Members Present: Susan Curtis, Deborah DeMino, Meredith
Dickens, Penny Edwards (arrived 12:30), Stacey Frank, Pam Goodman, Som
Linthicum, Malisa Looney, Robin McFall, Jeremy McCracken, Julia Seligson, James
Walker, Gregg Westmoreland, Derek Williams
Members Absent: Mary Gibson, Justin Herndon, Eleanor
Leverette, Tracy Kilgore, Michael Oates, Cynthia Swaney, Mia Tensley
Guests:
Presider: Julia Seligson
Welcome and Agenda: Julia called the
meeting to order at 12:02 pm and directed all in attendance to the agenda for
the meeting.
Since we did not have a quorum when the meeting
first began and we were having technical difficulties and could not display the
minutes on the screen, Julia stated that we would delay voting on the minutes
of the November 30 meeting and the January 25 meeting until more Senators
arrived and until we could display the minutes from those meetings.
Julia introduced the new Senator from Health
Education, Malisa Looney. She then set up our task for today: continued
revision of Article III. She stressed that we needed to get Article III
finished because it is the section of the Constitution and Bylaws that covers
elections. She reminded Senators that we had made it through section 2.4 at our
previous meeting and would begin with section 2.5. Stacey said she would be
voicing Penny's concerns until Penny could arrive. By the time Julia finished with her overview,
we had enough Senators present for a quorum.
Robin asked if anyone objected to her continued
recording of the meeting for the creation of minutes. No one objected.
Old Business:
1. Focus on Article III
Section 2.5
Julia asked everyone
to read Section 2.5 displayed on the screen to see if there were any concerns
or additions/deletions/changes. Som stated this section simply describes the
President's position. Julia confirmed, stating that election and duties are
listed later. Susan asked if the division from which the President comes still
has its two senators. Julia and others said yes. Meredith asked if there would
ever be a situation with co-presidents. Everyone indicated there would not be
co-presidents. There were no changes.
We ended with the
following wording for section 2.5:
2.5
President – 1 position
The president is elected as described in Article III,
Section 3. He/she does not hold voting privileges, except when a tie-breaking
vote is needed. In addition, the division from which the President originates
is still entitled to its full representation.
Julia
moved into Section 2.6.
1.
Stacey said she had
some concerns about the wording being negative for the description of the Past
President's position. She felt that the
negative wording was problematic and wanted the wording to be more positive.
Robin stated that much of the wording came from the Ad hoc draft. Stacey and
Som both stated that the position needed to clarify that one major role of the
Past President is to provide historical context. Stacey then suggested that the
Past President serve as the Parliamentarian. Since the Parliamentarian is not
supposed to vote but is to remain objective, the two roles truly go
hand-in-hand as the Past-President does not vote either.
2.
Meredith asked what
would happen if a president serves two terms. Who would then serve as the
Past-President? Would we simply reach
out to a past-president willing to take on that role for the year? Would we expect a person to make at least a
four-year commitment? Julia stated that
term limits come up later, that this section is simply a description.
3.
Som suggested that we
move back and forth as we go through the document to make sure we are being
consistent.
4.
Meredith asked if
officers met to plan for meetings. Julia and Robin both stated that they do for
planning purposes. Som asked if that needed to be in the document. Robin asked
if that would not be in the duties. All agreed the planning would be a duty.
5.
Pam asked that the
title of the position be changed to reflect it will have both the Past
President and the Parliamentarian roles.
6.
Malisa asked if we
should add wording about "an advisory role" if that is the function
of the position.
Julia
asked everyone to review the changes.
After some rewording and moving of sentences, we ended with the
following for Section 2.6:
2.6
Past President/Parliamentarian – 1 position
The past president is the president from the previous
academic year. While he/she does not serve in an elected position for the
current academic year, he/she will continue on Faculty Senate for historical
purposes. In addition, the past president will serve both in an advisory role
and as the parliamentarian to help with order and function of meetings. The past president will not hold voting privileges
and does not affect counts for quorum purposes. In addition, the division from
which the Past President originates is still entitled to its full
representation.
