Faculty Senate Agenda - 3/1/19

Faculty Senate Minutes -- 1/25/19

T 

Location: SSC 205, Time: 12:30 p.m.

Members Present: Susan Curtis, Deborah DeMino, Meredith Dickens, Penny Edwards, Stacey Frank, Mary Gibson, Pam Goodman, Tracy Kilgore, Eleanor Leverette, Som Linthicum, Jeremy McCracken, Robin McFall, Michael Oates, Julia Seligson, James Walker, Gregg Westmoreland, Derek Williams

Members Absent: Justin Herndon, Richard Reeves, Cynthia Swaney

Guests: Scott Jaeschke, Luke Vanwingerden

Presider: Mia Tensley

Welcome and Agenda: Mia called the meeting to order at 12:30 pm and directed all in attendance to the agenda for the meeting.

New Business:

1.      Approval of minutes from November 30, 2018 – Mia Tensley

Mia referred everyone to the minutes from the November 20 meeting. These minutes had been posted in the Teams folder for all to review. She asked if there were any changes other than those noted in Teams. Penny Edwards made a motion that when there are recommended changes to the minutes, the updated draft of the minutes be reposted in Teams before voting occurs.  Som Linthicum seconded. Penny stated that she would like to delay voting on these minutes so that the suggested changes could be incorporated and reviewed by Senators. In addition, she asked that Robin McFall review the comments in Teams as well as comments from emails to include in the minutes. Robin stated there would be no problem with doing so. Meredith asked if we could vote on the updated minutes electronically or if we would wait until the February 15 Faculty Senate meeting. Mia stated there was no need to rush the vote, so we could wait until the February 15 meeting.  Mia called for the vote on Penny's motion by a show of hands, and the motion passed.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin McFall will collect the suggested changes to incorporate, update the minutes, and post the updated draft in Teams no later than January 30. Senators will review and make any other suggestions no later than February 6. Mia will call for the vote to approve the updated draft. Once the minutes are approved, Robin will post the final draft in the Teams folder, and send the final minutes to IT to post in the College Committees link under the Employee tab in eTC.

2.      Request to Audiotape the Remainder of the Meeting – Mia Tensley

      

Mia stated that since Robin would be providing scribe services for the discussion of Article III as well as participating in the discussion, Robin had requested Senate's permission to audiotape the remainder of the meeting for the creation of the minutes. Julia Seligson made a motion that we allow the audiotaping. Deborah DeMino seconded. Penny asked what would happen to the recording. Robin stated that once the minutes were completed and approved, the audio recording on the digital device would be deleted. Hearing no other question, Mia called for a vote by show of hands. The motion passed.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin will use the audio-recording to create the minutes. Once the minutes from the meeting are approved, Robin will delete the recording from the digital device.

Old Business:

1.      Summaries from the "Listening Sessions" – Julia Seligson

Mia asked Julia Seligson to provide an overview of the "listening sessions" she and Robin held for any interested faculty. Julia started by clarifying for Senate that she and Robin had sent out the current version of Article III electronically but also distributed copies of two other documents in the sessions themselves to facilitate discussion. The other documents were the side-by-side comparison of the current Article III and the proposed changes from the Ad-hoc committee and a "draft" version that blends the two together. Julia stated that at the meetings, participants were asked what they had concerns about, what they liked/did not like, etc. She and Robin typed up comments faculty members were making, and those comments were displayed on the screen for all participants to see. Julia reminded Senators that they were all sent copies of the notes taken at these meetings. Julia stated some of the biggest concerns were

a.       who votes in the election of the Faculty Senate President (all faculty or just Faculty Senate)

b.      lecturer/adjunct delineation and representation (lecturer concerns are very different from adjunct concerns)

c.       term limits

d.      being more inclusive, not exclusive, with who is eligible to serve (some knowledge base for a position like president is necessary)

e.       at-large senators and their election process (discussion about elected vs appointed, coming from

f.        clarification of election details such as dates (ex. By April 15 or by the second Friday of April)

g.      keeping everything as simple as possible but still clarifying details so that we do not have different processes from one year to the next.

Mia reminded everyone that Robin had sent all of these documents via email and that there were laptops in the back of the room if anyone wanted to be able to pull those up. Julia stated that she still has some copies of the printed documents if anyone wants those.

