Senate Notes October 4, 2012
Colleagues – here are the notes from this week’s Senate meeting J Please note: There are 3 important issues to make sure you read about: budget, repeatability, and faculty professional development.
Meeting called to order– Agenda reordered.
Guests: Bob Cosgrove, Kate Clark, Craig Justice, Matt Tresler, Amy Grimm,
Public Comments: 1) Bob Cosgrove (President of Saddleback Academic Senate) spoke about two issues that impact both colleges. The first is the districts policy of granting of honorary degrees – The President of Saddleback attempted to change the language of the policy: instead of actually granting the degrees, according to the revision, the senate merely certifies that the process was followed. Bob said faculty at Saddleback are taking the position that faculty should approve all degrees. Kathy, our Senate president. The district can give away anything else without our approval, but not degrees. 2) The second issue he spoke of dealt with the Student Success Recommendations from the state. Apparently we, as a district, are moving quickly to implement the changes and several are being taken to the board in a form of a presentation. According to Bob, some of the recommendations are in limbo and don’t need immediate implementation. One issue is that the legislation/recommendations also state that schools should “implement only as resources allow.” Recommendations 2 and 3 – approved, others in limbo including the issue of matriculation –might not happen. Placements might stay the way they are for a while now. We might pull back and not go forward with 8 items from success task force to the board. We should talk to the chancellor. Our chancellor believes faculty including part time faculty should be at the forefront of this. 3) Michelle Sharf from counseling announced “UC personal statement” workshops are being offered through counseling and English dept. Let students know.
Presidents Report: Kathy S. 1) Recent district meetings—that Kathy attended—focused on self-assessment and self -assessment tools. 2) Retirement budgetary issues were also discussed. Kathy mentioned the issue of the recalculation of our liability funds as the state came up with new numbers. Our board is being fiscally careful, as usual. A good thing, according to all J3) No growth – the issue is our no growth lid – should we calculate in FTES or, because we are basic aid, should we instead look at our costs using OSH – something to think about. Kathy is going to be pushing this idea to DRAC. The latter approach would put more money in the OSH bucket than in the basic aid bucket. What are your thoughts? We could possibly have more students this way and still not grow – a different calculation. 4) Somebody’s developing an intergroup process of resolution for disputes among faculty - as opposed to the model of reporting to HR. There wouldn’t be records kept that could end up in our files– just a mediation process.
Vice Presidents Report: - Bob Urell 1) SPOBCD [strategic planning] - This is an important item. That committee met and looked at long-term budget planning scenarios with the help of a power point presentation. Bob shared the presentation with us and gave us an overview. These scenarios – both the current year’s budget and forecasting through several years – assumed that our funding will remain the same; they also included paying off some loans, hiring approx. 10 new hires this year, early retirement payments, potential increase in non-resident tuition revenue, etc. All scenarios show the reserve balance steadily shrinking. So – basically, as expenses grow, revenue drops and we head into a deficit situation. We are not in as bad shape as other schools due to our basic aide funding; nevertheless, unless we take steps, we face deficits. In addition, the state will begin to make cuts in such things as categorical funding BUT some of the programs funded that way (DSPS for example) are mandated and so we will have to pay for them. Indeed, our categorical funding comes from the state – and those will be cut if prop 30 doesn’t pass – but there are federal regs that require these programs and we would then have to fund them. (About 92% of our budget goes to salary and benefits.) We’ll likely pursue an efficiency study. What can we cut back on? Glenn has proposed bringing in someone from the outside to look at this—someone who has gone through this before at other colleges. Heads up: you are going to start hearing about this and you will be asked for your input. This process should start soon since we are rapidly heading towards a deficit. Should be and needs to be a campus-wide discussion. Looking for solutions: raising revenue and being more efficient. The OSH vs. FTE’S conversation can be included in this discussion as a way to increase money and lower costs. Roy asked, Just how dire is this situation? “Very,” said Bob U. This year we are okay; next year we aren’t. If we don’t participate in solutions, a plan will be foisted upon us. What have other colleges/districts done when faced with these circumstances? Some schools have canceled summer, or relieved all part-time faculty, etc. Entire programs and departments are being eliminated in at some colleges and universities around the country. Another vulnerable area: classified staff. These are college level decisions that we need to help guide.
