Oct 16, 2014
College Council (met Oct 14)
Quite an extensive conversation about the Life-long Learning definition on what was deemed a first reading.
Lifelong learners are those students who seek some combination of personal fulfillment and enterprise, employability and workplace adaptability, and active citizenship and social inclusion, and who have not identified certificate, degree or transfer as their immediate educational goal.
The key words were "employability and workplace adaptability". Some thought that these words were edging into the CTE area of our mission. DJ, for example, thought that anybody who took even one or two networking courses were CTE students. Micheal Gilmartin recognized that many students are meeting their own goals by taking one or two courses, and many of these students are trying to improve their employability or get a better job. These seemed like CTE students to him. The conversation went to those people who are trying to improve their employability by taking courses that are not within our traditional CTE curriculum, like speech communication, or a writing class, or whatever.
Mike Gilmartin suggested that MPC needs a broader understanding of CTE in general, and suggested a similar exercise of coming up with a definition of CTE students.
In the end, it seemed people were comfortable with the definition as is, but agreed with Mike that a similar exercise for CTE would be valuable.
College Council Bylaws
There was discussion about revising the College Council bylaws to make them consistent with recent revisions of the Planning and Resource Allocation Process.
One suggestion was to move one of the duties to the Accreditation/SLO Committee since it has been heavily involved in process and it has been a subcommittee of the Academic Senate. This responsibility is currently #14:
14. Review and potentially revise the shared governance process to ensure institutional effectiveness on a regular basis.
I pointed out that this responsibility is very close number ten of the 10+1. In addition, institutional effectiveness also deals with student learning, which fall squarely in the Academic Senate purview.
1. Curriculum including establishing prerequisites and places courses within
2. Degree and certificate requirements
3. Grading policies
4. Educational program development
5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success
6. District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles
7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports
8. Policies for faculty professional development activities
9. Processes for program review
10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development
11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the governing board and the academic senate
Walt announced that the Business position search has been terminated. Three reasons were given, all of which involve changes that have occurred since the position was prioritized and approved.
1. The college is down 100 FTES, which works out to around $800,000 apportionment
2. There is a 0.5 full time faculty load available to teach business classes; this was not recognized at the time of the approval
3. It was not clear exactly what the new person would teach.
There were questions about the Faculty Obligation Number (FON). MPC would be one under the FON without the business position. It's a calculated calculation; there may be ways around it; it is apparently about a $70,000 penalty if we don't make the FON.
AAAG (met October 15)
There are lots of maintenance/custodial issues
soot in nursing classrooms
pool is not getting cleaned
PE building has pressure issues that make it difficult to open doors
Library bathrooms are a long-standing issue
CDC cleaning where kids are involved is an issue
Pete Olsen who is currently in charge of all this is overwhelmed
Faculty Position Priority Form -- a revised form has appeared
Prior enrollment has always been a part of the form.
In the past, there has been great diversity in how this enrollment information was reported, making it difficult to compare positions
One new aspect of the revised form asked for prior enrollment in classes, rather than programs
This has led to two issues
1. uncertainty about how to fill out the form
2. greater emphasis on FTES in making prioritization decisions
Issue #1 is being clarified via email and Rosaleen Ryan today
Issue #2 -- well, it's a reality that FTES generation is an important consideration in prioritizing faculty positions to hire. Administration will look at these types of numbers as they analyze the positions; faculty might as well look at them too.
I emphasized at the meeting that revisions to this type of form should have faculty consultation and input, which did not happen in this case. I think the point was well taken by all involved.
AGGG also talked about the termination of the Business Position search
The same types of information as presented at College Council were presented. There were some differences in perspective between the Business Division and the Administration.
Need a point person if we want this to move forward.