STC Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2014 3.31.14

I. The meeting was called to order by the President, Rick (Eric) Reittinger at 4:03pm in F102 on the Pecan

Campus and via videoconferencing to the following satellite campuses: NAH (Nursing/Allied Health) with

some technical problems, Tech Campus, Weslaco or MidValley, and Starr County.

II. Roll call of Executive officers and senators was made to determine a quorum for the meeting. Voting

members present:

Benito Garza Eric Reittinger Roy Escaname Lily Rai Daniel Cather Tim Weber Diane Teter Rosalba De Zenea Rosemary Reich-Hildebrandt Mark R. Murray Janene Israel Margarita Vanguelova Steven Schiefelbein Deborah Portillo Liz Burris Karen Countryman Sharon Rice Randy Jarvis William Carter Phyllis Evans Grace Little Annie Liss Veronica Rodriguez Wendy Branwell Hanan Amro

Quorum determined.

III. Welcome to attendees to Faculty Senate meeting by Rick (Eric) Reittinger.

IV. Approval of minutes for the February 25, 2014 meeting was requested. Corrections on the minutes were nil. Tim Weber made a motion for minutes for approval and seconded by Roy Escaname. All approved.

Faculty Senate nominations progress was presented by Mark Murray.

There are enough nominees for each division for senators. Mark will contact Serkan Celtek in

Research and Analytical Services for online voting to take place April 2-18th. He will then present

results on Apr 25 FS (Faculty Senate) meeting. FS will be sending out announcements and reminders

for all faculty to vote. LASS division has own representatives for senators as there will be the

separation of the mega-division LASS into Liberal Arts AND Social Sciences.

President Ric Reittinger suggested the approval of FS minutes to be sped up by posting minutes online via

Jagnet email and approved online. The first draft of minutes to be sent the first week after the FS meeting

via email, FS membership will be given a week to read, and then approve via email the next week. Any

objections? None stated.

V. Presentation by Alicia Gomez, STC Chief Information Officer

Any problems with technology contact her. A new technology plan is to be made and will be holistic for all. Her

hope is for a council, and Mr. Alex Kolahdouz , also from Information Services is working on the charge for the

advisory committee. Alex wants an advisory committee to meet in early May and that it be effective. The

following information on STC technology is requested: slow classroom computers, outdated instructional

technology as well as future technology warranted for the next 5-10 years. The school has done a SWAT plan,

and an outside opinion was sought rather than inside the college. Idea for advisory committee perusal is: email

services, Bb, PRIDE, wide scale training, Jag enhancements and what actually is needed for next 5 years, and

faculty for input. In the past, there has been a lack of F2F (face to face) communication in the past and wish to

1

do a better job of communication for student success across the school. Alex is willing to come back for more

information to disseminate and request. He then asked for volunteers for the faculty advisory taskforce which

would meet once a month. Volunteers were: Hanan Amro, Diane Teter, Iris Jasso, Laura Salas, Karen

Countryman, Robert Ho, Roy Escaname, Ravi Nandigam.

Alex also gave an update on the project for annual faculty appointment letters on Jagnet. There will be an

acceptance with elective signature and time stamp. The technology for the appointment letter is currently in

place, but need approval from administration. As progress made, there will be with more updates for pilot

testing. Planned implementation is for summer 2014

Other comments on technology problems from FS in general included:

Problems with log in for faculty office computers requested for a longer period of time (screen shuts off

after 5 minutes) but this was explained as part of security and a group policy applied. A study will need

to be done on this but can be addressed as students have lower computer access (in the computer labs)

but faculty have higher access.

Log in is slow on podium computers, and in most of classrooms the faculty can’t update programs such

as Flash while in class since need administrative approval

G building PowerPoint programs don’t move fast enough as well as T Bldg.

Whether the school can get rid of Smart Box on instructor podium as interferes with efficiency of

instructor subject content delivery.

