LEEWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE

2002 – 2003 Faculty Senate

APPROVED Minutes of the September 25, 2002 Meeting

James Goodman, Chair

Warren Imada, Vice Chair

Jack Pond, Secretary

SENATORS PRESENT: N. Buchanan, L. Currivan, M. Dobson, R. Flegal, C. Ganne, J. Goodman, K. Hill, C. Hochstein, W. Imada, J. Kappenberg, P. Kennedy, K. Khan, G. Levy, P. Lococo, C. Martin, M. Nakano, S. Palombo, R. Pfeiffer, J. Pond, C. Yokotake.

SENATORS EXCUSED: P. Neils.

GUESTS: Mark Silliman, Provost, Cliff Togo, Dir. Administrative Services, Melissa Allen, Student.

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. with a quorum.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the September 4, 2002 meeting were read and approved with one (spelling) correction.

INTRODUCTIONS: The Chair introduced new Senator Mary Jane Dobson (from the Social Sciences Division) who will replace Paul Cravath for the year. Provost Silliman introduced Melissa Allen who is shadowing the Provost for the day.

SPECIAL REPORT: The Provost addressed the Senate on several issues raised in a letter to the Senate Chair by Language Arts Professor Leslie Munro. The points were as follows:

1. The letter questions the high salary paid to one eleven-month, new-hire faculty member and raises the issue of a possible conflict of interest in his selection. The Provost assured the Senate that the appointment was made after the usual hiring practices had been closely followed and that the potential for a conflict of interest had been checked with Monica Morris of the State Commission on Ethics. The salary is commensurate with IT faculty brought on at the same time. Dr Munro also challenged the low enrollments of the Internet-based courses offered as part of the e-commerce program. The Provost assured the Senate that the enrollments are being monitored for program viability as they are for all programs.

2. The second point raises a long-standing problem at the College. The Bookstore continues to reduce the number of textbooks ordered by faculty creating a need to air ship texts at costs that are charged to the divisions or to the publishers. Cliff Togo responded that the bookstore is an enterprise operation of the University of Hawaii Bookstore and that individual campus bookstore managers have some control over the practices of their respective bookstores. The UH Bookstore manager, Kaylene Mason, might be able to address some of the concerns raised in this letter.

3. Three issues were raised about Banner and registration. First, the current system does not have the capability to check for prerequisites. When will this feature be added to Banner? Second, the current practice of allowing faculty and the central system to add students during late registration creates a danger that classes will be over-enrolled. Is a policy needed concerning late registration? Finally, students register for classes then disappear for a number of reasons. Can we reinstate the procedure for dropping students who are “no shows” to our classes? On the first issue, the Provost responded that John Morton reports that Banner will have the capability to implement prerequisite checks in time for continuing student registration, which begins in November; however, the feature for verification of whether students passed pre/co requisite courses attempted during the semester immediately prior to the Spring 2003 registration most likely will not be ready. That feature will probably be available for Fall 2003 registration. On the second issue, the Senate was reminded that Central Registration will continue to enroll students until the capacity for that course is reached. Students who approach faculty about enrolling in a class should be directed to Central Registration. If the class is open, the student will be enrolled. If the course is closed, a faculty member can sign the Add/Drop form, but by so doing he or she then gives the College permission to enroll that student over the course cap. At no time does Central Registration enroll a student beyond the cap for the course without the instructor’s consent. The decision to do so rests solely with the faculty. On the last issue, the Provost reminded the Senate that several years ago, under the watch of Provost Polk, it was determined that neither the College nor its faculty can disenroll students from classes simply on the basis of attendance without incurring possible litigation.

4. Several years ago, math and English prerequisites for non-math and English courses were temporarily suspended while the College gathered data on their effectiveness. To date we have heard nothing, and prerequisites have not been reinstated. The Provost reminded the Senate that last year, it voted to extend the suspension of prerequisites to allow for further data collection and analysis. He reports that the preliminary report from the Academic Review Board is due soon and will allow the College to make a final determination on prerequisites.

