Taft College Academic Senate Minutes February 6, 2012<\/p>\n
12:00pm, Cougar Room<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Present: President Bill Devine, Vice President Michelle Beasely, Secretary Geoffrey Dyer, David Berry, Don Bandy, Wayne Downey, Victoria Herder, Candace Duron, Susan Vaughan, Diane Jones, Shelly Getty, Ruby Payne, David Reynolds, Kanoe Bandy, Kelly Kulzer, Stephanie Walsh, David Layne, Tony Thompson, Rebecca Roth, Sharyn Eveland, Joseph Polizzotto, Gary Graupman, Jack Gallon, Sonja Swenson, Darcy Bogle<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Detail\u2014Bill Devine opened the discussion by stating that there will be a vacancy in Psychology and that Superintendent Dick Geise had asked the senate to follow policy on determining positions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Geoffrey Dyer summarized the discussion involving criteria for ranking replacement positions at the January 6 meeting, explaining that the agenda item had been to discuss the criteria on the ranking sheet, but before that had happened, the senate had voted to fill the positions of full-time faculty that were retiring or resigning. He added that the senate had not articulated an official policy to always fill these positions first, but that he had sensed from comments made by Craig Johnson and Sonja Swenson during the January 6 meeting that not replacing positions as they had become vacant was an ongoing problem which had contributed to the many unfilled positions currently existing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
David Berry asked the senate if the \u201cgeneral feeling\u201d was to always replace positions as they became vacant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Bill Devine said that it might depend on the position.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Kelly Kulzer asked if positions should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Bill Devine said \u201cUnless we make a policy and decide to use it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jack Gallon said, \u201cI say we leave our options open.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Diane Jones said, \u201cIn this case, I say we be consistent with what we\u2019ve done and replace.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Geoffrey Dyer pointed out that the motion from the January 6 meeting to replace the faculty currently resigning or retiring was not exactly fair, because of unfilled positions from past years, but added that doing so \u201cstops the problem\u201d of more unfilled positions building up.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Diane Jones agreed and said part of the success in requesting positions be filled now involved compliance with the fifty-percent law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Victoria Herder said that filling positions \u201cshould be linked to program review.\u201d She spoke to the importance of program review in allocating resources and said that prioritizations should be done by division chairs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Jack Gallon said \u201cPsychology is very important\u201d and urged the senate to fill the position.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Diane Jones said, \u201cTime is of the essence. In a perfect world, we\u2019d use program review, but we should at least act\u201d by filling the psychology position now \u201cor another one.\u201d [Note: documented program review processes will not be completed again until the fall of 2012, which would leave the psychology position\u2014or any other one, for that matter\u2014unfilled in fall of 2012 if it was contingent upon completing another step of program review.]\u00a0 Diane asked Sharyn Eveland\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Sharyn Eveland said, \u201cI\u2019ve got the position ready to go.\u201d Diane Jones moved to fill the position in psychology.<\/p>\n
Jack Gallon seconded the motion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The motion passed, but Kelly Kulzer (Was this Kelly? Or Kanoe?) voted against it.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There was no further discussion. Kelly Kulzer(Or Kanoe? I used a capital K in my notes\u2014 stupid me!) said, \u201cNo, with no further discussion.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Don Bandy said \u201cThat happens to me at home all the time\u2014No, with no further discussion.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
at Taft College, and delineated a new \u201cSummer of Success Academy\u201d program which would serve students who place into pre-collegiate English classes. After providing information and data, she welcomed volunteers and encouraged faculty to consider developing their own FIGs.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The accelerated learning project for English and ESL had success rates of 80% and 70%, which Kelly compared with significantly lower rates for sixteen-week courses. When asked what she attributed the success to, Kulzer cited the interaction between counseling and instruction, explained that students were encouraged to enroll in only one course during the eight week accelerated term, and also cited the time-frame in which the classes were offered.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
[The presentation was incredibly detailed. For more information, please review Kelly Kulzer\u2019s PowerPoint presentation from the February 6 meeting.]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
