Faculty Executive Council Meeting Minutes

Guest:  Mike Napier – Faculty Association Attorney

Mike Napier introduced himself to Council.  He told Council that he has represented the Faculty Association and its members on numerous occasions since the late 1970’s.  He reviewed what services he provides such as advising faculty who have concerns that their rights under the RFP have been violated, or advising the Meet and Confer team on proposed changes to the RFP.  Mike stated that he sat in on the initial Indemnification discussion last year in the Meet and Confer process.  He offered to Council his assistance with legal matters and discussions.

I. General

A. Call to Order

Rosemary Kesler called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.

Members Present: Jeff Andelora, Carmela Arnoldt, Joanna Chamberlain, Hazel Davis, Bob Galloway, Mark Gooding, Alan Haffa, Rosemary Kesler, Rosemary Leary, Ann Lindner, Jane Marks, Larry Miller, John Nelson, Joe Ortiz, Janice Reilly, Mark Richard, Laura Ruiz-Scott, Dennis Shaw, Gail Shay, Denny Sheehan, Vernon Smith, and Sandra Stuebner.

Minutes were taken by Carrie Taylor.

B. Approval of Agenda

Joanna Chamberlain moved Dual Enrollment from Committee Reports to Old Business Item E.  The agenda was approved as amended.

C. Approval of the October 10, 2000, Minutes

Jeff Andelora made a correction in the Staffing Committees section of the minutes.  The
October 10, 2000, minutes were approved as amended.

D. Committee Reports

1. Professional Growth

No report.

2. Meet and Confer

Jim Daugherty and Linda Larson updated Council on the Meet and Confer process and proposals.  They presented an updated salary proposal.  Linda Larson reviewed the Professional Growth proposals for Council.  Linda stated that the Professional Growth MOU subcommittee will work on the language first and then will submit the proposed language to the Meet and Confer process.  Council discussed the proposals.  Linda Larson informed Council that the November strategic conversation with the Governing Board would be about the proposed Professional Growth proposals.  She requested that members of Council attend the meeting to show support for the proposals.  Jim Daugherty told Council that there are proposed changes to the Ground Rules, which will allow the faculty team to present first the scope of issues and then the language to the Board Team.  He reviewed the main issues for the Meet and Confer process this year.  One concern was raised regarding the travel portion of Professional Growth.  Linda Larson requested that any suggestions for Professional Growth travel be sent to her.

3. CEC

Rosemary Kesler stated that the main topic at CEC has been which year to have the bond election in 2002 or 2004.  She said that 2004 is most likely the year that the bond election will be held.  A request was made for Rosemary to distribute the CEC minutes to Council.

4. FAC (Financial Advisory Committee)

No report.

5. Legislative

Council was told that the District’s Legislative Caucus met for the first time this fall.  Rosemary Kesler said the main issue that affects faculty and is under discussion is Proposition 301.

II. Old Business

 A. Faculty Association Legislative Committee

Rosemary Kesler again asked for volunteers to serve on the legislative committee.

 B. AAUP

Rosemary Kesler told Council that she sent seven names into the nominating committee for the state delegate positions.  Rosemary was asked if she had contacted Carol Bernstein about the elections process.  Rosemary said she had called the nominating committee chair to ask how the elections would take place; however, she had not yet received a response.  Rosemary was asked if individuals can buy group insurance through AAUP.  Rosemary responded that the information on insurance was on the AAUP website and suggested that the Council member get the information directly from AAUP.

C. Peerpoint

Carmela Arnoldt reviewed the issues for the next Peerpoint that will include:  the October 3rd retreat summary, the Indemnification article, a report on Adjunct Faculty by Warren Mosby, Gene Eastin’s report, and the Meet and Confer issues.  The deadline for submitting articles will be November 15th, and the Peerpoint will be distributed around December 1st.  Council discussed if the issue should include an ongoing report of the ethics survey of how many completed the survey, etc.  Other topics discussed were the Check Cashing MEMO discussion, buying back retirement, and the Legislature’s Dual Enrollment Study Committee.

D. Forty-Nine Percent Issue

Rosemary Kesler stated that the proposed changes to the Forty-Nine Percent program were going before the Governing Board for a first reading at the Governing Board’s meeting later that evening.  She asked if any of the Council members had concerns about the proposed changes.  Council discussed the proposed changes.  One concern raised was that the word, “real,” was thought to be offensive.  Rosemary Kesler stated that she would bring the Council’s concerns to the Board’s attention.  Rosemary was asked if she knew the intent of the proposed changes.  She responded that the original intent was to ensure that faculty only taught in the classroom and that anyone who taught would be paid only what faculty are paid.  She continued that the language relating to that intent was deleted and now only the language of due process remains.  Rosemary reminded Council that the Forty-Nine percent program was not a part of the RFP, and faculty are not affected until after they retire.

E. Dual Enrollment

Joanna Chamberlain reported that she and others attended the Legislature's Dual Enrollment Study subcommittee meeting and that it appears that some of dual enrollment's financial issues are being addressed.  Joanna explained the newly proposed requirements for a high school student to enroll in a dual enrollment class.

