The Faculty and Professional Staff Senate: October 2013

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Monday September 23, 2013

B113 3:15 p.m.

Senators in attendance: Betsy Kemper French, Tom Grady, Jeanne Grandchamp, JP Nadeau, Howard Tinberg, Jim Corven, Susan McCourt , James Pelletier, David Warr, Kelemu Woldegiorgis, Rebecca Clark, Alan Rolfe, Martha Williams, Robyn Worthington, Sally Gabb, Ron Weisberger, Gina Heaney, Cecil Leonard, Jennifer Boulay, Cindy Poore-Pariseau, Sharon Pero, Deb St. George, Johanna Duponte

Excused Absences: Sandy Lygren, Jim Constantine, Kevin Forgard, Jean Myles, Sil Ferreira, Paul Robillard

Absences: Thomas McGarty, Joy Rose

Guests: 7

Special guests: Associate Vice President of Academics Anthony Ucci & Senator Sharon Pero

Meeting called to order 3:15

MINUTES: Minutes from both May 2013 and August 2013 were each reviewed and each approved unanimously.

MEETING

1) Report from the Joint Governance Committee: Sharon Pero and Anthony Ucci (Document attached below.) The proposed policy was discussed by the Senate and guests in full detail. Background on the JGC’s work and areas where difficulties emerged were given. The implementation process was difficult, in particular. Should a dashboard be used? A blog? The fact that both policy and process will be a "cultural change" at the college was explored. It was indicated by both Acting VP Sethares and Senator Pero that the intent is for administration, faculty and staff to work on the policy and process together, try them, evaluate them and change them, making policy and process more permanent only after full evaluation has been done.

The draft document submitted in name of the JGC by Acting VP Sethares and Senator Pero will be discusses fully at the next Senate meeting in order that Senate recommendations might be sent on. It was indicated that a copy of the document is present as an attachment in Senators’ email. Senate Vice President Tinberg closed by observing the momentousness of this occasion, that policy and its process offer a potentially monumental change in how the college tackles academic decisionmaking.

2) The Calendar of Meeting Topics for AY2013-2014L presented by Senate President McCourt was discussed briefly and accepted for use by Senate.

3) The Strategic Planning and Senate Goals for AY2013-1014 document, presented by Pres. McCourt was briefly discussed and accepted for use by Senate.

4) Proposed changes to Senate By Laws: The discussion revolved around the following: how membership is counted per division; how difficult counting part-time faculty and staff is; how seniority list is little help with the process of counting Senate members. The By-Laws Committee determined to investigate the divisional reports as help with assessing senate membership.

5) Senate Interest Groups: In recent Senate discussions stemming from the summer 2013 Senate Retreat meeting, the notion of disbanding Senate committees no longer used and beginning work on interest groups was raised Today’s discussion continued on that tack, with the floor being opened to suggestions of which groups should be added to the draft list currently in Senators’ possession. The question of where sustainability fits in the interest group topics was raised. Should this issue have its own interest group? Does it fit with the mission of an academic Senate? It was suggested that the sustainability focus of the Senate could insure sustainability would not be overlooked by academic areas. An ad hoc group was formed to discuss sustainability vis a vis the Senate Interest groups, with Jim Corven and several Senate constituents looking to see if and how sustainability fits with the Senate's Interest Group concept and academic mission.

The consensus of the Senate being that the Interest Group concept, whereby Senators declare an interest and follow up on college-wide news breaking that pertains to their interest, be undertaken, Pres. McCourt agreed to send out email asking Senators to choose an Interest Group from the list discussed today. She requested first and second choice and indicated that any Senator not responding with a preference will be assigned a group. There was a motion to try this process for a year, which passed unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.

NEXT MEETING: Monday, October 21^st at 3:15 in B113

A Reception followed from 4-4:30 p.m.

ADDENDUM:

Respectfully submitted: Jeanne P. Grandchamp, Secretary, Faculty & Professional Staff Senate

PROPOSEDACADEMIC INITIATIVE

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

Submitted September 18, 2013

As a result of information gathered at the Senate/Administration Round-Table discussions held on May 11 and November 30, 2011, a Joint Administration/Senate Taskforce on Academic Decision Making and Governance was appointed by the College and Senate presidents to develop a procedure to better inform the College Community of the academic decision making process at Bristol Community College. The charge to the taskforce was to:

Establish a clear, inclusive, closed-loop process for academic decision-making, including timelines, identification of stakeholders, clear roles & responsibilities, broad input, and verification that stakeholder input was heard.

The guidelines included here provide a framework to initiate and implement academic initiatives and inform stakeholders and other interested parties. Further, the guidelines will help to avoid duplication of efforts and to provide guidance along the way to make the academic decision making process as successful, comprehensive and trouble free as possible. They are designed to encourage creativity and foster innovation. By following these guidelines an initiator can develop consensus earlier in the process, solicit, confirm institutional support and insure necessary resources are available for their project. These guidelines are not designed to replace or supersede any existing academic policies or requirements (i.e. a new curriculum initiative would have to follow the CWCC process, a revision to academic policy would need to be approved by the Academic Standards Committee, etc.).

