Bristol
Community College
Faculty &
Professional Staff Senate Meeting
Minutes of
Monday March 10, 2014
B101 3:15 p.m.
Senators
in attendance: E. French, T. Grady, J. Grandchamp, S. Lygren, H.
Tinberg, A. Rolfe, M. Williams, R. Worthington, R. Clark, S. Ferreira, G.
Heaney, C. Leonard, S. Pero, D. St. George, J. Constantine, J Corven, S.
McCourt, J. Pelletier, K. Woldegiorgis, J. Myles, R. Weisberger, J. Boulay, C.
Poore-Pariseau.
Excused
Absences: P. Robillard, J. Dupont, J.P.
Nadeau
Absences:
T. McGarty, J. Rose, S. Gabb
Guests: 4
Special guest: Associate Vice
President of Academics Anthony Ucci
Meeting called to order 3:19
Minutes from February 10, 2014 were each reviewed and
approved unanimously.
On Joint Governance Committee: Vice President Anthony Ucci reviewed the administration’s response to the governance committee's joint recommendations, beginning by citing four relatively major proposed changes addressing concerns coming from administration and from the senate blog. One concern was any policy/procedure instituted not impact academic freedom or managements prerogatives. This caused administration to request that several statements included in the committee-proposed document be moved to the front of the document for emphasis.
Another
concern involved the notion that any policy/procedure not infringe on college
standing committees and other existing governance structures. Proposed changes
were then illustrated.
Further,
administration feared the process as recommended was too labor intensive and
might bog the process down. This resulted, in part, in Administration
recommending that the policy/process only be put into play when an academic
initiative being proposed is a college-wide or system-wide initiative rather
than a department or division initiative.
To
the administration’s concern that there be fewer layers to the decision process,
on the form placed at end of proposal, the persons expected to approve an
initiative once it’s been through the process of gaining stakeholder input and
is ready to be instituted were changed to the President of the Senate and the
President of the college or his/her designee.
Vice Pres. Ucci indicated that the committee had struggled with what could be an effective mode to obtain feedback from stakeholders on academic initiatives under consideration. Blogs, Angel, share point, other?
The proposal discussed by VP Ucci and forwarded by administration leaves mode of communication with stakeholders open; all that is expected via the reworded document is that as long as the input is obtained, the method makes no difference; administration feels this gives those proposing aninitiative flexibility.
Vice Pres. Ucci indicated that the committee had struggled with what could be an effective mode to obtain feedback from stakeholders on academic initiatives under consideration. Blogs, Angel, share point, other?
The proposal discussed by VP Ucci and forwarded by administration leaves mode of communication with stakeholders open; all that is expected via the reworded document is that as long as the input is obtained, the method makes no difference; administration feels this gives those proposing aninitiative flexibility.
Further, as the contract indicates union members cannot approve or disapprove of such initiatives, it is suggested by administration that the signature obtained at the end of the entire process should be from the president of college; the president is the one who will commit to funding, etc., so, of course, he/she must approve.
VP Ucci indicated that administration is committed to this policy/process being a series of trial runs: there could be some glitches, and we have to see the policy/process in action in order to tweak appropriately. The issue was pressed concerning whether or not the process and policy could be changed later, if necessary. VP Ucci strongly indicated that process/policy will be reevaluated periodically, especially after first use. It will be a pilot only, he assured the Senate. Senate Pres. Susan McCourt was in agreement with VP Ucci on this matter.
Senators were concerned that some of these changes might provide a chance to circumvent the Senate, as the senate would not be allowed to approve an initiative’s proposal or the recommendations. VP Ucci felt that such behavior is counter to the spirit of the document, process and policy and would not be likely to happen.
Administration is proposing that to test the policy/process we use it to evaluate the green schedule.
At that point, Vice President Ucci withdrew, and the floor opened for Senate discussion.