Action to be taken: none.

2.      Further input from Divisions – All Senators

Mia asked for any further input from individual divisions to ensure that all faculty/constituent concerns were heard. Arts and Sciences had no further input. Penny stated that as an at-large Senator representing all faculty, she had already voiced input during the re-cap sessions.  For Business and Public Services, first, Meredith stated her concern that an entire division was not kept in the loop concerning the listening sessions and the faculty from that division (Health Education) were not invited to any of the sessions. She then began a list of concerns from B&PS:

a.       Lecturer/adjunct representation—lecturers are actually identified as adjuncts. Why can we not have just one lecturer that rotates? Why can't there be only one lecturer representative for the whole college?

b.      Inclusion of librarians—some faculty questioned why librarians are included on Faculty Senate. Faculty are concerned because the librarians do not teach classes as we think of credit classes being. They teach workshops.

c.       Comp Studies—CS is represented fully on Faculty Senate, but does it really "fit the box" of faculty?

d.      Inclusion of CCE—faculty have asked why CCE "faculty" are not included if librarians are.

e.       At-large senators—elections seem to be a popularity issue. Why can the at-large position not be rotated among divisions? In addition, some divisions do not have lecturers, so aren’t those divisions at a disadvantage when it comes to the number of senators?

f.        Election of president—election is also just a popularity contest. Unless we hear from these candidates as to why they should be elected, the vote comes down to the most popular person.

g.      Lecturers/adjuncts—why can they not have their own groups and then each group send one Senator to Faculty Senate? That way, they can then serve as a representative not of their division, but of other faculty who serve in their same role across the college

h.      Duties of the President—while the list of duties says the president serves as a member of various committees across the College, nowhere is it stated that the president will be responsible for bringing ideas/concerns from those committees back to the Senate.

Stacey asked if she could respond to some of these concerns.  First, she explained that librarians are designated as faculty by SC Technical College policies and, therefore, by Human Resources. Stacey then stated then clarified that while folks in CCE do teach workshops, they are designated as staff by Human Resources. There are no true "faculty" in that division.

Mia then asked if College Transitions had anything to add. Deborah DeMino said she had sent information about the sessions to the adjuncts and lecturers, and many of them had attended one of the meetings, so she felt their concerns had been addressed.

From E&IT, Michael Oates shared their concerns: faculty members still on probation worry about voicing opinions and fear retribution. They do not want to risk their job. Someone still on probation does not want to risk his job, so perhaps we should look at some sort of statement about eligibility.

From Health Education, Susan Curtis expressed that she had attending one of the listening sessions, stating several items mentioned today were brought forth and discussed in that session. She had nothing more to add.

Som said the Learning Commons had the following additional concerns:

a.        Faculty on probation—if we implement a statement about faculty not being eligible to serve until they were off probation, would we grandfather those who were already serving even if they were still on probation?

b.      Adding an SGA member to Faculty Senate.

c.       Duties of the VP—the Learning Commons thought that would be beneficial to have the VP serving as another member on ALT.

d.      Timing of election of officers—transitions are the big concern. If a president serves a second term, who then serves as past president.

e.       Consistency of terminology—using Learning Commons and SSE.

f.        Faculty serving in non-standard roles—how do we address issues when we potentially have pockets of faculty serving in division that does not normally have faculty?

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Senators will thoughtfully consider all of these faculty issues/concerns as they work to come to a consensus on Article III. 

3.      Focus on Article III – Mia Tensley

Mia reminded everyone that we do have computers available to use.  Meredith asked where the "draft" version came from. Robin explained that it is really a compilation of ideas from the original, the work of the ad hoc committee, and the input from faculty. It is nothing formal, simply something to facilitate the discussion today to help Faculty Senate move forward.

Julia stated we could approach this process several different ways. We can start with the current Article III and move forward from there. Meredith asked if we were going to vote on each section as we move forward. Som suggested that we work through section by section and then determine if this would be a legitimate draft at the end. We can compare all the documents and then vote to approve a tentative draft. Julia stated we needed to get at least through the elections section that was a major problem last year. Robin then reiterated what she sent out tried to capture everyone's input. Penny then suggested that we start with the draft version to save time since it had been reworked several times in the past week. Julia stated if that was a motion, then she seconded it. After some discussion, Mia asked for a show of hands to vote on starting with the combined draft. The motion was approved.

