January 17, 2013: the General Assembly meeting

Today's Academic Senate "General Assembly" meeting

January 17, 2013

    

Your two senators attended today’s meeting of the Academic Senate’s General Assembly, which, as Senate Prez Kathy Schmeidler noted, is not designed to perform “business,” but rather to inform faculty of issues, etc., and to provide an opportunity for comment, blah, blah, blah.

When I was first hired (in 1986), the semesterly General Assembly meetings were very well attended. Not any more. This meeting was sparsely attended. Our own school seemed to be best represented, with about four members present. Three or four administrators were also present, including VPI Craig Justice, who said little, and our own Karima Feldhus (plus the inevitable Kathy Werle).

To their credit, senate leadership provided the following verbiage to remind everyone of the point and purpose and procedures of an academic senate:

a. Role of the Academic Senate in College and District Governance

i. Per Title 5 and California Education Code, the Academic Senate is authorized to represent the faculty on academic and professional matters. [Handout: Title 5, 10+1]

ii. The Academic Senate is responsible for placing faculty representatives on all college and district committees related to academic and professional matters, except for those functioning within academic schools, departments or programs, or for those seats reserved for representatives of the Faculty Association as the bargaining agent.

iii. The responsibilities of the Academic Senate are defined in Education Code, Title 5, BP 2100.1 and BP 2100.2.

b. Procedures and Protocols

i. All full-time and part-time, tenured and probationary faculty are members of the Academic Senate, and are entitled to bring before the Senate issues relating to academic and professional matters at the college or in the district.  If you have a concern that needs to be brought to the Senate’s attention, please contact your Senate Representative or the Senate office (asenate@ivc.edu).  Actions to be addressed by the Representative Council must be submitted to the Senate office no later than one week prior to the scheduled meeting. 

ii. Seating of the Representative Council: The Representative Council is composed of the Senate officers, two representatives from each of the ten Academic Schools and two representatives from the Associate Assembly (part-time faculty).  According to the by-laws, each school can elect alternate representatives who can serve in place of the regular senator, but these alternates should be selected “in the same manner, at the same time, and by the same constituency that selects the senator.”

FULL-TIME FACULTY HIRING. Kathy briefly discussed the full-time faculty hiring issue. You’ll recall that, last semester, as our fiscal “crisis” gradually emerged, it became clear that the college president had seemed to settle in his mind a response to that crisis that would include freezing full-time hiring—we had expected to hire 10 or 11 new faculty. For a variety of reasons discussed last semester, this did not sit well with faculty, and, for that and other reasons, a special committee was formed (BSR).

From my notes for the Nov. 15 senate meeting:

VP Bob U reported on a recent meeting …that occurred on Wednesday. Bob referred to our new fiscal issue—that our revenues are flat but expenses are rising. Discussion of that issue at the meeting led to a decision to form yet another “budget” committee. As I’ll explain later, it appears that the formation of this committee was inspired by the perception that top administration (or just Glenn) was considering a controversial unilateral budget-saving measure—namely, not hiring new faculty this Spring.  

Kathy chimed in: she has been unhappy that no one seems to know what our “budget situation” is—evidently, only by Director of Fiscal Services, Davit Khachatryan, has “seen the budget.” And so pressures have been applied to top administration to reveal the facts, such as they are.

Kathy mentioned that, in the garden of Budget-land, there is “much low-hanging fruit,” and so it should not be difficult finding ways to reduce costs by 5%, as we are now told to do (by the Chancellor).

. . .

Craig was somewhat vague about how much hiring [will become possible], although he did say he was “hopeful” that we could hire the full complement of 10 (actually, 11) this Spring.

Craig recommended that, despite the budgetary uncertainty, we should make a formal request to proceed with “announcing” these positions (i.e., advertising: soliciting applicants). We expect that things will get clear by January.

One issue in the background of these budgetary concerns is parity (in hiring, in having full-time faculty) between IVC and Saddleback College. A year ago, Saddleback College decided to hire lots of faculty all at once. We decided to spread out our hires over three years. A decision, at IVC, to proceed with few hires in the Spring looks pretty bad to many of us, parity-wise.

