senate capers: May 2019

Friday, May 10, 2019

May 10 memo to Hum colleagues re "Journalism" issue

Just attended the English Dept's meeting re the Journalism program.

     About 12 people showed up, all from the English dept, except for me. I felt like I belonged somewhere else.

     Virginia served as the chair of the meeting, though she was somewhat uncomfortable with that role and did not want to impose an agenda, natch.

     Most of the comments involved niggling worries over whether the admin would support a Journalism Program sufficiently, the impact on low-enrolled courses, etc.

     There continued to be discussion about the desirability of the hire to be able to teach Comp, especially if Journalism is housed in the English dept, though Virginia (and perhaps others) forcefully responded that the effort to cobble Journalism with Comp is probably what doomed the earlier search. The point was made clearly, perhaps successfully

     My notion that we create a separate dept for Journalism did seem to attract some support--I think because members of the English dept feared having to carry the burdens of the program by themselves.

     I must say, little passion for a Journalism Program/Paper was evidenced during this morning's discussion. Obviously, moving forward requires some sort of passionate point person, willing to push forward despite future challenges. (Virginia would be ideal, but she's obviously booked solid.) It seemed to me that most remarks focused on the grimness of the challenges rather than the hope for a program/paper. As often happens these days, listening to my colleagues (present company excluded) made we want to retire asap.

     There was much sentiment in favor of creating a task force, perhaps launched by the senate, to pursue definition and push forward with the program, soliciting input from around campus. I was not comfortable with that idea, knowing, as I do, that the Senate houses a Nixonian silent majority, aka rat bastards. I referred to the School of H as an island of culture among barbarians (something like that), but that obviously did not go over well. I think I saw some colleagues starting a fire and an enormous cooking pot over on the side. Jungle drums could be heard.

     There was talk of contacting someone from the OCC program or the Cal State F program--the hope is that they will have suggestions concerning who we need to hire, what sort of program to aim for, etc.--but no action will be taken along those lines. Not yet.

     Dan suggested that he and Lisa (sorry Lisa) approach the VPI for firmer guarantees or assurances of support for the faculty member and the program. So that went forward. (Lisa seemed to have the role of "the spirit of the paper" during this meeting.)

     The feeling of the meeting was very much the feeling of a classroom in which the instructor asks questions but then hears only crickets. Chirp chirp.

     The hope, I guess, is that we'll get our act together during the summer and be ready, come early Fall, to go forward with a hire, etc.

--Roy

Thursday, May 2, 2019

ACADEMIC SENATE [May 2, 2019?]

[Melanie's notes]

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS-a) Melanie- I announced the arrival of coffee at ATEP for students - I brought it to senate/complained many times during the last two years during public comments, so I decided it was a good idea to also share the good news! During my announcement, I thanked both Davit and Jeff H.(facilities) for working on this. I also mentioned the return of RD 171 in Spring 2020 b) Elissa - Scholarship Ceremony May 15 - let her know if you want to go - assigned seating c) ELEVATE - Eddie -Students from ELEVATE will be performing a show - they will also be doing this performance in Washington DC at a conference . He also mentioned that ELEVATE will host a “ Financial Literacy” workshop on May 9. In addition, he advertised an Angels baseball event - May 22 - part of your ticket benefits an Asian Pacific organization d) Alcohol and Beverage AR- There was a discussion about a new AR which restricts alcohol at college events and complicates food at events with more process and paperwork and approvals. Linda F. spoke about it, along with Eddie and Cessa and Linda feels we have an administration at the district that seems to be taking steps towards eliminating food and alcohol at college events. Elissa said she wasn’t given a copy of the newest version and the Foundation is in charge of many of these events. June is going to look into to it. e) Linda F. introduced Corey Rogers - the new Dean of Enrollment. Dean Rogers came from LLCC serving as the Executive Dean of Enrollment Services. At IVC, he will be in charge of enrollment, the International Center, and matriculation.

2. DEANNA SHERGER SSAMMO Co Chair - Deanna explained what the committee does and mentioned there is place for 5 faculty and only has 3 currently . (Student Success Access Matriculation. Marketing and Outreach) Committee is mostly focused on student services. They meet Tuesdays 230 430 - second Tuesday of the month - let us know if you are interested.

