Glendale Community College Faculty Senate

Meeting of December 5, 2002

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 2:30 P.M.  Senators present included: President Carmela Arnoldt, Vice President John Griggs, Treasurer Diana Abel, Secretary Pamela Nelson as well as Larry Bohlender, Jim Daugherty, Dianna Dwyer, Gary Marrer, Cate McNamara, Alicia Ottenberg, Robert Reavis, Carl Samuels, and Bruce Thomas. Senate-selected FEC Representative Jim Reed was also present.

 

B.         Introduction of Guests – including, but not limited to, Joseph Bednorz, Ruth Callahan, Ernest Escobedo, Gay Garesche, Frank Gonzalez, Mary Lou Massal, Judy Poggi, David Rodriguez, Trini Sandoval and Lyle Walcott. 

 

            C.        The proposed meeting agenda was adopted as amended.

 

            D.        The minutes of the October 24, 2002 meeting were approved.

 

E.         Diana Abel (Treasurer) reported a balance of $12, 409.20 for all accounts.  This total does not include the GCC portion of Faculty Association 02-03 dues, in the amount of $4912.50 (to be included in next report).

 

 

            F.         President Arnoldt reported:

·        Number of faculty positions for Fall 04 will be approximately 15.

·        A Violence in the Workplace prevention workshop will be held at GCC.

·        (As per F. Gonzalez)  The Library will be sponsoring a Library Issues workshop (with respect to the Patriot Act) on December 11, 2002.

·        Guidelines for funding development requests for Fiscal ’04 are being considered.

 

 

G.        FEC Report - President Carmela Arnoldt reported:

·        The validity of the questions on the Fall Safety Survey was discussed; many thought the information requested might not really be the information that is needed.  Primarily, the issue of arming certified officers seemed to be buried in the middle of other safety issues.  All Faculty received a copy of the Survey; some faculty also received copies to distribute to their students.

 

·        Alan Haffa presented an impassioned plea to the Governing Board for true Meet and Confer negotiations regarding Faculty pay and benefits (vs. a presentation followed by a decision and no real conversation).  Faculty did not make a formal request as part of the plea for negotiations.  All other employee groups (with the exception of MAT who requested only a 2% increase) requested a 3% COLA increase, 1 step, and that the District pay the full insurance price increase.

·        3 GCC faculty attended the Chancellor’s Breakfast at GCC, compared to the team of 5 from District that included the Chancellor.

·        Please see FEC Minutes for other issues.

 

H.        Governing Board report. President Arnoldt reported:

·        The Governing Board stated a desire for Diversity defined as an “environment created within Maricopa that demonstrates equity and mutual respect.”

·        All District employees received a Diversity Message from the Chancellor that outlined his vision of Diversity.

·        Board is seeking Goals and Measures for success.

·        See FEC report for Faculty presentation regarding salary and benefits.

·        Board will be hosting community listening sessions to rotate around the District.  The Listening Session for the Northwest and West Valley will be held on GCC Campus on Thursday, February 20th from 6:00 to 8:15pm.  George Martinez is acting as the campus liaison for this event.

·        Neither the CEC nor the Chancellor has made a final decision regarding whether or not there will be a Bond request in 2004.

 

II. Old Business

 

            A.        Retirement & Health Insurance – Pam Nelson for Doug Dawson

 

·        The next meeting of the Health Insurance/Retirement Committee meeting may be the most important one to date.  At this meeting the official proposal (to be presented to the Board) will start being drawn up.  It is extremely important that all interested parties attend the meeting or contact Doug Dawson ASAP.  The meeting is Wednesday, January 22nd @ 2:30pm, 6th Floor, Legal Services Library, District Office.

·        In a related piece of news, one Senator informed Senate that the 49% program had been cancelled at PVCC as of the Monday preceding the meeting. This may imply a serious erosion of benefits in the near future.

·        NOTES FROM RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE MEETINGS FOLLOW AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT!

 

B.         Testing Center – Arnoldt/Nelson/Garesché

·        Testing Center Ad Hoc Committee has not met since last Senate meeting.

·        Senators were encouraged to forward Garesché’s Testing Center questions to their constituents. Garesché has offered to compile the responses.

 

 

Possible Questions to Solicit Faculty Input Concerning the Testing Center (from Gay Garesché) <Same as October Minutes :

·         Do you use the Testing Center now for any type of make-up-type testing?

·         If cost were not important, what would be the ideal purpose and function of the Testing Center?

·         Given that the college president has already suggested that more spending on the Testing Center could mean fewer faculty positions, what would be an adequate purpose and function of the Testing Center?

