senate capers: • October 17, 2013

Thursday, October 17, 2013

• October 17, 2013

The October 17 meeting of the Academic Senate Rep Council:

I’ve highlighted (in red) elements that strike me as particularly important.

Please know that among the items below are:

· A budget report from Fiscal Services (Davit)

· Proposals concerning the Academic Calendar

· School (of Humanities and Languages) reorganization (approved)

· Proposed expansion of the International Students Program

Kathy Schmeidler, Senate Prez, announced a host of upcoming state senate events. Anyone interested?

COLLEGE-WIDE FORUM. Kathy alerted us to an upcoming College-wide forum (Oct. 29, 2-4 p.m., A123). I was glad that, for once, a forum is scheduled outside of prime teaching time.

A forum is scheduled, too, re Institutional Effectiveness and “district wide goals.” One can find the relevant document at “Inside IVC.”

During School reports, I noted, as per custom, that our School “remains disgruntled.” I added that “if all goes according to plan, disgruntlement will be better represented in future.” That was an allusion to our School’s impending SPLITTAGE into two schools (Languages/Library Services & Humanities/English). (More about that later.)

FOUNDATION FUNDS DISCREPANCY. Senate officers muttered something about the Foundation: “we still don’t know anything about our finances” there, said Kathy. Kathy noted that the situation has “raised eyebrows.” Evidently, there is a discrepancy involving $60,000. An audit will get to the bottom of that. –Something about the Pro-IVC matching funds. They “can’t get the two sets of books to align.” I dunno. (In the past, Kathy has suggested that nothing nefarious is afoot; rather, blatant nincompoopery is afoot, probably.)

Roopa Mathur, Chair of Ac. Affairs, said something about a scholarship review meeting on Oct. 25 (concerning a particular scholarship; I didn’t get the name). Anyone want to join? There’s a scholarship benefit set for Feb. 6.

Curriculum maven Diane H said that we’d be hearing soon from the SLO liaison people. Expect gentle nagging, coming soon.

REPORT FROM FISCAL SERVICES. We moved up item 13: “Report from Fiscal Services.” Director of Fiscal Services Davit K presented an “overview of the current college fiscal status and projections for the next 3-5 years.”

As you know, a year ago, Prez Roquemore hit the panic button over the curious “discovery” that projected revenue would soon be outstripped by expenses (owing to the steady rise of the latter). What to do?

At first, Glenn seemed headed for unilateral cancellation of planned faculty hires, but the Academic Senate got a whiff of that and engineered some serious pushback. The upshot: a new committee was formed to review budgeting and look for revenue sources. SPOBDC (the college planning/budget oversight entity) started its discussions of the ongoing shortfall threat and a new committee (BARC?) was formed to root out reforms, new revenue, etc.

Then, to the surprise of many, Prop 30 passed, offering some relief to budget pressures. Plus there was a “mandate block grant” (sorry, don’t know what that’s about).

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS. Davit laid out his “planning assumptions,” which are tentative, it seems. (I got the feeling that everyone in the room but me understood the curious tentativeness of a “planning assumption.” Me, I thought a PA is an assumption one makes while planning. Guess not.)

1. One “planning assumption” concerns FTES [fulltime equivalent] enrollment growth. (FTES is a measure of instruction: One takes the number of student instruction hours and divides by the load of a full-time student. It’s the amount of instruction, understood as a headcount, assuming, contrary-to-fact, that each student takes a full load.)

We experienced no growth in 2011-12, and slightly higher growth thereafter. Our planning assumption is that we will experience 2% growth per year in future. Sounded reasonable.

2. Our assumption re COLA is 1.57% for 2013-14 and no COLA for 2014-15. If we receive COLA then, it will be passed on to salaries.

3. The third assumption was some kind of “other” category. There will be a 2.4% increase (in expenses) due to step increases. There will be a 5% increase in health insurance costs.

We’re assuming a $1 million contingency reserve effective 2013-14. This reserve will be taken seriously—it is “untouchable” money set aside for a rainy college. (The seriousness of this reserve was one of the achievements of one of the committees that looked, with horror, into how Davit and crew have handled our finances in recent years.)

4. Planning assumption 4 is expansion of the International Student Center. In fact, among the other items for this senate meeting was discussion of this proposal, originating from college strategic planning committees, to “increase the capacity” of the international student program. I.e., do we want to enroll still more international students? The demand exists. It is likely that this expansion would enhance revenue. Arguably, it would have other advantages. Hence, the advocacy.

I asked if the college is assuming that such expansion should occur. “No, no,” I was assured, “no such decision has yet been made.” That’s to be determined. (I have my doubts.)

