senate capers: January 2014

Thursday, January 16, 2014

• January 16, 2014

Meeting of the Academic Senate, General Assembly

January 16

(In truth, it wasn’t much of a meeting. Essentially, shared-governance-wise, things suck, and we’re not tackling that problem head on. I tried to rattle Kathy’s cage a bit by bringing up Early College, a real sore point between Admin and Ac. Senate. Kathy knows that there’s a real problem with EC, but she just isn’t the sort to draw lines in the sand--or even to issue hearty squawks. She’s smart, but she’s essentially a “let’s get along” kind of gal.)

Academic Senate Prez Kathy Schmeidler reminded the group that the senate has no actual business today. This is a meeting of the general assembly; we’re here to provide updates about issues and events, to explain what the senate does, etc.

Listed on the syllabus is our “reason for being.” Kathy briefly explained the “10+1,” etc.—i.e., areas in which faculty are responsible—areas where other entities should be taking our lead. Essentially, it boils down to curriculum and programs. Administration is in charge of making things work. We’re in charge of curriculum and programs.

I mentioned IVC’s “Early College Program,” which came into being over the objections of the Academic Senate. Kathy provided some half-hearted mumblings about the difficulty defining a “program.” VPI Justice was in the room.

Two new full-time faculty members introduced themselves: a physicist and a Librarian.

We’ll be pursuing sixteen or seventeen hires this Spring.

The Planning and Decision Making Manual has undergone revision, and the draft is available for perusal online (in Inside IVC). (In my view, it defines a byzantine process that discourages participation.)

Cheryl D, our SLO maven, briefly commented on SLOs. There’s some sort of deadline on Feb. 24. “I’ve got nothing else,” she said.

Kathy reminded us that SLOs are supposed to be listed on our syllabi. “I do believe that that is evil; but we have to do it,” she said, half jokingly.

There was a report on “CTE.” Nobody bothered to explain what CTE stands for. (Career Technical Education.) The CTE people are looking to hire a coordinator.

Our own Anca reported on the activities of the “Bookstore Task Force.” Sales have increased at the bookstore, especially online sales. The committee has been working with the bookstore to decrease book prices. They’ve got the math text book price down to the price offered at Saddleback.

The bookstore is very busy during the break.

Kathy briefly discussed committee assignments. There are still some openings on the Strategic Planning Committee.

SCHOLARSHIP TASK FORCE:

This led to a discussion of the Scholarship “task force,” of which I am a member. (Not sure how that happened.) Kathy explained the charge of the committee. It is an oversight committee. The application reading or appraisal committee is another animal entirely. (In the past, just about anybody could end up in this group that actually assessed student applications. I think one or two dogs were involved.)

Steve explained the Scholarship program’s stormy past: Ad hoc aspects, all manner of hinkiness. One problem: getting people to join the crew that reads all the student applications for scholarships. Hinkiness breeds skepticism breeds noninvolvement. There has been no process or training. Until now.

We now have a policy defining the crew that reads the applications. Upshot: the senate has to step up and forward volunteers to serve on the various reading/application groups. If you want to participate (i.e., be a reader), communicate that to one of your senators or the Academic Senate (via email). Your name will be put up for approval by the senate. You’ll likely be approved.

I mentioned that the Workgroup makes important policy decisions (recommendations), and, among the issues yet to be decided is whether to require letters of rec. Non-faculty on the committee seem disposed to dispense with letters. Know that. (I was implying that faculty have a reason to join this workgroup; faculty are presently outnumbered. Those dogs are now running the committee and they want red meat, no stinkin’ letters.)

Faculty Association: about to sunshine contract to be negotiated for.

Reports:

Curriculum, Diana Hurlbut:

The committee can no longer approve stand-alone courses. A course has to be part of a program. We don’t want to send up courses to the state not affiliated with a program, because generic reviewers will misunderstand and misjudge such outlines.

As usual, Diana seemed to step directly off the peevitude train (or exasperation express), with lips still moving, arms still waving, gestures still slicing the air and jostling the imagined enemy.

We have to review our “degrees with emphasis,” she said. We have two months to clean that up.

We had submitted various degrees to the state, and they were kicked back. We have to fix them.

We’ve been working hard.

Next Tech Review day, Jan 31.

VP Bob Urell:

He’s on the Budget Development Resource P Committee. Bob cochairs that committee with Davit, Glenn’s budget dude. (Glenn and company are not know for their “planning” or organizational abilities. That’s the subtext here. Bob knows something about money, budgets.) (Subtext: we’re trying to inject common sense into the budget process. We want things planned for once.)

There’s a new resource request form.

Academic planning and Technology Committee: blah blah blah

Bob is also on DRAC (the District Resource Allocation Committee—that dithers over distribution of Basic Aid funds, etc.) as an alternate for Mark M.

“So, basically, I look at budgets,” said Bob.

