senate capers: December 2015

Thursday, December 3, 2015

December 3 meeting: "This is not trivial," he said. "We're in a crisis."

SCHOLARSHIPS. An unfamiliar fellow said a few words about our troubled scholarship program. Yadda yadda yadda. Kathy S added some yaddas, emphasizing our obligation, as faculty, to “step up” to join the committees that review student applications. Recall that, last year, we brought it about that two of the three people on these review committees must be faculty. (This did not make classified happy. Kathy likes to remind them that "scholarship" has the word "scholar" in it.)

EMPLOYEE CLIMATE SURVEY. I mentioned the curious fact that the district and colleges have done nothing to promulgate or discuss last year’s employee climate survey, which is scathing in all the predictable ways. Kathy S noted that the Accred Report process is a “crowbar” that will pry open the contents of that survey. You can run, but you cain't hide.

Melanie, on behalf of Brooke, reported support for LGBTQ issues at the recent State Senate Plenary.

Kathy mentioned yesterday’s presentations on “active shooter” situations. No details were reported.

Positive news was offered re the Foundation and its new, expanded membership and its new leadership. Things are much improved, foundationwise.

Accreditation is “chugging along.” Kathy reported Tod B’s comments this morning about a state meeting (CCLC meeting) he attended with the State Chancellor. Straw poll taken: 50% wanted to keep ACCJC but change its leadership. (You’ll recall that both Tod and Glenn refrained from supporting the Task Force’s recommendations re ACCJC, including the rec that we drop that agency as our accreditor. Meanwhile, our senate endorsed the recommendations.)

I noted the fact that, during debate of this issue (re whether to endorse the Task Force’s recommendations), the faculty went one way (the only reasonable way, i.e., contra ACCJC) and our administrative leadership (Todd, Glenn) went the other way (essentially supporting ACCJC).
As it turns out, that’s not quite accurate since, as I was informed, the Saddleback Senate did not endorse the recommendations and instead maintained neutrality.

Shame.

We blew off the item re review of BPs and ARs, etc., since the committee hasn’t met.

WEEKEND COLLEGE. Dean Traci F presented on the “Weekend College” proposal (see last meeting). WC would generate some FTES. How much? It would be a pretty “decent” revenue generator, she said. It would help with our problem with student headcount, namely, that we may fail to hit our “growth target.” We can survey our own students about this idea, said Traci or Kathy or somebody.
Craig chimed in: we want to know whether students who are not here would find this program attractive (no such program operates in our part of the state). At the right scale, WC could be very feasible, said Craig. For a large group of students, said Craig, Sunday “is not their Sabbath. Saturday is." (No, he wasn't kidding.) Craig spoke of our “growth target” and how expanding WC would address that. He said we need to do more to “coordinate” this program.
Kathy’s “sense” of things: we can start without a full-blown program and see how WC Junior goes. Traci chimed in to say, “yes, that’s what we have in mind.”

Craig: we could market as we once did: theaters, radio. What about social media? We’ve done little there. We have little Twitter presence. “Diane is very open to [all] that,” said Craig. “Our enrollment has been flat two Falls in a row.” If we don’t get creative, we won’t hit our targets, thus losing $1.6 million. “This is not trivial,” said Craig, finally.

The Liberal Arts Building is now scheduled to be opened in the Fall. So that’s good: more teaching space.

You’ll be hearing lots more about enrollment management. In some areas, the only things holding us back is lack of rooms and instructors. Weekend College “is just another niche in providing enrollment.”

Craig: many IGETC courses are highly impacted and we can easily increase sections of those.

Kathy: perhaps we as a body (the Senate) can act to support a proto-Weekend College as a start. Motion: “Rep Council strongly supports going forward with this project (with adequate marketing).”
I controlled both of our School's votes (Brittany was out of town) and I decided to split our vote down the middle. You know, like Solomon, but without the blood.