Section 1:  Faculty Senate eligibility

Mia read the draft version defining faculty. The following were points of revision for Senate to consider:

1.       Robin stated that we needed to remove the wording "non-teaching faculty."

2.      Penny stated that we needed to add back the title "director" as used in the ad-hoc draft.  She stated that this term was never supposed to include program directors or CIAs but those across other parts of the College defined as directors. Som suggested editing the first two sentences to more clearly define how faculty are defined. Pam then suggested moving another sentence for coherence based on Som's recommendation. Meredith asked if we needed to clarify that program directors and coordinators are not excluded. Penny agreed that we do indeed to clarify. Once those suggestions were incorporated, Mia asked everyone to review the version currently showing on the screen to see if more modifications needed to be made.

3.      Meredith asked if needed to include a statement here about being off probation since the ad-hoc suggested it. Julia stated that in her opinion, we need to be more inclusive, not exclusive. Stacey said Galen has stated that he feels a newly hired employee should be focused on learning about the College and not worried about the nuances of Faculty Senate. Robin asked if we as Faculty Senate can dictate what a department head and a faculty member do. Tracy Kilgore stated that to her, if a new person wanted to jump in and serve on Faculty Senate, why would that be a bad thing? We need new voices. Deborah stated that on Wednesday in one of the recap sessions, we talked about having a fact sheet to share with those who are thinking about serving and thought we should include such a statement there, not in Section 1. Som asked how we would encourage some institutional continuity. Robin asked if the FAQ folder would not be a good place to have such information that would allow continuity. Penny said she did not think we could capture everything in the FAQ folder. Robin asked when most new faculty were hired:  the fall. So, would faculty then not have had a year to learn College duties since elections do not happen until the spring?  Stacey stated that many adjuncts become lecturers who in turn become full-time. So, would we then require such a statement since those folks would have experience at the College? Why not include a statement later under duties about having a conversation with a department head before serving? Penny asked if we should have something about "having worked at the College for one semester." Robin stated that in one of the listening sessions, faculty were adamant that faculty should be eligible to serve when they, in agreement with their supervisors, felt they were competent to serve.

4.       Mia asked if there were other comments. Hearing none, she stated we would move to section 2.

We ended with the following wording for Section 1:

Section 1 – Faculty Senate Eligibility
At Tri-County Technical College, the term "faculty" includes full-time instructors, adjuncts/lecturers, and librarians and all those designated as faculty by Human Resources.  All faculty, except those serving as Deans, Associate Deans, Directors, and Department Heads, are eligible to serve as a member of Faculty Senate if nominated and elected. Program Directors and Coordinators are eligible.
Deans, Associate Deans, Directors, and Department Heads are not eligible as they already have a voice in faculty concerns, serving as representatives on College-wide entities such as Academic Leadership Team and President's Advisory Council.
Section 2
Mia asked if there were any issues in Section 2.1.

1.      Robin noted that she had changed the language from a previous draft to more accurately reflect the names of the divisions and departments.

2.      There were no other comments on Section 2.1.

We ended with the following wording for the introduction to Section 2 and for Section 2.1:
Section 2 – Faculty Senate Representation
The Faculty Senate shall consist of a representative number of senators elected from the faculty membership and allotted as indicated below.

2.1 Full-time Faculty – 11 senators

2          Arts & Sciences

2          Business & Public Services

2          Engineering & Industrial Technology

2          Health Education

2          College Transitions Division (Comprehensive Studies Department)

1          Student Support and Engagement (Learning Commons).

Mia moved into Section 2.2

1.      Gregg Westmoreland asked why we have listed 5 adjunct senators yet there are six divisions listed in Section 2.1 Mia responded that is because the Learning Commons does not have adjunct positions. Som concurred.

2.      There were no other comments on section 2.2.

We ended with the following wording for Section 2.2:

2.2 Adjunct – 5 senators

Each division listed in section 2.1 that has adjunct faculty shall be entitled to one adjunct senator.

Mia moved to Section 2.3.

