Glendale Community College Faculty Senate
Meeting of March 27, 2003
Approved Minutes
(Please note: General interest issues or meetings & notifications are listed below in bold to allow them to be located more easily.)
I. General
A. Call to Order: A quorum being present, President Carmela Arnoldt called the meeting to order at 2:35 P.M. Senators present included: President Carmela Arnoldt, Vice President John Griggs, Secretary Pamela Nelson as well as Larry Bohlender, Jim Daugherty, Amanda Dunnagan, Dianna Dwyer, Robert Hubbard, Cate McNamara, Alicia Ottenberg, Robert Reavis, Carl Samuels, Bill Stewart, and Bruce Thomas. Senate-selected FEC Representative Jim Reed was also present.
B. Introduction of Guests – including, but not limited to: Joseph Bednorz, Doug DeSanti, Ernesto Escobedo, Frank Gonzalez, Betty Hufford, Manny Griego, Michael Holtfrerich, David Rodriguez, Russ Sears, Lyle Walcott, and John Winters.
C. The proposed meeting agenda was adopted as amended.
D. The minutes of the February 27, 2003 meeting were approved.
E. No official Treasurer’s Report was given due to the emergency absence of Treasurer Diana Abel; however, President Arnoldt is not aware of any money spent or received during the past month, which would leave the Senate account at the same total as given in February: a total balance of $17,357.21.
F. President Arnoldt reported:
· GCC President Randolph and President Arnoldt have received several notes of thanks from Emeritus Faculty and their family members.
· An article in Chronicle of Higher Education (2/14/03) discusses the timely issue of University of Phoenix’s advocacy of standard syllabi; President Arnoldt brought this to Senate’s attention given concerns that have been raised recently about MCCD’s curriculum development committee.
G. FEC Report – President Arnoldt and Vice President Griggs reported:
· FEC has hired a Public Relations firm that will lend guidance to the group in realizing goals of greater visibility
· FEC has established a communications committee to make sure that all relevant and important information is disseminated accurately.
· FEC is in the process of developing a communication plan.
· During his March 25th visit with FEC, Chancellor Gaskin commented on the current 49% plan; the process includes a Department Chair suggesting a 49% position to President. Either may stop the request. Chancellor stated that the 49% position is not a guaranteed right and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
H. Governing Board report. President Arnoldt reported:
· The proposed $5 increase in tuition was withdrawn by Chancellor Gaskin after Board member Stein proposed a $2 increase; the motion failed 4-1, and no other motion was offered. Board members questioned the number of MCCCD students who utilize Pell Grant and scholarship money and requested the figures. The item will appear on the business agenda on April 22nd. Colleges will begin to register students for Fall 2003 without knowing an exact tuition.
· United Tribal Executive Committee presented information on Native American enrollment in MCCCD colleges. Over-all Native American population has declined in MCCCD, with the highest percentage at GateWay CC with 5.6%; GCC has 1.7%
· Board voted 3-2 to maintain the current security policy that restricts Certified Officers from carrying weapons. 30-50 security personnel were present. Many spoke in favor of arming the Officers; no one spoke against.
I. Meet & Confer update. FEC Representative Jim Reed reported:
· Representative Reed quoted some of the budget values that have been received by faculty under separate message from Meet & Confer co-chairs Janice Reilly and Alan Haffa.
· Meet & Confer team has still not received a response from the Board regarding the salary proposal.
· The current Board schedule calls for a budget that does not include salary. This budget contains items such as “miscellaneous & transfer” showing a 32% increase with a total value of $11million. District (non-college) travel will increase 25%. Question: could funds be allocated more appropriately?
· FEC meeting with Napier – Napier suggests individual Faculty write to their appropriate Board members regarding issues.
·
Senate received a text copy of statements made by Alan
Haffa (co-chair of the Meet and Confer team) to the Board. The text of this letter is
appended at the end of these minutes.
· FEC has an aggressive plan to follow up on faculty concerns.
