MONROE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FACULTY SENATE
December 16, 2004
PRESENT: T. Archie, I. Benz, P. Bishop, C. Boettrich, S. Callan, B. Connell, L. Chrzan-Williams (Vice-President), D. Cox (President), K. Doyle, S. El Rayess, S. Fess, S. Forsyth, T. Gilbert,
R. Hammell, A. Hughes, K. Humphrey, N. Karolinski, P. Keyes, A. Leopard, M. Marino, J. McCauley, J. McKenna, D. Mueller, N. Murage, S. Murphy, J. Nelson, P. Peterson, M. Rizzo, S. Ruckert, D. Shaw, J. Smith, B. Smithgall, J. Thompson, M. Timmons, V. Toth, T. Tugel (Secretary), P. Wakem, H. Wheeler, W. Willard
ABSENT: F. Burger, S. Cable, T. Digiacomo, J. Ekis, E. Grissing, D. Leach, M. Pastorella, E Stewart, H. Wynn-Preische
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE:
GUESTS: E. Baker, L. Bartholome, E. Basanayake, D. Cecero, P. Collinge, K. Collins, B. Connolly, R. Degus, A. Felicetti, J. Glocker, C. Herrera, S. Insero, S. Ison, T. Keys, D. Lawrence, K. Martello, B. Martineau, M. Murphy, E. Otero, A. Perry, E. Pixley, A. Ranczvick, D. Rhodes, F. Rinehart, L. Rozwell, R. Saxton, C. Smith, K. Yuthika
1. Meeting called to order: 3:39 p.m.
2. Guest Speakers
Janet Glocker and Richard Degus - Renaissance Square and Brighton Renovations
R. Degus summarized the College’s earlier proposal for constructing a new downtown campus on West Main Street and renovating Building 9 on the Brighton campus. The downtown site would house an Applied Technology Center as well as current DCC programs. These plans were placed on hold when Monroe County invited MCC to become the third component of a center city facility including a transit center and performing arts facility. As a result of opting to become part of the proposed Renaissance Square, MCC was confronted with a different set of opportunities and priorities than originally planned for:
a thematic shift from technology-based programs to those with a cultural,
service and/or hospitality emphasis;
modification of previous construction designs for the downtown center and
renovations to the Brighton campus;
a delay from Spring 2006 to Fall 2009, at the earliest, for occupation of a new facility; and
changing the location of the downtown site from West Main Street to a central city one.
J. Glocker explained a major challenge of these changes is the relocation of suitable programs to the new campus facility and incorporating the appropriate design elements for these programs into construction plans. Beginning in January, the College will use both external and internal planning teams dealing with the finances, marketing, technical requirements and organizational governance associated with developing the new site.
A shift from technology programs to cultural and hospitality ones will require departments associated with these be involved in the discussions, both for the construction of the new site and renovations on the Brighton campus. Study teams recommendations will be due mid spring of 2005 with completion of a concept design expected by August 2006, with occupation of the new site proposed for fall 2009. Anyone interested in volunteering to serve on a study team should contact J. Glocker.
3. Announcements (D. Cox)
a. The HALL committee is sponsoring a “Hats and Holiday Card” event December 20th in
Pioneer Hall from 4:57 p.m. – 7:06 p.m. The hats and cards will be given to patients at
Strong’s Golisano Children’s’ hospital. All are invited to join the fun.
b. Student announcements will resume at the January meeting. Representatives from
both campuses are invited.
3. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting were approved as
corrected.
4. Standing Committee Reports
Academic Policies (B. Connell)
Betsy Ripton discussed ways to improve the scheduling of final exams with the Academic Policies committee. Requests for final exams will be distributed to faculty during the first week of each semester and due back to the registrar the following week. Final exam schedules will be posted during the third week of the semester.
The committee surveyed department chairs on whether or not problems regarding grade changes have been encountered. Since no concerns were expressed, the committee is not recommending any changes with the current policy
B. Connell met with the ad hoc committee studying mandatory orientation. The committee’s report is due April 4, 2005.
Curriculum (H. Wheeler)
Final approval has been given to five course revisions.
COM 105: Typography and Composition
IDE 102: Introduction to Interior Design I
IDE 160: CAD for Interior Design I
IDE 122: Interior Design Communication II
IDE 260: CAD for Interior Design II
The following new course proposal are posted for review:
ECE 252: Designing Environments & Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers
ECE 253: Professionalism in Early Care & Education
The committee has placed two proposals on hold until further information is received:
LDS 201: Leadership Development Seminar II
PST 265: Public Safety Leadership Development Seminar
Per request of TRS, REA 101: College Literacy and Reading, has been placed on hold.
New software for the curriculum database went live on December 1.
NEG (D. Cox)
A summary of the committee’s report on senate membership criteria will be presented under new business.
Planning (D. Mueller)
The committee has established the ground rules for awarding Strategic Planning grants and will begin reviewing proposals in January.
Professional Development (A. Hughes)
The committee has forwarded recommendations for this year’s NISOD awards to
J. Glocker.
Because an appropriate topic for the January 14 Professional Development workshop could not be determined, the workshop has been cancelled. The committee will focus its efforts on the June 10 workshop.
SCAA: J. McCauley
No report.
5. Old Business
Ad Hoc Promotion Committee Update – Kim Martella
The committee met several times to review the seventeen recommendations made by the
previous ad hoc promotion report. The current committee identified recommendations that
have been implemented to date. They also listed recommendations that have yet to be
implemented and suggested who might be responsible for their implementation (e.g. Faculty, Faculty Association, Faculty Senate, Deans, Vice President, etc.) Finally, the committee
identified one recommendation no longer appropriate. The Senate Executive Committee will
receive the final report at the end of the Senate meeting.
6. New Business
D. Cox explained NEG had been charged with studying problems and issues related to the current criteria for voting membership in the Faculty Senate. Today’s meeting provides faculty the opportunity for input prior to the committee’s final recommendations for any bylaw changes. Sue Murphy provided a synopsis of the committee’s findings.
Problem 1: Defining “Professional Staff”. As the college has grown, it has become increasingly difficult to interpret and consistently apply the “professional staff” voting membership criteria. There are a number of current job titles that did not exist when the current bylaws were adopted. The increase in the number of non-teaching professional staff positions has only increased the problem.
Problem 2: Inequities caused by exclusion. The exclusion of technical assistants and advisors has created inequities in membership status, and concerns have been expressed regarding the exclusion of other groups (e.g., grant-funded personnel and personnel from the MCC Foundation) from the voting membership.
Possible solutions to these problems include revising the bylaws to identify specifically what job titles are to be included as “voting faculty”. The NEG Committee recommends adopting, with some exceptions, the membership guidelines of the Faculty Association, which identify membership by job title, as a model for Faculty Senate voting membership. NEG also proposes expanding the existing definition of “voting faculty” to include currently excluded job titles.
Because the current bylaws limit each department or area to a maximum of three senators, expanding voting membership to include additional job titles would have little impact on the overall number and distribution of senators.
P. Collinge commented there is a lot of history behind why membership is what it is. These issues have come up before and they were not oversights but intentional decisions to exclude certain groups. The senate is the primary voice of the faculty in terms of academic policies and curriculum and membership should be limited to the most appropriate personnel to make these decisions. We must be careful of using titles to determine voting membership since the same title means different things in different areas of the College. The independence of job personnel in relationship to job security must be kept in mind and the right decision is not necessarily to include everyone. S. Murphy replied the committee did research AGO records and early Senate documentation and could not find the reasoning behind some of these decisions made on voting membership.
E. Pixley noted advisors and technical assistants are very involved with day-to day student learning activities and should be included in the voting membership. She warned that becoming elitists with regards to membership many good people will miss the opportunity to become involved in governance.
S. Murphy replied there needs to be a distinction between grant funded personnel that are temporary and those that remain at the college for many years. P. Collinge noted his concern with this is not the length of time personnel are at the college, but their independence from those who keep them employed when it comes time to make decisions the Senate is involved with.
Joan Smith commented the Senate deals mostly with academic issues and “technical” specialists may have little interest in these issues. People with the most participation in the Senate are usually those with an academic focus. Terry Keys remarked he served in the Senate despite his focus on technical areas of education and provided an example of three individuals, each having different educational degrees but essentially the same interest in academic issues. Given the minor impact on overall senate membership, it is better to be inclusive in membership and provide the opportunity for interested people to participate. Furthermore, the impact of being inclusive will not hurt “academic” decisions but can add the perspective of many whose work at the College involves student learning.
S. Murphy explained the NEG committee found no clear direction when they studied faculty senate membership from Suffolk, Westchester, Duchess and Nassau community colleges. Although each was distinct, all were fairly vague in defining senate membership. Further questions or comments should be directed to Sue Cable, Chair of the NEG Committee.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Cox Terri Tugel
President Secretary
Minutes approved at the January 27, 2005 Faculty Senate meeting.
Faculty Senate
Faculty Senate Office
01/31/2005 |