Joanna acknowledged Gay Garesche's work on this issue and stated that Gay articulated well some of the quality issues that concern some faculty.  She asked for Council's input on the Dual Enrollment issue, for example on reporting requirements.  Council discussed the current requirements for dual enrollment classes.  Of particular concern were the student requirements for dual enrollment registration.  Joanna stated that Council should give Gay Garesche some direction on what the Council wants in regards to requirements for dual enrollment courses.  Council was reminded it could not direct Gay as she is not the Council's nor the Faculty Association's representative.  Council discussed the quality issues surrounding dual enrollment.  Concerns were raised that the District Dual Enrollment Quality Committee did not reach consensus on all of the quality and curriculum issues.  Discussion followed on the role of instructional councils in structuring the curriculum.  It was noted that instructional councils were only recommending bodies.  The administration was free to choose dual enrollment courses.  Council discussed ideas for the best way to positively communicate with the administration regarding concerns about dual enrollment, for example asking for more feedback through more detailed reporting requirements.  Vernon Smith stated that beginning in September 2003, multi-college districts would be required to report on their dual enrollment courses.

Joanna Chamberlain stated her concern about a letter regarding the work of the two Dual Enrollment committees, which was sent to the Legislature's committee by the Chancellor.   The letter states that the Quality Committee reached agreement on the quality issues.  She then noted that there remained unresolved issues in the committee.  Council was reminded that the Quality Committee was only a recommending body.  A suggestion was made that a letter be written stating that the Quality Committee did not finish the work charged to them.  It was stated that the faculty serving on the committee should compose the letter.  Additionally, Rosemary Kesler was asked to prepare a cover letter to accompany the committee's letter.  Joanna Chamberlain suggested sending a "draft" form of the letter to FEC members over MEMO.  Rosemary Kesler stated that if necessary, Council would discuss the letter at the next Council meeting.
 
III. New Business

A. Department Chairs/RFP

Sandra Stuebner stated that she received a question of whether occupational faculty report to managers or Faculty Department/Division Chairs.  The question arose after it was heard that one group of occupational faculty at one campus reported to managers.  She told Council that she had called other campuses and was informed by each campus that the occupational faculty report to Faculty Chairs.

IV. Information

A. Strategic Planning Steering Team Visits

Rosemary Kesler stated that the Strategic Planning Steering Committee has visited several campuses.  She said that the committee has been met with enthusiasm at every college and with great desire to change the paradigm to collaboration and eliminate competition.  She stated that the committee has seen good strategic plans at the colleges and also some practices that should be dropped.  She stated that if there are many concerns with the Instructional Councils, that this committee would be the group to which to voice those concerns.

Discussion turned to the reassigned time report, which was requested by one Governing Board member.  The initial report has been made and circulated throughout the District.  Council discussed concerns with the initial report and how the information from the different colleges was gathered and put together.  A concern was voiced that the initial report might get into the hands of the media.  Rosemary Kesler stated that Phil Randolph has requested that the data be gathered again with the use of a template in which the reassigned time is categorized such as what time is required by the RFP, what is college discretionary time, etc.  Council discussed an inquiry of what is the intent for gathering information regarding reassigned time and what is the purpose of the report.  Council discussed how the report could be used to positively help faculty.

 B. MAT Evaluations

Jeff Andelora asked Council if they were aware of any MAT evaluation tool that allowed for faculty input.  Council was told that there was one at CGCC.  Council was informed that one has been developed at GWCC last year, however it has not been used yet.  Also, Council was told that one has been offered as part of the college plan at GCC.

C. Other

Salary Deferral Rollover

Rosemary Kesler asked the Senate Presidents if they had talked with their faculty regarding the opportunity to have the salary deferrals requested roll over from year to year.  This would eliminate having to complete paperwork to request a salary deferral every year.  One president stated that the faculty at her campus liked the idea.  Council was informed that if a faculty member is buying back time for retirement, that individual couldn’t have a salary deferral for that year.

V. Significant Happenings/Presidents’ Reports

CGCC
The Performing Arts building is under construction.  CGCC employees will have a brown
bag lunch with the CGCC President.  The president tries to have one lunch a month with all employees during which any employee can inquire about anything.

EMCC
EMCC is taking over the Southwest Skills Center.  We're not sure exactly what this will
mean at this time, so, more on this later.  In general, all is well at EMCC.

GWCC
The Dean of Students position is pending.  On Halloween, the faculty will have a luncheon.

GCC
An opening recognition ceremony will be held for GCC North.  GCC is working on a Climate survey.  Enrollment is high with 20,000 students.  GCC hosted a faculty lunch on 10/13; 110 attended.

MCC
MCC has $ 200,000 dollars for innovation projects.  The total amount of the proposals
submitted is approximately $ 360,000.  The person who did the climate study for MCC last year will be returning to MCC to gather more information.  The MCC Faculty Senate bought lunch for the MCC faculty and fifty people attended.  There have been changes in the instruction side of the house at MCC.  The MCC Dean of Instruction has convened a committee to restructure the administration organization at MCC.

PC
The Strategic Planning Steering Committee and Rosemary Kesler will be visiting PC.

PVCC
The Strategic Planning Steering Committee and Rosemary Kesler visited PVCC. The new track and soccer field was dedicated on Thursday, October 19, 2000.  The Presidential Search Committee has been selected and will have its first meeting with Dr. Gaskin on Wednesday, November 8, 2000.  The Dean of Instruction Search committee has been selected and hopes to have the position filled by May 2001.

RIO
A suggestion was made to have the Governing Board members visit the campuses along with the Strategic Planning Steering Committee so that the Board members could see the good things that are happening at the colleges.  RIO has one OYO CIS faculty.  Also, RIO has new denim chambray shirts with RIO’s logo on them.

SCC
All is well.

SMCC
SMCC will be celebrating its 20th anniversary.  The Guadalupe Center is open and five
hundred students are enrolled.  SMCC has moved into the new enrollment center.  Also, the new technical center is open and in full use.

VI. Adjournment

 The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.