Nov 1 [2018] Senate meeting

Nov 1 Senate meeting [Roy’s notes]

 

     During "public comments," I read this Humanities faculty remark from an email I had received: 

 

   I fully support a censure of the college president, though I think to censure [him] only for his violation of 10+1, which is grievous--as well as his tendency to blame it on the staff member--does not fully represent our deep concerns about his failure to lead. 

   I would like to echo Board of Trustees member Tim Jamal's notion that what is needed in these times is swift moral leadership that condemns hate speech and hateful actions. 

   The administration's failure to recognize genuine threats to safety is deeply problematic, and if possible, I think this should be addressed during the discussion of the censure. I understand why it may not be something for which we can officially censure, as it may not be so clearly a violation of expected practices, but I still believe it should be discussed and recorded, so that this history of failure of leadership will be acknowledged.  --V

 

     Dan made a plea for changing #15 position to English compo/journalism [requested by Senator Brittany, who could not attend]. The group agreed to that (informally, nods). Done deal.

 

Executive report:

     June: more later

     Jeff: more later

     Dan: thanks for responding to Flex week survey – 30% participation! (Sheesh.)

 

CAMPUS SAFETY/SECURITY CONCERNS:

 

     Idea (Melanie): let’s set up our own campus forum; June seemed to like that suggestion; will come back.

 

     Someone asked for timeline re swastika incident.

     Ben said the swastika event was on the 16^thor 17^th. So 10 days passed before administration responded.

 

     June reiterated idea: We need to assert our rights and responsibilities as faculty, let administration know that we’re here and we’re asserting our rights and responsibilities.

 

     Lots of skepticism expressed about Glenn’s communications to faculty. One missive was really a cooption of June’s letter of intent of what senate would be doing about security, etc. Skepticism expressed about Glenn’s claim that his email (about security) that was supposedly sent on Friday was actually sent on Sunday. (Some did receive it on Friday; some didn’t)

 

     Dan: Doesn’t want the issue to get lost in the mail. 

     Students: concerned about ICE on campus, etc.

 

     Devin: mentions Roquemore’s claim that we have excellent policies, etc. (in today’s missive). Not too impressed.

 

     Someone named “Lisa” [Montagne?] and Online education taskforce. Bring in expert who could develop online teaching certificate (for faculty doing online). Tim Van Norman. In Feb or March, met Lisa, one of our writing faculty. Can you get involved? She’s being teaching online for years. We’ve worked together on a number of things. Want senate feedback and input.

     Online teaching certificate proposal (Lisa Montagne)

     20 hour program or thereabouts. Most campuses have something like that. Have put many hours into this. Using Canvas, etc. PROPOSAL: a pilot. A week before Flex week. January 3, 4, 7. 3 six hour boot camp days on campus. 

Topics list: best practices, etc. If this works out, can do it again, subsequent semesters.

     Might do an 8-week online too. 

     Blah blah blah

 

VISIT FROM NEWISH VC OF HR (district):

 

     Legit concern: unfair that SC has access to HR, not IVC (owing to HR’s location at Saddleback College). We’ve now got someone to be at IVC, representing HR. Just hired.

     Her role: HR is not student services. Old community building is now HR office at IVC.

     News management team in human R. Very excited.

     I complained about info blackout with regard to Dean of LA hire (I was on the search committee). [Note: on next day, I learned, for first time, that Brooke was hired, pending board approval.] 

     Many positive comments about new regime at HR.

 

MOTION TO CENSURE GLENN ROQUEMORE:

 

      (He acted to remove a requirement for approval of the Photonics Program without bothering to inform faculty (senate).)

 

     I’ve been told we should have discussion before vote, said June.

 

     Lots of voices. Some timidity expressed. Not enough information, some say. 

     Some concerns expressed that there are lots of complaints about R, not just one. 

 

     I don’t understand the timidity, I said. Look at this from historical perspective: we used to stand up for our rights. Used to go to court (and win). We’ve let things slip. We’ve let Prez get away with much, starting with early college program, which was rejected by Senate. (Earlier, June had painted a similarly dire picture about faculty/senate authority.)

