senate capers: • February 20, 2014 Senate Meeting

Thursday, February 20, 2014

• February 20, 2014 Senate Meeting

Senate Notes February 20^th, 2014

A. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS: Linda F. , Kathleen G. , June. M., Anne Heaton – Study Abroad program
B. Public Comments: 1) Anne Heaton visited from OCC—She is the coordinator of the study abroad program over there. She came to invite our students and let us know that there are study abroad opportunities for students at community colleges. OCC is offering two programs for summer 2014 which are still open for application – English Lit and Psychology program – specifically, Cross Cultural Psych and Stats in Cambridge UK. (As an aside, she mentioned the professor from OCC who will be teaching the psychology course, Jaren Gonzales. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting him this past year and I know a former student of his—he is an amazing professor, did his graduate work at Notre Dame.) For 2015 – History of Rock, Cross Cultural Anthropology. These classes are transferable. Let your students know they can apply at OCC or Golden West to participate – they can do the paperwork now to transfer the units for the current summer semester or when they actually transfer. They do spend two weeks here being trained with skills to make it a successful program. So far these programs are from OCC. Faculty and departments are encouraged to develop such programs. A possible professional development opportunity for faculty in the pipeline. You can contact Anna at www.reahstudyabroad.com . 2) VP of SS Linda F.: She informed us about a program being proposed for further development: IVC Connect Partnership Program. It will enhance high school students’ knowledge about the matriculation process at IVC. We aren’t guaranteeing enrollment or a standing for early enrollment, but the program would help students understand the matriculation process so they come here prepared to go through the process correctly. The proposal is to work with the Irvine Unified School District, the Tustin Unified School District and the Laguna Beach School District–the proposal addresses providing more application workshops, more in-service training for counselors, to bring math and English assessment into the high schools, and to offer Fast Fridays for matriculation at the high school. This program would guide them to the correct courses for proper placement and enhance our outreach program – tours, etc. The program would strengthen our visibility. Steve R. asks: cost? We have received money for the matriculation program through a grant which will help pay for this. No General Funds used for this. 3) Robert M., DSPS counselor, hiring process discussion: Robert asked to present some information to dispel any misunderstandings – a) In 30 years the first categorical budget cut was in 2009 when the major cuts all around happened. b) Some of the money is coming back now. The budget has been augmented. The DSPS staff prioritized their needs and put the counselor at the top of that list. (MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION UNDER ‘SCHOOL REPORTS’ BELOW) 4) Roy: ASIVC funds for categorical co-curricular courses – he has heard rumor that the college is to take control of those funds from ASIVC and asked for clarification. Kathy explained: she has spoken to Glenn and Davit about this. Among the solutions sent to the budget group last year was a recommendation to look at how ASIVC funds are used. The work group took all the recommendations and grouped similar suggestions. Then the group responded to all of the recommendations. These all remain on a list. Among them, an idea of moving funding for co-curricular activities out of the control of ASIVC. Saddleback has done this – money for co-curricular goes out of their general fund now. So the President’s exec council discussed this notion. Davit went to speak at the ASIVC meeting to introduce ASIVC to this idea. No decision has been made YET. The proposal has not yet been broached at the budget committee. It is still a notion and has barely been sun-shined. No one will be able to go forward with the proposal—outside the defined process—now that everyone is aware of what is going on – Kathy assured. There are two sides: The current process has worked well for many years, no reason to really change it, etc. Other side – large amount of money and the ASIVC budget process is a little “mysterious.” This discussion is just beginning, and hasn’t gone to all committees etc. All appropriate parties and voices will be given an opportunity to participate and be heard through the various strategic and other committees. ANOTHER REMINDER: WE NEED FACULTY TO SIT ON ALL THE BUDGET AND PROCESS COMMITTEES TO BE THE VOICE OF THE FACULTY – PLEASE VOLUNTEER TO BE IN THESE SEATS THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN MADE AVAILBLE TO US. YOU CAN USE THESE HOURS FOR EITHER YOUR CONTRACTUAL HOUR OR FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TIME!