Academic Affairs - Roopa M.1) IVC2IVC –Tracy Fahimi will do a presentation on the possibility of a fair election in November. 2) Student Success Summit at Saddleback in Oct.- lunch included. Activity is in Flex tracker. All are encouraged to attend.
Curriculum Chair –Diana H. 1) Diana attended a So Cal regional curriculum meeting this weekend. Pre –reqs discussed there and she will be working on this in the spring. Also, she attended a presentation on course identification numbers. We’ll be relying more on these numbers. Friday November 2 there is a discipline in-group meeting called the DIG – transfer models next – none in our school is in the next group of disciplines. 2) If you have a course up for revision this year, changes need to be in the system by Nov. 1.
Kate Clark – SLO update – 1) Kate extended an invitation for all to join the SLO committee – and mentioned an upcoming in-service activity 2) She reminded us to make sure 8 week courses and off campus and emeritus courses are being assessed for SLO’s. 3) Status report on data entry due Oct. 1 – discovered some anomalies, but we’re fixing them. She thanked faculty for cooperating and helping get so much done in such a short time. Next she gave a school by school update on SLO completion –like grades for schools! - Business Admin., Math Science, Emeritus, and Library – 100%; Humanities seemed to be in good shape – my estimate would be about a B+ – we have just a few parts missing. She’s thankful, enjoyed her time back on campus, and is on her way out the door. Dan Scott proposed an official Senate Resolution to thank Kate for all her work.
Curriculum Approval – Diane listed what was voted and deleted on at the last curriculum meeting. She presented two ballots with approved curriculum to the Senate for approval. The first ballot went through. The second ballot included courses with repeatability issues. Curriculum committee recommended approval of the second ballot. Steve R. asked to amend the motion. He asked the motion be approved with a contingency that would allow faculty to come back to senate and change the repeatability aspect of their individual curricula if they found a way to do so before February, when the catalog is due instead of going all the way through the curriculum process again. He mentioned that we, as a college, seem to jump quickly on changes the state asks for—often before the date required and without enough time to look at all options. There are options that other schools have used and he wants some time to look at those. The motion unanimously passed. Bottom line: if you have curriculum with repeatability limitations that you are concerned about (i.e. – you want /need students to be able to take the course more than three times, or to take it again after passing it the first time-labs-), you can make changes through February to curriculum, if you can find a way to do that, and you can do it without going through the entire curriculum process again. It would come to senate for approval.
Professional Funds allocation - Some history: Professional development is a contractual requirement for full time faculty and the colleges provide funds for that. The amount of money for this is a college-level decision. Before last year, full-time faculty were each limited to $700 and part-timers were limited to $350. Last year Academic Affairs, led by Steve R., submitted a strategy form in to increase the amount of funding. We were given a new budget last year of $60k – a significant improvement. Full time faculty were limited to $1400 and part time faculty were limited to $700. This year, Academic Affairs (with new leadership) asked for an increase in the funding, but did not receive it. Now – fast forward to last senate meeting. As Roy reported, Roopa, as Academic Affairs chair, brought committees recommendation to change limits for approval – they were asking to increase the full time faculty allotment to $1500 and decrease the part time allotment to $500. And, as Roy reported, the Senate rejected this recommendation, questioning the disparity between full and part time faculty and sent it back to committee. Academic Affairs took the amounts back to committee and discussed different options and ways to divide the funding. Committee members contend that $1500 and $500 is fair as it is speaking to full-time contractual requirements for professional development. Part-time instructors do not have this obligation. Also, their research showed no other community colleges paying more than $500 for part time faculty, so we are within current best practices. Discussion ensued and there was debate about the issues – many not pleased with the recommendation. A motion was made [by Mel! 2nded by Roy] to change the amounts back to last year’s numbers – $1400 and $700 – and this passed. Remember, this money is on a first come, first serve basis, so apply soon!
Program Review – list is posted. Early college needs to be added to calendar.
Board Policies –. Honorary degree issue – awarding degree must come from faculty. As mentioned before, this is important – and Kathy said she was “willing to die on this hill.” We encouraged that sort of death.
Senate Recorder – HELP! - We still need a recorder – any takers???
Full Time Tenure - Track Faculty Hiring Priority List – Library Sciences asked for approval to defer their tier 2 position and just keep their Tier 1 position. They can defer it one year. We OK’d it.
Plenary coming up for Senate. – Entire cabinet going.