VI. Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee Report by Annie Liss (Co-chair)

Members of the committee: Co-chairs: Bruce Griffiths – BT Annie Liss - LASS

Merrie Van Loy – MS, Laura Salas – BT, Benito Garza – BAT, Deborah Portillo – NAH, Hanan Amro - MS

Top Ten Graduation Rates for Texas Very Large Public 2-Year Colleges

Rank 2-year public institution Peer group

Graduation Rates Full-time 3-year

1 South Texas College Very Large Colleges 18.4%

2 San Jacinto Community College District Very Large Colleges 17.6%

3 Houston Community College Very Large Colleges 14.4%

4 Collin County Community College District

Very Large Colleges 12.5%

5 Lone Star College System Very Large Colleges 10.8%

6 El Paso Community College District Very Large Colleges 10.7%

7 Tarrant County College District Very Large Colleges 10.1%

8 Dallas County Community College District

Very Large Colleges 9.3%

9 Alamo Community College District Very Large Colleges 8.7%

2

10 Austin Community College Very Large Colleges 4.6%

Statewide 14.5%

Source: Institutional Comparisons 2013 Higher Education Almanac Very Large Colleges

Note: Ranking based on Texas Public Community Junior Colleges

Part-Time Pay for the Texas Very Large Public 2-Year Colleges with Top Ten Graduation Rates

Compensation for One Three Hour

Course

Three -Hour Course

Rank College District Peer group 2012-13

1 Austin Community College

Very Large

Colleges 2,778

2 El Paso Community College

Very Large

Colleges 2,544

3 Alamo Community College

District

Very Large

Colleges 2,366

4 Collin County Community College

Very Large

Colleges 2,157

5 Dallas County Comm. College

District

Very Large

Colleges 2,095

6 Tarrant County College District

Very Large Colleges 2,040

7 South Texas College

Very Large

Colleges 1,950

8 San Jacinto College

Very Large

Colleges 1,824

9 Lone Star College System

Very Large

Colleges 1,814

10 Houston Community College

Very Large

Colleges 1,800

NA UTPA

Included for

comparison 2250 - 2550

Compensation for part-time instructor teaching one 3-semester hour course

in U. S. History (assuming instructor holds Master's Degree with no hours toward

3

doctorate and is in the first year as a part-time faculty member)

Source: Compensation and Utilization of Part-Time Instructors

Texas Public Community Junior Colleges 2011-12 and 2012-13

Institutional responses to TCCTA questionnaire.

Note: Ranking based on selected institutions from Graduation Rate Table.

Part-Time Pay for the All Texas Public 2-Year Colleges (Rank 1 – 11 shown)

College District Austin Community College El Paso Community College Del Mar College McLennan Community College Tarrant County College District Alamo Community College District Collin County Community College Blinn College Dallas County Comm. College Laredo Community College South Texas College

2012-13 2,778 2,544 2,500

2,409

2,040

2,366

2,157 2,200

2,095 1,950

2013-14 2,781 2,619 2,500

2,433

2,388

2,366

2,244 2,200

2,164 2,100

2013-14

Rank 1 2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9 10

1,950 1,950 11

Compensation for part-time instructor teaching one 3-semester hour course

in U. S. History (assuming instructor holds Master's Degree with no hours toward

doctorate and is in the first year as a part-time faculty member)

Source: Compensation and Utilization of Part-Time Instructors

Texas Public Community Junior Colleges 2012-13 and 2013-14

Institutional responses to TCCTA questionnaire.

Note: Ranking includes all Texas Public Community Junior Colleges.

4

Comparison of STC vs. UTPA Adjunct Pay per LHE

STC

Adjunct

UTPA

Adjunct

Associate $480 NA

Bachelor $525 NA

Master $650 $700 - $850

Doctorate $750 $800 -

$1,400 Note: Regular FT Faculty are paid at the Adjunct rate for overloads

Differences between Adjunct and Full-Time Faculty Summer Pay

STC

Summer

Adjunct

STC

Summer

FT Regular

UTPA

Adjunct

Associate $480 $575 NA

Bachelor $525 $625 NA

Master $650 $675 $700 - $850

Doctorate $750 $750 $800 -

$1,400

5

History of Adjunct Pay Increases

For the

Texas Very Large Public 2-Year Colleges with Top Ten Graduation Rates

2013 - 2012 - 2011 - 2010 - 2009 - 2007 - 2007 -2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2008 % % % % % % Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Rank over over over over over over (after 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2007-08 2006-07 increase)

