senate capers: 2011

Thursday, May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011: respectfully submitted

ACADEMIC SENATE NOTES

May 5^th, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

Melanie Haeri

Senator, Humanities and Languages

Here is a compilation of the notes from the General Assembly Meeting of the Academic Senate meeting for May 5th, 2011. I have attempted to include all the items which might interest you and be of importance. The senate minutes are posted online if you wish to read further.

With these notes, Roy and I end our term as Senators for this year. I know how busy everyone is at this time of year, so I will attempt to be brief. Thank you for trusting me with representation this year.

1)Public Comments: Dean Werle announced there will be a non-denominational invocation at Commencement that complies with the recent resolution of the prayer lawsuit. Per guidelines, the planning committee decided to have an invocation and will provide guidelines to the gentleman giving the invocation.

2).Executive Reports: A) President Lisa Allen-Davis –not at the meeting – setting up the Art Sculpture displays.

B) Vice-President Jeff Kaufmann: He imbedded his reports within the agenda – more to come in the notes.

B) Academic Affairs Chair Rochford: i.) Academic Affairs has one more meeting before the end of the semester and may respond to the Early College Report. ii) IVC2 IVC is finished for the year. He has 6 verbal commitments from faculty for 2011/12 – part time faculty are encouraged to sign up to speak as well as full time. Email Steve at asenate@ivc.eduor let Roy or me know if you are interested.

C) Curriculum Committee Chair Jodi Titus: The Curriculum Institute is in July and Diana Hurlbut from Bio will represent the faculty. Most importantly – please check the course list for 2011/12 revision and make sure it is accurate with regards to your discipline – some mentioned that there were inaccuracies. If your courses are up for revision, Jodi will be here most of the summer and offered to help if anyone needs any.

3) IVC Oversight of ATEP: White Paper: The letter will be forwarded to the president.

4) Strategic Planning and Budget Development –a) CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence –The Café will be housed in the MRC ( the computer center in the BSTIC building with the metal door and all the windows). This has been agreed to by all parties involved. It will be a multifunctional space that includes a conference area which can be rented out

5) IVC 2011 Education and Facilities Master Plan: - The text that goes with the plan is being edited . End of May we will/may see the document.

6) Senate Cabinet Elections: Elections and cabinet positions are complete for 2011/2012. Results: President – Lisa Allen Davis, Vice – President: Jeff Kauffman, Curriculum Committee: Jodi Titus, Academic Affairs: Steve Rochford, and Recorder: June McLaughlin. The Senate will work over the summer and send an accounting of all activities out in the fall.

7.)Emeritus Status and Senate Recognition for Retirees: - The language in the contract is very vague as to the retiree benefits - something to the point of “ what the faculty has”. For those retiring, please let the district know if you would like to retain your email account - District IT.

8) Library Subscription - Chronicle of Higher Education: - The library has done research about the cost of having an online subscription for faculty. For a college-wide subscription the cost is $4450.00, but for site specific computers, it is about $ 100.00 per subscription. The Senate voted to purchase the subscription for sites as opposed to the college. We will have one for sure in the Café.

9) SLO Coordinator– Jerry and Kari are taking a break from this role, but will be here to help the new coordinator(s). The position is now available. The position has been redesigned and reworked and there is a stipend available. Anyone who is interested should contact asenate@ivc.edu

10) Men’s Volleyball– And Finally – to end the year’s notes on a good note: Our Men’s Volleyball team are the National Champions!

Thursday, April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011: respectfully submitted

ACADEMIC SENATE NOTES

April 7^th, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

Melanie Haeri

Senator, Humanities and Languages

Here is a compilation of the notes from the General Assembly Meeting of the Academic Senate meeting for April 7th, 2011. I have attempted to include all the items which might interest you and be of importance. The senate minutes are posted online if you wish to read further. Please give me any feedback, comments, concerns and ideas concerning the notes or any agenda items. The agenda is sent digitally the week of the meeting. If you are not receiving the agenda, please let me know.I will have you added to the email.

