Glendale Community College Faculty Senate

Meeting of September 25, 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, Secretary Pamela Nelson and Treasurer Jim Daugherty as well as Larry Bohlender, Paula Davis, Amanda Dunnagan, Dianna Dwyer, Fernando Garcia, Robert Hubbard, Steve Kadel, Cate McNamara, Robert Reavis, Carl Samuels, Bruce Thomas, and Joy Wingersky. Executive Councilor-At-Large Jim Reed was also present.

 

B.         Introduction of Guests – including, but not limited to: GCC President Phil Randolph (see below for summary of his executive greetings & information), Ruth Callahan, Jane Camp, Ernesto Escobedo, Gay Garesché, Frank Gonzalez, Charlotte Howey, Sally Hervey, Melissa Musser, Carolyn Percifull, Mary Sindel, and Lyle Walcott.

 

The Senate meeting began (preceding official business) with President Arnoldt welcoming GCC President Randolph, who made several introductory comments:

 

  • Dean of Administrative Services search yielded 94 applicants.  The procedure was smooth, and Dr. Randolph feels using this as a model for future faculty searches would be beneficial.  The procedure included listing the position in several prestigious journals and truly getting the word out.
  • If GCC can show that we have re-allocated resources to use for obtaining new funding for faculty positions, the District has agreed to match that amount (up to a limit of 3 positions).
  • Enrollment is the highest ever at GCC with over 21,000 students.  This makes us larger than NAU.  The FTSE is growing faster than part-time student numbers. 
  • Enrollment has brought the question of growth to the fore-front.  The President’s Advisory Committee (PAC) will be considering the question of how much growth we want and/or how much growth our campus can handle while still maintaining quality.  It’s a sensitive issue because Fund 2, occupational funding, and funding new faculty positions are all based on growth as compared to the other colleges.  To maintain funding we must continue to grow but not at the expense of quality.
  • The President’s Budget Advisory Committee is in the process of being formed.  President Arnoldt will be presenting Dr. Randolph with several nominees from the faculty ranks within the next week.
  • Futures Committee will begin meeting next week, and the charge of the group is to determine how GCC Master Planning and goals fit in with the over-all plan for GCC and MCCD.  Several environmental scans and summaries will be used to assist in this planning venture.
  • GCC continues to improve its outreach and marketing.  President Randolph provided Senators with a packet of newspaper articles relating to successes of GCC faculty.  He had presented the same packet to the Governing Board at the preceding meeting.
  • Planning for the electronic marquee to be installed at 59th and Olive is underway.
  • Master Planning is on-going.  Original documents from District allotted $60 million to GCC Main and $20 million to GCC north.  The revised proposal from GCC includes a necessary $65 million for Main and $27 million for North.
  • President Randolph encouraged faculty to make sure they parked in employee (and not student) spaces to help with the continuing parking issues.

 

Hearing no questions from the Senate, President Arnoldt thanked GCC President Randolph for his continued leadership and support of Faculty initiatives as well as the improved practices that he has instituted.  Dr. Randolph in return stated that “it is an honor to work with you all” and complimented Faculty leadership on a job well done.

 

At this point, GCC President Randolph left the meeting, and the Senate began the official business meeting.

 

            C.        The proposed meeting agenda was adopted as amended.

 

            D.        The minutes of the April 24, 2003 meeting were approved.

 

E.         Jim Daugherty reported a balance of $14,845.19 for all accounts.  Withdrawals included money for the Campus Picnic in May as well as reimbursement to the Student Recognition committee.

 

            F.         President Arnoldt reported:

·        President’s Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings will initiate several new topics in upcoming meetings.

·        President’s new budget development process is underway.  Process seems to be moving smoothly thus far.

·        President Arnoldt expressed concern that there had not been more faculty attendance at the Master Planning presentations of the last two weeks.

·        President Arnoldt strongly encouraged Senators and faculty to attend the Futures Committee meeting to be held on Sept. 30th.

·        President Arnoldt told Senate she would be sending Dr. Glasper a congratulatory note from the GCC faculty to acknowledge his selection as Chancellor of MCCD.

 

G.        FEC Report – President Arnoldt reported:

 (Vice President Griggs was out due to bronchitis):

·        Recently posted administrative regulations regarding travel have been pulled for review by District Travel Committee.

·        Faculty Executive Council (FEC) is preparing to ask Dr. Glasper for a review of the District Human Resources department.  Several “inconsistencies” involving personnel or policies in HR have occurred lately, one of which involved a GCC faculty member.  Such inconsistencies have heightened the need for a review of HR.

·        See below (Board Report) for more information.

 

 

H.        Governing Board report.  President Arnoldt reported:

·        President Arnoldt reminded Senate about the changes that have been occurring at District.