After finishing the discussion, the senate burst into applause in acknowledgement of Kelly Kulzer\u2019s work.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Detail\u2014Bill Devine began the discussion by explaining that Dr. Eric Berube had requested a breakdown by division of the totals on the completed faculty ranking sheets in order to determine if bias existed in the voting.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Sharyn Eveland said, \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Kelly Kulzer asked if the request itself assumed that bias would be revealed by such an investingation. Sharyn Eveland stated that even if there was bias, knowing it \u201cwould do no good.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bill Devine said that such an inquiry could potentially show \u201cthat we are unbiased.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Kelly Kulzer cited a backlog in the Office of Institutional Assessment, Research & Planning, stating \u201cwe\u2019re not getting the data we need now\u201d in a timely manner, citing a recent request for success rates that had not yet been granted, which she had addressed in her QFS presentation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Sharyn Eveland suggested that the senate look at other elements of the ranking process, and pointed out that the criteria could potentially be revised. She used the example of the criterion \u201cCost of Position,\u201d which had been a source of confusion for evaluators using the form.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Jack Gallon stated, \u201cThere are intangibles, too.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Geoffrey Dyer revisited what occurred at the January 6 meeting of the senate, explaining that the sole agenda item had been to discuss the criteria on the ranking sheet in advance of applying them, and<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
reiterating that since much of the January 6 meeting was used to determine to fill positions of faculty who were resigning or retiring, not all of the criteria had been discussed [see January 6, 2012 minutes]. He also said that it was difficult for him to complete the ranking process, since the division chairs who had presented on January 9 had interpreted the standards differently. Although some of the vagueness, such as the phrasing of a few of the criteria, had been discussed on January 6, not all of them had.<\/p>\n
Consequently, chairs interpreted the criteria differently. He cited the criterion \u201cGE\/Transfer\u201d and explained how two different divisions had presented differently for the same criterion. He also pointed to the Sociology presentation and how it differed from the Studio Art presentation in including the total number of students enrolled in the courses as opposed to merely the number of students in the major. He attributed these discrepancies to the lack of a proper discussion and understanding of the criteria themselves and added that it made applying the criteria to the different presentations extremely difficult.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Darcy Bogle added that three of the criteria did not relate in any way to Student Services, although there are unfilled Student Services faculty positions that were evaluated with the criteria. She also said that there could be a problem \u201cwhen you see two [scores of] forties [forty is the highest <\/em>possible score the ranking sheet can sum] and a zero.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland said, \u201cI\u2019m hearing two things very clearly.\u201d The first point she echoed was need to \u201clook over the criteria and discuss exactly what they mean,\u201d and the second was \u201cPeople were comparing the positions against each other, instead of ranking each on its own merit.\u201d She felt senators should \u201clook at each [position] individually.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy asked if the second suggestion was \u201ceven possible.\u201d Sharyn Eveland asked \u201cHow do you grade your students then?\u201d<\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy indicated that on a given assignment, it was possible for each student to get an A.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland, relating this system to the ranking of faculty positions, she said \u201cIt\u2019s possible that they could all get forty.\u201d She added that, \u201cAs chairs, if we all knew what [the criteria] meant, I could just do a narrative.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sonja Swenson explored the possibility of the same template being provided for presentations, and referred too to the differing interpretations of the criteria, explaining that she \u201cdidn\u2019t list that art was a GE requirement,\u201d in reference to the Studio Art Position presentation she had delivered on January 9.<\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland, again, suggested that all chairs use the same format.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sonja Swenson reiterated Darcy Bogle\u2019s point that the criteria don\u2019t all apply to counseling.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy said, \u201cI ranked counseling really high because they serve our entire student population.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Geoffrey Dyer asked, \u201cIf we all agreed on the meaning of the criteria, couldn\u2019t IAR&P populate the template with the appropriate data, and chairs could simply supply a narrative,\u201d referencing the amount of time on the January 7 weekend chairs spent preparing their presentations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The discussion ended without action.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Detail\u2014Bill Devine began the discussion by explaining that Superintendent Dick Geise had recommended that the senate have representatives on hiring committees.<\/p>\n Sonja Swenson said that \u201cDivisions should handle that.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Bill Devine asked, \u201cShould I recommend to Dr. Geise that chairs recommend representatives?\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland asked, \u201cIsn\u2019t there a written policy? Haven\u2019t chairs had that responsibility delegated to them already by Dennis McCall?\u201d<\/p>\n Kanoe Bandy pointed out that \u201cChairs represent the senate.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sharyn Eveland added that \u201cHR is doing it now because they think it\u2019s the division chairs\u2019 responsibility.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Victoria Herder added that \u201cPeople could be excluded because committees often meet in the summer, and it bounces right back to the chairs.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No action was taken.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 8) Adjournment.\u00a0 The meeting adjourned at 1:00pm.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n –Minutes submitted by Geoffrey Dyer on March 2, 2012, as transcribed from his handwritten notes from the meeting.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n