1.      Robin noted that the lecturers are listed separately because those who attended the listening sections were adamant that lecturers had different needs and should have separate representations. In addition, she stated that those who attended suggested that in order to maintain balance across the divisions, if a division did not have a lecturer, then that division could choose to elect another adjunct. Meredith asked if there was further thought about having separate groups such as Faculty Senate just for adjuncts and just for lecturers. She agreed that they each have separate needs. Penny asked if the lecturers represent the lecturers or their divisions. She asked the same question concerning adjuncts. Julia stated that perhaps that concept should be something listed under duties, not here in the eligibility information.

2.      Pam asked if we needed 5 lecturers and 5 adjuncts. That would give almost an equal number to the full-time. Do we need to have that many senators? Do they represent their divisions or simply adjuncts and lecturers? Som asked if we needed some other alternative such as an at-large position just for adjuncts and an at-large position just for lecturers. Penny said the ad-hoc group recommended having only the adjuncts as divisional. Deborah stated that adjuncts do not really know other adjuncts across the College. They know their areas and are representing adjuncts in their areas, not across the College. Gregg stated while he could represent the needs of other adjuncts with whom he works, he could not represent those in other divisions. He likes the proposed wording. If we have only two total, then we are shrinking representation. Som referred to the wording used by the ad-hoc group. Penny stated she was fine with the wording the way it is.

3.      There was no further discussion for Section 2.3.

We ended with the following wording for Section 2.3:

2.3 Lecturer – 5 senators

Each division listed in section 2.1 that has lecturers shall be entitled to one lecturer senator. If a division does not have lecturers, then it may choose to fill the slot with another adjunct senator.

In his role as parliamentarian, Jeremy noted that we were approaching the time allotted for discussion.

Mia moved to section 2.4.

1.      Penny brought up a discussion from the recap sessions that the at-large senators should come from any division, not just a single division. We need to avoid the mathematical likelihood that these senators will come from A&S.  She questioned why we had "up to two." Robin responded that the wording came from the original. Penny said that wording is used because one at-large could be someone who is serving on a national committee. Som stated a possible wording in the election section of "one is the person with the most votes and the other is the person from another division with the most votes." Stacey explained the problem in the past has been that most of the divisions have only two faculty willing to serve. The at-large position has then come from A&S by default since more than two faculty have been willing to serve. Penny asked if we could request the deans hold a nomination process in each division in order to send forth one name from each division for a ballot. The full faculty would then vote on two at-large positions. Julia suggested a change in wording to ensure it is clear that each division sends forth a single name. Penny stated she thinks this wording makes more sense than having a faculty member who is serving as a representative on national committee. 

2.      Robin stated that in one of the listening sessions, a faculty member asked if this position could be filled by a lecturer, an adjunct, or a full-timer. After some discussion, the consensus was that the wording "general faculty population" could include all of those. Penny asked if that would then include the Learning Commons. Meredith stated she thought we needed to add "as defined in Section 1." Pam clarified that we reword to include both section 2.1 and section 1.

3.      There were no further concerns for Section 2.4.

We ended with the following wording for Section 2.4:

2.4 At-large representatives – 2 senators

In addition to full-time, adjunct, and lecturer senators, there shall be two at-large senators. These senators shall be elected from the general faculty population. Each division listed in Section 2.1 shall provide the name of one nominee who meets the qualifications listed in Section 1 for a faculty-wide election. The senators shall be the two nominees who receive the most votes. They are to represent all faculty, not just those of their respective divisions.

Penny then moved that we pause our discussion to determine how we move forward from this point since we will not be able to finish Article III. She thinks it will take more than 10 minutes to finish. Mia asked if we could at least finish all of Section 2. Penny said she thinks the two remaining parts of Section 2 will take more than 10 minutes. Pam seconded the motion. Mia clarified that this motion would table our current discussion. Mia called for a show of hands, and the motion passed.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin will save the current progress made and send to all Senators. Senators will need to be prepared to complete the discussion of Article III at the next meeting. 

