M I N U T E S
ACADEMIC COUNCIL
MAY 25,2001
FAYETTE CAMPUS
Present: K.Newby, R.Shrubb,M. Snyder, S.Stout,K. Storer, Dr. Cronan(presiding), K. Daniels( came late):
The following topics were discussed and resolved as indicated:
1. Faculty/staff orientation week activities
Sherry will chair committee also including Marsha and Ric. Major topic will be academic advising.
2. Adjunct Orientation Session
Dr. Cronan will chair committee also including Marsha and Ric to plan activities
3. Master Schedules
The “skeleton” course schedules prepared by Ken will be used as the basis of the schedules. The spreadsheet format used by Dr. Cronan will be created by him after the fact as a short, easily stored “recipe” or “road map” schedule. Deans and others requested by Ken will schedule specific courses in accordance with these skeletons and with the campus locations of programs assignments. Fall has been done and much of the winter has been done.
A few adjustments will need to be done, in consultation with specific faculty groups(eg., core computer science courses; a unified rotation list for humanities courses).
Once all these core schedules have been done, Ken and Dr. Cronan will schedule other courses, using historical enrollments and campus capacities as the criteria. They will then send these to the academic council and to the faculty for review and comment.
After finalizing, we will have a one-year schedule, with changes to be made based upon our experience and incorporated into these prototypes, with new programs and program changes incorporated into the prototypes on a continuing basis.
Kudos to Ken for creating the catalog requirements sheets for everyone so that all other members of the Council will not have to do this basic work!
4. Evening Services
Several suggestions for improving access to copy machines and computer support during evenings were made and will be passed on to the affected departments.
5. Assessment
Progress on the Assessment Plan was discussed. Dr. Cronan indicated that Glen does not favor review of current programs by the program review committee, and Dr. Cronan has
re-written the plan to make the Academic Council the review body for programs.
6. Adjunct Faculty Credentials
Dr. Cronan has prepared a checklist for all adjunct faculty for this year for checking personnel files to ensure that transcripts are there.
7. Evaluation Procedures for Full-time faculty
Marsha , Ernie, and Ric will be responsible for faculty evaluations next year. Dr,. Cronan will call a meeting to review procedures.
8. Major New Activities for next year and planning objectives of Council members
The major responsibilities of Council members for next year were discussed. While all
members will have on-going activities, there will be several priorities which specific
Individuals will lead. Major activities include strategic plan/technical plan( Ernie),University articulation(Ric), Program Review(Ernie),Academic Advising(Sherry),
Adjunct mentoring( Ernie, Ric, Marsha), General Education Assessment(Ric and Sherry),
Tech-Prep(Ernie), distance education(ernie),program development(Marsha, Ernie, Karen, Ric).
All members will continue their college-wide duties and will deal with budgeting.
9. Staffing
The last search for a Dean of Technical Education produced no candidate acceptable to everyone, and the faculty have recommended a revision in the job description. In addition, the budget for next year looks very gloomy. Therefore, for next year, we will postpone hiring this dean. Dr. Cronan will perform these duties, with some help from
Special contracts for one or two faculty and staff.
10. Communication/Academic Organization
Dr. Cronan reviewed concerns expressed by the faculty senate and individual faculty about communication, especially as related to academic organization, including the issues of coordinators and chairs. He asked that all committees and didcipline-specific groups post their minutes on the web in order to make planning and discussion accessible to everyone.
He also indicated that the administration had proposed a structure composed of 3 deans and 2 faculty liaisons, but no full time faculty had been interested in the positions. Administration is not willing to re-vert to the prior organization but will discuss other possibilities. He asked Professor Daniels to ask the Senate for specific recommendations which would be acceptable to all concerned and which would be clear, allowing for communication and accountability. He suggested a continuous improvement team structure composed of six or seven interdisciplinary groupings, based upon program clusters. These teams would have specific goals, agreed to by administration, would decide among themselves how the compensation would be divided among them, would work by consensus, and would report to the Senate and/or the College monthly on activities and progress toward goals. These groups would be in addition to the discipline-specific communication activities and would interface with the governance structure.Administration would become involved only when a group decided it could not reach consensus. These groups would conduct program reviews, start new programs/courses/activities, hire, mentor, and evaluate adjunct faculty and plan schedules. A full-time faculty member would be the captain of each team(chosen by the team itself).
Marsha and Ric had reservations about whether they couldn’t accomplish the same ends with their disciplinary groups, communication with other disciplines and programs as needed.
Dr. Cronan indicated that administration is willing to discuss any alternatives suggested by the Senate.