·        Several individuals have criticized the Board for not doing an external (national) search for the Chancellor position.  The Board felt that it was in the best interests of the District to do an internal search and protect the time, money, stability, and reputation of the District at this crucial time.

·        The Vice Chancellor searches are likely to be national in scope.

·        President Arnoldt invited everyone to view the recent Board Meeting on MCTV.

·        President Arnoldt told Senate that the Board had officially dismissed a PSA staff member from Phoenix College.

 

II. Old Business

 

            B.         BDC: PSA Equity Pay – Samuels & Escobedo

·        Senator Samuels provided new and returning Senators with a summary activity and discussion of a motion passed by last year’s Senate: “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."

·        Senator Samuels reminded Senate of the President’s Message (from GCC President Randolph) of 8/13/03, which informed GCC employees that “on July 29 GCC received an additional FTSE incentive allocation of $538,200 from the District.  These funds stem from our FTSE being higher than what was estimated, and translates into a rollover (or carry forward) of about 2.3 percent.  We're looking at these funds as a buffer against any further state budget cuts and for some greater flexibility for OYO faculty/staff and for special projects.”

·        Senator Samuels stated that he, Gay Garesché, and President Arnoldt met with Dr. Randolph and suggested that some of this money be used to rectify the difference in PSA grade-levels.  Dr. Randolph has said that he would take the suggestion under advisement.

·        Senator Samuels expressed concern that no budget committee had been called together to recommend how the new funds would be distributed.

·        Senator Samuels informed Senate that Dr. Glasper had expressed a commitment to equity and distribution of resources to employees as well as fairness and consistent policies in hiring procedures (at the 9/9 Forum held at GCC).

·        Garesché summarized a series of relevant pieces of information on this issue for the Senate:

(1)   Dr. Randolph has stated that some of the additional funding had been used to hire additional adjunct faculty, which allowed us to handle the extra FTSE.

(2)   An approximate $228,000 would be necessary to equalize the PSA grade-levels to match District-wide averages.

(3)   A significant amount of our Fund 3 money comes from the Proposition 301 initiative (although much of it also comes from grants, etc.); Garesché suggested that some of this Prop 301 money might be able to be used to obtain faculty, technical equipment, student services, etc.  The stipulation is that the money be used in support of job training and workforce development.  If some of this money was used for faculty, etc., then the money as above would be available to use for the PSA re-grade.

(4)   Fund 1 is the primary source being considered for the re-grade money.

 

·        The question was raised as to who had the authority to approve the reclassification of PSA staff on campus.  There appears to be a lack of consistency among colleges. 

·        PSA staff present believe that it is within the authority of the President of the campus to authorize the re-classification and they contend that it has been done at other colleges.  In the previous case, the entire Secretary’s Forum went in for reclassification.

·        The current situation at GCC is such that, if approved, the reclassification would move some, but not all, of the secretaries to a higher grade.  The difference between the grades and the fact that not all secretaries would be raised to an equal level concerned several Senators.

·        Senator Samuels moved that: “President Arnoldt will forward the Senate motion from April of last year to Dr. Glasper along with a note reminding him of his support for equity in hiring and payroll practices.”  The motion was seconded and passed with one abstention.

 

B.         Retirement & Health Insurance –Arnoldt for Doug Dawson

·        President Arnoldt reported that the ASRS is considering a plan in which they would no longer provide health insurance to retirees.  This would force the school district employers of the retirees to continue their coverage.

·        More details are available at the end of this document as Addendum One & Two, consisting of the minutes of the last Retirement & Health Insurance meeting and a message from Doug Dawson accompanying the Retirement & Health Insurance Survey results dated 9/26/03.

 

C.        Meet & Confer - Arnoldt

·        First meeting will be October 3rd; goals for 2003-2004 will be discussed.

·        President Arnoldt reminded Senate that the Board had approved a “Memorandum of Understanding” Committee that will consider the stated intent of the Board to establish a mutually agreeable standard process for Meet and Confer.  Jim Daugherty is serving on the MOU Committee.

Senate discussed the possibility of the process including a base equation that includes CPI and its relation to annual salary increases. Concern was expressed that an equation wouldn’t be accepted by the Board due to a statute that restricts one Board from binding the actions of a future Board.  Discussion revealed that the process/equation would be an initial starting point for discussion and setting up the proposed salary table every year and not a final proposal that would bind the Board.

 

D.        12-Month Pay for Faculty - Dwyer

·        FEC President Willie Minor will be speaking with Dr. Glasper about this issue.

·        Some faculty have requested that their pay be spread out over 12 months.  Up to this point, District has not allowed this process due to supposed problems with PeopleSoft software and determining how to pay faculty when they are not actively working.

·        Concern was expressed that this 12-month pay scenario would open the door for District to require 12-month teaching schedules on the part of faculty.

