senate capers: • August 21, 2014: LGBTQ Campus Liaison

Thursday, August 21, 2014

• August 21, 2014: LGBTQ Campus Liaison

Senate meeting, 8/21/14

Lots of non-Senate visitors today, including IVC Prez Glenn R, Police Chief Will Glen, Shack, David G, Cathleen G, Linda Fontanilla, et al.

Public comments:

Tracy F informed us that her Friday morning hike event now gets flex credit.

VP Linda F yammered about the availability of new money, something about the Student Success Act. We’ve got to decide how to use these funds, and we’re thinking of hiring 4 full-time counselors, more matriculation staff, etc. Waiting for first draft of IVC budget.

IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore spoke to the group. He wants to help “with the flow of communication,” he says. Wants to answer any questions we might have.

Naturally, nobody had any questions for him. He, or his suit, sat down.

Police Chief Will Glen addressed anxieties and problems concerning parking stickers. He’s trying to set up some kind of online thingy. Right now, stickers are available, but, if they run out, his office will go with some kind of grace period.

He says the college anticipated increased enrollments by creating new parking spaces, etc. in the grass, so parking has gone well thus far. (I spoke privately with Will recently and he seemed anxious to explain why he does what he does. He noted that, down at Saddleback, they tow parking offenders, but he and his dept. really try to avoid that here.)

Exec reports:

Ac. Sen. Prez Kathy Schmeidler:

The Senate Cabinet was busy over the summer, attending lots of meetings. Looks like we’re finally moving forward with ATEP, our troubled Tustin facility. (There was a fair amount of blathering about ATEP during this meeting.) Kathy announced that there’s been an increase in reassigned time for the Curriculum Chair (Diana H) [up to 9] and Vice President (Bob U) [up to 6]. That’s good, but I asked if there’s any movement with regard to increasing reassigned time for faculty chairs. Um, that’s a Faculty Union issue, said Kathy.

As we move forward with ATEP, we’ll need volunteers to serve on the various committees. Same for the new round of Accreditation (yep, that’s gearing up). HR presented training for (faculty) EE0’s reps on hiring committees during flex week, but few attended. If you are interested, let us know. Scholarship committee is looking for members. Any interest? We need to show interest or this “opportunity” will be lost. (Good grief. How long have we been at this? I don’t think they want this thing fixed.)

VP Bob Urell:

Bob attended the budget committee meeting yesterday. Davit’s presentation is available

http://inside.ivc.edu/committees/SPOBDC/_layouts/PowerPoint.aspx?PowerPointView=ReadingView&PresentationId=/committees/SPOBDC/BDRPC%20Meetings/2014-15%20Meetings%20(July%202014-June%202015)/2014-08-20%20BDRPC%20Meeting/BDRPC%20Budget%20Presentation%208-20-2104.pptx&Source=http%3A%2F%2Finside%2Eivc%2Eedu%2Fcommittees%2FSPOBDC%2FSitePages%2FHome%2Easpx%3FRootFolder%3D%252Fcommittees%252FSPOBDC%252FBDRPC%2520Meetings%252F2014%252D15%2520Meetings%2520%2528July%25202014%252DJune%25202015%2529%252F2014%252D08%252D20%2520BDRPC%2520Meeting%26FolderCTID%3D0x012000C6C2AEE3A41A8A43BAC808FB6C32F951%26View%3D%7B7BD81552%2D6A9C%2D4A59%2DB505%2DD3D004D2233E%7D&DefaultItemOpen=1

Do take a look. There’s new info on resource requests (an old sore subject).

Ac Affairs dude Brent McKim (Design Model Making Instructor):

He’s looking for suggestions, volunteers for our speaker series (DALS and IVC2IVC).

Curriculum maven Diana Hurlbut:

Her committee’s stuff is now available at insideIVC (at the college website). The course revision schedule is available on Curricunit (which she calls C-net). October 1 is deadline for new courses, November 1 for programs. I think her committee meets every Tuesday at 2. Look at old May email for deadlines for course revision. These days, the state is being very picky, and all of our work experience courses got kicked back. Blah blah blah.

Item 7: Board Policies and Administrative Regulations:

Looks like we’re not ready to take action on any of this. The review committee met in June and has not met since. Please look at the BP concerning student rights (5530):

https://sharepoint.socccd.edu/chancellor/dwc/bparac/Handouts/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fchancellor%2Fdwc%2Fbparac%2FHandouts%2F2014%20-%20Meeting%20Handouts%2F04-18-14%20Handouts

Roy's pal, Teddy

(This is at InsideIVC.) Some issues here.

Uh-oh, looks like Ray Chandos has volunteered for the BPAR (BP review) committee. (That can’t be good.) That’ll be up for a vote next time. Any interest in serving on that committee? It’s pretty important. (Ray used to serve as Raghu Mathur’s mole, providing reports on faculty conduct after every senate meeting.)

