Skip to Content

2015-03-03

Central Virginia Community College
Professional Development Committee
Minutes:  March 3, 2015
 
Attendance:  Loretta Marshall, Julie Dailey, Tim Wilhelm, Amir Arabi, David McGee, Rebecca Honeycutt, Jane Pearson, Catherine Sanders, Peter Dorman
 
The meeting was called to order by Jane Pearson, Chairman, and the minutes of the January 26, 2015 meeting were approved as read.
 
Jane Pearson referenced an email from Will Sandidge that extended the deadline until March 6, 2015 to apply for funding due to inclement weather this semester.
 
As one of the charges determined from last year dealing with identifying sources of additional professional development money, Jane Pearson provided information from Mike Bradford regarding additional professional development funding available through the CVCC Educational Foundation.  Funding from between $250 - $2000 is available in the form of a grant for any employee at CVCC.  The next deadline to submit a grant proposal is March 31st for their April meeting.  There is another date for submissions of June 30th for the August meeting of the foundation.
 
David McGee, who is the representative to the VCCS, and Peter Dorman stated that additional professional development funding is also available through the VCCS in the form of mini-grants or Commonwealth Professorships. Information on these grants is provided from the VCCS via emails or can be found at the VCCS web site for interested parties.  David McGee will provide Jane Pearson with the link to apply for these grants.
 
David McGee and Rebecca Honeycutt submitted a second proposal for allotting additional professional development funding.  This proposal is attachment 1.  The committee is attempting to merge this proposal with an original proposal and application form that was submitted at the meeting on January 26, 2015 by Tim Wilhelm and Julie Dailey (also attached 1 and 2). 
 
After a lengthy discussion, it was determined that some areas still need to be investigated before the proposals can be combined:
 
·        Statistics on the number of faculty who did not use their allotted professional development money in the prior two years, which will be obtained by Rebecca Honeycutt from Vickie Banks
 
·        Feasibility of a subcommittee to evaluate proposals for Additional Professional Development Funding, which David McGee volunteered to discuss with Will Sandidge, the VP for Academic Affairs and Student Services
 
Julie Dailey proposed that the committee have some policy on individuals who receive additional Professional Development Funding and who do not fulfill their part of the contract with the college.  Discussion followed on what the outcome would be in cases such as this and it was agreed that this should be handled at the Dean level.
 
Jane Pearson closed the meeting by reminding committee members that the next meeting would be the last for this academic year and as such, we would have to develop some goals for the next academic year as well as elect new officers.
 
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00
 
Julie Dailey
 
 
Attachment 1:  from David McGee and Rebecca Honeycutt 
Initial Proposal for faculty professional development funds (only applies to faculty)
1.       Faculty receive 50% of allotted monies for professional development.
2.       60% (arbitrary figure here—can be changed) of that money will be set aside to be divided equally among the faculty.  40% will be put into a pot to fund participation in professional development activities that go beyond the money set aside equally.
·         Example:  This year the faculty received $26,000. 
            i.      Under this plan, $15,600 would be set aside to be divided equally among all faculty. 
            ii.      The remaining $10,400 would be put into a pot to fund professional development expenses beyond what each faculty member initially received
·         Each request for additional expenses would be first evaluated by division deans and those that receive approval of a dean would be passed to the Professional Development Committee for evaluation (or a subcommittee).
3.       Faculty members who are approved by the deans and the PDC (or subcommittee) would receive full funding for their request, not to exceed $2,500 in one year academic year (the total amount would include any funds initially allotted to that faculty member)
4.       Criteria for evaluating proposals (these are not ranked in any particular order)
·         APPDO requirements—if application and Dean notes that a conference or some other professional development opportunity is a high priority for the college.
·         Person has undertaken other PD activities on their own – provide evidence – to improve skills
·         In-service training provided to the college
·         Person is to present a session at a conference
·         Significant recent changes in discipline that need training
·         Other items that would strengthen the request (I’ve run out of ideas here)
n  We would need to develop a rubric/ranking scale for this
5.       PDC subcommittee to evaluate additional funding.
·         Comprised of the 2 faculty representatives from each division—would one member from each department be sufficient?
·         Dean serving on the committee
·         VP of AA & SS
6.       Process for evaluating additional funding
·         Documentation –is current form sufficient to present objectives and how information will be disseminated?
·         When proposals have to be submitted (March 15 or earlier date?)
·         Process for evaluating proposal
·         Process if proposal rejected by committee (right to appeal?)
·         Notification
Not included in proposal yet: 
·         Funds from faculty who decide not to use any during the year—how to handle that?
·         Does this money go in the pot for guaranteeing payments or go to some sort of catchall pot that will be distributed equally to all the rest?
·         How much time must elapse before someone can request additional funds again? 
·         How big does the additional request have to be to disqualify someone for the next year?  It seems to me that $30 or $40 over the limit should not be in the same ballpark as a request $1,000 over the limit.
·         We have a pot of money.  In the sample $10,400 would be available for the “competitive process”.  We should take requests in with a due date to get paperwork into the Deans at some point early in the fall and a week later they each give us their “short list”. 
o    These requests would be for conferences in the fall and if someone knows of one in the Spring they could apply at this point. 
o    We could select a few people (depending on the amount of money they want and what we will have – so for the 10,400 we might choose to fund two people at $2000 and one at $2,400 leaving $4000). 
o    These people will know early in the semester how much they will need to come up with on their own and say yes or no. 
o    Assuming the three people say thank you and I love you we now have $4000 to   distribute in the Spring.  Then use the same process.  
o    Anyone who didn’t get funded could resubmit and (i) get reimbursed for a fall conference they went to anyway, (ii) try again for a spring conference that wasn’t give a thumbs up the first round, (iii) or try again with a different proposal.  At this point we could select.
Back to top