Minutes of Monday, March 10, 2014

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.

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.

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.

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

Minutes of Monday, February 10, 2014

Bristol Community College

Faculty and Professional Staff Senate

Monday, February10, 2014

3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

B102

Minutes

Senators in attendance: Johanna Duponte, Betsy French, JP Nadeau, Howard Tinberg, Rebecca Clark, Martha Williams, Cecil Leonard, , Jim Pelletier, Susan McCourt, Kelemu Woldegiorgis, Jean Myles, , Ron Weisberger, Cindy Poore-Pariseau; Holly Pappas, Jim Constantine,Sharon Pero, Cecil Leonard, Alan Rolfe, Robyn Worthington, Gina Heaney, Deb. St. George, Jean Myles,

Excused Absences:  Jeanne Grandchamp, Sandra Lygren, Jennifer Boulet, Tom Grady, Sally Gabb

Absences: Sil Ferreira

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

Minutes

Minutes for Dec. 8 2013 were reviewed and passed, with three abstentions.          

Old Business             

The subject, brought up at an earlier meeting, of whether departments can vote on various matters was discussed. The VP of Academic Affairs, in an email exchange, responded that departments are allowed, even mandated by contract, to vote. 

The question of whether final exam schedules can be made available at times of registration.  VP of Academic Affairs expressed the view that it could be done first week of class.  Registrar confirmed that it can and will be done online.

It was suggested that the Senate should thank administrators for responding promptly and positively.  Administration has already been thanked for their timely and helpful response.

New Business

Senate Nominations and Elections

Article Two of the By-Laws was distributed, stipulating conditions and limits of service, including length of terms.   In addition, a list with all Senators’ terms designated was handed out.

Each senator was encouraged to provide for the EC names of colleagues who might be nominated for Senate service.

Senators concurred that current Senate President, who announced her decision not to continue as President,  has been outstanding, promoting values of transparent and shared governance. 

Governance:

Background: Task force last met in December, following VP and President’s Council meetings.  .  A concern was expressed that management rights were not explicitly enough stated in the draft document.  That issue remained a concern, apparently.  Once this moved forward, a potential, test project was contemplated.  Also, it was thought that six page form was too cumbersome, and there was repetition. 

Senate at its last meeting had decided to drop participation in committee.  A Senator asked, what would be the perception if  the Senate pulled out of process? Will there be the perception that we aren’t willing to work with management or recognize management rights?

The Senate will request a report of management feedback to the draft proposal and any  revision of the document.  Committee was told of feedback but not seen result of feedback.  Next step:  we ask for feedback in writing and any revision of document.  Senate should see both feedback and revision of document.  A motion was made to send such a request.  The motion, put to a vote, was passed with one abstention. 

Other

Decision-making: A Senator raised the matter of decisions being made from on high without consultation of stakeholders:  specifically, the decision to hasten the moving of a member’s office without that member being brought into the process. 

Advisement:  The matter of the advisement initiation was raised.  The Senate has been old that the college is on target toward meeting initiative’s goals.  Senators noted that 700 students dismissed in last round of disciplinary hearings, because of new process.  Many should not have been dismissed.  Senators had been old there was an “error.” 

Early College:  The local newspaper reported the filing of a charter school application at Durfee.  BCC has been mentioned in connection with this new charter. 

Grandchamp Lecture:  A Senator has recommended that two colleagues be chosen to speak for the Grandchamp Lecture, despite having been invited to speak in a Commonwealth Honors event in February. It was decided that the two be asked to present at the Grandchamp Lecture in April as well.

Meeting adjourned at 4:17pm            

                                                                 

Minutes for Monday, December 8, 2013

Bristol Community College

Faculty and Professional Staff Senate

Monday, December 8 2013

3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

B113

Minutes

Senators in attendance: Betsy French, Tom Grady, Sandy Lygren, JP Nadeau, Howard Tinberg, Rebecca Clark, Martha Williams, Sil Fereira, Cecil Leonard, Jim Constantine, Jim Corven, Jim Pelletier, Susan McCourt, David Warr, Kelemu Woldegiorgis, Jean Myles, Sally Gabb, Ron Weisberger, Jennifer Boulay, Kevin Forgard, Cindy Poore-Pariseau

Excused Absences:  Jeanne Grandchamp

Absences: Alan Rolfe, Robyn Worthington, Gina Heaney, Thomas McGarty, Paul Robillard, Sharon Pero, Joy Rose, Debra St. George, Johanna Duponte

An uncounted number of guests attended this meeting.

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

MINUTES: Minutes for November 2013 were reviewed and passed unanimously with amendments.

           

BCC Website Changes: President Susan McCourt and VP Howard Tinberg met with Greg Sethares and asked for the involvement of the Academic Community including Students, Staff, Faculty, Program Chairs and others. After that meeting CAO contacted Sally Cameron, who responded to Senate President and mentioned asking for feedback now. There was no mention of involvement in the early stages of questioning ideas for possible use of the site. 

