senate capers: November 2018

Thursday, November 1, 2018

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.

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.]