Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING O= F THE FACULTY SENATE

August 28= , 2006

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mark Bealo, Monika Brannick, Judy Cater, Molly Faulkner, Jenny Fererro, Candi Francis, Brent Gowen, Lawrence Hahn, Julie Ivey, Teresa Laughlin, Kalyna Lesyna, Stan Levy, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Norton, Patrick O’Brie= n, Fari Towfiq

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

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bill Bedford, Mary Cassoni, MaryAnn Drinan, Michelle Eichelberger

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

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

Appr= oval of Minutes: &n= bsp;

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Fererro: Faculty Senate approval of the minutes of August 2= 1, 2006, as amended.

Moti= on 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Nebelsick-Tagg, Laughlin: To suspend the agenda to discuss Information item= A, TERB.

TERB= : &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; MaryAnn Drinan outlined the process for Peer Review & Departmental Evaluation of Chairs:

The faculty contra= ct provides two separate and distinctive processes for evaluating department chairs.

The first of these is the peer review proces= s, essentially the same process that all tenured faculty face every three year= s. The contract states the following:

= &nb= sp;

A Peer Review Comm= ittee (PRC) will be established for each permanent (regular) faculty member at le= ast once in every three (3) years to include the following two (2) academic employees:

<= /span>

· = &nb= sp; The Dept Chair (or his/her tenured designee) shall serve as Chair of the PRC.

· = &nb= sp; One (1) permanent faculty member from the evaluatee’s department, or a related discipline, who shall be selected by the evaluatee. (17.7.2)

However, if it is = time for a chair to be peer reviewed, then the contract requires the Faculty Sen= ate to appoint a tenured faculty member to chair the department chair’s p= eer review committee. The contract does not explicitly tell the Senate how to m= ake its decision. After the Senate makes its appointment, the department chair = can “challenge” the appointment by writing his/her objections and submitting them to the TERB for a final decision.

The second departm= ent chair evaluation, that is, the evaluation of the chair in his/her role as chair, is discussed in Article 12 and Appendix D of the contract. The PFF a= nd the District temporarily suspended this yearly evaluation of chairs in Spri= ng 2006 pending rewriting of the evaluation criteria. The contract states the following:

All faculty members within a department (using the faculty’s Department Chair Evaluation Form) and the appropriate Division Dean (using the dean’s Department Chair Evaluation Form), will evaluate the Department on a yearly basis duri= ng the spring semester (see Appendix D). This annual evaluation is not a part = of the formal faculty evaluation process. The Department Chair evaluation will= be a part of the official personnel file. (12.4.1)

At a department me= eting, at which a simple majority of the department members is present, the depart= ment will designate one (1) department member to coordinate the department’= ;s evaluation of the Department Chair. The designee will distribute the faculty’s Department Chair Evaluation Form to all members of the department and arrange for them to be sent to the TERB office for tabulation and to the appropriate Division Dean. The Division Dean, using the deanR= 17;s Department Chair Evaluation Form, will evaluate the Department Chair and di= scuss the results of both evaluations with the Department Chair. (12.4.2)

<= /span>

If the faculty evaluation results are below satisfactory, the Department Chair is recalled= and a new election for Chair shall be scheduled. (12.4.3)

The above process = has never been used, and the PFF has asked the TERB to rewrite the chair’s evaluation criteria, which will then be submitted to the PFF and negotiated with the District. The TERB will begin that process today.

Department chairs = polled had objections to the chairs’ evaluation in its present form that were many and varied. The following objections are characteristic:

· = &nb= sp; The evaluation criteria list is long (20 statements) and very detailed. For example, one statement reads: “The chair assists with training and mentoring of dept personnel and assists dept members in acquiring appropria= te on-going training and personnel development.”

· = &nb= sp; There are some statements that dept members really could not evaluate such as, “Student complaints are handled expeditiously and fairly by the chair.” Since student complaints may have to be handled confidentiall= y, how would dept members know how quickly or carefully the chair acted?<= /o:p>

· = &nb= sp; There is no rating that simply says “don’t know” or “can’t = evaluate.”

· = &nb= sp; Some asked why the chair needed a yearly evaluation since Article 12 states that= a recall can occur at any time.

