- GUESTS: Craig J., Glenn R., Catherine G., Karima
Feldhus
- GLENN
R. VISIT by Senate cabinet invitation:
- Glenn
decided simply to open things up for a Q&A. [Editorial note: I have
reported this question and answer session much like a transcription – it’s
pretty close to verbatim—because both commencement and scholarship are topics
of great interest right now]
- 1)
Roy: RE: board policy about prayer (resulting from
2011 settlement of Westphal v. Wagner):
Policy states event planners, and planners alone, make decision about
invocation–if there is a prayer and who will offer it. Roy asked Glenn for
assurances that we are following this policy for Commencement and asked “who is
the graduation committee?” Glenn:
Yes, all the decisions are being made by the commencement committee (the
committee name was not clear to him, but Kathy seemed to know it). Glenn assured us he is following the
committee’s recommendation, which is to have
a prayer this time. (Roy asked if it has ever been otherwise? No.) Steve
R: How is one appointed to this committee? Roy: Any faculty on this committee? Glenn
– Committee membership is made up of those who have a role in commencement,
such as – student affairs, facilities, etc.
Priscilla - Has anyone taken Chris Hogstedt’s [faculty]
position on that committee? Glenn: No.
- Steve: Concern - the last time we had an academic
speak at commencement was years ago, and now we have had many years of
non-academics speak. Glenn:
- We are having problems getting
speakers because by the time we ask at the end of our year, most good speakers
are already booked. Now the commencement speaker committee is on a two-year
plan. Scott Lay, this year’s speaker, is
very student-centered and is himself a graduate of a community college – he is
an excellent speaker and will connect with students. Steve: Commencement speakers should be different from
our speakers for faculty events – Commencement is our event for students. Speakers should be more interesting for
them. Glenn: The students picked Scott Lay. And there is a nomination process. Steve: When was the last time a faculty-nominated
speaker was chosen? Kathy
- We need volunteers for the committee
for commencement speakers -- [please let Roy or I know if you want to be on
this committee, which meets maybe three times in the Spring.] Kathy also mentioned she is working on
getting faculty representatives on the commencement event committee. Tracy Fahimi :- We
need to have more diversity in those speaking to our students –
racially, culturally, and those that are in a variety of walks of life that
relate to our students – we need to get away from the “white men in suits”
pattern. She feels that it is because of
the process that we haven’t. The current
process yields, not what faculty and students want, but what administrators
want. We need more variety, interesting
speakers that represent diversity. Glenn:
The administration is interested in diversity.
Tracy: OK, but the result of the process is: little
diversity. Glenn: We have had some, but I agree – it could be
better, diversity-wise. He said it is
very much a student driven process. Ilknur: When can we start the process of nominating
earlier, so we don’t lose good speakers? Glenn - We are two years
ahead so we can get ahead. Kathy: This year’s committee selects next year’s
speaker, and possibly for two years, so we are not asking people last
minute. Steve: Are we
confident in what we mean by the student process in this? Do we have any idea how the meeting is being
run, who is there and influencing the decision?
Glenn: Student government makes the decisions. Kathy: If we had faculty on the committee, we would
know. Ilknur: How do we fix this? Kathy: Those with concerns
should fill the available places on the committee - there are four faculty
seats at the table. It only meets a few
times a year. It’s a task force. It’s on the list for faculty to join. Tracy: Who chairs it? Linda
F: Ben Guzman. Roy: Agendize this for
fall. Kathy: Yes – in the
meantime, speak to your colleagues about joining. It generally meets in Spring.
- Steve: I and others have significant (an
understatement) concerns with the operation of the scholarship process at this
college – a serious problem. Wants this body
(Academic Senate) to insert itself into this process – the problems with
IVC scholarships damages our credibility.
Glenn: Thanks Linda
F. for coming in and trying fix this problem (he says she’s done a “wonderful
job”). Yes, scholarships are incredibly
important. Two things: 1) We used to do this with paper. Then new
technology, STARS, came in – recommended by prior director as one of the top
software in the state. The prior director [D Cox] did not tell me [Glenn] that
he didn’t know how to use the software – it wasn’t being used completely or
correctly. We’re looking for someone
with this expertise in the search for the new director 2) Legal opinion of discrimination - that created a problem as well. Lots of work to figure out how to use the
tool working through those criteria.
[Steve notes that, according to Darryl, he asked for experts to come in
to explain the software, but his request yielded nothing.]
