Faculty Executive Council Meeting Minutes

Janet Regner reviewed for Council the results of the previous day’s special session at the State Legislature concerning the state’s budget crisis.  Janet stated that the cuts made by the Legislature were mid-year cuts, and only the beginning as the State faces a one billion dollar deficit next year.  Janet indicated that tax reform would be reviewed and revenue enhancements (increasing taxes) were a definite possibility.  Council learned that many at the Legislature were freshman, a term for first year legislators.  The Legislature’s leadership is comprised of rural legislators that should make for an interesting session on public policy in the spring.

Janet Regner next reviewed the recent Legislative Committee meeting and the discussion of health insurance for retirees and dual enrollment.  Janet stated that she was given the charge to work with Jack Lunsford’s office on the dual enrollment issue since the State Board for Community Colleges has essentially been eliminated.  Janet continued that the health insurance issue was a priority at the Legislature especially since high-income people are now losing their health insurance.  She said that the Legislature has formed an ad-hoc committee to study health insurance and that she will attend the meeting for FEC.  Janet informed Council that the State of Arizona is looking at self-insurance and other options for health insurance.  Council learned of an Arizona Republic article that stated that Arizona HMOs made a twenty million dollar profit in one quarter.  Janet Regner was asked what the State of Arizona could do about the insurance companies hiking their rates.  Janet responded that the Department of Administration negotiates the premiums for the state health insurance plan.  Council was told about the problem of rural senior citizens getting health insurance, and also of a bill that had been passed in the Legislature last year but had been vetoed by Governor Hull.  It would be possible for the same legislation to pass next year depending on the cost.  Janet Regner was asked if she had discussed the FTSE rebate limit with Jack Lunsford since that limit is set by the Legislature.  Council learned that the limit that used to be $1600 is now $587.  The point was made that Council needed to work on getting the Legislature to return the limit back to the higher amount.  Janet Regner made the point that the Faculty Association and Council were advocates for education, and stressed the need to organize to be seen as a partner in education and equity issues.  Janet gave an example of how the ASU Alumni group had organized to get the legislation on health care for rural seniors passed.   Council discussed legislators and ways to get influence with them.  Council discussed the need for more communication with all faculty.

Business Meeting

I. General

A. Call to Order

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

Members Present: Brent Alvar, Carmela Arnoldt, Karen Chalmers, Hazel Davis, John Griggs, Alan Haffa, Scott Hauert, Patty Keener, Rosemary Kesler, Charles Lewis, Sharon Luczu, Hank Mancini, Scott Massey, Saundra Minckley, Willie Minor, Jamie Moore, Brian Murphy, Jim Reed, Janice Reilly, Dennis Shaw, Gail Shay, Linda Smith, Naomi Story, Sandra Stuebner and Barry Vaughan.

Carrie Taylor took the minutes.

B. Approval of Agenda

Distance Learning was added under Old Business.  The agenda was approved as amended.

C. Approval of the November 12, 2002, Minutes

The November 12, 2002, minutes were approved as written.

II. Old Business

A. Issues/Strategies

Council reviewed previous discussions of faculty issues and concerns as well as strategies for addressing those issues.  A request had been made for a copy of the Chancellor’s evaluation form.  Rosemary Kesler stated that she would obtain a copy for Council.  Council learned that many faculty had favored obtaining a public relations firm for the Faculty Association.  Council discussed the need to research the cost for services of a public relations firm.  A suggestion was made that Council advertise for a public relations firm and see if any firms make a bid.  Council discussed where to advertise.  The point was made that Council first needed to set its short-term and long-term goals before hiring a public relations firm.  A suggestion was made to form a subcommittee to work on the goals and research the cost of hiring a public relations firm.  Another suggestion was to hold a strategic conversation to talk about the goals.  Council agreed to form a subcommittee to work on the goals.  Karen Chalmers, Naomi Story, and Saundra Minckley volunteered to serve on the subcommittee, which will bring a recommendation to the next Council meeting.  Council formed another subcommittee to work on advertising for a public relations firm.  Patty Keener, Janice Reilly and Jamie Moore volunteered to serve on the advertising subcommittee that will work on the criteria needed from a public relations firm.

B. FPG Issues

Council discussed how a previous Council had sanctioned the Faculty Professional Growth Steering Committee to make all the changes to the Faculty Professional Growth policies and streamline the process.  A concern was raised that the FPG Steering Committee was to be in place for only one year and now it has existed for two years.  A recommendation was made to have someone from Council to work on continuing changes and to act as a liaison between the Council and the FPG Committee.  Council discussed the history and work of the Steering Committee as well as the possibility of a proposal to make the FPG Steering Committee a standing committee of FEC.  The point was made that one committee was needed to recommend policy and another to administer the policy.  A suggestion was made to table the discussion since there was currently no proposal for Council to consider.  The issue will be placed on the agenda again if a proposal is brought to Council.

