Members Present: Susan Curtis, Deborah DeMino, Penny
Edwards, Stacey Frank, Mary Gibson, Pam Goodman, Eleanor Leverette, Som
Linthicum, Jeremy McCracken, Robin McFall, Julia Seligson, James Walker, Gregg
Westmoreland, Derek Williams
Members Absent: Meredith Dickens, Justin Herndon, Tracy
Kilgore, Malisa Looney, Michael Oates, Cynthia Swaney
Guests: Mark Dougherty, Scott
Jaeschke, Marci Leake, Brian Smith
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. She stated the agenda had been amended to include constituent concerns.
Standing Items:
1. Approval of minutes from March 1 and March 8,
2019 – Robin McFall
Robin referred everyone to the
minutes from the March 1 and March 8 meetings and displayed the minutes for senators
to review. These minutes were posted in the Teams folder for all to review. Robin
noted she had made the changes suggested by Penny Edwards and Pam Goodman and
had uploaded new documents in Teams. She asked if there were any changes other
than those noted. Som Linthicum asked for one change to item G in the minutes
from March 8. There were no other recommendations. Pam Goodman made a motion to
approve the minutes, and Derek Williams seconded. The minutes were unanimously
approved.
Action to be taken as a result of
discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Robin will submit the
approved minutes to the committee blogspot for posting and will upload the
approved minutes in the Faculty Senate Teams folder.
2.
Constituent Concerns – Mia Tensley
Mia stated that we had constituent concerns about the search process for
the TCTC President. Specifically, the concerns addressed the timing of the
"meet and greet" sessions, the nature of the sessions, the lack of
feedback on the candidates after the sessions, and lack of faculty involvement.
In addition, a faculty member and her students had been denied entry to one of
the session. She asked Marci Leake and Mark Dougherty to attend the meeting to
address these concerns.
Marci read from a prepared statement which gave background on the whole
process, starting with Dr. Booth's retirement announcement. She reminded
faculty of the make-up of the screening committee and stated that committee's
members were determined by state law. She stated the TCTC Area Commission sent
out a questionnaire to all employees asking for input on what we would like to
see in a new president and used that information to create the job description/criteria. The Commission used this questionnaire to
keep employees involved in the process. Out of more than 100 applicants, the
screening committee narrowed the candidates to three finalists. John Powell,
the chair of the Area Commission, announced the finalists to the College at the
Faculty/Staff meeting in March.
Once the three finalists were announced, "Meet and Greet"
sessions were scheduled for the candidates to come on campus to meet employees
and students. Scheduling of interviews, formats, and dates/times were all
determined by the Commission. There was not an ideal time to hold these sessions.
She said every effort was made to accommodate as many people as possible. The
sessions were live-streamed to the community campuses but were not recorded.
She stated that, in her opinion, a good number of faculty and staff were
able to attend the sessions she facilitated. She also said the process is the
same as/very similar to the process used when Dr. Booth was hired. She stated she was grateful
the Commission solicited our input on the front end.
Senators asked if faculty were ever consulted about the selected times
for the "Meet and Greet" sessions. Marci stated scheduling was all
based upon availability of the Commissioners. Those sessions had to be done
when the Commissioners were available—the next time they would be available
would be late April/early May, and they felt that would not give enough time to
accomplish what they wanted to accomplish
before Dr. Booth's retirement at the end of June. Senators also asked if
the Commissioners planned to asked for employee feedback on the candidates. A
constituent who brought a concern forward had specifically stated the College
says we have a transformative employee experience, but not asking for feedback
on the candidates shows that is not true.
Marci said she had no information about the Commission's view on getting
feedback, but to her knowledge, our input was included in the front-end and
afforded us an opportunity to interact. She said she would share our concerns
with the Commission about wanting to give feedback on the candidates.
Senators also brought forth the concern that constituents felt the title
of "meet and greet" was misleading, that they truly felt the sessions
were not a meet and greet. Marci said in the two sessions she attended,
employees were given time to meet the candidates. She stated she introduced the
candidates, the candidates shared a little more information about themselves,
the candidates were asked some questions, and then the candidates could meet
employees.
Senators also asked about the results of the survey. They felt there was
a missing link—we gave input on what we would like to see in a new president,
but the next thing we knew there was a job description with specific criteria
listed. We never saw any results of the survey to know how the job description
came about. Marci stated she would share this concern with the Commission, but
that the "ship had sailed." She repeated that the process was the
same as the one used when Dr. Booth was hired.
Senators also asked why a group of students was turned away. Mark said an
almost identical format was used for the student sessions. Those sessions took
place in the Student Development Suite. He stated that the doors in the suite
slide open, not pull open. So, when the instructor brought her students
"halfway through" the session, he did not know the group was coming.
Since he was moderating the session, he did not have time to walk to the door
to find what they needed and welcome them in. He assured everyone he would
never have excluded a group of students on purpose, and he has since communicated
with the instructor concerning the matter. Senators asked if this was an open
forum. Mark said yes, but it was not a "drop-in session." Again,
senators brought up the confusion over the terminology of meet and greet, saying
the term indicates such an event will be a drop-in, which is much more informal
than what occurred. Marci stated she addressed questions about this format for
those who contacted her prior to the event, and in the future, she would
suggest asking questions to clarify.
Marci said if there were other individual concerns, those could be
directed to her at extension 1790.
Action
to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Senators
should share the information provided with constituents who brought forth
concerns. If there are other concerns, senators should direct faculty to Marci
Leake. Marci stated she would share concerns with the Area Commission.
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 – There was nothing new to report since the last
Faculty Senate meeting.
B.
Academic Calendar Committee – Pam reported the ACC met
on March 27. The committee specifically reviewed the spring 2020 calendar as
there were concerns about when it begins. She stated that the committee was not
able to make any changes as moving the start date would affect the summer
calendar, leaving no days between summer and fall terms for faculty to have
time off. She wants all faculty and staff to understand the committee has tried
to resolve the concerns, but it has not been able to do so. In addition, we can
move the tuition due date before the Christmas break and the final orientation
to the Thursday before classes begin on Monday, January 6, and that was
currently the plan. She stated the committee did not have time to address the
issues with final exam scheduling and hybrid courses.
C.
Curriculum Committee— There was nothing new to report
since the last Faculty Senate meeting.
D.
Placement Committee – There was nothing new to report
since the last Faculty Senate meeting.
E.
Service Excellence – No one from Faculty Senate is on
this group, so there is no one to report.
F.
21st Century Skills – There was nothing new
to report since the last Faculty Senate meeting.
G.
Physical Learning Environment Team—Stacey Frank reported
this team is reviewing the input from faculty (given on the Survey Monkey
questionnaire). She stated the survey had a 30% response rate, a good rate
according to Chris Marino. Those who provided responses gave specific details,
and the committee is considering those now.
H.
Common Blackboard Shells – Penny noted the move to the
common shell for Arts and Sciences is progressing.
I.
President's Advisory Council – Mia stated PAC has not
met—consensus meetings are still taking place.
J.
Academic
Leadership – There was nothing new to report since the last Faculty Senate
meeting.
Action to be taken as
a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: All Senators
who are members of other committees will give updates at each Faculty Senate
meeting and will also share information from these committee reports with their
constituents.
Division Updates – various senators
Mia asked senators from each division to provide any relevant updates for
Faculty Senate.
A.
Arts and Sciences – Curriculum roadmaps—advising
guides—for students are in eTC for students and faculty/staff to access.
B.
Business and Public Services – Pam reminded everyone of
the Jackye Kiser Murphy scholarship for Early Care and Education. She stated
there will be a special gathering to recognize the family and the scholarship on
Friday, April 26 from 11-12. Everyone is invited.
C.
College Transitions – no updates
D.
Engineering and Industrial Technology – no updates
E.
Health Education – Susan Curtis stated the nursing
department is currently searching for two nursing instructors (full-time
faculty) for fall 2019. She also stated she has no update on the search for a new
dean for HE.
F.
Learning Commons – Som said the Learning Commons is still
holding Skillshops for the spring semester. He noted Jeremy will be
facilitating one of the remaining sessions for this year. He also stated there
is a plan to have the Maker's Space open more hours and perhaps have more tools
for faculty use. He specifically mentioned technology for creating podcasts and
a larger lamination machine.
G.
Susan reminded everyone that the Enrichment Committee
will host an attorney from California on April 17 on the topic "What Does
the Constitution Mean to Me?"
H.
Stacey gave congratulations to Michael Oates and James
Walker gave congratulations to Tracy Kilgore on recent births in their
families. Other senators expressed their congratulations as well.
Action
to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Senators
from each division will give updates at each Faculty Senate meeting. Senators
should share the information from each division with constituents.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Divisional Academic Policy Appeals – Mia Tensley
Mia asked senators to share the information they had
gathered concerning the questions she gave to Senate at the March 8 meeting.
These questions tied to the academic appeals policy and to how faculty
disseminate course/departmental/program policy information.
Arts and Sciences senators said most faculty reported the
information is either in department-wide syllabi or in syllabi addenda. Most of
the departments in the division have a "common" syllabus for each
course with the information listed. Individual instructors also give their
specific information in their course addenda. Most of the faculty reported they
either have students sign a statement/course contract that they have read and
understood the policies or they have a quiz covering the information in
Blackboard. The signature sheets/course
contracts, etc. are maintained by the individual instructor.
In addition, several departments in the division require
faculty to post their addenda online in Blackboard so that department heads
have access to those if there are student complaints. The division also uses a
common form when a student has a complaint, and the form clearly shows the
chain of command. The student must first speak with the instructor to try to
resolve the complaint. Only after that meeting has occurred will the department
head get involved. If the student skips either of those levels and goes
straight to the dean, he/she will be referred back to the appropriate level.
So, there is a very clear chain of command.
The Business and Public Services senator stated that the
division does not have any specific divisional or departmental policies. It is
truly up to each individual instructor—there is no consistency in what is
required. Most instructors do use the Blackboard verification quiz which has a
question about reading and understanding the syllabus. When individual instructors
have more rigorous policies, those are included in addenda. Some instructors
who allow students to remain in the course after violating a policy (such as
attendance) may require a student to sign a contract with the instructor
regarding expectations moving forward.
College Transitions senators reported that every student in
the department receives a packet containing all of the policy information.
Then, instructors may give quizzes, questionnaires, a course contract, etc. All
signature sheets/course contracts are given to the department's Learning
Support Coordinator.
The Engineering and Industrial Technology senator shared
that the department he is in tries to adhere to College policies to the letter.
He is not sure about the other departments and individual instructors in the
division. He stated the syllabi have clear policies and ways for students to be
readmitted if they have been removed from the program.
The Health Education senator stated that nursing
specifically has created more detailed guidelines over the past 4-5 years. She
stated that, too often, students make it to their last semester and do not pass
the classes. In addition, if they fail two classes, they are out of the
program. They must also earn an 80 to pass. Therefore, the department has had
numerous grievances. The faculty do tell the students many times about the
policies and procedures. They are given a handbook at orientation. The first
day of every class in the program, they are given a syllabus and a carbon copy
signature sheet. They are also given a contract in each class with the
specifics about the grading system. All of the signature sheets are kept on
file in a locked cabinet. When a student fails one class, he/she must go
through a success committee to detail what he/she needs to do to be successful.
The student must write a letter to appeal and to be considered for
re-admittance. Students are often referred to Tutoring Service and to Student
Development for assistance. She also stated faculty are required to enter
comments in SPACMNT whenever they meet with a student.
Robin made a motion that Faculty Senate recommend the
information in the catalog on student academic appeals be strengthened and
expanded for clarity. Penny added that one way to do so would be to delineate
the process for students to follow so that they know they must start with the
instructor and follow the chain of command. In addition, if a student skips a
level or multiple levels, it should be clear that he/she will be sent back to
the appropriate level. Julia seconded the motion. After further discussion, the recommendation
was clarified as follows:
Faculty Senate fully supports
strengthening the Academic Appeals Policy listed in the TCTC catalog and
recommends including a clear delineation of the process a student must follow,
a clear explanation of the chain of command, and a clarification of what will
happen if a student does not follow the chain of command.
Mia called for the vote. The motion to make this
recommendation passed.
Action to be taken as
a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Mia will share
the collected information with Galen and will give him our recommendation and
support for clarifying/developing what is currently in the catalog.
New Business:
1. Faculty Choice Scholarship
Mia
reminded everyone she had shared information about this scholarship via email. The
details are as follows:
·
First
donations to the scholarship date back to November of 2006. The first award of
$1,200 was made in October 2007.
·
Total
contributions to the scholarship since that time have amounted to $13,417. The
Foundation has awarded a total of $12,000 out of the fund, leaving a $1,417
balance.
·
Contributions
have all but halted. One faculty member is continuing to support this fund
through payroll deduction, which is $10 monthly.
·
The
Faculty Choice Award was funded by faculty, and in the past, it was an “elite”
type of award where students were “invited” to apply by a faculty member.
Once these students completed a paper application, Senate members (or a
subcommittee of Senate members) reviewed the applications and awarded the
scholarship using a rubric.
·
There
has not been a Faculty Choice Award made since FY2016. The reason for
this is, at that time, the balance in the scholarship was approximately $1,100,
and members of the Faculty Senate did not want to award this “elite”
scholarship until the fund balance reached $1,500, which is the maximum
scholarship award currently made through the Foundation.
Faculty
Senate needs to decide what to do with this scholarship. Possible options
include the following:
1.
Establishing clear criteria that can be automated and continue with the current
levels of contribution
2.
Establishing clear criteria that can be automated and actively work/campaign to
increase levels of contribution
3.
Establishing clear criteria that can be automated and award the scholarship one
final time.
Note:
The Foundation requires a minimum scholarship amount of $500. The maximum
amount is $1,500. The amount awarded was shown to be $1,200 for the Faculty
Choice Award, which, at that time, was the maximum award
amount.
What
criteria could be applied to make this a streamlined process (GPA, total hours,
residency, etc…)?
What is
a good course of action for this scholarship?
Action
to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline: Senators
will review the information Mia provided and bring forward ideas at the next
Faculty Senate meeting.
Adjournment
Jeremy made a motion to adjourn,
and Julia seconded. All approved. The meeting was adjourned at 1:52.
Respectfully submitted by Robin McFall
Next Meeting: Friday,
April 19 at 12:30 in SSC 205
