Faculty Executive Council Meeting Minutes

I. General

A. Call to Order

Rosemary Kesler called the meeting to order at 2:50 p.m.

Members Present: Carmela Arnoldt, Karen Chalmers, Joanna Chamberlain, Hazel Davis, Amy Goff, Mark Gooding, Alan Haffa, Rosemary Kesler, Hank Mancini, Brian Murphy, Dennis Shaw and Barry Vaughan.

Minutes were taken by Carrie Taylor.

B. Approval of Agenda

Item C. under Old Business, Workforce Violence Committee Report, was deleted.  The agenda was approved as amended.

C. Approval of May 22, 2001, Minutes

The May 22, 2001, minutes were approved as written

D. Treasurer’s Reports – May 2001 and Year-to-Date

Council reviewed the May 2001 and year-to-date Treasurer’s reports.

E. Committee Reports

1. Meet and Confer

Council received and reviewed copies of the ratification ballot comments and vote totals.  Rosemary Kesler reported that the proposed changes to the RFP were officially ratified by the faculty with 579 approval votes.  Rosemary informed Council that the proposed changes were on the Governing Board’s meeting agenda that night.  She stated that the Governing Board might not approve the Ph.D.+24 proposal that would allow doctoral faculty to advance up to 24 hours past the Ph.D. level on the salary scale.  Council discussed concerns about the possible rejection of the proposal by the Board.  Rosemary said that Linda Larson and Bob Galloway would speak to the Board about the proposal at the Board’s meeting.  Linda Larson outlined what she and Bob would say at the Board meeting.  Rosemary was asked if anyone else could speak also, and she stated that others could speak during the general comment period of the Board meeting.  Council discussed the meet and confer process and what action the Council should take if the Board rejects the one proposal.  Council was informed that a letter would be mailed to Ph.D. faculty and a MEMO would be sent to all faculty if the Board rejected the Ph.D.+24 proposal.  Discussion ensued regarding actions to be taken if the Board rejects the proposal.  Concerns were raised about the erosion of the meet and confer process and the effect on faculty governance.  Concerns were expressed that the community colleges are viewed as extensions of high school and not as higher education institutions.  Council discussed what faculty could say during the general comment section at the Board meeting.  Council agreed to continue discussion at the next meeting after the Board had voted on the proposal.

2. Professional Growth

Linda Larson informed Council that some of the FPG committee members are working on rewriting the Professional Growth Guidelines and redoing the forms.  Linda said that hopefully the guidelines and forms would be on-line by August 1st for faculty to use.

3. EBAC

No report.

4. FAC

No report.

5. Legislative

No report.

II. Old Business

A. Intellectual Property Rights

Rosemary Kesler stated that Janice Reilly had sent a letter from FEC to the Intellectual Property Rights Committee stating Council’s concerns.  Rosemary said that the committee is scheduled to meet on August 13, 2001, from 2:00 until 4:00pm to discuss the letter from Council and the comments from AAUP regarding the proposed administrative regulation particularly Section Four.  The chair of the committee thought the work of writing a policy was finished. Council was told who suggested the language for Section Four of the drafted policy.  Council agreed to wait to see what occurs at the August meeting.

B. FIPP (Faculty In Progress Pilot)

Rosemary Kesler reported that there were eleven interns in the FIPP program and that all were from underrepresented populations in the District.  Rosemary was asked how the pilot project was advertised.  She responded that the Adjunct Faculty Association had advertised the project to its members and other advertising of the program was by word of mouth.  Rosemary said that there were nine to eleven applications from each campus and that the College Presidents and Deans of Instruction all knew about the program.  Rosemary was asked how the candidates for the program were selected and if there was any faculty involvement in the selection process.  Council was informed that it was thought that at one campus, the Dean of Instruction made the selection.  The point was made that there are now eleven people in the program, up from the three that the Governing Board had approved, that $550,000 would be spent on people who might not be qualified to teach, that the selection process did not include faculty, and that the District has money for this project but no money to give residential faculty the Ph.D.+24 proposal or a true cost of living adjustment.  Council moved into executive session and discussed great concerns about FIPP.  Council moved out of executive session.  The question was raised about what the Council should do next.  Suggestions were made to invite faculty members from the Faculty Recruitment Commission to speak to Council, or invite Anna Solley to speak to Council regarding FIPP.  Rosemary Kesler stated that Dr. Gaskin and Dr. Solley are aware of Council’s concerns about the program.  She stated that the program has received support from the college presidents and Deans of Instruction.  Council discussed the differences of what faculty are hearing from some administrators and what the Chancellor is hearing from the same administrators.  It was suggested that a letter be drafted regarding the Council’s position on FIPP and that it be sent to the administration.

Rosemary Kesler was asked about the K-12 program that the District is involved with.  Rosemary responded that the K-12 commission was putting together a website to advertise the K-12 program and to give information on the process and procedures.  Concerns were expressed that a website might not reach all people who might be eligible for the program, and it was thought that the Chancellor had wanted faculty’s assistance in identifying students who would be eligible for the K-12 program.  Rosemary Kesler stated that the K-12 program was separate from FIPP.

Discussion focused on the hiring process and how the money used for FIPP could have been used to advertise for residential faculty positions and not for people who must be mentored.  Council discussed concerns of favoritism and politics already in place in the hiring process.  Council discussed the people who were selected for FIPP.  Concerns were expressed that although statements were made that employment was not guaranteed, the implication of employment was still tied to the program.  A question was raised if any Council members were aware of successful “grow your own” programs at other institutions and if so, what were those programs. Council agreed to research and obtain information to answer the question.  Another concern was raised that the Council had held meetings with Dr. Gaskin and that FIPP was not mentioned to Council before it was put into place.  Having concerns that the hiring process could be circumvented, one Council member suggested to have Mike Napier review this program and advise Council on any legal issues involved.  Council focused on possible actions to take regarding FIPP.  Council agreed that committee members should talk to Council about their opinions of FIPP.  The faculty senate presidents should discuss FIPP with their college presidents and deans of instruction.  Also, Council should find out what CEC wants and their opinions on FIPP.

Council discussed the FIPP interns once more.  A concern was expressed that the program would hurt other minority applicants in the hiring process.  A question was raised about who were the representatives from the different campuses and how they were selected for the Faculty Recruitment Commission.  Rosemary Kesler responded that Dr. Solley had picked the committee members based on diversity.  A suggestion was made that the District Faculty Association President should pick faculty representatives for District-wide committees and that the College Faculty Senate Presidents should pick faculty representatives for college committees.

III. New Business

There was no new business.

IV. Information

A. Other

FEP Issue

Council was informed that there had been an FEP issue at one of the campuses that has been resolved.  A dean at the campus had stated that tenure would be delayed if a provisional faculty member had any FEPs missing.  It was found that many provisional faculty members had missing FEPs.  Other Council members were asked if there were similar problems at other campuses.  A point was made that a clear process needs to be put into place that FEPs should be filed either with the Assistant Deans on the campuses or with the Human Resources Department at the District Office.  Council was told about a policy that one department had made regarding the FEP and documenting all work by faculty members in that department.

V. Significant Happenings/Presidents’ Reports

CGCC
No report.

EMCC
No report.

GWCC
GWCC is continuing with its presidential search.

GCC
No report.

MCC
No report.

PC
PC is continuing with its presidential search.  A job description for the college president
has been written and the committee is formulating questions for the interviews.

PVCC
No report.

RIO
No report.

SCC
No report.

SMCC
The new SMCC college president is on campus meeting people and participating in
activities on campus.  The new president officially starts July 1, 2001.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:15pm.