ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

APRIL 18, 2002

          This one’s gonna have to be brief.

          Item 7 was something about “mini-certificates”: “many students seeking competency in specific areas for employment or job advancement do not wish to complete a whole certificate program. These under-eighteen-unit certificates would allow students to demonstrate competency in a specific area to employers….” (Agenda)

          No one could think of an argument against this proposal, and so it passed.

          Item 8 concerned whether “students earning certificates at IVC [should] be included in Commencement exercises.” I wondered whether the addition of these students in the program might make an already-tedious program more so. The answer: there are few such students, so “no.”

This passed unanimously. In fact, on this day, everything passed, and everything passed unanimously, always a healthy sign in a democracy (not!).

          Item 3 concerned the speaker—Mark M—recommended for commencement by the Commencement Planning Committee. (Passed. I have encouraged Mark to say something nasty, but, thusfar, he seems determined to take the high road.)

          Item 4 was committee appointments. At this point, Joe Ryan (of Chemistry) has been nominated for the Instructional Delivery Task Force—the committee, as you will recall, on which faculty are poorly represented, despite the Faculty’s legal responsibility for “instructional delivery.” No new nominations surfaced.

          Item 5 was “plus or minus grading.” That we will be voting on this is a done deal; the issue was only the adoption of “positions statements” regarding this thorny issue.

          Lewis recommended emailing the positions statements to all faculty—and not including them on the ballot.

          Ray wanted to know just what it was we (as a faculty, in the upcoming election) were voting on. “Adoption of plus or minus grading,” said Lewis.

          Ray wanted to add something like: “at the sole discretion of class instructors.”

          During the subsequent discussion, Lewis maintained that, by state law, instructors issue grades autonomously, and thus faculty cannot be told to use pluses and minuses. Hence, we need not concern ourselves with whether plus and minus grading will be imposed on faculty.

          There was some discussion re the ballot box—evidently, the box normally used is unavailable. Rich noted that the fine Mas H has built something boxlike that could serve as a ballot box. No, said Lewis, he was looking forward to building a new box in his garage or something. He plans to add a “trap door,” he said. We all laughed. Ray snickered.

          Item 6 was the contentious “academic honesty policy” issue. Ray said he “despaired of persuading anyone” that the policy lacks and thus requires a “definition of academic dishonesty.” In the subsequent discussion, Ray was persuaded that, in fact, the policy did offer a sort of definition, given a little restructuring. The draft, thus modified, was approved.

          Item 9 was a faculty “code of ethics.” Evidently, “The Chancellor has recommended that the Senate discuss and adopt a professional code of ethics.” The Academic Affairs Committee has recommended putting this matter on the back burner.

          I moved that we “not take action.” That passed unanimously. I was amazed.

          Item 10 concerned a resolution to encourage faculty to participate in the Commencement. Last year, said Lewis, only 12 faculty members showed up. It looks as though faculty don’t give a damn, said Lewis. Yes, he added, some faculty are registering a protest, but it remains true that an unfortunate impression is left with the students.

          Miriam asserted that she’d show up if she didn’t have to don the “witch costume.” Let’s add “clothing optional” to the resolution, said Rich, that wag. “That might keep me away,” retorted Lewis.

          The issue of food came up, cuz somebody thought we oughta have some kind of reception before the ceremony. Evidently, recently, the board has decided never to allow the expenditure of district funds for food at functions.

Ever alert, I asked about the upcoming “reception” to welcome Raghu Mathur as Chancellor, which will be held at Cannons Restaurant in Dana Point. “Will that function have food?” I asked.

          “I think it will,” said Lewis.

          “Oh, an exception,” said I. Dale-Ray groaned.

          Item 11 was something about the upcoming election, but, by then, I had fallen into a deep coma.

          “Please vote,” said Lewis, I think.

          Lewis mentioned that, at the last senate meeting of the semester, there would be a joint session. At that time, the two senates would perhaps pass a resolution to urge the State Chancellor and the Board of Governors to enforce AB1725—the legislation that requires delegation of authority (by the board) to the Academic Senates. As you know, the Board Majority has repeatedly violated that law. It turns out that Diablo College is experiencing some of the same “shared governance” problems as our district, and somebody from that college is on the Board of Governors.

          During his President’s Report, Lewis said something about “streamlining” the speaking at Commencement. Something about two minutes.

          Lewis mentioned that, now that Tom Perez has retired, AOJ is “floundering.” He needs to be replaced.

