I. General
A. Call to Order
Janice Reilly called the meeting to order at 2:42 p.m.
Members Present: Karen Chalmers, Joanna Chamberlain, Bill Farrar, Amy Goff, Alan Haffa, Karen Hardin, Rosemary Kesler, Sharon Luczu, Jane Marks, Jim Reed, Janice Reilly, Willie Minor for Vernon Smith, and Barry Vaughan.
Minutes were taken by Carrie Taylor.
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as written.
C. Approval of May 8, 2001, Minutes
The May 8, 2001, minutes were approved as written
D. Committee Reports
1. Meet and Confer
Janice Reilly reviewed the updated proposal summary for Council.
She told Council that the
Ph.D. +24 step had not yet been approved by the Governing Board.
Janice stated that Phil Randolph would be reviewing the proposal with the
Board later in the evening and he would submit a letter of endorsement
from himself and Dr. Solley along with the proposal. Janice said
that the proposals would be voted upon at the June 26, 2001 Governing Board
meeting. Council was informed that the ratification ballots would
be mailed out in the next two days. The salary schedule with the
Ph.D.+24 step would be included in the ballot package. Janice said
that her letter in the ballot package encouraged faculty to talk to their
Board members since the proposals have not yet been approved by the Board.
Janice was asked if Council members should speak at the Board meeting tonight
about the proposals. Janice responded that they could but other things
were scheduled and there might not be time. Next, Janice reviewed
the sidebar agreement with Dr. Randolph regarding reassigned time for the
Professional Growth representatives for next year. Janice asked if
Council had any questions. It was stated that the agreements at the Meet
and Confer table this year were good. Janice was asked about the
initial placement limit for doctoral faculty. Janice explained that
doctoral faculty hired would be placed at the doctoral level with zero
hours so that they would not get preferential treatment over doctoral faculty
who are already working in the District.
2. Professional Growth
No report.
3. EBAC
Janice Reilly informed Council that EBAC had met on Monday, May 21, 2001. Rosemary Kesler introduced the new faculty representatives, Regi Munro and Dorothy Sisneros. Janice told Council that the new representatives will be asked to report to Council and to keep Council updated on any developments in EBAC this year. Janice said that the health care issue will be of great importance and EBAC will be looking at health care options again.
4. FAC
No report.
5. Legislative
Janice Reilly reminded Council of the last meetings discussion of the bill that allowed optional state retirement plan options for community colleges. Council was informed that the bill was driven by Yavapai College. Janice told Council that she had been copied on a response from Chris Bustamante in the Government Relations office regarding the bill. Janice stated that she would forward Chris’ response to Council.
II. Old Business
A. 2001 AAUP Summer Institute
Janice Reilly stated that Larry Williams and Jim Daugherty of the Meet and Confer team had shown interest in attending the Summer Institute. The Summer Institute would be July 19-22, 2001, at the University of Delaware this year. Janice asked if anyone else would be interested in attending. She said that she would like for someone to attend the legislative workshop and then head up the legislative committee for Council. Joanna Chamberlain told of her experience at the Summer Institute two years ago and stated that it was a good workshop to attend. Joanna said that she learned of other views and different procedures of handling issues from other colleges.
B. Intellectual Property Rights
Janice Reilly informed Council that she was working on the letter requested by Council regarding the proposed Intellectual Property Rights administrative regulation. She indicated that AAUP had a concern on only Section Four of the proposal. Janice stated that the letter would ask that Section 4 be removed from the proposal, that the proposed be put out for public comment again and that a group of faculty, deans and department/division chairs work on the issues stemming from the proposal. The point was made that Intellectual Property Rights should be part of the Residential Faculty Policies since it is part of the faculty working conditions. Janice mentioned that she had spoken with Mike Napier about the proposed policy, and he stated that he had worked on this issue in the past but only when a faculty member was on sabbaticals. Janice stated that she could ask Mike to draft some language if Council wanted him to do so. It was stated that administrative regulations supersede the RFP. Janice replied that they only do so if they are not in conflict with any policy in the RFP. Council discussed holding up the proposal until it could be submitted to the Meet and Confer process next year. The point was made that one person was trying to spearhead this proposal through quickly and if it is approved as an administrative regulation then faculty are going to have to live with the policy. Council discussed concerns over this point. The question was raised if Intellectual Property created by faculty would become the property of that faculty member’s college, and the answer was yes. It was stated that this would go against the philosophy that all ten colleges are members of the District. Council discussed the letter that Janice Reilly was drafting and the letter signed by faculty at one campus.
C. TIPP
Council was informed that discussion on the TIPP “grow your own” program had been discussed at three campuses and that faculty were against the program. Some concerns raised by faculty included that the money should be spent in a better way to help adjunct faculty already working for the District, that nepotism could factor into the people chosen for the program, etc. Council discussed the concerns about the program and made suggestions for spending the money in better ways. Council was told that the program was now called FIPP, Faculty in Progress Project, and that it was a pilot project for next year. Rosemary Kesler stated that the reason for the program was that the hiring committees were doing a poor job in getting diverse faculty. She stated that the language used for the program had to be couched in such a way as not to be discriminatory. Rosemary Kesler told Council that she would be leading the project to ensure that there was faculty involvement in the program and that the learning contracts for the chosen people were legitimate. A point was made that faculty were against this program. Rosemary Kesler stated that the ten people on the Faculty Recruitment Commission supported the program. Rosemary said that a request was made to fund ten people but the Board approved funding for only three people. Council was informed that Dr. Glasper was requesting money from the campuses to fund the program. Rosemary Kesler stated that the funding for FIPP had gone through the regular FAC process and the request for funds was made from Dr. Solley’s budget. It was stated that Dr. Glasper had made the request for money to come from the campuses at the last CEC meeting and that there was something in writing about that request. Council discussed concerns regarding special treatment for the people in the program and how the hiring process could be unfair to those applicants who did not have the opportunity to participate in the program. A concern was raised that the people in the program would think that they would have a better chance of being hired although they would be told that employment was not guaranteed. Council discussed the fact that this program was different from the programs being discussed by the Teacher Education Partnership Commission that focused on K-12 issues.