 

     Someone informed us that, at the time of Roquemore’s action, 14 programs were in want of the viability inquiry when Roquemore unilaterally removed the requirement for his hobby-horse, Photonics. Eventually the VPI said take it off the agenda, not go to board. Why? Because we lack a policy for how to do the inquiry.

     Saddleback AS is outraged because, there, no administrator gets to touch curriculum; a clear outrage.

 

Curriculum is #1 on 10+1.

 

APPENDED INFO: [Senate]

CENSURE MOTION ETC. of Nov 1 Senate Meeting

Information for the 11/01/18 IVC Academic Senate meeting of the Representative Council 

 

...

General Information 

 

·         President Roquemore is aware of the motion and has communicated with the Senate President that the curriculum specialist misunderstood the discussions regarding the Photonics AS. 

 

·         The Photonics AS was prepared for Board approval by the curriculum specialist after discussions with the President. That document is an attachment to the Motion. Below is an email from the curriculum specialist.  

 

“Timeline:

     Academic Senate originally approved this degree on 5/4/2017. It was at the BOT step but was never sent for approval.

     I created the BIR document (attached) because the President instructed me to move it forward. I sent the degree back to the Senate step on 8/31/2018.”

 

·         The Vice-President for Instruction stopped the curriculum from going to the Board for approval.

 

·         8/31/18 Senate requested that the Photonics AS be moved back to the Senate level in C-net pending discussions regarding LMI.  

 

 

Summary of discussions at Senate 

 

Below text reflects notes from the Academic Senate Recorder taken at Senate meeting dates indicated

 

 

Senate meeting on October 18, 2018

Public Comments

     Ben Mis – there has already been discussions about the issue of the college president trying to push through curriculum over the summer without consultation of faculty which fully goes against the Senate’s 10+1.  It hasn’t yet been agendized at Senate, only discussed so there are no consequences which implies that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he can circumvent faculty. A faculty member suggested the possibility of censoring the president to prevent him from doing this again. This will be agendized at the next Rep Council meeting.

 

 Senate meeting on September 6, 2018 [Senate document]

Public Comments

     1)         Roy Bauer - Our President is showing a pattern of favoritism. Special areas that he likes seems to be regularly honored; probationary faculty being protected; certain departments are protected while others are ignored, like the humanities. This favoritism was exhibited when he interfered with curriculum as discussed last Rep Council meeting on August 30, 2018. This should be further discussed and reflected upon.

     June McLaughlin - the cabinet will discuss how to agendize it for future senate meetings.

Senate President’s Report

     Dan de Roulet and June met with the president last Friday and they asked the senate questions what was the intent for asking to push a program [Photonics] forward.  His response was that he was responding to an adjunct  faculty members inquiry about the status of this program and he was inquiring for him. He felt that he was within his wheel house to be able to do this. Senate will continue to look into this further. Additionally, senate had taken a vote that when the IDEA school was created and asked the VPI to sign a document that they would protect the programs at the school for 3-5 years, including Photonics.

 

… Labor Market information discussion edited out

 

     The concern is that according to some AS presidents, administration doesn’t get to touch curriculum at all, ever. We need to clarify where and administration can be involved with curriculum and then we affirm these boundaries. Labor market discussions are critical to what is happening in curriculum, CE and even pathways which is going to force us to ask for every degree will that student get a job. This opens up an important discussion that we need to have regarding future programs.

     Follow up on the understanding that the President told the BOT to waive the labor market data for this program. Curriculum committee, LMI meetings, have already started discussing these issues. We will agendize this item for further discussion.

 

OCT 18 [2018] MEETING

OCT 18 MEETING – ROY’S NOTES:

 

     PUBLIC COMMENTS: Senator Ben and others suggested that the senate take some action in response to Pres. Roquemore’s overstepping his authority (curriculum) this summer.

 

     Ben also mentioned that he witnessed a student writing a swastika on an IVC bathroom door. Discussion of need for coherent response to these kinds of events (senators seemed to be alluding to other security issues on campus of late)

 

     Brittany notes the recent and inadequate “campus forum” re campus safety. There is no coherent response offered by the President to these security issues (including recent student knife-wielding incident; the disturbing letters recently sent to two faculty, etc.