          Also: Mathur is soliciting “fresh ideas” for use of the Tustin facility. Evidently, that property sports crummy buildings that need to be torn down—at great expense.

          After the meeting, I asked how it came about that Mr. Larry Oldewurtel was selected as “Teacher of the Year.” Evidently, Mr. Kuo, the President of ASIVC, assures everyone that a “democratic” process yielded that result. I have been told, however, that, normally, the most recent “Teacher of the Year” is involved in the selection process. In this instance, that person was not invited to participate.

          Gotta jet. Bye.

—ROY

April 4, 2002

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING: “AN OUTRAGEOUS CONVERSATION”

APRIL 4, 2002

          The meeting started at 2:14. Guests included Donna Sneed and Admissions’ bigwig John Edwards (and one other person, whose name I didn’t catch).

          Edwards addressed the group, explaining planned changes in how instructors turn in grades. The familiar practice of submitting two grade sheets—declared “ludicrous” by Edwards—will be abandoned, but not immediately. “I would ask your indulgence in the Spring term,” he said.

(Just then, inexplicably, an odd, ghostly figure—a single letter—started to appear on the whiteboard, though few seemed to notice it.)

          Dan, referring to an Edwards’ factoid according to which a substantial amount of enrollment (30%) occurs during the window of the first two weeks of class plus the preceding week, expressed concerns regarding one dean practice. According to Dan, despite this enrollment “window,” “some deans” sometimes cancel relatively low-enrolled courses early on, even during the week prior to classes. Dan was suggesting that these deans were jumping the gun, canceling courses unwisely.

Edwards seemed surprised to learn of this practice; he shared Dan’s concern. “You’re right, absolutely right,” he said.

          Dan asked Edwards to let deans know that, by engaging in this practice, they may well be canceling courses that, if given a chance, would “make.”

          By then, the whiteboard phantom had become quite legible: it was a lurid and deformed “H.”

          Item #10 concerned revision of the “Tech Prep Pathways Articulation Process.” (Who comes up with this stuff?) Donna S explained. We approved the revision, despite the ugliness of the language.

          Item #11 was a recommendation, from the GE Committee, regarding a list of courses approved for Tech Prep articulation. Donna distributed an enormous packet—maybe 200 pages—which Senators regarded with bewilderment and dread.

          Among the listed courses were the notorious “keyboarding” classes, the revisions of which Senators failed to approve at the last meeting. Accordingly, Miriam, climbing atop one of the packets, asked, “are we jumping the gun by approving these?”

As it turns out, the keyboarding courses can still be offered, but only under the “existing curriculum” (i.e., the old outlines). So, no, we were not jumping any guns. Miriam hopped down from her packet.

          The list was approved. Donna asked if she could get back her packets, cuz she routinely wheels them out to various schools. Most of us were glad for her to take ‘em off o’ our hands, and so Donna got a round of applause. I think she turned red.

          Hey! What about reports from standing committees!

          Miriam, Chair of the Academic Affairs committee, said that there’s still about $1,000 left—chump change—for staff development activities.

          Jan reminded us to keep track of when our courses are up for review by the Courses Committee.

          Item #4 concerned that messy business about AA/AS degree qualifications that we discussed at length last meeting. Our “agenda” described the issue thus (don’t expect to understand it!):

Currently, students seeking an Associate in Arts degree with a major in General Studies can satisfy major and general education requirements by completing a minimum of 60 units of coursework, including the coursework necessary to obtain either CSU certification or IGETC certification. The General Education Committee recommends that the Senate expand this ability to substitute IGETC or CSU certification for the IVC General Education requirements for other majors…Question: Should IVC allow students to obtain an AA degree in a major other than General Studies by satisfying IGETC or CSU certification instead of the IVC General Education requirements?

          Lewis explained that the new Accreditation Standards focus on “success” and “outcomes” and such. But, in truth, year after year, many of our programs/majors have no students. “This is not success,” he said. The proposal might ameliorate the situation.

          On the other hand, the proposal will allow students to “circumvent” courses of study established (for majors) by area experts to certify competence. That don’t seem right nohow, pardner.

          Gary R and Lewis discussed how best to deal with this hot potato. Somehow, the steamin’ spud kinda disappeared, don’t ask me how.

          Item #6—the faculty referendum regarding adoption of “plus/minus grading”—emerged with a bang, awakening a certain snoozing biologist from his dogmatic slumbers. We all pointed and laughed.

