December 14?, 2007

Roy's pal, Teddy

Believe it or not, we held a Senate meeting yesterday—i.e., on Thursday of finals week. And it was well-attended.

Jeff K, chair of Academic Affairs, explained that his committee is rethinking the hiring priorities calculus, which, as you know, has its critics. He’ll be presenting a draft of a new calculus in a month or two.

Kathy S of the Courses Committee promised that the new “CurricuNet” will be up and running by Flex Week, during which there will be two CurricuNet workshops plus some workshops regarding curriculum writing.

THE 50% CRISIS:

Senate Prez Wendy explained that, at Monday’s board meeting, trustees sought more info than they were getting (from the Chancellor) regarding his proposed cuts in response to our massive 50% difficulty.

You’ll recall that the difficulty afflicts the current year (2007-08) and subsequent years. There’s a tend, and it is moving in the wrong direction (re 50%).

RE 2007-08, Wendy explained that, since the district cannot increase instructional spending right now (i.e., any faculty hired now and in the coming months won’t be working for us—won’t be payed by the district—until the Fall), we can address the expenditure imbalance (i.e., that we are spending less that 50% on instruction, in violation of law) only by making cuts—to the tune of about $13 million.

It seems clear that we cannot accomplish this much cutting. (I noted that the board seems less-than-clear about this factoid.) So we seem doomed to facing angry state officials who will likely punish us in a way that has a “monetary dimension” (my phrase).

With regard to the subsequent year (2008-09), the 50% Advisory Committee, which has wide representation, has produced a list of recommendations, which Senators examined. Recommendation #1 is a mechanism according to which each “unit” (IVC, SC, the district, ATEP) is to be held responsible for “hitting benchmarks,” namely, percentages of instructional spending achieved during 2006-07. During that year, SC was at 57.75%, IVC was at 54.87%. (Amount of instructional spending divided by all spending.)

We discussed the potential problem that the Chancellor might disregard (to some extent) the committee’s recommendations. Indeed, he is already perceived by trustees as pursuing cuts (now) in a manner that is not fair or not sufficiently thoughtful. (See my notes on Monday’s board meeting: dissenttheblog.blogspot.com.)

SERBAN VISITS:

At long last, Vice Chancellor Andreea Serban could accept our invitation to attend a meeting. You’ll recall that, recently, the Chancellor heralded the arrival of “institutional effectiveness reports” for the colleges, which, in fact, had been produced largely by Serban. Before the board, Mathur attributed the reports to the colleges, and yet the IVC senate was not even informed of the project (to produce the reports) until a few weeks ago. One reason, then, for Serban’s visit was to find a way to avoid this outcome in the future.

Andreea explained that the data in the report are familiar, but are never assembled in one document—until now. She emphasized that the purpose of the document is to be used, to be helpful, to be embraced by the college community. She explained that delays resulted in the unfortunately hurried manner in which the report came together toward the end, without the involvement of some parties.

Senators were courteous and appreciative of the report, but they were also clear that it would not do to attribute a report to IVC when the IVC Academic Senate was not even made aware of its existence (until the end). We seem to be moving toward an understanding such that this will not occur again.

HELEN LOCKE

You’ll recall that the ASIVC has produced revised bylaws and these are viewed as problematic by various faculty, especially as they concern cocurricular activities. Jeff K has assembled a list of concerns, which will be made available in electronic form soon. I’ll send them your way when they become available; you’ll have an opportunity to critique them.

The discussion of these bylaws led to an expression of dissatisfaction with the work of Director Helen L. VPI Craig Justice was in attendance. Senators expressed the need to shift power from the Director to the VP, since Helen doesn’t seem to know what she’s doing, a situation that is evidently inspiring some dedicated faculty to withdraw from co-curricular activities. (Helen was one of Mathur’s political appointments and she has been the object of profound dissatisfaction for many years.)

The senate acted to appoint the faculty that have already been nominated to serve on the various hiring committees (for new full-time faculty). As things stand, the only committees wanting faculty members (i.e., those appointed by the Senate) are (1) “Health, PE & Athletics” and (2) “Library.”

Here’s a factoid for you: the committee charged with hiring the new Chemistry instructor will include: K. Tabibzadeh, Walter Floser, Dale Carranza, and Amy Stinson.

