senate capers: February 2015

Thursday, February 19, 2015

• February 19, 2015: final exam week, admin reorg

ACADEMIC SENATE NOTES

1. Guests: Ryan E. ( New head of Student Life, G. Roquemoore, C. Doughtery, C. Greiner, Dennis G.

2. Public Comments: a) Glen R.: Honored Diana Hurlbut for i her appointment to the California Academic Senate 2) April is Part Time Faculty Appreciation Month 3) Dennis: Foundation Awards dinner reminder.

3. Kathy S: Data is now collected from the District Climate Survey that we took last fall. Info to be coming soon. Also, call out for readers for proposals for the Student Success money coming in. These would be proposals from all over the state. Let Kathy know if you are interested in doing this.

4. Bob U.: a) Resource requests: There is a glitch in the new system - they are working through it - approximately $35 million in requests that are being sorted. b) Basic Aid - $2.1 million proposal to redo the technology in the board room ( I clarified this amount three times) - please send input as we will give DTEC rep (Roopa) our recommendations for her to take to the committee that works on this. She encourages your feedback :) 3) A new position to temporarily help Davit is being flown (one year temp. position) 4.) New full time custodian will also be hired plus 3-4 part time custodians to help alleviate all the custodial issues we’ve been having. Also commented that the emails from head of facilities and maintenance have been complete, friendly, helpful, and effective. :) 5) Working on a 5 year budget projection. There will be an increase in STRS and PRS payments and this presents a concern for the budget, but rumor from the state says we would be getting our PROP 98 money and an augmentation to cover this increased payment as well. Nothing for sure, but Bob will bring the 5 year projection for us to look at as soon as it is complete.

5) Brett M: 1) Additional professional development money is available. $62 K ($31$ to augment our professional development funds we usually get) and $31K is a response t a request to fund faculty members to go to conferences on behalf of the college. Please keep requesting funds for conferences - this helps make the case for our obvious need for more funding in this area.

6) Diana H. 1) If you need help reworking your programs to include Honors, please let Diana know- she will help you . 2) March 28 - Regional curriculum meeting in El Cajon. If you are interested, you are all invited.

7) 2016-2017 Academic Calendar: Spring classes continue to begin after the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday , commencement before Memorial Day, Spring break mostly in the middle, taking wednesday before Thanksgiving out makes us short one instructional day during fall. So it remains the Monday after finals. We voted to approve the calendar.

8) District Wide Planning Council Membership - approved to increase faculty membership now to have 3. Currently we have Kathy and Roopa. Please let us know if you would like to serve on this district wide committee. They meet twice a semester and have one retreat in the end of May/early June; purpose to meet meet to go over district wide strategic plan to make sure it is moving forward , work on district planning manual, etc. Next meeting at IVC in April.

9) District Proposed Technology Projects - proposals : There are a lot of project proposals. Look through the list and let Roopa know which ones you feel are important . Also, we can discuss these at a school meeting and let them know our collective opinions in addition to personal opinions. Celina, can we possibly bring the list to the next meeting to look at?

10) Final Exam week - Should we switch back to final exam week? Debate ensued. I presented our school’s opinion to keep the current schedule. Math and two of the science departments prefer the old way. We are to discuss further with our schools and take it back to senate at our next meeting. This discussion began from within our college - this is not because Saddleback has the final schedule.. Please send me your thoughts on the final exam schedule in email form so we can represent your thoughts accurately. Thank you.

11) Search Committee for Executive Director, College Foundation - please let us know if you are interested in serving - there will be two faculty slots available. Please consider. Email aseante@ivc.edu or let me know or Kathy S.

12) Need 4 faculty members for the Commencement Speaker task force. Please let me know if you are interested.

13) Administration Reorganization - VPI has proposed reorganizing of the deans - we need to meet and discuss as a school - but nothing settled. Craig will be meeting with School of Social and Behavior Sciences. He believes he needs more managers and deans. Two points of discussion: how many he needs/gets and if so, how it reorganizes.

Friday, February 6, 2015

February 6, 2015: note to Hum faculty

Here are some further remarks re the Academic Senate's resolution in support of Academic Freedom and free speech, etc.

