senate capers: Feb. 14, 2013

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

Notes re the Feb. 14 [2013] meeting of the (rep council of the) Academic Senate

Reminder: faculty are represented by the Academic Senate with regard to “academic matters” (teaching, course development, program development, etc.). With regard to contractual matters, faculty are represented by the “Faculty Association” (union).

The Feb. 14 meeting turned out to be a real humdinger. Discussions re the IVC mascot (the laser) and whether a certain Geography course should count as a “physical science” course produced heat.

COLLEGE COUNCIL. Ac. Senate Prez Kathy Schmeidler reported that the all-important College Council had expanded to such an extent that it became necessary to “uninvite” duplicative members. I imagine that Glenn and crew did the pruning.

The committee met 8 days ago (relative to Feb. 14). Evidently, construction of the Fine Arts Bldg. has been shifted up or forward; also, owing to encumbrances to state monies (or lack thereof), the A400 “renovation” project will move ahead more quickly. This concerns the arcane rules tied to state money (e.g., buildings sporting fake brick walls made in San Bernardino between 1986 and 1989 get double bonuses if the college President’s middle name is “Hank”).

THE IMMINENCE OF LASER PERMANENCE. Also, College Council voted to name the soon-to-be-constructed Barranca college entrance “Laser Road.”

I noted that a decision to name the road after the “laser” cemented into place the latter as our mascot. But, not so long ago, unhappiness with the mascot led to the formation of a committee charged with finding a replacement mascot. This College Council naming decision assumes what appears to be false: that we are happy with our mascot. My remarks led to much discussion and some gnashing of teeth.

Evidently, at the aforementioned College Council meeting, college flack Diane Oaks proclaimed that the “mascot” committee has disbanded and there’s no chance we will be changing our mascot. But who is D.O. to make such pronouncements?, I asked.

Some used the occasion to complain about our mascot, noting that any concrete mascot corresponding to the “laser” would seem inevitably to fail to be “[warm and] fuzzy” or “make a noise,” thereby relegating it to inadequacy, mascotwise. One participant of the discussion opined that there appears to be “dark politics” afoot according to which the mascot will not be changed (this was an allusion, I believe, to the notion that some unexplained and unidentified political reality has protected the “Early College” program all these years, despite the program’s manifest failings and expense).

Kathy suggested that we “agendize” this matter for the next meeting. Meanwhile, she will communicate with the usual suspects that we are unhappy with this naming move. (Expect all efforts to stop this freight train to meet with cursory dismissal.)

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES. Ac. Senate VP Bob U discussed what he has learned about significant organizational changes occasioned by the retirement of Roger Owen (Milquetoastian Dean of Fine Arts) and the exit of David Anderson (Office of Extended Education, Director). We viewed a chart, which made reference to an part of the college called “Liberal Arts,” and that seemed to suggest that, with the reorganization, our own Karima F would cease being dean of H&L. I noted this. Evidently, the chart failed to make clear that it was presenting new duties—on top of existing duties—per administrator. Phew! The upshot: Karima will continue as our dean. (Bob acknowledged that the chart was “confusing.”) VPI Craig Justice explained the principle behind some of these changes: academic administrators supervise academics. (Hence Anderson’s exit, I guess.)

Craig noted that Kathy Werle’s duties have been expanded (by about 20%) owing to changes in accreditation guidelines. Karima’s duties have been brought back to what they were a year or so ago. Or so said the Craigster.

RANDOM FACTOIDS. Recently, there was a “walkthrough tour” of the new Life Sciences building. BSTIC 119 will be getting new furniture after Spring break.

CURRICULUM. Courses Committee chair, Diana H, has changed the deadline for new courses and revised courses. These changes attempt to ameliorate stress, she said. Now, “everything” is due on Nov. 1, I believe.

THE GREAT “PHYSICAL SCIENCE” DEBATE. Item 3 was “Senate Approval of Curriculum for 2013-2014 Catalog.” Evidently, this involved a list of General Ed transfer courses (for UC and CSU). Kiana Tabibzadeh, senator for the School of Physical Sciences and Technologies (PST), evidently objected to inclusion of Geography 10 among courses satisfying the “physical sciences” requirement. She seemed to say that Geography is housed in the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, not the “physical” sciences, and so what’s this social science course doing here?

