Minutes August 30, 2012

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Thursday August 30, 2012

H129 3:15 p.m.

Senators in attendance:, Jeanne Grandchamp, James Pelletier, Susan McCourt, Ron Weisberger, Howard Tinberg, Sharon Pero, Jim Constantine, Cecil Leonard, Sally Gabb, Gabriela  Adler, Nan Loggains, Sandra Lygren, Betsy Kemper-French, J.P. Nadeau, Alan Rolfe, Jim Corven, Kelemu Woldegiorgis, Jean Myles

Excused Absences:  M. Williams, M. Pollock, D. Warr

Absences:  T. McGarty, S. Adams, J. Rose, T. Grady, D. St. George, S. Ferreira, P. Robillard

Guests: Holly Pappas

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

MINUTES: Minutes from April 30, 2012 were reviewed and approved with three abstentions, Senators who were not present 4/30/12.

Opening Remarks:  President Susan McCourt welcomed Senators for 2012-2013 and offered a brief history of the BCC Faculty and Professional Staff Senate. She also briefly discussed the changes over summer 2012, indicating that Kelemu Woldegiorgis has been asked to step in as representative for Division V in place of Anthony Ucci, who has moved into an Acting Associate Academic Vice President position.

Business from July 2012 Senate Retreat: President McCourt summarized a suggestion made by Senate summer retreat attendees that the Senate consider a recommendation involving catalog course descriptions: might the course descriptions published in the college catalog include both the time-frames and the modalities in which each course can be offered, decided by the appropriate departments? President McCourt indicated that she would phrase this proposal for Senators to share with Divisions so that constituent feedback might inform Senate discussion of this suggestion later in the semester.

Academic Policy Committee (APC): Current APC chair Ron Weisberger put out a call for committee members. The Senate is looking for Senators willing to help examine the current By-Laws’ description of the committee and begin rethinking the use of the APC. Might the Senate best use the committee as an investigative arm? A research arm? Those willing would initially help APC reconstitute itself and might also remain, if they so choose, on the committee after it is reconstituted with a new charge. Senators expressed the belief that APC should become proactive rather than reactive. Senator Jim Pelletier volunteered; a call will go out via President McCourt for senators to consider membership.

Nominations, Elections and By-Laws Committee: 1) Susan McCourt is now Senate President and has stepped down from NEB-L; Sharon Pero has agreed to stay on NEB-L. 2) NEB-L will look again at Division IV’s census to devise a way to accurately count division members for future Senate elections. (Due to teaching methods employed in the division, it is currently difficult to determine how many senators are required to represent the division.)  3) Once the difficulty with determining number of senators for Div. IV is resolved, NEB-L will be able to see whether or not a write-in candidate from the Spring 2012 election can be seated. 4) The by-laws are slated to be examined for revision this year. Members are also needed for Nominations, Elections and By-Laws.

Business for the Upcoming Academic Year: Pres. McCourt devised a chart assigning topics that the Senate has before it for consideration this academic year to each of the slated times/dates for meetings. She requested a discussion of potential changes to the topics chart. One Senator suggested that the discussion of developmental education be moved to earlier in the year; it will be moved to the November 2012 Senate meeting.

Governance, Academic Decision-Making & Transparency: Senator Sharon Pero, A. Ucci and D. St. George are the Senate team for this joint committee, with administration’s team being comprised of David Feeney, Sarah Garrett and Steve Ozug. Senator Pero gave a brief history of the committee’s history and charge, which was to insure academic decision become more faculty- and professional staff-inclusive. Specifically, the Senate and the college president charged the committee with developing a closed-loop academic decision-making process. Their recommendations were to be ready by the end of the Spring 2012 semester. As A. Ucci has become Acting Associate Academic VP, a new Senate team member is needed if the initiative is to continue.

Extensive discussion ensued—of the committee’s charge and of the fact that the committee had not completed its mission in the timeframe originally set. The Senate debated recommendations to make to the college President and his team for this joint initiative, and it was decided that, both for the benefit of new Senate members and to insure a thoughtful recommendation, the “Consensus Best Practices in Academic Decision-Making” list garnered from the May 11, 2011 and November 30, 2011 roundtable discussions of college-wide governance be re-distributed via Senate Secretary Jeanne Grandchamp to senators prior to the next meeting on September 10. Governance & Transparency committee member Sharon Pero will also send out the joint committee’s original charge prior to the next Senate meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

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

Draft Proposal for Review and Comment

Draft Proposal:  Designating Modality and Format of Courses

 As the offerings of a department are the responsibility of the faculty in the department, the Senate proposes that all course offerings begin to include the modality and format of the course as offered by the department, and include but not be limited to: modality (classroom, laboratory, computer lab, online, or hybrid) and number of weeks and number of course meetings per week. This will insure the content and instructional experts of the discipline offer all courses with academic integrity.

