January 28, 2010 (the LDA years)

Here’s my report on the Jan. 28 meeting of the Rep Council. It ain’t much.

Lemme get this out of the way:

SENATE UNPLEASANTNESS: THE START OF SOMETHING BIG?

Back on the 20^th of January, I sent the Senate President (and cabinet members)  an email with the heading “Some ‘Academic Senate’ concerns, informally voiced.”

I’ve attached the email to the end of these notes.

My email began with:

Lisa [Davis Allen],

I just wanted to share a concern some of us have regarding an apparent decline in the governance role of the IVC Academic Senate.

I then cited three situations:

(1) Serious problems with the Early College program were brought to senate leadership (Wendy) last spring but were not agendized; when finally agendized (Fall ’09), the item did not reflect the severity of faculty concerns; further, senators were told that we had entered a new era of trust and that concerned faculty could join the VPI’s committee regarding Early College. (Upon expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo by some senators, a Senate committee was formed to look into EC issues. It is headed by Chris R.)

(2) Late in Fall ’09, it came to light that severe irregularities were occurring with IVC instruction at Crean Lutheran High School. Upshot: when adjuncts hired on our end were sent to Crean, Crean officials had them fill out inappropriate forms (re levels of expression of deviation with Lutheran orthodoxy, I believe); Crean officials asked some of these instructors to teach courses for which the instructors did not have the requisite degrees; in at least one case, an instructor taught a course sans degree. My question: Why hadn’t this program been run by at least the relevant faculty, who normally oversee instruction in their discipline?

(3) Apparently serious cheating incidents have occurred in at least one IVC course at Beckman High (I acknowledged that I knew little about this). I wrote: “One might suppose that this fact would at least be brought to the attention of the senate. As far as I know, that has not occurred.”

I ended my note with this:

And so I feel, perhaps mistakenly (no doubt you’ll disabuse me of any misapprehensions), that, increasingly, the college is running things without appropriate faculty oversight.

Am I wrong?

I hope to hear from you soon.

Roy Bauer,

Senator, School of Humanities and Languages

I soon received a response from Senate President Lisa Davis Allen that noted only that the matter had been agendized. Now, I had not asked for that. I thought of my email as an informal heads up that there exists this concern. Members of the cabinet are my friends, and I assumed that there would be some sort of informal back-and-forth.

Nevertheless, I wrote back a terse expression of satisfaction with the situation, and so I waited for the next senate meeting (Jan. 28).

I did not actually read the agenda until the day of the meeting. I was a little surprised to find the following:

Item 16: Crean Lutheran High School: contract education

Two problems have arisen regarding contract ed. At Crean Lutheran HS: faculty assignments and academic freedom.

Shall the Rep Council request contract ed templates and related policy documents for cabinet review and senate response?

Evidently, this was “my” agenda item.

At the start of Jan. 28 Senate meeting, I raised my hand. I intended to point out that agenda item 16 did not quite reflect my concerns—which were not about Crean in particular, but “an apparent decline in the governance role of the IVC Academic Senate.” I read aloud the first line of my Jan 20 email.

I believe that I said that I didn’t want to make a big deal out of that, but, in truth, I had in mind a discussion of the broader issue. The problems at Crean, I said, was only one of three examples or illustrations, I said.

Well, next, there commenced about a half hour of often unpleasant “discussion” in which I was forcefully and angrily told by at least one member that I had written an “accusatory” email. That cabinet member was particularly forceful and seemed to be scolding me, saying something along the lines, “What’s gotten into you! What are we supposed to do, Roy Bauer!” Another member of the cabinet noted that the cabinet comprised “reasonable” people and that they all read my email as an expression of issues about Crean, not as an expression of this broader issue about the declining role of the senate.

I tried very hard not to get angry, to engage with people reasonably. I will admit that, in truth, I was taken aback by this failure to communicate my intention to the cabinet (I thought my email was clear), by the notion that I had been “accusatory” (in my mind, if there was a target for accusation, it would have been Craig and Co.), and the (as it seemed to me) utterly disproportionate anger and criticism directed at me.

How reasonable I was is a matter I’ll leave to others to judge.

At least one biologist was in the room who no doubt will be happy to provide a blow-by-blow. (Of course, Melanie was there, but she’s untenured. Let’s leave her out of this.)

I gather that the cabinet saw no merit in my concerns about the senate’s being left “out of the loop” too often. (This is the expression I tended to use at the meeting.)

Later, when we got to item 16, Craig essentially offered a mea culpa about Crean. “Frankly, I was shocked,” he said. Wow, we really F’d that up, he said. Won’t do that again.

Probably so. But, for me, the larger issue remains.

