Thursday, November 1, 2018

Nov 1 [2018] Senate meeting


Nov 1 Senate meeting [Roy’s notes]
 
     During "public comments," I read this Humanities faculty remark from an email I had received: 
 
   I fully support a censure of the college president, though I think to censure [him] only for his violation of 10+1, which is grievous--as well as his tendency to blame it on the staff member--does not fully represent our deep concerns about his failure to lead. 
   I would like to echo Board of Trustees member Tim Jamal's notion that what is needed in these times is swift moral leadership that condemns hate speech and hateful actions. 
   The administration's failure to recognize genuine threats to safety is deeply problematic, and if possible, I think this should be addressed during the discussion of the censure. I understand why it may not be something for which we can officially censure, as it may not be so clearly a violation of expected practices, but I still believe it should be discussed and recorded, so that this history of failure of leadership will be acknowledged.  --V
 
     Dan made a plea for changing #15 position to English compo/journalism [requested by Senator Brittany, who could not attend]. The group agreed to that (informally, nods). Done deal.
 
Executive report:
     June: more later
     Jeff: more later
     Dan: thanks for responding to Flex week survey – 30% participation! (Sheesh.)
 
CAMPUS SAFETY/SECURITY CONCERNS:
 
     Idea (Melanie): let’s set up our own campus forum; June seemed to like that suggestion; will come back.
 
     Someone asked for timeline re swastika incident.
     Ben said the swastika event was on the 16thor 17th. So 10 days passed before administration responded.
 
     June reiterated idea: We need to assert our rights and responsibilities as faculty, let administration know that we’re here and we’re asserting our rights and responsibilities.
 
     Lots of skepticism expressed about Glenn’s communications to faculty. One missive was really a cooption of June’s letter of intent of what senate would be doing about security, etc. Skepticism expressed about Glenn’s claim that his email (about security) that was supposedly sent on Friday was actually sent on Sunday. (Some did receive it on Friday; some didn’t)
 
     Dan: Doesn’t want the issue to get lost in the mail. 
     Students: concerned about ICE on campus, etc.
 
     Devin: mentions Roquemore’s claim that we have excellent policies, etc. (in today’s missive). Not too impressed.
 
     Someone named “Lisa” [Montagne?] and Online education taskforce. Bring in expert who could develop online teaching certificate (for faculty doing online). Tim Van Norman. In Feb or March, met Lisa, one of our writing faculty. Can you get involved? She’s being teaching online for years. We’ve worked together on a number of things. Want senate feedback and input.
     Online teaching certificate proposal (Lisa Montagne)
     20 hour program or thereabouts. Most campuses have something like that. Have put many hours into this. Using Canvas, etc. PROPOSAL: a pilot. A week before Flex week. January 3, 4, 7. 3 six hour boot camp days on campus. 
Topics list: best practices, etc. If this works out, can do it again, subsequent semesters.
     Might do an 8-week online too. 
     Blah blah blah
 
VISIT FROM NEWISH VC OF HR (district):
 
     Legit concern: unfair that SC has access to HR, not IVC (owing to HR’s location at Saddleback College). We’ve now got someone to be at IVC, representing HR. Just hired.
     Her role: HR is not student services. Old community building is now HR office at IVC.
     News management team in human R. Very excited.
     I complained about info blackout with regard to Dean of LA hire (I was on the search committee). [Note: on next day, I learned, for first time, that Brooke was hired, pending board approval.] 
     Many positive comments about new regime at HR.
 
MOTION TO CENSURE GLENN ROQUEMORE:
 
      (He acted to remove a requirement for approval of the Photonics Program without bothering to inform faculty (senate).)
 
     I’ve been told we should have discussion before vote, said June.
 
     Lots of voices. Some timidity expressed. Not enough information, some say. 
     Some concerns expressed that there are lots of complaints about R, not just one. 
 
     I don’t understand the timidity, I said. Look at this from historical perspective: we used to stand up for our rights. Used to go to court (and win). We’ve let things slip. We’ve let Prez get away with much, starting with early college program, which was rejected by Senate. (Earlier, June had painted a similarly dire picture about faculty/senate authority.)
 
     Someone informed us that, at the time of Roquemore’s action, 14 programs were in want of the viability inquiry when Roquemore unilaterally removed the requirement for his hobby-horse, Photonics. Eventually the VPI said take it off the agenda, not go to board. Why? Because we lack a policy for how to do the inquiry.
     Saddleback AS is outraged because, there, no administrator gets to touch curriculum; a clear outrage.
 
Curriculum is #1 on 10+1.
 
APPENDED INFO: [Senate]
CENSURE MOTION ETC. of Nov 1 Senate Meeting
Information for the 11/01/18 IVC Academic Senate meeting of the Representative Council 
 
...

General Information 
 
·         President Roquemore is aware of the motion and has communicated with the Senate President that the curriculum specialist misunderstood the discussions regarding the Photonics AS. 
 
·         The Photonics AS was prepared for Board approval by the curriculum specialist after discussions with the President. That document is an attachment to the Motion. Below is an email from the curriculum specialist.  
 
“Timeline:
     Academic Senate originally approved this degree on 5/4/2017. It was at the BOT step but was never sent for approval.
     I created the BIR document (attached) because the President instructed me to move it forward. I sent the degree back to the Senate step on 8/31/2018.”
 
·         The Vice-President for Instruction stopped the curriculum from going to the Board for approval.
 
·         8/31/18 Senate requested that the Photonics AS be moved back to the Senate level in C-net pending discussions regarding LMI.  
 
 
Summary of discussions at Senate 
 
Below text reflects notes from the Academic Senate Recorder taken at Senate meeting dates indicated
 
 
Senate meeting on October 18, 2018
Public Comments
     Ben Mis – there has already been discussions about the issue of the college president trying to push through curriculum over the summer without consultation of faculty which fully goes against the Senate’s 10+1.  It hasn’t yet been agendized at Senate, only discussed so there are no consequences which implies that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he can circumvent faculty. A faculty member suggested the possibility of censoring the president to prevent him from doing this again. This will be agendized at the next Rep Council meeting.
 
 Senate meeting on September 6, 2018 [Senate document]
Public Comments
     1)         Roy Bauer - Our President is showing a pattern of favoritism. Special areas that he likes seems to be regularly honored; probationary faculty being protected; certain departments are protected while others are ignored, like the humanities. This favoritism was exhibited when he interfered with curriculum as discussed last Rep Council meeting on August 30, 2018. This should be further discussed and reflected upon.
     June McLaughlin - the cabinet will discuss how to agendize it for future senate meetings.
Senate President’s Report
     Dan de Roulet and June met with the president last Friday and they asked the senate questions what was the intent for asking to push a program [Photonics] forward.  His response was that he was responding to an adjunct  faculty members inquiry about the status of this program and he was inquiring for him. He felt that he was within his wheel house to be able to do this. Senate will continue to look into this further. Additionally, senate had taken a vote that when the IDEA school was created and asked the VPI to sign a document that they would protect the programs at the school for 3-5 years, including Photonics.
 
… Labor Market information discussion edited out
 
     The concern is that according to some AS presidents, administration doesn’t get to touch curriculum at all, ever. We need to clarify where and administration can be involved with curriculum and then we affirm these boundaries. Labor market discussions are critical to what is happening in curriculum, CE and even pathways which is going to force us to ask for every degree will that student get a job. This opens up an important discussion that we need to have regarding future programs.
     Follow up on the understanding that the President told the BOT to waive the labor market data for this program. Curriculum committee, LMI meetings, have already started discussing these issues. We will agendize this item for further discussion.