Academic Senate meeting, August 15, 2019

Academic Senate meeting, August 15, 2019 (Prof. Development week)

Babs

Trustee Babs Jay among us. (She sat next to former district HR guy David Bugay [nowadays a mere Business/Management Instructor].)

[IVC Prez] Roquemore introduces self.

VPI McDonald does as well.

Et al.

Bugay

June [M, the senate prez] hopes this semester to engage in “succession planning.” Get ‘em lined up ahead of time. 

Senate cabinet updates:

Jeff [K, Vice Prez]: nothing to report

June: helping develop strategic plan for the year. Some concerns about what admin is doing. Got district to agree to add (another) faculty member to academic dean hiring committees. Manager evaluation draft…. Best practices at other colleges: soliciting input from people directly interacting with the dean. Also: soliciting input from those handled by dean, perhaps chosen at random. Re union: chancellor’s exec council: they seem to think they get to develop this policy. Will be an ongoing conversation to work with district to make the evaluation meaningful. “They” want to formalize by end of Fall, implement in 2020.

Letter this morning from HR re academic freedom. Limits of AF and free speech in the classroom. We’ve reviewed the memo, and we’re OK with it, said June. [Some senators were not OK with it; concerned.]

Did you all read the memo? (Most did.) Limits. Several IVC faculty have complaints against them; much more than Saddleback. I don’t know why we’re upsetting students, but they’re filing complaints. [The major IVC case concerns one of our historians.]

Profanity. Any definition? 

From the memo:

…the court ruled that when multiple interests must be balanced by a College, “the College’s interest in preserving a learning environment free of sexual harassment, among others, outweighs Plaintiff’s claimed free speech and academic freedom interests.”  Id. at 824. In Demers v. Austin, a case from the federal judicial circuit governing California, the court described that the same type of rule applies in evaluating the free speech claims for faculty based on their asserted academic freedom rights.  

Jeff: yes, 90% of the complaints concern IVC Profs, but consider the sample size, etc.

Blah blah blah….

Dan [D of Academic Affairs]: spent summer endlessly revising flex week schedule; some people struggled with deadlines. 

There is now a nighttime therapist for students. 4-7 for nighttime.  Outside those hours, call campus police, who are good with those kinds of problems.

Will have return of distinguished academic speaker. Also, book groups (we’ll try “chapter” groups instead). Fundraising events. Encouraging faculty to develop ”communities of practice.” Revised faculty manual. 

Rick Boone [of courses]: GOALS: Caught up on review of all courses and awards. (Awards = certificates and degrees) Bylaws for the curriculum committee: working to finalize. Trying to improve Curricunet (upgrade). We hope to go live this semester. 

We’ve implemented Meta.

AA/AS gen ed cleanup. CWE blah blah blah.

There’s a list. (”Master queue”) See if your courses are “due.”Go to IVC.edu. In search, type “curriculum.” It’ll take you there (webpage).

We have the process [per course] down to about two and one half months. “Outstanding,” said someone. 

The unleashing of praise made some among us uncomfortable: “we thank all previous curriculum chairs for their work,” said June, hastily.

End of reports

JUNE: asked office of I to provide current draft of faculty hiring priority list. Jeff: trying to understand the algorithms. Doesn’t seem to make sense. June: we meet with O of I a lot to talk this over. McDonald: no one seems to understand this algorithm. Key factoid: the ratio of full time to part time faculty. Iterative process. Blah blah blah. (He’s a math guy.)

June: this is not how SC does it. Is our way too cumbersome? Lots of horse trading at SC. They appeal to their “feelings” and such. (“Not to cast any aspersions,” she said.)

Deans have been asked to review Tier 1 and 2 at school meetings (today).

Jeff: in our approach, there exist inherent biases based on pedagogy. Some of us teach courses with high unit value and small class size. A full time instructor—in position of having a relatively low number of students. At universities, they go to grad students to teach such courses, but that isn’t available to us. A correction factor could be incorporated to address that bias. Small class sizes and high unit value. Special case.

2nd issue: we addressed the Tier 3 (?) issue last year. We discussed the status quo approach and we decided that the deans  need to present a “position paper,” explaining their recommendation/decision. Their rational for the position. Some decisions from that body over the years have not gone well. We asked for that sort of justificaiton; it was provided last year. But is it a policy? Not sure. Should be.

Dan: need for more communication between those involved and deans. Perhaps have a meeting of dept. chairs and dean in one room before submitting [Tier 3] choice. Would take mystery out of the process. McDonald seemed agreeable.

