senate capers: January 2015

Thursday, January 29, 2015

• January 29, 2015: "academic renewal" and "repeat" policies

The notorious V

Senate Meeting Report Jan 29, 2015

I’m in a hurry, so these notes are somewhat rough.

Some important issues, though:

Senate meeting notes for January 29 meeting of the IVC Academic Senate

I arrived a few minutes late. Evidently, the senate had just voted to make our own Lewis Long “past president.” That’s very good news for those who fear that the Senate has grown much too accommodating of Administrative plans, projects, and infamies.

When I arrived [2:20], Tracy F was noting the dire state of parking for students.

The crew cut senator from physical sciences stood up to propose that we “prohibit” solicitation of volunteers for committees during Senate meetings. Taking up too much time, he said. Senate Prez Schmeidler said that that will be “taken under advisement.” (The proposal is manifestly absurd.)

Item 5: Senate Approval of Changes to the 2015-2016 Catalog: “Per Curriculum process, the Curriculum Committee recommends changes to the 2015-2016 catalog.”

Tiffany T of Counseling stood up to present this. (There was some confusion about whether we had jumped ahead to item 8—board policies and administrative regs.)

Evidently, “The College’s Catalog contains the official information regarding Academic Renewal. These documents are updated annually for currency and correctness using a review process that includes consultation with the Academic Senate.” (From Tiffany’s handout, an item from a board agenda [re AR5320].)

“Academic Renewal” is the policy (we have one now) according to which

Previously recorded substandard academic performance may be disregarded it it is not reflective of a student’s demonstrated ability.

Essentially, as things stand, after a period (of three years), a student who has recently demonstrated the seriousness and ability to take courses successfully is permitted a “redo” of a previous unfortunate semester. (A maximum of 2 semesters can be “renewed.”) A student who does the renewal loses all the grades of that unfortunate semester, including the good ones. The proposal is to allow a student to pick and choose the courses to be renewed (from the regrettable semester). The student can apply for “academic renewal” as often as desired, up to 30 units.

Another proposed change concerns the district’s “repeat” policy. As things stand, a student can “repeat” a course, but the repeated course must be offered within the district (i.e., at one of the two colleges). Tiffany and Co. propose that students can retake an IVC or SC course at “other regionally accredited colleges and universities.”

During the meeting, a very wide range of views were expressed, some negative, some positive. It sounded like people wanted to go back to their schools with this. Martin M suggested that, if we do not permit this changes, IVC will once again behave in an offensive “elitist” manner. I suggested that, since students should be encouraged to be mature and sensible, the proposals are moving in the wrong direction (for they are more permissive). Some noted that, if we allow the “repeat” change, our courses will be replaced by courses elsewhere that might fail to reflect our standards. Etc.

In answer to a question, Tiffany asserted that all other local colleges have made these changes. A certain hubby of a certain counselor (a veteran) argued: other colleges do renewal and repeats as per these proposals. Therefore it is right and good that we do likewise.

I almost asked him what he’d do if everybody else marched off of a cliff, but I was feeling particularly generous that day.

These topics are coming up again at this Thursday’s meeting of the Senate.

Next: Exec reports:

Bob U, VP

Resource requests have been routed to appropriate committees. Every resource request has been vetted, passed on. Each will be rated. Will come back with recommendations.

Most got their requests in on time. Thanks.

Great job. It’s in the hopper. Our goal is to fund these things in the beginning of the summer.

Program review:

Process document (called template) was reviewed, updated. SPAC made typographic corrections. No longer called a template. It’s a process. We desperately needed revision. Motion to approve as revised in SPAC. Approved unanimously.

Next, Kathy S (Senate Prez) noted that the all-important faculty hiring policy has dropped off of the list of upcoming BP and AR revisions. That’s not good. Evidently, there’s a lawsuit…an attorney found the policy had problems. Thus removed for revision. Initially, that upset Kathy. But “I love this attorney,” she now said. This is a stupid board policy, shouldn’t have all these details. Should be an AR. “Yeah, attorney!”, says Kathy. The things this guy recommended were all good. The HR people were disturbed, but Kathy was happy. So, there’s a delay, but that might lead to a much bigger improvement. The Chancellor was very reluctant, but suit avoidance has led to this, and that is likely good.

5301 (“repeating” policy proposal)—already discussed earlier. Continuing.

Yadda yadda yadda

There was some discussion about the prospect of deans serving as part-timers in their area. Yadda Yadda Yadda. Awkward situations can occur.

Accept this policy or not? Despite the awkward difficulties.

Kathy notes that having an administrator teach has an upside: teaching can change your perspective for the better.

Public safety camera system

Approved unanimously.

Item 11: --Women’s Studies realignment—is the big one

The Ac Affairs committee wants one more meeting (owing to presence of new members, not up to speed)

Item 16: “Leading from the Middle 2015 Academy” – whatever that is.

We need a volunteer! There’s going to be a trip in a few days.

Item 17 plus and minus grading option. Academic Affairs voted 2/3 against the change. Remain with status quo.

You can bring this back anytime you want. We voted: 17 yes 5 no, so passes.

I do believe that Brittany and I voted against the decision to leave things at status quo.

Item 15 —faculty manual. Roopa. Approve the revision? Yes. Overwhelming (despite my vote)

Curriculum chair load: item 18. Possibility of an assistant chair, not co-chair. Diana is comfortable with former. Delegate certain aspects of curric process. Hopefully, assistant would be a chair-in training. Approved.

