Faculty Senate Minutes (1/23/13)

Tri-County Technical College

Faculty Senate Minutes

Date:  January 23, 2013, Location:  Fulp 400, Time:  1:30 p.m.

Members Present: Amoena Norcross, Todd Crisp-Simons, Cheryln Brown, Penny Edwards, Jason Poole, Chris McFarlin, Lisa Walton, Marilyn Vickery, Ashley Brady, Sue Andrus (for Marla Roberson), Tom Lawrence

 

Members Absent:  Tony Logan, Corey Evans, Steven Mathena, Marla Roberson, Tony Young

Guest:   Chad Gregory

Presider:  Amoena Norcross

Approval of Minutes:  With several editing corrections, it was motioned that the November 2012 minutes be approved. The motion was seconded.  The minutes, with changes, were approved unanimously.

Old Business:

1. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Professional Development Day

Amoena met with Sharon Colcolough and Deborah Brock regarding the Professional Development Day issues.  She shared with them the results of the survey that was sent to the faculty in the fall where about 75 percent of the faculty responded and said they would prefer an annual professional development day the week prior to the beginning of the fall semester.  The remaining 25 percent wanted it every two years during fall break which are the general election years.  It was communicated to Sharon and Deborah our recommendations to schedule Professional Development Day the week prior to the beginning of fall semester:  Jump Start classes are no longer going to be offered, child care may or may not still be an issue, and information obtained at a Professional Development Day scheduled before the semester would be more easily implemented by faculty in the classroom at the beginning of the semester. 

 Faculty also would like to see more sessions that relate to faculty development rather than personal development, and an invitation should be extended to adjunct faculty and temporary staff.  Sharon explained that the issue is non-exempt status of temporary staff and some permanent staff.  They are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act which means TCTC must pay them if they attend Professional Development Day.  Adjunct faculty are exempt and not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, so they would not be paid.  Requirements to pay temporary staff but not necessarily adjunct faculty could be problematic, but Deborah and Sharon both agree the entire college community should have the opportunity to attend Professional Development Day. 

 The other issue with the current scheduling of Professional Development Day during our Fall Break makes the break virtually non-existent.  Sharon also serves on the Academic Calendar Committee and she would like some input from the Senate regarding a separate October fall break like there is in non-general election years.   Would faculty then be more amenable to a Professional Development Day scheduled on Election Day every two years?

 Sharon’s concerns about having Professional Development Day scheduled the week before classes pertain to not all staff being able to attend.  Todd brought up the idea of having separate Professional Development Days, but Amoena reminded Faculty Senate that we had discussed this option, but organizationally, the College wants to create more unity among different areas of the College.

 Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

 Senators will obtain feedback from constituents about a Professional Development Day scheduled on Election Day if a separate fall break is also included in October.  Feedback should be reported by our February meeting.  There are also changes being discussed regarding performance evaluations for full-time faculty, and pertinent information for our professional objectives will be disseminated through Professional Development Day.

 2. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 College Attendance Policy 

The Jan. 11 memo from Scott Harvey announcing the new College-wide attendance policy states, “Over the past few weeks, the Provost’s Council, in collaboration with the Faculty Senate and Financial Aid Office, approved a new Attendance policy.”  This attendance policy was not developed in collaboration with the Senate.  Provost Council met on January 8^th , and at this meeting Amoena was informed of the new attendance policy.  On January 9^th , the policy was sent to Executive Staff for approval, so this short timeframe did not allow for input from Faculty Senate.  The new attendance policy is driven mostly by financial aid guidelines.  Tracking attendance electronically was probably going to be implemented anyway because of early alert systems being investigated by the Title III group.  Additionally each department has the option of having its own attendance policy. 

