senate capers: April 18, 2019 email from senator Bauer to Humanities faculty

Thursday, April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019 email from senator Bauer to Humanities faculty

from Humanities Senator Roy Bauer:

I alert you to two items on the agenda for today’s senate meeting: items I (Guided Pathways) and J (Vote of confidence in Prez Roquemore).

Item J is a motion to go forward with a vote of no confidence. Item I concerns a proposal, from the Guided Pathways crew, for senators to choose between two “possible permutations of IVC Guided Pathways Interest Areas”:

J. Vote of Confidence/No Confidence for the College President

Vote of Confidence/No Confidence for the College President

Shall the Representative Council move forward with the process of a vote of confidence/no confidence for the President of the College?

One concern is that many faculty at the college have managed to remain unfamiliar with the various issues that have arisen, especially since last summer, regarding the President and his actions/inactions. Hence, it is possible that a vote could reveal that more faculty support the President than do not.

I have spoken with Brittany about this, and I told her that, at least for now, I plan to vote for going forward. I have no doubt that a substantial proportion of full-time faculty do not support the President (Roquemore), and even if that proportion is small (say, 20%), the existence of that segment would be damning.

But I certainly understand the worry.

Let me know what you think.

I should mention that the Senate Cabinet has generated the following document, an attempt to identify “concerns” about President Roquemore:

To: Academic Senate Representative Council

From: Academic Senate Cabinet

RE: Cabinet’s Findings on Vote of Confidence Information

Date: April 4, 2019

In response to the motion passed by the Academic Senate Representative Council, the Academic Senate cabinet has gathered faculty concerns regarding President Roquemore’s performance of his duties as President of Irvine Valley College. The concerns expressed by faculty members, sorted according to the duties outlined in a recent SOCCCD job description for a College President*, are presented below.

A. Leadership

Job Description:

To serve as educational leader and Chief Executive Officer at one of two community colleges in a multi-college district reporting to the Chancellor; assure the delivery of educational and other services provided by assigned college; provide visionary leadership in the overall administration of the college; develop an administrative organization which shall be the established authority on campus; develop and implement the district and college’s strategic plan and implement Board of Trustee policies and district administrative procedures; and serve as the final authority at the college level.

To formulate and articulate a vision of the college’s future that addresses the evolving social, economic, and political forces that affect its mission and campus priorities, in which teaching, learning, student access and student success are central to the college mission.

Concerns

1. President Roquemore has not openly been involved in changing the DRAC model changing or in getting more money for our campus.

2. Most communications from the President are regarding negative information (death, national tragedies, acts of God, etc.), not about direction of the college, what we are working towards, etc.

3. In a time where faculty are inundated by outside-of-classroom requests, there is no quarterback to lead us, coordinate our efforts, or help us understand the importance of all the moving parts (IEPI Grant Funding, ADA Self Evaluation, Educational Master Plan meetings, Marketing & Outreach Strategy, etc.).

4. The President appeared to be uninvolved in the creation of IDEA and hasn’t involved himself in conversations regarding low-enrolled programs.

5. The administration has done little to support and promote CE programs, delegating outreach and promotional events to the faculty as unpaid volunteers. The exception is with one particular, “favorite” program.

6. The current administration simply lacks the will, understanding, and ability to effectively manage CE programs. Administration priorities are single-variable productivity, academic general education, and being "number one in transfers."

7. The President allowed spouse to remain on campus for decades which limited the effectiveness and undermined the authority of the dean and other faculty.

8. A college president is responsible for his/her vice presidents and it appears he has not been involved with them and, more specifically, in enrollment management.

9. Problems and successes of student equity and student success lie squarely on the President and administration.

10. When the Director of Student Life returned from administrative leave, no announcement was made to the campus at large.

11. The President openly bypassed his own VPI to get favorable intel from Saddleback VPI regarding curriculum, then reportedly attempted to intimidate a classified staff person about the situation.

B. Transparency & Engagement

Job Description:

To report to the Chancellor and execute all powers and duties in accordance to rules and regulations of the Board of Trustees, Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and the laws of the State of California; serve as the institutional leader and implement board policies and administrative regulations as applicable to the position; serve under contract and establish annual goals, which are approved by the Chancellor; and advise the Chancellor on matters related to District planning, policies, operations, as they affect the diverse body of students and employees at the college.

To maintain effective working relationships with faculty, staff and students, as well as on a district-wide basis with the other college and district services; and advocate for the community college using a collaborative, collegial leadership style that also supports the district’s strategic plan and achievement of the districtwide goals and objectives.

