Revised CA Presentation Checklist-writable Updated 9/17/2018
Page 1 of 3
Name: Date:
Department:
Contact Information:
Complete Items 18 to the best of your ability (see Instructions form for reference).
If an item listed is not relevant to your specific presentation to College Affairs, please mark
it N/A.
E-mail the completed checklist to the College Affairs committee support specialist by the
specified deadline.
1. PRESENTATION/PROPOSAL ABSTRACT (150250 words)
2. TYPE OF PRESENTATION/PROPOSAL
Information Item (requires approval of CA Chair)
Action Item
Information and committee feedback
Procedure—revision (Attach current procedure with proposed changes highlighted using
track changes.)
Pr
ocedure—new (Attach proposed procedure separately.)
Identify suggested location in General Procedures Manual:
College Affairs Committee
Presentation/Proposal From
[Add Title Here]
Faculty Senate Pilot year, 2019-2020
Amy Harper
4/26/2019
Faculty Forum
aeharper@cocc.edu
Revised CA Presentation Checklist-writable Updated 9/17/2018
Page 2 of 3
Policyrevision (Attach current policy with proposed changes illustrated with track
changes)
Policynew (Attach proposed policy separately.)
Identify suggested location in General Policy Manual:
Other:
3. BUDGET IMPACT
4. INSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS/IMPACTS
5. OPERATIONAL IMPACT
Revised CA Presentation Checklist-writable Updated 10/10/2018
Page 3 of 3
6. STUDENT IMPACT
7. ANTICIPATED IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
8. MOTION TO BE RECOMMENDED
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 1
PROPOSAL FOR FACULTY SENATE
(Pilot year 2019-20)
PROPOSAL OUTLINE
1. Context (page 2): This section explains why the proposal is being presented at this time.
2. Considerations and Challenges (page 3): This section explores some of the challenges we hope to
address in creating a new faculty committee. This section also include a discussion of our first attempt
and its shortfalls
3. Faculty Senate (page 5): This section outlines the scope of responsibility, the membership, and the charge
for the pilot year.
This proposal argues for the creation of a new faculty organization at Central Oregon Community College (COCC)
and the restructuring of the existing Faculty Forum. The purpose of this paper is to present the rational and the
general structure to pilot a Faculty Senate during the 2019-20 academic year with the intent to create a formal
committee the following year. This proposal has been informed by:
Faculty input:
Nov. 30, 2018: Full forum meeting and brainstorming session
Jan. 25, 2019: Full Forum meeting and discussion of initial proposal
Jan. 26 Feb. 8, 2019: Survey open to all Full Time and Adjunct faculty
March 15, 2019: all faculty meeting and discussion
Labor Management Committee (LMC)
Jan. 25, 2019: discussion of initial proposal at LMC meeting
March 8, 2019: discussion of proposal and recommendations for a pilot year Faculty Senate
April 3, 2019: discussion of Faculty Senate draft and discussion of next steps
Faculty Forum Executive Committee (FFEC)
October November 2018 (FFEC committee members contacted various Community Colleges that were
unionized, had promotion, and had a faculty governance body. Given that COCC is the only Community
College in Oregon that has promotion recognized within our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) we
did not contact Oregon CC. Rather we had conversations with our counterparts at institutions including
Leeward CC in Hawai’i and Truckee Meadows CC in Reno, NV. )
Dec. 7, 2018 (review of Faculty brainstorming posters)
Jan. 18 , 2019 (feedback on initial proposal)
Feb. 15, 2019 (discussion of scope of responsibilities)
March 1, 2019 (discussion of results from survey, discussion of ideas regarding broader faculty
involvement)
TIMELINE:
March April 2019, finalize proposal and bring to various interest groups for information and feedback
Early- Mid May elections to fill membership for the pilot year.
End of Winter Term 2020, finalize formal proposal for the Faculty Senate to present to College Affairs for
approval and addition to the GPM and Committee Matrix.
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 2
CONTEXT
SUMMARY
The Central Oregon Community College Faculty Forum has functioned in a dual capacity, as a bargaining unit and
as a faculty organization. As a result of the July 2018 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, this dual role is no longer
feasible.
The forum will refocus as a dues-based bargaining unit, whose role is to guide contract negotiations and
to maintain and support the agreement during the contract period.
A new committee will assume the duties that were associated more with a faculty organization.
This document establishes a pilot year committee to determine the appropriate membership and scope of
responsibility for a Faculty Senate.