Austin Community College 0.11% 1.20% 4.93% 6.73% 0.25% 0.25% 1

El Paso Community College 2.95% 3.04% — 1.98% 2.98% 2.98% 2

Tarrant County College 17.06% 1.24% — 2.34% 1.63% 1.65% 8

Alamo Community College — — — 1.98% 3.99% 1.50% 3

Collin County Community College 4.03% 3.45% — 2.96% — unlisted unlisted

Dallas County Community

College 3.29% 6.40% — — 4.96% 2.51% 9

South Texas College — — — — —

Lone Star College 5.18% — — — — 4.98% 11

San Jacinto Community College — — — — 5.56% 5.88% 12

Houston Community

College — 2.74% — — 3.09% 5.16% 16

20.37% 7

Source: Compensation and Utilization of Part-Time Instructors Texas Public Community Junior Colleges 2007-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 Institutional responses to TCCTA questionnaire.

6

Comparison of Sick Time Earned vs. Personal Time Used

September 2013 - December 2013 (4 Months)

Personal

Hours

Used

Reason

Fall 2013

Faculty

Count

Sick

Hours

Earned

Percent Personal Business

Hours Taken vs.

Earned Sick Pay

420 PERSONAL BUSINESS 548 17,536 2.40%

Note: Faculty Earn 8 Sick Hours per Month Source: South Texas College Human Resources

Salary and Benefits Committee Proposal(s):

Recommend to Vice President of Academic Affairs an increase in adjunct pay to the top 5 in the

Texas two-year colleges with the top graduation rates, that is, $2,200 - $2,500 per 3 hour class.

Recommend to VPAA equal summer salaries (do not differentiate between adjunct and FTR/FTT in

pay per LHE)

Recommend to VPAA 1 more Personal Day per year for faculty

Recommend to VPAA that salary steps be increased to 30 years

Comments by FS members:

Losing adjunct faculty at present and need to be competitive with PanAm as to adjunct pay

7

Update of Regular Faculty salaries annual increases was made by Merrie Van Loy. Presently, due to the

administration change with the new VP of Finance, Mary Elizondo, there is unfamiliarity on long spreadsheets and

prior procedure. Merrie said that a report to FS should be ready for next month. She received the information from

Finance in past few days.

VII. Report from Faculty Overload Committee made by Annie Liss and Rick Reittinger

STC Overload Task Force Final Report – Submitted March 2014

Task Force Members (and constituency represented):

Ms. Hanan Amro (Faculty Senate)

Dr. Annie Liss (Faculty Senate)

Mr. Saeed Molki (Council of Chairs)

Dr. Christopher Nelson (Council of Chairs)

Ms. Esmeralda Adame (Business & Technology Division)

Ms. Iris Jasso (Business & Technology Division)

Dr. Patricia Blaine (Liberal Arts Division)

Dr. Rosalinda Cantu (Liberal Arts Division)

Dr. Ayodeji Ogundele (Social & Behavioral Sciences Division)

Ms. Liza Veliz (Social & Behavioral Sciences Division)

Dr. Mehran Hassanpour (Math & Science Division)

Dr. Mehrzad Mahmoudian Geller (Math & Science Division)

Mr. Roberto Gonzalez (Nursing & Allied Health Division)

Mr. Jayson Valerio (Nursing & Allied Health Division)

Ms. Laura B. Talbot (Office of Curriculum & Student Learning)

Dr. Brett J. Millan (Member at Large)

