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.
Next Academic Senate meeting: Thursday May 7, 2:45-4:30pm
Monday April 27 4-5 pm LF103
You want to go to this!
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
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
Bylaws: The committee composition is somewhat out of date.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
7 Division Chairs
1 Supportive Services Representative
1 Counseling/Student Services Representative
1 Women’s Programs representative
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
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
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