Thursday, April 17, 2014

• April 17, 2014 Senate Meeting

April 17, 2014
  1. 1. Introduction of Guests:   Karima F., Cathleen Greiner, Dan DeRoulet
  1. 2. Public Comments:  Brooke - a) Congratulations to Virginia Shank for Teacher of the Year b) Please vote in Faculty Association elections. Steve R. announced scholarships done by tonight and award ceremony on May 16th at 8 am. Discussion of issues with scholarship review process - not enough faculty responded - only 18 - and each applicant applied for more than one and each application has to be read by 4 readers. The result - each reader with 200+ to read. Steve says please make note of any problems you are noticing with the process as the committee needs to work on these. Email these problems to Kathy at asenate and to Steve R. STARS system having some issues. Some people who asked to read, never received applications. Carla - part time appreciation week announcement. Kathy - congratulations to Bob U. on re-election as Senate VP. Bob to Kathy, re-elected to President.  Next senate meeting we will appoint the other cabinet positions.  
  1. 3. English Faculty Position - Senate had a discussion and approved switching English and Philosophy positions in the hiring list within the School of Humanities and Languages. English now is in position 20. The Senate added that they support this switch and ask that President Roquemore collaborate with the Math and Chemistry departments who are ranked ahead of this position. Comments - we have to look globally - English is a basic skill that all our students need. 
  1. 4. Board Policies and Administrative Regulations - Student Government changed their minds on the smoking policy, and said no - this after all governance bodies at both campuses approved it. Kathy said it will go back to the board. The board is very supportive so it is likely to be approved.
  1. 5. International Student Program - Kathy presented some data from the research office that showed that there are few international students in our basic skills programs. She said these students we actually process visas for (?). The data are confusing and others will be looking into this further. Jeff and Rebecca will send us some updated information and clarification - we will report back to you with it, so stay tuned…
  1. 6. Plus and Minus Grades:  Traci Fahimi began the discussion. Her School (Social and Behavioral Sciences) feels that the availability of plus and minus grades adds precision and subtlety to grading. Discussion took place debating the pros and cons. She asked for a motion to study what other colleges are doing - Community colleges and UC, etc. passed. Send Roy and Melanie your feedback so we can represent your views on this when it returns to the senate for more discussion and possible action.
  1. 7. Security and Safety - Kathy is meeting with Will Glenn this week. She has a long list of issues. She will report back.
  1. 8. Faculty Advisor Handbooks – Dennis Gordon is reviewing it and will report back.
  1. 9. Program Discipline Course Realignment Policy Revision - Kathy presented to options for the faculty to consider. Courses and programs, by policy, go through all the committees for approval. Getting approval for school can happen in one of two ways: a) we can use the current policy for course and program realignment and add schools and departments to it. In this option, the procedure would be for the approval to go through senate and up through the other committees to the President. b) The second option is available because courses, disciplines and programs have to go through president and committee - but departments and schools don’t have to. They are a local matter. So option 2 is to have the approval of departments and schools go through the Senate and stop there. We could draft a policy to have school and department realignment go through the Senate for approval and not go forward to the admin for approval. Which version puts the faculty in a stronger position:  ending at senate or going through whole structure? We need to discuss this and come to a decision. Please send Roy and Mel your input. Kathy seems to think that there are pros and cons to both options.

  1. 10. Bob Urell - Report - Pres. R. announced a proposal: change director of finance to a vice president position. Will be on the agenda for next meeting. ATEP - Building in process – the building, IVC’s, will be ready in about 2 years. Craig will be talking about programs for ATEP—CTE, Workforce, etc.— at next Senate meeting. Resource requests -  it’s broken - being worked on - IT issue.  Budget now looks like we will have a reserve fund, which is good. SLO assessment data: we are a little behind the curve with the data. Maybe a documentation issue - being looked at.  AB 86 discussed at Plenary: faculty urged to get involved. Plenary: David Morris won – Prez Beth is out. It was a mutiny. So there is change in leadership at the State Academic Senate - not seen as necessarily good or bad - possibly a toss up. Each of these parties is problematic. Things aren’t likely to change.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

