Fill - Free fillable Faculty Senate Proposal (Central Oregon Community College) PDF form

Revised AA Presentation Checklist-writable Updated 5/10/2018

Page 1 of 3

Academic Affairs Committee

Form 1:

Presentation Checklist

Name: _____

_________________________________________ Date: ___________________

Department: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

COCC Contact Information: ___________________________________________________________

Use the instructions for this document to complete your presentation checklist; then e-mail your

completed presentation checklist (not the instructions) to the Academic Affairs chair by his or her

specified deadline. Please note: If an item listed is not relevant to your specific presentation to

Academic Affairs, please mark as N/A. Use as many pages as necessary.

PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

TYPE OF AGENDA ITEM

Information Item (requires approval of AA Chair)

Action Item

Information and committee feedback

Procedure—revision (Attach current procedure with proposed changes illustrated with track

changes)

Procedure—new

Identify suggested location in GPM: _______________________________________________________

Policy—revision (Attach current policy with proposed changes illustrated with track changes)

Policy—new

Identify suggested location in GPM:________________________________________________________

New academic program (Complete only items #1 and #2 on this form and attach stage 2

document.)

Other:________________________________________________________________________________

Proposed faculty committee

Amy Harper

April 10, 2109

Instruction

aeharper@cocc.edu

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 proposal is to present the rationale 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.

Revised AA Presentation Checklist-writable Updated 5/10/2018

Page 2 of 3

BUDGET

INSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

OPERATIONAL NEEDS, CURRENT AND FUTURE

STUDENT IMPACT

ANTICIPATED IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

nominal - may include pay for PT/adj representative

Faculty representatives will be needed for the committee

Creates a new committee which may need some operational support (minutes, website...)

no direct impact

Pilot will be implemented in Fall 2019.

April 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 1

PROPOSAL FOR FACULTY SENATE

(Pilot year 2019-20)

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. 22, 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.

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.

April 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 2

CONTEXT

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 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.

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 member’s 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

April 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 3

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

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),

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.

April 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 4

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.

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

April 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 5

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.

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 be considered by 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.

 Initiate task forces or work groups, accept recommendations from committees or refer matters to other

committees as appropriate.

April 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 6

 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 matrix – Appendix B

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.

EXPLANATION FOR THE PILOT YEAR MEMBERSHIP

 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).

 We tried to identify groups that would have common interests, concerns, and challenges, which is why we

included a RMP representative and a developmental representative.

 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.

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 10, 2019 Faculty Senate Pilot 7

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

Tenure

PIRT

Promotions

Academic

Affairs

College

Affairs

Student

Affairs

Student Eval: questions

Student eval: usage F

Student eval: technology I

Peer evaluations

ARA F

Professional Improvement A (GP-34) CBA -F

Sabbatical A (GP-34) CBA -F

travel funds A (GP-34)

innovation funds A (GP-34)

workshops/trainings A (GP-34)

A (GP-34) CBA-F

CBA-F

teaching load CBA-F

scheduling

online CBA-F

other load (chair, PD, etc) F?I?

primary job description (office hours etc) I

assessments (course/program/GenEd) D

Annual Program Reviews D

new programs D

FFEC, Forum reps on others C

all other faculty reps.

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 makin

C = Carry out (implement)

CBA = Forum policy

Faculty Committee appointments

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

Faculty

Senate

Promotions Tenure

PIRT RSC TLC Chairmoot

CTE

Council?

I I I

D I I I

F F

I I IC

D I I FC

D I

I FC I

D I I FC I

F IC

F FC I

D FC I

D FC I I I

F F

F I I

F FC

FI?

F FC FI?

F FI? FI?

F FC

FI?

F IC I

F IC

? ? ?

ng a decision)

Advisory Committees

ADMIN

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

Faculty Senate Proposal (Central Oregon Community College)

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Faculty Senate Proposal (Central Oregon Community College) Form

Related forms

Fillable Faculty Senate Proposal (Central Oregon Community College)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Faculty Senate Proposal (Central Oregon Community College) Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!