Faculty Senate Meeting
January 13, 1999
2:30-4:00 p.m.
Library Board Room
Senate Members in Attendance:
Phil Sell, Angi Caster, Lea Ann Pratt, Moira Fulton, Barbara Hunter, Eric Baer, Keith Paton, Robin Buchan, Patricia Haggerty, Toni Castro, Michael Allen, and Sharon Hashimoto
Observers:
Terry Meerdink, Tim Morrison, Janet Hannan, Arlina Garcia, and Santana Villa
The meeting was called to order, by the chair, Phil Sell, at 2:43 p.m.
Minutes of the December 1998 meeting were approved as read. Keith Paton moved; Patricia seconded. Motion passed.
Phil asked to move Academic Standards to the Discussion Items and the Revised Constitution to Action Items, and to add student-initiated withdrawals to the Discussion Items. The agenda was approved as amended.
Phil reported that there are currently no volunteers for chair-elect. It is still vacant with not little interest being expressed in anyone becoming it.
He reported that two faculty meetings have been scheduled. The first meeting will be held Wednesday, January 20 at 2:30 p.m. The Title III grant proposals will be the main topic for this meeting. Lonny Kaneko, Kathy Dunn, and Bob Hughes will be organizing it and sending out information to the faculty within the next few days. The second faculty meeting will be February 3 at 2:30 p.m. This meeting is being organized by Jack Harton and will include brief presentations by faculty currently offering distance learning courses, discussion of issues relating to distance learning, and discussion of the revised Faculty Senate Constitution. The individuals presenting will relate their experiences and inform other faculty as to what they could possibly expect teaching a distance learning course based on their experiences. It was noted as a point of information that HCEA will also be addressing distance learning issues in the faculty contract negotiations.
Phil remarked that significant interest has been expressed in favor of a forum for discussion of student behavior issues. HCEA is also interested in a forum for student behavior issues. Faculty Senate and HCEA will work together to coordinate a forum.
Dr. Command was unable to attend due to another obligation. He sent a written report which was distributed to the members.
No report
No Report.
No report
Santana Villa stated that ASHCC have formed a committee to address the smoking issues on campus. They are currently seeking a faculty member to lend a faculty perspective on the issues. The first meeting of this committee will be January 26 at 2:30 p.m. He noted that he foresees there being a maximum of three meetings.
Phil recommended that they contact the Health and Safety committee for input.
Santana reported that ASHCC will be going to Olympia. He stated that if interested in going, it is open to everyone, faculty included.
The Martin Luther King lock-in is January 20-21. It is an opportunity for students and faculty to build community and share the Martin Luther King dream.
He also reported that they are revising the bylaws and looking at the students’ rights and responsibilities. Input is requested from faculty to get their perspective as well as the students'.
Tim Morrison reported that the committee is continuing with the information and survey mode in regards to the CO2020 report. He stated that they are still looking for groups who will advocate for the particular issues. Tim noted that these groups are somewhat hard to identify. The committee will meet again next week. The next stage will be to start putting together a proposal, then they will seek faculty input. The goal is to make recommendations to the Senate in the spring for changes in the graduation requirements.
Robin Buchan stated that the Social Science Division discussed the proposed American Institutions requirement. He shared that the division is really split as to whether they would want to give their support. Robin noted that the division is not ready to bring this to the Senate level at this time.
Jack Bermingham and Bob Hughes are talking about the changes in the ICRC guidelines. They no longer require a 20 credit distribution in three different departments.
Tim fielded questions from the Senators. Phil commented that he liked the approach that the committee was taking this year by not addressing a single issue, but multiple issues that would have a broader impact.
Phil noted that he would like to get moving on the revised constitution as quickly as possible. He commented that it will take time to go through all of the channels for approval.
Comments on the revised constitution included the following:
Patricia noted that she would like to see Article II G from the previous constitution included in the revision. It read "The Faculty will confer Honored Scholar Awards." As a point of clarification, these are faculty awards. Past recipients of these awards were noted. They received a monetary award and special privileges.
She also noted that Counselors were not included in the revised membership. Phil clarified by stating that the counselors will be made part of a division for faculty senate purposes. The lack of part-time representation was also noted.
Another question concerned Article II B and a potential conflict with the Instructional Council. Phil commented that the current Council is a duplication of the senate.
Patricia also stated that the president should vote. Phil noted that Ed Command has the right to vote, but has never exercised it. He shared that the reasoning is that Dr. Command has separate recommending authorities. He then becomes a nonvoting ex officio member.
Michael Allen commented on the criteria for membership being tenured-only faculty. Phil reported that vulnerability of the non-tenured faculty was the issue. Michael stated that there also are some good reasons for having the non-tenured representation.
Moira Fulton moved to table the discussion until the next meeting. Angi seconded. Motion passed.
Phil shared the history of academic standards with the group as a whole. He noted the confusion of what is happening with it. Phil distributed copies of the academic standards as they currently appear in the catalog. He commented that it seems to make more sense than what we have been working on.
Phil referenced the problem as being that we need to define what happens each quarter and to develop criteria for putting a student on academic alert, probation and finally suspension.
Phil then posed the question of intended purpose of the standards and what was the rationale behind having them.
Santana asked how many students are being affected by these standards. Patricia Haggerty shared that approximately 1000 to 1100 students were affected by the first, academic alert. Toni Castro noted that about 25 students were on academic suspension last quarter.
Discussion followed as to whether it was appropriate and necessary to have these policies. It was the consensus of the group that we do indeed need these standards. There was concern noted as to whether students should be allowed to graduate while on academic suspension.
Another issue that emerged during the discussion was that of varying grading standards throughout campus. The question was why a 2.0 grade was required for some departments, when a 0.7 is deemed minimally satisfactory in the catalog. The example used was the Writing Department and their requirement of a 2.0 to move to the next level.
Patricia noted that it was Faculty Senate that set the 2.0 standard to receive a degree.
Angi suggested that this would be an appropriate discussion for the Faculty-at-Large. It was noted that we are setting a double standard campus wide.
Phil agreed that this conversation does need to be campus wide and an agreement reached on what we mean by grades.
Phil asked the Senate how we wanted to proceed. It was agreed that we need to have a suspension standard in place.
The question was raised as to whether the graduation requirement wording could be changed. The suggestion was to have it read that a student must be enrolled the quarter that he/she graduates. Patricia noted that we would have to change further points of the graduation requirement if we did this.
Eric Baer asked as to the ability of the Scholastic Review Committee to lift the suspension status for purposes of graduation. It was felt that this was within the committee’s power, but there may need to be a higher appeal made.
An ad hoc subcommittee was formed to work with the academic standards and the 2.0 issue. This committee will bring it back to the Senate or to a focused faculty forum. Angi Caster and Eric Baer agreed to serve on this committee.
Phil shared that this item has come up from the Humanities Division. Registration does not thoroughly check for prerequisites. The concern voiced being why do we have prerequisites if they are not going to be enforced.
Terry Meerdink commented that the Math instructors do get a list of those students who have passed or failed the prerequisite course. Moira asked whether it still happened. It was shared that last quarter they got the lists but were unable to remove the students without the prerequisite from the class list. The burden is placed on the instructor for removing them from the lists. Angi noted that information was coming out too late. Michael questioned whether entry codes would work, since it has proven effective for the Paralegal courses. All present were in agreement that the prerequisites should be honored. Phil stated that he will contact the Cabinet and state the need for having prerequisites checked and honored. It was also agreed that the prerequisite checking should be done after final grades have been posted.
The Faculty Senate meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
Lea Ann Pratt, Faculty Senate Secretary
1/14/99