Item 8: Grade Grievance and Student Discipline Panel Pool

We’re looking for volunteers. Any interest?

Item 10: security and safety

“Academic Affairs Committee is engaged in conversation with the Safety Committee concerning campus safety and security policies and procedures.” Kathy had nothing for us; hopes to have updates soon.

Item 11: Faculty Advisor Handbook (For Student Clubs)

There’s been a fair amount of carping about the old handbook. Somebody’s working on it; no updates.

Item 12: Training to be an Equal Employment Opportunity Rep on Hiring Committees

“Very few faculty members attended the Professional Development Week training session. Is there interest in providing this training to faculty members?” Use it or lose it.

Item 13: 2015-2016 Academic Calendar

There seems to be some faculty interest in a winter intersession (January), which would not offer ordinary classes but classes that can be presented in a brief period (e.g., field trips, counseling, different timing modules, extended studies, etc.). WHAT DO YOU THINK? (No, I’m really asking, and so is Kathy.) What’s the sense of the faculty?

At last board meeting, the calendar went to a vote, but one board member, who had been approached by “some faculty,” had concerns about the calendar, owing to the January break. (Trustee James Wright, as I recall.) But the calendar had already been approved by all groups, including the senates (thus the faculty). Clearly, once again, the Saddleback nurses aren’t happy and they’re pounding their little fists on the floor. In any case, we need to know: do faculty wish to pursue this calendar? We need faculty input. (So tell Brittany or me what you think.)

Getting back to the calendar issue: do our faculty even care about this calendar issue (the intersession, etc.)? Let us know what you think.

I reminded everyone of the old issue of “separate calendars” (i.e., the two colleges going their own way). Kathy reminded us that the Chancellor and IT are dead set against that. But many other groups favor the change.

Item 14: CTE Coordinator

June McLaughlin - approved

Item 15: IVC Faculty Involvement in Contract Education, Community Education, and Continuing Education

“Senators requested that information be provided as to the process of determining faculty involvement in Contract Education, Community Education and Continuing Education.” Our new dean will come and present about this.

We faculty want a voice regarding this kind of instruction, since it all flies under the IVC banner. (There’ve been disturbing problems in the past. See here.)

Item 16: Host ASCCC [State Ac. Senate] Executive Committee Meeting 11/12

“ASCCC asked [us] to host their November 12th meeting at IVC.” Glenn’s onboard with this. Are we? (We briefly discussed the recent turmoil at the State Ac. Senate, much of it concerning the Pres of that body. (There were transparency concerns and, in general, concerns about how the state senate was run.) She’s now out and things will likely return to normal. Taking these meetings on the road is part of the “healing process.” So, yes, we are on board with this. (We voted in favor.)

Item 17: Senate-Organized Orientation for New and Interested Faculty Members

“New Full-time faculty receive an ongoing orientation through the Office of Instruction. It was suggested that the Academic Senate offer an additional orientation for new and interested faculty members.” –Do we favor this? Seems like a good idea and Craig is amenable. Yes.

Item 18: LGBTQ Campus Liaison

The Ed Code requests (?) each district “designate an employee at each [campus] as a point of contact for the needs of [LGBT] faculty, staff, and students….”

For now, VP Linda F does this job, though she’s not a designated liaison, etc. She’ll be holding a meeting (Aug 26) to pursue this matter.

We discussed the situation; it seemed to several of us that we should indeed go forward, identifying this liaison, etc. In the end, a motion was passed according to which the Senate supports considering the creation of this designated person. That’s good; it’ll go forward.

Some of us wanted a stronger motion, but that might have inspired opposition. (At least one senator—he hails from the Mathurian end of campus—voted against pursuit of this, and our own Ac. Sen. VP seemed to have a problem with it.) Please attend Linda F’s meeting (on the 26th, at 2 p.m.) if you have any interest in any of this. Brooke Choo seemed to be the point person (very much in favor of the campus liaison idea); send her word if you want her to represent you.

So, in the end, the Senate moved to support the consideration of this position through a formal work group. Academic Affairs will head this up.

There was a bizarre discussion of ways to keep input about this “anonymous.” What was that all about? Anyway, anyone who wishes his or her input to be anonymous will be accommodated. (Contact Brooke. Identify yourself as “Deep Throat.”)

Also, we’re looking for a faculty advisor for the LGBTQ student club. (Years ago, I was the faculty advisor to GLAS, but the group seemed to melt away after a few weeks.) (And, no, I’m not gay [etc.], not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

Part Time Faculty Reps on Senate: please let us know if you would like to be put forward for this! (These notes are sent to the full Hum faculty.)

Senator Roy Bauer

Your senators:

Roy Bauer – rbauer@ivc.edu

Brittany Adams – badams26@ivc.edu

—But, again, there’s the availability of a part-time faculty rep!

My sister's cat, TigerAnn, says "hey"

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, August 21, 2014

• August 21, 2014: LGBTQ Campus Liaison

No comments:

Post a Comment