C.        Faculty Development Committee - Smith

·        Dr. Janice Denton will be coming to GCC on the Thursday of Spring 2003 accountability week to present on Assessment.

 

D.        Internet Class Fee Schedules (Overload) - Arnoldt

·        No official action has been taken to change the existing policy.

·        Current policy includes ability to count courses as overload and add incremental pay for increased enrollment numbers per section.

 

E.         2002-03 Membership – Nelson/Reed

·        The Faculty Association membership drive has ended.

·        GCC has a total of 196.5 members (which includes 5 retirees, which count for 0.5) for 2002-03.  This accounts for 19.83% of the total district Association members and allocates GCC 4.36 FEC representatives.  Thus, the current number of GCC faculty on the FEC will remain at 4.

·        Senate members have been informed of which of their constituents have joined the Association.

·        Nelson & Reed thanked the Senators for their help in increasing our membership from last year.  Overall, we added an additional 11.5 members to our 2001 totals.  The efforts of Diana Abel and Dianna Dwyer were of particular merit.

 

F.         Gaucho Mentoring Program - Samuels/Trini Sandoval

·        (Heard prior to President’s Report to allow Sandoval to return to work)

·        Sandoval requested the support and endorsement of the Faculty Senate regarding the GCC Counseling/Mentoring Referral Form.  Each Senator received a Draft copy of the referral form.  The form includes the student’s name, choices of times during which the student would attend a student focus group to help them achieve college success, and a place for referring faculty to fill in their names and contact information.  Sandoval will be the recipient and manager of the forms.  The Referral Form is meant as a partial substitute for the discontinued Early Warning system..

·        Samuels made the following motion: “The GCC Faculty Senate strongly supports faculty use of the GCC Counseling Department Mentoring Program Student Referral form and the mentoring process.”  Motion passed unanimously.

·        Senators also received copes of a Quick Reference Form that lists campus resources available to students and faculty on one simple sheet.  This sheet will likely be made available to faculty during Spring 2003.

 

III. New Business

 

A.        Forensic Audit of GCC Budget – Carl Samuels

·        Samuels explained that a Forensic Audit is done to look for specific things, to track funds, determine program effectiveness and utilizations of funds, and to determine if misappropriation has occurred.  The Audit would include examining any changes in budget emphasis that have occurred and would detail where GCC funds have been distributed. 

·        An outside team of specialists would complete the Forensic Audit.  Cost is currently unknown.

·        Several questions/suggestions surfaced regarding the details of the proposed audit:

o       Did the District Office conduct an audit as part of the NCA evaluation?

o       Do guidelines exist to keep Fund 2 within the limits of that fund vs. allowing funds to “slide” elsewhere?

o       Are audits completed by District employees as reliable as an external source would be?

o       A suggestion was made that the state auditor general can do special studies for public agencies.

o       A suggestion was made that the attorney general might be contacted to over-see a District audit process.

o       One Senator offered information that “qualified audit statement” did exist approximately 4 years ago that included reports on an audit and suggestions from management.

o       Several Senators questioned the exact approach and type of audit that would best suit the needs of the campus. 

o       A suggestion was made that Dr. Randolph’s input and endorsement would be necessary to complete a successful audit and that Dr. Randolph’s input may help clarify the options available.

o       A suggestion was made to table a vote on the actual Audit until the January meeting.

 

·        Samuels made the following motion:  “The GCC Faculty Senate strongly suggests that Dr. Randolph initiate an audit of GCC Fund accounting and budgeting before April 30, 2003.”  The motion passed unanimously.

 

B.         Low enrollment; “Go-No Go” Decisions – Samuels

 

·        Samuels expressed concern that decision about whether or not a course will be allowed to “go” (vs. being cancelled) are being made by the Dean instead of faculty.  Samuels suggests that the process should instead be a faculty decision with administrative suggestions.

·        Samuels made the following motion:  “GCC Faculty should make “go-no go” decisions for low enrollment courses.”

·        Discussion followed:

 

o       The rationale for the motion was that faculty are the experts in the program (a statement that is echoed in the RFP and AAUP literature).  Thus, the experts should be trusted with the decision regarding the viability of classes.

o       Others suggested that the current method of making “go-no go” decisions consists of the joint consideration by the Department Chair and the Dean of Instruction.

o       Considerations for “go-no go” decisions include the number of courses in a department, the number of students served by the department, the cost per course & student within that department and the interest level of the course under consideration.

o       The suggestion was made that it may be more expensive, both financially and in terms of student retention, to cancel classes than to allow them to run at low enrollments.

o       The question was raised whether or not classes are allowed to “go” on a consistent basis or following specific rules.  It was further questioned whether the “go-no go” decisions were evenly handed out between the different departments.  It was proposed that this information would be necessary to make a complete decision regarding the current situation.

o       Several Senators suggested that more information about the current criteria, rules and guiding factors would be necessary prior to any formal decision.

