June 5, 2002

Officers attending: Russ Marcks, President; Pam Chambers, Vice President; Fred Thomas, Secretary

Senators attending: Cindy Beckett, Susan Callender, Forrest Cope, Roxann DeLaet, George Hageman, Bob Reas, Vann Rogers, Ellen Rosengarten, Mike Smith

Not attending: Frank Clay, Rick Jurus, Kenneth Melendez,

Others attending: Barry Grady, Laurel Mayer, Nick Reeder, Gary Tucker

Russ called the meeting to order at 2:36 in room 6142.

1.      Minutes from May 29, 2002

Ellen moved to approve the minutes from May 29th as distributed. The motion passed.

2.      Elections (added agenda item)

Russ reported that there were 164 tenure-track faculty who did not vote during the first two days of the vote on the proposed Constitutional amendments. He provided Senators with ballots and labeled envelopes for faculty in their divisions who had yet not voted. Senators were instructed to contact each faculty member who had not yet voted. The faculty members will be asked to complete the ballot in the Senator's presence, to seal it in an unmarked envelope, to seal that envelope in the envelop with her or his name and to sign the outer envelope, then to return the ballot to the Senator. Senators also received the printed explanation of the proposed amendments. Voting will end at 5:00 pm, Friday, June 7. Senators are to return all ballots to the Senate office between 9:00 and 11:00 am, Monday, June 10.

3.      Report on MTF / ACF meeting

Russ and Pam reported on the meeting held June 3rd for Monitoring Task Force (MTF) and Annually Contracted Faculty. About 30 ACFs participated in the meeting.

Russ said there appear to be cases, in which ACFs are required to coordinate programs, develop curriculum, provide advising and carry out other activities that are outside their job description. Dr. Jacobs will lead an effort to provide a more consistent definition of appropriate processes and expectations for ACFs.

Another major concern expressed by ACFs at the meeting concerned recognition for their work. Russ suggested that one possible solution would be to pay ACFs for extra work such as curriculum development through personal service agreements. Some form of recognition is likely to be proposed. The issue of annual contracts per se did not seem to be a major concern of ACFs. Russ also said that representation of ACFs was not as big an issue as he expected. They want to continue meetings of this sort, but it does not seem likely that they will be in the form of an ACF Senate.

Gary asked for clarification about ACF attitudes regarding work assignments beyond their job description. Russ replied that many ACFs did welcome the extra responsibility, but they want recognition for it. Gary pointed out that many chairs have asked repeatedly that ACF positions be replaced with tenure-track positions, and Russ agreed that the problem is often one of workload.

Ellen asked about the reaction of ACFs when it was said that ACFs have only a 3% chance of becoming tenure-track. Russ replied that searches for tenure-track faculty are conducted primarily by departmental faculty. In the future, these searches will all be external, with current ACFs also invited to apply.

Forrest and Cindy reminded Senate that it passed a resolution to support ACFs in forming their own organization. Barry suggested that another alternative might be an ACF subcommittee within Faculty Senate, perhaps with the head of that subcommittee voting only on issues that directly involve ACFs. Although Russ agreed this is a great idea, he and Cindy noted possible problems in identifying which issues solely affect ACF and which solely affect tenure track.  Also indicated was potential difficulty in matching the structure to that provided for the chair's and counselor's organizations. Susan suggested that ACFs need to be proactive in establishing an organization for themselves.

Russ suggested that there may be an opportunity to improve the mentoring and training of new chairs to improve the consistency of policies across departments. Pam will be preparing a more detailed report on the MTF/ACF meeting.

4.      FITs

Russ and Pam reviewed the membership of the FITs team. Ken Kimble, the current chair, has said that he does not want to continue on the team. Senate expressed its appreciation for Ken's long service in that difficult position.

There was extensive discussion about alternative ways of rotating membership on the FITs team to satisfy the needs for both continuity and fresh ideas. Complications include the fact that some agreements cover three years while others cover one or two, and the role of FITs is quite different during multiple-year agreements. Another complication is that the Assembly Vice-President Elect now serves on FITs for 5 years, one year as VP, two years as President, and two years as Past-President. That extended commitment may discourage some potential candidates.

Cindy moved that the remaining five members of FITs be asked to continue next year and that the VP-elect (to be chosen in spring of next year) be asked to serve on FITs for four years. Mike seconded the motion. The motion passed.

Addressing an issue he raised earlier about the national benchmark used by FITs, Fred distributed a summary on the definition of "faculty" in the AAUP institutional reports. John Curtis (Director of Research for the AAUP report) has said that the intent of the report is for institutions to include all full-time faculty with year-long contracts, although the instructions sent to institutions have been less clear than they should be. Sinclair has reported having zero unranked full-time faculty. Fred also distributed an estimate of how the Sinclair average salary would have changed if ACFs had been reported. He said the average Sinclair salary would have been $48,309 or 99.7% of the national average for Category III and IV schools.

Fred asked whether or not institutional merit is included in the FITs agreement just reached for 2002-2003. Russ replied that the answer is not yet clear. One view is that the 2002-2003 raise is a catch-up for missing the 2001-2002 goal, and there is no longer any benchmark and there is now no institutional merit since it was not included in the agreement. Another view is that the pay increases are still based on "99%" of the benchmark, and the remaining 1% is still "at risk" and dependent on achieving Sinclair's institutional goals. Steve Jonas has said that he understood institutional merit was to continue until stopped. Cindy emphasized the need to have the decisions on issues such as this included as part of a clear, written agreement.

5.      Open Forum

5.1.           Forrest expressed again his concern about establishing a memorial for faculty. Pam will discuss the memorial with President Sifferlen.

5.2.           Russ reminded Senate that the issue of tuition for non-custodial children is one that needs to be considered next year. Cindy and Ellen mentioned a retrenchment policy as another issue needing attention next year. Mike suggested that sick leave policies should also be considered.

5.3.           Forrest recommended that a College newsletter for retirees be established.

5.4.           Russ requested input from Senators about possible dates for the Senate retreat with administrators during the early part of the summer. Newly elected as well as departing Senators are encouraged to participate.

The meeting adjourned at 4:06.

Submitted by Fred Thomas

Approved by Senate, June 12, 2002