C. School Reports: Robert M. from Counseling: wanted to clarify some facts regarding the hiring of a DSPS counselor through categorical funding: Categorical and grant funds are different. Legal opinion from the Chancellor’s office and court opinion of faculty hired through categorical. The hiring of a faculty through categorical is the issue here. The counselor for DSPS would be funded through categorical funds and this follows IVC processes of hiring. A position of faculty through categorical funding was never put into General Fund due to lack of funding. This issue is going to be on the agenda for next meeting. Please come if you have concerns, questions, or thoughts on this. I know we spoke about this at our school meeting – the senate meeting will be the arena to discuss both sides. Also, scholarship recommendations from faculty are due Feb. 28^th. Students have to have it done by Feb 21^st. Engineering: IVC is a finalist in the international Solar competition. Biology: new building dedication on Wednesday March 19 at 1:00 pm.
D. Standing Reports: SLO – response from the ACCJC finally arrived –in response to our October 2012 report. Lots of good things, plenty we can improve upon. You will be seeing conversations and budgets requests etc. referencing SLO’s – we need to be focused on SLO’s and their connection to our budget process. Accred oversight work group – going to meet – to discuss the SLO institute they attended (both IVC and SC went). IVC’s accreditation was given to our college without strings for the first time since at least 2004, so we don’t have to have a report now, but we need to stay on track and … [Roy here, stepping in while Mel answers the phone:] somebody said something, but I didn’t understand it. Linda F said something and I didn’t really listen.] (Mel back - Thanks Roy for stepping in while I momentarily left .) We need to pay attention to now entering “the use of results.” Calendar: a request to reopen the discussion to look at the calendar that they proposed by Saddleback and wasn’t accepted – but the prevailing side has to make the motion. Not going to happen. Calendar going forward currently is one that was already proposed. Which calendar is going forward? The one where flex week is 4 days following Martin Luther King Day. The new calendar will fix the Monday issue. Not sure how yet. Distance ED: Putting together a review of a faculty manual for DE using a model from Pasadena college and adding our materials – theirs is highly regarded statewide, apparently. There will be a work group to look a this—currently there have been two reviews of the manual. Faculty who teach DE are included in this group.
E. CTE: June M: Task force met last week and raised the issue about getting more Perkins funding if we had more SAM codes, but turns out that’s not a problem. Looking for faculty to participate in the planning grant (AB 86) to develop among other things, some CTE related programs. This could potentially add an Adult ED program. Basic skills faculty should be part of this conversation. Dean Greiner – email her if interested and copy asenate@ivc.edu to get the official appointment.
F. SIGNATURE REQUESTST: Kathy put Roy’s name forward on behalf of the Senate and Steve R was appointed by the Faculty association to the Daryl Cox replacement position hiring committee. The senate reaffirmed Kathy’s position that HR needs to work hard to accommodate faculty schedules in this hiring process—during spring break.
G. BOARD POLICIES: Please read and comment on the BP and AR‘s that deal with Student Travel and Cash handling as we will be voting on them. Another one coming soon: BARC – recommendation to change the AR that governs how BARC works – small changes – 1) the District IT people have some money set aside for future innovations. Issue at the moment – the way it is written – the money would be given to Bob B with no oversight and the money would be for him. Our understanding was the IVC and Saddleback technology folks would also be getting some of this money. There is some resistance from the district to the wording. The senate agreed with Bob Urell and Kathy to stand our ground on this. If there is new money given, it is given to IT at both schools and district with oversight, otherwise, no new funds for innovations. Honorary degrees: Roy asked Kathy to look into the honorary degree policy. Both Academic Senates and Glen agree that because honorary degrees are given by faculty, faculty should vet the degree. Tod Burnett at Saddleback doesn’t agree. This is now stalled but Kathy will be discussing this with Glenn again – as she does regularly.
H. ESL PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS PROGRAM: Jeff Wilson and Rebecca Beck and Arleen E– the report from the last meeting with the data will be posted. Today is a review of the issues from the last meeting and the action items. In sum: we have about 750 international students that are under-supported. Jeff and Rebecca are drafting a resolution re this issue. The resolution had 9 items: things the campus would provide to properly serve these students: list including hiring needs – full time director, full time counselor, admin assistant, to make us comparable to other programs (currently the staff ratio is 250 to 1 where most places have 150 to 1 – in programs that have 500 students or more) marketing needs, space needs. The students’ success is impacted because they don’t have the guidance to be successful. The Senate was asked to support this resolution so Arleen can have more strength to support this. This resolution and Arleen’s memorandum and the details will be posted in the next meetings folder. Please go read and let us know if you have any questions and comments. We will be covering this at the next meeting.