 

     We need to send a coherent message of “intolerance of intolerance.”

 

     Exec report: be sure to complete “pathways” survey.

     Art Building getting built

 

     Jeff (VP): some accountability issues concerning stipends, which are not rolled over at end of year.

 

     Dan (Ac Affairs): please respond to flex-week survey

 

     Boone (Curric): Issues concerning split of AAs and ASs. Been getting feedback.

 

     BPs and ARs (review process):

     June pulls “code of conduct” policies (I and others objected mightily to this policy, owing to its vagueness and its potential use to silence critics)

 

     Discussion of “safe haven” resolution—to be provided by senate in support of students. June will confab with students.

 

CAMPUS SAFETY CONCERNS:

 

     VPSS Linda F was very “defensive” at recent forum on security issues. Some reported tone of that forum went “downhill” after a while. 

     Discussion of an atmosphere of “fear or retaliation” across campus: faculty and staff. June opined she is very concerned. Senators expressed worries about access to our emails by college officials. We want answers.

 

     Kurt (of the union) spoke. Referred to recent “open forum” re security issues. He’s spoken with administrators with issue of “unsecured classrooms and other spaces” (e.g., Liberal Arts building). June has asked questions, gets no answers. Discussion of recent “flier” incidents (defaced). Swastikas. Disruptive student behavior. Some such students are quietly allowed to return. What’s up with that? Seems unacceptable.

     Reference made to two disturbing letters sent to faculty by troubled former student (oddly, administration treated this as an occasion to investigate student’s charges; no recognition of threat to faculty). The union’s grievance committee met and discussed the situation (--I should not, to relevant faculty’s dissatisfaction). 

     Request: that faculty be involved “at the get go” in developing policies about such incidents (?). Faculty must be vigilant and monitor actions taken. Also, there must be “meaningful follow-up” in the case of these threats to faculty, et al. 

   “Failure of communication” attributed to administration.

   Complaint that Roquemore’s OCT 10 letter and forum “inadequate.” The “letter” episode is symptomatic of lack of communication and adequate faculty-involved processes.

   Dan D: campuses all over state are developing policies and practices to deal with threats. Not us. Objected to lack of “participatory governance” on campus: the people in A100 only talk to people in A100.

   Perhaps we need to hire outside professionals to help us.

   Complaint that we forever form “workgroups” and then nothing happens. Reference to how things are done elsewhere—e.g., Santa Barbara. Bringing lawyers and other professionals together with faculty….

    “There’s no info on this campus,” said someone.

    “We’re not experts; let’s hire them,” said another.

   Kathy S mentioned that we have a “police blotter,” but it seems to exclude some events of concern. We need to emphasize the importance of these security issues and the inadequacy of status quo.

   There’s something hinky about that police blotter, said another.

   Melanie has recently done some research, seen a PBS documentary: there’s quite a history of White Supremacy in the OC. “They’re here,” she said, alluding to hate groups and their use of swastikas.

   Some wondered if Roquemore is even aware of all these recent incidents. And what has been done about the swastikas? No info. Just silence.

   Elsewhere, said Brittany, it’s a “huge deal” when this sort of thing happens [the swastika incident]. A non-response on our part is a de facto “statement of support” of these people.

   On this campus, there’s so much disinformation floating around and no communication from the Pres.

Dan and others mentioned our “need of informative journalism” at IVC.

 

FACULTY HIRING:

 

   The number of hires appears to be 14. Complaints expressed about the number. (Longstanding complaints about difference between IVC and Saddleback on this score; these decisions are up to the individual colleges, their discretion.)

   Kurt (of the union) mentioned that the district (negotiation team) is playing hardball. Lowball offers. It would be great, he said, for faculty to be a presence at board meetings. [Note: very recently (late Oct meet), things have taken a positive turn.] The district team is simply rejecting reasonable offers. I pressed the matter: Dave Lang, beancounter, is perhaps the key figure behind this recalcitrance. Mention was made of district desire to “own” intellectual property created by faculty. Egads! The unreasonableness! 

