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