Discussion included:

a) Need for academics to be involved in initial stages

b) No involvement of the Office of Disability Services and need for accessibility from the beginning;

c) Having the Educational Media Committee be involved in website as educational media;

d) Question of whether Learning Resources Center staff were involved

This led to a discussion of the BCC Committee System, including:

a) Committee meeting Attendance,

b) Committee Agendas set by Administrators and being asked to do Administrative work that is clearly not part of the mission of the Committee,

c) Need for review by the Central Committee.

           

Hiring Protocol Ad Hoc Committee:

Discussion of how the system is broken as the committee recommendations have not been implemented and there is no accountability. There is a need for regular review of hiring practices and procedures with accountability of hiring committees to follow protocols and regular review.               

Program Director/Department Chair Meetings: A constituent concern that because the meetings are voluntary, some constituents are not present when decisions are being made. Senators attending those meetings reported that no decisions are made at the meeting and that chairs/directors offer the agenda of the meetings. The Senate suggests that the agendas and minutes of these meetings be made available to all constituents.

Divisional Assessment Teams The Senator who asked for this to be on the agenda asked for it to be removed.

NEASC Evidence of Student Works: Discussion of syllabi requested by NEASC to validate student time spent on their courses.

Didactic Courses:  A senator suggested the senate ask for a definition of didactic and/or non-didactic courses. This discussion continued.

Final Exam Schedule: The Senate discussed the delay in offering the Final exam Schedule to faculty and students. President McCourt reported that CAO Sethares reported that the schedule is the same every semester. The Senate will request of President Sbrega that the College post the Final Exam schedule and make it available to all students, faculty and staff at registration.

Shared Governance with Departments

It was reported that an academic department voted on a matter of concern to the department and when reported to the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs was told that departments are “not allowed to vote.” It was discussed and the Senate has asked the Senate President to bring this matter up with President Sbrega as an example of evidence against the administration participating in shared governance.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

                                                                                                                             

Minutes of Monday October 21, 2013

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Monday October 21, 2013

B113 3:15 p.m.

Senators in attendance: Betsy Kemper French, Tom Grady, Jeanne Grandchamp, Sandy Lygren, JP Nadeau, Howard Tinberg, Jim Corven, Jim Constantine, Susan McCourt, James Pelletier, Kelemu Woldegiorgis, Rebecca Clark, Alan Rolfe, Martha Williams, Robyn Worthington, Sally Gabb, Jean Myles, Ron Weisberger, Gina Heaney, Cecil Leonard, Jennifer Boulay, Kevin Forgard, Cindy Poore-Pariseau, Sharon Pero, Joy Rose, Deb St. George

Excused Absences: Paul Robillard, Johanna Duponte

Absences: Thomas McGarty, Sil Ferreira, David Warr

Guests: 1

Special Guests: VP Anthony Ucci and Dean Suzanne Buglione

Meeting called to order 3:15

MINUTES: Minutes from September 23, 2013 accepted after Gina Heaney's name was corrected. 

1)       Center for Teaching and Learning Staffing Changes

Guests Dean Suzanne Buglione & VP  Anthony Ucci

(This discussion was moved to first place on the day’s agenda at the Senate’s pleasure.)

Dean Buglione supplied background to Administration’s decision to change her position to a dean’s position and posit both a faculty and professional staff member as directors of CTL. It was indicated that one of the strengths of having a professional staff member involved in directing the CTL is that person will be on board year round. Senators noted that faculty-drive development was the original intent in establishing a CTL.

Research was done via Karl Schnapp, who did a survey of CTLs around our area and saw there are a wide variety of ways regional CTLs are managed. (There is also a wide variety of difference in what each CTL does.)

BCC Administration wants a model in place by January 2014 and would like feedback from Senate today as it has gotten feedback from other campus constituencies.

Discussion began and the first question regarded why January was chosen as deadline. Why not test the concept of a co-directorship first, before adopting this model permanently? The Dean indicated that the CTL is currently not getting adequate attention due to her new duties and with so many other factors changing in her area. VP Ucci added that if the professional staff and faculty co-directorship doesn’t function as well as hoped, the Administration would be prepared to make changes. The intent is to post two part time directors (co-directors) internally, offering reassigned time for the faculty member and reassigned duties for the professional staff member accepting the co-directorship.

The theory behind the model: With a faculty member as part of the co-directorship better engagement of full time faculty might be achieved, and a Professional Staff member would be able to help with coordination and participation across campuses and in the summer.

In terms of the faculty Co-director’s input in the summer, stipends/course reassigns could be employed.

