Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

August 29= , 2005

APPROVED

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

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glenn Akers

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; John Ashbury, Donnie Boyle, MaryAnn Drinan, Don Sullins

&= 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;

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Laughlin: Faculty Senate approval of the minutes of August = 22, 2005, as amended.

Public Comments: &nbs= p; There were none.

Moti= on 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Francis: To suspend the agenda to discuss information item = E, Issues regarding the use of the student ID number with the single sign on.<= o:p>

Issu= es regarding the

use = of the student ID

numb= er with the

sing= le sign on: &nb= sp; = Don Sullins, Director of Information Services, provided an update on the single= student sign-on for students for both eServices and Blackboard. The single sign-on = will enable students to access their email accounts using their 9-digit ID numbe= r followed by: @palomar.edu. The current system of students using the first initial and last name up to 10 characters followed by 4 numeric values was causing prob= lems because many students forget the numeric value that is randomly assigned wh= en email addresses are set up. Don Sullins added that students’ password-protected account ID numbers may be disclosed as directory informa= tion under FERPA (Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act) as long they are password protected. The distr= ict researched this before deciding to go forward with the new 9 digit ID numbe= r.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; When asked when the new system would be implemented, Mr. Sullins indicated that = it could be in place by the end of September. Senate members expressed concern with making the change in the middle of the semester. Asking students who have j= ust become familiar with the current system to change over in the middle of a s= emester could cause too much confusion.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; A question and answer period followed.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Senate members supported the changeover and appreciated the fact that the change w= as being discussed with them prior to implementation but reiterated that it wo= uld be in the best interests of students to wait until the beginning of the spr= ing semester.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; It was also added that many students don’t use the Palomar email address because of its capacity limitations. Faculty members often have emails boun= ced back to them because mailboxes are full and students don’t check these email accounts. It was suggested that IS explore the possibility of allowing messages to be forwarded from the Palomar student email addresses to other proprietary email addresses.

Moti= on 3 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Dowd: To suspend the agenda to address action item E, TERB recommendations from April 25.

TERB=

Reco= mmendations: &= nbsp; MaryAnn Drinan indicated that there are some issues that the Faculty Senate and PFF have to address to provide stability for our faculty who are under evaluati= on review, particularly those who are 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4th year probationary faculty.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; She stated that the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board is meeting later toda= y, and will discuss recommendations made by the Senate on the following issues= :

= · = A Summary Form for part-time faculty members.

= · = Approval of the development of a “tracking” form for meetings between the Tenure Evaluation Committee and faculty.

= · = The recommendation that a small group instruction feedback be included for probationary faculty.

= · = The addition of a third-year full evaluation

= · = The requirement of a remediation plan if necessary

Summary

Eval= uation Form: &n= bsp; Mar= yAnn Drinan indicated that the new contract calls for a summary form to be used after the evaluation of part-timers at the time when the Chair or designee discusses the results with the evaluee. The TERB office has a part-time evaluation report that is exactly the same as the full-timer’s report, though it is rarely used. In the interest of continuity and stability in th= is first year of the contract, Ms. Drinan suggested that perhaps the same form= might be used.

Moti= on 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Francis, Kelber: Faculty Senate approval of the Tenure & Evaluations Re= view Board developing a Summary Form for part-time faculty members.

Deve= lopment of a

R= 20;tracking” form for

Meet= ings between

The = TEC and faculty: &= nbsp; In addition to this summary form for part-timer evaluations, it is required th= at the Department Chair or designee meet with the faculty member being evaluat= ed after the process is complete. Rather than developing additional forms, TER= B is discussing that a checklist outlining the meeting with the evaluee and including issues which were addressed be created.

Moti= on 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Brannick: Faculty Senate approval of the development of a tracking form by TERB for all faculty members for meetings between the Tenure and Evaluations Committees and faculty.

Requ= irement of a

small group of

inst= ructional feedback

be included for

prob= ationary faculty: = ; MaryAnn Drinan stated that last spring, the Senate considered a new requirement = 211; that probationary faculty be evaluated by “in-class or workplace observation and small group instructional feedback.” Additional discussion is needed on how and when to implement it, as well as whether a = sufficient number of faculty are trained to use the procedure.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Some Senators noted that clear instructions on small group instructional feedback are included in the faculty manual and have been used by many faculty membe= rs without any formal training.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion followed on the procedure currently being used and how improvements could be made. It was suggested that this issue be sent back to the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board with a request that they review the guidelines and determine how best to implement.