 

E.         Scholarship Criteria - Committee

·        The Committee has received new information from Judy Blake that outlines how to set up a scholarship account.  The committee will be meeting to examine the form and discuss the future of the Senate scholarships.

 

III. New Business

 

A.        GCC Standing Committees Evaluation – Hubbard & Arnoldt

·        President Arnoldt suggested that the Senate form a subcommittee to examine the time, efforts, purposes, and equity of various committees presently in place.

·        Senate discussed the inequality of different committee assignments held by Faculty as part of their obligation to the RFP.

·        Senate discussed the possibility that some of the campus committees have outgrown their usefulness and might not be viable committees anymore.  This is one component that would be examined.

·        Senate discussed the placement of particular faculty on certain committees.  The idea of a “term limit,” much like those imposed on Senators, should be applied to membership on other committees, so that the committee membership does not stagnate (and/or one person does not stay on one committee for decades).  Concern was expressed that some of the members of Senate had “been on Senate forever” and that if term limits were required, Senate would also have to examine itself.  It was pointed out that Senators have a two-consecutive-term limit (3 years each), but that a Senator may run for Vice President or President after the second term.

·        Significant questions were raised about how Senate might examine the committees for their time requirements and usefulness.  Questions about the equal distribution of committee work might be difficult to answer and/or redistribution of faculty to establish equality might prove difficult.

·        Senate agreed to move this issue to Old Business at the October meeting so that a decision could be made regarding the examination of committees.

 

B.         LMC Issues - Dwyer

·         Dwyer described several issues that the LMC has had since its remodeling, including space, reserves, and planning.  The Library will need to request considerable funding and support if the next Bond issue is approved.

·        Dwyer reminded faculty that each may choose up to $100 worth of books by the November 15th deadline; she emphasized the importance of improving the collection.

·        Dwyer informed Senate that the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) reports had docked the Library in a few categories, one of which was the collection’s age and breadth.

·        The question was raised as to why faculty could no longer reserve videos for a particular class day.  Several present expressed that the current policy was making it difficult to efficiently use LMC resources in support of class presentations.  Dwyer and Gonzalez asked for additional input and said they would examine the situation.

 

C.        Membership – Nelson & Reed

·        Senator Nelson passed out the lists of each Senator’s constituents along with whether or not each of the constituents had joined the Faculty Association.  Nelson updated the Senators with their new members and their percentage of members for their lists.

·        Nelson passed around a list of 49% faculty obtained from District and asked Senators to inform her if they were willing to contact the faculty to see if they would join the Association at their 1/2 level.

·        Reed & Nelson encouraged Senators to encourage Faculty Association membership throughout the faculty.

·        Nelson expressed concern that several members of last year’s Senate had not contacted their constituents.  She encouraged this year’s Senate to make a point of reaching out to the people on their lists so that each faculty member on campus would recognize their direct representation in the Senate.

·        Reed reminded Senate that the number of FEC seats is related to the over-all percentage of faculty members on campus.  The question was raised as to whether faculty on leave are counted in our non-member count (which would lower the percentage).  Reed agreed to look into the question.

 

D.        Campus Master Planning - Arnoldt

·        A presentation was made to the Board on 9/26 that outlined GCC’s Master Plan.

·        President Arnoldt will be attending a Board Planning Retreat on 10/22 during which MCCD will consider each college’s Master Plan.

 

E.         49% Committee Report - Hubbard

·        Hubbard reminded Senators of the long-standing discrepancy between campuses and employee groups regarding who was allowed 49% and who was not.

·        Board Member Eastin is serving on a committee set up to examine the 49% situation, and GCC representatives include GCC President Randolph, Hubbard and two other faculty.  Chancellor Glasper is also serving on the committee.

·        Next meeting is October 1st.

·        At the August meeting, an initial proposal was outlined in which there would be a four- or five-year limit on 49% status, with the employee receiving one year of 49% eligibility for every five years with the District.  The potential for placement on other college campuses for the 49% contract was suggested for those campuses that cannot bear the financial burden of supporting 49% faculty.

·        Hubbard pointed out that the Chancellor’s group (CEC) 49% program was funded separately from the other employee groups’ programs.

·        President Arnoldt reminded Senate of GCC President Randolph’s support of the 49% program, when fiscally appropriate, for those willing to return as classroom teachers for their contract.

 

F.  Budget Committee Recommendations – Arnoldt

·        The new budget process is officially underway; President Arnoldt encouraged Senate to stay aware.

·        Members of the PBAC include Connie LaBuhn (Chair of Chairs), Carmela (as Faculty Senate President) and four additional faculty TBD.  President Arnoldt encouraged Senators to recommend candidates over the coming week so they could be approved by President Randolph.

 

G.  Readfest – Griggs (in absentia)/Howey/Camp

·        Howey & Camp related that some of the books reserved for Readfest had been lost in a flooding of one of the storage areas.  They asked for extra support/ donations to recuperate the lost books.

