It’s about the P-word:
Placement.
We are inviting all interested faculty to join us for a CAST Lunchtime chat on
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
12:30-1:50pm
CASTle (Rm. 1046).
Our English and math placement coordinators as well as our dedicated testing center staff will be present to talk about the new placement process and its impact.
See you there!
Over the last few weeks, Grace and I have received conference announcements from a few disciplines. Please keep sending those that you’d like to share. Below are some conferences that are happening soon.
Rosie
Upcoming Conferences
Chicago SNCC History Project (Black History Month Conference): “From Civil Rights to Black Power”: Tracing the African American Freedom Struggle” (Fri, Feb 17, 2017 – Sat, Feb 18, 2017)
Roosevelt University
Theme: This is 50 years after the, very controversial, shout, “Black Power”, rang out, on a Mississippi highway, as part of the Meredith March Against Fear. It signaled challenges to the early integrationist, non-violent and leadership of the southern civil rights movement and the beginnings of demands for equity rather than integration, an end to old alliances and the creation of new alliances, tactics, leadership and a change in locus to a northern / national Black Power/ Black Liberation movement.
The Chicago SNCC History Project in cooperation with the SNCC Legacy Project and others will use this year’s Black History Month Conference to revisit this, understudied an often misunderstood but crucial, part of the on-going African American fight for freedom, social justice, and humanity.
At this historic two-day conference, through discussion, film and music, we will begin the study of such important period. A usual, this will be an intergenerational arena where we will count on the participation of those who were there in earlier days as well as those younger people who have now taken up the on-going fight for freedom, justice, and humanity.
21st Annual Illinois Community College Assessment Fair (February 24, 2017)
Prairie State College
Theme: Assessment: Just and Fair
The keynote speaker will be Norbert Elliot, Professor Emeritus at New Jersey Institute of Technology. The title of his presentation is “Ethical Theory, Writing Performance, and Assessment of Student Learning: Foundational Principles” and will address fairness in assessment and its relation to validity and reliability.
Proposal deadline: Friday, February 10
Submission and registration details are available at the conference website: http://prairiestate.edu/academics/assessment-fair.aspx
For questions, please contact Carolyn Ciesla (cciesla@prairiestate.edu; 708-709-2949).
29th International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Math (March 9-12, 2017)
Chicago, IL
Oakton Women’s and Gender Studies Program 2017 Conference (Friday, March 24, 2017)
Oakton Community College, Des Plaines, IL
Theme: “In Challenging Times: Women, Activism and Leadership”
Keynote: Barbara Ransby, the new NWSA President Proposal Deadline: February 15, 2017 Full details of the conference, including possible topic areas, and guidelines for submission of proposals, can be found in the attachment to this message. For more information, please contact Kathleen Carot, coordinator of Women’s and Gender Studies, at kcarot@oakton.edu or 847-376-7061.
Excellence in Teaching Math and Science Research and Practice (April 13, 2017)
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
https://www.math.uic.edu/chicagosymposium
53rd Allerton English Articulation Conference (April 19-20, 2017)
Allerton Park and Retreat Center in Monticello, Illinois
Theme: Addressing the Moment: Resistance and Resilience
This year’s theme, Addressing the Moment: Resistance and Resilience, invites us to consider challenges we and our campuses face in light of budgetary exigencies and changing political tides. With budgets slashed, MAP grants in jeopardy, and resources for higher education more fragile than ever, how do we find the spirit and equanimity to support our students and colleagues through our work in English Studies? Since our theme is suggestive, meant to invigorate rather than limit our discussions, proposals need not adhere strictly to our thematic invitation. As always, suggested proposal topics include but are not limited to composition, cultural studies, diversity, English education, first-year experience, English language learning, film, genre, literature, developmental writing, reading, cognition, collaboration, technology, placement, assessment, and Writing Across the Curriculum.
Proposal deadline: February 15, 2017
Please email a title and one-paragraph abstract of your individual, group, or poster presentation proposal to AllertonConference@niu.edu by February 15, 2017. Those accepted will be notified by March 1, 2017.
Hey everyone!
HW Faculty Council is in the midst of elections for three new faculty council members since Domenico Ferri, Dave Richardson, and I will not be seeking re-election to the council.
We have four outstanding nominees for the three open seats: Jess Bader, Kristin Bivens, Theresa Carlton, and Molly Turner. Per previous requests, we have asked that each nominee introduce herself.
We hope that these introductions will provide you with the information you need to make a more informed decision in this election process. The ballots should be in the boxes of all full-time faculty members by tomorrow morning.
