senate capers: January 2019

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Senate Notes from JANUARY 31 and FEBRUARY 7 [2019]

Hello All,

I want to offer some quick highlights from Senate, as it has been quite busy.
Here are some key happenings:
1) We voted on 1/31 to censure the President. It was not unanimous, as some schools chose to abstain. However, there was significant support for this censure. It passed clearly. The censure was just simply related to the presidential overstep when he pushed forward curriculum regarding the laser program. June did not deliver this notice of censure to the board, and so I think it had very little effect.
2) We discussed on 2/7 a vote of confidence for President Roquemore. We looked at the recent Saddleback College job announcement for a new president and discussed where we think current leadership falls short. The temperature in the room was a bit unclear and mixed. June M. also wants to include part-time faculty in the vote, which I think is a big mistake. I actually do not think we should support a vote that includes adjuncts. While I value adjuncts tremendously in our classrooms, they are not contractually required to do any professional development work and their contingency status makes them vulnerable as hires (at least in their minds as related to such a vote). I would not advise that this be the procedure. Would love to hear your thoughts.
3) The AS degree split off from the AA. It was disheartening. Narrowly, it passed. Nonetheless, humanities, languages and fine arts were condensed to one category with only one class required for the degree. The American Institutions requirement was removed. I think this is an outrage. But it passed.
4) We are likely going to bring a Puente Program to campus- if it gets funded. Our departments would be linked as writing courses and History 33 (History of Mexican American Peoples) would be a part of the program. This was lovely news in light of everything else so let us hope this goes through.
5) We discussed trying to more actively communicate with adjuncts.
6) The status of Cessa returning to campus has not been updated. There is some restructuring of ASG and the Equity Program going on. It is pretty unclear what exactly is happening.
Those are the highlights.

Brittany Adams, PhD
Associate Professor of History and Department Chair of the Humanities
Irvine Valley College

From: Brittany Adams
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:04 PM
To: Lisa Alvarez; Roy Bauer; Bill Etter; Daniel Vernazza; Deanna Scherger; Daniel DeRoulet; Emily Liu; Julie Evans; Stephen Felder; Henry Carnie; Jeffrey Johnson; Rebecca Kaminsky; Melissa Knoll; Lewis Long; Kurt Meyer; Jamie Poster; Kay Ryals; Summer Serpas; Virginia Shank; Toshio Whelchel; Toni Fuentes; Shakeh Mehrabian; Beth Sanchez
Subject: No need for Senate-based meeting tomorrow

Hello All,
I do not think we need to meet regarding a vote of no confidence. A censure did pass (not unanimously but with clear margins). The AA was also split from the AS despite some vigorous objections.
We can probably find time to discuss our school's opinion about a vote of no confidence at our next school meeting. This vote in not going to happen soon

Best,

Brittany Adams, PhD
Associate Professor of History and Department Chair of the Humanities
Irvine Valley College

From: Brittany Adams
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:51 PM
To: Brittany Adams; Lisa Alvarez; Roy Bauer; Bill Etter; Daniel Vernazza; Deanna Scherger; Daniel DeRoulet; Emily Liu; Julie Evans; Stephen Felder; Henry Carnie; Jeffrey Johnson; Rebecca Kaminsky; Melissa Knoll; Lewis Long; Kurt Meyer; Jamie Poster; Kay Ryals; Summer Serpas; Virginia Shank; Toshio Whelchel; Toni Fuentes; Shakeh Mehrabian; Beth Sanchez
Subject: Meeting Tomorrow

Hello,
Brooke has asked Roy and I to assess if there is enough new business to discuss important issues in regards to a vote of no confidence for tomorrow's meeting. I will email you this afternoon to let you know if we believe there should be a meeting tomorrow in regards to this issue particularly.

Best,

Brittany Adams, PhD
Associate Professor of History and Department Chair of the Humanities
Irvine Valley College

Reply Reply All Forward

Academic Senate Notes - January 31, 2019

[courtesy of Melanie H]

1. Guests - Kurt M. - Faculty Association President , Elissa O. - Foundation , Erik Garcia - Counselor, Traci Fahimi - Dean