Craig: we’ve got to grow, not just maximize things as they are (some such sentiment). We’re in a crisis.

* * *

Craig: "We're in a crisis"

It seems clear that administration wants to pursue the Weekend College idea. NOTE WELL: In the past, questionable programs have been pursued and faculty have essentially been powerless to stop them (e.g., Early College). That's the pattern under Prez Roquemore. We should be very clear whether we want to take this WC path. Later, I doubt that we’ll be able to reverse gears. The Senate’s vote today gave administration pretty much what they wanted (though there were 3 negative votes, including, oddly, Kiana T's).

Craig: I will continue to nag chairs to add courses that get filled up.

FINAL SCHEDULE SNAFU. Kathy asked Craig to update us on the final schedule issue. Craig: the long and short of it: any changes to the current, published schedule have been retracted. We're going with the original schedule, OK? Still, there are some conflicts. Changing the schedule to fix conflicts is “inappropriate,” said Craig. About 50 classes have conflict issues. I will contact faculty to solicit info about these conflicts. The reason conflicts are inevitable, said Craig, is that not all classes use the block scheduling (e.g., some 8-week courses, etc.).
You can join the group that is working on this issue. Contact Craig. Kathy’s in charge of it, I think.

CALENDAR RECOMMENDATION MADE. Item 11: calendar. Have you heard from your faculty about the five proposed calendars? (I haven’t, not from anyone in my own School.)
We discussed Fall first. One of the ideas had all of Thanksgiving “taken off.” (I.e., no classes that week.) D1 and D2 are the same for the Fall. D3: half a week off Thanksgiving week. Finals start on the 13^th-19^th. D4 the same. Three arrangements for Fall, then. Also: day off day before Thanksgiving.

Motion: D1 for the Fall. I split Hum’s vote. The motion got 13 votes (vs. 11) but a motion must receive 14 to pass.

Someone moved in favor of D5 for the Fall. Wednesday before Thanksgiving a “contractual day.” We voted. Again, I split Hum’s vote. Result: 14 to 10. So our body recommended D5 for Fall. (Not a done deal; it’s just our recommendation!)

Now Spring. D5 and D6 have the same Fall. President’s weekend a 4-day. Final’s start on the 16^th. Etc. The discussion seriously got into the weeds. Motion for D6; that turned out: 14, 9, 1. So we’re recommending D6 for the Spring. (And since D5 and D6 are the same for the Fall, we’ve chosen D6.)

Got it? D6 it is.
See: D6

PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING MANUAL. We looked at proposed changes. We saw “participatory governance decision making process flowchart.” This was a sticking point. The issues here were mind numbing. Where shall the arrows go? And the boxes?

Early College Advisory Task Force membership: change made. Traci: a huge task force and members never showed. So it has been streamlined. One semester meeting.

Passed by a wide margin.

WHENCE EARLY COLLEGE RECOMMENDATIONS? I asked about the Senate’s recommendations for changes in the Early College program, put forward last Spring. These included the notion that all EC colleges should be taken at IVC, among our regular student population. Kathy: Some high schools have essentially adopted our recommendations, but Beckman is adamant that they love the program the way it is and they don’t want these changes. (Said Kathy: our recommendations "arrived" just as the college signed a contract with the high schools, so that was one difficulty with our recs.) Kathy assured me that our recommendations are not “dead.” At the very least, we’ll make an effort to persuade the high schools of the wisdom of those recommendations (e.g., having all courses at IVC). Craig said that the “new dean” with oversight will be considering and discussing these recommendations in Spring. Motion passed by wide margin.

FACULTY HIRES. Craig: We’re going forward with “no fewer than 11 hires” at IVC. Our FON numbers are OK. (Not so at Saddleback?) We were supposed to get state funding for additional hires. Basic Aid districts were excluded from money. But if we emulate the state model (via district allocations), we might get the money anyway.
Oh good.

Teddy, cat

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.]