At the aforementioned meeting on the 14th, Glenn seemed inclined to pull the plug on the planned hires, entirely because of our budget issues. Kathy had been given a heads up about the meeting; she attended and expressed displeasure with the notion that this decision might be made entirely on the basis of fiscal concerns. After all, she said, the decision to hire 10 faculty per year (i.e., spreading out the hires) was made for a wide range of reasons beyond budgetary concerns (e.g., the quality of the search committees, etc.). Why take action only in this one sector (faculty hires)?

I reminded the group that the Chancellor, in his email and in his recent forum presentation, emphasized that finding solutions to address our big budgetary problem should involve collaboration, not unilateral decision-making from the top. (“Duh,” Kathy seemed to say.)

The above tensions between Glenn and others yielded the decision to form a new “budget” committee [namely, BSR].

One rep insisted that we should be mindful of the “great pressures” on Glenn to deal with our new budgetary challenges. So let’s go easy on the guy, he said. But Kathy emphasized that she fully appreciates the pressure and responsibility Glenn feels; still, we should approach this matter carefully, rationally. No “knee-jerk” reactions.

She referred to leaders’ temptation to become “authoritarian” at such times as these. She emphasized the importance of having a strong faculty presence on committees—in part to counter these authoritarian tendencies.

Today, Kathy explained that the full-time hiring process is being held up because the President has not sent paperwork to HR yet. Evidently, the problem is “fiscal concerns,” which have not yet been resolved.

I asked whether this delay is problematic for our hiring process—are we running into deadlines for advertisement, etc.? The answer: we’ve passed those deadlines. The situation is pretty bad.

Kathy noted that, by next week’s Senate meeting, she might have more information for us about this logjam difficulty. But, IMO, since the BSR group won’t even issue its recommendations until later this month—they’ll then go on to SPOBDC, where they’ll be fretted over for a while—the prospects don’t look good for moving forward with hires.

Evidently, part of the problem is the perception that the college will “get a bad reputation” if it advertises for jobs and then later pulls them. Kathy’s position is that one instance does not make a reputation, and so we should go forward with the paperwork. (That seemed to be Craig’s position as well—at least last semester.)

Kathy seemed to allude to recent revelations that “administration” simply isn’t allowing the “conveyor belt” (I think that was her metaphor) to move forward. I suggested that we have a “crisis” and we may as well call it that. Kathy was uncomfortable with such language. She wants to pursue some non-public arm twisting, see how that goes.

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. We moved on to a report regarding the “Institutional Effectiveness Committee.” Kathy Werle explained that all committees are doing a self-assessment. Kathy S hopes that that process will yield some streamlining and “pruning of the bush”—an allusion to the common perception that the college has too many committees and comprises too complex a structure.

PROGRAM REVIEW. Academic Affairs Chair Roopa M briefly discussed Program Review. You’ll recall that, at a recent senate meeting, we referred to a document that lists all of the programs that are supposed to be engaged in either “comprehensive,” 2-year, or 4-year reviews. I noted the areas of our School affected. (This document is available under Inside IVC.)

Kathy explained that TracDat serves as an organizing program for that process. In the end, however, the actual PR document will be in pdf form. Evidently, at Inside IVC (under “Inst’l Effectiveness”), one can find a Word document that explains the process or at least how to use TracDat and such. Also, there’s a template that should be very helpful.

We were reminded of the importance of PR. PR analysis will be the basis of resources requests. So we’ve got to do this PR stuff right and on time. (That’s funny, coming from me.)

ACCREDITATION: Kathy explained that the Accred’s letter will arrive in early February. But the communication from the Accreds concerning our SLO progress will not arrive until after July.

 The Fall 2012 SLO assessment data was due on January 5. Kathy seemed to imply that lots of programs have already missed that due date, but they should be working on their SLO assessments and getting that done. If you are in charge of a program, you need to inform your adjuncts that they, too, must turn in their SLO assessment data. (Have I done any of this? No. I’ll get on it.)

Kathy briefly advised us regarding how best to include SLOs on syllabuses. She declared that SLOs should be derivative of Course Outline “Learning Objectives” (LOs). She advises writing SLOs and LOs in such a way that they are essentially the same. Then one can list LOs on the syllabus and declare them to be SLOs, more or less.

PLEA. Kathy noted that the Ac Sen President often ends up writing the Accreditation reports, but that need not be so. She put out a “plea” for volunteers to do or to help in the writing. ANYONE INTERESTED?