So, without further ado:
Jessica (Jess) Bader
Hello! My name is Jess Bader. I am an assistant professor and coordinator in the 3D area of the art and architecture department (AAD). I have been at Harold Washington for thirteen years. In those years we have seen the helm change in regards to chancellors and presidents. Because we have a tenacious faculty, our academic voice has remained strong. I would like to be part of this tradition. I have been a very active member in AAD. On the department level I serve on the AAD strategic planning committee. I was one of two sub chairs on the Space Committee, and I was a year-long substitute for FC4 replacing Theresa Carlton. Thank you for your consideration.
Kristin Bivens
I am Kristin Bivens of the English Department (since 2006), where I teach ENG 101, primarily, but I have also taught ENG 102, ENG 102 for science majors, and literature and film. I am nearing completion for my PhD coursework in Technical Communication and Rhetoric. As a rhetorician, I have found that my training has prepared me to closely and rhetorically examine writing. This is a contribution I can make as a member of HWCFC. I also serve on the Conference on College Composition and Communication’s Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession (since 2007); on this committee, I have researched and presented on contrapower harassment (i.e., students harassing teachers). Additionally, with this committee work, I have established a network of colleagues across the country who have similar experiences that we as college faculty might encounter. As a member of HWCFC, I see myself serving my colleagues as a committed member and advocating for our important roles at HW. If you have any questions, please contact me at kbivens@ccc.edu
Thanks,
Kristin
Theresa Carlton
I have been a full-time math faculty member at HWC since January 2006. Throughout my time here I have always been an active participant in department, college and district activities. I served as a department representative on the local Curriculum Committee for four years. I was then elected to serve as Chair of the Curriculum Committee. As chair, I led the committee in writing a document laying out the responsibilities, membership requirements, job descriptions, and procedures the committee should follow when making decisions regarding new or revised courses for HWC. I also served as HWC’s FC4 representative, attending the district-wide faculty council meetings and being a voice for HWC in academic matters. As a member of HWC Faculty Council, I will work diligently to maintain the high academic standards that HWC has always achieved, and stand up for the rights of faculty, while always considering what is best for all of our students.
Theresa Carlton
Molly Turner
I believe our strong Faculty Council is the linchpin in effective self-governance supporting the highest quality academic and pedagogical standards in our dual-purpose institution. I can’t think of a more important way to serve HWC and its liberal arts legacy than by actively participating in HWCFC to continue building and insisting on an environment of enthusiasm and cooperation among faculty, staff and administration. I have worked closely with the Placement Center for the last four years, evaluating essays and improving processes and in this effort worked with the Placement Testing Committee to reintroduce human-read essays to better serve our students. On the college level, I have worked diligently to develop our journalism program and advise the school newspaper. Also, I am currently on the core team of faculty and librarians from across the district to develop a news literacy course with a McCormick Foundation grant. I have been on faculty since 2002 and served on Faculty Council from 2007 to 2008.
I have a friend who teaches at College of DuPage, and this troubles me. This seems like a situation worth following. . .
The faculty at College of DuPage is under attack. After 13 months of stagnant negotiations, the full-time faculty at COD do not have a contract. Moreover, the administration has started a very public smear campaign (primarily on the COD website that is paid for with public tax dollars) that is designed to create negative impressions of what faculty do and what they are compensated for. The administration has a whole office full of “spin-doctors” who are trying to paint a picture of faculty that simply isn’t true. Many of the “facts” that they are publishing are either blatant falsehoods or are only part of the story.
Photography faculty member Glenn Hansen is the president of the COD faculty association and is doing his best to put the basic facts out there in a clear and undistorted way. What’s interesting is that the administration keeps saying “The College” in reference to…
View original post 519 more words
FCCCC President’s Address
CCC Board of Trustee’s Meeting
Thursday, November 3rd, 2011
Chairman Cabrera, Chancellor Hyman, members of the Board, Officers of the District, faculty, staff and all others present, good morning.
For this board report, I had prepared a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of remediation, of the City College’s various attempts to address remediation and of a comparison with Mayor Bloomberg ’s Start program in New York City, but that will be another time. Instead, I want to discuss the corrosive campaign initiated by the Inspector General’s Office and, in particular, the new posters that are displayed around the colleges.
This poster has in large red letters the word
Report and then lists the words Waste, Fraud, and Misconduct. It then lists all the ways an individual can submit this report to the Inspector General’s Office and reminds the audience that this report can be confidential and anonymous. Moreover, the webpage associated with the office says nothing about specifics of waste, fraud, or misconduct, just more verbiage about reporting incidents.
Please note a couple of things. The language is vague and legalistic; it doesn’t tell the reader what constitutes waste, fraud or misconduct. Note, too, that the linguistic vagary allows anything to be reported, particularly under the cloak of anonymity: any rumor, any salacious story, any anger-driven narrative. Moreover, the language seems to be purposefully accusatory and assumes an adversarial position; it seemingly targets behavior that the accuser can claim as wasteful or fraudulent, but who can assess that? Only the Inspector General’s Office and only in secret: the Office can interrogate anyone it deems appropriate without revealing who made the report or about what activity is being investigated. It’ s intentionally secret, because, as the head of the department said to us in his presentation, “you wouldn’t tell the truth if you knew the reason why.“ This is a slippery slope, and one we’ve seen before.