 

STUDENT CLUBS: NEW AND TROUBLESOME REQUIREMENTS

 

   Ilkner went on about her troubles and consternation re seemingly whimsical requirements placed on student clubs. Causing chaos, she says. There’s a “communication breakdown.” Students are getting discouraged, she said. [Good God, does nothing work around here?!]

    “We’re not [haggling] in a Turkish carpet store,” she said, to everyone’s amusement and/or horror.

   Anca weighed in with similar horror stories: lots of bureaucracy, micromanagement. Her French club is takin’ hits, man. Crazy demands by ASIVC. Student Services is understaffed, overworked…. Then club is made to face “Draconian measures” and unreasonable demands.

    “They” say all these new requirements are coming from the district, “but that’s not so.”

   Devin spoke up. She’s been working with clubs for a dozen years, mostly ignoring and avoiding silly requirements. But now there’s an effort to follows rules; it’s impossible, frustrating. No communication. “There’s no one-size-fits-all solutions” of the kinds they are imposing.

   Ben noted that ASIVC seems willing to intimidate faculty. Students are treated as though they’re in “middle school.” The new physical requirements for the Math club are unreasonable. “I must physically be there all the time!” Compelled to do “illegal” things.

   Someone mentioned the “priority registration” mechanism. Stories of amazing unfairness caused by this aspect.

   Brittany noted that, with Helen (Locke) ran SS, students ran amuck. No monitor, nothing. No forms to file. Money spent on snackage. Now we’ve gone too far in the other direction.

 

    [At this point in my notes, I find this: “DOES NO ONE RUN THIS COLLEGE?”]

    [end]

 

 

OCT 4 [2018] SENATE MEETING

OCT 4 SENATE MEETING [Roy’s notes]

 

   JUNE: Want to discuss faculty security.

   In recent years, and especially very recently, there have been incidents in which unbalanced and potentially violent students have menaced faculty. Very recently, two of our faculty have been the subjects of a letter from a former student who accused those faculty of various lurid and outrageous crimes (rubbing is involved). The letter, which I’ve read, is clearly authored by a disturbed student over whom a net should be placed and a room at the funny farm secured.

 

   Jeff: college’s decision-making manual. It’s a mess. Written chaotically. Becoming meaningless. Written to appease an Accred team. Let’s make it a useful document. WE NEED INPUT for the outline to give to the authors (Dan and Jeff). 

 

   IC program discontinuance. IEC. Assessment. Responses clear: stop reporting. Start doing. Take action on items. Meaningful deliberation and debate; moving forward. BDRPC. Some people think “things are going really well.” But no. Lots of things falling between the cracks. 

 

   Curriculum (Rick Boone): confusion about “program.” Lots of different and mutually incompatible understandings. Henry’s participation on the committee appreciated. 

 

   The AS/AA discussion goes on. We’ll put together a proposal. Document need for change. Will get update. Hoping this month: our Curric website will be up. Nothing hiding. Transparency, baby.

 

   June: on Board policies and ARs.

 

   IVC college newspaper. I asked that senators solicit comments from their faculty. Desired or not? How important? Etc.

   Lots of positive comments.

   But some are interested in the cost.

 

   Faculty hiring priorities list

   Discussed list

 

   Voted down the College mission statement. A real POS. Or so I said, and everyone seemed to go along with it.

SEPT 20 [2018] SENATE MEETING

SEPT 20 SENATE MEETING [Roy’s notes]

  PUBLIC COMMENTS: We raised Lisa’s issue: [disturbing, perhaps threatening] letter sitting on Roquemore’s desk for three weeks without informing Lisa. These (two) letters (one to Lisa, a similar letter from same student to someone in the Social Sciences) are clearly written by a disturbed individual, making lurid and absurd charges. Yet it occurred to no administrator on this campus [including Linda F and Glenn R] that they represented a threat to these faculty. Instead, the student’s complaints were pursued/investigated. Eventually, the Irvine (city) police sent someone to the letter-writer for an assessment.

 

   Fair amount of discussion about this.

 

Exec. Reports:

 

   June: still looking for coop work experience coordinator. Some volunteers. But ask your faculty. Internship….

