Minutes of May 5, 2014

Bristol Community College

Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting

Minutes of Monday May 5, 2014

B101 3:15 p.m.

Senators in attendance: E. French, T. Grady, J. Grandchamp, S. Lygren, H. Tinberg, A. Rolfe, R. Worthington, G. Heaney, C. Leonard, S. Pero D. St. George, R. Clark (substituting was K. Garganta), J. Duponte, J. Constantine, J. Corven, S. McCourt, J. Pelletier, K. Woldegiorgis, J. Myles, R. Weisberger, J. Boulay, C. Poore-Pariseau

Excused Absences: Sil Ferreira, Paul Robillard, JP Nadeau, M. Williams, S. Gabb

Absences:  T. McGarty, D. Warr

Three guests.

Special guests Professor Debra Anderson, English, Division I; and Dean of advisement Steven Viveiros.

Meeting called to order 3:19

Minutes from April 7 2014 voted on and accepted with emendation:  Jean Myles was present. One abstention.

Meeting began with a brief update:  due to the NEASC team visit, Senate elections were delayed and will begin online tonight; following results of these general elections, the Senate officers election will be held next week. As per last elections, these will be accomplished using a secure survey tool. Constituents will receive a secure link via email; survey will include a space for write-ins.

Prior Learning Discussion: The Senate’s first guest, Professor Debra Anderson offered some background on the changes to PEL. The college is retooling PEL, which will now be called “PLA—Prior Learning Assessment.” (PEL/PLA is a concept long-accepted at BCC and nationwide that allows students to obtain credit for life experiences.) At BCC, this program was once very decentralized and departments would handle their own granting of credits for prior life experience. Military training etc. would be provided credit by national guidelines or by individual BCC department guidelines, whichever appropriate. Often there would be department exams or credit by portfolio. Professor Anderson has been asked to help centralize this process, and she indicated that this has proven more time-consuming than she had first anticipated.  In effect, a person assessing outside work for credit receives a new set of information  with each student applicant to PLA. Currently, there is no clear process to follow and we need this and faculty compensation is inconsistent and the manual needs updating. Prof. Anderson is trying to get an ad hoc group together, including representation from the Senate, workforce development, MCCC, Student Services, administration, and the Grants area. (Debra’s position is funded by a grant.) Prof. Anderson wondered if there are there any other recommendations for membership for this ad hoc group to insure all constituencies concerned are considered. Members of the Senate asked her to add one or more program coordinators and a transfer person. Someone to think of long-term impacts would also be a good addition to the group. Another suggestion was a person who has been active in Distance Ed. Among the questions raised by Senate members: will we look at testing out of the college’s technical literacy requirement—perhaps a challenge exam based on outcomes outlined in the BCC requirements for demonstrated  technical literacy? Senators were asked to email Debra Anderson with questions or issues or if interested in serving with this ad hoc group.

Advisement Center Discussion: Dean Steven Viveiros joined the Senate to offer an update on the implementation of recommendations made by the Joint Administration/Senate Committee. With him, he brought an updated document (see second attachment) and indicated that the implementation group had met once in fall 2013 and once in spring 2014. Dean Viveiros decided to tackle what would impact students directly first, postponing some of the faculty-related pieces.  He expressed his concern that he hadn’t had a year to learn about BCC before the expectation that he would jump right in to implementing the recommendations. First up was the institution of a first year advising program. (See first attachment.) The first workshop contact affords students career assessment, a look at their goals...do these line up with the program in which they are enrolled? They also learn to use catalog and make class decisions on their own own, with one-to-one help, are advised to enroll in learning communities and combo English 091/092 classes, etc. They also select other basic/gen ed, first semester courses. They are then registered for their first semester. Three more meetings occur in their first semester. In the first of these three meetings, GPA calculation, reading the catalog accurately, preparing for advisement, using map works, etc., are accomplished. Students also do a self-inventory survey regarding the effort and hours put into their work at BCC. The plan is ultimately to get this Mapworks self-inventory survey to faculty too and let faculty give input to students through this page on Mapworks. Those at risk and self-reported or reported as such by faculty will be brought into The Student Success Center (B120) for extra coaching. In the next workshop students are taught to use Degreeworks to develop a plan based on their programs and ultimately to have something solid in the way of semester planning to show to their advisors. The third workshop involves picking courses by time and campus based on the students’ plans made in the previous workshop.  The goal is to get students in to see their advisors WITH a plan for the next semester and courses picked so that advisors can use the time to check the plan, then talk with their advisees about long-range plans, success of the current semester, etc.