·        Samuels withdrew the motion (to be discussed at a future meeting) and requested that Senators forward any questions regarding the current policy to him.

 

 

C.        Senate Scholarship – Ernest Escobedo

·         (Heard prior to Old Business to allow Escobedo to return to work)

·         Escobedo requests a $500-$1000 annual scholarship or some type of on-going mechanism to support students that would serve as a memorial to ALL deceased Faculty.

·         Discussion will continue as Old Business at January meeting.

·         Question was raised whether or not a scholarship fund of this nature had been set-up or discussed in the past. 

·         Discussion ensued about whether an Endowment or an annual Scholarship would best suit the Memorial situation.

·         The suggestion was made that the funds should be made available throughout the semester during crisis situations rather than simply as a “standard” scholarship to cover tuition or books.  Counseling Dept. members would determine suggestions for qualification guidelines for scholarship.

·         A committee of Senators and other faculty members was established to determine the current standing of any pre-existing scholarship money and to begin determining the best use and appropriation of scholarship funds.  This committee includes, but is not limited to, the following members:  Diana Abel, Sherry Johnson, Ernesto Escobedo, an additional representative from Senate, a representative from the Counseling Department, and a representative from Financial Aid.

 

 

IV.  Information

A.        MCCD Safety Survey - Griggs

·        (As in Pres. Report, above)

·        Griggs suggested that all Faculty should support the survey and turn it in, regardless of current questions regarding focus of the survey.

·        Griggs informed the Senate that a needs analysis for safety issues has not been done yet.

 

B.         Presidential Search Committee - Arnoldt

·        Next meeting of Search Committee on December 6th, 2002.

·        At this meeting the committee will begin discussion applications and determining the conditions for screening applications.

 

C.        New Student System – Associate Dean Massal

·        (Heard prior to President’s Report to allow Assoc. Dean Massal to return to work)

·        Senators received a packet of information that contained a timeline, a brief explanation of a grade issue for NSS, a list of the members of the GCC Implementation Team and a more extensive issues log for the new Student System.

·        The new system includes lots of new terminology and a high learning curve, but testing is going well.

·        New system will open lots of opportunities for students to “self-serve,” in all areas of campus experience.

·        Some new system activities will begin in January 2003.  Full rollout is expected for July 2004. 

·        Student Information Commission has approved system.

·        Faculty and Department Secretarial representation on the Implementation Team includes John Winters (Faculty & Department Chair Liaison) and Dawn Meyer (Division Secretary).

·        Particular issues Faculty need to be aware of and/or can help with:

o       Make sure that curriculum committee and/or current course listings contain specific courses and course numbers for pre-requisites (vs. “intermediate math”).  This will allow the computer to check for pre-requisites during the registration process and allow self-serve registration.

o       NSS will allow instructors to give permission to students for enrollment in their courses via the computer (vs. on manually)

o       NSS helps with proper co-enrollment for lecture/lab pairs and learning communities (i.e., “linked classes”) vs. the manual approach to checking applied now.

o       NSS does NOT include a method for scanning grade rosters (“bubble sheets”).  Faculty will need to input grades using Midas; this will become mandatory by 2004 rollout.

 

D.        Chancellor’s Message on Diversity - Arnoldt

·        (As Above in President’s Report)

·        All District employees received a Diversity Message from the Chancellor that outlined his vision of Diversity.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:40 pm.

 

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

 

 

 


Notes from Retirement/Health Insurance Meetings as written by Doug Dawson:

 

·        NOTES from 11/6 Ret/Health Insurance meeting.  Doug Dawson wrote:

1.      Meeting was held on 6th floor at District at 2:30pm, Wed. Nov.06, 2002.

 

2.      Present were 16 individuals including Pat Klein of ASRS and Pete Kushibab of the legal team at District.

 

3.      Pat Klein shared alot of stats with us.  For example, there are about 62,000 retirees in ASRS. Of these about 40,000 do not participate in any of the ASRS health insurance options. About 19,000 participate as medicare eligible, leaving about 3100 preretirement-aged participants in the health ins. options of ASRS.

