senate capers: • August 13, 2014: "additional bathroom options'

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

• August 13, 2014: "additional bathroom options'

Senate meeting (i.e., meeting of Rep Council of Ac. Senate), Wednesday, August 13, 2014 (Flex week), 10:00 a.m.

[Evident] Theme: “Wonderful, wonderful”

Sen. Prez Kathy Schmeidler welcomes “new people.” There’s a pamphlet introducing everybody, she says. She holds it up. Fancy, glossy.

She has new faculty members stand and introduce themselves. Karima highlights that this is the first time we’ve had a full-time Sign Language instructor ( Keith G).

Administrators (who are attending) and other non-faculty introduce themselves (Glenn, Craig, and Linda included).

She introduces the cabinet, including Brett McKim and Brooke Choo, newbies on the cab.

asenate@ivc.edu --that’s our email address

Public comments:

Ann Akers comes up to present—something. She’s doing high school outreach as usual. She asks for faculty volunteers, etc. Nobody makes a move.

Pres. Glenn Roquemore: was very busy during the summer. Held a number of retreats concerning strategic planning, something we’re working to make better. (Good luck; nobody understands it.) We had a “wonderful opening” this year. Monday’s speaker was great (a gal on an important national commission/report re community colleges). Then the Chancellor’s Opening session; State Chancellor Brice Harris emphasized some of the same issues/themes. “Wonderful, wonderful,” said Glenn or his suit.

We’re building buildings, 2 in particular. A400 (which will house Humanities). And, next to A400, we’ll be building the Solar Decathlon House (?). “Very exciting” (though Glenn exhibited no excitement).

Bad news re state-wide bonds. It had seemed that the Governor was letting those go forward; but now it appears that we won’t be getting that money. Water bond instead. (Drought, you know.) Sad news, hope it turns around. Doesn’t look good.

We’ll be busy with Accreditation (really? Haven’t we been workin’ on it for freakin’ years?). “We’ll be on the offensive,” not defensive, said Glenn.

Steve R asks a question about the loss of parking spaces, owing to construction. Boils down to 18 spots, says Glenn (re the second building).

Priscilla asks whether the new building will be LEED(?) certified (i.e., all green and shit). That’s the goal, he says.

Glenn gets applause for no reason at all. I stare at people’s hands.

Other public comments?

VP of SS, Linda Fontanilla, gets up and yammers like she does. Several community colleges are seeing a decline in enrollments, including Saddleback (not IVC). And so this “encroaches” into other cc areas. (I think she means that other college districts are poaching.) We have to be protective of our own service area. Big one-day event: looking for 50 volunteers to join us going to businesses—with a tin of cookies and brochures. To remind them: we are your premier cc in your service area. (Not those other guys, those rat bastards.)

Yeah, cookies. That’ll do it.

The goal: reaching out to 500 local businesses in one day with this all-important message. There’ll be a debriefing session. Hot fun. And a Bouncy House. It’ll be great for the college. (Newbies: get used to it. Lots of dog and pony shows, little substance. That’s what LF is all about.)

Traci F asks if we can get info identifying the “service areas.” Diana H carps that this event is scheduled on a Wednesday, when most of us are teaching. Linda’s got nothing. She yammers anew. Something about student success, student equity. Concepts, buzz words—that’s the ticket. Just keep pronouncing them, like a mantra.

Ilknur (EW) announces something for science and engineering students. A transfer event, I guess. “It’s gonna be really fun.”

Ted Weatherford (of dance/PE) mentions the Veterans Center. Please get involved. BSTIC 118. As you know, the Vet Center has been troubled of late.

Virginia asks about “additional bathroom options” in the A Quad area, which is affected, obviously, by the construction and a general dislike for woman from on high. Not much stall presence right now (my phrase). VPI Craig J responds. We can get together with John (Edwards) and discuss this. Kathy and Glenn discuss temp restroom trailers that are “not unpleasant.”

Steve R carps yet again about the lack of TP and the unpleasant conditions in restrooms. Can we at long last deal with this? Merd! Kathy offers assurances or reassurances or rereassurances. Steve doubles down on his carpage, but to no avail.

Traci Fahimi: we’ll continue with our Friday morning hike tradition. You can get flex credit! (Someone groans.) We try to keep hike locations 20 minutes or fewer from IVC.

Bill Etter was initially scheduled to do a presentation based on his sabbatical. It’s been rescheduled. Teaching Writing across the Disciplines. Important.

Kathy speechifies:

Kathy says the purpose of the Ac. Senate is to be a forum for the faculty. We hold as much control as is feasible over academic matters: curricula, programs, etc. So we even have a role in budget, facilities—every aspect of running the institution, really. Through the senate, faculty can be enlisted in many enterprises and activities. (Then there’s the Faculty Association, which concerns contractual issues.) The senate is the body that oversees our professional role as faculty. The senate and the FA enjoy a very collegial relationship, of course (a situation embodied by Kathy, who is also a union officer.

I (Roy) raise some peevish points about ATEP [the district’s third “campus” out in Tustin]—and our alleged leadership in developing programs and curricula there. (At yesterday’s Chancellor’s Opening Session, I note, Glenn asserted that faculty are very involved in developing programs and courses out there; false .) We seem not to be in the loop. I complained once again about the Early College Program and the general obscurity and blobulosity of the process concerning strategic planning. So Byzantine, etc.