5. Dr. Munro’s letter questioned the process for the selection of new hires for two new non-teaching faculty positions. Since position counts remain fairly stable, how can the College afford to convert teaching positions to non-instructional ones? The Provost stated that the positions in question came from a pool of dormant positions that belong to the College and have not been filled in many years (decades in some cases). Such positions are circulated throughout the College and allow us some degree of flexibility in meeting immediate and special needs. These particular positions were filled using vacant academic support positions. One was the Educational Media Coordinator that had been unfilled for some time, and the other came from the library. The Provost also assured the Senate that all usual advertising and hiring procedures were followed in strict accordance to policy and that the College is not diminishing instructional capability in any way through this conversion. In addition, Senator Martin further clarified that in the most recent case, APT positions were not turned into faculty positions; rather, qualified applicants who had formerly been APTs filled those faculty positions.

6. The letter also expressed concern about the continued appearance of administrative instability, as two positions (Dean of Instruction and Assistant Dean of Instruction) have still not been filled on a permanent basis. The Accrediting Commission, in its last [two] review[s] of the College, expressed this concern. The Provost stated that the filling of these positions has been on hold awaiting a decision on UH restructuring from the President’s office. It is difficult to advertise for these positions due to the fact that all administrators in the UH system were given pink slips and that the new positions would have to be given termination notices immediately upon being filled. These two reasons make it nearly impossible to fill the vacancies on a permanent basis. It is, however, expected that we will be able to advertise for these positions by January or February when the restructuring is predicted to be complete.

7. Is it true we don’t have a catalog yet? The Provost had hoped to bring the new catalog with him to this meeting; it is expected from the printer by October 1. It is true that there was a delay in its publication due to the serious illness of one key staff member.

8. Why are we still receiving supplements of the Fall 2002 Schedule of Classes? Are there problems? The Provost replied that continued supplements this far into the semester are usual and reflect cancellations, room changes, faculty changes, and changes to modularized and accelerated classes. It may appear there are problems, but it is really a matter of better reporting of changes.

9. The letter also questions whether the curriculum for two new programs (Optricianary and Educational Assistant) ever went through the normal channels of authorization to plan and curriculum review as required by the College. Will the programs undergo regular procedures of review and analysis? The Provost assured the Senate that all usual processes for the development of new curriculum and programs were and will continue to be followed as required for other vocational programs.

10. Are low enrolled courses in e-commerce being allowed to continue without monitoring? Once again, the Provost assured Senate members that the Dean’s office and Division Chairs are watching these courses.

11. The “sudden appearance” of the two aforementioned, new programs is of concern. The letter questions whether there is Senate involvement and general campus-wide knowledge about them. The Provost responded by saying that the programs in question were developed out of community need and interest and followed the regular processes of development and staffing. These were initiatives not promulgated by the administration.

12. The letter also queried why so much money was spent to refurbish the Provost’s Conference Room and office area when there is a great deal of broken furniture on campus and the restrooms are in deplorable condition. On the first issue, the renovations to the Provost’s Office were needed as that area is often the area where first contact is made between our administration and off campus visitors and potential new faculty. It was in need of a face-lift. Money for furniture for divisions needs to be budgeted at that level, usually through special funds. On the second issue, if faculty notices unclean conditions in the restrooms, these problems should be brought to the immediate attention of Derek or Aki in Auxiliary Services. It might be that a review or change in the cleaning schedule is needed.

13. The letter asked for an explanation of the delay in opening the smart classrooms on campus. It appears that hardware and software had been ordered but not the network components needed for installation. The Provost reported that the equipment and other necessary materials actually come from different vendors, and the delay can be attributed to differences in filling orders and scheduled shipment of the items.

14. With the change in administrative structure at the system level, Dr. Munro wonders who will review the portfolios after the TPRCs? The Provost declared that he is unable to answer this question at this time. In fact, no one knows; we must wait until the eventual restructuring “shakes out.”

15. The final point addressed the situation on the campus one weekend during which chairs were taken from Language Arts classrooms and replaced with chairs from another location. The use of a master key was involved. The Provost responded that this was indeed an unfortunate situation that has been resolved. The administration will settle the issue of the master keys.

The Senate thanks Provost Mark Silliman and Cliff Togo for providing clear and detailed answers to the points raised.

On another matter, the Provost also distributed and reviewed the LCC Strategic Plan Budget Request for FB 2003-2005 and the Operational Expenditure Plan for FY 2002-2003.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: Future meetings are scheduled for October 9, November 6 and 27, and December 11.

ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:45.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jack Pond, Secretary