IN MORE DETAIL
THE JANUS DECISION
The impetus for this proposal was the June 27, 2018 Supreme Court ruling in JANUS v. AFSCME (American
Federation of State, Country, and Municipal Employees). This ruling overturned the 1977 Supreme Court decision
that allowed unions to collect “fair-share” fees from non-members. According to labor laws, bargaining units must
bargain for all employees in an identified category, yet not all employees support the political leanings of unions
and did not want their dues to contribute to lobbying efforts that were contrary to their political perspectives. In
order to accommodate the first amendment rights of those employees, and in recognition of the fact that unions
were responsible for negotiating on behalf of all employees regardless of union membership, the 1977 Supreme
Court recognized fair share fees. These fees were a percentage of the union membership dues intended to cover
costs of collective bargaining for individuals who felt obligatory dues infringed on their free speech. The June 27,
2018 ruling has reversed this position and deemed fair share fees an unconstitutional infringement on first
amendment rights. Unions for public employees had to immediately stop collecting fair share fees and allow
members to withdraw their union membership.
THE FACULTY FORUM PRE-JANUS
The Central Oregon Community College Faculty Forum is the bargaining unit for all full-time and adjunct faculty at
COCC. The Forum is not affiliated with any other regional or national union organization. In addition to
functioning as the bargaining unit, the Forum has also functioned as a way to provide a faculty voice, in particular,
as related to the COCC value of shared governance. The forum was the body through which faculty were elected
to campus wide positions, it held regular meetings to discuss a variety of concerns, not all related to workplace
issues covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). We held faculty socials, ran Q&A sessions for faculty
to provide input on instructional leadership and college presidents, and otherwise provided an opportunity for
faculty conversations. Most faculty would probably consider negotiations just one aspect of the Forum and one
that only occurred every few years. All faculty who were hired or transitioned into adjunct or full-time status were
automatically added to the Forum and dues were withdrawn. The CBA did have a fair share clause but this clause
was rarely used.
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 3
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FORUM IN A POST-JANUS WORLD
As a result of Janus, Forum membership is no longer automatic. The Forum now has authorization forms that
affirm a faculty member’s membership status and approval for monthly deduction of dues from their paycheck
(dues are deducted from October through June each year). Once a faculty member signs the authorization form,
membership and dues deduction will be renewed automatically each year as long as the faculty member is a full-
time or adjunct member of COCC. The forum also provides for a revocation window (August 18-Sept 17 of each
year) in which a faculty member can revoke their membership and dues deduction. These changes are specifically
in relation to the bargaining unit function of the forum (It is important to remember that the bargaining unit
represents all full-time and adjunct faculty regardless of Forum membership). While this has addressed the
immediate requirements resulting from Janus, there are more problems remaining. Specifically, the Forum, a
dues-based membership organization, has significant non-CBA related functions which contribute to any individual
faculty members ability to succeed and advance in their jobs. For example, our promotion system requires college
service and most committee positions are filled via Forum election.
The Forum is responsible for negotiation of the CBA and monitoring college and faculty adherence to CBA. This
role does not encompasses decision-making or advocate the specific ways in which articles of the CBA are
implemented (unless so identified in the CBA). As a Collective Bargaining Unit, the Forum exists outside of the
College Committee Structure. Forum leadership and constitution will need to be reworked to reflect the changes
resulting from the reorganization. This discussion will occur within the membership and does not need campus
wide input or approval as it exists outside of the college structure.
Clearly, the Forum can no longer function as both the bargaining unit and as a gathering for faculty discussion of
everyday work issues, policies, and procedures. While the Forum will need to be restructured to focus on the
negotiation of and adherence to the CBA, we must also provide a non-dues based organization to provide faculty
discussion and input and to ensure that faculty have a place in the system of shared governance at the college.
CONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES FOR THE NEW FACULTY COMMITTEE
Over the course of the Fall 2018 and Winter 2019 terms, the Faculty Forum and the Faculty Forum Executive
Committee have worked to develop a committee structure that would advocate for faculty at COCC and would
provide a clear pathway for discussion of and changes to faculty evaluation, professional Improvement,
sabbaticals, promotions, and tenure. In exploring these options, we also identified some of the challenges we
wanted this new committee to address:
CHALLENGE 1: CONFUSION AS TO WHICH ENTITY “OWNS” POLICY AND PROCEDURE RELATED TO
FACULTY EVALUATION, PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT, SABBATICALS, PROMOTION, AND TENURE.
Historically, COCC’s instructional administration has been relatively stable. Vice Presidents for Instruction (as well
as other high-level administrators) often occupied their positions for a decade or more. This, along with the
relatively small size of the full-time faculty often resulted in practices that emerged from precedent and were not
formalized. When the instructional administration’s office began experiencing high turnover, in the absence of
clearly defined procedures, each VPI brought their own interpretation into play. This resulted in a patchwork of
practices and in some cases inertia as groups struggled to identify where to direct proposals and who and how to
get approval. For instance, in the past, Chairmoot developed and approved changes to the ARA format, Chairmoot
also initiated a restructuring of PIRT that had implications for how promotions and tenure assessed PIP plans in
faculty files; changes to student evaluations have emerged variously from eLearning (before it was eLearning),
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 4
Chairmoot, the VPI, and Faculty Forum. In some cases, Forum voted on these changes while at other times the
changes were implemented without a vote in Forum.
CHALLENGE 2: CLARITY IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COMMITTEES THAT FOCUS ON FACULTY
EVALUATION, PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT, SABBATICALS, PROMOTION, AND TENURE.
There are currently a variety of committees that address different pieces of faculty evaluation, professional
Improvement, sabbaticals, promotion, and tenure. These include; Chairmoot (ARA, Peer Teams, student
evaluations, Designated Evaluators who write letters in support of promotion, and tenure), Promotions
Committee, Tenure Committee, and PIRT (Professional Improvement and Sabbatical). Chairmoot is an
administrative committee while the others are advisory committees yet each does work that has ripples into the
other committees. For instance, a change in how the student evaluations are implemented has implications for
the Promotions and Tenure committees. Often changes that are implemented are not clearly communicated to all
invested groups.
CHALLENGE 3: A PLACE TO DISCUSS WORK PLACE ISSUES THAT INFLUENCE FACULTY WORK AND
PERFORMANCE BUT ARE NOT DIRECLTY REALTED TO FACULTY EVALUATION, PROFESSIONAL
IMPROVEMENT, SABBATICALS, PROMOTION, AND TENURE.
Historically, the Forum has provided the venue to discuss work place issues not directly related to the CBA. For
instance, Kathy Walsh (former VPI) would come to FFEC and the Full Forum to discuss expectations of office hours,
and on campus presence during the week. At one point Shirley Metcalf, as interim President, came to the Forum
to address faculty concerns about CPS practices. If the Forum can no longer provide this function (as not all faculty
are members), then we need a formalized place for these kinds of issues to be brought to faculty. Additionally,
Faculty have identified the systematic documentation of course, program and Gen Ed assessment along with
Annual Program Reviews, advising, travel to northern campuses, online and hybrid instructional challenges, and
other non CBA related issues as having significant impact on our abilities to complete our primary assignment.
Currently, discussions about these concerns take place within individual departments and diverse administrative
and advisory committees. We need to have a more centralized and formalized place for these discussions and a
way to better facilitate creative management of these concerns.
CHALLENGE 4: A SYSTEMATIC WAY TO COLLECT RESOURCES FOR FACULTY IN A SINGLE LOCATION
As our campus has grown and as different groups have created various forms, resources and procedures (from sick
leave forms to PIRT final report forms, to the Peer Evaluation Handbook) faculty have struggled to know where to
find relevant information. This has been further compounded by the transition to the intranet as some things are
public while others are on the intranet.
CHALLENGE 5: ENSURE BROAD FACULTY INPUT AND ENGAGEMENT
A challenge all committees face on this campus is communication. For this new committee, the challenge will be
how to ensure broad faculty engagement given our faculty numbers have increased and we are located on
multiple campuses. The pilot membership for the Senate is based on a representational model, where different
segments of faculty elect their representative. This is to help ensure that members to the senate recognize their
responsibilities to represent the interests and concerns of their constituents.
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 5
FIRST PROPOSAL: FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
According to the Shared Governance Handbook (https://www.cocc.edu/committees/college-affairs/shared-
governance-work-group/files/shared-gov-handbook-june-2018.pdf ) there are three types of committees at COCC:
1. Policy: Committees with the authority to recommend policy, within their scope of responsibility, to the
President. These committees implement current policies and procedures and plan for the future.
2. Advisory: Committees which provide guidance and recommendations to a specific entity of the college (such
as Instructional Administration, Instructional Technology, etc.).