4.      Next steps – Mia Tensley

Mia entertained thoughts from the Senate about next steps moving forward. She asked if we wanted to wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting or hold other meetings before that time. She also reminded everyone that the next meeting is scheduled on February 15, when many Senators could possibly be attending SCTEA. Julia suggested one idea would be to have more "recap" sessions. Penny countered, saying that we should not touch the current draft beyond what we have finished today. Meredith asked if it would be possible to have a meeting on another Friday at the same time Senate normally meets. Mia asked if folks already had meetings scheduled on other Fridays before February 15. All agreed that we need to have as many Senators present as possible if we add a meeting. We want to prevent having to rehash information from meeting to meeting. It might simply be better to have the February 15 meeting as another day dedicated to trying to complete the revision of Article III. Several faculty members indicated they had conflicts on both February 1 and February 8. Mia asked for a show of hands to see who might be available on those dates. Approximately ten senators would be available on February 1 and fourteen on February 8. Deborah then asked how many would be available on February 15. Most faculty indicated they would be present. Mia then asked if we wanted to have February 8 and February 15 both as work dates. Tracy stated she was not okay with having two work dates. Jeremy suggested we simply leave as scheduled for February 15. Mia asked if there was a motion to add February 8 as a work date. It was so moved. Mia called for a show of hands. The motion did not pass. After other discussion, a motion was made to start the February 15 meeting at 12 instead of 12:30. By show of hands, the motion passed.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: We will dedicate the meeting on February 15 to finishing Article III. All Senators need to come prepared.

Other Business:

1.      Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:06.           

Respectfully submitted by Robin McFall

Next Meeting:  Friday, February 15 at 12:00 in SSC 205

Faculty Senate Minutes, 11/30/18

Meeting Date: November 30, 2018

Location: SSC 205, Time: 12:30 p.m.

Members Present: Deborah DeMino, Meredith Dickens, Penny Edwards, Pam Goodman, Eleanor Leverette, Som Linthicum, Robin McFall, Jeremy McCracken, Michael Oates, Julia Seligson, James Walker, Gregg Westmoreland, Derek Williams

Members Absent: Mary Gibson, Stacey Frank, Justin Herndon, Tracy Kilgore, Laura McClain, Richard Reeves, Cynthia Swaney

Guests: Galen Dehay, Scott Jaeschke

Presider: Mia Tensley

Welcome and Agenda: Mia called the meeting to order at 12:31 pm and directed all in attendance to the agenda for the meeting.

New Business:

1.      Approval of minutes from November 2, 2018 – Mia Tensley

Mia referred everyone to the minutes from the November 2 meeting. These minutes had been posted in the Teams folder for all to review. She asked if there were any changes other than those noted in Teams. There were no other changes. The minutes were approved with changes listed in Teams.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin McFall will make the changes from Teams, post the approved minutes to the Teams folder, and send them to IT to post in the College Committees link under the Employee tab in eTC.

2.      Constituent Concerns – Mia Tensely

      

Mia stated the faculty member with the concern contacted her stating that the issue had been resolved and did not need to come to Faculty Senate

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: None

3.      Committee Updates – various senators

Mia asked for all senators who are members of other committees across campus to give reports to keep everyone informed of happenings across the College.

A.    AACC– Penny stated she had received an email from her liaison containing updated leadership competencies. She plans to post a copy of those in Teams in the AACC folder for Faculty Senate to review.

B.     Academic Calendar Committee –  The committee has not met, so there is nothing new to report.

C.     Curriculum Committee – The committee has not met, so there is nothing new to report.

D.    Placement Committee – Julia stated the committee is finalizing cut scores now and will have those complete the week of December 3. No later than January 10, those scores will be in place and will apply to students who enroll beginning with the summer 2019 term.

E.     Service Excellence – No report.

F.      21^st Century Skills – Penny stated division representatives are working on finalizing assessment plans with the technical divisions. Arts and Sciences will be doing assessment just a bit differently. In addition, Michael Oates will join the committee. Also, all divisions will have some type of training/workshop/seminar on PD Day. She and Keri Catalfomo are working with Marianne Yohannan to finalize the details on what the training will look like.

G.    Additional committees

a.       Common Course Shells for Blackboard

The workgroup examining common course shells for online courses is still functioning. This fall, BPS launched these common shells. Common shells will be moved into the other divisions over the next few semesters. A&S will implement in the summer with online and hybrid courses. There will be a faculty coordinator to assist if needed.

