Faculty Council Minutes
May 26, 2006

In attendance:

Bert Pooth (Sci)	Christine Seifert (ESL)	Lynn Tullis (LLC)
Sheila Broderick (Soc. Sci.)	Mary Brau (IRAP/Curr.)	Judy McKenzie (ALS)
Dennis Gilbert (Sci.)	Jim Bailey (CIT)	Christina Salter (Counseling)
Stephen Selph (Math)	Sharon Kimble (Bus.)	Liz Dickey (Evaluation Committee)
Sonya Christian (OISS)	Karen Louise White (Math)	Stacey Kiser (Evaluation Committee)
Alice Whitenack (ABSE)	Larry Scott (Co-op Ed.)
Jim Salt (LCCEA)	Jane Batterson (Fam. Hlth.)

Approval of the minutes of the Council meeting of April 14, 2006:
Minutes of the May 12 meeting will be circulated and approved by e-mail.

Reports and Announcements:
Mary Brau noted the increasing problem of degrees being obtained from diploma mills.
This is big business. Alan Contreras (Oregon Office of Degree Authorization) has made a list of these mills, available at http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/diploma_mill.html

Two websites identify accredited institutions:
http://www.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm
http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

Dennis Gilbert reported that a number of science faculty members made statements to the Budget committee concerning the proposed cuts for next year.

Alice Whitenack raised a number of concerns expressed at the Diversity Council:

1. Diversity is the only governance council that does not have a VP in its membership, even though diversity is one of Laneís core values.
2. What role will the Diversity Council play in the fundamental redesign?
3. Laneís faculty continues to become less diverse as we lose faculty of color, etc.

Alice also reported that the council is working on a new Diversity Plan.

Lynn Tullis reported that conversion from 3 to 4 credits is continuing and that LLC and
that faculty had been assured that the conversion would not result in increased work-
loads.

Jim Salt made the following reports:

1. A pre-design of the fundamental redesign is under way. The process committee includes Jim (President, LCCEA), Ken Zimmerman (Chair, Learning Council), Katie Morrison-Graham (Co-chair, SLI) and Sheila Broderick and Bert Pooth (co-chairs, Faculty Council).
   Some concerns:

   a. How will this be done?
   b. Who will have authority to make changes?
   c. How will the academic rights of faculty be safe-guarded?

2. The new LCCEA contract is available on the association web site. Pay increases and retro-active pay should be in the June 23 paycheck.
3. There are indications that the administration is pursuing work-load and class size changes.

Judy McKenzie reported that the Syllabus harassment committee is completing its
work and will report at the next meeting.

Sonya Christian reported:

1. Much of the fundamental redesign work will be done at the department/division level. More information will be made available next year than was the case this year, and it will be available during fall term.
2. Facilities upgrades contemplated include the downtown center and the forum building.
3. A group of faculty, with Linda Loft, Jane Benjamin, Sarah Ulerick and Lynn Songer as PIs, received an NSF grant to establish a GIS program at Lane.

Christina Salter noted that Shirlee Ford will be retiring.

Co-Chair nominations
The question of whether the council should continue to have co-chairs of a single chair was raised. It was noted that a change to a single chair would require an amendment to the charter.
Two candidates for Co-chair were announced:

Jim Bailey
Dennis Gilbert

Elections will be held soon.

First Year Experience
Judy McKenzie reported that the program targets incoming students. Last year, a learning community linking Effective Learning and College Success was offered and it was quite successful. The hope is that this program will increase retention and that we will soon have additional offerings for the second and third terms that articulate with our current first term learning community.

SB 342
Mary Brau reported that this law concerns articulation of courses among all public Oregon colleges and universities.
Section 1. (2) (a) requires revision of the AAOT. We have not finished that work, but we have established some clear career pathways.
In the same section, (c) requires that an outcomes-based framework be established. This work is underway. Two statewide meetings have been held to establish sets of outcomes for transfer programs. Sheila Broderick and Sarah Ulerick were representatives from LCC.
One problem with this work is that It does not include outcomes in diversity, health and wellness, or computer literacy.
In the same section, (d) requires seamless transfer of all gen. ed. 100 and 200 level courses. Some of our courses that satisfy the AAOT requirements do not meet the same degree requirements upon transfer. If you are an instructor of such a course, you may wish to contact a counselor.
Other members made comments including:

1. There is more variability in degree requirements and course content among members of the state universities than among community colleges.
2. The outcomes listed are so general, they allow for acceptance of low quality work.
3. What if a college decides not to accept the final document?
4. We are early in the process and feedback is just what is needed now.

Student Affairs Council proposed language on evaluations
The language on student evaluation of instructors included in the original Student Affairs Council plan caused the plan to be rejected by the College Council. Sheila Broderick reported that the Student Affairs Council has offered alternate language (attached).
Some comments from the membership:

1. The new language still gives the sense that evaluations will be available to all students on line.
2. We need to talk to students explaining why their plan is not useful.
3. The language has been accepted by the Student Affairs Council and they will be frustrated if it is rejected by College Council.
4. The new language still raises issues with the LCCEA contract.
5. To make informed decisions, students need course information, not faculty evaluations. This should be reflected in any alternate language offered by College Council.
6. If the evaluation mechanism in place were effective, this wouldn’t be an issue.

The membership did not endorse the new language and asked the College Council and Student Affairs Council representatives to report that the Faculty Council is:

1. working to put an effective evaluation mechanism in place
2. sees the need to provide students with useful course information and
3. looks forward to discussions on what that information might be.

Evaluation Committee
Dennis Gilbert reported that the committee has set up a set of principles for student evaluation of instruction instruments. Some important points:

1. Evaluation should improve instruction
2. Evaluation should address multiple aspects of learning.
3. Faculty should have options, including off-the-shelf instruments, a bank of questions to choose from and a variety of delivery mechanisms.

We will return to this discussion

Future Agenda Items

Unit Planning
Syllabus Harassment Statement
Faculty Certification
Fundamental Redesign

To view minutes of past meetings, please go to http://2011sitearchive.lanecc.edu/fc/meetings.htm

Proposed revision of evaluation language in Student affairs Council Strategic Plan

‘Develop a systematic process that provides students regular and convenient opportunities to share their course-related learning experiences each term with their instructors and fellow students.”