I’ve highlighted what strikes me as really important .
Brooke C briefly addressed the group regarding the college’s evident lack of preparedness for the power outage that occurred Wednesday afternoon. Others seemed to agree that the incident revealed our lack of preparedness. Priscilla R, of the safety committee, said she would bring those concerns to that committee.
Evidently, there is a snafu regarding representation of part-timers on the Academic Senate. Those who physically execute senate elections and senate officers evidently interpreted the rules (regarding who votes for reps) differently. The upshot: we seated the two part-timers who ran (or who would have run) as the part-time reps.
Ac. Sen. Prez Kathy S’s “executive report”:
The district has adopted “goals.” Now, the colleges are supposed to work on goals and objectives in relation to the district goals. (They’re pretty silly.)
There was some discussion of some of the committees that figure prominently in our governance hierarchy (at the college) and the circumstance that they proceed “cloaked in secrecy.” The committee most notorious for said cloakery has now been relegated to an “advisory” council. (In my view, governance at IVC has grown so complex that it cannot be comprehended and, more importantly, it has no hope of working. Adjustments and corrections are akin to rearrangements of deck chairs on the Titanic.)
Recently, the Capital improvement committee met. They discussed the recent issue regarding planned usage at IVC to create “swing space” for ATEP—necessary in the transition to full use of the latter campus.
Since this was about ATEP, everyone’s eyes glazed over.
The BAAR(C) committee will be self-evaluating. (It’s the basic aid resources allocation committee. Basic aid refers to the special “extra money” the district amasses owing to its reliance on local property tax funds rather than state allocations. The trustees have attempted to live by the prudential dictum that such money should only be used for “one-time” expenses, not for ongoing expenses.) (Note: one is no longer to use the term “basic aid.” It has been replaced by “locally funded.”)
Then there’s DRAC—the district resources allocation committee. It exists to achieve an equitable and rational distribution of resources among the colleges. Peter M and Mark M, among others, were important players in the development of DRAC (15 years ago) and, by and large, DRAC has succeeded in keeping resource allocation issues to a mere low boil. There appear to be two issues: (1) DRACians (or some thereof) feel that it would be best to pursue these allocations on a three-year model rather than year to year—in part because the existing process/system is rigid and doesn’t deal well with emergencies and the need for reserves, etc. Kathy expressed the hope that the board will “loosen its grip” and be “less rigid” about allocation decision-making with its set proportions, etc. They hope to appeal to the board’s conservatism. (2) IVC is expected to experience significant growth in the coming years; not so SC. And this needs to be recognized in DRAC’s deliberations. Adjustments would seem to be appropriate.
I reminded the group that, in recent years, our basic aid (i.e., “local funding”) gravy train has been “under threat.” Does that remain true? Answer: yes. In fact, however, owing to the circumstance that key legislators have tended to be from “local funding” areas, things have generally gone our way. Keep in mind that “local funding” is a much more common model among the K-12 schools, and this circumstance has yielded protection as well.
Kathy mentioned that, over the years, some groups have advocated creation of a seat on DRAC: e.g., the Faculty Association (union), the classified. They have not prevailed. Kathy argued against any increase of seats on DRAC based on such considerations as: the undesirability of fragmentation into smaller groups. As thing stand, there’s a fair level of trust among DRAC members. That could easily be lost. The 10+1 “reliance” legal status quo (i.e., the law giving to Academic Senates authority in 10+1 areas) is what gave us a seat on DRAC. Do we want other groups on DRAC who cannot provide that kind of justification for membership? (I’m not sure I’m doing justice to Kathy’s reasoning here.)
Kathy asked that faculty “think about this.” Do we want to keep membership on DRAC as it is? Should we allow or advocate change in membership?
VP Bob U’s report:
BSR (Budget Solutions Recommendation Committee) has met (that’s the committee charged with exploring budget ideas—incited by the budget “crisis” of one year ago). Evidently, the committee has reviewed Diane Oak’s area (Marketg/Communicat/Brdcast Sys ) (presumably re expenditures, potential savings, etc.). Also Keith S’s area (HealthSci, Kinesiology & Athletics). In his area, they’re doing a “cost analysis” comparing ownership of vans to renting buses (for events). There was discussion of the factoid that we “underfund” maintenance and coach salaries—depending chronically on ASIVC, etc. Problems with maintenance of the gym.
The all-important Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee (SPOBDC) has met. They are contemplating a discussion of the college’s “values.” Possibly a values survey. A “values” statement?
SPOBDC met with the college budget manager, Davit. (You’ll recall that, previously, some senate leadership opined that Davit’s strengths do not include planning.) Davit provided various “budget scenarios,” though that info was “hard to read.” (Natch.) Evidently, we are budgeted to go forward with 15 hires, and this will require adjustments. Apparently, SPOBDCians have persuaded Davit to proceed in a manner that preserves a $1 million reserve. (This is a matter of “planning,” evidently.)