H.    Academic Leadership – Mia shared that several items from ALT.

a.       The College is currently working on a 10-Year Vision and new Strategic Plan. She provided a PowerPoint showing the stages of this plan:

Stage 1: Scanning the Environment (Current Phase)

Stage 2: Review/Revise Mission, Vision, Values

Stage 3: Practical Vision

Stage 4: Organizational Root Cause Analysis

Stage 5: Strategies

Stage 6: Strategic and Division Plans

Galen added that the process for achieving Stage 3 was approved on Wednesday and said it will engage every employee at the College. We will receive more details in the new year, and all will be able to provide input/give ideas. Since this stage is such a large undertaking, there will be a number of small consensus workshops to ensure all ideas are included appropriately.

b.      Open Educational Resources – Mia shared that these are teaching, learning, and research materials that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license. Therefore, they have no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. If there is an interest, we should let Mia or any other member of the ALT know as the College is willing to provide infrastructure to help support.

c.       CAO Retreat – Mia stated that the average FTE statewide for the technical college system is -5.37%. We have a +.18% FTE

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: All Senators should update their constituents on what is happening around the College.

4.      Division Updates – various senators

Mia asked senators from each division to provide any relevant updates for Faculty Senate.

a.       Arts and Sciences – no updates

b.      Business and Public Services – Meredith stated B&PS has completed its SWOT analysis. Pam added that Business Technology is planning its annual student event for the spring.

c.       College Transitions – no updates

d.      Engineering and Industrial Technology – E&IT will complete its SWOT analysis next week. In addition, the division wants to congratulate its Bosch Technical Scholars, five graduates who will have jobs with Bosch since they have completed the program.

e.       Health Education – Susan Curtis will join Faculty Senate.

f.        Learning Commons – Som Linthicum stated that we can go look at the Affordable Learning tab in PASCAL for more information on OER. Also PASCAL is moving to a new system, and TCTC can become part of that innovation. We will be part of the Vanguard Innovation team to vet the rollout of this new system. In addition, he expressed thanks to all faculty for sending students to the Skill Shops. He stated participation in those workshops had been strong this fall.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Senators should share happenings/concerns from other divisions with their own constituents to keep everyone informed.

Old Business:

1.      Constitution and By-laws – Mia Tensley

Mia shared the two recommendations made at the last Faculty Senate meeting concerning potential ways to move forward with revisions of the Constitution and By-laws.  She stated these were simply two ideas and asked if there were others. At that point, Julia Seligson made a motion: "I move that we edit the process by which we revise the current Constitution and By-laws by focusing only on Article III which ties to officer duties, elections, and Faculty Senate membership." Julia stated she was making this motion to help move Faculty Senate forward in the revision process which has been at a standstill since meetings last spring. Robin McFall seconded the motion. Penny and Som both asked for clarification, wanting to know if this motion was to change the entire process and if it would take into consideration previous Faculty Senate discussions on getting input from faculty constituents. Julia said her intent/vision is to hold several small group meetings in early January that would be open to Senators and to all faculty for discussion of the current Article III, the proposed changes from the ad-hoc group, and any other recommendations to update Article III. She stated what she would like to see happen is a thorough discussion of Article III. Meredith asked if she meant just the proposed changes. Julia stated she thinks we need to begin with what is currently in place and proceed from there, that the proposed changes are not the only possible resolution to what needs to be updated/changed. She stated she thought we might keep parts of the current, incorporate parts of the proposed, or even bring in ideas that have not yet been considered; it would really all depend on the small group discussions. Penny stated that while she thought the small group discussions are a good idea, the proposed changes have parts of Article III spread throughout the document. Julia stated she understood that, but she emphasized that we have to focus on some part of the Constitution and By-laws to start, and Article III is what seems to be the highest priority since we will hold elections in the spring semester. She also said that what is in the Article III truly should be able to stand alone and not be tied to other areas of the Constitution so much that there would be confusion.

As Parliamentarian, Scott Jaeschke asked if she would be open to a friendly amendment. Once he stated his amendment (scheduling a vote at the next Faculty Senate meeting on Article III as written by the ad hoc committee), Julia said she was not open to it as it was not what she was intending. He withdrew his recommendation.

