Cabrini College Faculty Senate

Meeting Minutes – September 28, 2006

In attendance: K. Acker, K. Arp, M. Bare, E. Barenbaum, A. Bethany, N. Bolufer- Laurentie, J. Brown, B. Bryde, S. Dixon, D. Dunbar, S. Fuller-Espie, J. Gingerich, L. Groves, C. Halpern, M. Johnson, J. Komp, C. Kule, H. Lape, K. McKinley, R. Paolucci, R. Remley, R. Robb, J. Romano, S. Schwarze, C. Serotta, A. Servey, J. Smith, T. Stretton, M. Terlecki, A. Tomasco, N. Watterson, P. Wright, C. Yungmann.

The meeting was convened at 3:20 by the Chair, Sherry Fuller-Espie. Kathy McKinley noted that she did not use the word “intimidation” as was reflected in the August 2006 minutes so it was agreed that this word should be struck from the August minutes. Afterwards, Tom Stretton made a motion to approve the August 2006 minutes. The minutes of the August 31, 2006 meeting were then approved by a show of hands.

I. Faculty Senate Dues Sherry stressed that Faculty Senate dues are due. Natacha Bolufer-Laurentie discussed the possibility of pro-rating faculty senate dues according to an instructor/professors rank. Sherry Fuller-Espie asked and Natacha accepted to bring a proposal of pro-rating Faculty Senate dues to the next meeting. Tom Stretton asked how we should handle the money that is part of the faculty senate treasury if or when there is no longer a Faculty Senate. An end of year social event was discussed as a possible solution.

II. Committee Reports A. Adjunct Faculty Committee – The Chair Harvey Lape indicated that the committee plans on crafting an adjunct survey form for adjuncts to fill out so the committee and the administration has a more informed idea about concerns of our adjunct faculty population. By December of this year the committee will be soliciting nominations for Adjunct Faculty of the Year Award. Harvey indicated that anyone in the college community can nominate someone for this award. Harvey also indicated that the committee will be working on putting together some kind of equitable adjunct faculty benefits package such as tuition remissions. B. Faculty Evaluation – John Brown reported no new work for this committee. Sherry Fuller-Espie indicated that she still plans on being a member of this committee. C. Faculty Grant – The Chair Nick Uliano was unable to attend the meeting as he was at an institutional advancement meeting. Sherry indicated that the fall Faculty Forum will take place on October the 26th in the Grace Hall Board Room at 3:10. The presenters will be Jan Buzydlowski, Melissa Terlecki, Sherry Fuller-Espie and Chris Kule. D. PTC – Sherry indicated that Kim Boyd was recently elected Chair of PTC. Kim could not attend the meeting but she communicated to Sherry that PTC will not play a role in Handbook-related issues unless the Faculty Senate wants the committee to do so. Tenure portfolios were due on October the 1st. Katie Acker wanted to know if PTC will be involved in post-tenure review in the format of the new Handbook. Ruby Remley would like to know what the criteria will be for post-tenure review. Sharon Schwarze indicated that Faculty Senate should have a voice in the post-tenure review process for the new Handbook model. Kathy McKinley suggested that PTC should have input under the existing Handbook structure for a post-tenure review. A number of people indicated that perhaps the faculty should focus on chapter 1 concerns of the Handbook for now. E. Salary, Benefits & Working Conditions – The Chair Phil Matilsky could not attend but another member of the committee indicated that Howard Holden is looking over working condition grievance issues that were brought his attention through Phil’s efforts. The committee will meet sometime next week. F. Mentoring – The Chair Cindy Halpern indicated that there are a total of eight workshops planned for new faculty; four in the fall and four in the spring. In the various workshops planned, Tom Stretton agreed to talk about SIR reports, Seth Frechie about the CORE, Charlie McCormick about the Honor’s program and Kim Boyd about advising issues. Sherry Fuller-Espic agreed to talk about syllabus crafting in the spring. The first workshop is planned for October the 4th. Ann Servey made a comment that perhaps the Mentoring Committee should be open to adjuncts. Kathy Yungmann suggested that adjunct issue responsibilities should be handled through Academic Affairs. Cindy also indicated that Tom Stretton will mentor Jeanne Komp, Seth Frechie will mentor Abby Walls McGovern, Dawn Francis will mentor Kimberly Arp, April Perrymore will mentor Beverly Bryde, Katie Acker will mentor Laura Groves, Kathy McKinley will mentor Roger Mecouch, Carol Kessler will mentor Nancy Watterson and Rocco Paolucci will mentor Paul Wright. G. Student Grievance – The Chair, John Brown, indicated that there were no student grievances to report. H. Technology – Jerry Zurek is the Pro-tem chair. The committee has not met yet this semester. I. Social – The Chair Ruby Remley indicated that there will be a potluck social event next May sometime, as usual. Another idea is to have an additional social event at some point during the academic year at a restaurant/bar with finger foods. Ruby solicited feedback to determine if we should have a “pay as you go” bar format or perhaps make it an open bar? In either format, Ruby would also alike to know what amount of money would be appropriate for faculty to pay. A survey was distributed to determine preferences. J. Handbook Revision – Sharon Schwarze agreed to chair this committee. Details of committee work are presented separately.

