FRIENDLINESS
STICKERS.
Murmur…murmur…murmur…murmur. That’s all I seemed to hear at
today’s senate meeting. My deafness helps explain that, but, so too does a kind
of late semester madness.
Lewis Long attended the meeting and turned out to be The Guest Who
Had Something To Say. It was all correct and important, I’m sure. But pretty
much all that I heard was murmuring.
As usual, there were “public comments.” Diana H of Curriculum
reminded us all that “friendliness” stickers were available. Stick ‘em on your
office door, I guess. It says you’re arms are open to LGBT folks? I’m not sure,
even though I asked a peevish Diana to explain what she was talking about. She
snarled a bit, opened her mouth, and I just flat failed to listen to what came
out.
Tracy F said something peevish, too. Something about copyrights.
Piscilla R, a good egg, noted that five or so of today’s agenda
items concern “safety.” More on that in a moment.
Somebody said something about accreditation, aka the eternal
return. How could it possibly matter what they said?
SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM.
There was considerable yammering about our long-troubled
Scholarship Program. The system is so broken and so apparently irreparable that
various sensible people have suggested putting the thing on pause for a year
while we finally fix the damned thing (or abandoning it and go it alone). In
response, Ac Sen Prez Kathy Schmeidler has made the predictable noises: “No no
no. Must have scholarships.” That sure sounded like something that Glenn might
say, sans cogitation (i.e., in his customary manner).
She also tends to say essentially: the folks who handle the
mechanicals of the scholarship program are very willing, now, to correct any
mistakes or problems in the system. I.e., “It’s a new day.”
Alleged evidence of this new-day-itude is the availability of the
following mechanism: one can impersonate a student and apply in their behalf.
See if the student you’ve defined is guided to the right scholarship!
In the meeting, it seemed to be a known factoid that our very own
Lisa A had availed herself of that mechanism and that, predictably, the system
failed to guide her to the appropriate scholarship. Natch, she apprised The
Mechanicals Squad, whereupon I said, “we’ve been here many times before. Watch
them fail.”
Luckily, in the room, there was no need to argue that, owing to
Lisa’s experiment, it was clear that the broken system remains broken. But,
once again, Kathy insisted that it’s a “new day,” and we should keep testing
the system until it works. If you’re really having trouble with it, said Kathy,
contact Karen Orlando of the Foundation Office. Discover and address the
glitches now. The “drop dead” date for these fixes, evidently, is December 3.
It’s “put up or shut up,” said Kathy.
Tracy asked: do these people have the expertise to fix this
thing? “Blah blah blah” was the answer.
BIG
CONTROVERSIAL HIRES.
The thick peevitude of that discussion led to yet another peevitudinal
episode: the dean for Arts/Business and the Foundation “Exec Director” issue.
We need replacements, and nobody’s too happy about that. (“They’re gonna hire
an idiot again; they’re gonna screw us again.”)
Kathy assured us, however, that, for both, a “nationwide search”
would be conducted.
EARLY
COLLEGE.
Next came carpage about the college’s Early College Program. Tracy
explained one unfortunate phenomenon: high school instructors are territorial
about their rooms and, so, they leave all sorts of peculiar writing on the
board, etc. She alluded to “all those problems and more.”
Kathy
suggested that we let “Academic Affairs” do their work to address these
problems.
FACULTY
EVALUATION IN THE MASTER AGREEMENT.
In deference to ex-Senate Prez Lewis Long, we jumped ahead to item
11, which concerned efforts to draw up the “master agreement” (faculty
employment). In particular, the Faculty Association (union’s) Long was there to
consult with the Senate re “faculty evaluation,” etc.
Lewis explained that the district is pursuing narrowness with
regard to what may be allowed in an instructor’s “portfolio”; the union is much
more open to what may be included.
Further, the FA is advocating allowing an “advocate” (for the
probationary faculty) to serve on the TRC (Tenure Review Committee—for
probationary faculty), since TRC members are in the difficult and sometimes
conflicting position of being both evaluators and mentors. What if the faculty
can’t handle the classroom? He or she would not want to bring this to a member
of the (status quo) TRC. He could, however, ask the advocate for help.
Finally, as things now stand, the process permits reference only
to what comes up in the “observation” of the classroom. (This seems to be a
residue of the “Mathur” regime. Faculty pursued this constraint to protect
themselves. But those days seem over.) The FA feels that the instructor should
be able to add things that are not part of the observation.
The discussion led to mention of “student evaluations” (i.e.,
evaluations of instructors by students). By law, evidently, SEs must be a part
of the evaluation process. But, in fact, our district has not used SEs for some
time and, amazingly, it doesn’t even possess an “instrument” for such evaluations!
Some Senators guffawed and bloviated over this scandalous law-breakage; others,
including Lewis, responded with noises and gestures that said: “So what else is
new in this district?”
Lewis said that we should change the evaluation document so that
it includes five grades, not three. Having only three seems to encourage
giving only “excellent” marks to those who are doing an adequate job. Etc.
So, in the spirit of launching a “conversation” or a “discussion”
about evaluations, we “continued” the item. Be sure to give us input asap.
Lewis will return to the next senate meeting and we’ll likely decide then
whether to approve the proposed document.
Item 7 concerned the ongoing board policy and AR review process.
Kathy noted that, at the last board meeting, the Saddleback Ac Senate caused
our old friend BP 4011.1 (I think that’s it)—faculty hiring policy—to be
pulled. Our Senate had no objection to it but our southern colleagues were
displeased that, according to the modified policy, the Vice President could be
replaced with a dean at the second level (Presidential level) interview. I
think I got that right. Not sure.
STUDENT
RIGHTS AND GRIEVANCES.
Among the BP/ARs in the hopper (not yet up for vote) was BP/AR
5530 (Student Rights and Grievances). Lewis was also determined to opine about
that. The FA, he said, has “serious concerns” about the policy, owing to its
failure to include crucial criteria for violations, etc. As it is written,
every grievance will be rejected, necessarily. Not good. Also, as it is
written, the policy lacks “teeth.”
In the end, the body (the senate) approved a motion expressing our
agreement with the FA: this policy ain’t kosher.
SAFETY.
We were running late. Priscilla briefly described the raft of
recommendations that she and her colleagues on the Safety Committee had come up
with:
•
Campus
Emergency Alarm System Upgrade (the existing system has failed often)
•
Emergency
Building Marshals (volunteer Marshals)
•
Locks
on the inside of classroom doors (in case of lunatics)
•
Campus
personal safety training (Regular training for students and employees?)
•
Parking
areas cameras (Install ‘em?)
•
Emergency
preparedness training (Flex events)
My notes fail me here. Did we just say “yes” to all this? I think
so. If not, we will surely do that next time, ‘cause Priscilla is a good egg.
Your
Senator,
ROY
Your
senators:
Roy Bauer (Philosophy): rbauer@ivc.eduBrittany Adams (History): badams26@ivc.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment