Taft College Academic Senate Minutes January 6, 2012<\/p>\n
10:10am<\/p>\n
Cougar Room<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
President Bill Devine, Vice-President Michelle Beasley, Secretary Geoffrey Dyer, Craig Johnson, Tony Thompson, Kanoe Bandy, Don Bandy, Dave Berry, Greg Golling, Lourdes Gonzalez, Sonja Swenson, David Layne, Diane Jones, Vicki Herder, Darcy Bogle, Shelly Getty, Juana Rangel-Escobedo, Candace Duron, Kamala Carlson, Sharyn Eveland, John Eigenauer, Ruby Payne, Wendy Berry, Rebecca Roth, Jo\u2019ell Chaidez, Mike Mayfield, Marilyn King, Diana Champion, Jeff Ross, Joseph Polizzotto, Brian Jean, Eric Berube<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Bill Devine began the meeting by explaining that the superintendent had asked the senate to rank five positions for approval. Sharyn Eveland asked \u201cwhat about the other positions? Aren\u2019t there twelve or fourteen?\u201d Bill Devine responded that the senate could put forth as many as they wished, but reiterated that the superintendent had asked for five, adding that those five positions would be subject to available funding. Bill Devine then explained that the task for the meeting was to determine a mechanism by which to rank the many positions that divisions hoped to have filled.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
He passed out a handout that had two proposed ranking sheets. The sheets, which he had sent through email prior to the meeting, included criteria devised over much time by division chairs for determining the importance of a position. The second of these sheets, according to Bill Devine, reflected changes suggested by Eric Berube and other faculty members since Bill had sent the first sheet.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
At this point Eric Berube interjected that the second sheet did not, in fact, reflect Eric\u2019s changes and that, having noticed this from the emails, Eric had devised yet a third <\/em>ranking sheet to more clearly articulate the criteria devised by the chairs, avoid ambiguity, add a new criterion regarding recommendations being guided by program review, and eliminate a criteria \u201cFinancial Cost of Instructors\u201d which had been recently eliminated by the chairs.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n When Bill Devine asked the group to begin a conversation about what the criteria on the sheets should be interpreted to mean, Craig Johnson asked the important question, \u201cHow will the vote take place?\u201d Bill Devine responded that he\u2019d hoped to have senate members email their votes within twenty-four<\/p>\n <\/p>\n hours of Monday\u2019s senate meeting, after which point he would tabulate the results. Craig Johnson then pointed out that smaller divisions would have fewer members, potentially mitigating their chances of filling a position in their division. Bill Devine and Sonja Swenson both spoke to the fact that senators would need to vote \u201cfair-mindedly\u201d and as a representative of the college as a whole, not just a division. Don Bandy made a joke about using his vote as his division chair saw fit. Craig Johnson suggested that each division be given only one vote to level the field.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At this point, Kanoe Bandy changed the course of the conversation. She explained that since there were far more than five unfilled positions, she thought it made sense to replace the positions of those faculty who are currently retiring or resigning and then rank all of the other positions after those positions of currently retiring faculty were filled.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n David Layne moved to replace current retirees first, and Kamala Carlson seconded the motioned.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As further discussion, Sharyn Eveland said that \u201ccurrently retiring\u201d should include Patti Bench\u2019s faculty position. Kanoe Bandy clarified that she did not mean to include Patti Bench\u2019s position in that number. Sonja Swenson said that Patti\u2019s position had been discussed in other meetings, and that Patti had said there was not a need to replace her position since her duties were already being covered. Sharyn said that covering Patti\u2019s responsibilities had resulted in a double-load for another faculty member. Kanoe Bandy answered that Sharyn\u2019s concern was justification for a new position, but that it wasn\u2019t what Kanoe had meant.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Tony Thompson pointed out that Terry Brothers\u2019 position had never been filled. Marilyn King interjected that Sandy Jennings retired and was not replaced last year.<\/p>\n Jeff Ross reminded everyone that there was a motion and a second on the table to replace currently retiring faculty. He called Kanoe\u2019s proposal \u201cso clean.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland clarified that \u201ccurrently retiring\u201d also referred to Rick Miranda\u2019s resignation, and that the three positions to be filled first were science, history, and dental hygiene.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Diane Jones said that the senate should still rank all three positions and send them forward. Bill Devine asked how the recently retiring positions should be ranked.<\/p>\n Mike Mayfield said that science, history, and dental hygiene should each be given a rank of number one, with whichever position earning the most votes being ranked as number four.<\/p>\n When there was no further discussion, Bill Devine took a vote. The motion unanimously passed. Craig Johnson thanked everyone for supporting Kanoe Bandy\u2019s idea.<\/p>\n Bill Devine then tried to bring the discussion back around to what he had set out to discuss: the criteria used to rank positions. He referred to Eric Berube\u2019s newest \u201cAcademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sheet\u201d and read the first criterion, \u201cImmediate Impact on Existing Programs,\u201d and asked faculty to explain what that meant.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Marilyn King responded with the example of how in dental hygiene, accreditation requires that a certain professor to student ratio be maintained in order to retain accreditation and the program itself.<\/p>\n Sonja Swenson said that in all disciplines there is a similar impact.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy asked if the discussion about the interpretation of the criteria for ranking faculty was still relevant in light of the motion that had just passed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland and Bill Devine both said that the discussion was important, since there were more positions to rank and since the senate needed a clear process and mechanism for making these determinations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Jeff Ross then asked what \u201cimmediate\u201d meant in the first criterion for ranking faculty positions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Craig Johnson said that \u201cWe used to have a \u2018statutory requirements\u2019 ranking that\u2019s missing,\u201d referencing Marilyn\u2019s King\u2019s point.<\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland said that the statutory requirement criterion was no longer necessary since breaking a statutory requirement was an immediate impact. She then explained that these criteria for ranking faculty were voted on for the last two years and that at a recent Division Chairs meeting, the chairs weighted the criteria and put them in order of importance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Don Bandy asked if the word \u201cimmediate\u201d was still relevant to the first criterion since recent retirements are being replaced first.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland said yes because \u201cimmediate\u201d does not necessarily mean today. She explained how the ranking sheet allowed voters to assign a value to each criterion in order to determine a collective sum for each prospective position.