I. Senior Day - Linda F. - March 4^th – expecting 2000 students this year. Volunteers are still needed and booths for your programs are available. This year will be a little different – students will the taken through an informational session for about 10-15 minutes, then they will be allowed to visit booths and burgers. They will be housed on the Terrace area for the food, prizes etc.

J. DTC LIST: (District Technology) Please look at revised list and let us know your thoughts on these technology items. It is in INSIDE IVC at the SPAC site.

K. Curriculum: “Curriculum crunch hell time” – according to Diane. “Just get ‘er done” – She needs stuff submitted before the first Tuesday in March to be approved at Curriculum. If it isn’t done by then, you won’t be able to teach your class next year.

L. BUDGET: Bob U. Capital facilities list – projects that are coming up: Barranca entry, A 400 building etc. Resource Form: Still being worked on. Breaks every time it’s tested. So they are still working on it. Also added some items to regular budget that have been yearly – like the Reading Lab funding – THANK YOU BOB URELL - so programs can plan.

No comments:

College and district acronyms

DRAC – District Resources Allocation

BAARC – Basic Aid Allocation Committee

CET – Chancellor’s Executive Team

BPARC – District Board Policy and Administrative Regulations

SPOBDC -- Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee

SPAC -- Strategic Planning and Accreditation Council

APTC – IVC Academic Planning and Technology Committee

SSAMMO – IVC Student Success/Access/Matriculation/Marketing & Outreach
BDRPC – IVC Budget Development and Resources Planning Committee See
See What's "Bark"? And what on Earth is the DRAC?

The Faculty's Role in Community College Decision Making*

The Concept of Shared Governance

Shared governance is a process created by the California state legislature that guarantees faculty input in the decision-making process of community colleges. The purpose of the law, AB 1725, was to provide a mechanism to insure that the expertise of the faculty would be used in developing college policies. Although the phrase "shared governance" is not found in the legislation, it has become the commonly used description of the process that provides for faculty input. AB 1725 mandates that colleges "consult collegially" with local Academic Senates (the law also encourages colleges to seek active participation of other constituencies such as classified staff or students in appropriate areas). Consult collegially means that the district governing board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters through either or both of the following:

1. Rely primarily upon the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate

2. The governing board, or its designees, and the Academic Senate shall reach mutual agreement.

The state identified "academic and professional" matters as eleven specific areas:

1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites
2. Degree and certificate requirements
3. Grading policy
4. Educational program development
5. Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success
6. College governance structures, as related to faculty roles
7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes
8. Policies for professional development activities
9. Processes for program review
10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development
11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon.

Since each college determines exactly how shared governance will be implemented on its campus, the process varies widely in its scope and details. With relatively few exceptions, shared governance has provided California community college instructors with a vehicle for input into the decision making process unmatched in any other state.

*Provided by 4Faculty

The SOCCCD Academic Senates sue their district (and win)

[UPSHOT: the Chancellor/Board essentially unilaterally changed the district's full-time faculty hiring policy despite a statute according to which the Academic Senate (i.e., the faculty) has important rights in the development of such policies. In the end (2005), faculty entirely PREVAILED.]

Part 1: From Dissent 66, Oct. 7, 2002

LEGAL STORMS BREWING

I counted two and seventy stenches, All well defined, and several stinks. —Coleridge

Intervention sought: During an August meeting of the IVC Academic Senate, it was suggested that, given the Chancellor & Board’s exclusion of the Academic Senate from governance, there really is no point in continuing. It was suggested, too, that the Senate might better devote its energies to seeking redress in the courts.

