Faculty Council Minutes
November 12, 2004

In attendance:

Norma Driscoll	Dennis Gilbert	Bob Barber
Mary Brau	Cynthia Adams	Sonya Christian (OISS)
Judy McKenzie	J.S. Bird	Ray Smith (Classified)
Bert Pooth	Stephen Selph	Jim Salt (LCCEA)
Sharon Kimble	Mark Harris	David Shellabarger
Peggy Oberstaller	Sue Thompson	Jim Bailey
Sheila Broderick	Sharon Hagan

The minutes of the Council meeting of 12 October 2004, were approved with corrections.

Introductions: all present introduced themselves.

Jim Salt announced that the bargaining team is gearing up for bargaining on the next contract.

There was a request to use a room where all could sit at the table. Alternately, we can rearrange the boardroom to accommodate all.

Bob Barber announced that Jim Bailey, in addition to taking over for Bob in the winter, will be joining the Degree Requirements Committee as a Faculty Council representative.

Mary Brau announced that there will be some changes in degree requirements because of changes in state-wide requirements for the ASOT. In addition, the state is pushing for a new 45 credit certificate from a General Education Transfer Module.

Sonya Christian announced that work has started in response to the accreditation evaluators preliminary recommendations: implement a regular program review process and assessment of student learning, and develop a regular and systematic way of monitoring part-time faculty evaluations.

Selection of Faculty Representative for Facilities Management Committee

Mara Levin was chosen by secret ballot.

3 To 4 Credit Conversion Committee

Instructors teaching courses taught in the Language, Literature and Communication, Art, and Social Science Divisions are being encouraged to think about changing their 3 credit classes to 4 credit classes so as to be better articulate with courses offered at other Oregon schools. There is no mandate to make these changes, but it allows for a re-evaluation of courses. The college and the committee will help to facilitate the process.

In response to a question about the existence of a benchmark for number of credits, it was noted that the Degree Requirements and Curriculum Approval committees would be looking for changes in a course, either being implemented now or that had taken place in the past, to justify increased credit for a course.

It was also noted that though the number of courses that students take, and the number of courses that faculty teach, will go down, the number of credits earned and the amount of work performed would be unchanged. There should be little financial impact. However, in some programs, a certain set of courses are required and students would be taking more credits and paying higher tuition. The same is true for students taking individual courses rather than pursuing a degree of certificate.

Online Faculty Evaluation Committee

The committee asked if they should place electronic evaluations in the path of students trying to get their grades. There was unanimous agreement that this should not be done.

1. A number of members expressed dissatisfaction with the electronic evaluation process. Several said electronic evaluations are not useful guides and so they use their own in-class evaluations.
2. The amount of student participation is still under 30%, raising doubts about how representative samples are.
3. Student perception of lack of anonymity remains problematic.
4. A centralized model of evaluation is inappropriate.
5. It is likely that tech savvy students are over-represented.