II. Old Business
A. Retirement & Health Insurance – Jim Reed for Doug Dawson
· No report
·
Minutes of March
12, 2003 meeting are appended at the end of these minutes.
B. Testing Center – Nelson
· Senator Nelson was contacted by Dean Sanchez following the February Senate meeting. He requested a copy of the comments that had been gathered thus far regarding the use and operation of the Testing Center.
· Dean Sanchez had been under the impression that a set of recommendations would be forth-coming from Senate and the Department Chairs regarding the use of the Center. As that does not seem to be the case, he will consider the comments that have been gathered and monitor the situation for future action.
· Senate asked President Arnoldt to forward the comment that for the most part faculty are satisfied with the current operation of the Testing Center.
· Question was again raised if future plans would allow for testing of entire classes outside of classrooms. Discussion about the extra personnel necessary followed.
C. Faculty Senate Scholarship Account - Arnoldt
· No report. Postponed to April meeting due to absence of Diana Abel.
D. Memorials Policy - Arnoldt
· Faculty Senate has been given the option to view the Policy after its adoption by PAC; policies will allow GCC to honor colleagues in several ways.
E. Elections Committee – Ottenberg & Dwyer
· 8 candidates for 5 Senate positions; 1 candidate for Councilor-at-Large
·
Senate Ballots
are to be distributed Monday afternoon; they are due back to Roxie Helbert’s
office no later than Tuesday, April 8th.
F. College Plan – Griggs/ John Winters
· Faculty Senate had received a copy of the current draft of the College Plan prior to the meeting.
· Discussion ensued about the inclusion of other non-faculty department members being allowed to vote for department chairs. Some Senators felt the inclusion of others is a violation of the RFP (D.1.1.); others felt it would dilute the opinion of the faculty; Senators requested that this portion of the new draft be struck.
· Discussion followed on the policy outlined for the review/ evaluation of Department Chairs. The current policy allows only the Department Chair to see the evaluations and for him/her to use this evaluation for self-improvement. This procedure is meant to be parallel to the FEP process for Faculty. Concerns were raised that there was not an easy way for this to take place such that the Faculty under a particular Chair were protected from retaliation upon a negative evaluation. Griggs suggested that Senator Samuels join the Committee in re-working this section.
· Senate was asked to forward any other suggested changes to the current draft to John Winters.
· Document was sent back to committee for further review to be presented at the April 24th meeting.
III. New Business
A. PSA Salaries – Reed/ Arnoldt
· The PSA President has established a subcommittee to examine the current pay scale used for PSA employees. The concern is that secretaries have a different load of work depending on the size of the departments they serve and that they should be rewarded in kind. Formal discussions of the policy at the PSA meeting have been postponed until the subcommittee has returned its findings.
· A portion of the current College Plan touches on the grade-levels of certain secretarial staff but is not all-inclusive. Michael Holtfrerich informed Senate that the portion of the College Plan that discusses this issue came directly from GCC President Randolph and that President Randolph has asserted that if either the PSA or the Faculty Senate voted “no” on the current rendition then he would strike it from the Plan before approving it. Holtfrerich also asserted (and President Arnoldt verified) that GCC President Randolph’s plan was not to stop here with the reevaluation of PSA salaries, but only that this was a first step in trying to equilibrate the grade levels assigned to PSA on GCC campus.
· Discussion continued and several points of clarification and information were made about how the current grade-levels within the PSA structure are assigned and how GCC’s structure differs from that of other colleges.
· A concern was raised that this issue could become divisive within PSA if some grades were revised prior to others.
· Faculty asserted the extreme value of the work that the secretaries do on the behalf of their departments. Faculty Senate wished to offer a gesture of support for the PSA staff. Senator Samuels was asked to draft a statement to be presented via MEMO to the Senate for approval.