June: a couple of difficult topics. 

What our struggles are as a Senate. Got lots of valid and frank feedback. Admittedly there’s been some mismanagement.

Because of the vote of Censure and vote of NC: so this year let’s discuss leadership. Let’s have structured discussion about leadership at the college (and district). Board leadership too. Start there.

2nd: we have our program review chair here. Budgeting committee working to tie request for faculty to program review, etc. Tying resources. Annual updates; justify request for resources. 

Some senator reminded us that 18 programs up for comprehensive review. You need to get started pretty early. Don’t wait! Thanks.

Also: (JUNE): comments about the photonic program. Career ed program. [You’ll recall that, last summer, Roquemore took inappropriate action to “help” this loser program, yielding a censure by this body.] 

UPDATE: It will be relocated to another college. Pasadena CC. The adjunct is happy about this. Program discontinuance (and process) will be exercised this year. [Some senators were surprised that they had not been consulted about this new step.] We have low enrollments. Affects some more than others. This body will be looking at the new policy. Start with one program… Maybe: how do we revitalize this program?

Ilknur was upset about that. Maximo also didn’t know about this. “I’m trying to process this; this is serious stuff,” said Ilknur. June: it’s been low-enrolled, right? Right. 

Someone asked: are our overall numbers down?

McDonald: flat or down all over county. There’s room for improvement here at IVC: growth potential. We lose 4,500 students from Fall to Spring. Shocking. 3.4% down from fall to fall (all over state? Country?) IVC: flat. Blah blah blah.

Ilknur emoted for a while, as she does.

June: some of the languages too are very nervous. The humanities: how to revitalize?

McDonald discusses cutting courses. Magic number? 18, sort of. Fewer than 18, class cut. Each dean is tasked with some value judgments. Weighing various considerations, not just cut if under 18. “Value judgments” seems to be the phrase of the day for M. 

June: we should “challenge” these judgments. Discussion.

June: would should improve how we’re hearing from the schools [an allusion to failures last year]. “We’re not hearing everything.” Need to do better. (Slightly veiled criticism of senators, I guess.)

Kurt: two faculty now on committee. Had district take out word “majority.” 360 evaluation instrument [for managers, deans?]

June: faculty diversity task force. How to diversify our faculty. We’re very white around here. 

Focus on hiring committees. 

Adjunct hiring: the farm team, it seems, for many full time hires. No stated process for adjunct hiring. No standards, it seems. Data shows that adjunct hiring: … Senate need to discuss; is it [diversity] important? We should talk about it. 

Rebekah: DSPS workshop. Oct. 10. 2:30 here. 

District HR: another memo will come out: roles and responsibilities serving disabled students. 

[Visitor] Lisa A: a committee chair has disinvited a member (of a task force). So what’s the process? What are the rules? Do they get to do this? Let’s take up this issue. Outrageous.

June: there is no process (she thinks). 

Dan: an experience I had this summer. Taught two writing courses this summer. For first time – anxiety level was up significantly. Immigration status. Talking about that in public space. Chinese international students concerned about Hong Kong and US/China relations. Worried. Middle east students: did not want to identify their country of origin. So know that this is on the minds of our students.

Alissa (of foundation): thanked those who participated in fundraising, etc. PRO-IVC. Live auction coming up. Workgroup, scholarships. 

Roquemore: are you aware of “StoryCorps”(?) Dialogue, face to face. A non-profit. A traveling opportunity. This college has been invited to participate. Volunteers? Next to the “great park.” A trailer. Interviewer. Questions. Air-stream trailer. Private. Quality dialogue. Learn something new about each other. Published by Libr of congress. Go to website: have access to…

I visited this summer: “My son interviewed me.” Really, a quality dialogue. 

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

StoryCorps is an American non-profit organization whose mission is to record, preserve, and share the stories of Americans from all backgrounds and beliefs. StoryCorps grew out of Sound Portraits Productions as a project founded in 2003 by radio producer David Isay. Its headquarters are located in the Fort Greene neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.

StoryCorps is modeled—in spirit and in scope—after the efforts of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of the 1930s, through which oral history interviews across the United States were recorded. Another inspiration for the organization was oral historian Studs Terkel, who cut the ribbon at the opening of StoryCorps’ first recording booth in Grand Central Terminal. To date, StoryCorps has recorded more than 60,000 interviews among more than 100,000 participants in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and several American territories.

. . .