In my judgment, there are other arguably important issues that we should be focusing on as a faculty (senate). And so, on the 29^th, I sent another email to the cabinet (attached below). Given my difficult relationship with cabinet members, I decided to keep things simple: this time, I suggested possible agenda items. (My email was entitled “More concerns; possible agenda items.”)  I raised two concerns:

1. In view of the dismal history of Presidential and Chancellor hires in the district, I suggested that the cabinate “contemplate agendizing a discussion of how the Academic Senate might act to encourage or promote a fair, honest, and careful Chancellor search.”
2. Trustee Padberg’s recent inquiries into Saddleback College’s Communications Program have yielded a situation in which, now, Channel 38 (and IVC’s Channel 33) will be expected to broadcast student productions and films only if they are within a PG rating (the old standard was PG-13). I suggested that this result constitutes objectionable “censorship,” a view essentially expressed by one trustee at the last board meeting (Lang). I wrote: “I ask the cabinet: should the Academic Senate agendize a discussion of this matter? If it would help, I’d be happy to present to you (the cabinet) or to the senators the bare facts of the inquiry and action as a preliminary to contemplating any discussion or action.”

To date, I have received no response from the cabinet or from President Lisa Davis Allen.

I’ve seen the agenda for Thursday’s meeting. Nothing on it quite reflects the concerns expressed above. Item 17 might permit the kind of discussion I have in mind:

New Chancellor Hire:  BP 4011.6

An update will be provided on the new chancellor hiring process.

Attached was Board Policy 4011.6: Employment Procedures for Chancellor

As far as I know, I am leaving nothing out of my account here. I’m not suppressing or ignoring other actions or events that might be relevant. (I did write a brief and friendly personal note to LDA after the meeting of the 28^th.)

I’m starting to think that I cannot effectively represent you as a Senator and that I should therefore resign from the Senate.

Frankly, I think that our senate ain’t what it used to be. I think that our VPI is a crafty man who, despite appearances, would just as soon forego “collegial consultation” and all of its messiness and who is now assisted by someone who has absorbed much of his perspective and the perspective, too, of other important figures in the district. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that we have entered a new era all right. But it is not a new era of trust.

Getting back to the Jan. 28 Senate meeting:

I’m afraid that I took few notes . It didn’t seem to me that much of importance was decided or announced.

Steve R of Academic Affairs noted that we are running out of professional development money, but that it is in our interests to ask for it anyway (to communicate that there is a great and unsatisfied need).

Jodi T of Curriculum mentioned deadlines. She said that she was more than willing to hold Curricunet workshops—on Fridays—but only if there’s interest. Any interest?

There was the usual yammering about the “Strategic Planning and budget development” timeline.

We received an update on hiring committees. We approved what we had.

Guidance and Counseling has replaced Senator Tiffany Tran with Robert Melendez. We approved that.

We contemplated district goals. We are starting “the annual cycle for submission of new and  revised” goals.

The Office of Instruction is proposing the reestablishment of an Instructional Council. I think we approved that.

The senate is looking for volunteers to serve on the Commencement Task Force. Any interest?

That was about it. I think.

Senator Roy

Senator Roy’s Jan. 20 email to Lisa Davis Allen:

“Some ‘Academic Senate’ concerns, informally voiced.”

Lisa,

I just wanted to share a concern some of us have regarding an apparent decline in the governance role of the IVC Academic Senate.

As you know, as the Fall semester started, some faculty were concerned that issues/concerns once routinely discussed on the floor of the senate were now being taken care of in a less visible fashion—and, seemingly, in the control of the VPI rather than the Senate. In particular, some faculty in biology were adamant that they had brought serious concerns about our “Early College” program to the Senate President in the Spring of 2009, and yet the matter was not agendized for Senate consideration at that time. Furthermore, at the start of Fall 2009, “Early College” was in some sense agendized, but not in a manner that reflected faculty concerns. Senators then learned that issues regarding EC would be addressed, but not at the Senate; rather, they would be addressed by a committee that seemed to be run by the VPI, not the Academic Senate.

“You can join Craig’s committee,” we were told.

Objections were voiced, and the upshot seemed to be that a new “early college” committee was formed that was explicitly an Academic Senate committee. Chris Riegle was made the chair.

But toward the end of the Fall semester, another troubling issue arose. It came to light that the college was offering credit courses at Crean Lutheran High School. Indeed, these courses were listed, along with the rest of the many putative “open enrollment” courses, in the college schedule of classes for Fall.

When some instructors learned of this, they were very surprised. Why hadn’t this arrangement, whatever it was, been brought before the Academic Senate? Why were full-time faculty (in the relevant areas) left in the dark about credit courses being offered in their field at Crean?

