FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

Feb. 23, 2005

Officers attending: Cindy Beckett, President; Jackie Myers, Vice President; Fred Thomas, Secretary

Senators attending: Derek Allen, James Brooks, Susan Callender, Frank Clay, Ryan Murphy, Amanda Romero, Art Ross, Marti Shapiro, Tom Singer, Marsha Wamsley

Senators not attending: Myra Grinner, Charles C. Williams

Others attending: Dona Fletcher, Ann Hall, Laurel Mayer, Ned Young

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

1.        Approval of Minutes

Marsha moved to approve the minutes from the Senate meeting of February 9th with corrections suggested by Jim and others. The motion passed.

2.        Officers’ Report

None.

3.        Committee Reports

None.

4.        Special Orders

None.

5.        Unfinished Business

5.1.         Ellen’s Memorial

Cindy provided an update on plans for a paver.

5.2.         Strategy for Office Hour Policy

Cindy and Jackie referred to the revised draft questionnaire about how and when students communicate out of class with their instructors. Derek and Jim made additional suggestions which Cindy and Jackie will incorporate into the final version. Cindy will distribute the final questionnaire to all Senators, who will give it to students in their classes. Senators are to report the results at the Senate meeting on March 9th.

5.3.         Merit Proposal Results / Next Steps

Cindy reported that the Personnel Committee will meet on February 24th to review and summarize comments from faculty about the proposed changes to merit. Once tallied, the results will be distributed to Senate.

5.4.         Faculty Workload and Lab Hours

Data on the opinions of ALH faculty about increasing the maximum workload to 72 payhours were not available in time for the previous meeting. Marsha reported 12 ALH faculty were in favor of increasing the maximum load, 6 opposed the increase and 7 were “on the fence.” She also reported that 20 faculty favored changing lab and clinical hours to be paid at 1:1, none opposed this change and 4 were undecided.

6.        New Business

6.1.         Place of Remembrance

Tom read a recommendation from Forrest Cope:

“That Sinclair Community College, in concert with Sinclair Faculty Senate, design and build a place of remembrance for our faculty who have passed away while employed as full time faculty.

Consideration for the ‘place of remembrance’:

1.  Be located on or is a permanent area.

2.  Be of material that represents beauty and durability.

3.  Be of a size and stature that brings respect and dignity for our deceased colleagues.”

Marti moved to accept the recommendation and Tom seconded. The motion passed.

6.2.         Contact with OEA/NEA Representative

Jim said a faculty member in his division had talked with a representative of the Ohio Education Association (OEA / NEA), who is interested in meeting with Sinclair’s Faculty Senate. Jim said he was not making a formal motion but wanted Senate to discuss the idea. There was a brief but vigorous discussion. Several Senators wanted more information about what Senate might gain by talking with this representative. Tom suggested that it might be more appropriate to ask the representative for a written position statement rather than meeting directly. Fred expressed his support for talking with the representative as a way for Senate to learn more about faculty salaries and related matters at other Ohio colleges. Cindy described some of her interactions with members of Ohio Faculty Senate who teach at community colleges with collective bargaining and said she saw no reason to hear or read information from a representative of OEA. Cindy also made it clear that there should be no invitation in the name of Faculty Senate for either a meeting or a written statement from this person unless a formal motion is approved by Senate. Cindy expressed her strong opinion that Senate should not talk with anyone associated with a potential bargaining agent without first having extensive discussions with faculty and then only if a majority of faculty support the invitation."

6.3.         Committee on Committees

Cindy welcomed Hank Dunn, Vice President for Student Services, to the meeting. Hank explained that Sinclair is reviewing all College-wide “organizational entities” to create a better database, to promote broader participation and to help ensure that the business of the College is carried out efficiently. All College-wide groups with the exception of Faculty Senate and Staff Senate will expire on June 30, 2005, and these groups need to be reauthorized if they are to continue. The necessary form is available at http://ourold.sinclair.edu/sites/committees/docs/organizentity.pdf. The reauthorization includes requirements that each entity specify its membership in terms of positions (e.g., “two chairpersons”), not in terms of individuals, and that each have a sponsor who reports to Sinclair’s President. President’s Council will review submissions and authorize the entities that will continue.

Amanda asked if current committee members will continue on the committees after June 30. Hank replied that the membership generally will continue as planned for the 2005-06 academic year. Frank noted that there are many division-level committees that impact faculty workload and asked why those were not included in the policy. Hank expressed sympathy for including division-level committees but explained that the current effort is limited to College-wide entities.

6.4.         FITs Strategy / Discussion

Cindy welcomed Ned Young to the meeting. Ned explained that there is a very good relationship between Faculty Senate and the FITs team and that he had requested additional time with Senate to build still closer cooperation, to share information and to plan strategy. The administrative members of the FITs team have agreed to let the faculty FITs members prepare a proposal, and Ned wants to develop a process under which faculty can use this proactive approach every year.

Ned reviewed the on-going efforts to collect information important to the FITs process, including a survey that has been sent to over 40 colleges. The team is also planning to visit several Ohio community colleges to collect information about how they are similar to or different from Sinclair in their overall compensation systems. In the past it has sometimes been difficult, for example, to know how merit, summer and overload pay and health benefits might impact Sinclair’s relative standing among Ohio colleges. The information collected will not be a substantial factor in the 2005-06 FITs agreement, but it could help lay the foundation for major changes in 2006-07 and beyond.

Ned distributed summary data from the fall faculty survey, including spreadsheets showing the ratings of tenure-track faculty (attachment FSMA20050223-01) and ACF faculty (attachment FSMA20050223-02) and a record of written comments (attachment FSMA20050223-03). He also distributed copies of the FITs agreement that was implemented for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 academic years (attachment FSMA20050223-04). In response to questions, Ned reported that the latest data available (from 2003-04) shows Sinclair ranking fifth in average salary, behind Cuyahoga, Lakeland, Lorain and Cincinnati State. Columbus State and Terra complete the list of the top community colleges in Ohio in terms of faculty salaries, with all other colleges rather far behind this group of seven.

There was extensive discussion related to FITs, and Senate agreed to hold a special meeting on Wednesday, March 2nd to continue the discussion. Cindy also encouraged Senators and other faculty to send their comments directly to Ned.

7.        Announcements

None.

The meeting adjourned at 4:03.

Submitted by Fred Thomas

Approved by Senate, March 9, 2005