C. Personnel Issue

Council heard about a personnel matter that was previously discussed by the Executive Committee.  The history of the matter and the issues involved were discussed.  A request was made for FEC to assist in moving the matter towards a resolution.  Council discussed the need to put language in the RFP to prevent the situation from happening in the future.

D. Distance Learning

Council learned that the Distance Learning Subcommittee had met.  Council received copies of two versions of a proposal that had been offered in the 1999-2000 Meet and Confer process regarding loading of classes including distance-learning classes.  Council was told that the subcommittee had agreed to one of the versions that stated, “Load hours for courses are determined at the time of the approval of the course through the curriculum approval process and approved by the Governing Board.  Load hours shall not be reduced except as indicated in 5.3.4.”  One reason was that, for example, if a course was advertised as 3 credits, then the faculty member teaching the course should be given three load hours for the course.  Concerns were raised that the loading for distance learning courses were being negotiated differently at the campuses.  The point was made that this issue would be for the 2003-2004 Meet and Confer process.  It was stated that the Distance Learning Committee wanted Council to be aware of this issue for future negotiation and resolution.

III. New Business

A. Employee Safety Survey

Council was told that the Employee Safety Survey had been distributed because of the proposal made by the safety officers.  Council discussed that a problem had never been identified and that a previous survey had asked if safety officers should be armed.  Council was reminded that the District had the results of that survey as well as information that many people did not feel safe in the parking lots.  Council discussed other options rather than arming campus safety officers.  Concerns were expressed that the arming issue was embedded in the current survey.  Council learned that there would an open forum at Phoenix College regarding this issue.  A motion was made for Council to send a strong statement against the survey saying that it was faulty, the results would be unreliable and thus, the District should not make any decisions about arming officers based on the results of the survey.  Council discussed other ways to collect information on safety such as reviewing the weekly safety reports at the campuses as well as performing a needs analysis at each campus.  The point was made that Council needed to discuss this issue with faculty at the campuses.  Another point was made that a needs analysis should be done at each campus first and then that information should be given to the faculty at the campuses for discussion.  Discussion continued and the motion was withdrawn.

B. Faculty Rights

Council was reminded of the situation involving the EEO office at one campus that Council had discussed at its last meeting.  Council learned that a meeting of the involved parties plus Pete Kushibab, Counsel for the District, and Dale Norris, Counsel for the Faculty Association had taken place.  One concern was raised that one faculty member’s mail and e-mail had supposedly been reviewed.  Council was told that Pete Kushibab stated at the meeting that the college president must give permission for this and there must be just cause.  It was questioned if the person who supposedly had been reviewing the faculty’s e-mail had just cause.  It was resolved at the meeting that faculty rights had been violated and that the situation had been mishandled.  Council was told that Pete Kushibab had offered to research and compile information on the law and procedures for handling EEO situations.  A question was raised if Pete Kushibab would put the procedures in writing.  The information gathered by Pete Kushibab should be posted on the Legal Office’s website or sent to all in a legal brief.  Council agreed that standard written procedures are necessary and valuable.

C. Dr. Gaskin’s Visit on December 10th

Council discussed the visit of the Chancellor, Dr. Gaskin, at Council’s December 10, 2002 meeting.  Questions for Dr. Gaskin were collected.  A point was made that Council had discussed making a presentation of faculty concerns to Dr. Gaskin first.  Council discussed forming a subcommittee to work on the presentation.  Carmela Arnoldt was asked to collate the questions along with Sandra Stuebner and Alan Haffa.

IV. Information

A. Official Membership Count/Rebate Checks

Rosemary Kesler stated that Council received copies of the official 2002/2003 Faculty Association membership count in their packets.  Rosemary stated that the membership increased by 57.50 members this year and Faculty Senate Presidents would receive their campus membership rebate check at today’s meeting.

B. Membership/FEC Constitution

A concern was raised regarding how representation on Council is determined for the following year.  The formula in the FEC Constitution bases the number of Council representatives from a college on that college’s percentage of membership in the entire Faculty Association.  The concern was that this placed an extra burden on smaller campuses to keep up with the larger campuses.  Council discussed the concern.  One suggestion made was for larger campuses to help smaller campuses with issues and concerns.