·
Statement
approved (as of 4/3/03) reads: “The following statement will be communicated to
the MCCCD Governing Board, The MCCCD Faculty Executive Council, and the GCC
Professional Staff Association: The Glendale Community College Faculty Senate
supports a District wide policy of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, the Glendale Community College
Faculty Senate strongly recommends an immediate evaluation and revision of the
current GCC policy used to assign PSA grade-levels in order to compensate our
PSA professional staff more adequately and remove long standing
inequalities."
B. Retired Faculty Recognition Plaques/ Prince Library Rededication - Dwyer
· Plaques honoring retired, deceased faculty that used to hang in the library need to be updated and displayed. Question was raised whether to hang in Library (no convenient place is apparently available) or Council Chambers.
·
LMC is to be rededicated as the Prince Library. GCC President Randolph has MEMOs where the
Board approved this naming in the 1970s.
Plaque was removed for remodeling in 1999; plan is to re-hang plaque (no
reprinting of LMC materials will be involved).
C. Senate-hosted Employee Picnic & President’s Welcome Reception - Arnoldt
· A motion was made and seconded: “Faculty Senate will provide $1200-1500 to sponsor a Senate-hosted Employee Picnic to be held May 9, 2003.” Motion passed unanimously. Members of the Senate have agreed to help in organizing and running the event.
· A motion was made and seconded: “Faculty Senate will provide approximately $300 to sponsor a coffee & cake Welcome Reception for President Randolph.” Motion passed unanimously. Reception will be held on April 25, 2003 from 12-1:30pm.
D. Mentoring Program Celebration - Bednorz
· Joseph Bednorz stated regarding a wish of the Counseling Department to host an end-of-year barbeque for participants in the Mentoring Program sometime around the 3rd week of April. He requested $500 from Senate to help make this possible for this year only.
· A motion was made and seconded: “Faculty Senate will provide $500 to the Counseling Department in order to off-set costs of a Mentoring Program barbeque.” Motion passed unanimously.
IV. Information
A. April Pool’s Day – 4/10/03 from 9 am-1 pm
· Pool’s Day has turned into a great publicity event for GCC. This is the 4th Annual event and GCC’s first opportunity to host it.
· Approximately 3300 K-3 students are expected to attend. More than four hundred volunteers are needed for the event to help as tour guides, to provide food, etc. Please contact Doug DeSanti (doug.desanti@gcmail.maricopa.edu) ASAP if you can help.
· Focus of the event will be in the Fitness Center area, although portions will be spread throughout campus.
B. Campus Climate Meeting – Friday, 4/4/03 at 2-3:30pm
· GCC President Randolph will meet with the Faculty regarding the current campus climate and efforts to follow up on the HLC charge to review the GCC climate.
· The purpose of Friday's session is for GCC President Randolph to listen to views about GCC's progress in the following areas, and as needed, initiate actions to improve the college climate: Communication, Decision making, Diversity, Fairness, Leadership, and Morale. Jack Rose and Linda Hawbaker will summarize notes.
· As stated in the February minutes, FEC requested a review of the MCLI programs.
· FEC has been accused of attacking individuals and/or individual programs within the MCLI. President Arnoldt asked members of Senate to publicize and make Faculty aware that this is not a personal attack, but merely a request to begin examining the District budget and policies by looking at our own Faculty programs (as a good faith gesture).
· FEC is not in favor of an initial internal review of MCLI programs, preferring to set a precedent by having an external audit similar to that done by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) at the Colleges.
· MCLI has informed FEC that it would take $30-50 thousand dollars of MCLI money to obtain an external review; it is the position of FEC that District funds, not MCLI funds specifically, that should be used to fund this and other reviews.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 pm.
Next meeting of the GCC Faculty Senate will be held on April 24th at
2:30 pm.
1. Meeting was held Wed. March 12, 6th floor, District, 2:30pm
2. Committee discussed progress on the new survey. It is still our goal to try to get it out to the employees shortly after spring break. Doug will make some additional revisions of the survey and forward them to Jose Leyba who will spearhead getting it to the appropriate District folks who can get it up and ready for distribution electronically. Committee also discussed further dollar analysis of the proposal and how it may impact the district budget. Various scenarios were discussed. It was also noted that currently there are 400 persons under 65 years of age on the ASRS HMO option for health insurance, who are retirees of the MCCD. It is certainly unknown what percent of those
would opt to convert over to what we are currently proposing, especially since it would be about $1500 more per year in cost.