Kathy agrees with all that. Once again, she assures us that we’re being vigilant about ATEP development, now that, at long last, we got the piece of legal paper (from the City of Tustin) allowing us to go forward, etc. (Last year, administration held an ATEP organizational meeting and actually failed to invite faculty.)

Steve mentions that there is a certain amount of faculty ignorance about 10+1 (the areas of responsibility, etc., for faculty, by statute). Kathy answers: the faculty have a role in the decision-making process with regard to all things educational. Participatory governance, it’s called these days (used to be “shared governance”). So we have a primary role in curriculum, etc. Also, an important role in program development, etc. We briefly discussed orientation for new faculty—the importance of explaining the 10+1 areas to them. Get ‘em up to speed.

We now have four faculty members on the key campus committee (said Kathy, somewhat defensively). We’re represented all over the place, on important committees, in important roles. Many committees are (otherwise) utterly dominated by administrators, and the presence of faculty in the room makes a big difference. At that level, we seem to have a voice, though the proof is in results of course. I think (says Kathy) that we’re making a difference in the long run. Kathy mentions the ATEP organizational episode. We complained and fixed that. See?

One senator ( Jack?) offered an impressive overview of difficulties with regard to faculty participation and community on campus. Hierarchical, top-down structure of governance. People are simply deciding without soliciting input. Many faculty are ignorant of the “stories” of other faculty members. Wants the senate to lead the kind of “social integration” that would be healthy. What we have now just is not enough.

At long last, Stephanie flashes the “infamous” 10+1” list: Curriculum, degree requirements, grading policies, programs, faculty roles in accred, program review, processes for institutional planning and budget development, etc. We’re the go to entity for all that. (On paper, if not in reality.)

Ilknur intrudes with enthusiasm for learning people’s names and leaving apples on desks.

Another instructor urges making connections with other faculty. He sounds utterly sans clue, albeit enthusiastic.

Ted W: new faculty, you are stake holders. You’ve got to do more than teach your classes; you’ve got to get involved. This is a wonderful college. But there are some here who have fought important battles in the past. (That’s what it takes.) It’s your school: participate.

Kathy concurs: You’ve got to invest in the institution.

Kathy: go to IVC homepage, then “inside IVC.” Under committees, there’s a page for the Academic Senate. Check it out.

Re the committees and committee structure: go to Ac. Senate site. See committee grid posted there. Faculty Service Assignment pdf has grid with all committees. You'll be dazzled.

Dale C speaks. He says something, I know not what (surely it does not matter; long ago, chemicals harshed his circuits and now he can barely function, though, natch, that goes unnoticed in his school). Kathy yammers about openness to visitors on most, even all, committees. Don’t have to be a member.

There’s tremendous flexibility, said Steve, regarding what counts as committee work and flex obligation. Check it out. Hell, you can get credit for whistling in a corner.

June M came up to discuss Career Technical blah blah blah. OK, it’s hard for me to stay tuned here. Also “cooperative work experience,” which is internships, essentially.

I feel time ticking by. I feel the life force leaving my body. Desperation. Help. These people just won’t stop talking. There’s a YouTube video about “how to be professional,” says June, and she isn’t kidding. Now Ilknur’s speaking and I’m about ready to book or die.

Roopa Mathur comes up to present on “distance education,” which she co-coordinates. Blah blah blah.

Brenda B: SSAMMO

She passes off to Arleen. She’s talking about the “student success initiative,” and changes to help with that noble effort. Rob’t Melendez stands by her as she yammers. Sounds good, I guess. FERPA (the fed privacy law) is mentioned. New rules. Incoming freshman got priority in registration, so your classes might reflect that. Craig J interjects something, but I didn’t listen. Arleen notes that we have to “write” a student success blah blah blah PLAN. But of course. No doubt they’ll form a committee.

We’ve acquired state money, pumped up counseling services to increase “success.” Melendez: what changed in counseling? Well, I’m glad you asked. More counseling hours. More in person, face to face, advisement (as opposed to online). Probation and dismissal workshops—that’s going great guns, fully supported. I pump M for info about the need for all these P & D workshops. Are students running amok out there? Melendez explains that’s it’s just academic probation. We think on that. It turns out, there’s a high no-show rate for these workshops. No shit?

Diana H (courses maven) rolls up and explains meeting times for curriculum, tech review, hot dog sales, etc. If you serve on one of the tech review committees, you get double credit re committee assignment (since they meet every week).

Brett (the new guy): he says something about new prof develop’t something. Blah blah.

[VP of Ac Sen] Bob U mentions committees he serves on, representing faculty. Lots of ‘em, and they’re important. Mentions resource requests.

That’s about it.

For those interested in an account of yesterday’s Chancellor’s Opening Session (and A400 groundbreaking ceremony), go here:

http://www.dissenttheblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-chancellors-opening-session-live.html

-- Your senator (for now, anyway),

--Roy

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.]

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

• August 13, 2014: "additional bathroom options'

No comments:

Post a Comment