 

   June, briefly: should we on campus find ourselves in situation that we, as faculty, are not being heard and “shared governance” is kaput, we can ask for technical visit from State Ac Senate. Mediates, guides discussion. An opportunity for us. Know that that is available.

 

   Jeff K (VP): Davit, our budget VP, could not make it to the meeting again. Was supposed to be a slam dunk to have a license plate reading contraption. That didn’t happen. People asked questions. Why save data for two years?  An accountability issue. Weak arguments for the technology. They’re going back to rethink it. Secondly, we’re pushing pretty hard against the budgetary process. Rethinking it. Desired: efficiently, inclusiveness, transparency. There’s never a follow-up on claimed savings on measures. We’ll have to enforce that, demand follow-up. 

 

   Academic Affairs: Dan. We had first meeting; budget not changed for profession development funds. $1800 per year per faculty; $900 per adjunct. We’re keeping that. Secondly, we’ll be sending out faculty survey about faculty development. 

   Committee is also discussing: Let’s get an outside speaker of interest to faculty and broader Irvine community. Any suggestions? Also: faculty dinner with that speaker?

 

   Curriculum: gen ed requirement, AA and AS. Ongoing discussion. No decision yet. 

Meetings re upgrade of Curricunet. Options. 

 

H. Board Policies 

• BP4040 Institutional Code of Conduct 

   Anyone want to edit it? Take a crack at it? PLEASE DO 

 

   Also

·       BP2100.1: Delegation of Authority to the Academic Senate 

·       BP2100.2: Role and Scope of Authority of the Academic Senate 

 

   We’re asking AA to look at these. 

 

   Jeff: investigating changing the calendar (to shorter semesters, like everyone else). This is an exploratory move only. Just discussion. Need to see the pros and cons. There are strong voices either way. We want to take an informed investigatory approach. Then deliberate. Hope to show up at some point with strong argument to present to college president, others. 

 

   K realignment of engineering dept with school of IDEAS. Approved

 

Senate meeting: Sept 6, 2018

Senate meeting: Sept 6:

Jeff/vp:

     Cancelled meeting because Davit was sick

     Ivc meeting was “very interesting”

 

Program review…

     Dan/AA

     Meeting on Tuesday; agenda for year decided

 

Rick Boone/curric

     We’ll meet next week, will start review of courses

     Re CNET—will meet to discuss if upgrade to new system

     SCHOOL FACULTY SHOULD DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. Initiative to simplify (weaken) AS requirements; fewer courses, etc.

     School meetings soon? Have them discuss AA vs AS issue, general ed requirementshave your rep discuss

 

June:

     What is being monitored? Director of IT—suspicious behavior on our desktop. Telephone monitored? No

 

ROQUMORE LASER PROGRAM AGAIN. 

     What was the intent of asking to push a Program forward?

        Adjunct member inquired about status of program. 

        According to some senate people, admin don’t get to touch curriculum ever.

        We need to clarify that, says J

        Jeff: when we passed this curric in 2017, we did not consider data. So we failed? 

 

        Raised issues: pattern of favoritism. Possible agenda item Cabinet will be crafted

 

        ROY: Issue of school newspaper—President blocks. Agenda item

 

Item J

     2100.1 and point 2–let’s hold off on those. FACULTY AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITIES

Dan: bring this to schools a discussion. 

     Related to Roy’s suggestion: think about our authority role.

 

 

AUGUST 30 [2018] SENATE MEETING

AUGUST 30 SENATE MEETING - Roy's notes

   Blah, blah, blah

   Executive report: June will give last

   Jeff: …

   Dan: 1^stmeeting in a couple of weeks. We’re looking revising and updating rules for professional development funding. Seeking clarification. 

 

THERE’S A NEW CURRICULUM CHAIR. 

   Rick Boone: (new curric chair): changes happening. Goals for the committee: increase in transparency. Streamlining the process. [Uh-oh] A grueling job, in the past. Trying to alleviate that. Aiming for transparency. 

   Building a team. Henry C will be review lead. Support divided. Want to encourage faculty: we all have to own. Ownership. 

   Only one rep needed on curic. Now, everything, including Tech review, happening at once.

 

JUNE:

Serious

One thing

Senate will need to give advice

 

THE ROQUEMORE/LASER/PHOTONICS ISSUE. 

