Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

October 18, 2006

Senate members in attendance:

Ruth Frickle, Glen Avantaggio, Jeff Wagnitz, Eena Hibbs, Aaron Warnock, Darryl Brice, Eric Baer, Buzz Wheeler, Phil Droke, Rosemary Adang, Michael Armstrong, Rolita Flores Ezeonu

Guest: Jack Bermingham

The meeting was called to order at 3:02 by Chair Phil Droke.

The primary agenda item was the information provided by Dr. Bermingham regarding SBTCC’s plan for common course numbering.  Dr. Bermingham presented the idea that the scheme seems innocuous on the surface, but has problematic implications. 

In particular Dr. Bermingham raised some potential problems that would be considered curricular and impact on degree requirements, making the plan of critical interest to faculty and therefore the Senate. Changing course numbers and/or names, especially changes that impact on department names or the departments to which courses are assigned has the potential to impact our degree requirements (e.g. distribution requirements).  The history of the institution has driven the present choices and those decisions were substantive.  Additionally, administrative issues would arise with respect to hiring faculty, existing contracts and contract language.

The State Board may call together “experts” to make determinations about renumbering and renaming courses that are not clearly in one category or another.  It is in our interest to be involved in the selection of the “experts” and be represented in such decisions.

Professional-Technical courses will need numbers that make sense in the specific program.  The example given was the distinction between Administration of Justice and Criminal Justice as program names and numbers.

In the discussion that ensued several points were made and questions raised:

Does the college have a choice about participating?

Does this push us closer to a requirement that our courses be identical across the system?

Does this limit the ability of the colleges to be unique entities?

If so, will it have negative effect on students feeling a connection to the college, and by extension a negative impact on degree completion?

Course numbering is a faculty issue, we determine the course number when the CAF is submitted.

Jeff Wagnitz noted that the current system of diverse curriculum does not preclude ease of transfer.  In fact, articulation is quite smooth without common course numbering.

Phil Droke and Jeff Wagnitz provided some background on the SBTCC’s apparent lack of interest in college input and its seemingly independent decision to move forward with the common course numbering plan.  Dr. Bermingham gave an example of poor communication by the SBTCC to the colleges regarding the plan. Specifically a meeting is scheduled for December 1^st where specially selected faculty (statewide) will address the issue of courses whose assignments are not immediately obvious.  Participating faculty have not been identified, nor has the process by which they will be selected.

Jeff reported that at the last WAC meeting the group voted to have the plan reviewed by the Education Services Committee and to delay implementation by a year.  Jeff will also be participating in the December 1^st meetings.

Mike Armstrong and Eric Baer moved that we hold faculty forums about the plan and whether HCC faculty should take a position on the plan.  The motion was seconded and approved.  The forums were scheduled for Wednesday, November 1 at 1:30 and Friday, November 3 at noon.  Refreshments were planned for both meetings. Phil will notify the faculty.

As part of the discussion about the forums and their content, Glen Avantaggio commented on the relationship between the common course numbering plan and the homogenization of higher education and the de-professionalization of education.

The minutes of the last meeting of 2005-2006 were approved, with three abstentions.  The minutes of the meeting on October 4, 2006 were unanimously approved.

This meeting was adjourned at 3:50