Concerns: Faculty Engagement

1. At a time when the college is being forced to cut classes with high efficiency as the primary enrollment goal and when there is limited support at ATEP (no coffee for students and faculty placed in the tutoring center), there is a $4.9mil proposal being flown for 12 IDEA signs. $500,000 has already been spent on the design of these signs. Even though faculty don’t approve this spending, it should have been communicated.

2. Ask a new FT faculty whether he or she has seen the President since Flex week? Has he ever spoken with that faculty member after his or her hiring? The President does not show his care or concern for faculty.

3. Lack of communication and concern with faculty safety; specifically, regarding a threatening letter sent to the College.

4. During his own curriculum controversy, he did not ask to address faculty or attend an Academic Senate Representative Council meeting.

5. With the rollout of security cameras and keycards across campus, the President never visited the Academic Senate even though it was requested of him by Senate President.

6. The administration has become a punitive gatekeeper, rather than a supportive partner to our programs. Its failure to adequately plan and support our CE programs is wasting the talents and energy of our faculty and staff, disrupting and frustrating the academic careers and livelihoods of our students, and alienating the business community.

7. The Flex Week presentation on safety did not address the actual concerns of campus employees.

Concerns: Campus Engagement

1. The President is rarely visible on campus outside of required meetings.

2. There are huge deficits in communication and partnership, particularly regarding money, which affects enrollment management. One example is when IVC didn’t have enough money (millions short of budget), then we were miraculously not in debt. A couple years later (recently), there was consideration to give a loan to Saddleback, which was discussed behind closed doors and never mentioned to faculty.

3. There was little discussion/involvement surrounding the closing of the Child Development Center. Prior to the closing, personnel issues weren’t managed. The decision to close it was rushed and though a vote came through Senate, it was not clear how it would affect instructional programs. Details were buried and minimized, and a thorough research of the ramifications was not completed (3-year no use law).

4. Question: “If he was gone tomorrow, would you know?”

Concerns: Community/Business Engagement

1. The President has not been involved in raising money for the college through the foundation or other means.

2. The President has not been involved in overall marketing of college, #1 transfer rate was not his effort.

C. Shared Governance

Job Description:

To foster a culture of collaboration, mutual respect, innovation, and continuous improvement throughout the district; lead by example; actively participate in and support district-wide participatory governance components and activities and other collaborative processes; encourage professional excellence among the staff and promote an organizational culture of customer service, innovation, and quality services.

Concerns: Collaboration & Accountability

1. The President backed the recent SC “loan” with Davit without consulting shared governance. The loan proposal was only discussed with IVC administration and the district, and was not discussed in BDRPC, where faculty attend. There is a failure to see Senate as a partner on campus.

2. The President continually avoids budget conversations with shared governance groups (10+1). He involves himself in budget planning and concerns behind closed doors.

3. The President blamed Craig Justice for issues after he left his role as VPI.

4. There is a lack of involvement by the President with his senior leadership.

5. The President’s Cabinet meetings (VPs and Senate Presidents) have been cancelled several times and does not regularly meet any longer.

6. The President hasn’t broken down silos on campus( such as Student Services). This has not fostered collaboration across units.

Notes:

*The Job Description language has been taken from SOCCCD posting of President, Saddleback College (screening 5/8/17).

I. Guided Pathways Interest Areas

Guided Pathways Interest Areas

The purpose of this proposal is to ask you to choose between two possible permutations of IVC Guided Pathways Interest Areas as version 1.0. See an explanation of the options below.

With interest areas v 1.0 established, undecided students enter an Area that best fits their academic and career interests rather than choosing a major and then loosing precious time if they change their mind.

Some benefits of having Interest Areas:

1) Completion Teams for each Interest Areas –

a. Counselors (Liaisons for each Interest Areas)

b. Data Coaches

c. Deans/Administrators/Chairs

d. Discipline Faculty (DFMs – Discipline Faculty Mentors)

e. Financial Aid Experts

f. Academic Support Experts (Library, Writing, Tutoring)

g. Peer Mentors (2nd year students)

2) Marketing – interest areas, careers using websites, brochures, internships,

3) CCC Apply – if undecided, choose an interest area (available now to update)

This is an iterative process. With either choice, programs may work with the Guided Pathways Mapping and Interest Areas Design Team to if they believe a different Interest Area would be a better fit

Discussion/Action: Shall the Representative Council approve the Guided Pathways interest areas?

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, April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019 email from senator Bauer to Humanities faculty

No comments:

Post a Comment