1).Executive Reports: A) President Lisa Allen-Davis – Lisa reported that the ATEP Walk About event was held and there not as many faculty in attendance as they had hoped. David B. has invited us to do another one and she has suggested a van or bus to take the faculty there.

B) Vice-President Jeff Kaufmann: Jeff announced the hiring process has gone forward for the Library position and that the position will be a faculty position and also accommodate the need for an informational specialist. This is the fifth faculty position for hiring this year.

B) Academic Affairs Chair Rochford: i.) IVC2IVC: Steve Felder was the speaker at the last IVC2IVC Lecture on Monday April 4^th. His talk was excellent – I enjoyed it and saw many of my colleagues there. (this is my editorial here although Steve Rochford said the same thing!) Monday May 2^ndthere will be a talk about Piracy and Somalia. Also, look for the email inviting you to participate in next year’s lecture series.

ii) Distinguished Academic Lecture Series – April 14^thCecile Whiting from UCI will be presenting an art history – Los Angeles through Photography. This will be at 7pm in the PAC – tickets are free but you must get them in advance. There will be a reception following the presentation.

iii) Fall Flex Week – April 22^ndis the deadline for applying to present.

iv) Post your 38 hours in Flex Tracker as soon as you can.

2) IVC Oversight of ATEP: White Paper: President Roquemore spoke to the Senate about the idea of an administration/faculty collaboration on a white paper addressing IVC oversight of ATEP. He spoke first about the history of oversight and boundaries between the two colleges. He mentioned the El Toro Rd line – the decision line between the two colleges for courses – the college in the area has first right of refusal. This was never a “written” rule, but more of an agreement and process that has been used. Other colleges have maps with lines and MOU to offer courses. He also mentioned that the history of ATEP and its inception and design without faculty involvement in the process went against the rules and accreditation standards. Acting Chancellor, Dixie Bullock, sought to resolve some of these issues during her tenure by making ATEP part of IVC. If you recall, a district cannot own/run a campus .

So, now the issue at hand: IVC was really only given the 1 acre that is developed. Unfortunately There are 68 or so more acres that will be developed. It seems that Saddleback, specifically the president and the Senate originally said they didn’t want to be part of ATEP, but that seems to have changed. Glenn is concerned because at the next board meeting the board will vote to decide if ATEP will be a two-college center. This is problematic: we spoke of the various problems this creates, let alone the boundary line of deciding which college gets to put which program at ATEP. If, for some reason, this would happen, the Accred team said that we would need to then do TWO of everything – 2 self studies, 2 sets of student services, etc. Glenn believes that IVC should be the college that ATEP stays apart of. He asked the Senate for help so that in May IVC could go to the Board with OUR ideas for ATEP – not the 2-college model. The Senate formed a small committee that will draft a letter including a) the right of refusal be for IVC for courses/programs and 2) leadership of ATEP needs to be with one college and it needs to IVC.

The urgency is two-fold- 1) the upcoming board meeting/action and 2) a new building has already been approved and we need to get involved in the decisions regarding the design etc.

*** Would anyone in the English Department be willing to lend a hand in the editing?

4) Strategic Planning and Budget Development –a) CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence – The go-ahead has been given and there is a place holder for a spot during flex week for an open house D) TracDat Installation and Training – installation and training should be underway before the end of the semester.

7) State Budget and CA Community Colleges Update: As most of us are aware, the State is bracing for a $900 million short fall. The $36 a unit price has gone through for the fall although that might not be the end of it.

8) IVC 2011 Education and Facilities Master Plan: - According to Craig, the college number projections of WSCH and OSCH matched almost exactly to the numbers from GKK –projections are within 200 sq ft. It looks like there will be the A400 remodel for Humanties/Languages and Social Sciences AND a Humanities building in the plan.

9) Academic School Name - The School of Health Science, Physical Education and Athletics now has a new name: The School of Kinesiology, Health, and Athletics.

