We had guests, but nobody special, I guess.
Michelle of Counseling brought “further” information about for-profit colleges,
including the U of Phoenix. You’ll recall that President Roquemore held a big
Photo Op several weeks ago in which he and a U of P rep noisily signed an MOU,
allowing IVC students to save $10 on tuition (at U of P). That created quite a
flap, since U of P, like so many for-profits, has an extensive and continuing
history of predatory (and other unsavory) practices, to the detriment of
students. Michelle provided an official-looking list of colleges and
universities that, owing to federal rules, are ineligible to receive Cal
Grants. (Institutions are placed on the list if student loan default rates
are 15.5% or higher or grad rates are below 30%.) Michelle noted that the U of
Phoenix is on the list. (U of P loan default rate: 26%; grad rate is 19%. 65%
of U of P students acquire Federal loans.)
I noted that Kaplan College (or at least some of its campuses) are on the list.
IVC has a loose association with Kaplan.
I did not say (but now note) that the institution that employees former
Chancellor Mathur is also on the list (Argosy U, OC).
One senator (MH) drew attention to conditions in her classroom, A204. It’s
“filthy,” she said. It sports “big dust balls and black swatches[?]” of
who-knows-what. Senators squirmed.
An unfamiliar face announced that a student debate will be held on campus on
the 29th. Evidently, students will be proposing or opposing the
following: “Obama’s coalition against ISOL is misguided.” We all stared at this
guy.
One of our colleagues recently reported as follows: “Last Friday, faculty from
IVC and Saddleback gathered for the first Sabbatical Committee meeting of the
year. During that time, we learned that Saddleback faculty who serve on this
committee meet their contractual committee requirement, but faculty at IVC do
not. This seems a bit unfair to me.”
Indeed. I brought this up at today’s meeting. To my surprise, my remark was met
with some incredulity. Ac. Sen. Pres. Kathy S responded. (As you know, she is
also an officer with the Faculty Association, i.e., the faculty union.) She
seemed to say that an instructor’s committee assignment’s counting (or not) re
their committee obligation is decided by that instructor and their dean.
If anyone has a problem in this regard, they should contact the union grievance
officer, namely, Kathy Schmeidler.
A social scientist reported that chairs keep disappearing from her classroom.
Her distress was evident. Many in the room, however, were more amused than
sympathetic. Those SS folks can sound mighty loony.
The senate battled against a gremlin (or gremlins) in the electronic
vote-counting system we were using. The keys to press for “yes” or “no” kept
changing. Eventually, it was determined that tossing the remote hard against
the wall would count as “no.” All other actions would be interpreted as “yes.”
ACCREDITATION: the group is in the early stages of forming workgroups for the
various standards. I resisted the temptation to recommend that we leave a
burning sack of sh*t on Babs Beno’s doorstep.
SLOs: we are required to have an “outward-facing page” concerning SLOs and our
SLO “performance” on the college website. Does anyone have any ideas about how
to configure this page and what to include on it? Several persons offered
snarkular remarks and snorts and grunts. Kathy said simply, “we have to do what
we have to do.” I interpret that remark as follows: let’s not fight these
stupid requirements. Let’s just give ‘em what they want.
The Pro-IVC (foundation) thingy seems to be experiencing difficulty. One
senator suggested that a faculty committee be formed to promote Pro-IVC—to keep
the dang thing in people’s minds since, evidently, it just won’t stay in there
otherwise. This suggestion was made (and unilaterally rejected) years ago, by
administration. We decided to raise anew the possibility of such a committee
with the Foundation. (There’s been a huge change in foundation board
composition in recent years. Nowadays, the board evidently has little faculty
representation.)
EARLY COLLEGE: Brett (chair of Ac. Affairs) reported that he and the committee
are looking over the “survey results” and working with Chris Hayward (our data
guy). You’ll recall that the Early College program has long been troubled and
that the faculty (via the senate) objected to the program from the very
beginning. Nevertheless, Pres. Roquemore seems committed to it and continues to
promote it and to exploit it for photo ops and such.
Nothing new re BOOKSTORE or the CALENDAR.
Mention was made of the new draft of the Distance Education manual. I copy will
be provided soon. We learned that Saddleback College no longer has a DE
committee; they seem to be reorganizing down there. Or maybe they just went
nuts.
Some yammered at length about grant proposals. I didn’t listen.
Item 6 was the ongoing board policy/administrative regulation revision process.
We were asked to solicit input from “our faculty” especially regarding BP
4011.1, full-time faculty hiring. (The link to this document provided today by
the senate doesn’t seem to work, but I’ll certainly hunt it down for anyone
interested in perusing this draft.)
You’ll recall that BP 4011.1 has a colorful history: about a dozen years ago,
the district violated the state statute according to which this policy must be
jointly agreed upon by the district (board/chancellor) and the senates. The
district’s unrepentant unilateralism led to litigation. Ultimately, the senates
prevailed and in a big way. That resulted in a court-ordered resolution the
yielded a much less obnoxious hiring policy. Some faculty, remembering that
battle (but little else), have resisted any attempt to alter 4011.1, given how
much was necessary to secure faculty rights. As Kathy explained, however, that
is a preposterous argument. We should not fear back-sliding simply because we
urge further changes.
