senate capers: • September 5, 2013 Senate Meeting: Expanding the International Program?

Thursday, September 5, 2013

• September 5, 2013 Senate Meeting: Expanding the International Program?

Senate Notes September 5, 2013

Colleagues – here are the notes from today’s Senate meeting

A. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS: Two guests: Dean of Online Ed and ATEP Dean

B. PRESIDENT’S REPORT – KATHY S. (not here but as reported by Bob U – 1) , Continuing discussions with Glenn RE hiring – now 15 or 18 positions in discussion and then the final number will be sent on to the board. Kathy is still pushing for making up the 5 positions we didn’t get last year. So – no final number yet .

C. VICE-PRESIDENTS REPORT: BOB URELL: 1 ) International Student Program – Discussion about an extension of this program for the revenue. Admin trying to decide if philosophically it is a good idea to expand this. Craig and Linda F. coming to next senate meeting to discuss. This program is funded separately (than DRAC model calculation), so our budget is not impacted by the expansion, though we could benefit from the funds. Definite issues with expanding the program as well as benefits such as income. Not all students at the correct language level, etc. and, apparently, federal regulations require these students to return home in two years. PLEASE COME AND SPEAK AT THE NEXT SENATE MEETING IF YOU HAVE DATA, THOUGHTS, INPUT. Or let Roy and I know your thoughts. It is a money making program, but is this the right reason to do this? Kathy and Bob told the administration they want a comprehensive plan from admin on how we can support students we currently have in our regular programs and how we will support them. This is why they invited Craig and Linda to present and to listen. 2) Parking coordinator – Parking problem yesterday due to an event. Will be on the next agenda. Steve: Event will occur in two weeks again – 350 insurance people came for a presentation – the insurance (stated event arranged by State Chancellor’s Office- which is why we had it) people were educated on parking cafeteria options, but they ignored advice. Craig spoke and took some responsibility. Another problem – students parking in staff and getting tickets, but we cant tow their cars. Craig said they will open a dirt lot for the future event. BE AWARE: Lot 9 by the Gym usually only 50% full for faculty. Craig has let state chancellor’s office know we need to be mindful of scheduling during first 5 weeks of school. Craig apologized and work is being done to fix this.

D) ACADEMIC AFFAIRS: Roopa – Professional Development funds – go online and make your requests now. B) funds – still don’t know the amount provided by administration – will know soon – budget amount has been requested and now there are discussions with the President. C) DALS – Scott McCloud tomorrow Friday night Sept. 6 in the PAC., November 20^th Michael Higson. IVC2 IVC Monday night BSTIC 4-6 - Gary Rybold--International Outreach – Debating in China.

WAIT LIST system being explored - a district plus Saddleback plus IVC committee will be formed to design the system . Take a look at the ideas and send suggestions to your senators or Roopa (rmathur0@ivc.edu or asenate@ivc.edu). We have worked with Saddleback on this. Trying to improve what we have.1500 students surveyed at Saddleback (power point available online with this week’s agenda). Students overall have trouble getting classes. A committee is working on this including faculty from IVC. Proposed will be three “buttons” that each instructor or department can select from:

1) Full – come first day to petition 2)full—contact instructor to petition –3) Add your name to the waitlist. When class drops below capacity, it immediately opens to all eligible students. If you choose the third option, and select the click automated waitlist system, when a class drops below capacity it immediately opens to the next student on the list. (Each teacher can select, or departments can make a default option for the whole department).

How it will work: when a seat opens up, the first student is emailed and/or texted an APC that is good for 24 hours and is linked to their ID number so they can’t pass the APC on. If student clicks decline, the spot will go to the next student on the list. After 24 hours, if the student hasn’t enrolled, it goes to the next student on the list.

The wait list will be turned off 48 hours before start of class so that there are no active APC codes when classes start. It will then freeze and teachers will be able to add manually using the already formed waitlist of those not in the course. No change to instructor ability to issue APCs once class starts. Pre –req must be cleared before students can add their names to the wait list. Codes will be linked to student id numbers so that they can’t be shared with friends. Students can be on multiple wait lists.