10) Senate Cabinet Elections: Nominations remain open. June McColough was nominated as recorder.

11) Special Recognition at Graduation Ceremonies for Early College Graduates – This item brought quite a robust and tense discussion. The first cohort of students from the Early College Program are graduating this year. There was a movement to recognize these students with a low key , privately funded breakfast and to have an asterisk next to each of their names in the graduation program. After much debate and discussion about this, it was decided that the privately funded breakfast was fine, but that our program recognizes academic excellence with asterisks and that all students graduating should have the same standing. So, no asterisks in the graduation program for this cohort, like all other cohorts, unless they meet the academic excellence requirements. This decision came about with the understanding that all cohorts and graduates at IVC are special, and that none of them receive this recognition. We should keep the standard we have – honor academic excellence for all who have earned it and let cohorts be honored separately with recognition events prior to graduation or after.

12) Attendance– another robust discussion. At the request of Arleen Elseroad, we discussed the attendance rules. She is looking to change the wording from “minimum six hours” to “excessive” to give instructors more control and to word it in their syllabi however they want to. The discussion showed that many instructors felt that the “6 hour minimum “ language gave them support in this area. Some felt that we should have some standards.

13) Faculty Representation needed: Dave Anderson has requested a faculty representative to sit on the Testing Center Specialist hiring committee.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

College and district acronyms

DRAC – District Resources Allocation

BAARC – Basic Aid Allocation Committee

CET – Chancellor’s Executive Team

BPARC – District Board Policy and Administrative Regulations

SPOBDC -- Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee

SPAC -- Strategic Planning and Accreditation Council

APTC – IVC Academic Planning and Technology Committee

SSAMMO – IVC Student Success/Access/Matriculation/Marketing & Outreach
BDRPC – IVC Budget Development and Resources Planning Committee See
See What's "Bark"? And what on Earth is the DRAC?

The Faculty's Role in Community College Decision Making*

The Concept of Shared Governance

Shared governance is a process created by the California state legislature that guarantees faculty input in the decision-making process of community colleges. The purpose of the law, AB 1725, was to provide a mechanism to insure that the expertise of the faculty would be used in developing college policies. Although the phrase "shared governance" is not found in the legislation, it has become the commonly used description of the process that provides for faculty input. AB 1725 mandates that colleges "consult collegially" with local Academic Senates (the law also encourages colleges to seek active participation of other constituencies such as classified staff or students in appropriate areas). Consult collegially means that the district governing board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters through either or both of the following:

1. Rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate

2. The governing board, or its designees, and the Academic Senate shall reach mutual agreement.

The state identified "academic and professional" matters as eleven specific areas:

1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites
2. Degree and certificate requirements
3. Grading policy
4. Educational program development
5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success
6. College governance structures, as related to faculty roles
7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes
8. Policies for professional development activities
9. Processes for program review
10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development
11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon.

Since each college determines exactly how shared governance will be implemented on its campus, the process varies widely in its scope and details. With relatively few exceptions, shared governance has provided California community college instructors with a vehicle for input into the decision making process unmatched in any other state.

*Provided by 4Faculty

The SOCCCD Academic Senates sue their district (and win)

[UPSHOT: the Chancellor/Board essentially unilaterally changed the district's full-time faculty hiring policy despite a statute according to which the Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty) has important rights in the development of such policies. In the end (2005), faculty entirely PREVAILED.]

Part 1: From Dissent 66, Oct. 7, 2002

LEGAL STORMS BREWING

I counted two and seventy stenches, All well defined, and several stinks. —Coleridge

Intervention sought: During an August meeting of the IVC Academic Senate, it was suggested that, given the Chancellor & Board’s exclusion of the Academic Senate from governance, there really is no point in continuing. It was suggested, too, that the Senate might better devote its energies to seeking redress in the courts.