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Any changes in committee assignments (presumably something that might occur during this week’s School Meetings) need to be sent to the Academic Senate, which has become the record keeper of such data (but not the policeman).  Kathy reminded us that there are spots open on many committees, especially district-wide committees. It is in faculty’s best interests to fill these seats. (Go to http://inside.ivc.edu/committees/asenate/Faculty%20Service%20Assignments/2012-2013%20Faculty%20Service%20Assignments/FacultyServiceAssign-2012-13_110612.pdf

for committee grid.)

Kathy noted that, if we have trouble communicating and finding info via the crapulent architectonic of Inside IVC (she didn’t put it that way, of course), we should get word to her about that. The senate leadership would be glad to help get things straightened out.

FACULTY ASSOCIATION. The big issue that remains: “department chair” compensation. It’s still unsettled, and that sucks.

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE: Diana said something about her two Tech Review groups—that they’re “working their fannies off,” and so on. One is under the impression that she is overwhelmed, though she does not usually say that.

BUDGET UPDATE: Ac Sen VP Bob U essentially provided a version of Budget Director Davit’s presentation yesterday. I do believe that that presentation is available online in some sense.

There are two parts to this update: what’s going on at the state and what’s up at the college.

THE STATE. As you know, Brown has increased apportionment funding. But we don’t know whether that will go to growth or COLA. Lots of money will go to paying down “deferrals.” Some money will go to enhancing online instruction. Adult Education responsibilities will be shifting from K-12 to CCs.

            A major policy change: “completion” replaces enrollment as a basis for funding apportionment. But it is no secret that “completion” is not yet clearly defined. The meaning of completion is a major topic—at the State Ac Senate and elsewhere. Some faculty at our meeting cited some of the difficulties with the concept of completion.

There’ll be a 90 unit cap per student and similar caps for CSU and UC. Evidently, student exceeding the cap will pay out-of-state levels of tuition. Good Lord!

Kathy chimed in to say that there might be some shifting of responsibilities (instruction) from CSUs to CCs. This is ill-defined at this time. Everything seems to be ill-defined.

THE COLLEGE. With regard to our college: our “basic aid” funding obscures the meaning of Prop 30’s impact for us. It appears that our DRAC will have to reconsider how it allocates money. It’s just not clear how we will “feel” this $100 increase (per Full Time Equivalent Student).

Bob mentioned BSR, the committee formed a month or two ago to contemplate approaches to our immediate budget issue (costs keep rising, revenues remain flat). BSR has wide representation; much work being done. The group’s recommendations are coming soon. There’s a “suggestion box” at Inside IVC. (Open it up; see bottom left.)

Ideas BSR is kicking around:

· Non-resident tuition increase

· How to replace many recent classified retirements

· Long-term debt repayments (energy, etc.). Basic aid?

· Faculty hiring (10 positions).

· (Chancellor Poertner wants faculty salary/benefit proportion to go down from 92% (or so) to 86%.)

· The $800K of annual increase in built in salary increases

· Priscilla brought up: what about going back to our cheaper “chair model”?

SKEPTICISM, MYSTERIES. There was a certain amount of skepticism expressed about our budget difficulty and explanations (or lack thereof) regarding it, and Bob seemed to share it. Why was this difficulty not anticipated? What about all those money-saving golden handshakes of a couple years ago? Why can’t we get a clear figure of how much our budget is? Bob actually used the term “mystery” to refer to basic questions regarding our budget plight.

At one point, referring to efforts to get details about the budget, Bob said: “They’ve done it [i.e., particular actions], but they don’t remember why.” Sheesh.

Bob reminded us that the new status quo is the following: all money requests will be based on program review and administrative unit reviews. The deadline for completion of those (resource requests) is March 15.

--Senator Roy Bauer

October 4, 2012

Senate Notes        October 4, 2012

Colleagues – here are the notes from this week’s Senate meeting J  Please note: There are 3 important issues to make sure you read about:  budget, repeatability, and faculty professional development. 

Meeting called to order– Agenda reordered.