 

4.      There is no waiting period or pre-existing conditions clause for anyone who wishes to participate in ASRS health ins. options. Usually people enter during the annual enrollment window, but other times are possible for many scenarios, which are called "qualifying events".  Pat distributed the 2003 Group Insurance Open Enrollment Brochure, which explains many details.

 

5.      Pat indicated that the District is at liberty to create what it wants for ret. health ins. program options through the district and that if the distict decided to do so, such participants will qualify for the $1800 support annually through the ASRS funds. (Note: $1800 is for just the employee. For employee plus dep., the amount is more.)

 

6.      If the district does go ahead with options, these will need to be administered through the district in order to have ASRS funds.  How can this be done without alot of costs?  Can the participant pay a fee for such service to offset the cost??? Many questions which we will have district investigate.

 

7.      Next meeting will be informal on Wed. Nov. 20 at District again. Those attending will look at BCBS offerings and whether it would make sense as a stop-gap measure to use those options as the District's program for early retirees ins. options through the District. Also discuss how this could be accomplished as far as administrating costs go.

 

·        NOTES from 11/20 Ret/Health Insurance meeting.  Doug Dawson wrote:

Unofficial meeting – Dennis Shaw of PC made a $$$ presentation about 49% time and how it saves money.

 

 

·        NOTES from 12/4 Ret/Health Insurance meeting.  Doug Dawson wrote:

1.                  Meeting was held on 6th floor of District at 2:30pm, Dec.04, 2002.

2.                  Present were 12 people, about half from District, and the remainder from the colleges.

3.                  There was an informal meeting 2 weeks ago. Rufus Glasper was present.  Dennis Shaw gave a presentation on the 49% program and resultant savings.  It was suggested that a white paper on 49% program may be useful. 310 employees are currently in the active retirement program.  This includes those who work 1 day/yr up to those who work 49% time. It was noted that there are even examples in our District where taking advantage of the ($1500/yr for 5yrs insurance subsidy upon retirement) is being denied certain employees - This is a very dangerous precident and probably grossly unfair. Will you be next????

4.                  Discussion on including as a partial preliminary solution to making ins. options available through the district:  If an individual applies for individual coverage with BCBS and is accepted, the only way that the person can get the $1800 support/yr from ASRS would be if it went through our District as part of our District's ret. ins. plan.  ASRS says ok and there seem to be no legal problems.  Therefore at this point it only remains for qualification requirements to be put in writing and to see how much each participating employee would need to pay to help with administration cost. If these can be calculated, then the Board could be presented with a no-cost proposal.  It was estimated that the cost for one person per month to handle doing administration of this through District may be one and one half hours of time resulting in about $150 to $200 per year.  We on the committee will bring to the next meeting suggestions for the eligibility regulations for participating in this.  At the meeting we will submit a suggested list to District Human Resources to further the proposal. Human Resources will work on other details to help make this a go-ahead if the employee groups in general wish it.

 

5.                  Handouts at the meeting:

a.                   ASRS/MCCCD Retiree Eligibility Comparison (based on those with 70 points or more)  therefore eligible to reasonably retire in the next 5 yrs.  There are 636 identified in this category with another 206 requiring further research.

b.                  A table of Active Retiree Breakdown  (Base of 310 retired employees)

 

6.                  Some further stats we wish to have for next meeting:

a.                   How many employees are  < 65 and therefore potentially eligible for the $1800 ASRS support ?

b.                  Can we somehow get a rough estimate how many who will retire would probably choose to go with their spouse's plan from outside the District or who have other viable options and therefore may not go with whatever we create?

c.                   To ascertain how many are retired but not in the active ret. system, ASRS will be asked for a list of names of MCCCD < 65 yrs of age.

d.                  How many active retirees are 49% vs. 1% etc.?

e.                   How does Glendale Union administer its BCBS returees ins. plan?

f.                    Any way to roughly calculate what savings will occur by offering a ret. ins. option and thereby several choose to retire earlier than if current limited options are maintained?

g.                   Suzanne will work on some example questions for stats-gathering survey.

 

7.                  Next Meeting is a very important one:  We will create a full proposal for the future of Health Ins./Retirement now that so many questions have been answered.  Your input is critical, so please attend. Final approval and implementation will take time due to feedback from employee groups and the process of bidding.

8.                  We each will also bring to the meeting enough suggestions for eligibility policy for the short-term fix of BCBS individual coverage, administered through the District.  We will also look at the actual tables of rates, etc. pert. to BCBS individual ret. ins. plans.  Doug Dawson will report back on how this procedure goes.