Som asked if it would be a good idea to incorporate both of the recommendations from the previous meeting by having a side-by-side comparison of the current Article III and the proposed. Meredith asked if it would not be better to start with the proposed revision and then peel away what we do not like from it as the proposed revision took hours and hours of work from the ad-hoc group. She stated that starting with the current one would be starting with a "holey version." Penny suggested we have a visual map, based on the idea from Som of a side-by-side comparison. She stated her willingness to create such a map. Julia reiterated that the biggest issue is time sensitivity—that we have to come to some resolution concerning elections and officer duties before the end of the spring semester. Jeremy McCracken stated that he truly saw three issues here:

a.       The Constitution should be simple yet specific. The current Constitution is simple, but not specific. So, starting with it makes sense.

b.      While we are under a time crunch, we should already have information from our constituents that we can bring to small group discussions so that we do not take up time in Faculty Senate meetings.

c.       We must have some resolution in place by March to be able to provide guidelines on elections and officer duties.

Jeremy stated we need to start somewhere, and he thought what Julia is proposing gives a good starting place. Meredith asked if this motion would mean that we as a Faculty Senate are then rewriting Article III. Julia stated that was what she would expect to come of the small group meetings.

After further discussion concerning timelines and responsibilities, Julia agreed to revise the motion as follows:  I move that we edit the process for revising the current Constitution and By-laws to focus only on Article III. A framework of the comparison of the current Constitution and By-laws and the proposed revision will be provided to Faculty Senate by January 4. The goal is a Senate-ratified final draft of Article III by the end of the January 25 [Faculty Senate] meeting.  Robin agreed that her second stands for the revised motion.

To clarify, Mia stated that we would meet in informal small groups to discuss and consider what should be the revision recommended proposed for a vote on January 25. Julia and Mia stated they would work together to set up several dates for the "idea sessions," possibly using the Activity Periods. Deborah DeMino asked how the Senate envisions presenting the information on January 25. Julia stated she envisions it being a revised Article III that is ready for a Senate vote. Som called for the question. The revised motion passed unanimously.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Mia and Julia will schedule the meetings and let all Senators know the dates, times, and locations. Penny will send the visual map to all Senators no later than January 4. Senators should share the upcoming small group meetings and what will take place at those meetings with their constituents and encourage all faculty who are interested to attend.  Senators should bring all input and ideas to the January 25 Faculty Senate meeting and be prepared to revise Article III as needed.

2.      Plagiarism Rubric and Upcoming Survey – Mia Tensley and Som Linthicum

Mia shared copies of the Student Code of Conduct from the SC Technical System, Appendix III in the TCTC Catalog (which is a repeat of the state code), and the TCTC Plagiarism Rubric. Som then discussed the need to revise the rubric. He stated that our rubric uses the wording "learning experience" while the state code says "completion of an educational activity," yet neither truly outlines what such an experience/activity would be. He also stated that the state code lists five potential sanctions while the TCTC rubric lists only three. Mia stated that Faculty Senate will receive a survey from Chris Marino in the next week asking for information that can be used to help revise the rubric. The goal is to create a rubric with more instructor discretion. When asked who had the task of revising, Galen stated it would be a yet-to-be-determined work group. He added that the rubric had not been updated since Robin McFall and he wrote it more than 10 years ago, but the state code has been updated since that time. Galen also said that he has been approving all penalties that make it to his desk, and he would like to have a modicum of consistency.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Senators need to complete the survey sent by Chris Marino no later than December 14.  

Other Business:

1.            Posting of documents in Teams

Senators expressed thanks for having the agenda and the minutes all posted in Teams.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:  Mia and Robin will continue to post documents in Teams as well as on the College's blogspot for committees. All senators will update constituents and direct them to the blogspot for agendas and meeting minutes.

2.            Adjournment

Robin made a motion to adjourn, and Julia seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 1:55          

Respectfully submitted by Robin McFall

Next Meeting:  Friday, January 25 at 12:30 in SSC 205

Faculty Senate Agenda, 2/15/19

Service Excellence Team - Minutes (2/1/19)

Opening: The regular meeting of the SET was held on Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.

Present:  Cara Hamilton, Kathy Brand, Scott Jaeschke, Brandon Rice, Aida Laham

Absent: Laura McClain, Lynn Lewis,

Guest: Rosemary Howlin

Celebrations:

·         The group celebrated Cara’s birthday and leadership.