· = &nb= sp; Some TERB members objected to the Dean’s evaluation form.

· = &nb= sp; Some TERB members expressed concern about the fact that the chair’s evalua= tion becomes a part of the official personnel file.

Mary Ann indicated= that the TERB contacted the PFF about some of these concerns and the PFF met with the district, which suspended the yearly evaluation of chairs pending a new evaluation form. The TERB will rewrite the evaluation form and submit it to= the PFF for negotiations with the district. MaryAnn added that she will be contacting department chairs and asking for their input as well.=

<= /span>

The Faculty Senate, according to the faculty contract, appoints evaluation committee chairs for both the Tenure Review Committee and the Peer Review Committee when

1) department chai= rs are being peer reviewed, 2) probationary faculty serve in a department under the supervision of an administrative director, and 3) when tenured faculty or full-time faculty are being peer reviewed and work in a department under the supervision of an administrative director--that is, a director who is not a faculty member.

<= /span>

Mary Ann provided = the names of those faculty members being reviewed this year who are subject to = the conditions described above.

<= /span>

Discussion followe= d on the current process as well as suggestions for improvement.

<= /span>

Brent Gowen indica= ted that he would contact those chairs on the list for evaluation and ask them = to nominate faculty chairs for their committees and then bring those names bac= k to the Senate for approval.

<= /span>

Members of the Sen= ate thanked Mary Ann and the members of the TERB for all of their hard work.

Public Comments: = ; There were none.

Anno= uncements: &= nbsp; Patrick O’Brien announced that only nine faculty members have volunteered to serve as mentors for the college’s sixteen new fulltime faculty membe= rs. Professional Development hopes that more faculty will volunteer. Those interested can contact Patrick for more information.

ASG:= &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Michelle Eichelberger stated that the members of the ASG continue to poll students to determine their positions on smoking on campus. They are being asked whether Palomar should be an entirely smoke-free campus, whether smoking should be = allowed only in the parking lots, or whether the current policy should remain, which provides for designated smoke-free areas.

Pres= ident Deegan: = Brent Gowen reported that in their weekly meeting, President Deegan, Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg, and he continued discussing the local benefactor who has expressed interest in donating approximately $100,000 to the college in exchange for naming its soccer field after him. These monies would pay for the field’s scoreboard.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; They also discussed the current Equivalency process and the Statewide Academic Senate Area D meeting being held at Palomar on Saturday, October 14.

PFF:= &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Julie Ivey indicated that the PFF will be holding its first EBoard meeting this Friday and has distributed its first newsletter of the semester.=

Lear= ning Outcomes

Coun= cil: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Teresa Laughlin stated that the Learning Outcomes Council will meet on Thursday, September 7, from 2:00 – 3:30 p.m., in SU-18. Members of the Learning Outcomes Council Steering Committee are asking any department that has not = already done so to invite them to a meeting to discuss the outcomes initiative and = the department’s engagement of it. This discussion is crucial preparation for the college’s self-study, which precedes the accreditation commission’s site visit.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Teresa also stated that there are still some slots open for the October 4 – 6 conference on learning outcomes in Mission Valley. Those inter= ested should contact her by Wednesday, August 30.

Sabb= atical Leave

Comm= ittee: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Judy Cater reported that the Sabbatical Leave Committee will soon begin its work= for this year, which will include bringing a name forward to the Senate for rat= ification as co-chair. She added that this is the first year the committee will be working under the guidelines of the new contract, which differs slightly fr= om the guidelines published in the Faculty Manual. This year Sabbatical Leave Reports for full-year or spring sabbaticals are due on the 1^st of September although, inasmuch as this is the first year of the new process, = the committee has received and is reviewing reasonable requests for extensions.=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Because the PFF’s successful negotiations have raised the number of faculty eligible for sabbatical leave in any given year and because some attrition among faculty approved for sabbatical leave has occurred, as of today the number of faculty who are eligible but have not been accommodated has lower= ed from eleven to five.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments: &= nbsp; There were none.

Elec= tions: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Stan Levy indicated that nominations are still being accepted to fill Senate vac= ancies, with a closing date of September 5. Senators discussed the current double-e= nvelope process of distributing ballots. After some discussion, Senators agreed tha= t if only one nominee is running for each vacant seat, only a single envelope wi= ll be used.