Academic Affairs, Roopa Mathur:

Professional Development: how to go onto website, etc. Make sure you log your PD hours this week. It’s easy to do. Go to Inside IVC. Press keys.

Planning to go to conferences? We encourage you to apply for money. Be sure to put in PD hours in total, not just the required 39. It’s good to have evidence of our work, our need.

Lecture series: two wonderful DALs (distinguished academic lectures) presentations coming up. A Jonestown survivor. A music composer. (I think that Oprah Winfrey is involved in booking for DAL.)

IVC2IVC events also listed. Be sure to attend. Interested in doing one of these? Wanna lecture at everybody and show us how smart you are? Please contact us.

Student success summit. Have a strategy for increasing student success? Let us know. We’ll just assume your confidence is justified and we’ll set you up as a model of success and perfection.

We’re working on the Wait List.

Lots of revision going on. An AR on field trips coming up for approval soon. Program Review: Feb 28 is deadline for final version.

President Kathy Schmeidler:

Institutional Effectiveness Committee: we’ve been working on the manual.

SPAC (Strategic Planning and Accredit Council): used to be “college council.” Big change: many more faculty members compared to the old college council.

Accreditation: blah blah blah.

ACCJC/BENO:

I raised questions about the ACCJC, Babs Beno. Any chance all this Sturm und Drang over City College of San Francisco and Beno/ACCJC will shake loose some action regarding larger issues with Accreditation? (Nationwide tensions over accreditation.)

Not clear. It seems likely that Beno will step down. The word on the street is that she’ll do that, but it won’t help.

Tales told re ACCJC sturm und drang. At the big state Ac. Senate meeting, two ACCJC people showed up and gave everybody just ten minutes to write down any problems/issues/feedback.

Response: WTF!

Early College: We agreed to stop squealing about EC in the spring to get Accred done. Now that Accred is in the can, the EC issue is back on the front burner. (That’s the story, anyway.)

We’re going to put out a survey. It will solicit views re (1) the history of the program and (2) it’s recent incarnation. The Admin likes to say that they have heard the criticisms and they’ve all been addressed. Many of us don’t thinks so.

Early College:

Robert M of Counseling evidently was tasked with explaining where things are at re EC. As usual, the counselors are in charge, and I just don’t know why. I wouldn’t put them in charge of an Easter egg hunt.

Robert started by noting that he was not around for the birth of the program. (He looked pretty sheepish. He saw me and stepped back a foot or two. I hissed. He squealed.)

He only knows about the last three years, he says. (His message was clear: don’t blame me for this shit.)

He’s just here to tell us the facts about EC. There have been changes, he says.

It’s a 4 year program. Students come in from middle school. First three years at high school. The last year is at IVC.

The focus of program has changed. We started with Tustin HS, Beckmann High, and then El Toro was brought on. Not feasible. We didn’t get the strongest students. We lost Tustin HS because of the unpreparedness (or whatever) of the students. They struggled. Beckman is now on its fourth cohort. El Toro is on its 2 ^nd. We’re down to those two. Tustin HS had to back out.

In the beginning, the idea was that, in the four years, students would get 60 units—enough for their AA—and they would be awarded by IVC. But it’s just not feasible to do that number of units in 4 years. Scrapped that vision after year 1.

No longer focused n 60 units. Need to be realistic. Switched to IGETC certification.

Now 51 units over four years. Yes, they get full IGETC and SU certification. Gives them advantages.

Their first semester, take college 10, college prep (counseling). (Counselors explain where students can buy good pencil cases.) The biggest problem: The cohorts from Beckman and Tustin weren’t strong. Those high schools approached the program by finding bodies to put into it rather than looking for those who would be a good fit.

The upshot: lots of those students did very poorly. 2 ^nd cohort of Beckman only graduated with 12 students. We weren’t clear enough about who we wanted, who we did not want, to participate.

Now looking for students with high GPA. About 3.85. (I do believe that, these days, high schools give Bs to students as long as they’re breathing. Even dogs get Cs.)

Must have two letters of rec. from middle school instructors. Strong ones. They’ve come in handy, boy.

Must score into Math 353 or higher. (Algebra 1 at HS level.) Need to be able to get into geometry in 9 ^th grade year. (Most students are only at 253.)

Writing sample. Two questions: 1 ^st, why you want to get into program; true desire. 50 minutes to write. Then long-term education goals. We can find out if they want to get in for right reason.

There’s a screening process. We mean business.

We’ve made clear that parents need to stay out of instructors’ hair. We reinforce this.

Counselors’ role: review transcripts every semester. Looking for students who are struggling. 9 ^th grade is “provisional year.” Always looking at GPA.

Steve R (who has doggedly pursued the anti-EC position) asked a series of trenchant questions. Especially: any evidence that this has helped IVC? “No,” said Robert.

Oh good.

Kathy: the acting dean of the program was “adamant” that there should be no survey. But Kathy said there certainly will be a survey. So there.

That was about it.

--ROY

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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.]