* * *

On September 12, the exec. cabinet of the IVC Academic Senate sent a letter to State Chancellor Nussbaum, seeking his “intervention” “to secure rights granted to local senates under Title 5” of the Ed Code. The letter cited four examples of the Board’s many actions in violation of “law, policy and process.” The first concerned the Board’s action (Fall 2000) to revise BP6120 (academic freedom), despite objections from the senates. Example 2 was the Board’s adoption (12/01) of a revision of BP5604 (eligibility for admission) despite “vehement” senate objections. Example 3 was the Board’s decision (2/02) to unilaterally revise BP 2100.1 (delegation of authority to academic senates), despite the policy’s explicitly prohibiting such action.

The fourth and most recent example concerned “revisions to District hiring policies,” including revisions to the Full-Time Academic Employees Hiring Policy, developed over the summer by Chancellor Mathur. These revisions, said the letter, “are rife with numerous individual violations of law, policy and good practice.” Despite Title 5, “At no time were any of the governance groups on either campus invited to participate, or even alerted to the existence of the committee.” Further, governance groups were given only 8 days to provide “input.”

* * *

The Senate’s letter yielded a response—a letter discovered belatedly, and already opened, in the senate president’s mail box! Dated Sept. 16, the letter, from Ralph Black, attorney for the State Chancellor’s Office, requested further info to determine whether his involvement “would be warranted.” Black offers a jurisdictional point: “Unless faculty hiring is listed as an ‘academic and professional matter’ under the SOCCCD shared governance policy..., faculty hiring does not fall under the jurisdiction of [the Board of Governors’] regulations.” (More on this later.)

On Sept. 25th, Mathur emailed the Saddleback Academic Senate, suggesting that he is under no obligation to consult the Academic Senates regarding modifications of the hiring policy. To support this odd view, he cited Black’s letter and its point about jurisdiction, but he ignored Black’s remark, in the same letter, that Faculty hiring procedures are covered by [the] Education Code..., which requires that “hiring criteria, policies, and procedures for new faculty members shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by representatives of the governing board, and the academic senate….” (Ralph Black)

Late in 1993, the Board approved a “Full Time Academic Employees Hiring Policy” that makes clear that the hiring policy can be changed only upon mutual agreement between the district and the faculty senates. This, of course, is the crucial “further information” that Ralph Black needs and will soon receive.

* * *

Budget development, of course, is plainly listed among the academic and professional matters of the district’s “shared governance” policy (2100.1). Hence, a failure to consult with the academic senate regarding budget development would be a violation of “shared governance”—one that clearly does fall under Black’s jurisdiction. Mr. Black will be interested to learn that, at IVC, the senate has been excluded from the budget development process for years.

Part 2: From Dissent 67, April 14, 2003

[“Kurt Bozny” is one of Chunk’s alter-egos.]

According to a statute, faculty hiring policies are to be “mutually” agreed upon by the district (i.e., the board) and the faculty (i.e., the academic senates).

During the Summer of 2002, Chancellor Mathur established a committee, including no faculty, that developed a new hiring policy. The faculty were not even informed of this committee’s work. The product of the committee—a truly appalling and incompetent policy—was then adopted by the board.

Thus, at long last, the faculty senate sued the district. (It was about time!) Below describes the serving of papers and its immediate aftermath.

April 14, 2003

Saddleback and Irvine Valley Colleges' Academic Senates Sue the District

By Kurt Bozny

April 8:

Santa Ana, 1:15 p.m.: Wendy files the much anticipated “faculty hiring policy” lawsuit against the SOCCCD Board of Trustees and Chancellor RAGHU P. MATHUR. She’s well-prepared, and so she breezes through the paperwork. Soon, she’s out the door, headin’ south!

2:10: Wendy’s back at IVC. She and I decide to head down south together to serve Mathur with the writ and the attached documents—a big stack. It’s good to bring an observer, cuz some people get way squirrelly when you try to serve ‘em with a lawsuit, and Mathur’s definitely the type.

I briefly search for one of those neon green “legal observer” caps like they wear at the big protests in L.A., but I can’t find one. Dang!