The House Un-American Activities Committee and its Senate counterpart began just this way, by asking for information about activities, initially in a special committee on pro-German influence on the liquor distribution, and it bloomed into the fiasco of the 1950s in which fear and uncertainty ruled. It’s the same language and the same techniques, and it’s divisive, destructive and detrimental to what, I believe, we’re trying to build at the City Colleges: colleges that encourage and support our students in their academic journey. And reporting on each other is not the way to do this.
In contrast, for example, the University of Illinois on its webpage for the University’s Ethics Office, says,“The University ’s Code of Conduct establishes guidelines for professional conduct and indicates those acting on behalf of the University have a general duty to conduct themselves in a manner that will maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the University and take no actions incompatible with their obligations to the University.“
Moreover, the University makes it clear what that process is:
“Management employees [and it lists exactly who those individuals are later in the text] are responsible for detecting fraudulent activities or misconduct in their areas of responsibility. Each manager should be familiar with the types of improprieties that might occur in his/her area and be alert for any indication that improper or dishonest activity is or was in existence in his/her area. When dishonest or improper activity is detected or suspected, management should determine whether an error or misunderstanding has occurred or whether possible fraud exists. Management is responsible for taking appropriate corrective actions to ensure adequate controls exist to prevent the recurrence of fraud.“ It then goes on to list the rules and authority of the Inspector General’s Office, and it lists definitions and examples of fraud, which, and again I’m quoting, “Fraud generally involves intentional misuse or conversion of University property or resources for personal non-University uses.“
This site assumes that there are areas of possible misconduct associated with particular positions, which one’s supervisor can detect and correct, and that part of the supervision is the recognition of the difference between intentional and unintentional activity. Finally, the assumption is that the apparent fraud may have been perpetrated through error or misunderstanding, not that misconduct is rampant at the University. It is also noteworthy that there is nothing on this page about waste. (See
http://www.ethics.uillinois.edu/policies/fraud.cfm
for the full report. Accessed November 2, 2011)
When we look at the Federal Government’s Office of the Inspector General under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Resources, it deals primarily with health care fraud, such as improper billing for closed or nonexistent health care or nursing home facilities, and it is clear about what does not fal l under its purview. It does not investigate, for instance, discrimination (race, sexual orientation, disability and so on) at the workplace; that is handled by the EEO officer. This webpage, similarly to the University of Illinois webpage, is a very explicit and detailed site that includes various compliance training resources and lists of examples of fraud and misconduct. Moreover, similar to the University of Illinois site, it assumes that no one wants to commit fraud or mishandle resources. The Office trusts its employees and assumes compliance. (See
for the full page. Accessed November 2, 2011)
Let me be clear. No one supports waste, fraud and misconduct. No one wants a whistle blower to be punished.
But this poster is different: This encourages an atmosphere of distrust among us all; it divides departments and colleges; and it focuses on absolutely the wrong thing, not on what we’re doing, how we should act to strengthen our mission and uphold the integrity of our institution, but on reporting what someone else is doing.
This is make-work, and it’s particularly pernicious make-work. Indeed, if the Inspector General’s Office needs to advertise for work, then we have too many individuals in that office.
We are unequivocal about this. This kind of campaign is absolutely reprehensible
– and wasteful and smacks of overweening arrogance and misconduct. The posters need to be removed NOW.
Respectfully submitted,
Polly Hoover
President of FC4
FCCCC President’s Address
CCC Board of Trustee’s Meeting
Thursday, October 6th, 2011
Chairman Cabrera, Chancellor Hyman, members of the Board, Officers of the District, faculty, staff and all others present, good morning.
For this board report, I want to focus on the process by which information is communicated among the faculty and the role that the various committees, including FC4, contribute to shared governance.
Let me first outline some of the various committees. Each college has a curriculum committee, made up of faculty and administrators, who review curriculum initiatives including changes to syllabi and the introduction of new courses and new programs. Most recently, some colleges have reconstituted other committees, which focus on shared governance and institutional integrity. The recommendations from these committees then funnel into the local faculty council, which oversees all issues either deemed academic or with some impact on the academic life of the college. I
’m purposely vague here, because sometimes we discuss issues that are not strictly speaking “academic,“ but we want to encourage a robust discussion with our colleagues on these issues or point faculty to the appropriate place for help.
Curriculum issues that have been vetted, discussed, and approved then go to the district-wide curriculum committee, and, in turn, are vetted, discussed and approved by the members of all of the colleges. As with the local subcommittees, the FC4 has also recently reconstituted a number of other district-wide committees, including one on tenure policies, another on shared governance, a third on procurements, and a fourth on administrative oversight. All of these committee recommendations and concerns are presented to the district-wide faculty council, of which I am the president.
