Full-Time Faculty Against the Proposed AS Bylaws Change

9 years ago Featured

That is, I thank all my colleagues- both full time and associates for contributing to the discussion.

9 years ago Featured

I concur with Francisco Alvarez, Steve Wezniak and the arguments presented separately by Gail Baughman. I think all my colleagues- both full time and associate for contributing to the discussion.

I STRONGLY oppose the Bylaws change

9 years ago Featured

The issue merits further discussion and consultation if we want to get to a less polarizing solution; one that, while recognizing the "institutional citizenship" rights of Associate faculty, does not dilute so extremely the votes/voice of FT faculty. Perhaps a fixed number of votes for Associate faculty equal to the total votes held by FT faculty (or equal to a specific percentage to be agreed upon)?

9 years ago Featured

I believe a weighted voting system would be the most appropriate method of voting for the AF members.

Interested in casting a no vote

9 years ago Featured

I would echo my colleagues comments 100%. Associate faculty already have a bargaining organization, so they do have a voice commensurate with their overall involvement in the college community. This is a significant issue with complex implications. Senate personalities, personal opinions, and a 1/3 associate faculty representation does not result in a balanced, objective vote that represents the full time faculty voice.

Voting power should be proportional to teaching load.

Here's some information a few faculty have compiled that might be worth sharing. ---------- The purview of the Academic Senate includes: 1. Curriculum, including establishing pre-requisites and placing courses within disciplines. 2. Degree and certificate requirements. 3. Grading policies. 4. Educational program development. 5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success. 6. District and college governance structures, as related to faculty roles. 7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including self-study and annual reports. 8. Policies for faculty professional development activities. 9. Processes for program review. 10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development. 11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon between the governing board and the academic senate. The majority of these issues have a disproportionally larger effect on full-time faculty than associate faculty. For example, it is the exception that an associate faculty member would ever write curriculum (#1 above) for a new or updated course, while nearly every full-time faculty member is routinely responsible for this. Associate faculty are also rarely involved in accreditation of the college (#7) and program review (#9). As another example, full-time faculty have a much heavier responsibility to the college with respect to involvement in collegial governance (#6 above). Of the 338 spots available on all committees, 320 spots are filled by the 198 full-time faculty, while only 18 are filled by the nearly 600 associate faculty. That’s an average of 1.6 committees per FT faculty member and 0.03 committees per associate member. Giving all associate faculty a full vote for Academic Senate President and Vice President would mean they have nearly 75% of the voting power, effectively controlling these two important positions. This would leave full-time faculty with 25% of the vote with regard

I sit on the Faculty Assembly and over the last two years have seen the many ways the Academic Senate and its leadership (President and Vice President) directly impact Full Time Faculty working conditions. The nature of the Academic Senate’s work and their support of various initiatives inherently by design has a disproportionate impact on Full Time Faculty and so to change the bylaws to allow Associate Faculty to have a full vote in electing the leadership of that body is inherently flawed. I have the deepest respect for our Associate Faculty colleagues (having been one) and appreciate the vast number of classes they teach (we certainly need to improve our FT/PT ratio) and recognize the dedication they have to serving MiraCosta students in many valuable ways outside the classroom, but I am not comfortable supporting the numerous possible disproportionally negative implications of this change. A vote proportional to the Associate Faculty LHE being taught relative to a Full Time load of 15 LHE is a more fair and equitable solution. This allows Associate Faculty to have an influence that is proportional to the ways in which the Academic Senate impacts them. A formula that includes additional LHE credit towards a proportional vote should be given to those Associate Faculty serving on committees. I listened to the last Academic Senate meeting and several proportional voting motions were made along these lines but there was confusion as to what type of proportionality was meant. On the other side, there were references to the principles of democracy, equal representation, and the ideal of one person one vote in civic matters; these concepts have little correlation to the situation we are facing here. Under this proposal only Full Time Faculty members may be elected to these roles, but changing the constituency to which those Full Time Faculty candidates must campaign and then subsequently represent on an equal basis will change the types of issues and initiatives

9 years ago Featured

I think is would be okay for assoc fac to have a vote that is proportional to their teaching load, or perhaps something like 1/2 a vote.