Mission Viejo, 2:40: we’re up on the 3rd floor of the Library, closin’ in on Chancellor Mathur’s office. I catch a glimpse of Mathur exiting his office, movin’ towards Robina Husting’s desk. He hasn’t spotted us yet.

Wendy closes in, holdin’ the thick stack of legal papers in front of her. As it turns out, Mathur is holding a similar stack of papers in front of him. The two meet in the small space in front of Robina’s desk. Mathur just stands there. So Wendy places her stack on top of Mathur’s stack, sayin’, “You’re served.”

Mathur’s horrified. The indecorous fellow now jostles and squirms to avoid holding the papers, but it’s too late—he’s got ‘em.

I’m thinkin’: “Does he actually suppose that the lawsuit won’t happen if he avoids holdin’ this stuff?”

Finally, in a desperate attempt to avoid being served, Raghu shoves the legal papers forward and they fall to the floor. Fwap!

Legally speaking, such fwappage is irrelevant; he’d been served and, once again, he’d attained the title “Respondent Mathur.” Besides, leaving the lawsuit on his secretary’s desk counts, too, so Wendy now picks up the papers and places ‘em there.

Meanwhile, I size up the Chancellor’s unseemly conduct. “How rude,” I proclaim. We exit.

Respondent Mathur struggles to think of a comeback, but Attorney Wendy (and her cap-less Boswell) are already out the door.

Finally, he’s got one. He shouts:

“How rude are YOU!”

* * *

Wendy Gabriella

April [9]: The next day, the district issues a peevish press release. It says:

SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur…commented on a lawsuit filed by the IVC and Saddleback College Academic Senates that disputes a new SOCCCD faculty hiring policy, stating, “The district is following the guidelines established under Title 5 that defines the ‘Delegation of Authority to the Academic Senates.’ There are 11 areas within the scope of academic and professional matters for which the academic senates have primary responsibility.

“The State Chancellor’s office has confirmed our view,” Mathur said, “that our hiring policies do not fall within the primary responsibility of the faculty….”

This is classic Mathur. The State Chancellor’s office does indeed hold that hiring policies are not among the 10 + 1 areas in which faculty are assigned primary responsibility by Title 5, a state regulation.

The problem is that the lawsuit does not mention Title 5 and it does not allege that Title 5 has been violated. Rather, it alleges that the new policies, and the manner in which they were developed and approved, violate an Ed Code statute (EC87360) and utterly defeat the intentions of legislators.

Ed Code statutes, of course, are more than regulations; they’re laws. They count bigtime.

In other words, with regard to the issue of faculty “hiring” policies, we don’t need no stinkin’ Title 5.

Respondent Mathur is ignoring—or failing to understand—that, in reality, the State Chancellor’s office takes the following view:

Education Code section 87360 requires governing board and academic senate representatives to agree on hiring criteria, policies and procedures to be adopted by the board. (Letter from California Community College Chancellor’s Office, Ralph Black, General Counsel, January 29, 2002).

In the District’s press release, Board President Don “So sue me” Wagner offers his own spin, expressing “disappointment” that the senates have decided to force the district to “spend money on attorneys, rather than students.”

* * *

On the 10th, the Register reports that

In an unprecedented move, the faculty senates of both Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges have voted to sue their district chancellor and trustees over a new hiring policy that gives more power to college administrators at the expense of traditional academic hiring committees.

The lawsuit … asks a judge to set aside the new hiring policy because it was not approved by each college’s Academic Senate.

When the new rules were approved by a 4-3 vote by the …trustees in January, faculty representatives unsuccessfully pleaded with the board for more time to discuss them.

The state’s Education Code requires that hiring criteria and policies for new faculty members must be developed “and agreed upon jointly” by board members and the Academic Senate….

…Typically, new college instructors are selected by hiring committees made up of faculty members who are experts in the field and the head of the department. Their selection is usually ratified by the college president, the district’s board of trustees or both.