In semester two, freshmen will have a choice of a career or a transfer workshop.  A second workshop will help them update their academic plans and get ready for priority registration. There is a rolling model, so students enrolling in Fall or Spring can get the first year workshops in either semester. There are distance elearning workshops online. These are used for elearning students but also in cases where on-campus students can't attend in person. Dean Viveiros sees ways for Advisement to partner with CSS instructors and is working on that now.

Each freshman advising workshop has an active activity; students directly from high school will likely expect this. Older students often say they know this workshop material and ask if there is a challenge exam for the workshops. Steve is concerned that students don't realize how much they don't know about college.  Currently, the Advisement area only eliminates those who have been in college here or elsewhere before.  Dean Viveiros indicated that he would personally like to speak with students who don't feel they need the advisement workshops. Students now coming in learn about all of the workshops, though when they were first instituted last semester students didn’t always know these workshops were required. Next year, Dean Viveiros plans to partner with faculty and improve advisement by building professional development for faculty by faculty.  Steve Viveiros’s extension is 2871 and his email is steven.viveiros@britolcc.edu  . He requested that Senators with further questions or suggestions contact him directly.

Update/Questions Joint Senate/Administration Closed-Loop Governance Initiative: The question arose about grants and whether proposed grants will be part of the shared governance policy/procedure. The answer: yes. The following were discussed on the Senate floor as appropriate for all academic proposals going through the policy/process: 1) proposals should come through the Academic Vice President and Senate President; 2) there should be initial notification of the Senate and the entire college; 3) when the initiative has been through the process set in the policy,  signatures should be limited to the Academic Vice President and the College President, and it should be strongly suggested that a Senate response be included. It was also discussed that 4) a new committee be formed for insuring continued assessment/evaluation of the policy/process for shared academic governance. A motion was then made from the Senate floor that the proposed process be implemented, with these four changes (1-4 above) inserted. Motion passed.

Further discussion brought out the suggestion that we not pick one thing to test this policy/procedure, but that instead we begin to use it with every academic proposal, then evaluate the process again and again as we go along.

It was also mentioned that the college must get to a set kind of “dashboard” approach to apply to all projects going through the process, for the sake of consistency, fairness and clarity of process.

A request was made that the new associate Vice President be met with by the executive committee before summer in order that she might be brought up to date on joint Senate and Administrative initiatives.

Meeting adjourned 4:10 p.m.

respectfully submitted, Jeanne P. Grandchamp, BCC Faculty & Professional Staff Secretary

FOLLOWING ARE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY DEAN STEVEN VIVEIROS…

Minutes for April 7, 2014

Minutes

Bristol Community College

Faculty and Professional Staff Senate

Monday April 7, 2014

3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.

B102

Senators in attendance: Tom Grady, Jeanne Grandchamp, Sandy Lygren, JP Nadeau, Howard Tinberg, Alan Rolfe, Martha Williams, Robyn Worthington, Rebecca Clark, Sil Ferreira, Cecil Leonard, Sharon Pero, Deb St. George, Jim Corven, Susan McCourt, James Pelletier, Kelemu Woldegiorgis, Ron We4isberger, Cindy Poore-Pariseau.

Excused Absences: Jen Boulay, Betsy Kemper-French, Jim Constantine, Gina Heaney, Paul Robillard, Sally Gabb

Absences: T. McGarty, J. Duponte, D. Warr, J. Myles,

GUESTS: 5 

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

MINUTES: March 10, 2014 were discussed and passed with one abstention.

