Meeting Date: 8/21/12
Introduction by David McGee
I. Meetings will occur in RM 2123, not RM 5207, as stated in the College Governance Document.
All meeting will occur during the activity hour, 1 PM – 2 PM on Tuesdays
Upcoming Meetings: September 25th
and November 6th
II. Reminder: The activity hour is included in the faculty 10 office hour requirement.
I. Will Sandidge, Interim VP
A. Will Sandidge discussed his commitment to the college and faculty. He promised to work hard and be consistent. His goal is to change the environment to a more positive one. He will look for opportunities to improve the college. He is committed to SACSCOC accreditation deadlines. He will support the faculty and be an advocate for the faculty. He promised to maintain open communication, asking questions, listening to requests and needs, giving guidance and clarity whenever needed.
B. Will Sandidge also expressed his expectations of quality instruction from faculty because the mission of the college is to serve the students. This mission requires teamwork among all parts of the college: administration, faculty and staff. Everyone should work through the appropriate channels. He asked that when issues arise, faculty should generally begin with the academic deans, but when that is ineffective, faculty should communicate with him.
Questions and issues that arose during this conversation:
1. There is confusion about the program head coordinator roles and duties, and there has been a lack of communication from the academic dean. Will Sandidge reiterated his request that faculty work through the appropriate channels, but that the concerned faculty member should feel free to come to him.
2. What’s going to be a real attitude on release time of program heads? Do faculty need to keep a log? Will release time actually match required input?
- Will Sandidge stated that members of the college should make the best estimates possible for what each program head will need for release time and that this was difficult because this is the first year and no one knows what each position will actually require.
- Deans need to give program heads guidelines.
- Cannot be more than 15 hours release time
- Cannot have more than 40 hours total
- Release time calculations (40 hours = 1 credit)
3. Will minutes of the VP staff meeting be made available to everyone? The meeting minutes will be made available. David McGee took a quick poll of the attending faculty. There was a split; some people prefer email and some people prefer the Communication Central. David McGee will email the faculty, and all meeting minutes will be posted to Communication Central. Will Sandidge reaffirmed his commitment to open communication and repeated his evaluation of convocation as a success because the entire faculty talked
4. Communication on Joey Fronheiser’s and the college’s progress through accreditation will be in writing.
5. Evaluation of Staff pay, commensurate with duties was evaluated last year; will the same be done with faculty salaries? Irene Wheeler announced that faculty pay will be evaluated, and this is handled through John Poole’s office. It was supposed to happen before the new contract period, but is now in the works.
6. A request was made to be passed onto David Lightfoot to ensure that classroom technology is running – projectors, computers, latest plug-ins, updated software, physical connections, networks, etc. There were multiple issues on the first day of class. This was in part due to a last minute burden on the IT department, as well as some issues with Collaborate. Furthermore, there were issues with misunderstandings and lack of communication between IT and B&G; this should not be a problem in the future. Will Sandidge will pass on this request to David Lightfoot.
- A suggestion was proposed that there be a year-round college schedule for all departments, including IT and B&G for routine maintenance and new projects, in addition to the year round class schedule. Currently there’s the two week phase at the end of summer and at the end of fall semester, during which all nonroutine projects are completed.
- Some work is in-house and some is contracted out – which leads to some of the problems.
- It was noted that the new contractors for cleaning are doing a better job.
7. When is the auditorium renovation project going to take place? There was a plan in place to convert the auditorium to a theatre. Will Sandidge will inquire about this.
8. Also the bathrooms?
9. A question was asked about International Day and a conflict about fire hydrants and flag usage. The issue was tabled for a one-on-one discussion with Will Sandidge.
10. Students have been allowed in faculty parking lots – previously security enforced, physically standing at the entrances and redirecting students to the appropriate lots. This has not occurred this year, with students parking in the faculty lot. The new location of the bookstore seems to be exacerbating the problem. Will parking lot limitations be enforced? Also, there has been little or no notification of parking lot closures or use by large groups of visitors. Will Sandidge will look into this.
11. The faculty ID for access to buildings late at night and off hours. Is this system being redone?
A new security system is being installed, and everyone will be getting a new ID. Lucy Carter Smith is working on this project. Current ID’s work right now. However there has been an issue with permissions/access expiring for faculty. Faculty members need to contact Facilities Management, Teri Brothers.
12. Will Sandidge will get the Faculty Association recommendations for the new faculty evaluation process from Peter Dorman.
II. Peter Dorman – CFAC/VCCS Faculty Evaluation
A. The latest draft of the CFAC faculty evaluation process was emailed to faculty on August 13.
B. Essence of the plan.
1. New faculty will be evaluated in both fall and spring semesters of their first year.
year faculty will be evaluated once per year.
3. Senior faculty will be evaluated during the last year of their multi-year contract/cycle.
4. There are only two outcomes: Meets Expectations or Does Not Meet Expectations
a. Does Not Meet Expectations will result in a non-renewel of contract for faculty in their first three years with the goal of weeding out incompetent instructors.
b. The emphasis is on professional development
C. Peter Dorman’s personal goal is to redo CVCC multi-year appointment policy – to make it automatic, rather than a special application.
D. 4 Criteria of Evaluation
2. Scholarly engagement: taking classes, conference, grants, presentations, memberships, research, training, publication (will this be supported by the college? Ultimately, yes, this is being determined by CFAC)
3. Institutional Responsibility: committee meetings, advising students,
4. Service: community contributions (church, public schools, charities) and at the college, college representation, science or history day fairs, etc
A question was asked about committee opportunities, with a concern that some people will not have the opportunity to serve. Jessy Hogan commented that with the new model of college governance, everyone has been given opportunity to participate on one committee and only very rarely will someone serve on more than one due to overlapping assignments. Faculty were given the option of selecting their top choices via Survey Monkey Poll. Those who did not were assigned to a committee.
E. Each faculty member should meet with their dean to set professional development goals, and accomplishment will be factored into evaluation.
F. Weighting of the criteria
1. First year 70% on teaching (30% on other 3 criteria)
, 60% or more on teaching (max 70%)
3. Senior, 50% or more (max 70%)
4. College needs to decide on the weighting
G. All faculty who are given the evaluation of Meets Expectations will be eligible for Rewards (money) and Recognition (nonmonetary). Specific amounts and distribution will be decided by the college.
H. CVCC Committee will largely comprise teaching faculty, not administration. Policy goes into effect next fall, and thus, a committee will be formed this year.
Submitted by Jessy Hogan