Meredith
asked why we did not list Vice President or Secretary here. Robin and Julia
both stated that those are positions that come from the elected Senators; they
are not voted on by all faculty. Meredith also asked if the President and Past President
are the only two non-voting roles.
Everyone agreed that would be true since we are combining the
Past-President role with the Parliamentarian role.
Stacey
asked if we could review some wording in earlier sections for consistency. She
asked that we add the word "division" for each area listed in Section
2.1.
Julia
moved to Section 3.
1.
Robin asked if we
needed to broaden the possible voting methods by adding the wording "for
example." Stacey agreed.
2.
Meredith asked about
the wording of April/May. Do we need to state instead "The end of spring
semester" instead of giving a specific month?
3.
Stacey suggested that
we look at the dates carefully. We need to ensure we are not excluding adjuncts
and lecturers. She reminded the Senate that we would need to create meeting
dates for next year before the elections this year.
4.
Som suggested that we
elect all officers in the spring. Stacey responded that we have to be careful
so that we do not exclude new Senators. Som suggested that the outgoing Senate
elect the officers for the next year. Robin strongly objected to that idea. Som
said he stated he thought it would provide continuity. Stacey said she thought
the continuity is a good idea. Julia stated we just said that is the role we
just agreed the Past-President would serve—continuity and historical
purposes. Penny asked if a brand-new
Senator should serve in an officer's role. She asked if the idea was that these
roles should only be filled by persons who had already been on Senate for at
least one year. Penny suggested that we pull the wording from the Ad-hoc group
suggested for the timing of elections. She stated that not much happens over the
summer, so she felt the newly elected President and Past-President could handle
any duties. Stacey said that someone should be available over the summer.
5.
Robin said if we elect
the officers in the spring, then we are telling the lecturers and adjuncts we
do not care about their opinion. She suggested we go back to what Penny has
stated about the timing of elections for lecturers and adjuncts for the fall
semester and keep the elections of the other officers for the fall. Penny
agreed that we would then have a full Senate in place and would be more
inclusive of lecturers and adjuncts.
6.
Penny asked that we
include a statement from the Ad-hoc draft about further descriptions of the
positions.
After
some moving of sentences, we ended with the following wording Section 3.
Section 3 – Election of SenateAll elections may be held electronically (for example, using email or Survey Monkey) or by paper ballot at the discretion of the entity. The nomination and election of Faculty Senate President, Full-Time Division Senators, and At-Large Senators will be completed by the end of spring semester of each academic year. Elections of Lecturer and Adjunct Faculty Senators will occur during the first week of classes each fall semester. The nomination and election of Faculty Senate Vice President and Secretary will occur with the full body of Faculty Senate during the first meeting of the fall semester. In all cases, run-off elections will be held in the case of a tie.
Pertinent sections in this document further describing
these positions shall be included for reference in the nomination and voting
process.
Julia
moved to Section 3.1.
1.
Stacey reminded
everyone we needed to look closely at dates for election processes.
2.
Susan asked how long the
President serves. Julia responded that the current version of the Constitution
states the President serves for one year.
Stacey said there is a lot of work involved, so she thinks the
President's term should be a two-year term.
She stated she can see the downside to that term if someone is not being
effective. She said there is a learning curve. Som stated a two-year term would
mean that someone might be on Senate four or more years. Meredith asked if we
are setting term limits. Julia brought us all back to focus on elections, which
is what this section is about.
3.
Pam asked that we add
a requirement for a campaign speech or a video or something that will allow the
full faculty to see who these candidates are. Penny asked about the timing.
4.
Som asked that we look
closely at how nominations will occur. What will happen if someone who is not
currently on Senate wishes to run? How will that person be nominated?
5.
Stacey asked if we
needed to include a nominating committee to run all of these processes.
6.
Penny asked if we
needed to add an eligibility statement such as "all candidates must have
previously served on Senate for two years." Stacey said she has a problem with someone
who has not served in five years coming in as President because so many things
will have changed during that time. Julia suggested that we add "within
the past five years."
7.
Meredith asked what
would happen if we have only one candidate. Penny stated that by adding a
statement that we will put forth a minimum of two candidates, we would take
care of the concern.
8.
Penny returned to Som's question of how a
potential candidate not currently on Senate would be nominated. Will they need
to speak with a current senator to be nominated?
9.
Penny asked if only
full-time faculty should be eligible for President. Stacey stated she
personally thought with all the work involved, it should be only full-time.
Robin asked the adjuncts and lecturers on Senate what they thought about
limiting the President to full-time only. Gregg and Derek both thought it
should be only full-time, stating the amount of work without compensation would
be off-putting for an adjunct or lecturer.
10.
Robin asked if we
needed to state that someone had to have been on Senate for two years before
they could be eligible to be nominated as President as had been suggested by
several others. She used Pam as an example since Pam has only been on Senate
one year but could be a solid candidate for President. Penny then asked if we
needed to be concerned about someone being off probation. Stacey said that idea
was something Galen expressed as well. Robin reminded everyone that if a
full-time faculty member is hired in the fall, then he/she has been at the
College a year before being elected to Senate. If that person then serves a
year on Senate before being nominated for President, he/she will be at the end
of the probationary period. Jeremy added that with the vetting process we are
including, it will then be incumbent upon the Senate to ensure the candidates
put forth are worthy. Meredith asked if a Senator who was unable to complete a
year of service due to other obligations could be considered. All said yes. Julia reminded everyone that in the
"listening sessions," faculty expressed that we needed to be more
inclusive.
11.
Penny asked us to
review the timeline of the processes. She reminded everyone that we need to be
aware of spring break and its impact. We will need to consider that some of
these process will need to happen electronically. She asked if we wanted the
specific wording of "second Friday of March." She said why not use "in early
March." Meredith stated she preferred more specific instead of less
specific since "early March" could have various interpretations. Meredith
said in her opinion, the officers need to be the ones responsible for ensuring
these processes will and do function. Penny stated she simply wanted to ensure
this document would be able to survive more than a single year. All senators
discussed if we would have enough time to get all elections complete in a timely
fashion.
12.
Julia asked if we
needed to develop some sort of document that should be handed from President to
President. It would not be something in the Constitution, but perhaps part of
the FAQs voted on in an earlier meeting. Others agreed this would be a good
document to have.
13.
We returned to Pam's
request about candidates providing information to all faculty before voting
occurs. Several senators expressed concerns about timing between nominations,
candidate profiles, and voting.
14.
Deborah asked what would
happen if we have only one candidate. After some discussion, we decided to
leave the wording alone to see what develops. We may need to include something
in FAQs instead.
We ended
with the following wording for Section 3.1:
3.1 Election of Faculty Senate President
A.
Election of Senate President shall occur prior to the
election of other senators.
B.
No later than the second Friday of March, current senators
will nominate candidates for president for the next academic year. Those
candidates can be current senators who are nominated by a peer or who
self-nominate. Candidates who are not currently on Senate may be nominated by a
current senator.
C.
Candidates must be full-time faculty who have previously
served a minimum of one year on Senate within the past five years.
D.
Before submitting a nomination, senators must ensure the
candidate is willing to be nominated. In addition, it is highly recommended the
candidate discuss the nomination with his/her supervisor.
E.
No later than the fourth Friday of March, the Senate shall
discuss nominees to ensure qualified candidates are put forward to the full
faculty.
F.
A minimum of two and a maximum of four nominees will be
presented to the full faculty for voting.
G.
Each candidate will provide a candidate profile to be
distributed to all faculty.
H.
Full faculty voting shall take place by the second Friday
in April.
I.
The president will be the nominee who receives the most
votes from the full faculty voting process.
J.
The incoming president will be notified no later than two
business days after voting ends so planning can occur with his/her respective
department.
K.
The incoming president will be announced to full faculty at
or near Spring Convocation.
Julia
moved on to Section 3.2.
1.
Julia pointed out that
this section had two possible options. Penny stated she did not like either by
itself, but she liked parts of both.
2.
Penny also pointed out
that we needed to carefully consider the timelines to ensure we will be able to
fit all elections in before the final meeting of the spring.
3.
Som asked that we add
director. Penny said we also needed to add associate dean.
4.
We discussed the dates
and reviewed calendars to ensure the timeline would work.
After
further discussion concerning the divisions holding their own elections and
providing the names of their Senators to the Faculty Senate President and
encouraging candidates to speak with their supervisors before agreeing to be
nominated, we ended with the following wording for Section 3.2.
3.2 Election
of Full-time Division Senators
A.
No later than the third Friday of April, the Faculty
Senate President will contact the dean, associate dean, or director of each
division listed in Article III, Section 2.1 to
request the names of senators for the upcoming academic year. Each division
will follow its own democratic selection processes for electing the specified
number of senators.
B.
No later than the fourth Friday of April, each
division listed in Article III, Section 2.1 will
provide the names of senators to the Faculty Senate President.
C.
Incoming Senators should attend the end of year Faculty
Senate meeting if possible.
Robin
stated she would leave a space following this section and email this current
draft to everyone for review.
Penny
asked what our next steps are since we are not finished with Article III. Julia
reminded everyone that we had previously talked about having additional
workdays to get through this review. All stated they were in agreement to do
so. Meredith stated she felt we should continue to use the regular meeting
time. Julia asked how many people would be available on Feb. 22. Ten senators
said they would be available. Julia stated we would check for a location. She
then asked about availability on March 1. Thirteen senators said they would be
available. She asked that everyone send in thoughts if they were not available
to attend. Stacey said Galen would need to see a draft of this document before
we could move forward. Julia stated we would try to get him to review.
Penny
then asked if it is the intention to vote on this draft on March 1 or if we
would wait until March 8. Meredith stated she would like to see a vote on March
1 so we could nominate candidates on March 8. Penny made a motion that if we
have a quorum at the meeting on March 1, we have the opportunity to vote on a
completed draft of Article III and submit it to Galen. Meredith seconded. Som
stated that he would like to amend the motion to make this meeting an official
Faculty Senate meeting so that it can be announce to all faculty. Penny agreed
to the amendment. Julia called for the vote. By a show of hands, the motion
carried.
New Business:
1. Approval of minutes from November 30, 2018 –
Julia Seligson
Julia referred everyone to the
minutes from the November 30 meeting. Robin had revised these minutes and
posted them to the Team folders. Robin reminded everyone that she had placed
notes so that everyone could see the changes but would remove those before
having the minutes posted officially. Penny
asked if there had been any other recommendations for changes. Robin stated no.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
Action to be taken as a result of
discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin will 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. Approval of minutes from January 25, 2019 –
Julia Seligson
Julia referred everyone to the
minutes from the January 25 meeting. Robin stated there were some changes from
Deborah and from Penny that had been included. Julia asked for a vote. The
minutes were approved unanimously.
Action to be taken as a result of
discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin will 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
3. Penny made a motion that we display the
minutes for approval at each meeting as we have done today. Pam seconded. Robin
stated that if we do so, we need to have any changes sent in earlier so the
secretary has time to make the changes and redistribute for review. Penny
amended the motion to state that all changes to the minutes needed to be sent
to the secretary at least five business days before the next scheduled Faculty
Senate meeting so that those changes could be made and the minutes then
displayed for voting purposes. Pam agreed to the amendment. The motion passed
unanimously.
Action to be taken as a result of
discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Once the draft of the
minutes are posted, Senators will review and send changes to the secretary no
later than five days before the next scheduled meeting.
4.
Adjournment
Jeremy made a motion
to adjourn. All agreed. The meeting was
adjourned at 1:55
Respectfully submitted by Robin
McFall
Next Meeting: Friday, March 1 at 12:30 in SSC 205