 

   My understanding—the President of college asked the curric specialist to move a program forward in Curricunet—without consulting faculty. The Curric chair was in the office when part of it happened but was not included in the decision.

     Laser Techis a program at IDEA. Associates degree. Finished and in the queue.Ed code now says: every 2 years need to justify existence with labor… data. Are there jobs? That process hasn’t been worked out in this district. This is among the programs waiting for that process to be defined. I’ve spoken to everyone involved. I was not present for this. Curric specialist was told: don’t need to provide labor data. Just move it up the process and get it approved. 

   The problem with this is 10 + 1. Plain reading of it. That’s a very serious breach of protocol/shared governance. 

   No full time faculty in Photonics currently. The event happened on Tuesday. I spoke with him on the phone today.

   Brittany: which stage was it in: board approval. It was stopped at board approval because we don’t have a process for market data… It’s stuck there. Hiring of Desiree [the curric specialist?] -rammed through. Issues around this particular program. June: the program is historically aligned with IVC. 

   Kathie: I agree with you Brittany. Fundamental process was the biggest problem. On the phone, he said: well, I didn’t challenge him exactly. Don’t have answers.

   Rick Boone: CNET--need to enter labor market data –even before you get it to the board. The request was to leapfrog the present data process (board), push it forward. We don’t need to do the labor market thing—just push it to the board (without review of data). Kathie: the senate is involved in implementing the new rule (about presenting data). 

  

 

AUG 30 INTERNAL NOTES

Senate meeting on August 30, 2018 [Senate document]

Senate President’s Report

     Our IVC President asked the curriculum specialist to move a program forward without consulting faculty nor the curriculum chair. Laser Technology has an AS in C-net and is ready to go to the Board. Education Code says that every 2 years, CTE programs must revise their programs and look at labor market data again. Laser Technology is one program that still needs to collect labor market data. The request made  to the curriculum specialist, who is a staff member, to move the program forward without the labor market data. This is a violation in the 10+1 of the senate. 

     This program was stopped at Board approval because they are still working on where they can collect the labor market data. Also, the Board Policy for how to collect and look at Labor Market information has not been developed. 

     President Roquemore has said that this is an IVC historical program and was here before he was president. He said that it was at the request of a part-time faculty member who teaches the laser course, to find out where the courses were in the curriculum process. The program was at the stage in c-net where it needed to be moved to board approval but was being held up for labor market data. The board and the state requires labor market data. 

What was the reason for President Roquemore to go around the curriculum and senate process?

     June will be meeting with President Roquemore regarding administrations role in the curriculum process. She will report to Senate the results from the meeting. 

     If anyone has additional questions or concern, please email June directly.

 

 Reply  Reply All  Forward

April 19, 2018: Shite hits fan

Senate meeting, April 19

Big issue: the Tracy Fahimi problem (just below)

Manzanar trip still on.

Opening of new school/building at ATEP was nice

Heritage Day soon

Executive report:

June M, Senate Prez:

We need bodies for these committees:

Assist. director of fiscal services (initial screening mid May)

Dist Central Service Manager

3^rd.

Anyone who thinks we need to scrape someone up for each of these committees? (Some senators pitch for importance of providing representation.)

Reminder: stipend work group meeting. Process of how stipends are given at IVC. We have a revised policy.

Preface: I turned 55 this year. Paid arbitrator/dispute resolution. I do not have conflicts in my life. Been doing it for decades. 

I have been left with “zero” choice. Tried to resolve this problem. I’ve been dissed, ignored. I need to call someone out. A waste of cabinet resources. (We all exhibited a WTF face.)

Senate can no longer work with Dean Tracy Fahimi. Disrespectful things are happening, have been happening. I’ve tried everything. Nothing works. Tracy is not someone I dislike. I have one more year in this gig. I will not get done what I want to get done if I have to spend time fighting someone who doesn’t understand the role they have been given. Doesn’t understand 10+1.

Did not arrange for her to be absent today. (She is absent; after a few minutes, she appears. Not sure if she heard any of this.)