I suggested that, in many ways, we faculty seem increasingly hemmed in by
absurdly anti-intellectual and non-collegiate attitudes and policies at this
college. Consider the construction of faculty offices without a thought to the
need for bookshelves, the ubiquity of military visitations (recruitment
trailers, etc.), prayers, pledges of allegiance, bouncy houses and burgers ‘n’
fries to lure high schoolers, agreements with for-profits, endless 9-11
ceremonies, etc. I suggested that we ought to be pushing back. We can push back
by taking a more radical stance toward the district’s full-time faculty hiring
policy. For instance, it is absurd, I suggested, that the President of the
college essentially does the hiring of full-time faculty, a practice not common
at universities.
In response, I got considerable push-back from Pres. Schmeidler. As usual, she
argued that we need to be circumspect and careful in how we proceed, what we
ask for, what we push for. It seems wise, she suggested, to take an incremental
approach. I argued that we seem always to take this kind of wimpy approach and
that, in terms of that approach, we’ve lost much ground over the years.
Absurdities have come to be accepted simply because they become routine. I
suggested that at least some in the School of Humanities do not agree with this
incremental approach (with regard to 4011.1) and that a blunter (i.e., not
entirely incremental) approach would be welcome. Other senators seemed to
acknowledge that the atmosphere on our campus is hardly collegiate, that it is
often embarrassing (fries and bouncy houses; delightful blue balloons). In the
end, Kathy suggested that we (Humanities faculty, I suppose) draft a
recommendation or proposal.
Kathy mentioned that the proposed draft (4011.1) categorizes faculty (who are
granted seats on hiring committees) in relation to their tenure status,
and this seemed objectionable to many.
Kathy also advised faculty to take a look at the draft for AR 4005(a) (Teaching
Assignments for Administrators and Classified Management Employees) and BP 4310
(Duties and Responsibilities of Dept./Academic Chair).
Item 9 concerned Security and Safety. I noted the curious factoid that
Saddleback College police have pursued security by acquiring a large armored
vehicle from a now-notorious Dept. of Defense program. That’s absurd.
Meanwhile, IVC’s police have acquired, among other things, 15 military
self-defense “clubs.” I asked Kathy to ask Chief Glen why he feels it necessary
to acquire this kind of equipment. She’ll do that. (I thought but did not say:
“Are our cops afraid of our students?”)
Item 11 concerned “Faculty Involvement in Contract Education and Economic
Workforce Development.” Dean Greiner had been invited to make a presentation.
Though she was present at the start of the meeting, when item 11 came up, she
seemed to have exited the building.
There was considerable yammering about the Student Equity Plan – something
discussed at yesterday’s School meeting. The plan is a state-demanded response
to under-representation and under-achievement in some student categories (e.g.,
old people). Senators (e.g., Michelle the counselor) complained about a pattern
of administration failing to solicit faculty input re this plan. (Such
complaints—about planning and doing—are now routine on the Senate floor [and
elsewhere].) Evidently, the report must be completed by some time in January.
Linda F is “forging ahead,” we’re told. That sounded ominous.
Tracy F complained more globally. Yes, things are better than they used to be
(post Mathur). But there’s also some backsliding. Faculty seem often to be left
out of decision-making. Sheesh.
Kathy wryly noted that we don’t have a “right to good management.” Steve took
offense—at least when such remarks are uttered by administrators, if not by the
Sen. Pres. Such sentiments, he said, are condescending, arrogant, and
dismissive. They’re not acceptable. We certainly do appropriately seek good
management. Blah, blah, blah.
A woman named Arlene (I think) yammered a bit about, um, something called the
IVC’s Student Equity Plan draft. I think. We were urged to encourage faculty to
look at this draft, too, I think. Be sure to send in suggestions and comments
to asenate.
Item 14 concerned “Appointments to Academic Planning and Technology Committee
(APTC).” We need a volunteer. Anybody?
The senate briefly discussed Full-time Faculty Hiring Priority List
Development, a matter that produced considerable consternation at yesterday’s
School meeting. Among senators, there are some concerns, e.g., about
implementation of the process. Kathy expressed displeasure that, as things
stand, we might hire faculty whose positions depend on temporary money. Kathy
indicated that our Deans should be discussing the process with us: Tier 1 and 2
and 3, etc. (Karima had this on the agenda yesterday.)
Item 17 concerned “Scholarship Policies and Procedures,” a thorny matter.
Evidently, “The Scholarship Process Workgroup recommends approval of a new
document [i.e., proposed procedures] to guide scholarship process this year
with the intention of reviewing and revising as necessary after the completion
of the process.”
As you know, I was on this committee last semester, and it was a horrible
experience. Sisyphian, it was. I have not read this document but I would be
amazed if it were not both worthless and insulting. It is available for our
perusal, so I guess we’d better look at it. Kathy seemed to think that the new
process is “OK.” Do take a look at it. Feel absurd.
Item 18 concerned the “recommendations of the [Academic Affairs Committee]
regarding distribution of faculty development funds for 2014-2015.” Brett and
his committee have not changed the status quo. Faculty dollar limits (for
support) are $1400 for full-timers and $700 for part-timers—i.e., the status
quo.
We didn’t have time for discussion, and so, instead of raising my objections to
this policy I simply voted against it. (It passed, predictably.) It seems to me
that, given that full-timers make a decent living with good benefits and
part-timers typically do not, the limits should be reversed. Let me know what you
think (although the decision, for this year, has already been made).
Senator
Roy
Your
senators:
Brittany
Adams
Roy
Bauer