More discussion: Will the duo be perceived as equals? VP Ucci admitted that a hierarchy could develop, which is not the intent of the model, but he felt that in the proposed Co-directorship, each member would know what the other does not and it would be just as likely that teamwork would triumph. He reminded us that the Administration is open to changes in the model for directing the CTL if problems proved intractable. Other concerns included how the position would fit with the MCCC contract, but VP Ucci thought that with a Professional Staff member in a co-directing position, fewer difficulties regarding the contract would be likely to arise. More questions: Would the faculty member become the privileged partner?  During the discussion, the Senate was reminded that the first person to direct the CTL was someone from outside the BCC community, not faculty or staff, but one who had once been faculty at another institution. He earned the confidence of faculty, and a Professional Staff Co-director could, too. It was also noted that professional staff members often have taught or are teaching.

Compensation discussion: Two reassigns for the Faculty and reduction of duties for Professional Staff member are being considered. This gave rise to the question would a faculty with two reassigned times have the time necessary to be focused and innovative? The suggestion was made that perhaps there should be one faculty member with almost exclusive dedication to the CTL in terms of reassigned times, this person to have help from a Professional Staff member.

Other concerns arose: We have a number of campuses, too, and an online campus and a workforce development initiative. How do we get them involved with only part time Co-directors? At that point, a Senator redirected the discussion, asking the origin of the suggestion that the CTL be Co-directed via this model. Dean Buglione clarified that she was charged to meet with the BCC community and survey state colleges in Massachusetts in order to come up with models based on her meetings with us and research. The discussion moved to other models that are possible, and Dean Buglione indicated that there were two strong possibilities: the one we had just been discussing (labeled “A”) and a second model (“B”), which is a variation of the model discussed thus far. The B model would feature a full time Professional Staff member and a Faculty member with two reassigned times. The Faculty member would not be responsible for the administrative work of the directorship.

Following the discussion, a straw poll was conducted of the Senate, with Senators voting largely in favor of option B; two Senators abstained.

2)       Revised Bylaws of the BCC Senate

The Revised Senate Bylaws, posted at the Senate blog (http://senatebcc.blogspot.com/2013/08/revised-by-laws-for-faculty-and.html) were discussed.

Among the questions asked during the discussion was one regarding the method for counting membership numbers per Senate academic & staff division. Answer: this will be done every three years via ad hoc committee; this change to the revised Senate Bylaws was added and the ByLaws were passed as amended, with two abstentions.                                                                                                                                     

3)       Senate Interest Groups (SIGs); Reports from SIGs:

Pres. McCourt reminded all of the reason for the Senate Interest Groups (SIGs): to get senators involved, placing a specific interest area on each of their radars, so they can share with the full Senate important things happening on campus pursuant to their interest. SIGs are also intended to help in the decision making re: which issues the senate will take on.

Human Resources Senate Interest Group (HR SIG) Report:

A.    HR SIG made the suggestion that when the college’s Search Committee Guide is next up for revision, policy and process for hiring part time staff and adjunct faculty be considered.

2. Also of concern to HR SIG is the new ad for Associate Dean for Health Sciences. Is the college adding another layer of administration under its deans?
3. Many of the new faculty positions are being advertised as coming with reassigned times in order for the new faculty member to be responsible for overseeing an initiative; e.g. currently advertised is an Instructor in English position the description of which indicates the new hire will be responsible for the Writing Center and will be awarded three reassigned times to take on the duty. As positions like these require that the faculty member be teaching only two or so sections, will this allow the college to say we have increased full time faculty without increasing appreciably the number of sections full time faculty are teaching? Also, Co-op and Elementary Education, positions for each being advertised now, don't have a full department’s worth of courses—faculty involved in these areas just teach a course or two.      

Permission from the Senate was granted to HR SIG member Sandy Lygren to ask VP Awolaju for data on the last twenty-five hires re: how many have been hired for full-time teaching rather than for teaching several classes and shouldering duties that result in reassigned time.

4)       Proposed Academic Initiative Implementation Guidelines: Joint Governance

Senators were asked to review the PROPOSED ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE JOINT INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES and encourage members of their divisions to do so and give feedback. Link:

http://senatebcc.blogspot.com/2013/10/proposed-academic-initiative-on.html               

It was indicated that the document posted has been presented in several venues as well as being up on the Senate Blog.

During the discussion, a Senator asked if the Board of Trustees or Foundation should be included in the discussion and was asked to clarify this request with Sharon Pero, Senate representative on the Joint Governance Committee, after today’s meeting.

Further discussion revolved around whether or not we can have actual shared governance with this document due to laws of Massachusetts and administrative prerogative. It was generally agreed that the current initiative would begin to help us see how shared governance might improve with a conscious effort to include stakeholders in the academic decision-making process. The aim is to improve transparency, encourage more sharing, and improve the process and documentation of the process.       

5)    Hiring Protocol Ad Hoc Committee: Report and Discussion was continued until the next meeting.                                                                                                  

NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, November 13^th at 3:15 p.m.

Meeting adjourned at 4:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted: Jeanne Grandchamp, Secretary, Faculty & Professional Staff Senate