Committee members from senate’s half of the Joint Governance Committee were invited to offer their feedback. None of the committee members attending had a problem with the moving of material already in the joint document to earlier spots in the document. They also had no problem with making the initiatives examined by stakeholders under the proposed policy/process broader and non-departmental or divisional. Additionally, they saw need to streamline the form to be used to insure proper stakeholders were notified and offered feedback.
They did, however, have some issue with the feedback and documentation loop and process not being spelled out.
Senators were invited to offer opinions and comments. Some felt that the notion of having no default system for soliciting feedback was a poor way to begin things. A default system that helps invite stakeholders in to where comments can be made would be less messy or confusing than random systems chosen by those in charge of different academic initiatives undergoing the stakeholder feedback process.
It was further insisted by many present that somewhere on any document containing recommendations by administration for an academic initiative that has undergone this process, the Senate’s thoughts about the recommendations and the process must be recorded.
It
was noted that more than one pilot could be instituted, and that these trial
runs of the policy/process be open to others who need input to their
college-wide initiatives.
That
the Senate be notified of initiatives “in an advisory capacity” was discussed,
as well.
There was a suggestion from the floor that there should not be two “designees” signing off at the end of the process in lieu of the president of the college. Discussion was conducted as to whether the president alone should sign or one designee be allowed in lieu.
There was a suggestion from the floor that there should not be two “designees” signing off at the end of the process in lieu of the president of the college. Discussion was conducted as to whether the president alone should sign or one designee be allowed in lieu.
Another
suggestion from the floor that the Senate be represented on each stakeholder
feedback session was discussed and it was determined that as the Senate will be
notified re: feedback given, there would be no need for such an arrangement.
It was, however, agreed that the Senate should be notified at the beginning and end of each run-through of the process, so that Senators will be able to offer relevant comments.
It was decided that the Senate will review the suggested changes and its own concerns, Pres. McCourt will send to administration notes regarding the Senate’s discussion today, constituents will be informed and their input sought, and the Senate will vote on the document at the next Senate meeting. Two emails will be going forth from the Senate: 1. a note of thanks to Vice President Ucci and response to administration regarding Senate concerns at this juncture and indication that a Senate vote is pending; 2. a copy of the administration’s proposed policy/process to constituents for their feedback. Indication will be made that we are giving constituents time to respond.
It was, however, agreed that the Senate should be notified at the beginning and end of each run-through of the process, so that Senators will be able to offer relevant comments.
It was decided that the Senate will review the suggested changes and its own concerns, Pres. McCourt will send to administration notes regarding the Senate’s discussion today, constituents will be informed and their input sought, and the Senate will vote on the document at the next Senate meeting. Two emails will be going forth from the Senate: 1. a note of thanks to Vice President Ucci and response to administration regarding Senate concerns at this juncture and indication that a Senate vote is pending; 2. a copy of the administration’s proposed policy/process to constituents for their feedback. Indication will be made that we are giving constituents time to respond.
On the March-April NEASC visit: The question was raised as to whether or not the
Senate will meet with the NEASC team and it was indicated that we have asked to
be put on the schedule, but the decision is up to the visiting team. Concern
was expressed by several about how some passages regarding the Senate had been
cut from the college’s final NEASC report; it was indicated that nothing citing
critical feedback re: the college or administration had been excised. Others,
however, stated that some of the final edits to the document did alter
criticisms made by those working on standards other than the standard in which
the Senate is featured.
Talking
points were brainstormed for the visit, including the facts that the Senate and
administration are still working on transparency and shared governance and that
a counterproductive corporate model causing difficulties with obtaining
progress on these issues and others continues to be in place at BCC.
Additionally, differing perspectives as to what “shared governance” is continue
to plague our mutual efforts. This college has yet to attain true shared
governance.
President
McCourt indicated she would forward an email with draft talking points for
input.
Meeting adjourned 4:17 p.m.
respectfully submitted, Jeanne P.
Grandchamp, BCC Faculty & Professional Staff Secretary