Tracy F, political science instructor, was on hand to defend inclusion of the course in that category. She noted that Geography 10 is recognized state-wide as a “physical sciences” course, in part because of geography’s manifest nature as “cross-disciplinary”—i.e., it comprises both social science and physical science. That Geo 10 is housed in the Social Sciences, said Tracy, doesn’t mean that it is not cross-disciplinary. Perhaps, she suggested, PST fails to understand this.

Diane H, current curriculum maven, noted that PST had an opportunity to raise this objection two years ago, but evidently it felt no need to do so.

Tracy F was visibly angered by Kiana (and Chem pal’s) recalcitrance or obduritude. It didn’t help that Kiana seemed incapable of speaking about Geo 10 without referring to it as geology (I think that was it). Tracy commenced peppering her discourse with such terms as “elitist” and “turf war.” Oh my.

THE DREADED “HUMAN ASPECT.” Kiana then argued that her School and its courses are characterized by the absence of a “human aspect.” If there is a human aspect to a course, then that course is not about physical science. (By that logic, I suppose, a Nestle bar ceases to be chocolate if it has a rat hair—aka a rat aspect—in it.)

Tracy seemed to sense in Kiana an inclination to view the social sciences as “not science,” and this plainly caused her to become a seething cauldron of peevitude & righteous anger, a very dangerous object in the room. (Sensing danger, I nudged myself slightly to her starboard.)

Tracy returned to her simple argument: geography is a cross-disciplinary field. Hence it has a leg in two worlds: the social sciences and the physical sciences. Hence, its embrace of “human aspects” does not remove it from the category of courses that teach physical science. QED.

In the end, a vote was taken, with 18 voting for Tracy’s position and 3 voting for Kiana’s. (There was single abstention.) I do believe that Kiana stalked off in a huff, though I might have only imagined that.

Kathy S noted that here, on the senate floor, is precisely the place to have these kinds of discussion. (Unpleasant and hostile ones? Not sure.)

Item 6 concerned the ongoing review of Board Policies and Administrative Regulations. Nothing much to report here.

HIRING PRIORITY LIST. As it turns out, the Academic Affairs Committee is recommending revisions to the Full Time Tenure-Track Faculty Hiring Priority List Development Process. The changes that Kathy has proposed seem largely superficial. Tier 1 is eliminated, but blah, blah, blah.

PROPAGANDA ‘R’ US. Academic Affairs Committee is recommending approval of the revised Completion Agenda/Call to Action for IVC. You’ll recall that this concerns a political gesture to maximize control of, well, the state’s completion agenda. The Ac. Affairs committee was none too pleased with the original draft, and changed every sentence in it. Evidently, the president (the Rockster) has brought forward his own version. What will be its fate?, I asked. “It will reside in Sharepoint,” said Kathy. I take it should was suggesting that it has entered oblivion. The Senate approved the AA committee’s draft 20-0-1.

Those interested in joining the “debate” regarding the completion agenda should do so by tapping into the state Academic Senate’s ongoing efforts to battle the stupidity and cluelessness of those who make important decisions in our state (not that the state senate doesn’t itself occasionally indulge in S & C).

BASIC AID FUNDING SCRAMBLE. Bruce Hagan came by to present background information on the developing District IT Proposed Priority Project List. This is a list of projects, unprioritized, proposed for Basic Aid funding (which is reserved for one-off projects, nothing ongoing). Bob U noted that the list is of the “kitchen sink” variety: it includes everything and is not filtered by reason, prudence, of common sense. Hagan seemed to say that we are invited to provide “input” via emails and such.

At yesterday’s School meeting, Hagan offered the same presentation, whereupon, again, he was mighty vague about the nature of inputtery. Evidently, the IT group that will be making recommendations will meet on Monday. They will produce a report that lists the allegedly best ideas, I think. In the end, likely only 2 or 3 of these projects will be funded (by basic aid funds).

If you’d like to peruse this list, use this link:

http://inside.ivc.edu/committees/collegecouncil/SitePages/2013-2014%20Basic%20Aid%20Funded%20Technology%20Projects%20Survey.aspx

Note that these are district, not college, projects.

BOOK STORE PLANT LIFE. Some reps from the Book Store came to talk at us. Don’t really know what they said. They were surprisingly pleasant. They insisted on sitting in on the entire meeting, like potted plants.

--Yours,

Roy Bauer

Your Senators:

Roy Bauer

Melanie Haeri

No comments:

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.]

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment