Minutes April 2,2012

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Monday April 2, 2012

H210 3:15 p.m.

Senators in attendance: Tom Grady, Jeanne Grandchamp, Greg Sethares, James Pelletier (had to leave early for class in NB), Susan McCourt, Ron Weisberger, Debra St. George, Howard Tinberg, Sharon Pero, Martha Williams, Anthony Ucci, Jim Constantine, Sil Ferreira, Nan Loggains, Marlene Pollock, David Warr

Excused Absences: C. Leonard, J. Rose, G. Adler

Absences: T. McGarty, S. Adams, P. Robillard, S. Gabb

Guests: D. Lawton & D. Feeney (for the Joint Senate/Administration Advisement Committee), M. Men, T. Goltermann, A. Ibara, E. Shea, W. Kelly, B. Bauman, C. Adamowicz, M. Kelly, S. Kocur, P. Wentworth, Erik Bauman, S. Boissoneault, D. Yohe

The meeting was called to order by President Sethares at 3:15 p.m.

MINUTES: Minutes from February 27, 2012 were reviewed and approved unanimously.

Governance, Academic Decision-Making & Transparency: Senate President Greg Sethares offered an overview of what have become the two joint Senate/Administration initiatives regarding decision-making and transparency. Project #1, to establish a clear, inclusive, closed-loop process for academic decision-making, was described and discussed first. For this process, Sharon Pero, Steve Ozug, Anthony Ucci, Sarah Garrett, Deb St. George and David Feeney have been asked to form a committee, working under a timeline. Four weeks from today, April 30, is the date set for their initial recommendations re: a decision-making process; by May 7, final recommendations are expected; by May 14, the college president will report to the college community on an action plan for implementation of project recommendations. Project #2 will be undertaken to draft a list of agreed-upon best practices in decision making (culled from the May 11 and November 30 joint discussions last year) with the top three of these agreed-upon best practices becoming the plan for next year’s Senate/Administration work. The President’s Council has considered and has forwarded its top five best practices. An online survey of constituents will be undertaken to determine constituents’ top concerns; Senate feedback will also be considered. President Council’s, Senate’s and constituents’ feedback will be considered together to determine the top three agreed-upon best practices to be worked upon.

Nominations, Elections and By-Laws Announcement: NEB-L Chair Susan McCourt reminded Senators of their need to self-nominate if they are eligible for the upcoming Senate election and hope to serve another term.

Joint Senate/Administration Advisement Committee Update: Professor Deborah Lawton and Administration’s representative David Feeney, co-chairs of the special Advisement Committee, presented an update of the committee’s work. Among the anticipated recommendations: 1) implementing a variety of methods to offer students advisement (e.g. having face-to-face and online advisement, (potentially) allowing full time faculty to work in an advisement center, having more group advisement for programs, etc.); 2) making better use of available technology (e.g. requiring the use of Degreeworks within three years, developing a remotely accessible system for students to sign up for advisement appointments, etc.); 3) beginning to emphasize advisement throughout the academic year (e.g. instituting a permanent advisement center, orienting students to Degreeworks, creating a template for program coordinators—a document for programs to help students prepare for advisement; 4) collecting data to assess the Advisement Program consistently to determine what about advisement is working and what needs improvement. Discussion was held, during which Dave Feeney and Deb Lawton noted they were taking suggestions from today’s discussion back to the committee, which will be meeting in April. Following this April meeting, they hoped to bring the full recommendations to a wider BCC audience. Before the closing of the discussion, those attending were reminded that advisor training is in the process of being posted in modules online and that Trish Goltermann and Makna Men are available to answer advisor questions during the upcoming advisement period.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, J. Grandchamp, Secretary, Faculty & Professional Staff Senate

Minutes January 30, 2012

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Monday January 30, 2012

H129 3:15 p.m.

Senators in attendance: Tom Grady, Jeanne Grandchamp, Greg Sethares, James Pelletier (had to leave early for class in NB), Susan McCourt, Ron Weisberger, Debra St. George, Howard Tinberg, Sharon Pero, Martha Williams, Gaby Adler, Anthony Ucci, Jim Constantine, Sil Ferreira, Cecil Leonard, Sally Gabb, Nan Loggains, Marlene Pollock, David Warr

Excused Absences: S. Adams, P. Robillard

Absences: T. McGarty, J. Rose

The meeting was called to order by President Sethares at 3:20 p.m.

MINUTES: Minutes from December 5, 2011were reviewed and approved unanimously; minutes from January 23 were reviewed, amended for date and location in header and approved unanimously.

Governance, Academic Decision-Making & Transparency: Data from the May 11 and Nov 30, 2011 joint Senate-Administration events on governance were briefly reviewed, and discussion began regarding moving toward formal policy changes. It was noted that based on the data from May 11, 2011 and November 30, 2011, there are agreed-upon protocols for decision-making that can now be put together in a draft.

The first part of the discussion centered on a process by which potential new academic initiatives might be raised or presented for discussion by faculty and staff. Would the Professional Staff meeting be a good venue for such discussions? It was noted that discussion, with votes on the issues being discussed (perhaps using technology, like clickers), could be held. Right now, there is only a sense of what the body wants at discussions of new initiatives, not actual votes on initiatives and their elements. Also discussed was the idea that a vote could be taken at Division meetings during Senate discussions on academic issues, so that Senate constituents can more clearly inform their Senators of their wishes.

Next, Senate discussion moved to a possible process by which new information on potential academic initiatives might be shared with faculty and staff or stakeholders. An online site could be established and the following process followed: 1) at the online site, the proposal and a current assessment-and-recommendation for that proposal could be published; 2) stakeholders could be invited to log on, discuss and weigh in on the proposal and its recommendation; 3) the proposal could then be revised; and 4) the revised proposal could then get voted on, online, by stakeholders. Even if the vote is not accepted as binding, faculty and staff stakeholders would be giving input and showing whether they are offering clear, real support for a proposed initiative. The process would be open and transparent.

Following this, discussion moved to how stakeholders should be identified and who should do so. The idea of a Governance Committee was floated. It could be staffed by an equal number of administrators and senators, and perhaps others. This committee would look at whether decision-making is including all of the appropriate stakeholders and could provide a year-end report about whether or not decision-making protocols are being used effectively.

It was noted by several present that the model for a process for governance and transparency is the Joint Administration-Senate Advisement Committee and the processes attendant to it. The Joint Committee’s report is anticipated, and when it is issued, senators, constituents and administrators can discuss the recommendations during a meeting (professional staff?), with faculty and staff perhaps weighing in on the recommendations using clickers or other technology. Following that would be a vote in the Senate based on constituents’ feedback, with Administration officially weighing in with their points of view on the findings, as well.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, J. Grandchamp, Secretary, Faculty & Professional Staff Senate