Faculty Welfare Committee Meeting Minutes (Meeting # 9: 3/17/14)

FACULTY WELFARE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES (MEETING # 9: 3/17/14):

(*) We met in the Filippi Hall Conference Room from 3:00-4:00.

(*) In Attendance: Ted Tsukahara (Chair), Jim Temple, Chris Jones, Berna Aksu, Keith Garrison, and Invited Guest: Greg Thomson, Director of Institutional Research at SMC.

I. The Minutes of the previous FWC meeting (3/03/14) were approved.

II. Old Business (Discussion Items):

A. Campus Facilities Planning Committee (CFPC) Update – Chris Jones:

1. Chris gave a brief report and update on the current state of the relationship between the Strategic Plan and The Campus Master Plan and the general status of current campus projects (e.g., Parking Garage project is set to start in June of 2015 and finish up by May of 2016).

2. General funding status of current campus projects was also reported (based on handout that Chris had from the CFPC meeting … specifics will be made available to FWC electronically).

3. Next meeting of the CFPC will be on Wednesday, April 9th, 2014.

B. Faculty Workload Survey, General Overview of Quantitative Results – Greg Thomson:

1. Greg Thomson came in for a second time to discuss elements of the Faculty Workload Survey.

2. The final (i.e., overall) response rates look good, with approximately 57-58% responding … and with 60% of females and 50% of males responding to the survey.

3. Greg presented a general overview of the initial results by: (a) Schools: SEBA, SOLA, SOS, KSOE, and by (b) Rank: Adjunct, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor.

4. He then presented Faculty Ratings of the number of hours reported (with the Means, Medians & Modes; 25th and 75th Percentiles, 75th; Standard Deviation; and Standard Error of the Mean) for each of the School and Rank listed above … in each of the following general categories:

(1) The number of hours per week spent in “Classroom Activities”; (2) The number of hours per week spent in “Preparation Activities”; (3) The number of hours per week spent in “Assessment Activities”; (4) The number of hours per week spent in “Advising Activities”; (5) The number of hours per week spent in “Scholarship Activities”; (6) The number of hours per week spent in “Departmental Service”; (7) The number of hours per week spent in “School-Related Service”; (8) The number of hours per week spent in “College-Wide Service (Elected)”; (9) The number of hours per week spent in “College-Wide Service (Other)”; (10) The number of hours per week spent in “Service (Total/All Levels of Service)”; (11) The number of hours per week spent in “All Academic Activities (Total Above)”.

5. Finally, he reported Faculty Ratings of whether they would “like to spend more or less time” engaged in each of these general activities (i.e., Classroom; Preparation; Assessment; Advising; Scholarship; and Service). Here too, he reported this information for each School and for each Rank, as well as a “General or Overall” rating).

(a) These ratings ran on a scale from 1 to 5 … with a 1 or a 2 indicating that you would like to spend less time in these activities … a 3 indicating that you thought this was just about the right amount of time to be spending in these activities … and a 4 or a 5 indicating that you would like to spend more time in these activities.

(b) Here too, Greg included Means, Medians and Modes; 25th and 75th Percentile Scores; as well as Standard Deviations and Standard Error of the Mean for each category evaluated.

C. Discussion of Strategies for Next Report on Qualitative Responses – Greg and All:

(1) We had a general discussion of strategies for the categorization of qualitative response data (i.e., a discussion of the most useful kinds of qualitative “data chunks”).

(a) Generally it was decided that we definitely want the data chunked (and/or summarized) by “Rank” (i.e., Adjunct, Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor), but NOT by “School” (i.e., SEBA, SOLA, SOS, KSOE), or by “Sex” (i.e., Male. Female) … and that we would like to have sample sizes (i.e., Ns) reported in ALL analyses.

(2) We also had an initial discussion about the kinds of things that we can and/or should publish in our report (i.e., in terms of both the quantitative and the qualitative data from the workload survey).

(a) It was unanimously agreed that all identifying information needs to be “severed” from the surveys and only “summary data” be included in the report.

(b) It was generally agreed that there would be a general or executive summary of this data in a document to be posted on the website, and that this document would be separate from (and more inclusive than) the general comments to be made by the FWC at The Academic Senate meeting at the end of the year.

(c) Greg agreed to generate a preliminary report on this qualitative data for us and get this information to us prior to our next FWC meeting so that we could have a meaningful discussion on these aspects of the survey. (d) Our next general meeting will be on Monday 3/31/14 from 3:00-4:30 in the Filippi Hall Conference Room. We will be discussing the qualitative survey data at this meeting with Greg Thomson in attendance once again to go over this data and answer any questions about it.

III. New Business – All

A. No new business being suggested, there was a movement to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 pm … this movement was passed unanimously, and with enthusiasm.

Respectfully submitted by Dr. James Alan Temple Professor of Psychology Psychology Annex (Room # 115) Saint Mary’s College of California 1928 St. Mary’s Road Moraga, CA 94556

Office Phone: (925) 631-4544 E-mail: [email protected]