* * *

On September 12, the exec. cabinet of the IVC Academic Senate sent a letter to State Chancellor Nussbaum, seeking his “intervention” “to secure rights granted to local senates under Title 5” of the Ed Code. The letter cited four examples of the Board’s many actions in violation of “law, policy and process.” The first concerned the Board’s action (Fall 2000) to revise BP6120 (academic freedom), despite objections from the senates. Example 2 was the Board’s adoption (12/01) of a revision of BP5604 (eligibility for admission) despite “vehement” senate objections. Example 3 was the Board’s decision (2/02) to unilaterally revise BP 2100.1 (delegation of authority to academic senates), despite the policy’s explicitly prohibiting such action.

The fourth and most recent example concerned “revisions to District hiring policies,” including revisions to the Full-Time Academic Employees Hiring Policy, developed over the summer by Chancellor Mathur. These revisions, said the letter, “are rife with numerous individual violations of law, policy and good practice.” Despite Title 5, “At no time were any of the governance groups on either campus invited to participate, or even alerted to the existence of the committee.” Further, governance groups were given only 8 days to provide “input.”

* * *

The Senate’s letter yielded a response—a letter discovered belatedly, and already opened, in the senate president’s mail box! Dated Sept. 16, the letter, from Ralph Black, attorney for the State Chancellor’s Office, requested further info to determine whether his involvement “would be warranted.” Black offers a jurisdictional point: “Unless faculty hiring is listed as an ‘academic and professional matter’ under the SOCCCD shared governance policy..., faculty hiring does not fall under the jurisdiction of [the Board of Governors’] regulations.” (More on this later.)

On Sept. 25th, Mathur emailed the Saddleback Academic Senate, suggesting that he is under no obligation to consult the Academic Senates regarding modifications of the hiring policy. To support this odd view, he cited Black’s letter and its point about jurisdiction, but he ignored Black’s remark, in the same letter, that Faculty hiring procedures are covered by [the] Education Code..., which requires that “hiring criteria, policies, and procedures for new faculty members shall be developed and agreed upon jointly by representatives of the governing board, and the academic senate….” (Ralph Black)

Late in 1993, the Board approved a “Full Time Academic Employees Hiring Policy” that makes clear that the hiring policy can be changed only upon mutual agreement between the district and the faculty senates. This, of course, is the crucial “further information” that Ralph Black needs and will soon receive.

* * *

Budget development, of course, is plainly listed among the academic and professional matters of the district’s “shared governance” policy (2100.1). Hence, a failure to consult with the academic senate regarding budget development would be a violation of “shared governance”—one that clearly does fall under Black’s jurisdiction. Mr. Black will be interested to learn that, at IVC, the senate has been excluded from the budget development process for years.

Part 2: From Dissent 67, April 14, 2003

[“Kurt Bozny” is one of Chunk’s alter-egos.]

According to a statute, faculty hiring policies are to be “mutually” agreed upon by the district (i.e., the board) and the faculty (i.e., the academic senates).

During the Summer of 2002, Chancellor Mathur established a committee, including no faculty, that developed a new hiring policy. The faculty were not even informed of this committee’s work. The product of the committee—a truly appalling and incompetent policy—was then adopted by the board.

Thus, at long last, the faculty senate sued the district. (It was about time!) Below describes the serving of papers and its immediate aftermath.

April 14, 2003

Saddleback and Irvine Valley Colleges' Academic Senates Sue the District

By Kurt Bozny

April 8:

Santa Ana, 1:15 p.m.: Wendy files the much anticipated “faculty hiring policy” lawsuit against the SOCCCD Board of Trustees and Chancellor RAGHU P. MATHUR. She’s well-prepared, and so she breezes through the paperwork. Soon, she’s out the door, headin’ south!

2:10: Wendy’s back at IVC. She and I decide to head down south together to serve Mathur with the writ and the attached documents—a big stack. It’s good to bring an observer, cuz some people get way squirrelly when you try to serve ‘em with a lawsuit, and Mathur’s definitely the type.