There’s much discussion of the possibility of raising revenue by expanding the International Students Program. I seem to recall that, in the past, some reps have expressed concern over seeking to increase revenue in this way. We must approach this carefully. At this meeting, reps wondered aloud what such an increase would mean for the college. VPI Craig Justice and VP of SS Linda Fontanilla will attend the next senate meeting to discuss this.
Chair of Academic Affairs Roopa M’s report:
Roopa reminded us that there is a “user’s guide” available for those who seek to pursue Professional Development money. She noted the successes of recent lectures in our two lecture series. She said something about a presentation about “steam punks.” That was intriguing.
Chair of Curriculum Diane H’s report:
Things are changing, and some of this is inspired by demands made from “above,” i.e., the UC system. As things now stand, if we make any changes to degrees (and whatnot), we need to provide a “narrative” describing the history, process. It has been decided that Honors courses need to provide “outlines of record” per Honors course—so those who teach honors courses need to prepare for that work.
Evidently, we offer “degrees with emphasis.” These areas will need to make anticipatory additions and changes. Some faculty will need help with this, and Diana and her crew are here to provide it. (She also made a call for help in this regard. Anyone willing to help?)
Said Diana, there’s a “buttload” of courses that need to go through revision and review. The Tech Review people desperately need someone from Humanities and Languages to help out (she said, I think). Tech Review meetings are on Friday mornings, 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
Tracy F got all huffy like she does sometimes: who are these UC people to make all these demands! Harrumph! There were dark mutterings about UC and how “they do what they want, they dictate.” That’s just what they do. Deal with it, said the wise and old among us. Tracy was undaunted, commencing a war dance (with whooping) in the middle of the room.
Somebody said something about Distance Ed. I dunno.
Item 7 was the ongoing Board Policy review process. Tracy zeroed in on BP 180—the proposed board policy on “civility.” You’ll recall that, early on, Prez Roquemore seemed to be moving forward on a truly obnoxious policy on civility—a threat to anyone who gives a damn about academic freedom.
Eventually, some district group came up with a proposal, but it did not pass muster with the IVC Academic Senate (last Fall? Spring?). That awakened the SC Ac. Senate from its dogmatic slumbers, and so they nixed it as well. That sent Chancellor Gary Poertner into paroxysms of fear and loathing. From his POV, the Accred Monster demands a civility policy and so, goddamit, he’s gonna give ‘em one, dagnabit. Gary had difficulty seeing the point of our objection, namely, that the policy seemed to be a precursor to an Administrative Regulation—that would permit discipline of faculty and other employees re “incivility.” Who’s to judge what is or is not civil? But Gary thinks: hey, this is just a statement of our sensibility. We like civility and puppies and kittens, is all.
Kathy S somehow convinced the P man to soften the policy, and so now a paragraph is tacked on that says something like: yeah, the district “fosters” civility, but that doesn’t mean that we’ll do anything to retaliate against somebody or threaten academic freedom and free speech. No sir, not us boy.
But Tracy reared up again, and whinnied most loudly. I could see her point. I offered a massive scattershot assault on the policy, complained that it would “get an F” in any of our Writing courses. (Hope that’s true. Dunno.) What do they mean by “foster” anyway? Etc. Everybody seemed to be in the spirit.
So we separated 180 from all the other policies. We offered our “okey-dokey” on all of them but 180. 8 voted against 180; 2 in favor; there were 12 abstentions (blatant woosery).
The Accreditation midterm draft is ready; be sure to read it and offer your 2 cents. “Please read it,” said Kathy.
We briefly discussed a proposed anti-smoke policy. Everybody seemed on board with that. SOCCCD needs to get with the program, said everyone, even Republicans.
Kathy mentioned the planning and decision-making manual. There’s a draft. Did we want to approve it? This is more substantial than it seems; it actually concerns our governance model—how all those boxes interrelate with arrows and squiggles and such. I once again expressed sour skepticism about this whole scheme. “Burn it all down, start fresh,” I said. But the changes improve things, said Kathy. In the end, we voted 20-0-2. I was one of the 2. Shoulda voted against it.
Once again, we have $60K to burn for professional development. The Ac. Affairs committee recommended a limit of $1400 for full-timers and $700 for part-timers. I sure had my reservations about that, but we approved that.
You’ll recall that there’s an ongoing pissing contest between the two colleges (actually, the two Presidents) regarding “service areas.” Since way back, it has been understood that SC “services” everything south of El Toro Rd. and IVC “services” everything north of El Toro. The agenda explained that:
President Schmeidler will present this DRAFT MOU that was prepared over two years, mostly by the VPI’s at each campus. The MOU prescribes the functional relationship between SC and IVC in regard to service areas. The College Presidents would appreciate review and comment by each Academic Senate.
You’ll recall that the SC Academic Senate has opined in this matter, and they seem to be critical of the old understanding, seek to modify it. We all need to read their statement (trust me, you’ll hate it).
The “wait list” initiative is going forward. It will deal with various problems regarding wait lists at the start of the semester.
That was about it.
--Senator Roy
No comments:
Post a Comment