Part I
It was a pretty wild meeting, dominated by
discussion of the recent unpopular faculty hiring decision.
Among visitors today was Dan Walsh, Pres of
the Saddleback College Ac. Senate and a very elderly Bela Lugosi. Dan
seemed to be here to chime in re the faculty hiring issue (he was supportive of
the strong position that Senate leadership seemed to be taking).
We were told to email Joanne Chen with our
complaints and desire relative to the IVC cafeteria. “Gosh, they’re awfully
nice people, but can’t we get more choices of healthy food,” was a common
complaint. “There’s nothing there for vegetarians,” carped a vegetarian. I
nodded with the élan of a vegetarian. Bela, in the corner, hissed.
Kathy commenced speechifyin’ like she does.
She said she’d keep her remarks short, but they failed to respond to her
intention.
With regard to the recent
explanatory/apologetic letter from VPI Craig Justice regarding the rationale for
eliminating the three faculty hires: there are two distinct issues, said Kathy:
- The number of positions.
- Which faculty positions?
Kathy reminded us that, “at the end of the
day,” the senate and other groups offer only recommendations to the President.
The final decisions are made by the President, the “decider.”
The big picture here, according to Kathy, is
essentially this: administration seems to have made the decision to hire only 6
faculty (not the nine that had been pursued) back in mid-December, but, oddly,
they kept that particular light under a bushel—the decision was not
communicated to other groups as per “collegiate consultation” or “shared
governance.” According to Kathy, when asked why they failed to communicate this
decision for three long months, they said: “gosh, we thought those guys were
gonna tell you guys.” Lots of finger-pointing, evidently. SNAFU. No surprise.
Last year, the process was a model of
transparency and such, and so we all expected things to proceed apace this
year. But that’s not what happened. Convenient opacity happened.
Glenn and Craig have essentially apologized
(said Kathy). Academic Senate leadership has pressed hard for assurances that
procedures will be put into place (or whatever) to make sure this communication
breakdown does not happen again. (At one point I noted that this confusion,
incompetence, and failure of transparency is an established pattern among Rocky
and his friends. We need to think about a “vote of no confidence,” I said.
(Someone
shrieked.)
Evidently, the planning committees were never
clued in about the decision. And so, when Craig’s memo (announcing the
decision) was promulgated last week, it came as a “shock” to many. Many of us
were “dismayed.” (I happen to know that, weeks earlier, “word” was that
administration had already made this decision, and so at least one faculty
member mentioned this to Senate leadership, but that faculty member’s
suggestion was rudely dismissed. Sadly, no mention of this episode was made at
today’s meeting.)
We were told: there was quite a noisy Budget
committee meeting yesterday in which senate leadership took Davit and Glenn
(Craig was absent) to task for these failings. In response, Glenn pledges to
avoid this sort of “lapse” in future.
The other issue, of course, is the faculty
positions that made it to the list, especially the Automation, Electronics,
Electrical and Robotics position (and, secondarily, the Laser position)—and the
ones that did not. You’ll recall that the Robot Hire was the choice of the
deans (Tier 3), who appear to have modified the position considerably over the last
few months (including its school location). It morphs.
At one point, Kathy flashed the relevant
section of the Board Policy re Tier 3 positions, and it clearly states that
administrators were obliged to consult with relevant faculty in identifying
desired hires. It’s clear that that did not occur.
The always genteel Ilknur Erbas White, math
instructor, was on hand to explain, in her always subtle fashion, the degree to
which faculty in her area were left out of the loop in the development and
definition of this position (which is now located in Math). Later, whilst
discussing the Laser hire (I think), physics guy Roy McCord told a similar
tale, repeatedly using the word “shabby” to describe how all parties,
especially faculty, have been treated in the pursuit of this position. Ilknur
made clear that the college is utterly unprepared to provide
teaching/students/program for this hire. Later in the meeting, Science Dean
Lianna Zhao made similar points. Meanwhile, very strong cases can be made for
new Math hires and other hires (including learning disabilities). The
discussion was utterly one-sided and pretty overwhelming.
But fun.
It looks like Glenn’s “vision” for ATEP is
more important than providing the kind of instructors we actually need (was the
feeling in the room, variously expressed in verbiage and body language).
In the course of the discussion, Kathy
(Schmeidler) and Bob (Urell) explained that they have always sought to make the
hiring process (and other processes) more open and participatory. Toward that
end, as members of the budget/planning committees, they were regularly given
budget updates and projections, which made the relevant data clear whilst
deliberations progressed. Unfortunately, this time around, the updates and
projections, though repeatedly requested, did not materialize, and Kathy/Bob
were caught by surprise when, all of a sudden, the decision to cease the three
hires, seemingly based on FON data, came to light. (Kathy, or at least Bob,
apologized for not being “suspicious” enough.)
As it turns out, the Presidential Exec
Cabinet—the P and VPs—made the decision to pull the plug back in December and
then didn’t tell anybody about it. Ordinarily, the discussion and decision
would have occurred on the Budget Committee, but not this time (said the
Bobster). Prior practice with regard to the location and nature of these
discussions was abandoned.
Kathy wryly noted that administration’s
less-than-popular “create a new dean” initiative went through without any
administrators mentioning the faculty hire cancellations. Golly. What are we to
make of that?
You’ll recall that the FON (Faculty
Obligation Number) was cited by Craig as a major factor in the decision. Kathy
(and Dan Walsh) explained that FON is not a target number. It is a floor, a
minimum (of faculty hires; as you know, the low FT/PT ratio has been a scandal
in the Cal CC system for decades). You don’t want to get too close to that “danger”
line, ‘cause if things go south you’ll end up paying a serious fine plus Bela
will suck your blood. Evidently, there’s a district guy (Peter Lorre or Boris
Karloff) who calculates the FON for the district and the colleges, and it is
pretty mysterious how he does that calculation and what sort of data he uses.
(Dan seemed to express deep skepticism about Lorre’s efforts.) Clearly, there’s
a lack of transparency here (said Kathy).
Another issue here concerns the
much-discussed factoid that IVC is growing (actually, at present, it is flat,
but projections are positive) and Saddleback College is shrinking into a
turnip. How does that enter into the determination of how many faculty should
be hired at SC and IVC?
Kathy acknowledged that it is clear that the
college opted to drop these hires as a way to save money. There
explanatory/defensive verbiage offers Red Herrings about FON and whatnot, but
this is about money, plain and simple.
Kathy noted that, when an administration has
conducted itself in a manner generating suspicion, they are well advised to
proceed all “squeaky-clean.” Well, they’re not being squeaky-clean nohow. They
should be honest and upfront about why this happened, what’s really going on.
Why can’t they do that?
Steve R made a motion: to request that the
algorithm and data used to make the calculation (by the district guy, Peter
Lorre, I think) be made public. That was approved unanimously.
Steve’s second motion was that we recommend the
college move forward with the full list of 9 faculty. That was approved 22-1-2.
Of course, Glenn has no obligation to heed
our recommendation.
Bob Urell’s report: he explained that “we
were completely blindsided” by last week’s announcement that the three
positions were dropped. We had fallen into the trap, he said, of expecting
budget reports, but these never seemed to materialize this time around, and
then this announcement dropped like a bomb. (Bob was apologetic.) Bob co-chairs
two of the budget committees, and yet he had heard nothing about the Dec. 15
decision by the Presidential Gang. (Recall that we are going forward with a new
dean position, and that will be pricey.)
“Trust
has been abridged,” announced Kathy. (I think that was what she said.)
Steve suggested that we ask Glenn to come to
the senate and explain why the Dec. decision was not announced between December
and March. That passed, 25-0-0.
There was more, but that’s all I’ve got the
stomach for right now.
Have a nice Spring Break!
--Senator Roy
