Academic Senate
2008-2009 
Home
Student Learning
Outcomes
Let's Talk About
Teaching and Learning
Board Policy
Review
The Ed
Center
Flex Day
Info
Committees

April 23, 2009

 

Let's Talk About Teaching and Student Learning

May 20, 2009

"Academic Writing" We'll try to have guests familiar with CSU and UC writing expectations. Merry Dennehy is helping to organize this.

Please attend!

 

Next Academic Senate meeting: Thursday May 7, 2:45-4:30pm

 

Budget Forum

Monday April 27 4-5 pm LF103

You want to go to this!

 

CTE Forums

April 24 (tomorrow), 1-5 pm, FACS

May 22, 12-5 pm

All persons interested in Community College Education are urged to attend.

Hope to see many of you there.

 

Faculty Hiring Prioritization

The committee met and looked at the AAAG bylaws and committee composition.

It turns out that AAAG has the appropriate faculty composition to make the faculty hiring prioritization decision. Counseling/Student Services and Supportive Services are represented with voting members.

AAAG Bylaws: The committee composition is somewhat out of date.

Composition of AAAG – 19 members:

        Academic Affairs Vice-President

        2 students appointed by ASMPC

        2 classified appointed by MPCEA

        1 MSC

        7 Division Chairs

        1 Supportive Services Representative 

        1 Counseling/Student Services Representative

        1 Women’s Programs representative

        Nursing Director

        Library Director

2 Instructional Deans

 

Here is the note from Susan Steele:

"Following up on our meeting re faculty prioritization, I went looking for AAAG’s by-laws.  We had decided that the critical issue was to ensure that the two faculty groups (counseling and instructional) in SSAG were represented and that they (1) were equal players, (2) understood their role as representing their faculty colleagues, and (3) had sets terms.  I am attaching what I found.  It would appear that the two groups are represented in AAAG and that they are equal players but that conditions 2 and 3 might not be so clear.

 

My conclusion is that the somewhat revised version of the faculty prioritization process is ok, but we have to rewrite the by-laws."

 

 

EEO Plan Board Policy

At the April 2 meeting we resolved points 1,2,3, part of 4, 5, and 7 of Alan's analysis. We will return to aspects of 4 and 6 at the April 23 meeting. The aspects of 4 that we need to return to include the makeup of the EEOAC and the quorum required for the EEOAC to make a decision. Remember that one of the points is the number of faculty required is at least one. Should it be more? Also, is 25% enough for a quorum?

 

The issue with number 6 is how far along in the selection process should we track the demographic data. Should it just be applicant pools or should it go further to interview groups and those groups recommended to the President?

 

I'll also bring up some concerns about the policy itself, i.e., not the plan. The topic sentence of the first paragraph is about the principles of equal employment opportunity. The second sentence, however, is about a "comprehensive program" (not the plan) to implement and apply to everything that goes on at MPC. The topic sentence and the rest of the paragraph don't match.

 

The second paragraph is all about employment.

 

The third paragraph is about both, or the relationship between the two. The problem I have is the verb "ensure" in the second sentence. "Ensure" is too strong of a verb.

 

I would also suggest that the EEOAC investigate the pros and cons of having separate board policies for the EEO Plan and for a Commitment to Diversity in general. It might be easier to craft a strongly worded policy if there are two separate policies. As is, in my opinion, the message does not come through clearly.