Faculty Statements
-Faculty Recognition Awards nomination deadline February 26, 4 p.m.
-Degree requirements committee adjustments made to accommodate CAPP process (banner); 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.
- Accreditation has changed its focus from inventory to effectiveness. 
- The state board of higher education has been reconstituted.  Currently, the instructional administrators at the 17 community colleges are looking at dual enrollment, college now classes, and articulating a general education core curriculum as ways in which to support a shorter time to graduation.
- Unit plans have been submitted.
-Winter and spring term online evaluations will continue on a trial basis in order to improve return rates and reliability, the long-term goal is to determine the best way to collect evaluation information in the future.
- Faculty members will be sought via email for the following committees (FMT, Unit Planning Process, Budget Advisory Group)

Last (1/23/04) minutes approved

Discussion of Governance Proposal and Vice President of Instruction and Student Services position update with President Mary Spilde
-still some work to be done in the following area:  Ctr. For Conn. & Innovative Learning.  (Accreditation has been assigned to Sonya Christian, Strategic Learning Initiative has been assigned to Donna Koechig)

Position (V.P. of Instruction and Student Services)
The selection committee will soon be formed (will consist of faculty, student(s), student services member, division chairs).  Screening will go on until position closure in mid-April, interviews in last two weeks of May.  Work to be done this term in selection committee before or during application process.

Governance Overview (President Spilde)
-President Spilde presented an overview of the governance mission as a whole.  From the beginning, she recognizes the right of unions to represent and therefore appoint representatives to the governance system, and it will be up to the faculty council and the union to figure out their representation.  The President also spent time recognizing the fact that faculty has primary responsibilities for a number of matters within Governance; there will be a clear grid in the final proposal that takes this into consideration.
-Karen Louise White has resigned from her position as a Faculty Council representative on the governance task force.  Her excellent work and extensive hours on top of her full-time teaching assignment are gratefully noted.
-The ideal governance system will have issues brought up in the forefront of a discussion and decisions made at the table.  If a decision can’t be made at the table, there is an over-ride protocol in place that should be used in rare circumstances.
-Issues that aren’t agreed upon will be sent back to the council to be re-worked for resubmission.  When there is a time constraint, the administrator responsible will make the final decision and publish the rationale (for presentation to the board).
-Currently no protocol for many over-rides for one particular issue/proposal. (how many over-rides and re-workings of unresolved issues could take place?)
-March 12 deadline for feedback on proposal, to be submitted to the Board for approval in April.  Implementation plan and councils to start Spring term (April).

Discussion/Questions directed toward and answered by Mary Spilde

• What were the criteria used for college council membership set-up?
• Who needed to be there?  Who has authority/responsibility for differing areas?  Who else has (by position) a view?  Co-chair of faculty council, LCCEA President, and additional expertise as needed.
• Consider that some centralized issues are often better worked in a decentralized manner; we should think a little more and consider that the college principles don’t seem to be followed according to the proposal. 
• Reading the grid in full when released may touch on the previous concern.
• Where do we re-work issues, where does the over-ride power reside?
• We’ll figure this out as we go through the implementation process.
• Suggestion:  increase the participation of faculty in the learning council from two to four.
• We should expect that we’re all going to be as collaborative as possible, persuade all perspectives to be considered.
• This system has an innate incentive to figure out issues due to the administration involvement, and default to the administrator responsible if consensus is not reached.  In order to reach final outcome we’ll take a “wait and see” approach.
• Hope is that the formal written version of the governance system will match the practical system; we should get out of the hierarchal mindset because we all have “over-ride” power in a practical manner anyway.
• Concern:  this is one more layer in the program-approval process.
• When are the councils meeting?
• This is planning council level work, so more than once a month for now.
• Suggestion:  observation of “governance day” periodical day of no classes, set aside for college governance work, councils meet, etc. (once a week, twice a month).  Not to be considered a day off for faculty, but an in-depth work-day for college collaboration.
• Many like this idea; concern lies in the public’s perception of this “day off.”
• Observation re proposal:  pg. 15, par. 2 – this paragraph is speaking of each governance council; pg. 15, last par. – speaks of voting rights for each governance council.
• Suggestion:  fold existing mechanisms into this governance system.

Presentation of Fund IX – Tuition-based Revenue by Sonya Christian and Kay Malmberg
-Kay gave an overview of Fund IX as a special revenue fund primarily used for record-keeping purposes.
-For purposes of this presentation, we’re focusing on tuition-based classes.
-This fund will keep revenues together re tuition-based classes.  Includes the following departments:  Athletics, Mechanical Services – outside repair work, Aviation Maintenance – outside repair work, Tuition-Based, Flight Technology Program, Self-Support.
-All tuition-based classes are currently pulled from the general fund.
- Difference between tuition-based and self-support: Self-support programs, like flight technology and energy management, are not financially supported by general fund.  However, they do not pay for facilities etc.  Tuition-based are not related to programs, just individual classes.  For tuition based classes, the revenue generated by tuition must exceed the direct cost of instruction, i.e., faculty salary plus OPE.
-Concern:  why keep track of individual courses by creating separate funding?  This will only introduce new problems.  We should question the need to separate courses from each other; this introduces the worst of a market economy.
-Observation:  Historically, extra section $ were used for accounting purposes when tuition didn’t pay for instructors.  Because of current tuition rates, courses can be run on tuition, Fund IX return revenue to meet the obligation to have a fully contracted faculty. Concern expressed over the effect this approach has in increasing the use of part-time faculty.
-The impact of Fund IX is greater than merely accounting.  It will also affect current policy and the quality of instruction.  Another impact will be that part-time faculty will need to worry about how much $ it will take to run a class.
-Ironing out some misunderstandings:  the purpose of Fund IX from the beginning is supporting, not endangering the general fund.  In the end, it gives maximum flexibility to departments.
-Concern:  it will reduce the flexibility for the department chair to open up extra sections/classes.
-We should re-think how we show what departments and classes really cost. 
-Each department/division receives $100 M & S reimbursement per class, if the tuition revenue exceeds the instructor's salary + OPE.
-Question:  Are there any shortcomings to Fund IX?
-Currently, $ from the state is tied to what we teach in reimbursements but the FTE reimbursement is not reflected in the tuition-based course revenue.
- However, indirect costs are not charged.
-Departments offering tuition-based classes would include:  Math, Social Science, CIT, part of Science and few classes in other departments.
-Fund IX would (does) appear to create a positive stream back to the general fund, resulting in an area of instruction being viewed as having a profit motive.

Adjourn 4:45 p.m.