Guests:   Bob Cosgrove, Kate Clark, Craig Justice, Matt Tresler, Amy Grimm, 

Public Comments: 1) Bob Cosgrove (President of Saddleback Academic Senate) spoke about two issues that impact both colleges.  The first is the districts policy of granting of honorary degrees – The President of Saddleback attempted to change the language of the policy: instead of actually granting the degrees, according to the revision, the senate merely certifies that the process was followed.  Bob said faculty at Saddleback are taking the position that faculty should approve all degrees.  Kathy, our Senate president. The district can give away anything else without our approval, but not degrees.  2) The second issue he spoke of dealt with the Student Success Recommendations from the state. Apparently we, as a district, are moving quickly to implement the changes and several are being taken to the board in a form of a presentation. According to Bob, some of the recommendations are in limbo and don’t need immediate implementation.  One issue is that the legislation/recommendations also state that schools should “implement only as resources allow.”   Recommendations 2 and 3 – approved, others in limbo including the issue of matriculation –might not happen.  Placements might stay the way they are for a while now.  We might pull back and not go forward with 8 items from success task force to the board.  We should talk to the chancellor.  Our chancellor believes faculty including part time faculty should be at the forefront of this.  3) Michelle Sharf from counseling announced  “UC personal statement” workshops are being offered through counseling and English dept. Let students know.

Presidents Report:  Kathy S. 1) Recent district meetings—that Kathy attended—focused on self-assessment and self -assessment tools.  2) Retirement budgetary issues were also discussed. Kathy mentioned the issue of  the recalculation of our liability funds as the state came up with new numbers. Our board is being fiscally careful, as usual.  A good thing, according to all J3) No growth – the issue is our no growth lid – should we calculate in FTES or, because we are basic aid, should we instead look at our costs using OSH – something to think about.  Kathy is going to be pushing this idea to DRAC. The latter approach would put more money in the OSH bucket than in the basic aid bucket. What are your thoughts?  We could possibly have more students this way and still not grow – a different calculation.  4) Somebody’s developing an intergroup process of resolution for disputes among faculty - as opposed to the model of reporting to HR.  There wouldn’t be records kept that could end up in our files– just a mediation process.  

Vice Presidents Report: -  Bob Urell 1) SPOBCD [strategic planning] -  This is an important item.  That committee met and looked at long-term budget planning scenarios with the help of a power point presentation.  Bob shared the presentation with us and gave us an overview. These scenarios – both the current year’s budget and forecasting through several years – assumed that our funding will remain the same; they also included paying off some loans, hiring approx. 10 new hires this year, early retirement payments, potential increase in non-resident tuition revenue, etc. All scenarios show the reserve balance steadily shrinking.  So – basically, as expenses grow, revenue drops and we head into a deficit situation.  We are not in as bad shape as other schools due to our basic aide funding; nevertheless, unless we take steps, we face deficits.  In addition, the state will begin to make cuts in such things as categorical funding BUT some of the programs funded that way (DSPS for example) are mandated and so we will have to pay for them. Indeed, our categorical funding comes from the state – and those will be cut if prop 30 doesn’t pass – but there are federal regs that require these programs and we would then have to fund them. (About 92% of our budget goes to salary and benefits.) We’ll likely pursue an efficiency study.  What can we cut back on?  Glenn has proposed bringing in someone from the outside to look at this—someone who has gone through this before at other colleges.  Heads up: you are going to start hearing about this and you will be asked for your input.  This process should start soon since we are rapidly heading towards a deficit. Should be and needs to be a campus-wide discussion.  Looking for solutions: raising revenue and being more efficient.  The OSH vs. FTE’S conversation can be included in this discussion as a way to increase money and lower costs.  Roy asked, Just how dire is this situation? “Very,” said Bob U. This year we are okay; next year we aren’t.  If we don’t participate in solutions, a plan will be foisted upon us. What have other colleges/districts done when faced with these circumstances? Some schools have canceled summer, or relieved all part-time faculty, etc.  Entire programs and departments are being eliminated in at some colleges and universities around the country.  Another vulnerable area: classified staff.  These are college level decisions that we need to help guide.

Academic Affairs  -  Roopa M.1) IVC2IVC –Tracy Fahimi  will do a presentation on the possibility of a fair election in November.  2) Student Success Summit at Saddleback in Oct.-  lunch included.  Activity is in Flex tracker.  All are encouraged to attend.

