Minutes
of the Meeting of the
Highline Community College Faculty Senate
October 4, 2006
Attended by: Phil Droke, Glen Avantaggio, Ruth Frickle, Buzz Wheeler, Katie Gulliford, Michael Armstrong, Aaron Warnock, Eric Baer, Jin Do, Darryl Brice, Rosemary Adang.
Meeting began at 3 p.m. in room 411 of the library.
Initial discussion:
As our initial head count was low, we took the time to establish that we had a quorum before proceeding.
New Business:
Chair Phil Droke noted that Jeff Wagnitz had an item of business regarding the mid-term WI for the Senate to address. Discussion was tabled until he can attend and present the issue in its entirety.
The Chair then called upon Eric Baer to present one of two items of business that he is bringing to the Senate. The Pure and Applied Science Division is concerned about the inter-college agreement among the community and technical colleges in Washington to accept each others’ degree requirements for transfer. Central to this issue is some courses that are considered Social Science at Highline are considered Pure & Applied Science at other institutions (e.g. Geography). It is the feeling of the P&A Science Division that accepting those credits toward our AA undermines the standards for the AA that have been set by the faculty. There was some discussion of whether the inter-college agreement violates the RCW with regard to institutional autonomy. Further discussion addressed good faith between colleges. The discussion was tabled until Jeff Wagnitz can be in attendance to answer questions.
The second item of business introduced by Eric Baer concerned the vote by Instructional Cabinet last spring to raise the cap on non-lab science classes. Current caps on some non lab P&AS classes are well below the typical cap of 38. The Pure & Applied Science Division presented this issue as administration interfering with curricular decisions by faculty.
Discussion then followed several tracks, one regarding the role of division chairs and whether they are considered faculty or administration when making decisions such as this. Other issues raised in discussion addressed fairness in labor/work load vis a vis other departments, whether departments could revise their caps downward and what factors were considered when Instructional Cabinet made the decision. Additionally, some questioned what role the Senate would have. Rosemary Adang suggested that it might be the Senate’s role to make a recommendation as to whether class caps are an administrative decision, a bargaining issue or a faculty/department decision. The discussion was tabled until Jeff Wagnitz and perhaps other members of Cabinet can be present to answer questions.
Lisa Bernhagen, as chair of the Scholastic Review Committee, requested that the Senate consider changing the length of the terms for seats on that committee. It was agreed that the rationale was good and Katie Gulliford will research the optimal length and get back to the Senate with the decision.
Future Business
Phil Droke mentioned that the “common course numbering” system slated to be instituted by the SBCTC may be an issue that the Senate will weigh in on. The question was raised as to whether the Senate will have any role, if the decision is a “done deal”. Possibly the decision could be reconsidered if enough faculty communicate concerns to the Board.
Other business this year will likely be a final decision regarding the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee. New members of the Senate were encouraged to review past minutes to get a sense of where the discussion left off last year.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40
The next meeting is on October 18.