One of the most important aspects of these committees isn
’t what we do or don’t do (though that is important) but what we communicate to each other. We do not have any role in contractual issues such as the size of the class or fac ulty load, but we may point people toward the appropriate person for answers to contractual questions. Each committee is, in essence, a monthly faculty development meeting in which we are upholding the institutional integrity and integrating the faculty into that process.
Who are the faculty who comprise these faculty councils, both local and district-wide? Full-time faculty vote at each college on full-time faculty colleagues to represent them on the various committees, and each committee then votes on its leadership.
And this is an important point. The full-time faculty decide on who their representatives should be, whom they feel they can trust to present their positions, whom they allow to vote on their behalf. But the committees do not always include adult educators and adjunct faculty as voting members; indeed, their inclusion as voting members has been a topic of heated discussion. (These are open meetings, so anyone is invited to attend and to contribute, but only the members may vote on the issues.) Moreover, faculty members are not univocal; these committee meetings can be lively events with faculty clearly disagreeing with each other. And the debate can slow down the implementation of recommendations.
This may seem like an unwieldy system, and we get complaints from administrators and faculty about the slowness of the process. Yet, although it may be imperfect, it does work to facilitate communication among faculty and to allow robust debate about policy issues that have profound impact on our students.
But one of the weaknesses of this system, which we are addressing, is the lack of engagement with the administration on these policy issues. We began in the summer with monthly meetings with the acting provost, Mike Davis, and we will continue with the new provost, Kojo Quartey. These meetings include our expanded executive committee and are extremely important to the institutional effectiveness of the City Colleges. Institutional effectiveness is really the driving force behind faculty participation on the committees.
Another positive collaboration between faculty (full-time, part-time, and adult educators) and administrators is the work on the performance funding review committees. As vice chancellor Antonio Gutierrez pointed out in his introduction to the committees, this is the first time in his twenty-three years at City Colleges that faculty and administrators have sat down together and addressed an issue to produce a document that affects us all, students, administrators, faculty and staff. We need more collaboration on this model.
Finally, all of this is predicated on trust and knowledge among and between faculty, staff and administration. The faculty is exhausted by trying to implement policies about which faculty and staff have had little or no input or which make little sense for our respective colleges. We need local control and oversight, not general edicts that work well for no one. This includes policies about tenure decisions, the question s about hiring and credentials, and the elimination or changing of programs without faculty input. Faculty have a process by which we discuss, vet and communicate policies and that process should be respected and not ignored. We may not be univocal on all things, but we absolutely agree on one thing: we are professionals, we know what we are doing, we need to be trusted.
Respectfully submitted,
Polly Hoover
President of FC4
Highlights of KPI (Key Performance Indicator) Steering Committee Meeting
September 28, 2011, 2-4pm
After a quick review of the project, we were given a timeline with deadlines. Each subcommittee was charged with developing key performance indicators relevant to subcommittee. Developing the kpis is mostly conceptual; it does not involve going out and gathering the data.
The next upcoming deadline is October 14th. Each subcommittee will have submitted a first draft of their proposed kpis, and the steering committee will meet on that day to review(?). The final draft of the proposed kpis for all subcommittees is October 24th.
Afterward, we broke into subcommittees. Here are the highlights of those subcommittees as shared with me. Any questions about particular subcommittees should be addressed to those attending.
Remedial Education – Todd Heldt attending
The subcommittee discussed what is driving the KPI initiative: district’s strategic plan, the upcoming City Data Portal, state legislative activity around performance based funding.
Concern was expressed about kpis being used to evaluate individual teachers. It was reiterated that “individual teachers will not be evaluated, and that KPIs are not punitive in nature.”
The subcommittee discussed how district-wide kpis would be applied. Namely, “individual colleges will get to decide how they want to meet that KPI. Moreover, we can sort our student population and build kpis around different subsets of population, the idea being that if we know some of our students only come here for one semester, we can filter them. The process should be: Step 1) Figure out how to sort the students; step 2) Figure out how to measure “success” among those students (in the broadest possible sense); and Step 3) Show improvement.”
Their next meeting is October 5, 2011.
Transfer – Tom Higgins, Farahnaz Movahedzadeh, and John Metoyer attending
I don’t have notes from their meeting yet, but a tool has been developed by John Metoyer to solicit feedback regarding appropriate objectives and kpis (tools to measure objectives). This tool – a survey – is being distributed amongst the subcommittee and is being shared here to solicit feedback from the general HWC community.
Please take some time to complete the survey. Here’s the link: http://www.tfaforms.com/219509
Their next meeting will be scheduled shortly, but they plan to communicate more regularly via Blackboard.
