Meeting Minutes - November 15, 2006
Members present: Michael Artiaga, Linda Berlin (member, plus proxy for Angela Aiken-McDonald and Greg Garrison), Susan Dooley, Lucia Dzikowski, Barbara Entwistle, Mayra Eschbach (member, plus proxy for Jon Green), Barbara Hunnicutt, Sue Kellicut, Alan Kraft (member, plus proxy for Debbie Warfield), Ginger Magarine (member, plus proxy for Janet Selitto), Jenny Middleton, Naomi Rivera, Karen Schwitters, Jan Spalding, Laurel Stevenson (member, plus proxy for Kay Delk), Ben Taylor, Richard Young
Call to order V105
President Gilmartin called the meeting to order at 3:39 p.m.
Approval of Minutes of 10/18/2006
The minutes were approved as corrected.
Faculty Senate President's Report
TIM System Update
Les made the corrections that faculty requested last meeting for the print shop. Another question was asked about whether someone put the wrong number of pages-would that stop the job. Ed Langolf said that sometimes people said seven pages when it was 20 and that was a problem. However, if you're cleared for $10 and the printing job is $12, it stops because he can't approve more than your limit. But if you're cleared for $10 and you only have $7, he goes ahead and prints it. He asked that we try to get the page numbers right. Ed said also that was printing tests without question even if they hadn't been approved.
Critical jobs subcommittee
The critical jobs subcommittee has been abolished. This was a part of faculty compensation practices. Administration wanted faculty to define critical jobs. Dan's view was that faculty should not be doing making these definitions, so he volunteered for the subcommittee. Initially, the faculty on the subcommittee voted along party lines in making a recommendation about the bonuses and critical jobs. Time passed, and then we had another meeting of the critical jobs group, and the votes changed. In that intervening period, people saw what was actually going to happen if faculty were responsible for solving the critical jobs puzzle. The problem is this: faculty should not be in the position where they must slit each other's throats. What was happening with the subcommittee could divide all faculty, and we are trying to unite all faculty. The full Compensation Practices committee voted to abolish the faculty critical jobs subcommittee and take it off the plate for the Compensation group. Instead, this issue will be addressed by HR.
A senator asked about the recommendation about $1,200, $1,300, and $1,400: Previously, the proposal was that people whose jobs were judged to be no longer critical were going to get the $1,200 bonus but not the $1,300 or $1,400 bonus. However, no judgment regarding whose jobs were critical, nor any method of determining "critical" status, had been devised. Dan said that HR will now deal with all of that.
Compensation practices is still meeting, though no date is set for the next meeting. An additional faculty member has been appointed: Mark Davis has been appointed to replace Ben Taylor, who was on the committee previously.
Annual Schedule Committee and Calendar Committee
Annual schedule committee is a new committee with two subcommittees: Summer and Fall/Spring.
The idea behind this committee is to do something creative to increase enrollments. Any recommendations of these committees wouldn't take place until as late as 2008-2009. A subcommittee of the Annual Schedule Committee called the Summer Schedule made a recommendation to take spring break and move it to the end of term 2 so that there would be a decent break at the end of term 2, rather than the existing one or two days. The faculty on the subcommittee were unanimous and the total committee was also unanimous in the thinking that students were negatively affected by spring break in March. We also know that there are quite a few other opinions about this. There might still be a long weekend in March. Calendar committee has authorized Jim Henningsen to submit a survey to faculty, staff, and students regarding this suggestion. Commitments to annual academic calendars are made far in advance.
A faculty member asked whether we would be the only college in the area doing this. Spring break had not always been an SCC institution. A faculty member said that a group of students some years ago wanted to have a weeklong spring break like their friends at UCF did. Calendar creation is a complicated matter because of the number of days that are required by statute, by number of contracted days for faculty and staff, etc.
A faculty member mentioned kids in school and aligning spring break with school systems.