Minutes April 30, 2012

DRAFT

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Monday April 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, Anthony Ucci, Jim Constantine, Sil Ferreira, Marlene Pollock, David Warr, Cecil Leonard, Sally Gabb, Gabriella  Adler

Excused Absences:  Nan Loggains, Paul Robillard

Absences:  T. McGarty, S. Adams, J. Rose

Guests: Alan Rolf, Sandy Lygren, Jean Myles, Betsy Kemper-French, Jim Corven

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

MINUTES: Minutes from April 2, 2012 were reviewed and approved unanimously.

Grandchamp Speaker Series: Senator Jim Pelletier presented Professor James Corven with a certificate in thanks for his April 4, 2012 presentation for the Senate’s Speaker Series, “Sustainability: Let’s Talk About the Good News!” Professor Corven’s was the second of the Series’ presentations.

Nominations, Elections and By-Laws Committee: NEB-L Chair Susan McCourt reported on the recent election. 1) Number of Senators has increased from 23 to 28; 2) Div. IV encountered problems re: determining the number of Senators appropriate to their division due to team teaching etc. A motion was made, accepted and approved to offer the division’s write-in candidate a Senate position if investigation warrants an additional Senate position be awarded.

Governance, Academic Decision-Making & Transparency: Discussion was held regarding a potential Governance & Transparency initiative #2—separate from the first initiative to establish a clear, inclusive, closed-loop process for academic decision-making: what governance issues/priorities will the Senate and Administration be working on in Fall 2012? The President’s Council’s choices and the Senate’s choices, both sets culled from the “Best Practices” notes (from the May 11 and Nov. 30, 2011 Governance & Transparency Roundtables), were examined as were the results of the survey of the faculty and staff made by the Senate President. An additional document drafted by Senate President Greg Sethares showed where the Senate’s, the constituents’ and the President’s Council’s governance & transparency priorities overlapped, and there was considerable discussion about which 3-5 governance & transparency priorities the Senate should recommend be pursued. There was also discussion of sticking to pursuit of measurable goals rather than general principles. President Sethares suggested meeting with members of the Senate sub-committee who are working with administration to develop a proposed closed-loop process for academic decision making (Sharon Pero, Anthony Ucci, Debra St. George) before committing to pursuit of additional governance & transparency priorities. (Will the adoption of a closed-loop academic decision-making process obviate the need to pursue other priorities identified in 2011 by including those priorities as part of the closed-loop process?)

Governance, Academic Decision-Making & Transparency (Initiative #1, the closed-loop process): The Senate’s team reported on the first two meetings, that had been hard to come by at the hectic semester-end. Team members Sharon Pero, Anthony Ucci and Debra St. George indicated that at the group’s first meeting, progress was made in roughing-out a process that would include 1) initiation of an academic project that might come from administration, faculty or staff; 2) early identification of stakeholders; 3) the need to communicate the decision, once it is made; 4) the need to evaluate the process at each step in the process; 5) consideration of how the college’s committee structure works in the closed-loop process. At the end of the first meeting, administration representatives seemed pleased with what was being roughed out. The second meeting occurred today (April 30). At this meeting, administration reps raised concerns about management rights and union rights and suggested that problems might arise if, after recommendations have been made by stakeholders following a closed-loop deliberation, administration decides to make a major decision with which stakeholders do not approve. It was agreed by both teams that more early involvement of those who are to do a proposed project or who will be affected by a proposed project is valuable. It was also agreed that the college’s CAO has the ultimate decision-making power in things academic. In short, during this second meeting, administration reps and Senate reps began to set boundaries.

President Greg Sethares observed that Senate and administration share agreement regarding many governance beliefs and practices and said that he felt “we are in a good spot” in our development of a closed-loop process for academic decision-making. This process will be developed, he added, but “it will be important that all stakeholders—administration, Senate and constituents—have input and are on board.”

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

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

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