3. Administrative: Committees responsible for the various aspects of day-to-day administration of College policy
and practice.
Currently there are three policy committees: College Affairs, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs. The FFEC
initially proposed the creation of a fourth policy committee, Faculty Affairs. We felt that by adding a fourth policy
committee, we would have a clear trajectory by which various advisory groups tasked with faculty evaluation (i.e.
promotions, tenure, and PIRT) can forward proposals for changes to their practices. At the time we worried that
an advisory committee would not address our first and primary challenge and would thus continue to contribute to
our patchwork approach and overall inertia as groups struggle to identify where to direct proposals and who and
how to get changes approved.
However, as we received more feedback from different groups we re-evaluated the pros and cons of a policy
committee model. While this model would provide a good structure for addressing challenges 1&2 and potentially
4, it did not address challenge 3 (as policy committees tend to be reactive rather than proactive) and could even
make broad faculty engagement more difficult (challenge 5). In addition, administrators expressed concern that
this committee would play more of an advocacy role than is intended for this type of committee. Other
administrators worried that this would set precedence for other interested groups to develop their own policy
committees and would change the committee distribution and ultimately change the purpose of policy
committees. As a result, we returned to a faculty senate model that would create a new advisory group.
FACULTY SENATE
The Faculty Senate model has the potential to address all 5 challenges.
Challenge 1&2: Provides clear trajectory for decision-making and communication (see Appendices A&B)
Challenge 3: We can be proactive in raising and discussing faculty-related issues including those not
directly related to faculty evaluation, promotion, tenure, professional improvement and sabbatical
Challenge 4: We could potentially create and maintain a intranet page with links to all relevant forms and
resources. We could also explore the possibility of revamping the Faculty Forum Blackboard shell.
Challenge 5: Advisory committees membership is primarily determined by the needs of the interest group
it serves and as such faculty have better options for developing membership to ensure broad faculty
engagement
SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
This committee would act as the primary interface between faculty and the college administration. This committee
would also facilitate and streamline decision-making in relation to faculty evaluation, promotions, tenure,
professional improvement, and sabbaticals, and facilitate communication across the campus community on
faculty-related issues.
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 6
PRIMARY FUNCTIONS:
Act as the main clearinghouse/review committee for all policy and procedure related to faculty
evaluation, professional improvement, sabbaticals, promotion, and tenure; specifically those outlined in
the faculty policies and faculty procedures sections of the GPM (G-34). Proposed changes to the G-34
section would have to go through the senate before going to College Affairs for approval.
Provide a forum to discuss issues relevant to faculty primary and secondary assignments (for example,
discussions about faculty travel, support for online courses, or discussions about Chair and program
director load). Proposals that emerge from these discussions would be forwarded to the appropriate
college entity for consideration (see attached Appendix B for guidance).
Initiate task forces or work groups, accept recommendations from committees or refer matters to other
committees as appropriate.
Run elections to fill faculty positions on campus committees, appoint members to work groups and task
forces.
Be responsible for communication across the campus community on faculty-related issues.
Maintain a centralized faculty resource site.
RESPOSIBILITIES AND OVERLAP WITH OTHER COMMITTEES
See flow chart Appendix A
See attached committee responsibility matrixAppendix B
PILOT YEAR MEMBERSHIP
For the pilot year, we will work with a representational model for membership in which faculty are elected by
predetermined clusters. Each Senate member should recognize that their role on the committee is to represent
their particular group’s interests. The direct election helps reinforce this relationship and reminds both the
member and the electing bodies of their responsibility to their constituents.
NOTE: The membership is intended to apply to the pilot year only; during the pilot year, the committee will
propose membership models for the Faculty Senate.
Pilot year membership
CTE- 1 (NIR, BUS/AV, CIS)
Elected by faculty in NIR, BUS/AV, CIS
CTE - 2 (AH, NUR, CUL)
Elected by faculty in AH, NUR, CUL
TRF- 1 (SCI, MTH, HHP)
Elected by faculty in SCI, MTH, HHP
TRF-2 (SocSci, WLC, HUM, FAC)
Elected by faculty in SocSci, WLC, HUM, FAC
RMP (faculty who, at time of nomination have taught
½ load in one or more RMP campuses during the
academic year
Elected by faculty
DEV (faculty who teach dev MTH, dev WR, or Human
Development)
Elected by faculty
ADJ/PT
Elected by ADJ/PT faculty
Forum representative
Appointed by FFEC
VPI or Instructional Administrator
Appointed by VPI
April 19, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 7
RATIONAL FOR THE PILOT YEAR MEMBERSHIP
This model is based on the idea that different groups of faculty have different interests, concerns, and
challenges, thus we chose to organize clusters that would represent common interests and concerns.
o We included a RMP representative and a developmental representative.
o We divided the CTE and Transfer clusters in groups that we felt had overlapping interests and
teaching issues (we realize this is imperfect) rather than according to number of faculty.