I. Review of the Task Force’s history of activity

A. Convened in the Spring of 2013, by then Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Juan Mejia,

to “look into” and “discuss” issues relating to overload assignments at STC

B. Reconvened in the Fall of 2013, by Interim Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Anahid

Petrosian, to (1) review the college’s current procedures regarding overload assignments, (2)

assess the overload situation at STC, and (3) formulate a set of recommendations for addressing

the over-arching issue of consistently “excessive” overload assignments at STC

C. Met periodically throughout the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters

D. Finalized and submitted recommendations to the Interim Vice-President for Academic Affairs on

March 5, 2014

II. Review of current STC procedures re: overloads (see Faculty Handbook, p. 55)

A. 0 - 5 LHE overload assignment requires Chair approval

B. 5.01 - 10 LHE overload assignment requires Dean approval

C. 10.01+ LHE overload assignment requires Vice-President approval

III. Review of the current overload situation at STC (four tiers of increasing concern)

A. Tier 1: Faculty teaching a 0.1 - 5 LHE overload per semester

8

B. Tier 2: Faculty teaching a 5.01 - 10 LHE overload per semester

C. Tier 3: Faculty teaching a 10.01 - 15 LHE overload per semester

D. Tier 4: Faculty teaching a 15+ LHE overload per semester

IV. Issues and findings

A. ISSUE: What counts as “excessive” in terms of overload LHE? FINDINGS: Current STC procedures clearly delineate three distinct tiers of relative LHE excess:

(1) 0 - 5 LHE, minimally excessive; (2) 5.01 - 10 LHE, moderately excessive; and (3) 10.01+

LHE, maximally excessive. Additionally, a fourth tier (redefining the third tier as 10.01 - 15

LHE) of excessiveness was identified: (4) 15+ LHE, unacceptably excessive. In addition to

concerns related directly to overload “justification protocols” required by SACS (see ISSUE B,

below), other concerns include diminishing quality of instruction, health of the faculty member,

equity of overload distribution, etc. Thus, per current procedures pertaining to overload

assignments, “excessive” means, at the very least, an overload assignment requiring the highest

level of administrative approval (i.e. 10.01+ LHE).

B. ISSUE: For SACS accreditation purposes, can we say that we have “sufficient full time faculty to fulfill the mission of the college,” if we (Chairs, Deans, and Vice-President) consistently

justify “excessive” overloads for a large number of our full time faculty by saying that “there is

no one else to teach these classes,” or some variation thereof?

FINDINGS: If SACS were to visit us today for our reaccreditation visit, we would not be able to

maintain that we have sufficient full time faculty to fulfill the mission of the college, given the

number of overload LHE currently being justified and approved. Tier 3 would arguably be seen

as problematic; tier 4 would undoubtedly be seen as problematic.

C. ISSUE: Are faculty members ever being forced or otherwise coerced to teach overloads?

FINDINGS: There is (only) anecdotal evidence that faculty members have been forced or

coerced to teach overload LHE at STC.

D. ISSUE: Are overloads being distributed in an equitable fashion amongst all of those faculty

members who are willing to teach them?

FINDINGS: There is (only) anecdotal evidence that overload LHE are not in fact being

distributed equitably at STC.

E. ISSUE: Should overloads taught outside of the faculty member’s primary program/department

(in another program, department, or division) be counted towards the total LHE overload count?

FINDINGS: Regardless of the program/department/division in which a course is taught, LHE are

LHE.

F. ISSUE: Is the current pay rate for overload assignments commensurate with that at comparable

institutions of higher education in the state of Texas?

FINDINGS: Research on this issue is slowly ongoing (see esp. the work being conducted in this

regard by the TCCTA).

G. ISSUE: Is there a viable pool of potential adjunct faculty in the region? FINDINGS: The

majority of the program/department chairs polled reported a dearth of potential adjunct faculty in

the (Hidalgo County / Starr County) region.

H. ISSUE: Is there any significant difference between traditional classes and online classes, such

that an “excessive” overload of online LHE might be deemed somehow ‘less excessive’ than a

comparable overload of traditional LHE? FINDINGS: There is no such difference.

I. ISSUE: If faculty members have a (relatively inviolable) cap placed upon the number of

overload LHE that they are permitted to teach each semester, will there be a corresponding rise

in the number of faculty members pursuing and taking additional employment outside of STC –

and will this be more or less detrimental to the fulfillment of the mission of the college than these

faculty members teaching excessive overload LHE at STC?