2. Public comments- A) Elizabeth Chambers- Elizabeth reports that the Human Development Program is severely hindered because they no longer have a child development center and the desperately need one to continue their program. June - CDC closed before this cabinet was seated - we need to make this an agenda item to discuss the history of and work on a solution. B) Elissa - IVC foundation awards dinner March 9. Tickets available on line . Also - if you have any auction items to donate, that would be greatly appreciated. C) Cheryl - District wide planning committee working on district wide plan and will be on campus - town hall meeting on 2/1-but this is just the beginning of the process. You will be receiving a survey to help the committee with the complete planning process— please answer. We will also be getting a program/unit assessment questionnaire - like program review, but just a survey. These are important to show the uniqueness of programs. This process will go into and through the fall. There will also be a round table discussion/“sharette” (a French term I didn’t know and don’t know how to spell) to discuss ideas in April. Expecting 150 people - they were planning it at Saddleback - but Cheryl “threw a hissy fit “ that it wasn’t convenient for IVC folks- so they are reconsidering the location. Email Cheryl with any questions. Please participate in the planning process of the educational master plan for the district. D) Eddie T. - Lunar New Year celebration in the quad from 12-2 next week. Offering “SPEAK” - a second annual program collaboration with poetry, music etc - “pre program” for homecoming dance that evening in the gym. Also, Eddie will be hosting a screening on February 14, 2019 of the the excellent documentary “Documenting Hate” - open to all students and faculty. 2-350 pm. Discussion after with Dan DeRoulet. Africa American History month - screening of Hip Hope Revolution - all 8 episodes of the docu-series - in the CANNAPI - beginning February 5th.

3. Jeff K. - Senate Vice President - Calendar committee looking at lots of data and examples of other calendar options including compressed - about 1/2 of the community colleges in California have already gone that way and there are also many variations of the compressed calendar. The committee will set up a site on insideivc.eduunder “academic senate” - the committee will place their research and data therefor all of us to be able to look at as they go through this data gathering process. Their first meeting is February 5th. Monthly meetings to follow.

4. Dan D. - Chair, Academic Affairs - Dan reported that there is a small amount of unencumbered professional development funds left for this year - could cover a few more conferences - apply!

5. Rick Boone - Curriculum Chair - A) IVC is looking to move to a new curriculum management system called Meta - first meeting to try out the new system is February 5th - feel free to join and meet and work and play with the new system - in Mission Viejo from 3-5 - email Rick Boone for more details . B) If you are interested in submitting for a new award or certificate, you need to file a letter of intent as the first step. It is on the new curriculum website - on inside ivc.

6. June M - Senate President -A) Apparently Saddleback wanted a financial “loan” from us, but we said no and they are apparently using now using reserves. We are probably repaying them a loan we took from them, at some point. This is prompting more discussion about true financial transparency. June would like to form a subcommittee of the senate called something close to “budget” - asking for financials etc to look into the budget - all budget committees are district-wide and discusses future spending. June wants this committee to look at actual financials. Davit will be invited , but not to present - but to answer questions based on information we have and and questions we give him. We need clarification on past, current and future budgets. B) State approved the Fine Arts building for matching funds some years back - and we were high on the state list for final approval and funding- hasn’t happened. June reports IVC will now look at local funding. Student Services building also due for a refresh . I asked about the legendary A200 refresh we heard about at least 4 years ago. They will check. Also, June would like to create another sub committee called “programs” - we have many processes that have to be looked at and revised. She will finalize goals and details of both subgroups - then we can vote on it and know the specifics.

7. Rick Boone - Curriculum Committee Chair— AA/AS GE split - vigorous debate- I represented our schools opinion of “no” because the proposal does not include the American Institutions - it is only an option. I voted no - It passed 17/10/1.

8.Motion for Censure- I voted to abstain as I never had a clear yes or no from our school. That was the best way for me to make sure I wasn’t voting my feeling but the schools. The final vote was 17/5/6

9. Residency Requirement — for Certification of Achievement - passed.

10. LGBTQIAA Liaison - Aaron Pollard approved as the new liaison

11. IVC Calendar Proposal - 2020-2021 - same as previous calendar - this doesn’t reflect possible future calendar changes - winter break begins December 17!

12.Hiring Committee - Dan has a concern on chemistry search - no female faculty represented and no racial diversity, and the entire chemistry faculty is on the committee . He would like them to reconsider. Physics position - concern that there is no outreach from anyone outside of physical sciences - also - Sanjay on 3 committees. Math also revisiting their committee - the Math reps at the Senate meeting were surprised to see a new faculty member (to begin in the Fall) - transferred from Saddleback to fill one of the four Math position - on the hiring committee. Journalism and AESL/ESL hiring committees were the only committees which passed:)

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.]