·        Howey & Camp requested that the Senate consider funding the $750 for the popcorn machine (as in previous years) as well as an additional $250 to help replace some of the lost books.

·        Howey & Camp encouraged individual donations and requested volunteers for the day of the event.

·        Howey & Camp encouraged support of the upcoming Book Sale – a box will be made available for books that can be purchased and directly donated to the Readfest or Jingle Books campaigns.

·        The following motion was made and seconded: “Move that the GCC Faculty Senate fund the Readfest activities with a total of $1000.”  The motion passed unanimously.

 

 

IV.  Information

A.        Dean Administrative Services Search -  Arnoldt

·        Search is underway.  Approximately 90 applications have been received.  Hiring committee members are in the process of reviewing applications.

·        Applicants will be narrowed down and interviews will follow.

 

B.         Other Information – President Arnoldt reported:

·        President Arnoldt encouraged Senators to review an article in the Sept/Oct Academe that questions the validity of student evaluations as a measure of faculty competence.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm.

 

Next meeting of the GCC Faculty Senate will be held on October 23rd at 2:30 pm.

 

Addendum 1: 

Minutes from 9/10 meeting of the Retirement & Health Insurance Committee:

 

1. Committee met 2:30-4pm, 6th floor at District.

   Several individuals sent word that they were unable to attend this time.

 

2. The two main topics of discussion were last May's health insurance survey sent out to all employees and the fact that ASRS is constructing what appears to be a move toward getting out of the business of offering health insurance coverage for those under the age of 65. These are elaborated below:

 

  a. Survey:

             Disappointment was expressed by Doug Dawson that after repeated e-mails and phone calls from mid-May on, we did not get back the appropriate data until September 02 so that we could analyze the data.

             The survey went out later than the committee directed.  This may be a key reason why only 660 responses occurred from the approximately 4000 recipients of the survey.  It was brought up that during the very end of the semester, many emails get overlooked.

             An email to all employees will go out with some data results given and an invitation to contact Doug Dawson if anyone wishes to see more detailed pivot tables comparing one question with another.

 

  b. ASRS

Activity:                                                                                                                                                          

The ASRS Board has 9 members. A subcommittee of 4 looked into the many problems with the current health insurance setup and its future.  They voted 4-0 to recommend to the 9-member Board that ASRS end its involvement in providing health insurance for retirees not eligible for Medicare (in most cases this reduces to saying "those younger than 65").  The retirees now covered by PacifiCare would instead get coverage from their former public employer, such as school districts and state agencies. This 4-0 vote occurred recently (August), therefore, the details on how all of this can work out are currently a mystery. Dianne Johns of the District indicated that this would involve 183 retirees from MCCCD who currently get the PacifiCare.  So far no information on what ASRS plans to do with future retirees????????  

 

Many feel that ASRS will carry through in some form, placing the early retirees back to the employer, but critical details are not available.  Doug Dawson volunteered to stay in contact with Pat Klein of ASRS to see what progress occurs in the next couple of months. (Pat

Klein visited our committee in the past to acquaint us with where ASRS is on such issues.)   Stay tuned!!!!!!

                                                                                          

3. The committee communicated with Dianne Johns that we recommend that in the future when health insurance goes out for bid that we get three cost assessment figures:

 

a. Cost if only active employees are included

b. Cost for a blended population consisting of active and retirees under 65, and

c. Cost for having 2 programs: active policy and its costs plus another for the retirees and its costs.    

                                                                                                                                                                                        

4. Meeting ended around 4pm. A date has not yet been set for a next meeting.  Much will depend on how ASRS decides to proceed. However they proceed, they will need legislative approval and this would come at the earliest in the spring of 2004.

 

(Notes submitted by Doug Dawson, GCC)

 

Addendum 2:

Message from Doug Dawson (9/26) accompanying survey results document:

 

“You may recall back on May 06, 2003, you were sent a survey of eight

questions on Early Retirement Health Insurance. Attached you will find

the results.  There were 660 who responded.  Thanks for your input.

 

 More detailed results are available from Doug Dawson at GCC in the form

of pivot tables which take 2 questions and analyze responses in a table

form.  For example, if you wish to know the breakdown of employee groups

on how they answered "years of service", that is available.

 

 In reading over the comments section, one thing that did become clear

was that alot more education about health insurance, costs, and current

availabilities would benefit our employees.

 

 Of interest to many of you is the following:

 

 In August, 2003, an Arizona State Retirement System subcommittee of 4

board members voted 4 - 0 to recommend to the entire ASRS board of 10

that the ASRS quit offering health insurance options to those under the

age of 65; rather, send retirees back to their former public employer to

get coverage there.  We will be watching what happens next. This is not

a done deal. To occur, the full board will need to come up with a

detailed plan and then get appropriate legislative action to implement

the plan.”