9

FINDINGS: Albeit speculatively, it would seem reasonable to suppose that a decrease in

overload LHE assignments (and, correspondingly, in financial compensation) would result in an

increasing number of faculty members seeking and taking employment outside of STC – whether

or not, and if so to what extent, such a shift would have a more or less detrimental impact on the

quality of instruction and the fulfillment of the mission of the college at STC is more difficult to

assess.

J. ISSUE: Is there any good reason for distinguishing between (a) full time faculty members and

(b) full time faculty members who also serve as department/program chairs, such that an

“excessive” LHE overload for the latter (chairs) might be deemed somehow ‘less excessive’ than

a comparable LHE overload for the former (faculty members)?

FINDINGS: As the course (LHE) release time granted to program/department chairs is

calculated as a part of the same “academic work week” (“defined as the equivalent of 40 hours

per week”) as the regular faculty assignment of 15 LHE, there is no such reason (see Faculty

Handbook, pp. 50, 55).

V. Recommendations

A. ISSUE V-A: Definition of excessive

1. Justifications for faculty teaching overloads of 15+ LHE in a semester should only ever be

made in extreme and unique situations in which all other potential faculty members have

explicitly declined the opportunity to teach any portion of this excess, and should be

accompanied by an action plan for addressing/remedying the situation in forthcoming

semesters.

2. Justifications for faculty teaching overloads of 10.01 - 15 LHE in a semester should arguably

be conducted and handled in a similar manner, although it is not at all clear how to manage

this without other significant changes being made (see other recommendations, below).

3. As there are certain classes at STC – certain BIOL classes with labs, for instance – that merit

slightly over 5 LHE per class (e.g., 5.01 LHE), the precise cut-off point for exceeding 10

LHE needs to be carefully considered. However, it is the considered opinion of this task

force that overload caps should not be calculated based on the number of classes, but rather,

should be calculated according to the current practice, by LHE. Excessive LHE means an

excessive work load; and if certain classes merit more LHE in terms of establishing a faculty

member’s base teaching load, then those classes truly do require more time and work on the

part of the faculty member – the work load is in no way diminished simply because the class

is being taught as an overload. A possible solution would be to shift the approval levels from

5+ LHE (Dean approval) and 10+ LHE (VP approval) to 6+ LHE and 11+ LHE, respectively.

B. ISSUE V-B: Justifications & SACS

1. Tier 4 (15+ overload LHE) needs to be addressed, and the situation resolved, immediately –

i.e., by the conclusion of the 2014-2015 academic year at the latest.

2. Tier 3 (10.01 - 15 overload LHE) needs to be systematically addressed over the course of the

next two years (in anticipation of the SACS reaccreditation visit in the Fall of 2016).

3. The extent to which tier 1 (0.1 - 5 overload LHE) and/or tier 2 (5.01 - 10 overload LHE)

would be deemed problematic from a SACS reaccreditation perspective needs to be

investigated.

4. In order to reduce the number of faculty teaching excessive overload LHE on a regular basis,

and in addition to all of the other recommendations, below, STC needs to (a) seek and secure

Board approval for strategically opening more Full Time (Regular) Faculty hiring lines, and

(b) further streamline the hiring process to insure that STC has access to the best possible

candidates for teaching positions. This alone, of course, will not fix the over-arching issue,

but it is an absolutely essential part of fixing the issue.

C. ISSUE V-C: Requiring overloads of faculty

10

1. In lieu of a prolonged investigation (of ultimately questionable reliability) into the matter,

STC should adopt, as a part of our procedures and practices, the explicit forbidding of any

and all forcing, coercing, or in any other way requiring (e.g., by subsequently penalizing)

faculty members to accept overload LHE assignments, violations of which will be subject to

all of the provisions of Policy 4910.