Moti= on 6 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Francis, Laughlin: The Faculty Senate refers the issue of the requirement of a small group instructional feedback being included for probationary faculty to the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board for their recommendation.

The addition of a

Thir= d-year full

Eval= uation: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MaryAnn Drinan indicated that the current process is that a full evaluation occurs every fall, followed by student evaluations in the spring. In the 4^{th<=
/sup>
year there are no evaluations because there has to be a recommendation made=
to
the board by March 15. The contract states that… “probationary
faculty members will be evaluated at least once in each academic
year…” The Senate discussed having a more extensive review in t=
he
third year last spring but has not voted on it. She stated that clarificati=
on
is needed on whether this would take effect immediately and apply to all
probationary faculty.}

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; It was noted that Education Code does not allow any action on the contract for= the third or fourth year. However, adding a third year evaluation can be extrem= ely helpful to faculty in providing direction in areas where improvements are needed.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Some Senate members expressed concern with changing the process midstream, after= 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th year probationary faculty signed on for = what is currently in the TERB policy and procedures as stated in the faculty man= ual. Katie Townsend-Merino pointed out that PFF is currently working on a propos= al which would provide the option of allowing probationary faculty to choose w= hich system they would like to continue using – the process outlined with = the new contract, or the process as written in the faculty manual.

Moti= on 7 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Francis, Laughlin: The Faculty Senate supports the concept of a full third-= year evaluation to be presented as an option for those already in the system but required for faculty hired as outlined in the faculty contract.<= /span>

The development of

a Remediation Plan: &n= bsp; MaryAnn Drinan stated that regarding probationary faculty, there is no specific requirement that the Tenure & Evaluations Committee (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. Last spring the senate discussed requiring a remediation plan consistent with what is required for full-time faculty in a similar situation.

Moti= on 8 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Francis, Laughlin: The Faculty Senate directs the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board to develop a Remediation Plan for probationary faculty.

Moti= on 9 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Laughlin: To suspend the agenda to address action item D, Establish a Senate/TERB/PFF Working Group.

Esta= blish a Senate/TERB/

PFF working Group: = ; Katie Townsend-Merino stated that the Senate is being asked to appoint 3 full time faculty members to the working group for PFF/TERB/Senate Working Group. There was some confusion on who wo= uld appoint the part-time faculty member to the group and whether it should be a Senator. MaryAnn Drinan added that TERB could choose to appoint two full-ti= mers as well as one part-timer.

Moti= on 10 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Dowd: The Faculty Senate supports the establishment of a 9-person ad-hoc working group between the Faculty Senate, TERB, and PFF.<= /span>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika Brannick volunteered to serve.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Patrick O’Brien volunteered to serve.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bob Gilson volunteered to serve.

Moti= on 11 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Laughlin: Faculty Senate approval of the appointment of Monika Branni= ck, Bob Gilson, and Patrick O’Brien to the Senate/TERB/PFF Working Group.=

Moti= on 12 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Francis: To suspend the agenda to address information items B, C, &am= p; D.

PFF = will appoint the

facu= lty members to

the Benefits

Comm= ittee: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino clarified that PFF rather than the Senate will be appointing faculty members to the Benefits Committee as this is a working condition is= sue.

Requ= est of PFF that a

Sena= tor be appointed

to t= he Calendar

Comm= ittee: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino reported that PFF is required to consult with the Faculty S= enate in relation to the approval of the Palomar College Calendar. She indicated = that she would make a formal request to the PFF that they appoint a Senator to t= hat committee.

Prop= ose to PFF that an

e-bo= ard member be on

the = Senate Council and

that= a Senate Council

memb= er be on the

e-bo= ard: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Katie Townsend-Merino stated that she will be bringing forward a proposal to the Senate that an e-board member be on the Senate Council and that a Senate Council member be on the e-board. She added that at a workshop she attended= on Senate and Union relationships at the Fa= culty Leadership Institute this summer, it was helpful to learn how other colleges keep communications open by having memberships cross over between the union= and the Senate.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; This issue will be brought back for further discussion and action on September 1= 2.

ADJO= URNMENT: &= nbsp; The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.

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

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