January 28, 2005

Manono Campus, Building 388, Room 103


Lou Zitnik (chair), Charleen Marlow (vice-chair), Barbara Arthurs, Annie Brown, Bob Duley, Kaipo Frias, Mary Goya, Donnalyn Kalei, Kent Killam, Michael Larish, John Marlow, Jennie Padilla, Daniel Petersen, Jill Savage, Mai Wong, and Robert Yamane.


1. A quorum was established and Chair Zitnik called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m.


2.  The minutes with minor corrections for the December 3, 2004, Faculty Senate meeting were approved unanimously.


3. Chairís Report


      A three page written handout, Chair Report, January 18, 2005, distributed via e-mail and made available via hard copy at the meeting was presented and discussed.  Topics included:  new campus development, class caps, budget, system wide banner committee, possible revisions to the College Council charter, ACCFSC news, student fees for information technology, grading, budget committees, CIP funds, search committee for VP for finance, the WASC report, Banner enforcement of prerequisites, faculty evaluation issues, and the BOR.


      The Chair also distributed and discussed a three page handout entitled: Purpose and Function of the College Council (Final Draft).


      The Chair also distributed and discussed a one page handout outlining ACCFSCís request for the endorsements of six different resolutions.


4.  Standing Committee Report from Faculty Policy Committee Chair Barbara Arthurs


      Chair Zitnik requested that Standing Committee Chair Arthurs be allowed to give her Faculty Policy Committee Report out of agenda order because she needed to be at the Building Better Bridges Conference.  There were no objections.


      Chair Arthurs reported that the committee had completed a response to their first charge concerning ethics and that this draft would be distributed to senate members through their representatives.  Input should come through representatives also.  A revised draft will be presented to the Senate for vote.


      Chair Arthurs also reported that the second charge concerning contract renewal has begun, including a process for mentoring.


5.  Vice-Chair Report


      Vice-Chair C. Marlow announced that the election for Standing Committee Chair for the Ed Policy Committee would take place today and that the Executive Committee had nominated Robert Yamane.


      The Executive Committee will determine who they wish to nominate for the Senate and Standing Committee Chairs by the February Senate meeting.


      Senate vote for these chairs will be conducted in the March Senate meeting.


      The Vice-Chair distributed a letter addressed to Dean Dykstra from her requesting 6 units of release time for the Senate Chair position.  Senate voting to endorse or not to endorse the letter will take place today.


6. Standing Committee Reports


a.       Curriculum Review Committee Report (Chair Kalei)


      The Curriculum Committee met on December 5, 2004, and they plan to met again on February 5, 2005.


      57 proposals went through curriculum review and were passed by the Faculty Senate last year, but only 15 proposals are expected this year.


      The Curriculum Review committee will request some changes to Form 2 and they are in communication with the Chair of the Education Policy Committee.


      The deadline for new proposals is February 23, 2005.  Notice of this deadline came out in earlier newsletters.


b.  Education Policy Committee Report


      Chair Yamane reported that the Education Policy Committee reported that the committee met on January 21, 2005, and that they had outlined and divided tasks into smaller teams.  These tasks included:  making flow charts, reviewing program and course proposal processes, creating guidelines, looking at entire process from a composure viewpoint, and viewing forms for duplication and methods to streamline. 


      Once these above asks are further along in the review process, the committee would look at duties and responsibilities of the Curriculum Committee, an appeal process, on-line responsibilities, and other areas.


      The Education Policy Committee plans to meet every two weeks, and Chair Yamane requested that Faculty Senate members work closely with their representatives so that review is a continuous process rather than something that occurs all at once during a Senate motion.


7.  Unfinished Business

a. Election of Standing Chair for Education Policy Committee for Spring 2005


      Chair Zitnik announced that the Executive Committee nominated Robert Yamane for this position, then asked if there were further nominations from the floor.  No nominations were made.


      A motion to elect Robert Yamane to the Ed Policy Committee Chairís position for the remaining term  passed unanimously (Larish, C. Marlow).


8. New Business

a.       Release time for Senate Chair


      A motion to endorse the letter from Vice-Chair Marlow to Dean Dykstra requesting 6 units of release time per semester for the Faculty Senate Chair passed unanimously (J. Marlow, Padilla).


b.  ACCFSC Letter

      The Chair requested that senators review this letter and provide feedback to representatives on the Executive Committee.


c.  Open discussion for class caps


The Chair open discussion.  Some of the views presented included: 


        Skill development can not be done as well in classes with large numbers.


        Individual student contact time reduces with increased class size.


        Increased class size results in less writing because of the grading workload.


        Students in different colleges have different academic ability levels at entry.  Many of our students enter at remedial levels and require more hands-on attention.


        Increase class sizes means that the pedagogy becomes lecture and multiple choice tests.


        If we teach large classes, what support will be offered?  Will student workers be assigned?


        Do we have the infrastructure to conduct large classes?


        Many of our students are first generation to go to college students.  They consistently report that the reason they continue is because of close, supportive relationships with HawCC faculty.  That relationship will be hampered or eliminated with larger classes.


        Most of the cap increases will be with Social Science and Humanity classes.  Is this fair to the faculty in those areas?


        What is the ratio of student to faculty at UH Manoa? 


        Class caps should be seen as a major accreditation issue.


      The discussion shifted to the relationship between class caps and the larger issue of budget deficits.  The class caps discussion be conducted within the frame work of the budget as a whole.  Why are we a Ĺ million dollars in debt?  Shared governance means having open access to the budget including explanations of procedures and expenditures.


      The motion: In the interest of shared governance and mutual problem solving,  HawCC Faculty Senate suggest a current and full budget be provided to the Faculty Senate Chair, passed unanimously (J. Marlow, Larish).


9.  The meeting was adjourned 1:50 p.m.