Student Services – Rosie Banks and Wendell Blair attending
(This is a shorter version of the minutes graciously sent by Janice Dantes)
Our meeting was dedicated to identifying objectives and discussing the broad role of student services in academic life, including challenges at the intersection of student services and academic life.
Student services has a very detailed annual plan, which we used to guide our process.
The objectives that we identified were as follows:
Increase four-year transfer
Enhance online student services
Build more partnerships and create more job placements
Improve student engagement and campus life utilization
Track services and student participation
Improve and provide access to technology
Improve access to financial aid/scholarships (financial resources)
Accurately capture student goals/intent
Intrusive/targeted advising
Effective communication processes across the CCC district
Our assignment moving forward is to review listed objectives and add any that are relevant to student services to the list. Then, we will rank the objectives so that our next meeting will be dedicated to aligning our ranking of the objectives and developing appropriate kpis.
Our next meeting is October 12, 2011 from 9-10:30am
Again, please send all questions, comments, and concerns to the person(s) attending the relevant subcommittee and/or complete the survey. We’d love to hear from you.
In case you missed it. . .
FCCCC President’s Address
CCC Board of Trustee’s Meeting
Thursday, August 4th, 2011
Chancellor Hyman, members of the Board, Officers of the District, faculty, staff and all others present, good morning.
My name is Rosie Banks, and I will be reading Polly Hoover’s address to the Board of Trustees. Polly is out of the country and has asked me as the Harold Washington Faculty Council President to give this address. Any comments or criticisms should be addressed to Polly.
Indeed, most faculty grab at this short window of opportunity between the end of the summer semester and the beginning of the fall session, this very week, to take a deep breath and to cut the technological tethers and to get out of town. I have graciously stepped in to represent FC4.
This is just a brief update. Coming in September, Polly will address in detail the idea of community and its ramifications for our community college students. Later in the fall, she will examine remediation challenges, initiatives to improve communications across the colleges and with District Office, the roles of Faculty Council both at the local and at the district levels, and the complexities of alignment with the Chicago Public Schools and with our four-year feeder institutions.
Until then, these issues are in the Faculty Council’s current playlist: we are in the process of scheduling a meeting with our new provost, Kojo Quartey, completing arrangements for Faculty Development week, and preparing for the Faculty Council retreat in mid-August. This is in addition to the work on course development and curriculum, on hiring new faculty, on establishing new committees, on advising for the new year and, in general, on anticipatory work for the new semester.
We have much to do and many things to consider; let’s all prepare for an instructive and collaborative partnership.
Respectfully submitted,
Polly Hoover via Rosie Banks,
President of FC4
FCCCC President’s Address
CCC Board of Trustee’s Meeting
Thursday, July 14th, 2011
Chairman Cabrera, Chancellor Hyman, members of the Board, Officers of the District, faculty, staff and all others present, Good morning.
My name is Suzanne Sanders-Betzold, and I will be reading Polly Hoover’s address to the Board of Trustees. She is at a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar on integrating the arts into the liberal arts curriculum. Any comments or criticisms should be addressed to Polly.
For this board report, I want to focus on shared governance and what the faculty sees, on the one hand, as a lost opportunity and, on the other, encouraging changes.
In teaching, one of the most powerful answers to any question is: “We don’t know. Some scholars argue for this answer for these reasons; some scholars argue for that answer for these other reasons.” Such a nuanced response both astonishes students who may wrongly believe that disciplines are monolithic and unchanging, and it also allows intellectual space for the students to engage in informed debate on the subject. If done correctly, this isn’t an admission of scholarly weakness, but a model of academic informed debate. This exercise allows students to participate in the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge, to learn through modeling the process of disciplinary debate, and to challenge their own assumptions about the discipline. The ensuing discussion isn’t just about the answers; consensus isn’t the main goal; and disagreement may be more fertile than agreement. In the process, we all deepen our understanding and ensure engagement.
This is also the paradigm informing the theory of shared governance: that trustees, administrators, faculty, staff and students have a shared desire to ensure the integrity of the institution, but may disagree on the mission of the institution, the goals of the curriculum and the means to attain them, and even how to encourage informed debate, transparency in governance, and dialogue across the disparate parties. The principle of shared governance is not about the power of one or another individual, or a particular position, but the collective power of the institution; it assumes that we are a much stronger institution if all the parties participate in a robust manner in the debate and contribute to the discussion (whatever it may be). And please note that the board meetings reflect this configuration of power, though some of us are less well represented than others.
First, the lost opportunity. The faculty is concerned by the limited representation in the process that brought us our new presidents and the new provost. We depend on these administrators to support the academic policies, to maintain fiscal responsibilities, and to strengthen our colleges; we are partners in this endeavor, not adversaries. And so, the process by which we saw new leadership could have been an opportunity for robust collaboration; instead, particularly with the decision for a new provost, the process seemed opaque and exclusionary. We, and by that I mean the institution, the City Colleges of Chicago, need the faculty in this discussion in more than a nominal manner.