• April 2, 2014: safety issues


Notes: the April 2, 2014 meeting of the Academic Senate (Rep Council) 
     At the top of the meeting, two guests were introduced: Barb Blanchard, Acting Dean, Instr/EconimicWkforce Development (I think she’s got ATEP) and Cathleen Greiner, Dean, Online and Extended Ed. 
     (Later in the meeting, the VPI, Craig Justice, joined us. Perhaps others.)
     Item 6 is the ongoing review and revision of Board Policies and ARs. The relevant committee has not met (recently) and nothing of any consequence has happened—beyond the board’s acceptance of the new “civility” policy (BP 180) for review and study. You’ll recall that our senate objected to that policy, owing to its potential as a tool to limit speech and discipline faculty for critical remarks. At last Monday’s board meeting, on behalf of the senate, Senate Prez Kathy Schmeidler explained to the board that we IVC faculty continue to object to pursuing “civility” as a board policy. Instead, it should be something less problematic—perhaps a motto or T-Shirt. It remains to be seen what the board will do with the policy, although we’ve heard that at least one trustee takes our concerns very seriously. 
     In the end, we were the only group to object to the policy.
     We jumped ahead to item 15: co-curricular funding: “Senators have requested an update on plans for Co-Curricular Funding.” 
     I do believe that Tracy F of the Social Sciences initially raised concerns about rumored(?) efforts by administration to wrest control of this funding from students. (Dastardly, that. ) Acting Director (of all things student, I guess), Dennis Gordon, a nice guy, was invited to introduce himself and explain his policies. Funding will continue as it has in the past, he said. He is planning no changes.
     “What about next year?” asked a senator.
     It isn’t likely that the funding status quo will change in the future, he said.
     He was informed about complaints about the Faculty handbook for faculty advisors (of student clubs). 
     Dennis emphasized his utter embrace of transparency and openness. I believe him.
     We must have moved up item 12—security issues—because, next, we had a good discussion about that. “Academic Affairs Committee is engaged in conversation with the Safety Committee concerning campus safety and security policies and procedures.”
     A month ago, I asked that security and administrative presence issues be agendized, and we discussed these issues at the previous meeting. At the April 2 meeting, senators again expressed concern about safety, especially in the evening. One senator, Priscilla R, is on the Safety Committee and she took these concerns seriously; she’ll take them with her to the next Safety meeting.
     I managed to bring up, once again, the problem of “administrative presence”—i.e., a lack thereof—during evening sessions. It is clear that other senators, too, view this as a problem. At the last meeting, VPI Craig J opined that we don’t want to become the “ethics police” of faculty during the evening—walking around, checking to see if they dismiss students early. At the April 2 meeting, I said that his dismissal of this problem just wouldn’t do, that, as things stand, massive fraud seems to be occurring. (Craig heard this; he didn’t say anything.) For this and other reasons, senators seemed to feel that something should be done to increase administrative presence in the evenings. (As things now stand, after 7:00 p.m., a cop is given authority to act as an administrator, but this would seem to be inadequate.)
     In this instance, as always, Melanie and I sought to represent H&L faculty who had communicated to us their specific concerns. 
     I do believe that Prez S indicated that this matter should be pursued at Instructional Council, a group that comprises department chairs, among others.
     Priscilla R informed the group that the next meeting of the Safety Committee will be on the 25th.
     Item 14 concerned contract education. Recently, Traci F indicated that she was aware of some problems possibly arising once again at Crean Lutheran, where we offer courses, including H&L courses. (You’ll recall that, two or three years ago, Crean administrators pressured adjuncts to sign a declaration regarding their level of agreement with Lutheran doctrine—some such thing. There were other problems as well.)
     Dean Greiner described the kinds of contract ed we provide (she mentioned GED classes that we provide for a medical device company), and she offered chirpy assurances and talking points to the effect that all is well, but these were not particularly well received by the senators. To reassure the group, VPI Justice interrupted to declare that, if instructors (at Crean, etc.) fail to live up to the contract, they will be “terminated.” 
     During her report, Curriculum Chair Diana H explained that she and other senate officers would be attending the upcoming “plenary” meeting of the State Academic Senate. Evidently, many across the state are unhappy with State Senate Prez Beth Smith’s regime, and a “mutiny” is underway. It’s an “interesting mess,” said Diana. It appears that, in the end, folks at this meeting will be forced to choose between two evils (choosing between “bad” and “less bad”) with regard to leadership. Or so said Diana. 


     Senate VP Bob U noted that ATEP master planning is afoot. The next meetings (about that) will be on May 14 and June 19. You’ll recall that the two colleges (i.e., college presidents) got into a pissing contest about ATEP a year or so ago, and Chancellor Poertner responded by making like Solomon and declaring that each college would get its own building at the site. 
     As it turns out, the IVC building will be built first. 
     In her report, Academic Senate Prez Kathy S noted that, as things now stand, both Saddleback College and IVC are “medium” sized colleges—we’re on the bottom end of that category, and they’re on the top end. Further, tea leaves persistently indicate that the prospect for growth at IVC is considerable; meanwhile, the prospects for growth down south are minimal; indeed, shrinkage is inevitable.
     Naturally, this all relates to DRAC—the mechanism (and committee) through which resources are allocated between the two (or three) campuses at the district level. Up to the present, we have operated with the assumption that Saddleback is twice the size of IVC, but that isn’t true anymore and it will be increasingly less true. So changes in the DRAC formulas are necessary. 
     Expect plenty of squawking on the part of Saddlebackians.
--Senator Roy