Tracy tells June, “You don’t understand.” Some of my personal info was shared. I complained about it. “I asked you. not to share this info,” but it was shared anyway, repeatedly

The VPI delegated to this dean curriculum prof dev academic programs. Interpretation of what that means was very unclear. 

Jeff: there is no dean over senate. Never has been. (Does Tracy imagine that she’s “over” the senate?)

Brittany: 10+1 issue?

Professional development. That’s ours, not yours. But Fahimi keeps sending memos and such. Got a disrespectful memo back. Prof development issues chronic, weekly. Further complicated—senate was given Guided Pathways. Dean got GPs also. Innumerable, chronic. I solve all my problems. This problem I can’t solve.She’s a good dean, person. Still, I can’t work with her. 

Kerry: suggested: lack of clarity of roles perhaps. Is it she is trying to do a good job but is going too far, stepping on toes. (I do believe that Kerry would claim that there’s  middle ground to find between Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty, as the tumble down the Reichenbach Falls.)  

Ilknur asked if this is a senate issue. June: yes. “I’m at the point that senate work can’t get done.” This is not a “June thing.” The whole cabinet experiences this. (The rest of the Senate wore their best poker faces, but it became clear later that they were substantially in agreement with June.)

One member of the cabinet spoke up: agreed that micromanagement is afoot

Some suggested that this problem is broader: something coming from VPI. Lots of micromanaging. Perhaps

There’s something mysterious (says Dan D) going on; Jeff too; it seems that issues that should get to the senate never get there. 

VP [Jeff K] report:

Perhaps IVC will be able to show more growth than SC. Maybe shake a little cash loose from the allocations process. We need that given the cliff before us. 

SC borrowed to avoid a cliff; that cliff is coming up soon for our colleagues to the south You watch. “They’re the ones holding the stinky bag,” said Jeff.

Jeff discussed further construction at IVC.  The Last building on bare ground (not revision of existing spaces) is the coming Art building. After that, all construction will be redos. 

Dan D: Ac Affairs: clarification and adjustment faculty hiring listdevelopment. With VPI. We’ll be voting on suggestions at our next meeting. Will come to senate. 

Also because of continual IT issues…. Prof development software… changes in request and reimbursement system. The system will line up with how SC does it. Everything processed the same way across the district. June 1: date accepting prof development requests for next year starting July 1

Curriculum (Diane): 

I’ve been with many deans working with curriculum. She talks to them like this: You are on my team; you are here to help me. The dean should be emissary to the VPI. Every now and then there’s been conflict. I’ve been able to manage it well from my perspective. (I guess she was suggesting that she has not had a problem with Tracy.)

April 2^nd– revisions are due Look at left hand nav bar on curricunet.

Was at Plenary last weekend. Signed memo of understanding between state chancellor and UC(s). MOU. Now we have to work out all the dirty details. Transfer students. Chemistry, physics, policy sci, anthro. 21 areas. 

Someone mention that there’s an LA Times article a couple days ago that covers all this. 

BPs and ARs

We passed all the bp up for vote.

Pathways Update.

Passed out two sheets pithily presenting advantage to students securing degrees rather than ignoring AAs and going for transfer. Also: what the workgroup has done and will be doing.

We’re trying to get everyone to provide input.  

Roopa: guided pathways is NOT for all students. 

JEFF: fundamental flaw here (a reference to the new Bill that will move more toward community colleges providing the “first two years”). 

Crash and burn campuses. Students unfiltered.

We’re eating away at the one thingwe can sell: intimacy. We need to be aware of this as we go foward

J. School of Library and Online Education 

The plan is to create a School of “Library and Online Educatio.”

^{Lots of carping about this new school, school of Library and “online instruction”}

^{I asked, “How can there by a school of OI when there is OI in each school?”}

Lots of yammering. We voted no on this thing.

K. Josh Dorman, Research Analyst 

Josh Dorman from the Office of Research, Planning and Accreditation 

Josh will share data on student achievement gaps at IVC. 

^{Josh says he’s a research} analyst. Been here for 6 mos.

Disproportionate impact – how do we determine that? Percentage point gap method.

Blah blah blah

L. SenateElections:CurriculumCommitteeChair 

Nomination for curric chair. Rich D.