 Marilyn brought up the problem of the automatically generated email sent to students that appears as if it came directly from the instructor.  Furthermore, emails generated earlier in the semester were missing the student’s name.  Other issues are also prevalent.  1.  Faculty are upset that the email sent to students appears to come directly from the instructor’s email address even though the instructor did not compose the email.  2.  Some of the wording in the email was questioned such as the student being allowed to make up work (some instructors do not allow make up work).   3.  There was some objection to the tone of the memo being too coddling and excusatory. 

 A separate question was asked: If this is the law, is Clemson also required to do this electronic recording of attendance?  Amoena explained that Tri-County agreed to be an attendance taking institution.  York Tech was fined $170,000.00 for not taking attendance accurately when they were audited by the Federal Government.  If Tri-County were to be fined at this level, adjunct faculty teaching loads could be reduced and full-time faculty loads would consequently increase.

Recording attendance in the Attendance Tracker takes very little time.  However, there are still some glitches with the system.  Some faculty have noted that their list of students was not available, and one person received an e-mail stating that attendance had not been recorded for one class, but this faculty member was certain that s/he had recorded attendance in the Attendance Tracker. Holidays and spring break also need to be addressed in the 14-day policy because it may affect many students who only have class once or twice a week.    If a student is dropped and then reinstated, then faculty must submit a success plan to Financial Aid.  Totally online classes need to be reported by Wednesdays now. 

 The question was asked if there is a template for the success plan we need to submit to Financial Aid if we reinstate a student.  Amoena believes there is no template available so that the faculty member has the freedom to create a success plan for the student based on specific course requirements, etc.

 Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

 The Senate agreed that it has enough feedback from constituents. The Senate agreed on a recommendation that the attendance notification email sent to students be revised quickly, and it should be obvious that it was generated by the registrar’s office not by the individual instructor. Amoena will meet directly with the Interim Provost to communicate these concerns and recommendations.

 New Business:

 3. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 Nominations for Faculty Senate President for 2013-2014 

This item will be on the agenda for the rest of this academic year.  Amoena will not be a nominee for this office.   Nominees must be full-time faculty who are currently serving on the Faculty Senate.  Amoena asked senators who are full-time faculty to consider being a nominee.  The Faculty Senate President receives one course released time either in the fall or the spring.  Dr. Buckheister, the former Provost, strongly believed that Faculty Senate should have an influence on academic matters.   Even though the new provost has yet to be named, the Faculty Senate does not want to lose its empowerment.  Amoena is available to discuss how much time is involved.  Chris said he would consider being a nominee.

 Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

 None.

 4. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 

Faculty Choice Scholarship

The Faculty Choice Scholarship was created by the Faculty Senate under Lou Ann Martin’s leadership, and anyone can contribute monies to the scholarship.  Amoena contacted Debbie Nelms regarding the date when the recipient needs to be selected because it is the Faculty Senate’s responsibility to choose the recipient of that scholarship.   A copy of the nominating rubric was sent to everyone on the Senate.  A copy is also currently under the Faculty Tab in eTC.  Is this rubric used as a guideline for letters of recommendation, or is it filled out as the recommendation itself?

 Current requirements for this scholarship are students fill out a standard form for any type of scholarship, the student also writes a letter, and two letters of recommendation from faculty are required.  Last year, the rubric was used by some faculty in lieu of writing a letter.  Penny mentioned that how the rubric was to be used has been discussed before and there was mixed feedback.  A Faculty Senate workgroup that reviews applicants for the scholarship has also used the rubric to score applicants.  Also, faculty have used it as a guide to write a recommendation letter for the student.  Amoena iterated that Debbie wants to know exactly how we want to use the rubric this year.  Because it is called Recommendation Rubric, it sounds like the student comes to faculty and asks that the rubric be filled out.   Todd felt if we are using this rubric as an evaluation tool, then faculty must cover all of these items in their letters.  Penny read last year’s minutes regarding this issue.  She explained the criteria and the requirements from the students.  The action was that the 2011-12 Faculty Senate President was going to meet with Lou Ann and Debbie Nelms for additional information, but this meeting was never reported.

 Applications will go out to students mid-February and they will have until mid-March to apply.  Awards are made and students are informed mid- to late-April. 

 Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

The Senate agreed that the rubric should be used as a guideline for faculty to write their letters of recommendation, NOT as the recommendation itself.  The Senate still wants 2 letters of recommendation.  Amoena will communicate the Senate’s position to Debbie.

 5. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 

Tobacco-Free Campuses

Rebecca Eidson, on behalf of Executive Staff, has asked the Faculty Senate for input implementing tobacco-free campuses.Specifically, Executive Staff is interested in what the benefits and possible risks are if campuses become tobacco-free. Rebecca is also getting input from SGA and the Staff Advisory Board Chair.This input will then go to the President’s Advisory Council.Executive Staff will make the final decision.

There has already been some input from both smokers and non-smokers and the general feeling is that instead of creating a total non-smoking policy, the College needs to start enforcing the current policy of designated areas and/or making the consequences more severe for violators. Currently, there is supposed to be a $100.00 fine imposed for using tobacco in tobacco-free areas.It is uncertain whether the tobacco-free areas are policed and whether (& how many) citations are issued for violations.

The following issues were raised if tobacco-free campuses were implemented. 1. Would this policy include smoking in vehicles? 2.If smokers began smoking off campus on Woodburn St., property owners may complain (cigarette butts, etc.).3. There are also faculty members who don’t have time between classes to leave the premises.

There was concern that complaints about implementing tobacco-free campuses may come more from faculty and staff than students because employees are not as free to leave campus.Employees who smoke already pay higher insurance premiums, etc.It was suggested that the designated smoking areas be moved further out from the central area of the campus. With this option, others don’t have to walk through those areas to get to campus.

 

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

 Senators will get input from constituents about the benefits and potential risks (e.g., a student deciding not to attend the College, etc.) of such a policy.  Input should be sent to Amoena by February 6^th.  Amoena will send us a draft of the summary before sending it on to Rebecca.

 6. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 

Last Day of Exams and Grade Submission Day

The Calendar Committee is considering incorporating a reading day at the end of the semester.  For example, classes would end on a Monday, Tuesday would be a reading day, and exams would begin on a Wednesday.    A reading day would be a day for students to study.  Faculty are interested in another day being added for grading.  For example, if the last day of exams is on a Monday, grades should be due by noon on Wednesday.  It was suggested that grades should be due at noon on the second day following the last final exam day. 

 Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

Senators will get feedback from faculty about including an additional day for grading after the last day of exams.  Summer and seven week courses during the semester are very compressed, so including an additional day for grading could pose a problem for these shorter semesters. 

7. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 Faculty Contact of Students on Financial Aid Warning

Chad spoke about the email Rob Massey asked advisors to send to students who have been put on financial aid warning.  His concern is that students will see faculty advisors as financial aid information resources when most faculty are not fully informed about the details for Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, Life Scholarships, etc.  If course load is part of the problem, contacting the advisor should be secondary after the student has gone to Financial Aid. 

Penny read the email Rob sent advisors: “Each semester there are many students who are placed on financial aid warning status that could get back on financial aid if they were more aware of the resources available to help them succeed….”  Attached then is a list of the advisor’s students who are on warning.  The list also explains why a student may be on financial aid warning.  The email asks the advisor to contact each student and offer the student assistance with his/her financial aid status.  An included boiler plate message mentions that “…it may be necessary to make changes to your schedule to make it easier for you to succeed.”   The message then tells the student the last day for drop/add and gives the student 2 to 3 days to make a decision.  Students should not be perceiving faculty as financial aid experts.  Students should contact Financial Aid for clarification of their own unique funding situation. 

The Senate agreed that a student should first contact Financial Aid, and then the Financial Aid counselor can route the student to his academic advisor (if necessary) instead of the other way around.  Financial Aid can address more of the financial aid issues than faculty can.  This process would also cut down on the student getting the run around.

 Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

Amoena will bring up this issue when she speaks with the Interim Provost about the attendance notification email and will request that it be added to the agenda for the Provost meeting on February 7th.

Comments/Concerns: 

The issue was raised that more professional advisors may be hired and that provisions may be made to pull some advising duties away from faculty.  If the conversation is actually going in that direction, will faculty be involved in that conversation?  Currently, the professional advisors are taking up any necessary overload or if there is a specific need for their expertise.  Rob Massey, Stephanie Evans, Kay Rhodes, and Emily Danuser are assigned a case load of students who have completed orientation.  This pilot program assigns them as that student’s advisor for the first year and then the student will be assigned a faculty advisor in the department of his/her major.  Amoena will report updates as they become available.

 Amoena has mapped out the meeting dates for the semester and will email members with meeting requests. 

 Cherlyn asked about the training for online courses.  Do faculty need to complete the training   only if they intend to teach online courses, or is everyone required to take it?  She had heard that everyone is supposed to take the training.  Amoena was under the impression that you only had to take the training if you want to teach online.  Chad said there was an original deadline that said if you plan on teaching online in the future but currently are not, you have until this date to take the training.  Only faculty who are certified may teach an online course unless hired after that deadline.  Amoena will check with Margaret Burdette and Sara Shumpert.  There have also been changes since last semester to the faculty credentialing form, and the only change noted is that you must be specific as to the name of your credentials. 

 Next meeting: Will be on Thursday, February 21, 2013, 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Adjournment at 3:24 p.m.

Name of Recorder: Marilyn Vickery

 

Provost's Council Minutes (12/17/12)

Provost’s Council
December 17, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245
 
Members Present:     Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Scott Britten, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Sarah Shumpert

Members Absent:      Doug Allen, Tim Bowen, Scott Harvey, Amoena Norcross, Brian Swords

Others Present:          Rachel Campbell, Stan Compton, Sarah Dowd, Kevin Woods

      
Length of Meeting:   2 hours

Topics Discussed:

The Minutes of the November 27, 2012 meeting were approved, as presented.

Gayle Arries and Kevin Steele reported on the Communications Project Charter, and reviewed the charter with the group.  Gayle provided each member of the group with a copy of the charter and touched on the following points. 

·         The report contains 24 recommendations.  Some are already underway.  Others are more far-reaching and will require more work by the college.

·         Pride Points cut from 10 to five to make more doable.

·         Mini-view book has been created.

·         Website review and revision based on student focus group input.

·         High school engagement and outreach to try to reduce the stigma associated with attending Tri-County.

·         Inquiry to Applicant – look at many different options

·         Landing pages (@apply) – create a more attractive page

·         Admissions landing page – students liked the eight steps to enrollment.  May revise some, but students found the steps very helpful.

·         Will revise the Financial Aid page to make it easier for the student to understand.

 

Detailed information can be found in the Communications Project Charter notebook.

Gayle noted that the Project Charter team did great work, and the student input was invaluable.  Funding for these initiatives will be considered in the strategic plan and the budget, and the college will look for cross-functional software packages as we address these initiatives. 

Sarah Dowd discussed financial regulations and distributed Withdrawals and the Return of Title IV Funds and a proposed Attendance Policy.  The group discussed all the points under the Withdrawal and Return of Title IV Funds, and Sarah noted that, based on the federal regulations., Tri-County is very much out of compliance.  The group struggled with how a strict interpretation of the regulations could be detrimental to student success. 

It was suggested that we create an ISIS report to show students who have partially withdrawn from the college and remain in one class.  The student may not be aware that they need to meet with Student Records staff in order to withdraw from the last class.  The student may need to be contacted about his/her partial withdrawal.

The group discussed the proposed Attendance Policy.  Galen noted that Scott Harvey and Courtney Tillett are working on an attendance report for ISIS.  This report will pull from Banner.  Based on attendance, the program will send an e-mail to the faculty member and the student notifying them of excessive absences. It was suggested that we tie the early alert systems into this attendance report, as well.  It was also noted that the college will need to determine how to include online courses in this policy.