At yesterday’s Senate meeting, few senators knew what, if anything, had inspired the proposed resolution to support Academic Freedom, etc. The Senate President explained the resolution without mentioning any specific event or events. As I recall, she alluded to “events” (in the plural) and not to a single event. These events, she seemed to say, looked like a first step down a slippery slope.
No doubt, she and others are rightly sensitive to “free speech” concerns here at IVC since, for many years, the SOCCCD and its colleges were poster children for serious civil liberties abuses. You will recall that, back in 2003, faculty at IVC were ordered not to discuss the war in Iraq in their classrooms. (BTW: If that doesn’t disturb you, you are a moron and an asshole and you should go back to watching Fox News.)
The resolution does not object to “family friendly events” or any event. The resolution is a statement of commitment to the Constitution (especially, presumably, the 1st Amendment) and to the collegiate tradition of Academic Freedom. It leaves unaddressed the question of whether some aspect of any actual college event (such as Monday’s goofy talent show) represented a failure of that commitment.
The “guidelines and regulations” document for the talent show could have indicated that the show was a “family friendly event” (if such was the case; I don’t know) and that acts should be appropriate for that kind of audience. In fact, however, the document makes no mention of families or family friendliness. It does refer to “inappropriate” performances, a phrase that normally raises eyebrows in the context of higher education, that bastion of free speech. (Efforts to determine who authored the regulations, we were told, have produced lots of finger pointing and denials.)
Evidently some readers failed to detect the tone of my original post. The post tended to mock (1) the seriousness with which the authors of the resolution seemed to respond to the censorious spirit of this goofy talent show and (2) talent shows. I wrote the post in this spirit: it’s just a goofy goddam talent show. Let it go.
Again, evidently failing to detect tone, some readers seemed to suppose that my colleagues in the School of Humanities seek really to perform nude dog and lip-sinc acts, covered in chocolate or festooned with weaponry. No. (I must say, some of our readers are quite stupid.)

One more thing, I just finished speaking with a certain Rebellious Friend. She offers a conspiracy theory. The talent show and its regulations, she assures me, are part of a grand conspiracy to thwart Raghu Mathur's planned return to glory via a lip-sinc performance, in Elvis attire, of "Wind Beneath My Wings," accompanied by a delightful sparkler display emerging from the Great Man's fundament.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

• February 5, 2015: no smoking policy, Women's Studies

ACADEMIC SENATE NOTES

• INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS: Henry Carnie - History department, Ben Guzman , Cathleen G., Mark M., Michael Chang, Mohan (ASIVC). Craig J., Dennis G., Jamie P, and Linda F.

• PUBLIC COMMENTS: Tuesday is last day for students to apply for scholarships - please remind them to apply.

• SCHOOL REPORTS: A) Online tutoring now available 24/7 for students - if you have any questions, let Brooke know. B) library now open Saturdays C) Traci F - wants it on the record that any discussion of school reorganization be done in open forums. D) Steve R. “Faculty reaction is not the same as faculty input”. E) Speech: We are hosting the Irish National Team - invite your students. Our debate team is currently second in the nation - less than one point away from number one in the nation AGAIN. Competition this weekend might change that.

• STANDING REPORTS: 1) ASIVC - Cutting about 50% of their officers. These are positions that don’t really have a role and aren’t doing what they should. Something happened that they now have 80 commissioners who get priority registration. Some reorganization. 2) Safety Committee - getting us new sleds for emergency evacuation of the disabled - and apparently, the funding is being expedited.

• ACADEMIC RENEWAL AND REPETE DELETE - Robert Melendez reviewed and explained the meanings and changes. - we are going to continue discussion as senate decided we needed more discussion at School level. Jeff W. made a suggestion to have Ruben G. come and speak at our school meeting regarding Title 5 Compliance - we might be out of compliance. We can discuss this further at a meeting. Karima - can we schedule Ruben to come and speak at our next LLR meeting?

• NO SMOKING POLICY - Board Policy approved, and now A/R has been approved. As of January’s chancellors meeting it was all approved. Part of the A/R dictates that we have a period of time to educate people and put signs up to make sure all are aware. The intention is that signage is going to be put up and education to going to occur. Police will begin with warnings probably the beginning of fall. Their intention is if anyone is smoking on the property, he or she will be advised to stop. If they immediately comply, no problem. Non- compliance: an officer can then issue a warning citation. This citation can be resolved with some actions which is to be set up such as watching a video - like traffic school. If they do it again, then possibly a ticket can be issued. Discussions under way about signage costs, looks, etc.

• SCHOOL REALIGNMENT: School of Humanities and School of Guidance Counseling have agreed that the courses in Women’s Studies will be split. Beginning Fall 2015 Women’s Studies 10 and WS 20 will be in Humanities. WS 120 will stay in Guidance and Counseling and will be renamed as a Guidance and Counseling course. Curriculum voted to assign the discipline of Women’s Studies to Humanities. A great example of discussion and collaboration and working together.

• MARQUEE ON JEFFREY AND IRVINE CENTER DRIVE - Can we update this sign?? Steve recommended a caption contest.

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.]