The point was made that this project was moving forward whether the faculty liked it or not. It was stated that the administration should have come with the idea to Council who represents the general faculty to inquire if there were any concerns before moving forward with the program. Council agreed that the concerns be communicated to the administration. A suggestion was made to make a statement regarding FIPP and Council’s objections to the program, to ask Rosemary Kesler to take the statement to the administration, and to ask Mike Napier for his comments on the legality of the program. Another suggestion was made that the statement say that although the Council agrees with the intent of the program, it disagrees with how the program was operationalized, and that circumventing Council, the representative body of the faculty was wrong. Council discussed the program further and members gave various examples of how the program could be abused. Rosemary Kesler was asked to relay Council’s deep reservations of FIPP at the Faculty Recruitment Commission’s next meeting and that Council will be discussing the program when all members return next fall. Janice Reilly stated that Council will readdress this issue in August.
Rosemary Kesler was asked if candidates were already chosen for the three spots. Rosemary stated that each campus would be able to submit a name. She reviewed the requirements of the program, and Council received copies of an overview of the program and its requirements. She stated that the College Presidents and Deans of Instruction had known about the program. It was stated that faculty only recently learned about the program and the PSA group might still not know about the program. A point was made that the program should focus on diversity of ideas and bringing people in from outside the Phoenix area. Council discussed this point and what some faculty have been told about the lack of travel expenses to bring outside people in for interviews at Maricopa. Council discussed how the program could affect the hiring process and cause conflicts between the Deans and the faculty. Discussion focused on the hiring process and that hiring should begin earlier than April or May. The point was made that there were several places in this program that could be divisive. A question was raised on how members were selected for the Faculty Recruitment Commission, faculty, in particular, since many faculty are just now hearing about the program.
D. Workforce Violence Committee Report
Janice Reilly reminded Council that Laura Ruiz-Scott had volunteered to serve on the Workforce Violence Committee. Since her name was submitted after the last meeting of that committee, there was no report at this time.
III. New Business
A. Professional Growth Summer Meetings
Janice Reilly stated that Vernon Smith had started to make a motion at the last Council meeting to pay the Professional Growth representatives who will meet over the summer. Janice said that there would be four representatives who would meet once in June and once in July for three hours each time. Janice asked for Council’s approval to pay the representatives the extended contract hourly rate of $18.50. Council approved Janice’s request.
IV. Information
A. Other
Meet and Confer Ratification Ballots
Janice Reilly stated that the ballots would be mailed this week.
FEC Committees
Janice asked if the FEC subcommittee on staffing is still meeting and if the sub-committee had anything to bring to Council. Alan Haffa, the chair of the sub-committee, stated that the sub-committee was still discussing the staffing ratios and language for the RFP. Alan said that some committee members had legal questions about the issue. He said that the sub-committee would meet again in the fall. Janice asked if anyone from the FEC sub-committees on Dual Enrollment and/or Distance Learning were in attendance. Willie Minor stated that he was a member of both sub-committees and that those sub-committees will resume meeting in the fall to see if and where the RFP needs to be updated.
Hiring Qualifications for Computer Faculty
Rosemary Kesler stated that the instructional council for computer faculty had changed the hiring qualifications. A CSC distinction was made between Computer Science faculty who fall under the math department and CIS faculty who fall under the business department. Rosemary said that she had a question about a statement in the Board item regarding the hiring qualifications for computer faculty. The statement read, “In addition, for full-time faculty to obtain appointive status, an individual must have at least twenty (20) semester hours of graduate credit in Computer Science. If 20 graduate hours in Computer Science cannot be validated, then a program must be developed in concert with the individual, the department chair, and the appropriate dean to remove the deficiency during the usual probationary period, i.e., before appointive status can be recommended.” Rosemary was told that the District would hire the best computer faculty that it can get and work on any deficiencies during the five-year probationary period. Council discussed that there were many programs like this in the District.
V. Significant Happenings/Presidents’ Reports
CGCC
No report.
EMCC
The graduation at EMCC was successful. All is quiet at EMCC.
GWCC
GWCC had its largest ever graduation group. GWCC is continuing
with its presidential search.
GCC
GCC had a successful graduation. The speaker at the graduation
had attended GCC and went on to play basketball for the Atlanta Hawks,
and now works for the revenue service.
MCC
MCC’s graduation went well and two Board members spoke during the graduation
ceremony. MCC had opened the new advisement center.
PC
The PC women’s softball team won the nationals. The men’s baseball
team has qualified for nationals. Graduation at PC was a success.
PVCC
PVCC had the largest group ever graduating. Overall, the year
was successful at PVCC with the Dean of Instruction and the College President
searches completed. PVCC is presently hosting the first day of Ocotillo.
RIO
Graduation was successful. Two Board members attended the graduation
ceremony. The fourth floor at Rio Salado is undergoing major remodeling.
SCC
The SCC golf team is in the national competition at Midland, Texas.
Graduation was a success.
SMCC
No report.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:05pm.
VII. Executive Session
The Executive Committee met to discuss a personnel matter.
* * Next meeting, June 26, 2001, will be a Business Meeting * *