D. ISSUE V-D: Equitable distribution of overloads

1. In lieu of a prolonged investigation (of ultimately questionable reliability) into the matter,

STC should adopt, as a part of our procedures and practices, the explicit requirement of

complete transparency regarding each program’s/department’s method of assigning overload

LHE, violations of which will be subject to all of the provisions of Policy 4910.

E. ISSUE V-E: Overload assignments in other areas

1. N/A – overload LHE are overload LHE, regardless of the program/department/division to

which they belong or in which they are assigned.

F. ISSUE V-F: Compensation for overloads

1. Other bodies (most notably, the TCCTA) are currently looking (systematically) into this very

issue. Once the statewide data has been compiled and released, the issue of equity in

compensation for (a) overloads for full time faculty at STC, (b) adjuncts at STC, and (c)

summer classes at STC, needs to be revisited in a rigorous and systematic manner.

2. Additionally, it would seem an opportune time to revisit the formula for compensating

faculty members for over-sized classes as well.

G. ISSUE V-G: Adjunct pool

1. STC should adopt the standing practice of advertising for adjuncts in all disciplines

continuously (on the HR website) and regularly (through local media), and

program/department chairs should, at least twice a year, be contacted by HR and informed as

to how many if any adjunct applications are currently on file for their respective

program/department.

2. Every effort should be made to utilize, so far as is reasonable, existing STC Dual Enrollment

Faculty as adjuncts for traditional STC courses.

3. STC should conduct a well-advertised adjunct fair at least once a year, probably in the

middle of the Spring semester.

4. A systematic and well organized practice should be established whereby the

program/department chairs of all relevant programs make periodic visits to their respective

graduate program counterparts at neighboring institutions (e.g., UTPA/UTB/UTRGV,

TAMUK, etc.), for the purpose, among other things, of establishing connections and

recruiting pipelines for newly graduated students from those institutions to serve as potential

adjuncts here at STC.

H. ISSUE V-H: Traditional vs. online overloads

1. N/A – exceptions to the practices and procedures governing the assignment of overload LHE

should not be made based on the manner of instruction of the classes in question.

I. ISSUE V-I: Outside employment

1. N/A – as STC already has an explicit policy regarding outside employment (Policy 4800),

this policy would continue to apply to faculty members taking additional teaching positions

at other institutions.

J. ISSUE V-J: Faculty vs. Chair overloads

1. N/A – overload LHE are overload LHE, regardless of whether the base (15 LHE) load (“the

equivalent of 40 hours per week”) is comprised of classes only or classes plus course

releases.

2. However, it is the recommendation of this committee that the issue of chair compensation at

STC, in general, be systematically revisited by this institution.

11

Hanan Amro moved and Steven Scheilfelbein seconded to accept proposals for Agenda items VI and VII

in entirety. All ayes, no nayes, proposal passed.

Will present the proposal to Dr. Anahid Petrosian during the FS Executive Committee Meeting in April.

VIII. Veteran’s Statement on Syllabi by Rick Reittinger

The veteran’s statement will not be mandatory for all faculty syllabi but will appear on master syllabi and

will be optional for general faculty per Laura Talbot.

IX. 2015-2016 Academic Calendar update.

Calendar will have spring break, and 3 days of classes, and then Easter Break. This will align with UTPA,

school districts and livestock show. This might pose problem with students attending with the 3 day of

classes between the breaks. However, faculty stated that in the past this was not a major problem when

this has happened.

Other comments:

There is a concern about drop date and why it is so late in the semester.

Rick to look at further as to what other institutions are doing and form a committee.

X. New PRIDE system being tested and will be implemented this spring. There will be trainings at various times

for faculty.

XI. Judicial Affairs on the agenda, but time allotted for meeting expired.

Motion made to adjourn the meeting made by Roy Escaname and Veronica Rodriguez seconded. All ayes.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Teter, Faculty Senate Secretary, Associate Professor of Biology

Faculty who also attended the meeting are: Robert Ho Marc Hughes Iris Jasso Saeed Molki Carol Woods Mark Schuler Bob Luckett Raquel Pena Florinda Rodriguez Eric Garcia Ravi Nandigam Kirk Neckel Layman Darrell Miller

12