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Geoffrey Dyer then changed the subject again by asking the question which Craig Johnson had posed at the beginning of the meeting: How, exactly, would the remaining positions be ranked? Geoffrey Dyer said that although everyone agreed to rank science, history, and dental hygiene as first, the senate had not agreed if every senator would receive one vote or if every division would, and said that he was still unclear on the process.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Craig Johnson said that he still believed that giving every senator a vote was a disadvantage for smaller divisions, although he personally had no problem with it, since his division is very large.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Jeff Ross said \u201cIt is what it is\u201d and said that in all probability, only two new positions would be filled beside the three that were ranked as first. He suggested that perhaps each division simply suggest one position to bring forward, since most of them wouldn\u2019t be filled anyway.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy said that as the division chair of Applied Technology, she had four positions she needed filled. She added that since she knew she wasn\u2019t going to get them, she didn\u2019t want to spend the bulk of her weekend preparing a presentation for each of them. She said that she believed that faculty needed to continue to advocate for unfilled positions and that all unfilled positions should be requested, ranked, and recorded in meeting minutes continually. She added that a division\u2019s first choice for a new position within their division may not be the division\u2019s first choice for a new position for the entire college. She said that she would like to see all of her own division\u2019s positions listed, but that she was not going to\u00a0 give four presentations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Diane Jones responded that simply having the information that there were four unfilled positions in Applied Technology was helpful. Diane said that she would like to know how many positions each division wanted.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Always the eager facilitator of communication, Bill Devine sprung to his feet and began wielding a dry- erase marker. The senate was transformed into a chorus of voices, and Bill wrote the following list of sixteen positions on the board:<\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy explained that Don Bandy not only teaches history but also health, rendering the kinesiology position \u201chalf new.\u201d Sharyn Eveland explained that although a new psychology professor was hired last year, classes had been previously taught in sociology by a retired psychology professor.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Geoffrey Dyer again said that he wanted to know what the process, exactly, would be for determining the positions, since Craig Johnson had expressed one view about the number of votes per division which others had disagreed with. Sonja Swenson said she thought it best if every senator receive a vote and the vote take place on Monday, January 8, 2011.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Craig Johnson suggested that FTE be used as a criterion. Sonja Swenson said that FTE was addressed by other criteria.<\/p>\n Brian Jean said that the criteria in general were too vague, calling them \u201cmumbo jumbo.\u201d He cited the criterion \u201cLinked to Program Review and Planning\u201d and asked, since all faculty were part of units that completed program reviews, how this criterion could apply any more or less to any potential position.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sonja Swenson responded that the positions themselves should be based on recommendations from program reviews.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Eric Berube said that program reviews use many different variables to plan and recommend. He gave the example of FTE as a variable that would be considered in program review. He said that program reviews included an analysis of FTE, and that many completed program reviews included recommendations for new positions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Brian then pointed to the criterion \u201cFinancial Cost of Instructor\u201d and asked why the criterion was included and what it could mean.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kamala Carlson answered that this criterion had been struck through and moved to the bottom after previous discussion in another meeting. It became clear that some senators were looking at the earlier version of the criteria, and some were looking at the new version which Eric Berube passed out at the meeting, contributing to the confusion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Diane Jones said that Eric Berube\u2019s newest \u201cAcademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet\u201d was more clear that either of the earlier versions and that she thought the senate should use it to rank positions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland reiterated that the criteria themselves were developed in previous years and had only recently been weighted and reordered.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Robin Polski referenced Kanoe Bandy\u2019s earlier comment about the number of available positions and asked if each division should only recommend one position.<\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland and Kanoe Bandy both responded that divisions should not be limited in the number of positions that they can recommend or request.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n David Layne echoed and affirmed Diane Jones\u2019 suggestion that Eric Berube\u2019s newest \u201cAcademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet\u201d be adopted.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kamala Carlson pointed out that the sheet was confusing because some of the criteria were phrased as questions in complete sentences and some were phrases.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Eric Berube agreed that Kamala was right.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Rebecca Roth moved to use Eric Berube\u2019s newest \u201cAcademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet\u201d to rank faculty positions but suggested that clarification be added beneath the criteria to dispel confusion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland seconded the motion. The motion passed.<\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland summarized Geoffrey Dyer and Craig Johnson\u2019s concerns about the number of votes cast relative to the size of the division and the actual process of ranking the positions based on the number\u00a0 of votes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland moved that each senator would be allowed to rank each position using the \u201cAcademic Senate Faculty Position Ranking Sheet.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Dave Berry seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.<\/p>\n Bill Devine then asked how much time should be allowed for votes to be turned in. Sonja Swenson suggested twenty-four hours, and the group agreed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Meeting was adjourned at 11:05pm.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n –Submitted by Geoffrey Dyer<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Ranked as First<\/td>\n Still Unfilled<\/td>\n \u201cHalf-New\u201d<\/td>\n New<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n HistoryDental Hygiene Science<\/td>\n Studio Art Buisiness Energy Tech WeldingEOPS Counselor DSPS CounselorCareer\/Transfer Center Counselor Distance LearningDental Hygiene<\/td>\n Sociology Kinesiology<\/td>\n English CJA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n