Moti= on 3 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Cater, Laughlin: If the current election to fill Faculty Senate seats is a confirmation rather than a contested election, it will be accomplished usin= g a single envelope ballot.

On-L= ine Teaching

Load= : &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Brent Gowen followed up on discussion from last week’s meeting regarding so= me faculty members’ concern about whether a limit should be placed on the percentage of a professor’s load that he or she can devote to on-line teaching. <= /p>

He reported that P= FF leadership recommended that a joint PFF and Senate work group be formed to discuss this subject. The Senate agreed that faculty members should meet fi= rst to discuss this issue before engaging administration and that this workgroup should poll faculty in an attempt to obtain broader input.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; After brief discussion, Mark Bealo, Jenny Fererro, and Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg volunteered to serve on this workgroup.

Moti= on 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Bealo: Faculty Senate approval of the participation of Mark Bealo, Jenny Fererro, and Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg in a joint Faculty Senate/PFF work group on the question of on-line faculty teaching load. The product of the group will be a position paper on online teaching load that will be produced only after consultation with faculty and departments.

Curr= iculum: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; No items were presented. Monika Brannick added that workshops on Curricunet are being offered. Faculty should check their emails for more information.=

Bond Measure: = ; &n= bsp;

Moti= on 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSCU Laughlin, Faulkner: Whereas the existing structures and infrastructures of = Palomar College are dated and insufficient= to meet the burgeoning educational and cultural demands of its district’s population,

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; and whereas the college has authored a comprehensive master plan dedicated to developing the institution’s capacity to serve its students and its community now and in the future,

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; and whereas the college enjoys leaders in all employee groups with the vision a= nd commitment to put this plan into action once the college procures the neces= sary funding,

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; be it resolved that the Faculty Senate, enthusiastically and without reservati= on, supports Proposition M, P= alomar College’s app= eal to voters for funding to develop the college they both need and deserve.<= /o:p>

PFF/= Senate Joint

Coun= cil: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Brent Gowen stated that three members of the Faculty Senate and three members of = the PFF will meet regularly during the semester to discuss issues impacting both groups. He asked for volunteers to serve on this joint council. Molly Faulk= ner, Candi Francis, and Jenny Fererro volunteered. This item will be brought back for Senate action on September 11.

NEHEA Grants: = &nb= sp; Patrick O’Brien distributed information on North County Higher Education Alli= ance (NCHEA) grants:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; NCHEA is accepting applications for funding projects involving the collaboration = of colleagues from Cal State San Marcos, Palomar College, and Mira Costa College.

· = &nb= sp; Grant ($1,000 - $3,000) and mini-grant (less than $500) applications are availabl= e on our website at www.csusm.edu/nchea.

· = &nb= sp; All three institutions must be represented and benefit from the project.

· = &nb= sp; Applications can be submitted by tenure-track classroom faculty, librarians, counselors,= and administrators. Associate faculty, program directors, staff, and student organizations may be included as participants in the project.

· = &nb= sp; Applications will be received throughout the year.

· = &nb= sp; Application review will begin on October 6, 2006, and March 1, 2007.<= /p>

· = &nb= sp; Grants will be made based on the availability of funds; half the available funds w= ill be designated for each of the fall and spring semesters.<= /p>

· = &nb= sp; Activities funded in the fall semester cycle must be completed by December 31, 2007.

· = &nb= sp; Proposals will be reviewed by the NCHEA board and applicants will be notified by the Director.

· = &nb= sp; Applications may be fully funded, partially funded, or not funded.

<= /span>

A brief question a= nd answer period followed. Patrick indicated that more information is availabl= e on the Professional Development website.

Faculty Senate

Goal= -Setting Session: = ; Brent Gowen reminded Senators of the Goal Setting session scheduled for 2:30 R= 11; 4:30 p.m., on September 11. It follows the regular Faculty Senate meeting scheduled for 2:00 – 2:30 p.m.

ADJO= URNMENT: &= nbsp; The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

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

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Teresa Laughlin, Secretary

= &nb= sp;

&nb= sp;