2011 Archive - Lane Community College

Faculty Council Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2004
Approved March 12, 2004

Present Council and Ex-Officio Members:

Mason Davis
Bob Barber
Shannon Gaul
Sheila Broderick
Larry Scott
David Leung

Daphne Gabrieli
Mark Williams
Judy McKenzie
Alice Whitenack
Norma Driscoll
Sonya Christian (OISS)

Norma Driscoll
Sue Thompson
Benedict Nmah
Mark Harris
Laura Maitland
Ryan Cushing (ASLCC)

Sharon Hagan
Bert Pooth
Karen Krumrey-Fulks
Jim Salt(LCCEA)
Ray Smith
Mary Brau

Guests
Jeff Davis (Continuing Education) Lida Herberger (Continuing Education)
David Shellabarger (Elect. Eval. Of Inst. Comm.)
Sharon Kimble (Business Technology) Bob Purscelly (Manager, Florence Campus)
Don Strahan (Manager, Cottage Grove Campus)
Tim Craig (AVP, Community Education)

Faculty Statements
Portal workgroup post-Luminus presentation/discussion

On March 12 there will be an open discussion re Governance proposal. Bob delivered a handout to be used in Governance discussions (Faculty Decision Making and Participation in the College Governance System at Lane Community College) to help faculty consider the many complex and important issues involved in faculty decision-making. Monday, March 1, the entire Learning Council Decision Matrix will be posted on the Faculty Council website: http://teach.lanecc.edu/facultycouncil

2/13/04 Minutes
Approved with minor edit: Page 1, Faculty Statements (second bullet)

Degree requirements committee adjustments made to accommodate CAPP process (Banner program for degree evaluation); approvals/progress: # of terms required; not yet affirmed are requests to add changes in PE requirements. E-mail from Mary Brau can be provided if further elaboration requested.

Electronic Evaluation Committee Report/Discussion
Shannon Gaul and David Shellabarger presented short-term goals, long-term goals, and faculty representation (with handout).
-Issues for future agenda:

1 – equal opportunity for each student to evaluate each course, and

2 – anonymity issue

-Confidentiality statement should give students confidence to evaluate online.
-Could the low response rate be due to access problems?

Efforts to improve access for winter term have included reducing ten steps to five on ExpressLane website; improvements in procedures have made the evaluations more accessible.

-We should consider that some students don’t like the option of online evaluations. There should be a survey to students about the change so we aren’t second-guessing student opinions.

-a long-term goal is to shorten the process.

-consider student reminder (a “nag screen”) that evaluations are available.

In-Service Committee Report
-Currently working on specific details, planning agendas.

-Theme: “We will meet you where you are and take you further”

-Will be bringing a wellness campaign to campus and the web.

-Plan for spring term (April 23): Focus: Working together – Privilege, Power, and Difference in our lives.

-Keynote speaker will be Allen Johnson.

-Survey for unfiltered input by forwarding to the author complete picture?

Action item - Accreditation Standard 2.H.1 Proposals and Discussion
A handout was distributed re Accreditation Standard 2.G and 2.H (2.H.1 in question); the suggestions should be used as models to generate discussion re “what should this standard look like?”

-suggestion: keep in mind the practical side, how much involvement should we ask regular faculty on top of present commitments and responsibilities?

-2.G covers a lot, including non-credit, 2.H covers only non-credit programs and courses

-2.H.1 seems vague: which “faculty?” and what is “as appropriate?”

-Guests representing Continuing Education were present today to add a perspective on the accreditation decision at hand, surveyed college relationship with accreditation.

-suggestion: consider the collectivity in the term “faculty”

-Why can’t divisions offer non-credit classes?

-for future discussion: How does Adult Basic and Secondary Education fit in the Accreditation process?

-consider that Standard 4 goes hand-in-hand with Standard 2.H.1.

-need a model that allows for continuing education side to identify courses that relate to a credit area, decide where all classes fit in.

-A motion was raised to include a non-credit participant on faculty council, seconded.

MAJORITY VOTE - A participant from the non-credit side will be on faculty council, co-chairs will follow-up with this decision.

Selection of Faculty Council Representatives for the Selection Committee for VP of OISS
Faculty members were invited to make statements of qualification to represent the Faculty Council on this Selection Committee. Two written statements were considered as well as one spoken statement at today’s meeting. Due to the number of statements submitted, a vote was in order to choose who will be on the Committee. Tally vote was by secret ballot, voters to vote for two of the three nominees. Motion: Set forth a policy that present Council nominees abstain from votes on representation; motion tabled.

VOTE RESULTS - Mark Harris and Mary Brau will serve as Faculty Council representatives for the selection committee for VP of OISS.

Instructional Technology Proposed Reorganization
Steve Pruch, AVP for Information Technology, presented some insight on the evolvement and reorganization of the IT Department. Reasons for this change are:

1 – to complete work started in 2000,

2 – to update/align IT organization to meet changing technology, and

3 – to clarify roles and responsibilities of staff.

Other pressures of the IT Department include:

1 – 24/7 shop with 8x5 staffing,

2 – responsibility to college initiatives re technology: workstation replacement –increasing budget (all effort falls on IT Dept.), and

3 – pending implementations and expansions.

-Objectives of this change are:

1 – to make the most of existing staff,

2 – to provide technology services in response to instructional objectives,

3 – to strengthen day-to-day operations management, and

4 – to create the capacity to work on planning.

-Proposed: no elimination or addition of services, some rearranging/aligning of assignments and a proposed management position that is not currently in the budget. Will include a much more centralized Administrative Services Department, three management positions: AVP for TT, Tech. Support Services, Tech. Infrastructure Services, and will streamline troubleshooting (simple alignment).

Discussion/Q&A – IT Reorganization
-At what stage of the process are we at, why is this being brought before Faculty Council?

This has to go before the board in order to make the change; it’s a courtesy for the Faculty Council to be involved in some discussion about the issue.

-There seems to be lots of supprt for technological growth, but little support for instructional growth. We need to discuss this further for the large instructional component.

All service staff, no instructional – how do we link intention of instruction with support side? Need for further discussion on this issue.
-suggestion: this doesn’t seem like a structural problem, it sounds like a problem with personal relationships; there’s a concern that there may be barriers for getting the job done.

-suggestion: we should make sure that the vacant management position is filled by a faculty member.

-What is the impact of this change on the ability to better serve (create) an instructional link?

If we can get the new positions established, we’ll push the connection with instructional staff as high as possible so the ratio would be balanced: one-third instructional, one-third administrative, and one-third president.

-What will be the role of the functional council? How will IT council make sure there’s sufficient policy to make the link take place?

The function of the IT council will take a vision perspective.

-suggestion: trade-offs at operational/classroom level seem negative.

-suggestion: want to hear the criteria that make something primarily tech as opposed to primarily instruction, too much focus on the computers.