Section 1: Academic Initiative Definitions

For the purposes of these guidelines an Academic Initiative (AI) is defined as any initiative that has a direct or indirect effect on academic personnel and professional staff. Due the varied level of impact these types of projects can entail, it is important to define the different types of AIs. For the purpose of these guidelines, AIs will be categorized as follows:

Personal/Individual Academic Initiative – This is an AI which, if implemented, would only affect a single instructors section of a course or a dedicated facility solely used by a single individual. Implementation of this type of AI is often protected by Academic Freedom (For Associated MCCC Contractual Rights & Responsibilities see Article 7.01 - Academic Freedom) if implemented by a unit member. While it is not necessary to submit a formal proposal for this type of AI, following these guidelines is still recommended (especially the guideline associated with reporting) to maintain the integrity of the college’s academic offerings and to insure the decision is transparent, inclusive and has the appropriate level of impact. It is also important to understand that while many AIs are initiated by individuals, they can grow into larger projects.

Departmental/Service Area Academic Initiative – This is an AI which affects the offerings, personnel and/or facilities of a single department or service area. In terms of course-level AIs, these would be limited to projects involving courses that appear in a single department’s offerings or as a generic elective in another program.

Divisional Academic Initiative – This is an AI which affects the offerings, personnel and/or facilities of multiple departments or service areas. These would include projects involving courses that are required courses and/or prerequisites for courses in programs offered by other departments and divisions.

College-wide Initiative – This is an AI which affects the offerings, personnel and/or facilities of many departments or service areas. These would include but are not limited to projects involving, new programs, general education competencies, courses sequences which appear in multiple programs, changes in placement policies or facilities that are available for use by the entire staff or student body.

System-wide Academic Initiative – This is an AI which has impacts beyond the institution and may impact offerings a multiple institutions. It is important to understand that these are often initiated and controlled by agencies external to the college and are thus beyond the scope of these guidelines. It is understood however, that while external agencies may not require it, the College is committed to following an inclusive, transparent process similar to the process described in these guidelines as circumstances allow.

Section 2: Establishing an Initiative

STEP 1 – The Academic Initiative

The first step of the process is to develop a clear and easily communicable concept of what this initiative will entail. To do this an Academic Initiative Proposal form (attached) must be completed by the prime contact person for the initiative (lead faculty member or administrator). This form must include the following:

· Working Project Title – expresses the nature of the initiative clearly and concisely & may be changed prior to final implementation.

· Working Project Summary – a brief description of project including any resources (funds, personnel, facilities, etc.) which appear to be necessary for the project’s success which will be modified throughout the process based on stake holder responses.

· Due Date – include an explanation why a decision must be made by this date. A review period of two weeks is recommended unless quicker responses are necessary.

· Population(s) to be Served – stated population is congruent with college’s mission and strategic plan

· Estimated Budget & Source of Funding – either identified or requested

This form is meant primarily as an internal communication tool so please keep it simple and use clear language. This proposal form is then forwarded to the appropriate Academic Leadership depending on which type of academic initiative is being proposed

Step 2 – Approval to Investigate

Departmental/Service Area Academic Initiatives	It is essential for an initiator to notify and receive approval to investigate from the Department Chair, Program Coordinator or Department before proceeding along the implementation process.
Divisional Academic Initiatives	The initiator must notify and receive approval to investigate from both the Department and appropriate Academic Dean.
College-wide Initiatives	The initial stage is to inform college-wide academic governance agencies. These include the Academic Affairs Vice President’s Council (AAVPC) and the Faculty and Professional Staff Senate. In the early stages of the implementation process, it may also be important to include applicable Governance Committees and/or Union Representation (if the AI has the potential of impacting work responsibilities and/or working conditions specifically covered by existing contracts).

Whenever possible it is preferred that initiatives receive the approval of the larger group (Department, Division, Committee, etc.) but, if circumstances do not allow for this, a chair’s approval is acceptable, with the understanding that it is the initiator’s responsibility to disseminate it to the wider audience. Individual signatures are not required at the investigative stage but evidence of approval should be recorded in written form of some type (blog, email, memo, meeting minutes, etc.). The primary purpose of this stage of the process is to define responsibility, insure transparency and inclusivity (i.e. identification of stake holders) and to determine the next step in the process. In each of these cases it is understood that Approval to Investigate Does NOT Constitute Final Approval.