I don’t know Stinson, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. If she doesn’t show up, that committee is gonna hire Sponge-Bob Square Pants. You watch.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFIGURATION

As you know, the work-load of the Dean of H&L/Fine Arts is excessive in the extreme, a fact not left unnoticed by our new VPI. The administration is currently considering a reconfiguration of deans’ workloads. Specifically, they have in mind a change in only two clusters: one cluster will be

FA & Business. The other will be

H&L and Social Sciences and Library.

Observe that this proposal would entail no program realignments. Observe also that it is a matter of administrative discretion, though, obviously, Craig and Co. are interested in how faculty view it.

If this goes forward, as seems likely, there will be a search for a technology-oriented “dean” for FA/B (note that each area has a shiny new, high-tech building). Susan Corum would become the dean for H&L/SS/L.

In the early phase of this change (viz., ASAP), Susan Corum would “swap” with Liz C. Susan would take over Library while Liz would take on “early college.” The change for H&L/SS would not occur until July.

I should mention that this reconfiguration has been in the works, or has been contemplated, for some time.

Jan W hoped that we could return to the days when administrators were expected to have expertise in the area that they administered. Craig said he agreed with that thinking and he hoped that just the right sort of person with a strong technology background would administer FA/B.

Craig said that this whole business is “delicate,” in part because there is a feeling that Susan really isn’t carrying her share of the load—and feeling she likely does not share.

Would faculty have input in job descriptions for these new deans? Said Craig: absolutely.

Senators noted that the status quo is bad and that any reconfiguration will make some folks unhappy.

I spoke strongly in favor of the effort to share dean workloads equitably. I reminded the group that we lost Karima owing to this situation. I also spoke in favor of this particular proposal. It’s not perfect, but it seems very workable, and it will go a long way in addressing the “equitable workload” issue.

Near as I can tell, Craig Justice is a very good VPI, and this will be perhaps his first initiative. He’s been very thoughtful in this instance and he’s not taken the course of least resistance.

March 1, 2007

Academic Senate meeting: 3/1/07

I’ve got a bad cold, so I’m taking no responsibility whatsoever for any of the following.

Once again, students presented their case for pursuing the addition of a 2^nd student trustee (on the SOCCCD board). They received the senate’s support.

N.b.: Senators approved “posting the rec’s from the Curriculum Committee on the intra-net upon availability in lieu of hard copy documents for review and study two weeks prior to approval.”

Vice Chancellor Serban (pronounced sir-BAHN) requests input from the likes of you ‘n’ me regarding the development of “district-wide goals.” The process will continue for a while, I believe, so we still have time to review the draft and suggest changes/additions. Let me know if you’d like a copy of the DWGs as they relate to IVC. (Among them: “To promote a supportive environment….” Blecchh.) Serban’s committee is doing good work, reports Wendy.

The new “grade grievance policy” was approved by the board.

The senate will pause to see what other trustees (beyond the defiant Mr. Wagner [pronounced VOG-ner]) have to say about the recent Accred letters before advising the board re this matter. If we were to advise them, we’d say: “stop messing up our accreditation, OK?” But, like I said, were pausing.

The “early college” program (starting at Beckman High; Tustin Unified), of which IVC is the partner, moves forward. We were reminded that the pilot program—Fall 07-Spring-08—is small (90 students). So we’ll see how it goes. We’d better monitor the situation closely.

N.b.: Meanwhile, the college is moving forward with the intention or hope of EXPANDING this sort of program. I do believe that IVC officials are meeting with superintendents of other schools/school districts.

Senators acted to pursue modifications to the new faculty fvaluation form to distinguish between part-time and full-time instructors. (Many of the questions refer to responsibilities that fall only to full-timers.)

I do believe that Senators accepted (and praised) Jeff K’s notes/advice regarding the college budget process. We requested that his document be made available electronically. I’ll let you know when I receive it; I will promulgate it. As you know, “development of the budget process” is among the faculty’s ten areas of primary responsibility—not that administration has acknowledged that fact, historically. But, we’re told, these days, administration is more than willing to let faculty define the budget process.

Did you get that? There are vacuums. We can fill them. Like I been saying.

We’re moving forward with yearly senate elections. Wendy was nominated for president and Greg was nominated as Vice President (both accepted). Nominations remain open, I believe. Be aware that other senate offices (secretary, stevedore, etc.) remain open. No one has been nominated for any of these.

We discussed the Faculty Hiring Priority List Procedures. We were disinclined to review them since, in all likelihood, there will be no hiring any time soon.

Did you notice the inclusion of “stevedore”? Of course not. You’re not reading this, are you? In that case there’s no harm in my saying: “no wonder Fuentes thinks you’re lazy.”

--Roy