According to Wendy Gabriella, an IVC instructor and attorney who filed the lawsuit, faculty members were particularly unhappy with new rules that allow the district’s human resources director to change the scores awarded by committee members if she deems them too far off the norm and to unilaterally change interview questions.

Professors were also displeased with a new ethics and confidentiality section of the hiring policy that allows the human resources director to investigate and punish any member of a hiring committee who is accused of violating confidentiality.

“The policy allows the human resources department to accuse hiring committee members of bias, change their scores and discipline them without any due process or opportunity for appeal,” [said the] Irvine Valley Academic Senate President….

* * *

Also on the 10th, the President of the IVC Academic Senate, Greg Bishopp, sends a memo to IVC faculty. (The Saddleback Senate Prez later spams it to Saddleback faculty.) It says:

The Academic Senates of IVC and Saddleback College have filed suit in California Superior Court to block the implementation of a faculty hiring policy, which they believe to violate … the California Education Code. While the trustees and the administration of the SOCCCD maintain that their new policy, and the process used to develop this policy, does not violate the law, the Academic Senates claim that they do. In violation of the law, the Senates maintain, district administration has failed to allow faculty involvement in developing the procedures for hiring new faculty members. As a result, the adopted policy is fraught with violations of law, policy, and accepted practice.

Prez Bishopp also notes that the senates have “exhausted all internal means of appeal” and that, in January, Wagner “invited the Senates to sue the district to resolve the legality of the Board of Trustees’ alteration of board policy.”

That Wagner is quite a guy!

Bishopp closes by noting that the record

shows who has been responsible for wasting the district’s money in the past. Board President Don Wagner has stated that, “our district will again prevail on this misguided litigation.” However, in the seven legal actions brought by members of the faculty against the Board of Trustees, the courts have sided with the faculty and against the Board every single time, demonstrating that the Board, by violating the law, has been responsible for the suits, not the litigiousness of the plaintiffs. If the Board of Trustees does not wish to spend money on litigation, it should avoid breaking the law.

* * *

The district’s new faculty hiring policies (BP4011, 4011.1, 4011.2) are available online at the Saddleback College Academic Senate website.

Those who wish to read the statute should go to

Statute

To read a review of the statute and its relation to the historic AB1725 legislation, one might start by reading the local senates “handbook” on the State Academic Senate’s website:

Handbook

See you in court! —KB

Part 3

Judge Clay Smith
[10/10/09:]

Here’s what happened next:

Judge Clay Smith ruled that the district had indeed failed to include the faculty in the development of the faculty hiring policy, contrary to law. He thus ordered the district and senates to get together to develop a faculty hiring policy. But, in the end, the district’s representatives and the senates’ representatives did not see eye to eye on major issues, and so the district unilaterally pushed through the version of the policy that it liked, and it pronounced that policy the product of the committee. That policy was almost as appalling as the one that was neutralized by Smith.

Surprisingly, despite the vociferous objections of the Academic Senates to the new policy, Judge Smith ruled that the policy was indeed the product of “mutual agreement.”

It was an absurd judgment.

The Academic Senates appealed.

By summer 2005, the appellate justices unanimously acted to overturn and vacate Smith’s absurd judgment. The board tried one or two last ditch efforts to have the court reconsider, but to no avail. The academic senates had won, and that was that.

The senates had prevailed, period. That meant that the only valid policy was the one developed at the end of 1993 (that one was mutually agreed to). It was good from the faculty’s perspective.

The appellate justices urged the parties to work out their differences, and so, in the Fall of 2005, district representatives (namely, Mathur, the instigator of the original unilaterally imposed policy, and Lang, now the board president) and Academic Senate reps (namely, the two senate Presidents and the union president) mutually developed a policy that both sides could agree on.

That work was completed by late October, 2005. This mutually ageed to policy is a vast improvement.

At the time of writing, it only remains for the board to approve the new policy, and there is every indication that they will do just that. If they fail to do so, then the decidedly faculty-friendly 1993/4 policy will apply.

[The policy was approved.]