- Roy: Fall 2012 -You told us of the fiscal crisis:
revenue remains flat as expenses go up. [Glenn notoriously overreacted,
inspiring push-back from the Senate re unilateral decision to cut faculty
hires.] In the aftermath of all that, there was a careful examination of the
budget: decisions made, etc. The
consistent reports we received portrayed people or a process that were “less
than competent”. Now, there’s a move
afoot to turn the budget director into a Vice President. Glenn: Davit is highly competent. (Lists credentials and work experience). Roy: Ok - but there was lots of incompetence
somewhere in the budget process in the reports we received. So maybe somewhere else. So where is the problem? Glenn: His work is excellent. Roy: So lets talk about the process of moving
someone from Director of FS to a VP position without a hiring process - this is
bad policy. Glenn: [Invites Roy to the budget committee]. I think you will find out that what is
incompetent is how we are given our budget from the state of California. This goes back to the old days of Terry
Burgess - always been a bad process - the budget is a moving target that is
given to us - very difficult job. State
of California and the legislature - the way they give us our money is in
constant flux. Very difficult job to do
this budgeting. We only get a half
year. Davit did an excellent job
managing our no-growth by moving things around and we didn’t have a lot of
cuts. He didn’t react by cutting and
slicing and making chaos. Now - about
the Director to VP - we have a hiring process and we also have a legal process
for reorganization. We haven’t seen that
used until it happened at Saddleback for their budget director. The ramifications are huge. Saddleback did that and the chancellor came
to me [Glenn] and said it is time for IVC to do this for fairness . Roy:
Something isn’t necessarily good or right or wise just because someone else
does it. We should vet the
position. Glenn: It is a good decision from human resources
and labor law position but probably not from our (faculty) perspective.
- CATHLEEN
GREINER’S PRESENTATION: CONTRACT AND COMMUNITY AND DISTANCE ED - And
the future of IVC. [In response to concerns about this area of
instruction expressed by some senators.] She clarified what the differences are
between credit, non credit, not for credit.
She discussed why we have our programs of community ed, contract ed,
distance ed, work force development etc.
Contract ed: we are obligated to
enter into discussions with those that ask to work with us - but if they can’t
meet our requirements, then we can refuse them.
Kathy mentioned that faculty have a great interest in any credit or non
credit programs that are part of our curriculum. Kathy: putting on the agenda
for the fall that faculty needs to have a say in who is teaching these courses - we are the experts. Kathy also says we will be looking into the
budgetary questions surrounding this range of instruction. Greiner’s presentation is posted on the
Academic Senate site, if you are interested.
- Diana
H. - CURRICULUM:
we need 290 courses revised next year and this won’t happen with two meetings a
month for tech and curriculum. She
announced a more frequent meeting structure, which includes back to back curriculum
and tech review. Hours to be announced -
but will entail meetings every
Tuesday (from about noon until 6:00 p.m.).
She shared a list of courses with due dates for tech review and for
curriculum. We will be sent the list so please look at due dates and launch by
due dates. Our curriculum rep will send
this info and it will also be posted to the curriculum tab at the Academic
Senate page. If you don't meet your date, the course will go to the bottom of
the list and they will work during the January break to try and complete what
remains. Roy asked if there is more
compensation or help for the huge and increasing amount of work that curriculum
does. Kathy has asked for an increase
from 6-9 OSH. No confirmation yet, but
prospects seem good.
- PLUS
AND MINUS GRADING OPTIONS: As before, Tracy of
Social Sciences noted her School’s support of moving to pluses and minuses. Roy
indicated that many faculty in H&L also favor this change and seek for our
senate to join with the SC senate to pursue it. Voted on whether to have the
discussion to work with Saddleback on a proposal for a policy and to bring it
back for all to vote on. - Did not pass: 13-4-5 (one vote short). The darkness and menace that then emanated
from Tracy’s end of the building seemed to inspire Kathy to explain that this
issue can be re-raised at the next meeting (in the Fall) in a different form—or
the same motion can be opened by a member of the “prevailing” side (the “no”
side). Look at information posted on
Academic Senate forum.
- SAFETY
AND SECURITY: - Please send list of
concerns to asenate@ivc.edu -- and to (Senator) Priscilla Ross of the Safety committee. Kathy and Priscilla assure us that Will Glen
is working hard to make changes, but he’s running into blocks.
- PROGRAM
DISCIPLINE COURSE REALIGNMENT POLICY REVISION and the School/Department
definition and realignment policy. : - Passed.
- SENATE
APPOINTMENT - ACADEMIC SENATE PAST PRESIDENT -
Nominations: None
- SENATE
APPOINTMENT - ACADEMIC AFFAIRS CHAIR —Nominate
Brett McKim - approved
-
COMMENCEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP:
Interested parties will be asked to come to a debrief at some date after
commencement. Will be held in the early
summer; members will decide when to meet regularly during the school year. Glenn directing Linda F. to have this
meeting. An all-campus all-faculty
invitation will be sent out to everyone to this debrief and then form the
committee and committee schedule. Please be on the lookout for this invitation
and please do participate. The Senate went on record, making a motion which advised the
commencement committee and President to advise the “invocator” to keep the
invocation, this year, short (under one minute) and non-denominational or,
alternatively, ask for a moment of contemplative reflection. [There seemed to
be lots of support in the room for this.]
- ACADEMIC
CALENDAR DISTRICT COMMITTEE- BOB
URELL - Calendar was approved and sent
to next level .