Eventually, it came to light that, despite the impression left by the Schedule of Classes, the Crean courses were “contract ed” courses, though they were indeed credit courses.

Now, this is apparently not widely known, but there were some troubling irregularities in the Crean arrangement that are not widely known:

Part-timers who had been sent to teach at Crean were asked to fill out a form. Among other things, appearing on the form was a series of boxes, one of which was to be checked by the instructor. The various options concerned the official (Lutheran) religious doctrines at Crean and the disposition of the instructor to state or reveal beliefs to the contrary.

I have communicated with adjuncts who taught at Crean in the Fall, and they have verified that this did indeed occur.

To me, this is highly irregular and troubling. The impression left is that Crean intended to screen instructors re their beliefs and their openness about them. Or perhaps they were attempting to discourage some instructors from purusing work at Crean, owing to their failure to be sufficiently Lutheran.

Further, one might suppose that IVC was offering these courses and that, therefore, IVC personnel were hiring these instructors to teach certain courses at Crean. Therefore, those instructors arrived at Crean supposing that they had been hired. And yet, when they arrived at Crean, they encountered what might be interpreted as yet another step in the process before they could teach.

I have been assured that one of the instructors that we sent to Crean was in fact rejected by them and did not teach there despite his having been sent to Crean by IVC people to teach at Crean.

I also have it on good authority that officials at Crean asked instructors whether they wanted to teach other courses. I do believe that an instructor without the requesite credentials was asked to teach a course in Economics and Political Science. Again, this is highly irregular and it is inconsistent with the notion that these instructors were selected by our college and assigned courses by us. In fact, Crean was involved in assigning instructors to courses, including courses for which some instructors lacked the requisite background.

As things stood late in the Fall (perhaps things have changed since then), our college had offered and was planning to offer credit courses taught by an instructor who was not qualified to teach those courses.

None of these things would have occurred had the Academic Senate been consulted about this arrangement. Knowing the Senate, I would guess that they would have nixed the whole arrangement, whatever its details.

I know less about this matter, but I have been told that there have been some serious cheating problems at one of our High School sites for “Early College.” One might suppose that this fact would at least be brought to the attention of the senate. As far as I know, that has not occurred.

And so I feel, perhaps mistakenly (no doubt you’ll disabuse me of any misapprehensions), that, increasingly, the college is running things without appropriate faculty oversight.

Am I wrong?

I hope to hear from you soon.

Roy Bauer,

Senator, School of Humanities and Languages

Senator Roy’s email to Senate President LDA and Cabinet, January 29:

“More concerns; possible agenda items”

To IVC Academic Senate Cabinet:

1. As you know, Chancellor Mathur will be vacating his office on June 30, 2010. It is likely, or at least possible, therefore, that the district will soon announce a search for his replacement.

Given our district’s unfortunate history with respect to Presidential and Chancellor hires (in the last dozen or so years, some hires were viewed with widespread skepticism), I suggest that the Senate Cabinet contemplate agendizing a discussion of how the Academic Senate might act to encourage or promote a fair, honest, and careful Chancellor search.

2. At the recent January meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, the board discussed an item concerning Saddleback College’s Communications program--a program that houses instruction of film and TV. Item 6.1 had two parts. Part 1 was a recommendation that the college’s Channel 39 cease its long-standing practice of broadcasting programs, including student productions, that fall within the PG-13 standard in favor of the more restrictive PG standard. (Since late November, in view of trustee concerns, Communication officials self imposed the PG standard.) Part 2 of 6.1 recommended a review of membership of the Film Program Advisory Committee for the purpose of broadening representation.

Many students and others spoke during “public comments” to defend the program and its practices and to urge the board not to impose the PG standard. Trustee Lang opined that the recommended action smacked of “censorship,” and at least two other trustees seemed to express similar views.

Ultimately, the second part of 6.1 was approved without evident objection. Trustee Padberg, who had initiated inquiries into Channel 39’s practices, agreed to “table” the first part of the item, with the understanding that Communications would self-impose the PG standard and that the board could revisit this matter after a year in order to review the program’s conduct.

Item 6.1 applies also to IVC’s Channel 33.

I submit that the action proposed (6.1, part 1) constitutes an objectionable form of censorship and that the informal “tabling” agreement constitutes de facto censorship. I submit that this result (re 6.1) constitutes a precedent about which faculty should be concerned.

I ask the cabinet: should the Academic Senate agendize a discussion of this matter?

If it would help, I’d be happy to present to you (the cabinet) or to the senators the bare facts of the inquiry and action as a preliminary to contemplating any discussion or action.

Roy Bauer
Senator, School of Humanities and Languages