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:
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