There are departments (Social Science, CIS, and BUS for instance) that have a blend of
CTE and Transfer programs. The Pilot year committee will need to keep this in mind in
evaluating membership for the Faculty Senate.
o The pilot year committee will need to evaluate this system to determine if it best fits our faculty
needs.
At a minimum, there should be 7 faculty members 1 member would be the chair, 1 member represents
ADJ/PT, and the remaining 5 members would liaison with one of the follow advisory committees
(Promotion, Tenure, PIRT, RSC, TLC).
Given that the Senate will discuss issues that have CBA implications, the FFEC representative will help
identify and guide those discussions to ensure that the bargaining agreement is not compromised.
The VPI or Instructional administrator provides broader context for discussions within the senate.
CHARGE FOR THE 2019-2020 PILOT YEAR
The goal of the pilot year is to determine the best way to ensure faculty discussion and input on important
decisions relevant to faculty. During the pilot year, the Senate should consider the following issues:
1. Evaluate the Senate membership. Does the membership model as laid out in the pilot accurately
represent the diverse interests, concerns, and challenges of the COCC faculty? For instance, should the
senate also include ABS (Adult Basic Skills) Faculty?
2. Establish terms and duties for members. For instance the committee will need to think about the role of
the Chair: Is the Chair elected by faculty (as is the president of the Forum) or should the Chair be selected
from one of the members (as is practice for most other college committees)? The committee may also
want to consider a stipend for the Adjunct/Part Time representative.
3. Review and assess the scope of responsibilities, and develop appropriate procedures and practices
(formal proposal for committee should be prepared for review by end of Winter 2020)
4. Develop some means of disseminating and centralizing information (intranet presence, meeting
agendas/minutes, forms, etc)
5. Develop specific ways to encourage faculty engagement and to ensure faculty voice. Some suggestions
include reinstating a “Lunch” series (along the lines of College Hour during the 90s and early 2000s) that
would be focused on outreach, discussion, research, and problem solving.
APPENDIX A
The President
College Affairs
VPI
Faculty Senate
Academic Affairs
RSC
TLC
Te n u r e
PIRT
Promotions
Academic
Affairs
College
Affairs
Student
Affairs
Faculty
Senate
Promotions Tenure PIRT RSC TLC Chairmoot
CTE
Council?
I
Student Eval: questions F D I I I
Student eval: usage F D I I I
Student eval: technology I F F
Peer evaluations F D I I IC
ARA F D I I FC
Professional Improvement A (GP-34) CBA -F D I I FC I
Sabbatical A (GP-34) CBA -F D I I FC I
travel funds A (GP-34) F IC
innovation funds A (GP-34) F FC I
workshops/trainings A (GP-34) D FC I
A (GP-34) CBA-F D FC I I I
A (GP-34) CBA-F D FC I I I
CBA-F F F F
teaching load CBA-F F I I
scheduling F FC FI?
online CBA-F F FC FI?
other load (chair, PD, etc) F?I? F FI? FI?
primary job description (office hours etc) I F FC FI?
assessments (course/program/GenEd) D F IC I
Annual Program Reviews D F IC I
new programs D ? ? ?
FFEC, Forum reps on others C
all other faculty reps. C
Key
A = Approval (policy)
D = Decisions (procedure)
I =informational (A/D group is responsible to bring changes to groups noted with "I"
F = Feedcbak/input (A/D group should seek out feedback or input from these groups before making a decision)
C = Carry out (implement)
CBA = Forum policy
APPENDIX B
Faculty Committee appointments
Advisory Committees
Course/program assessment
Faculty evaluation:
Faculty development:
Faculty Promotions:
Faculty tenure:
Faculty Calendar
Faculty work load
Scope of Responsibilities Matrix *DRAFT*
Topics
Policy Committees
FORUM
ADMIN
Chrome Web Store
It looks like you haven't installed the Fill Chrome Extension Add to Chrome