Sherry indicated that both the Faculty Evaluation and Mentoring Committees are currently underrepresented. Sharon Schwarze, Carrol Serrota and Beverly Bryde agreed to serve on the Faculty Evaluation Committee. III. Presentation of the Ad Hoc Faculty Review Handbook Revision Committee A PowerPoint presentation of Faculty Handbook concerns was given by committee members. The members are Sharon Schwarze, Ruby Remley, Tony Tomasco, Margo Bare, Ray Robb and Kathy McKinley. These members shared their concerns and suggestions of the proposed Handbook model constructed by the Handbook Steering Committee. The following are eight items that were taken from the PowerPoint presentation presented by the Handbook Revision Committee.

1. There were two concerns related to the Nominating and Appointment Board. One concern is that there is no indication how the Nominating Board is created and that the Board will be self-perpetuating. A suggestion is that the first Nominating and Appointment Board be elected from a slate of candidates that includes the entire full-time faculty by a vote of the entire faculty. Another concern is that in the latest version the slate and ballot of the Nominating Committee must be endorsed by the Academic Planning Committee. A suggestion is to eliminate this step. This step is unnecessary and suggests a lack of trust in our peers.

2. A concern of the proposed College Council is that it will be composed of seven faculty members, nine administrators and three students. A suggestion would be that the representative of the Wolfington Center, the Director of Cooperative Education, the Coordinator of Study Aboad, and the Director of the Honor’s Program be asked to attend the College Council only when their input is directly needed, not as regular Council members.

3. The VPAA would be a member of the Faculty Cabinet in the revised model. A suggestion would be that there are many opportunities for collegiality throughout the model without this overlap between the Faculty Cabinet and the President’s Cabinet. A suggestion was to make this an all faculty body. VPAA is already in the President’s Cabinet.

4. The Academic Planning Committee and its two subcommittees are chaired by the VPAA who is the only member of any of these committees who serves on all three of them. A suggestion is that the two subcommittees, the New Program Board and the Program Review Board, should be chaired by a faculty member chosen from among the faculty on the committee. The VPAA may sit on these two committees ex officio.

5. Faculty Assembly would be led by the Chair of Faculty Assembly, Chair of College Council, Chair of Faculty Development and Advancement and Chairs (2) of Academic Planning. One of those Chairs of Academic Planning is the VPAA. A suggestion is that the VPAA should sit ex officio on Faculty Assembly but should not serve as an officer of the Faculty Body. 6. The Presidential power “to deny an action or recommendation” even after voted on by the Faculty Assembly is open ended and allows for veto without reconsideration or override. A suggestion is to use AUPP wording at the very minimum. According to the AUPP, presidential power to deny or override an action or recommendation should be used “in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.”