In reviewing the proposed Attendance Policy, the following were noted. 

• Taking attendance, having an attendance policy, and being in compliance with government regulations are all different. 
• Could the Registrar simply administratively drop a student who has withdrawn from all classes?
• Dan recommended investigating the need to have a Leave of Absence policy. 

We can address needed changes in our policy and create a new Leave of Absence policy, if needed, in January, but the policies will not be ready for the start of spring semester.  The very earliest they would be available is after the February Commission meeting.  We can, however, modify our procedures for Spring 2013.  We must have a plan to be compliant on January 14, 2013, the first class day of the spring semester.  Department heads, coordinators of instructional activities, and program coordinators will be responsible for making sure faculty are taking attendance. 
 

It was noted that input concerning attendance was sought from Faculty Senate in the first Faculty Senate fall meeting.  The Provost’s Council will move forward with addressing the attendance policy and issues as follows:

 

·         Galen will contact Courtney Tillett to inquire about the status of the ISIS report and request that all available IT resources be applied to that project.  It must be ready when we return in January.

·         Dan will investigate the need for a Leave of Absence Policy.

·         Based on Sarah Dowd’s document, Galen will draft an attendance policy.

·         Sarah Shumpert will develop an attendance policy for online and hybrid students. 

 

Since time is of the essence, all of these draft documents will be on the agenda for the January 8 Provost’s Council meeting.

 

With agenda items remaining, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, January 8, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 245

Provost's Council Minutes (10/23/12)

Provost’s Council

October 23, 2012

2:15 pm

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

 

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Scott Britten, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Amoena Norcross

Members Absent:      Amanda Blanton, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

Others Present:         

    
Length of Meeting:   1.5 hours

Topics Discussed:

Galen noted that Academic and Student Affairs has many policies and procedures to be reviewed in this cycle.  He asked the group to continue to review them with the appropriate areas/individuals and to bring any updated policies and procedures to the Provost’s Council for review and approval.

 

Galen briefly discussed Professional Development Day.  He noted that there is no good time to have an event like this, but he will discuss possible alternate dates with Sharon Colcolough.  Many good sessions are planned and some excellent speakers will be presenting.  Employees are encouraged to participate, but there will not be any adverse action if they do not.

 

Amoena led the discussion on a draft of the Curriculum Committee charter. 

 

Committee Purpose

·         A divisional committee

·         Should stay broad/general

·         Add “new” to the purpose statement .  “Review new and proposed changes…..”

·         Consider an expedited review process with balance and strategic input

 

Committee Composition by Unit

·         Need continuity

·         Using a staggered mechanism for new representatives but multiple terms for a representative may skew the rotation

·         Agreed to continue with one representative for the Arts & Sciences Division

 

Committee Officers and Terms

·         Limit to two consecutive terms or approval of the dean

 

Committee Year

·         Consider following a submission cycle that aligns with SBTCE, DOE, and SACS requirements

 

Scope

·         Insert “Provost” at the beginning of the description.  “Provide analysis and recommendations to proposed curriculum changes to the Provost to 1)  ensure…..”

 

Bylaws

·         No decision by the group

 

Galen will revise the draft and bring it to the next meeting for review and discussion.

The minutes of the October 9, 2012 meeting were approved with a minor revision.

Scott mentioned that during peak times, the number of tuition payments between 6:30 pm and 8:00 pm was minimal.  After review and with the approval of the administration, the college will move to a standard closing time of 6:30 for all offices.  Scott noted that he planned to communicate this to students in November.

It was noted that the payment gateway is going down and will not be available until mid-December.  The college is working with a new vendor and is negotiating the contract.  The Business Office will communicate this information.

With an agenda item pending, the meeting was adjourned. 

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, November 13, at 2:15 p.m., in RH 245