I briefly search for one of those neon green “legal observer” caps like they wear at the big protests in L.A., but I can’t find one. Dang!

Mission Viejo, 2:40: we’re up on the 3rd floor of the Library, closin’ in on Chancellor Mathur’s office. I catch a glimpse of Mathur exiting his office, movin’ towards Robina Husting’s desk. He hasn’t spotted us yet.

Wendy closes in, holdin’ the thick stack of legal papers in front of her. As it turns out, Mathur is holding a similar stack of papers in front of him. The two meet in the small space in front of Robina’s desk. Mathur just stands there. So Wendy places her stack on top of Mathur’s stack, sayin’, “You’re served.”

Mathur’s horrified. The indecorous fellow now jostles and squirms to avoid holding the papers, but it’s too late—he’s got ‘em.

I’m thinkin’: “Does he actually suppose that the lawsuit won’t happen if he avoids holdin’ this stuff?”

Finally, in a desperate attempt to avoid being served, Raghu shoves the legal papers forward and they fall to the floor. Fwap!

Legally speaking, such fwappage is irrelevant; he’d been served and, once again, he’d attained the title “Respondent Mathur.” Besides, leaving the lawsuit on his secretary’s desk counts, too, so Wendy now picks up the papers and places ‘em there.

Meanwhile, I size up the Chancellor’s unseemly conduct. “How rude,” I proclaim. We exit.

Respondent Mathur struggles to think of a comeback, but Attorney Wendy (and her cap-less Boswell) are already out the door.

Finally, he’s got one. He shouts:

“How rude are YOU!”

* * *

Wendy Gabriella

April [9]: The next day, the district issues a peevish press release. It says:

SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur…commented on a lawsuit filed by the IVC and Saddleback College Academic Senates that disputes a new SOCCCD faculty hiring policy, stating, “The district is following the guidelines established under Title 5 that defines the ‘Delegation of Authority to the Academic Senates.’ There are 11 areas within the scope of academic and professional matters for which the academic senates have primary responsibility.

“The State Chancellor’s office has confirmed our view,” Mathur said, “that our hiring policies do not fall within the primary responsibility of the faculty….”

This is classic Mathur. The State Chancellor’s office does indeed hold that hiring policies are not among the 10 + 1 areas in which faculty are assigned primary responsibility by Title 5, a state regulation.

The problem is that the lawsuit does not mention Title 5 and it does not allege that Title 5 has been violated. Rather, it alleges that the new policies, and the manner in which they were developed and approved, violate an Ed Code statute (EC87360) and utterly defeat the intentions of legislators.

Ed Code statutes, of course, are more than regulations; they’re laws. They count bigtime.

In other words, with regard to the issue of faculty “hiring” policies, we don’t need no stinkin’ Title 5.

Respondent Mathur is ignoring—or failing to understand—that, in reality, the State Chancellor’s office takes the following view:

Education Code section 87360 requires governing board and academic senate representatives to agree on hiring criteria, policies and procedures to be adopted by the board. (Letter from California Community College Chancellor’s Office, Ralph Black, General Counsel, January 29, 2002).

In the District’s press release, Board President Don “So sue me” Wagner offers his own spin, expressing “disappointment” that the senates have decided to force the district to “spend money on attorneys, rather than students.”

* * *

On the 10th, the Register reports that

In an unprecedented move, the faculty senates of both Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges have voted to sue their district chancellor and trustees over a new hiring policy that gives more power to college administrators at the expense of traditional academic hiring committees.

The lawsuit … asks a judge to set aside the new hiring policy because it was not approved by each college’s Academic Senate.

When the new rules were approved by a 4-3 vote by the …trustees in January, faculty representatives unsuccessfully pleaded with the board for more time to discuss them.

The state’s Education Code requires that hiring criteria and policies for new faculty members must be developed “and agreed upon jointly” by board members and the Academic Senate….

…Typically, new college instructors are selected by hiring committees made up of faculty members who are experts in the field and the head of the department. Their selection is usually ratified by the college president, the district’s board of trustees or both.

