%20(1).jpg)
On Monday, May 8, I attended the TMCC Planning Council Meeting because the Council was going to consider a policy passed by Faculty Senate regarding access to Canvas class modules by administrators. The policy, which began as a simple proposal to modify Canvas account settings to prevent untraceable access by administrators to online courses, had grown to include statements about legal obligations, and law enforcement, and worst of all, a clause that, in my opinion, created an exception to the TMCC-NFA Contract.
In the prior week, VPAA Alexander, via email, shared the proposal with me as President of TMCC-NFA. After consulting with the proposal's original author and some other NFA officers, I informed the vice president by email that TMCC-NFA would oppose the policy if it included language that does not fully comply with the contract.
During this same time, the bad sniffles that I originally thought were just seasonal allergies had exploded into full-blown bronchitis. I submitted a sick leave request and crawled in bed.
On the morning of Friday, May 5, TMCC's general counsel, Kiah Beverly-Graham called my phone and left a voicemail message that he wanted to discuss my opposition to the policy. I could not have returned the call that day since I did not become aware of it until the weekend. I also will not speak one-on-one with a member of the administration without witnesses. I decided the best course would be for me to attend the Planning Council meeting to explain our opposition, answer questions if any, and dispel misunderstandings.
President Hilgersom appeared to be taken aback by my presence, which is odd because I always thought the Planning Council meetings were open to the campus. When the policy discussion commenced, Faculty Senate Chair Amy Cavanaugh introduced the proposal, described its intent, and explained why there was some concern. She then asked if I could be permitted to speak. Before giving me the floor, however, President Hilgersom explained to the group that she was unaware that I would be attending, and cautioned the group that I was an NFA representative and the TMCC attorney was not present to respond. She told the group it was unfortunate that faculty leaders did not return the attorney's phone call, a statement to which I felt obligated to set the record straight.
After explaining our reason for opposing the language, and responding to some "scenarios" put forth by administrators that justified unannounced access to web classes. I was ultimately shut down by the President who said my presence put her "in an awkward position," because I had just shown up. She said I could consult with the TMCC-NFA representative on the Planning Council, Molly Maynard, if there was any more to contribute and offered to let the two of us caucus in the hall. She also recommended that I ask to be included on the agenda in the future if I wish to address an issue before the Council.
Although I simply wanted to explain that it was never the intention of the policy to prevent access, but only to create a record of the access, I was not afforded that opportunity and the group spent the next 30 minutes listening to a handful of administrators describe circumstances where they should be permitted access without the instructor's knowledge. The policy will not be taken up again until the start of the next academic year at which point TMCC-NFA will still be opposed to any language that creates exceptions to the contract. It does make me wonder if the administrators feel the same way about entering our offices. Should they be able to do that without our knowledge? Are they already doing it?
Through this experience, I have come to believe that TMCC faculty should be much more engaged with the proceedings of the Planning Council since the discussions were rather revealing. Although it is presented as a shared governance body, it is exceptionally top-heavy with administrators. The Planning Council web page lists 32 members. It has not been updated since Molly Maynard agreed to represent TMCC-NFA, and I assume the incoming VPFG will be added, raising the membership to 34. Of the 34 members, nine are members of the Leadership Team and 13 are administrators with titles ranging from program director to dean. The remainder consist of six academic faculty, one non-managerial administrative faculty member, two classified, and one student. As far as I can tell, the only individuals on the Planning Council who are selected by their constituents, albeit indirectly, are the TMCC Faculty Senate Chair, the Classified Council President and one other classified employee, the Student Government Association President, the TMCC-NFA representative, and an ADA Committee representative.
This is not to say that the faculty representatives who were chosen by the administration to serve on the Planning Council aren't doing their best to represent the views and needs of the rank and file. I believe they are. But, given the "awkwardness" of my unanticipated presence, it's clear the president has her preferences about who should be in the room, and the faculty are dramatically outnumbered. With shared governance like this, who needs Florida?
In the next academic year, I will be actively encouraging faculty from all areas of the College to attend the Planning Council meetings. Our faculty representatives on the Council need to know that we have their backs when issues that impact our rights and working conditions are being considered. Things happen when we are not paying close enough attention. Given my experience, I suspect some members of the administration truly prefer it that way.
Comments
Post a Comment