7. All Committees are defined as having as the first responsibility “to develop policies and procedures that support the College’s Strategic Plan and the priorities of the Academic Planning Committee.” A concern is that committees will become instruments for carrying out academic policies made by the administration. A major recommendation of administrative and ad hoc committees that formulate academic policy, or academic strategic initiatives (Strategic Plan, Academic Strategic Initiatives) is that they are to be submitted to the Faculty Assembly for review, discussion and a vote of support or non- support prior to submission to the Board.

8. Concerning Salary and Benefits, there is no place within the existing model for consideration of faculty benefits and salary. A suggestion would be for procedures for an annual review of the Faculty Salary and Benefits to be assigned to an appropriate committee, one chaired by a Faculty Member, elected by the faculty. According to AAUP standards on salary, “the faculty should actively participate in the determination of policies and procedures governing salary increases.”

Katie Acker suggested that we continue our dialogue with the Handbook Review Committee report at a later time. This suggestion was made because there was more to discuss and many faculty could not stay due to classes they were about to teach. A follow-up meeting was decided to take place in the SET Lecture Hall starting at 3:10 on Tuesday October the 3rd.

IV. Announcements David Dunbar handed out fliers describing Cabrini Day Morning Activities. The date and times of morning activities will be from 9:15-11:00 on November the 14th.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45.

Respectfully submitted,

David Dunbar Secretary, Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes – October 3, 2006

In attendance: K. Acker, K. Arp, M. Bare, E. Barenbaum, S. Dixon, D. Dunbar, S. Fuller-Espie, L. Groves, M. Harris, M. Johnson, C. Kule, K. McKinley, R. Paolucci, R. Remley, R. Robb, S. Schwarze, C. Serotta, J. Smith, T. Stretton, A. Tomasco, M. Waring-Chaffe.

Faculty Senate was reconvened at 3:27 in the SET Lecture Hall. The members of the Ad Hoc Handbook Revision Committee continued their dialogue on faculty concerns related to the current Handbook revisions. Several concerns were raised regarding the future handbook. Do all new academic programs fall under the Academic Planning Committee? Sharon Schwarze shared concerns that the Nominating Committee might not be able to work without oversight of the Academic Planning Committee. Sharon also indicated that in the current model, there is no place for faculty to get together and discuss various faculty-related issues without administrative oversight. Katie Acker wanted to know what kind of committee service is expected of new faculty compared to more senior faculty if the new model gets approved in its present format. Mary Harris suggested that the new Handbook have wording in it so non-tenured faculty can be placed on key Committees, an important consideration for faculty promotions. Ruby Remley wanted to know if there would be ramifications if faculty decided not to serve on a particular committee. A point was brought up that salary and benefits does not appear in the new governance model. AUUP guidelines say that faculty should be involved in salary and benefits. Tony Tomasco wanted to know what faculty will have primacy over in the future governance model. Tony Tomasco remembers that at the May Faculty Development workshop Jolyon Girard indicating that AAUP should have a look at the revised handbook before it gets finalized. A point was brought up whether the Handbook Steering Committee ever mentioned taking the Handbook draft to AAUP at any of its meetings. Sherry then suggested that faculty should seriously consider becoming an AAUP member. Tom Stretton indicated that Middle States mandated approval before the end of the current academic year. Apparently Middle States got an official timeline in how the revised Handbook procedure will unfold.

Near the end of the meeting, faculty agreed to come up with a list of three to five concerns/questions to bring to the attention of the Steering Committee. Katie Acker asked Sherry if she would be willing to submit a letter endorsed by Faculty Senate outlining Handbook concerns to the Co-Chairs of the Handbook Steering Committee, Jonnie Guerra and Jolyon Girard including timeline, selection of the Nominating and Appointment Board, and review of the Handbook by an AAUP representative. This motion was endorsed by the faculty and Sherry agreed to do so

The meeting was adjourned at 4:28.

Respectfully submitted,

David Dunbar Secretary, Faculty Senate