StoryCorps has been criticized on multiple fronts. While it has been called "an oral history of America,"[3] oral historians have critiqued the project's methodology, specifically the "highly sculpted techniques of the interviews,"[4] such as the pre-scripted questions, the 40-minute time limit, and the presence of a StoryCorps staff member in the recording booth. The result of the technique is that interviews often elicit "an often-rehearsed moment, story, or memory."[5]

Historians are also critical of the post-interview editing process, which they argue favor highly emotional and predictable narrative arcs.[6] StoryCorps stories typically feature tales of survival, which, as one historian has argued, perpetuates an "interpretive straightjacket of the neoliberal belief that people have their fates in their own hands."[7]

Kurt: two articles that impact our part time faculty. Health insurance stipend. Priority rehire rights. The health insurance stipend: most pressing. Article 27. Eligible faculty who do not have coverage, can receive a stipend up to $500. Have until Dec 10 to fill out paperwork. Meaningful comprehensive coverage. Lewis Long presented this on Monday. Also: priority rehire rights. Will come in soon. Article 15. 

—Roy

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

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 .  

Academic Senate, April 18: the Senate hits rock bottom

Academic Senate, April 18: the Senate hits rock bottom

 

During public remarks, one senator suggested that the Senate should contemplate an investigation into the causes of the recent death (by suicide) of a colleague whose mood had been burdened by some sort of discipline he had recently received owing to some unfortunate remarks in the classroom. (I.e., we mustn’t ever object to an instructor’s remarks since it might lead to his suicide — or "Liberals are destroying America.")

 

Amazing.

No action was taken.

 

The Senate Prez (June M) was absent.

Ac. Affairs chair Dan D reminded everyone that the memorial for Colin would occur April 26. 

 

     Eventually, we got to the main item: the vote of confidence/no-confidence in the College President. The issue was whether we should go forward with such a vote at all.

     Discussion among Senators revealed that IVC’s full-time faculty seem divided about this matter. Several Senators reported that their faculty are unclear about the objections to Roquemore’s leadership, despite promulgation of a document that listed most of the points/complaints/alarms that have arisen in recent months (since early Fall) and the Senate’s recent censure of the fellow.

     Oddly, the senate cabinet distributed a document that was a point-by-point rebuttal to the elements of the aforementioned document. We were not told who its author was, though it was evidently someone in the “communications” area. (Probably Gary R, that notorious prayer enthusiast.) It was badly written; its tone was unprofessional.

     It’s pretty clear that most faculty never read the document identifying worries and complaints about Roquemore. Many faculty, it seems, are apathetic and complacent, disinclined to be bothered with objections to Roquemore’s ways/regime. Our campus is polarized, I think, much as the country is polarized: by those who pay attention and worry vs. those who support “Our Leader.” Trouble-makers vs. patriots. Radicals vs. regular folk.

 

     This matter will again come up for a vote today (May 2) at this afternoon’s meeting. Brittany and I are seriously contemplating voting the thing down, fearing that it will produce more support than dissent of Roquemore.

 

Sheesh.

 

     Dan D of Ac. Affairs explained that his committee is wrestling with the unfortunate tendency of leaving “part timers” (ah, even the name is a problem!) out of governance, discussions. What to do?

51% of the teaching of IVC is done by adjuncts.

     The AA committee has some reasonable recommendations that will come up for vote today. (See here.) Here they are:

College-Wide Proposals Supporting Associate Faculty 

· That associate faculty representatives have a voting representative on each of the following committees: Academic Affairs, Curriculum, Senate (two representatives), BDRPC, APTC, and IEC. Also, that these associate faculty representatives receive compensation for their committee attendance. 

· That an IVC professional development website be developed and open to access by associate faculty. 

· That associate faculty be given a web location (e.g., a web page or canvas space) for the purposes of notifications and communications. 

· That online professional development and training opportunities be offered for associate faculty in consideration of their work schedules outside IVC. 

School-Specific Proposals Supporting Associate Faculty 

· That new associate faculty be provided with mentors from the ranks of full-time faculty or seasoned associate faculty. 

· That associate faculty by given shadowing opportunities for continued development of their teaching skills. 

· That the schools make available both physical and online documents to associate faculty including course outlines of record, sample syllabi, school contact information, program and course SLOs, sample assignments, and other best practice course materials.

· That associate faculty receive regular invitations to, and agendas and minutes for, school and department meetings.

· That each school establish an annual process of recognition and appreciation for associate faculty.

 

 —Roy

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?