C. Division Chair Hiring Responsibilities

Council discussed the recent change in the hiring process in which the hiring duties have been sent from the District Office to the campuses.  The Department/Division Chairs are now responsible for hiring adjunct faculty in their departments/divisions.  The issue is that chairs are not being compensated for the increased work in the hiring process.  The point was made that since the duties were being sent to the campuses, the money for performing the work should come to the campuses as well.  Council discussed holding a meeting for an in-depth discussion of this topic only.  Discussion ensued and the issue will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

D. MCLI (Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction)

A concern was raised regarding the cost of MCLI relating to its services to faculty as well as MCLI’s encroachment on areas that faculty have normally handled.  Council discussed requesting a program review for MCLI.  Council was informed that the District is searching for a new director for MCLI and that a request for a program review needed to be made immediately.  Council discussed making a request to review MCLI as well as other programs.  Council further discussed MCLI and its services.  Council agreed to send a letter to the District Administration requesting a program review of MCLI.  A request was made to send information to Carmela Arnoldt who will draft the request.  Council was cautioned about the request and it was suggested that the letter should state that MCLI is only a place to start for reviewing programs.  A request was made to place this issue under New Business at the next meeting.

E. Board Elections

Council was informed that two Governing Board members had approached Council members to discuss and request a list of faculty concerns.  Council discussed taking the initiative to talk to Board members individually.  Council discussed information given to one Board member.  Council was told that the information was still under discussion with the Board member and that a report would be forthcoming.  A suggestion was made that Council begin work immediately for the next Board election that will be held in two years.

F. Other

Chancellor’s Listening Session at GCC
 
Council was informed that a listening session was scheduled for Monday, December 2, 2002 at GCC and that some seats were still available.  Council would inform faculty of the available seats and suggest topics to discuss with the Chancellor.

V. Committee Reports

A. Meet and Confer

Council was informed that the Meet and Confer Team would make a statement at tonight’s Governing Board meeting regarding the proper venue for salary negotiations, the Meet and Confer Process.  The statement would also include asking that salaries and benefits be made a priority in the District’s budgeting process.  Council learned that the Meet and Confer Team would state that a top priority this year is reforming the Meet and Confer Process include more meaningful negotiations that are made in good faith.  The Meet and Confer Team would also ask for a financial indicator such as the regional CPI to be tied to salary negotiations and the Board’s coverage of health care benefits for employees.  Council heard that the team would ask for an operational audit and for the review of District Office programs.  The team would state that faculty would welcome the opportunity to participate in such reviews.  Finally, the team would express support for other employee groups’ requests.  Council asked that the team emphasize that the faculty want to negotiate salary and benefits however a presentation before the Governing Board was not the proper forum.  Alan Haffa stated that the team would hold a meeting with Dr. Glasper and his staff to thank them and discuss the recent meeting with Council on the budget process.  A suggestion was made to include in the statement to the Board that the lowest paid employees would be impacted most.

B. Professional Growth

No report.

C. Employee Benefits Advisory Committee (EBAC)

No report.

D. FAC (Financial Advisory Committee)

No report.

E. Legislative

Council received copies of the Legislative Committee’s November 21, 2002 meeting minutes.

F. CEC

Council received information on potential FY2004 federal funding opportunities and a revised schedule on community listening sessions planned for 2003.  When Rosemary Kesler was asked about the 2004 bond election, she responded no decision had been made.

G. Insurance

Council received copies of the Insurance Committee’s November 6, 2002 meeting minutes.

VI. Significant Happenings/Presidents’ Reports

CGCC
A job offer for the Dean of Instruction position will be made today.  CGCC will postpone hiring a new Dean of Administrative Services until next fall.  John Underwood, the Senior Associate Dean of Technology is moving to the Skills Center.  CGCC will form a search committee for that position as well.

EMCC
EMCC’s new Associate Dean of Instruction, Sylvia Orr, started in her new position one
month ago.

GCC
The first screening of the candidates for College President will take place in early December. The Dean of Administrative Services has accepted a position at SMCC.  A posting for a temporary Director of College Business has been posted to fill the position and a search for a permanent Dean of Administrative Services will begin in the spring.

GWCC
A proposal for the Center for Teaching and Learning at GWCC is being formulated.  There is much debate on whether the Director position will be a faculty position or an administrative position.  The GWCC President wants to hire a person who will work year round and will stay in the position.

MCC
MCC’s college-wide budget and strategic planning process is well underway.  The talking points that resulted from the joint meeting of the MCC Faculty Senate and Department Chairs have been forwarded to MCC’s College President.  A proposal for a Dean of Technology has been sent to the MCC College President as well.  Council learned that other colleges had associate deans of technology.  The Harvesting Culture event hosted by the Native American students was a success.  The MCC Student Council is sponsoring an Adopt-A-Family program for the holidays.

PC
Search committees have been formed to hire a new Administrative Dean and a new
Associate Academic Dean.

PVCC
The PVCC College President has called a meeting of the employee group presidents on
Monday, December 2, 2002, to discuss the forty-nine percent program.

RIO
There is nothing new to report.

SCC
All is well.

SMCC
SMCC is reviewing the academic organizational structure.  The Chair elections resulted in new Division Chairs.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:00pm.

VIII. Executive Session

The Executive Committee met to discuss personnel issues.