The Annual Schedule Committee will make a recommendation to Executive Staff regarding this issue, after the surveys have been completed.
The college has adopted a no smoking policy beginning in January 2007. There were to be several smoking areas designated. The Safety Committee's and O'Hern's recommendations were going to cost more than $100,000. Apparently it now appears that rather than having ADA-accessible smoking areas, there will be posts with a flag at the designated areas, with no ashtrays. (The sites are currently marked with yellow tape.) The problem is that the policy had been adopted to go into effect on January 1, but executive staff did not create a procedure to follow. The number of designated smoking areas has changed several times but is currently about 7 to 9. Currently the plan is posted on the college website via SCConnection. Complaints are to be addressed in writing to the college's Weldon Boulevard address. Dan said that he was trying to get more information regarding this.
Staff benefits committee report: Senator Artiaga
The committee met regarding scheduling last week. A red flag from last week's meeting was the procedure for purchasing, permitting bids for contracting for healthcare. If any documentation is missing from the application, healthcare organizations cannot submit their application. A meeting is coming up on that on December 5; it's unclear whether there is a process for "cure" (in other words completing the application and submitting it to purchasing). There will be a report on this on the next meeting.
Committee Assignments for 2006-2007
The Committee to Appoint Committees (CTAC) redrew the committee chart, eliminated some committees, and sent its plan to the executive staff. This has been done three times in the past two years. The latest reconsideration of the CTAC from executive staff for the Benefits Committee, for example, had two faculty members, with six other people who were beholden to administration. Dan said he protested that, saying that a committee of such importance should have more people on it and should have representatives from each area of faculty, plus one faculty senate representative, at least.
Last night at the board meeting, Joe Sarnovsky informed the board that there were 20 people on the benefits committee who are becoming experts. The Senate representatives to the current benefits committee differed with that number and said that there was a definite need for tenured faculty representatives. A faculty member said that "â?¦that certain committees should not have untenured faculty. Among those committees that should have only tenured faculty is the Benefits committee." There is a need for tenured personnel on many committees because nontenured people (including staff) are afraid to speak. A faculty member said that it is also important for faculty to be present at the board meetings because things can be presented to the board in a slanted way by administrative personnel.
Dan said that Carol Hawkins saw his emailed comments to CTAC chair Pat DeSalvo, called Dan, and asked what needed to be fixed. He said that there needed to be an equal representation of faculty to staff, which should consist of a representative from each academic division, as well as a Faculty Senate representative. He asked when committees would be rolled out. She said probably in March. Dan told her that he was confused about his current committee memberships and knew that many faculty members were in the same boat. A faculty member mentioned that she just heard a few months ago that she was on the Equity Committee - but now her two years are up. A faculty member asked that a list be sent out to all faculty so that they know which committees they are currently on. Dr. Hawkins agreed that her office would send faculty a list of current committee membership.
Regarding the use of SCC News as a vehicle for communication, Dan talked to Dr. Hawkins. He told her that it was not a great way of informing people of information. He suggested instead using the Discuss Listserv, since administration didn't want to go back to *.*. The problem, said a faculty member, is that many faculty and staff are not on the Discuss list. A faculty member said, the problem is that the SCC news list is in the wrong order: It's buy bobbleheads, look at these nice people who won an award, here are some lost cats, and oh by the way, you're not going to be on this committee if you don't come to this meeting. In other words, there is a great deal of undifferentiated information that clutters important official communication to faculty.
A faculty member suggested that the Discuss list serve should be used by more people. Another faculty member said that the Discuss Listserv adds a lot of stuff they don't want to read.
A faculty member suggested that Dick Hamann send a memo to all faculty and staff suggesting that they subscribe to the SCC Listserv. Dan agreed to do this. Another faculty member suggested that rather from Mr. Hamann, it should come from Dan, because he is one of us. Dan agreed to send an email to all faculty asking them to sign up for the Listserv.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p.m.