According to my notes, Davit reported that the number of international students (ISs) for 2012-13 is 664. Projected for 2013-14 is 730. (That’s assuming expansion, I guess.)

If we expand IS (in the manner proposed), revenue for 2014-15 are projected at about $500,000. For 2015-16, it would be about $834,000. For 2016-17, it would be about $1,386,000, with a (IS) headcount of 972.

The senators have discussed the expansion of IS during the last two meetings, and it did seem to me that there is considerable hesitation among them, or some of them, regarding this proposal. How would this affect our completion rates? What would happen to the program over time? Are there hidden costs with this increase in the IS population? Etc.

Everyone seems to take turns offering the alleged pearl d’wisdom that, if we do this thing, we should NOT do it for the money. (Please excuse my cynicism: I believe that certain powerful people are motivated by revenue alone. This thing is gonna happen.)

Thus far, the senate has received two recent administrative “visitations” re this proposal, and it seems to me that they are determined to make this thing happen, though, officially, the expansion is a matter still to be discussed, etc. More discussion will occur at the next senate meeting, and no doubt the senate will be asked to give it its invaluable imprimatur.

What do you think?

Davit seemed to say that Prop 30 yielded a major one-time source of revenue in the amount of $863,000. Plus the Mandated Block Grant (some such thing) yields $240,000 per year.

Davit asserted that the net cost of a new full-time faculty hire is $60.576; we’ll be pursuing 16 hires for 2014-15.

The plan: for every 2% growth in FTES, we’ll add 3 full-time faculty.

Davit flashed lurid graphics on the wall.

I asked if Davit’s presentation is available online. It is. You should be able to find it “in this meeting's folder” (see Inside IVC; Academic Senate). I highly recommend that you look at Davit’s presentation.

There was some discussion of the “faculty obligation number” (FON). “What’s that?” I asked. No clear answer, though it seems to be a bit like the old 75/25 full-time/part-time goal (which has long since been abandoned)—only it is a requirement, not merely a goal. And, of course, the number is much lower than 75/25.

Item 6 was “Board Policies and Administrative Regulations”—which, as you know, are constantly being revised, etc. We espied the usual list—nothing new has occurred—and nothing new has been added to it.

Item 9 was the all-important “planning and decision making manual”—i.e., proposed changes to that. Faculty are invited to “join the workgroup.” Contact Kathy.

ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOLLIES. Item 10 is the 2015-16 Academic Calendar, a bit of a hot potato. “Each college is bringing forward a recommended 2015-16 calendar to the District-wide Ac. Calendar Committee.” The two colleges seem to be ad odds on this score. SC's thinking seems driven by obeisance to their celebrated (goddam) nursing program.

We reviewed proposals offered by the two campuses. Evidently, the SC Academic Senate approved a proposal last week. We espied it and snickered unreservedly. When we made substantial changes to our calendar a year or two ago, SC adjusted to it, but they were and remain unhappy about that. In particular, they dislike our “start time” in the spring (Flex Week starts Jan 12). Their proposed calendar reflects that.

So there are lots of calendar proposals floating out there, including 3 of our own. There was considerable (bewildering, to me) discussion about those 3 proposals. (I don’t really live in time, I guess.) Brooke and others seemed to like version A, according to which the Fall remains the same but commencement is a week earlier and summer is shorter. We approved version A: 19/0/1.

Note: evidently, whether our current lack of a final week is satisfactory is NOT an issue at this time. "Who thought it was?"

SCHOOL REORGANIZATION. Item 12 was “School Reorganization.” Contrary to what I implied at Wednesday’s School meeting, the senate didn’t get a chance to consider this proposal at the last meeting. But it got to it at this meeting. The proposal to split the School into two Schools passed 19/0/0 (i.e., unanimously). We specified that the change would start in the Fall of 2014.

There is a desire among senators to establish procedures/processes for School splittage and the like, and we very nearly confronted a proposal to develop that process and only then to apply it to our School’s splittage proposal. But we cleverly seized upon ideas to separate the two things. So, in the end, the Senate decided to approve the splittage and then, additionally, to have Academic Affairs start working on a process. (Thanks Bob U and Priscilla R.)

We can be clever bastards.

Item 11 was saved for last: VPI Craig Justice presented the “OSH” part of the proposal to expand the International Student Program. He showed us a handout, and that was about it. I do believe that the upshot of the handout was that, if we accept this expansion proposal, the ratio of resident/non-resident FTES will remain about the same: 2011-12, 7% non-resident; 2012-13, 8% non-resident; 2013-14, 9% non-resident.

Next time, we’ll get more info.

--Senator Roy

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Melanie. (Well, Melanie or me.)

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, October 17, 2013

• October 17, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment