for increasing sensitivity to diversity issues. = The 2005-06 budget was presented and approved.

= · = The Child Development Center<= /st1:PlaceType> has raised their fees to cover a portion of their salary increases. The par= ents did vote and approved the increase.

= · = Wendy Nelson provided a presentation of Palomar’s Journalism Program. Katie also acknowledged the wonderful work Wendy does with this program.

= · = A copy of the 311 Report filed with the Chancellor’s Office was included with the August agenda. Copies can be obtained online.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senators are encouraged to read the board agendas and minutes for other items discus= sed by the Board since the Senate’s last meeting in May.

ADJO= URNMENT: &= nbsp; The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

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

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary