Faculty Council Meeting

Minutes for Meeting on October 14, 2005

Attendance:

41 faculty members, including Faculty Council officers

Jerry Boarman

Steve Warshaw

Michael Reidy

1.      Introduction of new Faculty Council officers

Noreen Naiman, President, Julie Graves, Vice President, and Tamar Castelloe, Secretary, introduced themselves as the 2005-2006 Faculty Council (FC) officers.

2.      Approval of minutes from last year’s meetings

A motion was made to approve last year’s meeting minutes, which was seconded, and then approved by attending faculty.

(There was discussion about how many faculty members constitute a quorum, and as there are 67 full and ¾-time faculty members, 34 would constitute a quorum.)

3.      Future Faculty Council meeting dates

President Naiman proposed that we conduct meetings during Monday meeting times instead of after school to help increase attendance.  She proposed that the next meeting be November 21^st, which is a Teacher Work Day, during lunchtime.  There was discussion that November 21^st is the day before grades are due and comments are being written by instructors and that it may be a difficult day for faculty to attend.  Another faculty member stated that if we know far enough in advance of the meeting date and time, we can put it on our calendar and work to be able to attend the meeting.

Naiman then proposed our December meeting to be on December 12^th during the Monday meeting time.  There was no discussion with regard to this date.

4.      Committee Assignments Update-Julie Graves

VP Graves stated that all non-first-year faculty working ¾ or full-time must serve on a committee.  She explained that the Scholarship Committee is already in place and has done the majority of their work already this year.  The Evaluation Committee is also in place as well as some of the Hearing Board, Curriculum Review and School Improvement Group.

Graves called for faculty to send her their preferences if they haven’t done so already.  She stated that first-year faculty is welcome to volunteer to serve on a committee. 

Graves mentioned that the Faculty Appeals Committee, which considers questions about non-renewal of contracts, requires departmental representation.  She also stated that the Faculty Grievance Committee meets only if a faculty member files a grievance.  It was announced that ballots for the Appeals Committee would be in faculty boxes by the afternoon.  Grievance Committee ballots would be sent out to faculty only after the earlier ballots were counted, since there cannot be an overlap of faculty members serving on both committees.

It was announced that the new Technology Task Force will include the three department deans, Richard Alston, and 6 faculty members, 2 from each department, among perhaps a few other non-faculty members.  This would be a short-term committee assignment (November/December through February/March), and it is a voluntary committee.  It does not count toward a faculty member’s committee requirement.  The Task Force would mainly be in place to gather input from its members.

Liaisons to the Board of Trustees

Graves announced that the faculty is in need of Liaisons to the Board of Trustees (BOT).  One faculty member is needed to serve as liaison to each of the following: EPPC (Educational Policies and Practices Committee), Personnel Committee, and Development Committee. 

David Frauenfelder spoke about his service as liaison to the Development group in the past.  He stated that the group essentially “cheerlead[s] for the school.”  He mentioned that Therese Taxis would report on how much money has been raised for the school.  He stated that he didn’t find anything that the faculty needs to be concerned about in those meetings.

Graves spoke about her past service as liaison to the EPPC.  She stated that the liaison to this committee attends 4 meetings (the BOT meeting days), and the committee is responsible for addressing academic issues.  The admissions office reports their news as well.  The liaison is “mainly there as a resource for the BOT to ask them questions” if necessary.  Graves stated that it is an opportunity to “put names with Board members’ faces and hear their perspectives.”

Mary Roberts was stated as having served as liaison to the Personnel Committee but did not speak at this FC meeting.

It was explained that Jerry Boarman appoints the liaisons, so there was a call for interested faculty to send Boarman an e-mail (and CC: Naiman) within 2 weeks to let him know they would like to volunteer. 

The next BOT meeting is scheduled for December 2nd.

5.      Update on visit from Brock Winslow, Chairman of the Board of Trustees

Naiman announced that Jon Miller sent Brock Winslow a letter inviting him to speak to the faculty regarding his view of the role of FC and the relationship between the FC and the BOT. 

Winslow called Miller and Naiman and stated that he is interested in coming to speak to the faculty; however he would like to speak at a meeting that is called specifically for his visit, as opposed to an FC meeting or Boarman’s faculty meeting.  Naiman mentioned that the meeting would need to be scheduled for after school, and she proposed October 25^th, 26^th, November 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd.  There was discussion that a colloquium might be scheduled on Tuesday, October 25^th, which would make it difficult for some faculty members to attend.

6.    Agenda items for future Faculty Council meetings

     a. Research project

     b. One-year contracts

     These will be addressed during Boarman’s November meeting with the faculty.

c. Finding an organized way and appropriate forum for us to ask and answer questions regarding the policies described in the Student Handbook, available on At-A-Glance, on pages 26-28 regarding students who earn D’s

Naiman displayed p. 27 and 28 of the Student Handbook on the projector screen for FC members to view as she discussed the issue of students who earn grades of D.  She reminded faculty that appeals submitted by students who are required to withdraw because of their grades are given to Steve Warshaw.  She noted the summer academic recovery plan that the handbook refers to.  Naiman called for all faculty members to read those pages in the handbook and develop questions and/or concerns they have in their department.

      Naiman asked for suggestions as to what the best way might be to address these questions/concerns.  A faculty member suggested that each department develop their questions/concerns together.

      Another faculty member asked how the policies explained in the handbook were put in place.  Warshaw answered that they were developed by a team of deans (an administrative committee) this past summer.

      Another faculty member proposed that departments express their questions/concerns to the FC.  Naiman then asked whether deans should take these questions/concerns to Instructional Council, since FC will not meet again until the latter part of November.

            Questions from the faculty included the following:

            “Is there a definition of what a replacement course is?”

            “Would this course be one taken over the summer at a college, etc.?”

            “Does a replacement course replace a grade?

            “What about lab courses?”

            “Are students required to take a replacement course at NCSSM if it’s possible, or can they decide to take it elsewhere?”

The administration’s “current thinking” is that after a student earns the right to replace their D grade, and if they retake it at NCSSM, an NC would replace the D on the transcript, and a new grade is given in the second course.  If a student takes a course elsewhere, that is approved by the deans, the new grade would probably replace the D.

      A faculty member stated that this would be unfair to a C student who is not given the opportunity to replace their grade.  Another questioned whether a replacement course taken elsewhere would have comparable rigor.  They also expressed their concern about a “rush to the ‘bottom’” with regard to grades.  Still another suggested the policy be to replace the grade but limit it to a certain maximum, say a C-. 

      One faculty member argued against the setting of a grade “ceiling” and stated that a grade is a professional estimate of a student’s knowledge and processes.  They stated that artificially giving a grade is inappropriate.

      Boarman stated that the discussion on implementation of the policies stated in the handbook continues.  He expressed that he has no problem changing what is written.  If changes were to be made, which he foresees, administration would put together an addendum to the handbook describing the revisions.

d.  Solicit agenda items from faculty

e.      Miscellaneous

It was announced that the President of FC is also a member of Instructional Council.