senate capers: • May 15, 2014: President Roquemore visits the senate

Thursday, May 15, 2014

• May 15, 2014: President Roquemore visits the senate

ACADEMIC SENATE

- 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 .

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, May 15, 2014

• May 15, 2014: President Roquemore visits the senate

No comments:

Post a Comment