Thursday, September 18, 2014

• September 18, 2014: "big dust balls and black swatches"


Notes on Sept. 18th meeting of the Academic Senate

     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

No comments:

Post a Comment