NEASC VISIT: One Visiting Team member charged with examining the Governance Standard of the college’s NEASC Report for the team met with Senate President Susan McCourt who detailed continued difficulties with communication, transparency and shared governance using recent changes to the Tutoring and Writing Centers to illustrate the difficulties stakeholders continue to have obtaining opportunities to consult with administration regarding planned changes to matters related to students and the teaching/learning environment.

At Tuesday’s forum, Senators Susan McCourt, Sharon Pero, Howard Tinberg, and Jeanne Grandchamp all spoke with NEASC Team member Professor Robinson from Gateway Community College in New Haven, CT. Additionally, Senators Howard Tinberg, Sharon Pero, and Jeanne Grandchamp spoke publically about difficulties with transparency and shared governance and highlighted many of the initiatives of the college that are improving or strong (Advisement, with its new Dean and outreach to first year students, etc.)

Among the items noted at the Wednesday April 2^nd exit meeting during the Team’s review of strengths and weaknesses: the college collects data but doesn’t always analyze or act upon it; an examination of college financials produced no concerns (a look at line-items indicated the college was spending where it said it was spending).

It was noted that the visit was carefully orchestrated, in large part according to NEASC guidelines, and the Team asked the questions it wanted to ask and saw the areas it wanted to see in order to confirm the contents of the college’s written NEASC Report.

SENATE/ADMINISTRATION SHARED GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE: Pres. McCourt indicated her discomfort with the Senate’s voting on changes recommended by Administration to the document drawn up by the special joint committee for a closed-loop academic decision-making process/policy. The Senate’s general consensus followed the Senate President’s reasoning: that the Senate’s own stakeholders, Senate constituents, should be given a chance to discuss the proposed document/changes and offer feedback.

Pres. McCourt will request that the document and its proposed changes be discussed at the full Academic Area portion of the upcoming Division meeting and that it be recommended this discussion carry over to individual Division meetings afterward. Any points gathered from individual Division meetings should be forwarded to Pres. McCourt by Senators present at those meetings.

Elections: Pres. McCourt asked that seated Senators let her know if they are planning to run again and to forward names of constituents in their divisions who are also interested in running.

OTHER: 

1.    The college is looking into changing eLearning formats and no Senator knew if stakeholders were being consulted. Pres. McCourt indicated she would contact April Bellafiore for clarification. Discussion next revolved around whether the SMARTHINKING online tutoring system was or was not put into use without input from stakeholders. Senators indicated that a discussion was held at one meeting and drawbacks were raised to the plan to use SMARTHINKING, but no feedback was given regarding what, if anything, was done about concerns and drawbacks raised before the online tutoring package was purchased. One Senator wondered if there was no plan to evaluate its efficacy, and there doesn’t appear to be, from what we currently know. Senators again discussed the need for mechanisms for assessment and timelines when initiatives like this are undertaken. Shouldn’t the college look at what the cost of something like SMARTHINKING is vs. the cost of the original online tutoring system we had? Shouldn’t students be surveyed as to their thoughts once they have used SMARTHINKING?

2.    After a brief discussion of the new first-year advising program, it was decided that Dean Steven Viveiros will be invited to speak with the Senate about his first year at BCC, and the initiatives underway and how these dovetail with the joint Administration/Senate recommendations.

3.    The Senate’s annual Grandchamp Lecture will be held on April 30, 2014 in room H129 at 2 pm. Senators are asked to volunteer to supply refreshments. Speakers, at the request of retiring Senator Jeanne Grandchamp will be Dr. Ron Weisberger and Dr. Howard Tinberg, their topic their experiences in teaching the honors course Remembering the Holocaust and in writing their new text, Teaching, Learning, and the Holocaust: An Integrative Approach.

4.    Prior Experiential Learning (PEL) is now Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) and as this and other changes in the system that evaluates real-world experience for credit are underway, the subject was raised as to whether stakeholders from departments and programs have been asked to give input as to how credits should be approved. What will be the process, what will constitute assessment, who will be involved, and who will assess the student for credits? Debra Anderson who is on the activity right now will be contacted by Susan McCourt.

Meeting was adjourned at 4 pm

Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Grandchamp, Secretary, Faculty and Professional Staff Senate

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