- Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved with one addition. A presentation by John Hastings on an administrative rule concerning sabbatical leave was added.
- Approval of May 29 minutes
Minutes were not available for Senate review.
- President's Report
Mike read a thank you note from Terry Wiggs' family for the Senate's donation to the Williamson County Humane Society.
Earlier this year, the administration indicated that next year stipends would be provided for faculty performing duties formerly performed by department heads and division chairs, and which are not currently covered in the new organizational structure. This year, many of these duties were performed by the transitional department heads. Mike reported that he was not aware of any process in place to deal with this issue. He will request clarification regarding this process from the administration.
Senators pointed out there was still a need for clarification in policies and procedures for hiring full-time and adjunct faculty.
Mike reported on the administration's response to the Senate's May 29th resolution on the scheduling process. He and Dolores had a lengthy meeting with Dr. Fonte and Dr. Friedman on this issue. Although no resolution was reached, the discussion is on-going, with the most significant issue being how the Senate's proposal will be better than the current system.
- Board Policy on Faculty Workload
Mike presented a draft of proposed revisions to Board Policy on Faculty Workload. Senators had a number of questions concerning the draft. It was not clear when faculty would choose the 9 or 10 1/2 month: at the beginning of the fiscal year, the first of the spring semester, or at the end of spring semester. Further concerns included distinguishing between groups of faculty. Concern was expressed that this proposal was presented so quickly. It was noted that there should be a full dialogue about workloads. It was suggested that this discussion be part of the Board's discussions on a Compensation Policy this fall, and it was noted that the Academic Standards and Policies Committee is also discussing this area.
Mike pointed out that a draft of the revised policy would be on the Board's July 6 agenda as a item for discussion. However, because the Board's own rules require at least two readings of proposed policy changes prior to action, they will not act on this policy at the July 6 meeting. Mike presented for Senate review a draft of a proposed position statement on the draft policy revision. Senators discussed this proposed position statement. Some clarifications and changes in wording were made. The Senate then passed the following resolution to the Board:
The Full-Time Faculty Senate is in receipt of the proposed revisions to Board Policy D-3. Faculty Workloads. We are not in fundamental disagreement with the Board's decision to review faculty workloads. In fact, under appropriate conditions, we would welcome participation in a Board dialogue on this issue. However, the process currently being used by the Board to address Policy D-3. Faculty Workloads, is not a process which will result in a reasoned, thoughtful review of this issue. Consequently, we believe that this proposed policy should be removed from the Board's July agenda, and further consideration deferred until such time as this reasoned, thoughtful review occurs.
A number of factors would bear on any Board discussion of faculty workload. At a minimum, we believe that the following points would be germane to any such dialogue. First, we have made sweeping changes this year in our organizational structure, and in many of our policies, procedures, and rules. A number of these have had far-reaching consequences unanticipated at the time that the changes were made. We are concerned that changing Policy D-3. Faculty Workloads in the manner currently being contemplated by the Board, in haste and as part of the budget process, will have these same unanticipated and unintended consequences. In support of this, we note that in the proposed policy, some points are unclear, or ill defined. For example, the draft policy states that "Non-classroom faculty work 40 hours per week on campus on a schedule developed to meet the needs of students." We would point out that the duties of faculty, including counselors and librarians, include a number of responsibilities other than direct student contact, such as committee assignments, etc. It is unclear how, or whether, these other duties would be included in the proposed 40 hours. The policy also states that "Office hours may be scheduled in the library or learning lab to better meet the needs of students." Here too, it is unclear how this would be implemented. We believe that it is the intent of the Board to act with due thoughtfulness and reflection, and not in haste, on significant issues. We do not see that thoughtfulness and reflection in the current process.
Second, information has been submitted to the Board and to the Administration on numerous occasions documenting the fact that most ACC faculty are significantly underpaid relative to their colleagues at comparable metro community colleges in Texas. This information has been verified by representatives of ACC's administration. We have continually stressed the seriousness of this situation, and asked that it be rectified. We have presented several plans to address this situation in an achievable, phased-in approach. This has not been done. Instead, it is our expectation that the faculty will receive, at best, a pay increase equal to Austin's cost of living. It is our understanding that one of the rationale's for this is that the Board will enter into discussions of a Compensation policy this fall. This cost-of-living salary increase will in effect hold faculty salaries "constant" while these discussions are held. We do not understand the Board's haste to address faculty workloads in the current manner, when there is not similar haste to address the inadequate salary scale.
Third, this has been a year of almost total organizational change. Reporting responsibilities, duties, and procedures which had been routine in the past were redefined. This often resulted in confusion and increased time being spent on tasks. Making these new reporting responsibilities and procedures clear, and communicating these clarifications to the affected parties, sometimes took weeks or even months. These problems were exacerbated when the time normally allotted to faculty to perform non-teaching duties was reduced by extreme amounts. These non-teaching duties are necessary for the proper functioning of the college, and in many cases must be performed by faculty. As a part of any discussion on faculty workloads, care should be taken to ensure that assigned duties can be reasonably performed within the time assigned, whatever that time might be.
Consequently, we formally request that any Board discussions on faculty workload be treated with appropriate seriousness and be removed from the current discussions of the budget. If the Board intends to address its policy on faculty workloads, then it should address this policy in a deliberative fashion, possibly as a part of the its overall discussions on the proposed Compensation policy. The Full-Time Faculty Senate should have input into these discussions, so that the Board may make a fully informed decision on this matter. We believe that this is an appropriate process for such discussions. The current policy on Faculty Workloads has been in effect for many years. It is an issue that would be considered significant by most faculty. For the Board to treat this issue in a hasty manner, without adequate reflection or information, or to be perceived as doing so, will not, ultimately, be in the best interests of our College.
The draft of the proposed revisions is available on the Board of Trustees web page at http://www.austin.cc.tx.us/bdchair/fy98/agendas/6979.htm
5. Administrative Rules & Evaluation Summary
The Policy and Procedures Committee presented additional information on a report prepared for the May 29 meeting about Administrative Rules concerning Early College Start, Grants, Religious Holy Days, and Grade Change. Senators discussed the grade change policy and the early start policy. Senators again expressed concern about interaction with parents of high school students enrolled in the Early College Start program. It was also noted that academic standards do not clearly address prerequisites outlined by individual disciplines. The Senate approved the Committee's recommendations on these proposed administrative rules.
Due to conflicting scheduled activities, a number of Senators left for other meetings at 3:00. Since this caused a loss of quorum, it was agreed to table discussion of the Task Force Chair/Assistant Dean Evaluation Summary and the discussion of the Sabbatical Leave rule until the next meeting.