·         It was reported that the Portal for recognition is up and running.  Cara asked everyone to spread the word and use the portal.

Rosemary Howlin met with SET to present information on College work-study requirements, trainings, and expectations.  She explained the requirements and process students go through to apply for work-study positions.  She also reviewed the general orientation, the module trainings, and supervisor information.  Howlin stated some department supervisors have agreements and criteria in place, such as dress code, hours, and expectations within their department.  Howlin stated she hopes to add additional trainings for work-studies and create feedback opportunities to improve the program.  The goal is to have a holistic approach, helping students financially, providing new skill sets, and providing positive work and learning experiences.  She was open to suggestions to strengthen the program.  Cara offered incorporating employee and employer feedback into the program, similar to the EPMS probation period meetings, where questions are used for specific feedback. Brandon stated an issue within HR is that students are added to Banner as employees, and they need supervisors to inform them if the students doesn’t end up working or leaves the position.  Scott asked if a student had a work related grievance, should they be referred to HR or to student government. It was answered that they should be referred to HR first since they are part-time employees.  Also discussed were options for students that don’t qualify for the work-study program. Howlin stated there is a referral system with information in place for them. 

Review Decision & Action Tracking from last meeting:

Action items were reviewed and updated from the last meeting.

Tracking is to be reviewed and updated.

Updates from Sub Teams:

Communication: Aida stated that she met with her sub-team and announced the following in regards to the Tri-Day competition:

·         An announcement explaining the Tri-Day competition will be sent to all employees on Feb. 18, 2019

·         The competition will begin on Friday, Feb. 22, 2019

·         The competition will be repeated twice a month with dates being Feb. 22, Mar.8, Mar. 29, and Apr. 12.  There will also be a summer date TBD

·         All campuses will be included in the competition

·         The subcommittee will draw a department name to be visited and announced as the winner. 

·         Food/snacks costing approximately $50 will be the prize for the department

Aida asked if this budget for winning departments was appropriate. Cara stated that it would be within the SET budget.  Aida stated a video will be sent with the announcement showing what departments can expect as part of the Tri-Day celebration competition.  She stated the group will include and visit the Easley and Anderson campuses as well.  Cara suggested a write up to be put into Connections.  Aida will follow-up with Lisa Garrett.

Recognition: Laura reported to Cara that the recognition portal is up and running ready for all to use.  Cara requested all to spread the word to co-workers regarding using the portal.

Measurement: Scott proposed the LC 201 Charter to Marci Leake and is waiting to hear back from her on sponsoring the Charter.  He reported the I-CARE survey recommendations and stated he will email a written summary of the results to the group.  The findings show a gap in how faculty welcome and greet students in their offices.  As a College, Scott feels we should develop a consistent plan to welcome students in academic spaces.  Scott asked who should receive the recommendations. Cara stated that Scott should present the summary and recommendations to Executive staff.  Kathy will schedule Scott on the Executive Staff agenda for Feb. 27, 2019.

It was noted that Marci Leake has been out with surgery, and for Scott to reach out to her prior to the Feb. 27^th Executive Staff meeting.

Talent Management: Brandon stated that HR will soon be using NeoGov for all College applications. This is a State system that can track applications, allow postings on SCgov and much more.  Morgan Pew has attended training and an announcement will be made when Neogov is activated.  Brandon stated the Benefits/health fair is scheduled for March 21, 2019.  On site screenings, health information and services, and local business info are being planned.  February 12, 2019 is the next professional development day.  Community service projects as well as department trainings are being offered.

Commitment of Excellence/LEAN/Service Obstacle System:

Academic – Member At-Large, D&I, TEE: Cara stated Laura presented TEE to the business offices.  Cara will ask Laura if the TEE presentation will be posted in Spark. Kathy will ask Rebecca about TEE in her office.

Management Accountability: Cara reported that Stan Compton was unavailable to be on the SET and she will continue her search for a replacement for Richard. 

Scott reported that the Veteran’s Advisory Council has been re-activated.  There are 12 people on the advisory committee.  This group will take requests from the student veteran’s and assist them.  The first request from the student vets is for Tri-County to become a Yellow Ribbon School.  The group is looking into the requirements.

Review Next Steps for each SET:

Confirm Next meeting – Friday, March 8, 2019