But let me talk about the successes of the past few months. We have seen encouraging changes in faculty representation in important areas. At Faculty Council of the City Colleges of Chicago (FC4), we have expanded the governing body from the president, vice-president, secretary and curriculum chair to include the presidents of the local faculty councils. We are re-examining shared governance and our contribution to the debate; indeed, we are re-activating the various subcommittees, which had become dormant, to ensure our participation. Moreover, we are articulating the process by which academic decisions are made and debating our role in the process. We are a re-energized group.
In addition, this group of about a dozen individuals who represent all of the colleges have begun meeting with Associate Vice Chancellor Mike Davis (acting as provost) to discuss such issues of academic importance as textbook adoption, grading policies, transfer alignment, and procurement and preliminary budgets, and we have contributed to the Faculty Development Week schedule decisions. Our agenda and his agenda have become the agenda in the meetings, and we want this collaborative agenda to continue under the new provost.
And we have begun a productive dialogue with Vice Chancellor Alvin Bisarya and his team members. Since February, both individually and as a group, Vice Chancellor Bisarya and representatives have informed us about the task force recommendations and have encouraged faculty input about those recommendations. Indeed, the Task Force committees are scheduled to present the recommendations to the entire faculty during Faculty Development Week, and we commend the effort coming from his group.
In sum, we cannot become a more successful institution without robust debate and strong engagement from all of the partners in this enterprise. It may be slow; it may be sloppy; it may be contentious. But, in the end, the institution is stronger for it.
Respectfully submitted,
Polly Hoover via Suzanne Sanders-Betzold
President of FC4
Notes from Executive Committee/Academic Affairs meeting – July 6, 2011, 4-6pm
Guests: Diane Minor, Associate Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services, John Sugrue, Director of Facilities Management, and Sheila Johnson, Director of Procurement Services
Diane Minor discussed the basics of her area.
There are four functions of her office
Capital Planning and Development
Facilities Management and Administration
Procurement – Minority and Women’s Business Development
Off Shoot facilities (Auxiliary Services)
Each college has a facilities manager
They just completed a five-year capital assessment to determine needed upgrades or additions.
This capital assessment was developed through meetings with the president, vice-president, and chief engineers at each college.
The capital plan will be posted online this week for each school
There are currently more projects than funds
The plan does not identify funded vs. unfunded projects; however, the plan is prioritized in terms of safety and security (fire alarms/hazmat, etc), the building envelope, technology with academics, and Security (security desks and parking lots, etc)
Supervision of engineers and janitors will transition from chief engineer to the facilities manager
Her office will be looking at sustainability and compliance with ADA requirements.
Auxiliary services will already work on reducing paper: what can be scanned, stored, thrown away
They will also look at beefing up the reprographics centers at all colleges so that they can be more efficiently utilized by faculty, staff, and students.
Questions
What are we doing to support current services at the various colleges? Reprographics machines are constantly breaking down, etc.
We are currently out for bid for new reprographics machines. We’ve received five responses and a team is reviewing the bids.
Are we considering increasing bandwidth in addition to the technology?
It is on the capital projects list. We need to increase bandwidth, upgrade wiring, and upgrade desktop units throughout District.
When the five year capital assessment plan was developed, did you meet with faculty?
We did not meet with faculty directly; we got directly with academic affairs who we assumed were working with faculty.
We would like a more direct inclusion of faculty on the capital assessment; we have a facilities committee, and they should be included in this plan.
That’s a great idea. There was a general discussion of ideas around modes of formal inclusion of faculty
One of the challenges is that as we move toward greater centralization, the processes by which we include faculty also are changing. When the schools were mostly autonomous, this was less of an issue. With increased centralization the plan is to meet with each college every other month to get a sense of what’s needed in terms of upgrades and procurements.
We would encourage a much more holistic approach as opposed to a segmented approach in procurements. Having greater inclusion of faculty – a committee process – would make it easier to develop a holistic approach to facilities management.
There was a request for more scanners.
Can you print or make available a succinct list of current approved vendors and services for faculty?
yes.
A list of approved vendors is already on the intranet – in the procurements area. There’s also a list of current approved MWBd on the city’s website.
We are piloting a shuttle bus service in Fall 2011.
This service is primarily for students who are taking classes at more than one of the sister colleges.
However, it will also replace the need for excessive use of courier services.
There was some discussion of whether students are taking classes at multiple colleges because of cancelled classes. Local administration determines which classes run and which don’t.
We may be moving toward tobacco-free campuses; this is still in discussion.
Sheila Johnson welcomed contact if there’s a need for materials for say lab experiments or other predictable needs for teaching and learning.
Faculty Development week
There will be an opportunity to meet with disciplines. After the breakout sessions are in place, they will be looking for faculty in the various disciplines to set the agenda for the discipline meetings.