3. Our next meeting has been changed from April 09 to a new date of April 16 at 2:30pm 6th floor at Distirct. Please plan to attend. ON April 09, Doug Dawson and others will meet with Rufus Glasper at District to discuss the financial ramifications of our proposal and get more ideas on where to go from here and any suggestions for changes.
4. Be on the lookout for the survey in the next 2 weeks and encourage others to read it and answer the 8-question survey. The whole document is a bit long since background information needed to be supplied so that employees would understand various options.
5. Put on your calendar: Next Meeting Wed. Apr. 16 2:30pm 6th Floor at District. See you there.
Appendix 2: Statement
made by Alan Haffa to Board on 3/25/03:
President Contreras and Governing Board,
I am here today to speak to you on behalf of Faculty and our ongoing concerns with the Meet and Confer Process. The RFP says, section 1.2.7, “The Meet and confer process is a process of deliberation between the Governing Board and Faculty Association...for the purpose of articulating agreement regarding change with respect to responsibilities, wages, governance, benefits, and all other terms and conditions of Residential Faculty employment.”
I am saddened to report that once again there has been no meaningful deliberation between the Board and the Faculty Association with respect to salary. In addition to not meeting the spirit of the RFP, this lack of negotiation and deliberation with the Faculty is perceived as a lack of respect for faculty. We made an oral salary request in December and a written salary request in January, and here it is nearly the end of March and the Board has not conveyed a decision on our proposal. This does not constitute a deliberation as called for by the RFP. At a minimum, Good Faith negotiation requires a timely response.
Furthermore, tonight the Board is hearing a proposed Budget for 03-04. The public document includes no allocation for salary. Yet, by designating funds for every other spending category, it de facto determines how much money will be left for salary. This is the very process that we objected to when we spoke to you in the Fall. In effect, a salary is being determined without any sort of deliberation or communication with Faculty, and in deed, any employee group. Honestly, I would ask you to consider how you can move forward on a budget process that does not include salaries. The District has adopted a negotiation policy with its own employees that is less respectful and responsive than what it adopts when negotiating contracts with external groups such as People Soft, Blue Cross Blue Shield, ICON, Aramark, Folette. With those organizations the Board accepts multiyear contracts. It empowers the administration to negotiate such contracts. And it agrees to these contracts early in the budget cycle. For Faculty and other employees, salaries are an afterthought, something to be slid into the budget at the last minute.
This gives the impression that employees are not valued. It also effectively denies any sort of real deliberation between the Board and its employees. At the April Board meeting when you do consider salary, it will be too late for Faculty to deliberate, offer counter proposals, seek clarification, and come to a mutual understanding. We are asking that you respond to our salary proposal within five working days so that we will have time to consult with our members and to further deliberate with you before the April Board meeting.
With respect to the proposed 03-04 budget, I would like to call two items to your attention. It recommends an increase of 32%, or nearly 19 million for Miscellaneous and Transfers. This would total 76 million for a fund whose purpose is unclear. It also includes an increase of $276,000 for Travel, an increase of 25.69%, to a total of $1,354,615. At a time when employees are being told that times are tough, it is hard to fathom how money may be spent in these ways.
I have prepared a spreadsheet that shows faculty salaries over the past decade compared to the national average for professors, the consumer price index, and the increase in Fund 1 spending by MCCCD. In the interest of time I will not present that here but I will attach it to your copy of this document when I send it to you. What you will see is that salaries have consistently been below the cost of living, even more below the increases that faculty are receiving nationally, and at the same time, the fund 1 budget has increased 120 percent. In the same time frame salaries have increased only 25%. It would appear that there is money for salaries.
We look forward to your response in the next five working days.