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