FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

April 7, 2004

Officers attending: Pam Chambers, President; Cindy Beckett, President Elect; Fred Thomas, Secretary

Senators attending: Jim Brooks, Susan Callender, Frank Clay, Myra Grinner, Kenneth Melendez, Jackie Myers, Nick Reeder, Shari Rethman, Ellen Rosengarten, Marsha Wamsley, Charles Williams

Senators not attending: Marti Shapiro

Others attending: Laurel Mayer

 Pam called the meeting to order at 2:30 in Room 6142

1.      Announcements

1.1.           Pam reported that plans for the Presidential Inauguration are progressing well and asked Senators to remind all faculty who will be attending to order their academic attire if they have not already done so.

2.      Minutes from February 25 and March 10

Both sets of minutes were approved as distributed.

3.      Proposed changes to Handbook Section 2.6.1

Pam reviewed the changes proposed by Academic Policies Committee to section 2.6.1 (attachment FSMA20040407-03A) on the timing of the FAPR process for faculty with start dates other than September 1. After brief discussion, Cindy moved to approve the proposal and Marsha seconded. The motion passed.

4.      Distance Learning Compensation

Pam reviewed the Distance Learning Compensation policy (attachment FSMA20040407-04A) proposed by the Distance Learning Compensation Policy Committee.

Jim asked for clarification about the statement in the proposal which said “in the case of an interactive classroom course, the on-campus students will constitute one section while each of the remote sites will be considered discriminate sections.” There was extensive discussion about the point, with several Senators noting that remote sites for some courses have very small numbers of students. Frank reported teaching an interactive class with 10 students, one at each of 10 different remote sites. Cindy, on the other hand, reported that some faculty are now teaching as many as 100 students simultaneously at various remote sites while being paid to teach just one section. As Senators understood the proposal, it would protect faculty from being pressured to teach multiple sections simultaneously without appropriate pay, but would still allow faculty to teach individuals or small groups at a remote site with the same compensation as for independent study students.

Shari, Pam and others said that independent study is an issue that needs to be addressed in a broader context. Jim and Shari suggested that it might be better for the policy to say explicitly that remote sites must count as separate sections when the enrollment is large enough but they could be combined with on-campus students to fill up a single section that might otherwise be cancelled for low enrollment. Ellen and Cindy described current agreements with a Cleveland High School and with Hocking College and said that agreements like these can have a very important impact on faculty workload in the future. Fred questioned whether it is appropriate to let faculty teach multiple sections simultaneously and said the same principle might be used for someone who teaches a large on-campus lecture section while being paid for teaching multiple sections.

Ellen expressed her agreement with the proposal’s adjustment in compensation for course development to reflect differences in credit hours. She also expressed concern that non-subject specialists may not be fully qualified to decide how complex it is to develop or revise a particular course. The proposal says that a rubric will be used in deciding the course development compensation, and several Senators were eager to see the rubric. Nick reported the rubric is currently under development. Cindy also noted that it remains possible for faculty to say “no” if they do not feel there is sufficient compensation for a course development or revision project.

Jim noted that the proposal does not change the compensation for people who teach videotape, audiotape, print or other non-interactive distance courses. He asked if faculty who teach in those formats are satisfied with the current compensation. Fred replied that some faculty who teach low-enrollment videotape courses are not satisfied with the compensation. Nick explained that the charge to the Distance Learning Compensation Policy Committee was to revise only the interactive formats; therefore, the Committee did not address videotape, audiotape and print-based courses. These formats do not place as great a demand on instructors' time as the interactive formats, and it seems likely that the benefits to students of the interactive formats will lead to their gradually replacing the non-interactive formats.

Susan, Frank, Shari, Jackie, Cindy and several others expressed their enthusiastic support for the proposal as a major step forward in dealing with an important and long-standing issue. The Senate’s questions about remote sections and about the rubric for course development compensation should not be allowed to delay approval or to detract from the outstanding work done by the Distance Learning Compensation Policy Committee in developing the proposal. Nick will share both the Senate’s positive view and its questions with Nancy Thibeault and the other Committee members. Final Senate action on the proposal is anticipated within two weeks.

5.      Open Forum

5.1.           Pam reported that Dr. Jacobs will participate in the Senate meeting on April 14th and asked Senators to help generate a list of issues that they would like Dr. Jacobs to discuss. Issues mentioned included budget, the results of implementing the 66-hour limit, the College’s direction with regard to ACFs and Special Adjuncts, faculty development strategies, the impact of Steve Jonas’s retirement, the LRC renovation and its impact on instruction, the development of an overall instructional plan, possible reorganization of the VPI’s duties and regional development. Ken and Susan also emphasized the need for faculty and administration to work together in achieving an integrated vision and strategy for instructional improvement over the next several years.

5.2.           Pam reminded Senators that the next Faculty Assembly meeting will be held on May 12th at 2:30. The normal Assembly meeting room, 4011, is in use until 2:30, and it may be better to move to an alternative location.

5.3.           Charlie and Jim noted that some of the interviews with candidates for the position as Director of the LRC may conflict with the next Senate meeting. They both emphasized the importance of active involvement by Senators and other faculty in that process.

5.4.           Frank asked if any Senators were aware of a rule that faculty who teach evenings cannot be required to teach before 10 am the next morning. Although several faculty remember this as a policy, no one could recall or document its having been included in the Faculty Handbook.

5.5.           Cindy reported on the Presidential Inauguration and said that space limitations will make it impossible to have faculty enter by divisions. The processional will instead be similar to that at Commencement.

5.6.           Pam said that the 2004 Commencement will again be at Hara Arena. The University of Dayton seems less interested than before in hosting any commencements for other schools, but there are still discussions underway about the location for 2005 and beyond.

The meeting adjourned at 4:08.

Submitted by Fred Thomas

Approved by Faculty Senate April 14, 2004