Questions? Should students be able to see their position on the wait list? Concerns? So idea is– students see a disclaimer “When you sign up for the wait list you must accept the following: “doesn’t guarantee my enrollment”. (Want to defeat student sense of entitlement.) Also instructors can add optional information to appear on MySite whenever a student checks his/her position on the wait list – .

Please send feedback to Roy and me and to Jamie in Academic Affairs about what you like and what you want to see on this system. – If you would like to be on the committee, let us know as they are forming the committee– it will be a subcommittee of Academic Affairs with design beginning in December and going live in Summer 2014.

E. CURRICULUM: Diana H. Honors curriculum meeting Friday morning, Sept. 6^th in BSTIC 101. Now honors needs it’s own curriculum. Please attend if you offer an honors course in your discipline/program.

F) BP 180 – District wide goals – still being discussed and then will be brought back to us. Trying to consolidate to three main goals.

Check BP180 about Mutual Respect – check the wording on whether or not the AR protection is there. (There was concern that a BP could turn into an enforceable AR—a platform for discipline) – “Doesn’t see to…” as opposed to “will not”. Please read and give us input.

G. ACCREDITATION MIDTERM REPORT – Please read the draft and send comments to asenate@ivc.edu.

H. PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING MANUAL – Being drafted

I) MOU – Saddleback Senate vehemently opposed to the MOU designating attendance boundaries and issued attached response after sitting on the issue for a while. MOU was designed to stop wasteful budget and district internal competition (written by the two VPIs). District has a BP to support this. But Saddleback doesn’t agree with the old understanding anymore. They don’t want a service area line– every other college district has one. Chancellor endorsed the service areas. Exception for the building that Saddleback will have at ATEP (Saddleback can only teach there programs we don’t have). They want more. Please let us know your thoughts. Senators sounded pretty POed about Saddleback’s attitude/stance.

J) ADJUSTMENT TO THE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN – ATEP – there was a land swap recently with city of Tustin. So now those buildings belong to Tustin and we are leasing for 3 years. After that we have the other land, but no buildings to put things in. We want to adjust the master plan to allow for a swing space here at IVC until the new buildings on our ATEP property are ready. The items we will use on the swing space are items we already had on the master plan – a bathroom and concession stand that would eventually be used for athletics. Approved by college council and other committees– now needs ratification by senate. QUESTION: If we do this, what moves down the building list? Bob doesn’t think anything does as this is being paid for through Basic Aid. Square footage moving here, so no change in what counts against us. Outside resources, so no effect. Once it is built it will stay there until the building at ATEP is done. Then it can stay here and be used for other uses.

K) SLO CALENDAR – Cheryl Delson – Error on the calendar from last week – September 15 – results – Spring and Summer 2013. February 28^th the new deadline for fall 2013 results to be entered.

L) DISTRICT WIDE GOALS: Here are the three goals:

SOCCCD will foster an environment characterized by creativity, innovation, respectful interactions and collaborations.

SOCCCD will promote students success by enhancing the teaching and learning environments.

SOCCCD will fuel economic and workforce development through regional partnerships with educational institutions and industry and by strengthening career technical education.

SOCCCD will strengthen fiscal sustainability through integrated planning resource allocation.

What do you think about “foster”? Why not skip the “fostering” and just identify these desirable “environments” as a goal? If this were submitted in an English class, it would be chewed up. – Roy

We could have many objectives under all of these general goals. They are meant to be broad and encompassing.

Please send comments to Roopa so she can take them to her meeting .

M) STUDENT SUCCESS CENTER – Brooke C. Brooke reported on her updates to student use of the center .

(Roy noted that, often, students who say they “can’t understand” the material seem simply to have failed to study. These kids don’t need tutors; they need to study for once. That comment inspired many similar remarks. Brooke explained that the Center is prepared to help students to concentrate, do their assignments, etc.)

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, September 5, 2013

• September 5, 2013 Senate Meeting: Expanding the International Program?

No comments:

Post a Comment