FC4 had an opportunity to participate in the selection of the break out sessions.
Search for Provost
There was great concern because there was no faculty and no academic affairs input; no one seemed to know anything.
The announcement will be made on July 14th at the board meeting.
Course/Catalog Issues
Political Science 201 and Sociology 202: The prerequisites for these classes are being reviewed as part of a thorough Prerequisite audit in the catalogs and in Peoplesoft.
Catalog errors are being corrected automatically.
Other revisions will need to go through the PAC process (FC4)
There was assurance that the current options for development education students would not decrease.
We discussed Quick Enroll and there was a question of why most people can no longer use it.
There was some assurance that someone would look into why we can no longer use Quick Enroll
Some wanted to use Quick Enroll to offer more efficient chair approvals.
Review of Math 120, 165, 214, 216, and 225
The recommendation is to remove 120 (Modern Math), 165 (Computer Math), and 225 (Honors Math Survey 1)
There was no comment on 214 (Advanced Calculus for Business)
They were holding 216 (Statistics for Business Students) for further review
Textbook Issues
As usual, there is strong interest in reducing textbook costs for our students.
We were presented with some means by which other colleges and universities have reduced textbook costs, including the following:
Open Course Library Project for Washington State (http://opencourselibrary.wikispaces.com); Chronicle of Higher Ed End of the Textbook as We Know it (course fee model) (http://chronicle.com/article/The-End-of-the-Textbook-as-We/125044); Chronicle of Higher Ed- Mandatory <$30 text book prices in community college courses (http://chronicle.com/article/State-of-Washington-to-Offer/125887); MIT – Free online Course material (notes, homework, etc) (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm); Carnegie Mellon Open Learning (http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/)
There was mention of student organizations, such as PTK, that are already working on this issues and a suggestion that faculty leadership collaborate with student leadership on this issue.
There was also a question of getting JSTOR as part of our library resources; a request has been made to have JSTOR.
Foreign Language requirement
The requirement has been reviewed by Foreign Language faculty from all colleges.
Some recommendations have been made to address how this requirement works for heritage and native speakers
When will these recommendations be posted or shared?
Reactivating FC4 District-level Committees
These will be formally reactivated on August 19th at our next meeting/FC retreat.
The committees are as follows:
Committee A
Committee on Academic Standards, Admissions, Curriculum and Educational Policies.
Committee DL
Committee for working with the Center for Distance Learning and related issues (activated as required for conducting FCCCC business).
Committee F
Committee on Fiscal and Physical Facilities (activated as required for conducting FCCCC business).
Committee M
Committee on Major Administrative Appointments Procedures and Evaluation (activated as required for conducting FCCCC business).
Committee R
Committee on Rank Criteria and Promotion Procedures (activated as required for conducting FCCCC business).
Committee T
Committee on the use of Technology in Education (activated as required for conducting FCCCC business).
Potential guest speakers are Craig Lynch and Valerie Davis.
Well, that’s the news as I heard it via an email exchange between FC4 and District HR.
Apparently, a provost search was conducted and completed, and a candidate for the position will be recommended to the board at their July meeting.
Given that the provost’s purview will encompass all academic/curricular activity at CCC as CCC’s putative academic leader and given that shared governance has been on the discussion table between faculty leadership and District this past academic year, it seems odd to learn about a new provost candidate and a concluded search in a random email. Of course, it also seems sad (to me) that this happened over the summer after all the talk of transparency and trust-building, but I digress. . .
So, I ask the following questions and welcome any answers:
1) When did the search begin? How long did the process take?
2) Were faculty included in the search process?
3) Were District faculty council, local faculty councils, and appropriate union leadership included in the search or notified about the search?
4) Regarding the search itself, how many applications were read and how many candidates were interviewed?
5) If neither faculty at large nor faculty leaders were notified or included, who was included on the search team?
6)What board rules or by-laws governed the selection and search process for this relatively new position?
Again, any answers to these questions are welcome.
On June 8th, the Executive Committee of District Faculty Council and several of the local faculty council presidents met with Academic Affairs representatives led by Acting Provost Mike Davis. Below are the notes from that meeting, incorporating revisions from Mike Davis, Polly Hoover, and Daniel Borzutsky. Hope you’re enjoying your summer!
FC4/Academic Affairs Executive Committee Meeting
(Minutes)
Acting Provost Mike Davis
June 8th, 4 – 6pm
Room 641
Budget with Ken Gotsch, Vice Chancellor of Finance and Alvin Bisarya VC Office of Strategy
Ken reviewed State budget issues and why we – like most community colleges- needed to raise tuition
Ken discussed legislative activity in the Illinois General Assembly
There was some discussion of talk on the State level about improved performance funding. They were looking at an Ohio model and an Oregon model.
Ken discussed relation among the Strategic Plan, Annual Plan, and Budget
The budget (discussing mostly the Operational budget) will be published ( 5 copies in board offices and one posted to the District’s website) sometime next week (by June 17th ideally).
Thereafter, there will be public budget hearings (July 7-9) at Daley, Malcolm X, and Wright
From the time of posting (June 17th) to July 14th (date of Board approval and last public hearing), District will receive feedback regarding the proposed budget and make revisions as needed
If faculty members cannot attend the public budget hearings, they can make comments by emailing Dolores Javier (djavier@ccc.edu)
There was some discussion of budget alignment to performance and health goals; performance goals were primarily the reinvention goals related to instructional and student outcomes. Health goals are as follows :
Joy Walker (Truman) asked whether they had been thinking of ways to prevent bottleneck in processes like procurement, etc.
Both Ken Gotsch and Alvin Bisarya shared some ways in which they and others had been thinking about that very issue.
There was also some discussion of changing practices and policies involving petty cash, agency accounts, conference reimbursement and the like which have negatively impacted faculty. We were assured us that these issues will be reviewed and hopefully resolved.
Ken Gotsch also stated that faculty members who are having trouble receiving reimbursements for expenditures can contact Dolores Javier to help expedite the process.
Ken Gotsch also stated that the petty cash accounts are being explored.
FC4 issues (Erosion of shared governance & Nursing issues)
Executive Director of Nursing, Dr. Debra Gurney, was present to answer our questions about the nursing programs.
She is more than willing to talk with faculty and has assured us that we can call her with questions at any time.
She has worked with an admissions committee, which included 1-2 nursing faculty from each college with a nursing program, and hopes to continue to work in a spirit of consensus and inclusion with all stakeholders.
She is also working with an all-District assessment committee which will be looking at the nursing curriculum, testing, best practices in accord with the NALNC (League of Nursing) and the State Board. Representatives of both groups (NALNC and the State Board) are supportive of these activities so long as we continue to abide by the Nurse Practice Act.
There was a bit of confusion about discussions to have one nursing program (one curriculum) at different colleges. Dr. Gurney suggested that there was one curriculum across district, but upon discussion, it wasn’t clear if this was actually true or in discussion as a possible initiative to be implemented. It also wasn’t clear whether or not nursing faculty were behind such an initiative. It would follow Miami-Dade’s healthcare program. Dr. Gurney was asked whether or not faculty members have been involved in the discussions regarding the move to one nursing program across the district. She stated that faculty members had not been involved in these discussions. We requested that Nursing Faculty be brought into these discussions. Academic Affairs will make a request for faculty inclusion in this discussion.
Maria Jaskot-Inclan stated clearly the desire that Dr. Gurney bring all curricular issues to the appropriate local faculty council bodies and to Committee A/District Faculty Council per our current processes.
Discussion of specific issues that happened prior to Dr. Gurney’s tenure with CCC led to more general discussion of the following shared governance issues:
Need for improved Blackboard training for the new Blackboard particularly with the running total feature in grades and grading in general.
Concerns about new scrutiny of grades which seems to violate each faculty’s right to assign grades for their classes as s/he sees fit (academic freedom)
Need for union and fc representatives with individual faculty when facing administrative/district scrutiny to ensure that neither contractual nor academic freedoms are being violated
Call for development of a clear process of shared governance and communication to be articulated and practiced as soon as feasible. There was general agreement about this with the understanding that developing a clear process would take some time.
Faculty Development Week (Session solicitation and selection)
Mike Davis offered tentative dates (August 8th and 9th at Malcolm X College). On Day 1, there would be presentations from our Chancellor, Board Chair, and someone who would provide a State perspective. Followed by a breakout session. On Day 2, there would be discipline meetings. Then, there would be two sets of concurrent sessions developed and presented by faculty whose proposed presentations were selected. An RFP will be sent soon (this week or next) and the proposals will be reviewed by college vps, academic affairs, and 1 or 2 members of FC4.
Polly Hoover volunteered to serve as one of the faculty members reviewing the proposals.
Rosie Banks requested that the agenda for the discipline meetings be set by faculty and that the meetings be run by faculty. There was some discussion about whether the department chairs for the respective disciplines would set the agenda and run the meetings or whether there might be some part of the discipline meetings devoted to sharing assessment data.
Joy Walker asked why we would have college breakouts when we have three days of faculty development to communicate as a college. She suggested that that time be spent allowing individuals from different colleges to interact. Mike Davis said he would look into that aspect of the schedule.
Future meetings planning (Meeting dates and times)
Our next executive committee meeting will be July 6, 2011 from 3-5pm. We would like to invite someone from procurement to come and speak. We would also like to set aside some time to beginning the discussion about shared governance.
I’m not sure that this is finalized, but it was mentioned that we had agreed upon Friday, August 19th as the Faculty Council Retreat.
The Harold Lounge 