The question was, not whether we should conduct the referendum—that’s already been decided—but how we should revise “the position statements regarding plus/minus grading for the ballot.” That is, we’ve got to square away the statement of pros and cons.

          Ray C, who needed a haircut, asked if, should plus/minus be adopted, instructors would then be obliged to embrace the dastardly innovation. (Most schools, including most transfer institutions, have plus/minus grading.)

          Lewis opined that, no, an instructor would not in any simple sense be obligated to use pluses and minuses, but, in failing to do so, he would, of course, be going against the “institutional standard,” which in itself has drawbacks. He elaborated.

          Dotty S listened in apparent pain and then declared Lewis’ argument to be “nonsensical.” I do not know which argument she was referring to—none of them seemed nonsensical to me. On the contrary.

As I recall, Dottie maintained the position that it will make no difference to anything or anybody whether we adopt plus/minus grading. Harrumph.

Lewis, plunging ahead with his “nonsense,” noted that, in fact, the adoption of plus/minus would have “numerical consequences” for a student’s grade. For instance, a student who now receives 3.0 points (for a class) might receive, instead, 3.3 or 2.7, and that will affect the student’s GPA. Dottee stared.

          Meanwhile, Miriam explained how this matter came up in the Academic Affairs committee; deliberations there reached an “impasse.” Hence, the matter was moved to the Senate so that it might attain a still higher level of impassery.

          In the course of the subsequent discussion, while some seemed unable to see how the proposed change would “make a difference,” others championed the innovation, arguing that plus/minus grading allows for “greater accuracy” and “fairness.”

Some suggested that, if the college adopts plus/minus grading and an instructor fails to go along, he thereby exposes himself to charges of unfairness and lawsuits from disgruntled students: “I woulda got a B+ but got a lousy B instead!”, they will yammer.

          Suddenly, Dotti said: “I think this is an outrageous conversation.” She didn’t want anyone telling her how to grade, she added.

          Dale C opined that, if an instructor specifies in his/her syllabus that he will dispense with pluses and minuses come grade time, he thereby protects himself from litigation. “I bet it would stand up legally,” he said.

          Ray suggested including clarification about an instructor’s options (should the proposal pass) on the ballot. Doddee said a few more things, but I don’t know what.

          Item #7 was the rescheduling of the Senate elections. They’ll take place during the week of April 22.

          Items 8 and 9 were nothin’ special, though Traci managed to vote both for and against one motion, owing, she explained, to raised-arm “lingerage.”

PRESIDENT’S REPORT:

          1. During his report, Lewis explained his objection to the Chancellor’s approach to establishing a “District Instructional Delivery Taskforce” (see Mathur’s memo). He has established the task force evidently owing to “Our [i.e., the colleges’ or the district’s] lack of appropriate action” in regard to the “trend” of distance education (i.e., TV and “online” courses). As you know, our Chancellor is a great advocate of Distance Ed, having received his doctorate from a great distance (or, alternatively, from a nearby box of Cracker Jack).

The problem is that, despite the Ed Code’s specification of “Instructional Delivery” as among the primary responsibilities of the Academic Senates (i.e., the faculty), Mathur has alloted only two slots on the task force to faculty members. As presently configured, the task force will be dominated by the usual assembly of VPs, VCs, and AHs.

Accordingly, Lewis has written Mathur a letter (dated 4/4). In it, he writes: “By formulating a [task force] and announcing it to the whole district community without prior consultation with the Senate, the impression has been created that the District is not willing to comply with BP 2100.1 [i.e., which insures delegation of authority to the Academic Senates], or to recognize the Senates’ primary responsibility for academic or professional matters.”

If the past is any indication, we can be sure that Mathur will simply ignore Lewis’ plea.

Lewis stated that he is “very worried” about these developments.

A secondary issue: in the past, decisions and policies regarding instructional delivery have been made at the college level; they have been one way in which the colleges have defined themselves. Through this action, however, Mathur is ending that practice.

2. Lewis also reported that Interim President Roquemore means to extend to the entire college the process, already planned relative to Academic Senate committees, of committee restructuring.

OPEN FORUM:

During the “open forum” portion of the meeting, I drew Senators’ attention to Senator Chandos’ letter that had appeared in the Times (3/31/02). In that letter, Ray had described “faculty-sponsored” student activities that, he said, were “life threatening.” Further, apparently referring to my newsletters, he implied that they have racist and homophobic (and anti-religious) content.

