Bristol
Community College
Faculty
& Professional Staff Senate Meeting
Minutes
of Monday, May 02, 2016
Room
B101 3:15pm
Senators in attendance: J. Pelletier, D. St. George, S. Pero, J.
Boulay, J. Flanigan, L. Neubert, H. Tinberg, T. Grady, L. Delano-Botelho, J.
Corven, B. French, J. Constantine, J. Jodoin, S. Ferreira, B. McGuire, R.
Worthington, K. Hiller
Absences: J. Mbugua, J. Bjornson, G. Leeman,
Excused Absences: M. Geary, S. McCourt, R.
Benya-Soderbom
Four guests attended this meeting.
Meeting
called to order:
3:15 pm
Minutes: Minutes from April were approved with an
amendment to the timeline for the Writing Center Coordinator position and one
abstention due to an absence.
Division
Reports
·
Division 4: Accreditation for clinical
lab science has been finalized
·
Division 5: Some courses approved by
CWCC may be running without going through the department or curriculum
committees; minutes are messy in eFolder; no good system for taking minutes and
having public viewing
·
Lash: The LCTL is hosting a High
Impact Practices Summer Institute with faculty stipends and two CORI workshops
on how to seal a CORI record
Final
Report from Senate Task Force on Academic Support and Retention
·
The Senate thanked the task force for
their service: Jean-Paul Nadeau, Deborah Palumbo, Debra St.George, Ron
Weisberger, and Julie Jodoin-Krauzyk (Chair)
·
The final report was submitted and
approved with no abstentions
·
The final report will be distributed
to constituents with key findings and recommendations highlighted; it will also
be distributed to President Sbrega and Vice President Sethares next week
Response
to College’s Strategic Planning Draft and Process
·
Senators expressed concern about
submitted recommendations not being included in the strategic plan; a dialogue
followed regarding processes for providing committee feedback to stakeholders
·
Senator Neubert, co-chair for the
Strategic Planning Committee, indicated that all feedback was shared with the
committee and consultants before being voted upon for the draft plan; items
with suggestions from multiple constituents were reflected in the final plan;
there was an explicit focus on incorporating elements of the state’s Vision
Project
·
A discussion followed regarding how
information is not currently fed back to constituents (e.g., committee reports;
College monthly reports)
o
How could the College do a better job
of sharing information back to initiators of suggestions?
o
How could minutes/process of giving
feedback become more transparent?
o
What role in closing the loop can
divisional representatives play on the committees they serve?
o
Is there a good place to centralize
meeting minutes? Should it be Office 365?
Senate
Protocol for Submission of Academic Initiative (AI) Proposals:
·
Draft
Senate Protocol for Submission of AI Proposals:
·
The draft protocol does not require a
vote; however, it breaks down the process from Senate perspective
·
Proposed closed-loop process:
a)
Notification (not just sign-off) share
with Senate
b)
Discussion and feedback (means of
communication)
c)
Markers to monitor down road, share
with initiator of proposal
d)
Senate president monitors progress;
possible ad hoc Senate committee
i. Signing
signifies something beyond notification with transparency
ii. What
if a bad initiative? Senate provides that feedback
·
General
Education Initiative Update
o
Jenn Boulay and Holly Pappas have
begun using AI for the general education initiative
o
Secretary Boulay explained process and
status for the project:
§ The
committee will solicit feedback on proposed competencies via the following
strategies in Fall 2016:
·
Program coordinators/department chairs
·
Division meetings
·
Senate meetings
·
Campus-wide meetings
§ The
committee looked at the Mass Transfer Block, draft NEASC standards pertaining
to general education, general education competencies from other institutions,
the College’s draft strategic plan, the College’s educated person statement,
the College’s mission statement, and constituent feedback prior to WTR
§ The
proposed competencies include: critical reading and analysis, written and oral
communication, scientific reasoning and discovery, quantitative and symbolic
reasoning, global and historical awareness, multicultural and social
perspectives, ethical dimensions, information and technical literacy, and
something that captures competencies gained from humanities (e.g., aesthetic
appreciation or creative thinking)
§ Due
to WTR, the committee did not have adequate representation to work on written
and oral communication, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, humanities (or
aesthetic appreciation or creative thinking) and this work will continue into
Fall 2016
§ The
committee proposes that the first-year experience remains a graduation
requirement, but is omitted as a competency
Looking
Back and Forward
·
President Tinberg offered a recap of
the Senate’s 3 strategic goals for the year
o
governance:
two Academic Initiatives (general education and civic learning)
o
promoting
student academic support and retention (no summit
this year due to WTR)
o
sustainability:
nomination committee for Senate
§ a
conversation followed regarding the pros and cons of having Senate service
acknowledged under the College’s committee system (autonomy and independence;
possibility of losing representatives and input if Senators only serve on one
committee)
Other
·
The Senate will have a retreat during
the summer to formulate the strategic goals for next year (date, time and
location TBA)
·
President Tinberg encouraged Senators
to attend the focus groups for the presidential search in May
·
Senate elections will close tomorrow
and a vote for officers will follow; Sharon Pero has agreed to run for vice
president
·
The Senate thanked the Grandchamp
Committee and Senator Grady for delivering the annual Grandchamp Lecture
·
The Senate thanked exiting Senators:
Betsy Kemper-French, Brian McGuire, Susan McCourt, Tom Grady
Meeting
Adjourned: 4:13 pm
Respectfully
submitted, Jennifer Boulay, BCC Faculty & Professional Staff Secretary
No comments:
Post a Comment