Step 3 – Implementation Team

Academic Initiative requires someone to take ownership of the project and accept the responsibilities of developing consensus among stake holders, determining all necessary information, making sure the projects is in compliance with college policies and inform the wider college community of project impacts. To do the creation of an Implementation Team is suggested. The team composition is suggested:

· Lead Faculty or Professional Staff

· Lead Administrator

· Students Services Representative (if AI has a significant SS Component)

· Committee Representative (if AI is associated with a Standing Committee Function)

In addition other members of the community or other agencies or institutions may be included depending on the nature of the AI being investigated and implemented

Section 3: A Transparent and Inclusive Process

Transparency and inclusion are necessary components of an effective College Governance system that values Shared Governance-Shared Responsibility (For Associated MCCC Contractual Rights & Responsibilities see Article 4A.01 - College Governance). The system must be responsive to stakeholders as a matter of everyday process. Communication of AIs and their status is an ongoing process as the proposal moves forward. There are many communication formats to that can be used to provide this including:

· Department & Division Meetings

· Committee Meetings

· Professional Staff & All-Academic Area Meetings

· Web Based Tool

o Academic Affairs Blog

o @ Everyone e-mails

o Bristol Buzz

o Angel Community Spaces

o Sharepoint

The purpose of this proactive communication is to inform stakeholders of the initiative & engage feedback at designated benchmarks to better inform the initiative. This allows for broad input and promotes a culture of accountability.

Initiators are urged to:

1. Use a Systems Perspective rather than a Linear Process. This means to look at initiatives through the perspective of how they affect the whole with each action having a counteraction to consider.

2. Use technology for dissemination of information, gathering feedback, and providing status updates to move the process along in a timely manner. An even faster process (fast track) may need to be established for very time sensitive decisions.

3. Make data-driven decisions. Take advantage of existing sources of information including Institutional Research, the Office of Grant Development, Student Services and Graduate Information gathered by Alumni Relations, The Perkins Grant (for Employment Information) and the Office of Transfer Affairs

It is the initiator’s responsibility (with the assistance of their Initiation Team) to insure that all important stake holders have an opportunity to provide their feedback, to verify that stakeholder input was heard and to incorporate that feedback into the proposal where appropriate. Stake holders are obligated to provide their feedback quickly, concisely and in a constructive fashion. If this type of feedback is withheld or significantly delayed the academic implementation team will re-direct efforts to encourage greater participation. This should be a proactive process and Failure to Receive a Response does NOT Constitute Support. An initiative does not require 100% approval, but must take all concerns into account prior to further implementation.

These guidelines do not restrict, reduce or eliminate the administrations management rights. Final decision on any AI will require sign offs by the Academic Leadership including Dean and Department Chair at the program level, AVP and the CAO at Divisional Level with the final decision on all AIs resting with the President or his designee (For Associated MCCC Contractual Rights & Responsibilities see Article 4.01 - The Rights & Responsibilities of the Employer). To maintain transparent and inclusive policy of SG-SR decisions will be made public with associated rationales/justification for the decisions that were made.

Section 4: Communication & Continuous Performance Improvement

For this process to be fully effective the Initiator/Implementation Team must provide regular updates to the college community. While numerous formats are available (see Section 3: A Transparent and Inclusive Process) and their use is strongly encouraged, it is essential that these updates occur as part of the existing Academic Affairs reporting structure.

Lastly, to fully realize the long-lasting benefits of any AI, Academic Affairs must adopt a policy of proactive Outcome Assessment and Performance Improvement. This means that there is never an end to the process because it is imperative to always go back and recheck the processes and as one solution is found, it may affect other processes within the system.

Figure 1: Academic Decision Making Process

It should not be a “closed” process, rather an “open” process with a closed loop. Therefore, pilot initiatives must be evaluated before being fully implemented and ongoing AIs must be evaluated at designated intervals. This should always include feedback from stakeholders. While this is being accomplished at the program level with Academic Program Review, additional evaluation processes should be established so that all initiatives are reviewed and data generated closes the feedback loop to continue, modify or even halt the AI.

This form is provided as an example of one method how these guidelines could be implemented

ACADEMIC INITIATIVE PROPOSAL

Primary Initiator(s):

Department/Division:

Telephone # & Extension: Date:

Email:

Initial Proposal

Working Title of Proposed Project:

Working Summary of Project – Include required resources (not to exceed one page in length):

Due Date (please indicate if fixed & why):

Population(s) to be served:

Estimated Budget: $

Identified or requested funding source:

Approval(s) to Investigate:

Dept. Chair/Program Coordinator or Dept. (Date of Mtg.)

Required for all Departmental, Divisional, & College-wide Academic Initiatives

Academic Dean or Division (Date of Mtg.)

Required for all Divisional & College-wide Academic Initiatives

President of F&PS Senate or Senate (Date of Mtg.)

Required for all College-wide Academic Initiatives

Academic VP or AAVPC (Date of Mtg)

Required for all College-wide Academic Initiatives

NOTE: Approval to Investigate Does NOT Constitute Final Approval

Academic Affairs Stake Holders & Responses:

Chair/Coordinator of , Date:

(Program) (Name)