Reading portions of Ray’s letter aloud, I carefully explained how it “exhibited an appalling disregard for the truth.” In closing, I noted that, if one is going to accuse people of racism, homophobia, and the like, he is obliged at least to cite concrete instances. I sat down. Silence.

Well, that was about it.

--ROY

February 14, 2002

Notes:

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

February 14, 2002

     HIGHLIGHT: the stuff about the board’s plan to change the “delegation to academic senates” policy, at the end.

“Bliss”

     The meeting started at 2:17. Among the guests: Donna Sneed and the ASIVC Pres. and VP.

CURRICULUM:    

     On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Miriam C requested “feedback” regarding something, I know not what.

     Jan H, on behalf of the Courses Committee, announced that the board will vote on recent curriculum work at the next board meeting.

     We examined an edited (for readability, owing to the full document’s great size) list of the PROPOSED CURRICULUM ACTIONS—the result of many months’ work. Despite the edits, the document before us was 12 pages long.

     Dottie S was not happy. She was concerned that the action listed re Math 13 did not reflect “the change we made.” “I don’t want to vote unless I know what I’m voting for,” she added, evidently annoyed at the truncated state of the document.

     Natch, Jan, owner of the unabridged version, cleared up the problem, which was only apparent.

     After a few minutes of such exchanges, Lewis began to look desperate; clearly, he sought a motion. I gave him one.

We approved the list, and everyone was happy. Ms. Sneed left without having to say a word; she too was happy. The world seemed happy.

COMMITTEES:

     Item 3 concerned “committee appointments.” Despite repeated solicitations, several college committees still lack faculty representation. Something was said about the “program review committee,” but my notes here fail me, owing to addlement caused, in turn, by a growing pre-holiday bliss.

     At one point, we examined the list of persons currently proposed to serve on the Physics Hiring committee, which comprised such lights as Roy McCord, Larry Olderwurtle,  Ray Chandos, Dale Carranza, etc. The president of the college, noted Lewis, can add another administrator to this list. Somehow, this was a problem or might be thought to be one, but, in view of the crew already slated for membership on this committee, I could not see how anything he might do would make things worse.

Expect “Flat Earth” seminars soon.

     Julie W made a plea for a volunteer to serve on the Program Review Committee, an organization she characterized as a “well-oiled machine.”

No one said anything.

THAT LOOK:

     This brought us to Item 4: the Academic Senate Officer Election.

     Nominations will be closed at the next meeting. So far, we have only these nominations:

     Jeff K:     PRESIDENT

     Greg B:     VP

     Lewis gave us that look. No one said anything.

Desperate, he arranged to have himself nominated for “past president.” The room grew darker, quieter.

     Lisa floated the notion that Ted W might be nominated to serve on the election committee. Jan H suggested Gary R. Gary yammered about his debate schedule, gratuitously praising his team’s successes.

     I don’t care.

     Item 6 concerned the senate bylaws and the Academic Senate Committee Structure. Once again, nominations were needed. No one said anything. Lewis, flexing, warned us about future “arm twisting.”

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY:

     Item 7 was the “second reading” of the Academic (Dis)Honesty Policy. Next time: final reading.

     Lewis opined that, in his view, a good Academic (Dis)Honesty Policy should keep academic chairs out of the process re dishonesty, owing to the absence of adequate remunerative compensation. After all, these processes can lead to litigation and Sturm und Drang.

     We discussed grounds allowed by state law for reversing an instructor’s grades (issued to students): bad faith, mistake, fraud, and incompetency, I think. The proposed academic dishonesty policy seemed to imply a broader range of grounds. Once again, worries were expressed at the power given, by the policy, to the dean in settling disputes between instructor and student (re cheating).

     Despite these problems, Lewis urged the group to view the proposed policy as basically sound, the result of good work. We only need to “clean up the language,” not start from scratch, he said.

     Dan once again directed us to points 12 and 13 of the “instructor procedures” portion of the proposal:

     12. If an appeal is filed by a student, the instructor may be requested to submit a written statement supporting his or her position to the School Chair [dean]. The instructor may also be requested to attend a meeting between the School Chair [dean] and the student. The decision of the School Chair [dean] is final and may not be further appealed.

     13. If an instructor must assign a course grade before the School Chair [dean] can meet with the student, a grade of incomplete should be given and the appropriate grade will be assigned after the school chair [dean] has met with the student and a course of action has been decided upon. In the absence of the instructor, the School Chair [dean] will assume the responsibilities for the instructor.