3. PRESIDENT’S REPORT - JUNE M .June thanked everyone for a great year and all the hard work - this was our last meeting of the school year. She says we have had lots of good conversations and we need to agendize the cameras - we need a deeper conversation in senate about the ownership of images, academic freedom, etc. New podiums coming - will be able to attach wireless computers. so classrooms will be more tech friendly - coming in the fall. New grant coming - senate will now be looking at grants and then we will be advising the senate president on the sign off - before, the academic senate president signed them and reported back to the senate. The College recently received a $200,000 Institutional Effectiveness grant - focus: campus safety, communication, and cultural competency . The consultant group that met with different groups on campus in this past few months have made some excellent recommendations in these areas - more to come on this.

4. VICE PRESIDENT’S REPORT - JEFF K. Jeff discussed a new proposal to have the senate reps on the budget committee (president, vp) play a more collaborative role in the budget process to ensure actual transparency. The idea is to have dugout items come in as initiatives or ideas and have all members of the committee look at them and approve them instead of only administrators making them - presenting and implementing. This is a work in progress. Jeff also reported cameras are being installed currently - but they are not live yet. Panic buttons are being placed in teacher podiums. Davit will be sending out a newsletter with training opportunities and an update on the progress of all the security measures. Finally, Jeff announced that we have two permanent lactation stations on campus- HR - area - A304 and in the library. The announcement is coming soon.

5. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS REPORT DAN D. — Dan discussed the new idea for professional development during our fall flex week. There will be ONE DAY - Tuesday and there will be a theme, speakers, and dinner: THEME : Non-academic barriers to student success - the 3 speakers will speak on this theme. There will be break out sessions in the afternoon and then in the evening there will be one speaker followed by a campus faculty dinner. - to quote Dan directly , “Its possible if one attended all day Tuesday and school and department meetings on their specific day, one would magically satisfy all flex hours”.

6. VOTE OF CONFIDENCE- Our discussion before voting revealed an interesting unintended effect of the document/list - the rebuttal document made people feel uncomfortable and felt it diminished the faculty concerns. The discussion also included thoughts about not having a process where an administrator is reviewed by an inclusive group and if we did, we might never have ended up in this position. A meaningful evaluation system would actually protect vulnerable faculty - a vote like this, does not - puts it on recored and so faculty have a tendency to abstain from voting for fear of retribution. Apparently ED code makes it law that administrator evals require faculty input. I will bring this to the next FA meeting as June mentioned it was supposed to me a contract negotiated item (the eval process of administrators). In the end, we voted on whether to have an all- faculty vote of confidence - the vote: result: No- the faculty wide vote will not go forward, 8-11-9.

7. Program revitalization , suspension, and disconturinuare procecudre- - Keith Donovan- Program Review Chair- workgroup rewrote the process to reflect faculty input: identifies who starts the process and identifies what evidence is needed to even begin the process, The final decision rested in the presidents office , but now the final decision and all decisions along the way, rests with the academic senate. The report at the end of the process goes to senate and the senate takes it to the VPI. Faculty feel this is really a 10+1 issue. The process looks at a 5 year decline based on parameters and metrics outlined in the new program review guidelines. This isn’t being voted on until Fall - send suggestions. One issue is : define program accurately.

8. COMMENCEMENT UPDATE - CESSA AND BEN G.- Cessa provided updates on changes at this year’s commencement . June and Carolina the readers, faculty of the year will lead the procession, Sergio Garcia Koobac is the students speaker, we will be acknowledging retirements during ceremony - (make sure they know if there are members of your department retiring)-, faculty arrive 3:30, reception in BSTIC - added a sweet and savory to what they’ve had int he past, line up outside BSTIC at 4:45, and 5pm is the processional. Dinner for faculty and board and staff and volunteers in laser cafe after the graduation. Ben said we have a record number of applicants for graduation this year, larger turn out than last year. This upcoming year Ben will be bringing the discussion for next year - we have grown out of space in the terraces to have both degree and certificate earners in the same commencement ceremony - please email any thoughts to Ben and join the 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.]