senate capers: Senate meeting, Feb 18: blowing off Cesar Chavez Day

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Senate meeting, Feb 18: blowing off Cesar Chavez Day

Public comments?

Diana H carped heartily about lack of progress with regard to campus safety. We were told that we’d hear back from Chief Glenn, but not yet, etc. Carp, carp, carp.

Kathy provided an update re the issue with regard to the touted nifty floor device to lock doors from the inside (it appears to fail to meet state standards).

Moving to item 15, new business

Tier 3 faculty position - Engineering Technology Full-Time Faculty Position

Overwhelmingly approved

Reports:

VP Bob Urell:

Deb Fitz is putting together a presentation on DRAC [District Resource Allocation] and how it works, how it developed. Obviously, the decisions/actions of DRAC are consequential. We recommend that you attend the presentation. (There is a link to a PowerPoint presentation.) Fitz wasn’t around when the DRAC process was developed, so this should be interesting. I'm told that our own Mark McNeil will be on hand to thwart unseemly revisionism.

The budget will be a big topic for the next few months. We hope to get a presentation from Davit (see flyer below). We are facing a deficit. Still looking at the data about that. Have put forward large amount for advertising the Summer program. Pushing forward with more substantial weekend college. We’re planning a huge summer just to meet our target. We’ve had huge increases in costs here and there and our budget is negatively impacted. An unhappy trend.

Resource requests: some have been approved, building and labs. Will be giving an update in two weeks (at senate).

Kathy: refers to Fitzsimmons’ DRAC presentation. Lots of rumors flying about possible changes in allocation. Lots of carping coming from Saddleback faculty in particular. If you’ve heard rumors, can ask about them at the presentation.

Kathy goes through schedule of future meetings. Will have three meetings in a row without… ? We’ll schedule unofficial socializing meetings, sans minutes. We never seem to have these occasions in which faculty can meet anymore. Spread the word.

Brett M (of Ac Affairs): cabinet members were told to go back to their schools for feedback re senate bylaws. Any ideas? Possible innovations. How we elect officers, succession, etc.

Diana H (of Curriculum): Amy and Roopa created a form for distance ed courses. It’s now formalized. Instructions for what must be done for C-NET. That’s the only news I’ve got, said Diana.

There’s a huge amount of curriculum on the CC agenda.

Kathy: we’ve been doing “crisis” work mostly on curriculum. We’re trying to find ways to eliminate all the perennial crises. Any suggestions? Discussions underway to make the system work better.

Roopa: praises those who have been working on curriculum. Warm and fuzzies. Lukewarm (and fuzzy) applause.

Tiffany: she said something, I know not what. Something about program review. See what your program looks like on Curricunet. Any discrepancies? Diana: any changes: you’d better get cracking. She said lots of things about “verbiage” (pronounced ver-bidge). I think she was ill; looked like death warmed over. Plus that pronunciation of “verbiage.” I nearly carped.

Kathy insisted on saying more. I tuned her out.

Roopa: more “verbiage.” Craig J chimed in to agree. Whatever. They hope to have the catalog ready for fall registration, he said. Unfortunately, we’ve not been able to meet that deadline in prior years. Aiming for it this time (mid-May). We voted on something and it was unanimous, whatever it was.

Item 6: board policies, etc.

Kathy missed the last meeting (on AR and BP review). Lots of IVC folks were compelled to miss owing to some big to-do.

AR4110a – this concerns changes in Workday. Commencement attendance is now required, owing to new contract. (Can take a half day personal leave instead.)

At IVC, they give faculty a free set of regalia, once. Not a second time. Cap and gown and hood. Rabbit's foot, too.

Nepotism policy: changed very little. Term “nepotism” again referred to.

Abusive conduct in the workplace (4720). Please read this carefully. No action taken yet. I drew attention to the document’s “reasonable person” standard re what is abusive conduct. Who decides what is reasonable?
So be sure to come back with any feedback. Check it out:

4720:

ABUSIVE CONDUCT IN THE WORKPLACE

The South Orange Community College District is committed to a workplace environment that is free from abusive conduct. The safety and security of district employees, students, and visors, is the highest priority to the District and is essential to carrying out the mission of the District. All reports of abusive behavior will be taken seriously by members of the district community.