     Dan again expressed the obvious worries. Lewis was in favor of simply striking the offending language (e.g., the verbiage about the dean’s decision being “final”).

ELITISM REARS ITS UGLY HEAD:

     Item 8 concerned the “Distance Education Course Approval Process.” We were to decide approval of a “method of implementation” of a process that already passed in the Senate last year.

Part of that method was a FORM entitled “Distance Education Course Outline Review.”

     I noted a problem with line 7 of that form. Line 7 reads:

7. Describe any partnership (with K-12 schools, business, etc [sic]) that involves the faculty or department that creates an influence on this course or the students.

I suggested that line 7 is “incomprehensible.”

Oh my.

Lewis, playing the moderate to my conservative, offered a brief and gentle diagnosis of the problem, viz., something about that-clause pile-ups. (In truth, looking back, I think I was more offended by the sentence’s drivel about “partnerships” than by its confusing syntax.)

     Later, to a colleague, I expressed surprise that a college instructor could defend sentence 7. The colleague expressed even greater surprise that a college instructor could write such a sentence.

     Item 9 concerned AR 5604—the proposed regulation governing BP5604 (eligibility for admissions of K-8, et al.). You’ll recall that, contra the “delegation of authority” policy, the board rammed BP5604 down our throats. Now, a committee, comprising various governance groups, has been formed to propose this regulation, which we examined.

     Lewis is apparently on record as insisting that the Senates should have “the last word” regarding this regulation. I think we approved the proposed document.

THE PRESIDENT’S REPORT:

Lewis addressed the “rumor mill” re the selection of an interim president at IVC. Evidently, the selection will occur on Feb. 25.

The trustees, added Lewis, want to move forward ASAP in selecting a permanent president. That is, the interim president will soon be replaced with the permanent president.

Lewis reported that the “atmosphere” of Mathur’s “Chancellor’s cabinet” is similar to the “atmosphere” that seemed to pervade the President’s cabinet meetings (with Senate officers) here at IVC. Lewis declined to specify the nature of that “atmosphere.”

I have been told, however, that conversations with Raghu tend to be remarkably one-sided. I guess that’s a kind of  “atmosphere.”

As you know, when the board fails to take the advice of the Senates (in ten key areas), it is obliged (if asked) to produce a letter explaining the “extraordinary circumstances” for that action. In response to two such requests, former Acting Chancellor Jones has provided two letters—evidently, his “swan songs.” We examined them.

I noted that (1) one letter appeared over one year after our request. “Is that acceptable?”, I asked, rhetorically.

     (2) Neither letter provides anything that could be reasonable described as identifying “extraordinary circumstances” for declining to accept the Senates’ advice. In both cases, the board appears simply to have disagreed with the Senates.

     Lewis again noted that the board has agendized a change in BP2100.1 (Delegation of Authority to Academic Senates). In particular, they propose to strike out the sentence “This policy is a mutual agreement between the governing board and the academic senates and may be modified upon mutual consent of the parties.”

     The board’s (chancellor’s) agenda item re 2100.1 offers this point:

     The amended version…puts the policy in concert with Title 5…: “The governing board of a community college district shall adopt policies for appropriate delegation of authority and responsibility to its college and/or district academic senate.” The addition of the word “appropriate” in the first paragraph is taken directly from the Title 5 section cited.

     Here is that addition:

(proposed addition, 2100.1:) In response to…Title 5…, the governing board delegates to the college academic senates appropriate responsibility for and authority over academic and professional matters….

     After noting the utter speciousness of the board’s reasoning, Lewis opined that, since the change—especially the stricken language—has no legal effect, the only reason for the action is to say “screw you” to the senates.

     Lewis alerted faculty to a retreat at the Irvine Spectrum the focus of which are the new Accrediting Standards, which, as you know, are very “learning outcome oriented.”

     Lewis warned about allowing non-discipline experts (i.e., deans) to interpret or define these outcomes.

     It turns out that IVC will be one of the first colleges to which the new standards will be applied.

     Lewis reminded us that the new Chancellor has promised to read all of the filled-out “needs” questionnaires that are returned to him. This, he seemed to imply, is a good reason to write lengthy comments and to forward them to Raghu.

     Finally, we discussed the need to select a commencement speaker—and the importance of good faculty turnout to this event.

--Roy