Item 19: Teacher of Year workgroup – we need volunteers! Brittany and Brooke voluteered. Done.

Item 20: faculty hires.

Bio
LD Specialist
Economics
History
English
Geography

Approved

Item 21 – student drop survey

Approved

Last 2 items on agenda: committee that need members. Sexual assault district wide workgroup. Celebrating excellence awards. –Ask your faculty. Any volunteers? Work goes on. Melanie and Brooke volunteered for celebrating excellence group.

That was about it.

--R

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

• January 13, 2015: $122K for Prof Development

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING- GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1. Introduction of guests - Glenn R., Linda F, Lianna Z., Cathleen G. , Craig J.

2. Senate Policies, Governance and Business - Overview

3. Welcome new hires - Mindy Wolfe - DSPS Counselor, Denise Donne - Admin. , New staff and rearrangements.

4. Planning and Decision Making Manual Revision - send any changes, revisions, or suggestions to asenate@ivc.edu

5. CTE Task Force update- June M. - Economic and Work Force Development plan being worked on - for 2014-2020. She will be sending a link to that- a good document to look at. All are welcome to join the task force . Be aware, there is a new process for applying for Perkins funds with an early February due date. June says they can help you with the application. There will be an official Perkins group to help review and look at the requests - more formalized and transparent than before.

6. Kathy working on having presentation materials from Flex Week on the intranet.

7. DE Task Force- Roopa - all invited to join the workgroup. The DE faculty manual is in it’s final phase of revision - please send any suggestions and corrections.

8. SSAMMO Update - Jeff. W - SSP Plan worked on last semester. This semester working on revising online orientation. Also working on routing students to the appropriate assessment for English.

9. Committee Assignments - Kathy encouraged all faculty to become involved in more committees. This will give faculty many voices in many areas to strengthen us as a group. Remember, you can participate in as many committees as you wish beyond your contractual obligation.

10. Faculty Association news - Also - please help and support the association and show up to the meetings and the luncheon. Kathy has an 8 seater - she is offering a round trip in her van to the luncheon tomorrow at Saddleback. Contract is in negotiations currently. Lewis Long is the chief negotiator and has also volunteered to be Past President for the Academic Senate.

11. Bob Urell - Vice President - Budget update: Overviewed Davit’s presentation from this week. Bob reports good work in budget analysis and transparency. Even though the State budget numbers look generous, we have some big expenses to look at - STRS and PERS and the end of Prop 30. They will be looking carefully at planning. Professional Development money up to $122k THIS year from $60k doubled - and the Classified staff now have $35k . Since we only found out half way through the academic year- if we don’t use all of it, we can roll it over to next academic year- this won’t impact the amount we get next year. We are also hiring 6 faculty members for the next academic year. The big news, says Bob, is now they have identified all the sources of funding and have made that transparent and clear. This is very helpful in the process. When you attend a training for the new resource request form, they will help you fill it in right there. They are due 1/20. Dean has until 1/28 to review and ask for further info. It will go on to other committees and final funding decisions will be made by July 31. The idea is - you will be getting your money for fall semester. Part of the form has you identify the funding source you believe could/should fund it. As you select it, it will pop up a list of requirements for that funding - if you fit all of those, you will be directed to that . Your Dean and others will be immediately notified. The goal is to make sure we are using the best matched funds for resources.

12. Academic Affairs - Brett M. - Additional funds for professional development going to help fill the demand that we seem to get. With the money now increased, please submit your requests - still taking requests - what we don’t use can be rolled over to next year. Please keep sending your applications - this helps us secure more funds. Also Kathy mentioned- put all your hours into flex -even over the 38 hours- this shows the amount of work in the year end report to all those looking at the report how much the average faculty member is really doing. Please keep putting those in. Good info for the human resources and the board to see - its “voice and power”.

13. President - Kathy S. - Accreditation update. - work is being done and the report due date is now moved to January 2017 - so we are going to be in good shape time wise as we try to stick with the same schedule of work when we thought the date was Fall 2016. We can use the extra time for the consultation process that is always rushed at the end. Subsections will be sketched this semester. Please participate as much as possible.

Here are a few areas that need faculty representation currently : Email asenate@ivc.edu or one Jeff or Cheryl or Melanie.

a) Teacher of the year work Group - will meet once or twice to evaluate and select - Dennis Gordon needs two faculty members -

b) IVC’s Celebrating Excellence Awards - Diane Oaks looking for a faculty member to serve on the committee to help select.

c) Commencement Speaker Task force - for next years and potentially following years - Diane Oaks looking for 4 faculty members to serve.

d) A district group for the BP/AR on Sexual Assault needs membership to work on the policy and regulation . Will also work on trainings, establishing processes etc - there are new laws— Linda F. looking for faculty members.

14. Senior Day - Tuesday March 3 - In and Out, Booths and more useful info for students - less “carnival” apparently. Please have a booth to represent your program to help the students understand what you offer.

15 - Craig Hayward - Hiring a research and planning analyst - needs a faculty member to serve on the hiring committee - please submit your name ASAP - recruitment already completed. asenate@ivc.edu

16. Leading From the Middle Academy - (Began in 2013). IVC would send a team including faculty (funded by SSP Funding) administrators and researchers. - - Interested in activating improvements from the middle to address the implementation of the Success Act. The Curriculum has 8 major topics. There will be 3 face to face session each lasting several days, 4 webinars, and a coaching support system. Student equity, basic skills, and student success. Please send names at asenate@ivc.edu or to a senator. The first session is February 19 - 21.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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.]