According to Wendy Gabriella, an IVC instructor and attorney who filed the lawsuit, faculty members were particularly unhappy with new rules that allow the district’s human resources director to change the scores awarded by committee members if she deems them too far off the norm and to unilaterally change interview questions.

Professors were also displeased with a new ethics and confidentiality section of the hiring policy that allows the human resources director to investigate and punish any member of a hiring committee who is accused of violating confidentiality.

“The policy allows the human resources department to accuse hiring committee members of bias, change their scores and discipline them without any due process or opportunity for appeal,” [said the] Irvine Valley Academic Senate President….

* * *

Also on the 10th, the President of the IVC Academic Senate, Greg Bishopp, sends a memo to IVC faculty. (The Saddleback Senate Prez later spams it to Saddleback faculty.) It says:

The Academic Senates of IVC and Saddleback College have filed suit in California Superior Court to block the implementation of a faculty hiring policy, which they believe to violate … the California Education Code. While the trustees and the administration of the SOCCCD maintain that their new policy, and the process used to develop this policy, does not violate the law, the Academic Senates claim that they do. In violation of the law, the Senates maintain, district administration has failed to allow faculty involvement in developing the procedures for hiring new faculty members. As a result, the adopted policy is fraught with violations of law, policy, and accepted practice.

Prez Bishopp also notes that the senates have “exhausted all internal means of appeal” and that, in January, Wagner “invited the Senates to sue the district to resolve the legality of the Board of Trustees’ alteration of board policy.”

That Wagner is quite a guy!

Bishopp closes by noting that the record

shows who has been responsible for wasting the district’s money in the past. Board President Don Wagner has stated that, “our district will again prevail on this misguided litigation.” However, in the seven legal actions brought by members of the faculty against the Board of Trustees, the courts have sided with the faculty and against the Board every single time, demonstrating that the Board, by violating the law, has been responsible for the suits, not the litigiousness of the plaintiffs. If the Board of Trustees does not wish to spend money on litigation, it should avoid breaking the law.

* * *

The district’s new faculty hiring policies (BP4011, 4011.1, 4011.2) are available online at the Saddleback College Academic Senate website.

Those who wish to read the statute should go to

Statute

To read a review of the statute and its relation to the historic AB1725 legislation, one might start by reading the local senates “handbook” on the State Academic Senate’s website:

Handbook

See you in court! —KB

Part 3

Judge Clay Smith
[10/10/09:]

Here’s what happened next:

Judge Clay Smith ruled that the district had indeed failed to include the faculty in the development of the faculty hiring policy, contrary to law. He thus ordered the district and senates to get together to develop a faculty hiring policy. But, in the end, the district’s representatives and the senates’ representatives did not see eye to eye on major issues, and so the district unilaterally pushed through the version of the policy that it liked, and it pronounced that policy the product of the committee. That policy was almost as appalling as the one that was neutralized by Smith.

Surprisingly, despite the vociferous objections of the Academic Senates to the new policy, Judge Smith ruled that the policy was indeed the product of “mutual agreement.”

It was an absurd judgment.

The Academic Senates appealed.

By summer 2005, the appellate justices unanimously acted to overturn and vacate Smith’s absurd judgment. The board tried one or two last ditch efforts to have the court reconsider, but to no avail. The academic senates had won, and that was that.

The senates had prevailed, period. That meant that the only valid policy was the one developed at the end of 1993 (that one was mutually agreed to). It was good from the faculty’s perspective.

The appellate justices urged the parties to work out their differences, and so, in the Fall of 2005, district representatives (namely, Mathur, the instigator of the original unilaterally imposed policy, and Lang, now the board president) and Academic Senate reps (namely, the two senate Presidents and the union president) mutually developed a policy that both sides could agree on.

That work was completed by late October, 2005. This mutually ageed to policy is a vast improvement.

At the time of writing, it only remains for the board to approve the new policy, and there is every indication that they will do just that. If they fail to do so, then the decidedly faculty-friendly 1993/4 policy will apply.

[The policy was approved.]

Thursday, February 20, 2014

• February 20, 2014 Senate Meeting

No comments:

Post a Comment