Abusive conduct is defined as conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace with malice that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employee’s legitimate District business. Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, epithets, and verbal

A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially

severe and egregious.

The District seeks to foster an environment in which all employees feel free to report abusive conduct without fear of retaliation or reprisal. Any individual who experiences or witnesses abusive behavior violating this policy or who has reason to suspect that these acts or behaviors are occurring should immediately notify the Office of Human Resources.

Any District employee who violates this policy will be subject to immediate and appropriate disciplinary action pursuant to the applicable policies and procedures of the District, and may further be subject to such additional civil and criminal sanctions as permitted by law.

The District shall provide training to all employees on appropriate workplace conduct. Training is to include recognition of abusive conduct and how to report such behavior in the workplace.

4306 – calendar issue. Recently discovered that we’ve failed to observe Cesar Chavez legal holiday since 1996(?). Very embarrassing. We're scofflaws, we are. Will begin doing so. Buy grapes. (Of course, IVC is the college that steadfastly refuses to invite The Mexican as commencement speaker.)

Item 9 - AANAPISI Grant - Project

Eddy T will come and give us an update. Lots of activity here. Lots of interest.

Item 12: Revisions to the IVC Planning and Decision Making Manual

Now done. Unanimous approval.

Item 13 - AACC Pathways Project and Conference Attendance

IVC is one of 30 colleges nation-wide to participate in this program. Interested faculty members will be needed to discuss how we will respond to this initiative, and to participate in upcoming events.

Kathy described last meeting/conference. Fabulous, she said. “Very, very interesting.” Typical students faced with difficult choices with regard to programs/majors, etc. Daunting. We should rethink clusters. Make it easier for these benighted pre-college kids. Students need more mentoring, help. Next meeting is April 14-16. We’ll talk about this more later.

Brittany is presently at meeting regarding this project in beauteous Bakersfield. (Karima also.)

Item 14 - WorkDay – Student Development Project: BPA [business process analysis] Participation
Blah, blah, blah. We work on these things with pricey consultants. BPAs are important, often interesting.

Melanie: we’ve heard that there are lots of problems with Workday.

Kathy: turns out it [the student part] is a new program with lots of bugs. Not at all as advertised before we adopted it. There are two parts of our Workday purchase: financial (a fiasco; new, not established; a surprise, a mess) and the student system part (still waiting to see; we are guinea pigs for this, and we knew this). Hoping that, ultimately, the system would inform students what their record indicates that they are close to achieving, etc.

Bakersfield, city of lights, city of magic

Item 17 - Name change – from Reading Department to The Department of Academic Literacy

Melanie presents: She describes new system, procedures. First change: the name. Very common now to adopt “Academic Literacy.” Why? That’s what we try to do. Reading can seem to be about the mechanic act of reading (irrespective of comprehension), not comprehension and analysis and the like. “Academic Literacy” makes clear we’re focusing on such aspects of reading as comprehension.

2^nd change (not on agenda): creating a pathway to basic skills. Looking to create reading competency requirement for IVC students. In assessment, placed in “academic literacy” (reading) (they’re offered a recommendation). Moving toward more common approach. Motion made. Discussion.

What’s-his-name suggested that we change the name to “Academic literacy and reading,” but that got lost in the shuffle somehow. The motion passed 23-0-0

Last group of things:

Why are we bringing up this election stuff so early? We’ve tended to wait too long in the past. Causes problems for reassigned time, etc. I made motion: let’s put together a committee. The usual suspects (Rich and Joon) were mentioned to serve on that committee. So we pushed all of this through. Go back to your schools and see if anyone is interested in these faculty offices. Passed handily.

I moved that we accept recommended dates. Readily approved.

Etc. People were agreeable.

That was about it.

No comments:

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.]

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Senate meeting, Feb 18: blowing off Cesar Chavez Day

No comments:

Post a Comment