Curriculum Chair –Diana H. 1) Diana attended a So Cal regional curriculum meeting this weekend.  Pre –reqs discussed there and she will be working on this in the spring.  Also, she attended a presentation on course identification numbers. We’ll be relying more on these numbers.  Friday November 2 there is a discipline in-group meeting called the DIG  – transfer models next – none in our school is in the next group of disciplines. 2) If you have a course up for revision this year, changes need to be in the system by Nov. 1. 

Kate Clark – SLO update – 1) Kate extended an invitation for all to join the SLO committee – and mentioned an upcoming in-service activity 2) She reminded us to make sure 8 week courses  and off campus and emeritus courses are being assessed for SLO’s. 3) Status report on data entry due Oct. 1 – discovered some anomalies, but we’re fixing them. She thanked faculty for cooperating and helping get so much done in such a short time.  Next she gave a school by school update on SLO completion –like grades for schools!  - Business Admin.,   Math Science, Emeritus, and Library – 100%; Humanities  seemed to be in good shape – my estimate would be about a B+ – we have just a few parts missing.  She’s thankful, enjoyed her time back on campus, and is on her way out the door. Dan Scott proposed an official Senate Resolution to thank Kate for all her work.  

Curriculum Approval – Diane listed what was voted and deleted on at the last curriculum meeting.   She presented two ballots with approved curriculum to the Senate for approval. The first ballot went through. The second ballot included courses with repeatability issues.  Curriculum committee recommended approval of the second ballot.  Steve R. asked to amend the motion. He asked the motion be approved with a contingency that would allow faculty to come back to senate and change the repeatability aspect of their individual curricula if they found a way to do so before February, when the catalog is due instead of going all the way through the curriculum process again.  He mentioned that we, as a college, seem to jump quickly on changes the state asks for—often before the date required and without enough time to look at all options.  There are options that other schools have used and he wants some time to look at those.  The motion unanimously passed.  Bottom line: if you have curriculum with repeatability limitations that you are concerned about (i.e. – you want /need students to be able to take the course more than three times, or to take it again after passing it the first time-labs-), you can make changes through February to curriculum, if you can find a way to do that, and you can do it without going through the entire curriculum process again.  It would come to senate for approval.  

Professional Funds allocation  -  Some history:   Professional development is a contractual requirement  for full time faculty and the colleges provide funds for that.  The amount of money for this is a college-level decision. Before last year, full-time faculty were each limited to $700 and part-timers were limited to $350. Last year Academic Affairs, led by Steve R., submitted a strategy form in to increase the amount of funding.  We were given a new budget last year of $60k – a significant improvement. Full time faculty were limited to $1400 and part time faculty were limited to $700.   This year, Academic Affairs (with new leadership) asked for an increase in the funding, but did not receive it.   Now – fast forward to last senate meeting.  As Roy reported, Roopa, as Academic Affairs chair, brought committees recommendation to change limits for approval – they were asking to increase the full time faculty allotment to $1500 and decrease the part time allotment to $500.  And, as Roy reported, the Senate rejected this recommendation, questioning the disparity between full and part time faculty and sent it back to committee. Academic Affairs took the amounts back to committee and discussed different options and ways to divide the funding.  Committee members contend that $1500 and $500 is fair as it is speaking to full-time contractual requirements for professional development.  Part-time instructors do not have this obligation. Also, their research showed no other community colleges paying more than $500 for part time faculty, so we are within current best practices. Discussion ensued and there was debate about the issues – many not pleased with the recommendation.  A motion was made [by Mel! 2nded by Roy] to change the amounts back to last year’s numbers – $1400 and $700 – and this passed.  Remember, this money is on a first come, first serve basis, so apply soon!

Program Review – list is posted.  Early college needs to be added to calendar.

Board Policies –. Honorary degree issue – awarding degree must come from faculty. As mentioned before, this is important – and Kathy said she was “willing to die on this hill.” We encouraged that sort of death.

Senate Recorder – HELP! - We still need a recorder – any takers???

Full Time Tenure -  Track Faculty Hiring Priority List – Library Sciences asked for approval to defer their tier 2 position and just keep their Tier 1 position.   They can defer it one year. We OK’d it.

 Plenary coming up for Senate.  – Entire cabinet going. 

April 5, 2012: hiring physics instructors, SLOs, Scholarship Program issues

SENATE NOTES: the 4/5/12 meeting of the IVC Academic Senate Representative Council

Craig Justice

      Early in the meeting, VPI Craig Justice explained the rush for approval (or at least “sunshining”) of a change in our physics hiring committee. Both colleges have been pursuing the hire of two physics instructors each, and all parties agreed to pursue these hires contemporaneously to prevent “cannibalization” of one college of the other. The IVC hiring committee included an outside expert, namely, a Saddleback physics instructor. But that instructor—Mitchell Haeri (that’s right, Melanie’s husband)—discovered that a relative was applying for the job, and so he had to step out. Naturally, we could wait until a replacement is found—efforts thus far have yielded nothing—but it appears that that will take time, and we have no time—we don’t want to be hiring after Saddleback has done its hiring, for the above-mentioned carnivorous reasons.

      The loss of an instructor on the committee meant that the committee membership lacked the required proportions, and so Craig dropped Liz Cipres from the committee, always a wise move.

    

     And so we’re going forward with a relatively small committee. Some were reassured when told that Roy McCord is still on the committee. (He’s some kind of physics guy, though he mostly yammers about astronomy.) I wasn’t happy with the situation, since the likes of Howard Dachschlager and Kiana Tabibzadeh were still on the committee.

     Craig got his informal consent to the change.

     Steve R of Academic Affairs explained that the scholarship workgroup has had one big meeting, and its subgroups have also met. The core issue is what constitutes “reasonable implementation” of recently uncovered standards that seem to offer quite a challenge (discussed previously). In the end, we may have to track down someone at a college where this challenge has been met, hire ‘im as a consultant.

      Kate Clark addressed the group concerning our SLO efforts. We’ve done well, she said, but she still awaits completion of “degrees with emphasis.” “Degrees and certificates official names must be sent to Jennifer Calderon for inputting” (said the agenda). A “webinar” is being prepared for “dealing with assessment and entering the data in TracDat.” Kate showed us how to look at the SLO info on Inside IVC (the faculty part of the college website). Kate read off a list of feet-draggers, including honors and philosophy. We must get our stuff in.

      REMINDER: SLOs should appear on all courses syllabuses. There will be an effort to check to see if we’ve done this—this summer. SO NOW HEAR THIS. Get those SLOs onto your syllabuses.

      Jerry Rudmann yammered for a while about the “mentoring program,” something we’re slowly developing. We need to come up with a proposal for this program by the Fall. There’ll be a Flex Week activity.

     Steve R updated us on the Scholarship Committee. The first meeting was “robust,” he said. This seemed to be a euphemism for strong passions forcefully expressed. Gnashing of teeth maybe.

      Someone asked why the Scholarship ceremony is always held in the morning. Surely, many people would prefer an evening event!

     There was a brief discussion in which it came to light that, a while back, someone involved in scheduling the ceremony came from a college “where they used to do it that way, in the morning.”

      So we’ll likely attempt to move the ceremony to the evening, starting next year.

     As usual, there’s zero “leadership” coming from Roquemore.

      We were supposed to get a report about the “Student Success Taskforce,” but Senate Prez LDA was once again absent (traveling). I asked why we even had such a committee, and this produced mostly blank stares. Eventually, Craig Justice muttered a few things about new laws requiring blah, blah, blah.

      SENATE ELECTIONS.

     Next, we discussed the upcoming Senate elections. The deadline for nominations for candidates for Prez and VP is April 6, 5:00 p.m. By the time of the Senate meeting (Thursday, April 5), the senate had received only one nomination: Kathy Schmeidler for President. (She’s a good and capable person.) But there had been no nominations for VP. There was silence.

      (I have it on good authority that, on Friday, someone sent in a nomination of Ray Chandos for President.)

      We briefly discussed the recently revised college “goals and objectives.” We were reminded that “the new deadline for accepting strategies for consideration is Tuesday, 4/17/12.” Or was that 4/15?

     REPEATABILITY AND COMPARABLE COURSES.

     We received a list of courses regarding “repeatability and comparable courses.” Faculty are asked to review this document and to come back with comments at the next meeting. I’ve got the attachment (I), if you want it.

      Next, we discussed the Scholarship Taskforce, evidently the group that actually reviews and assesses student applications. Our own Brittany Adams has volunteered for this duty, and she was unanimously approved by the Rep Council. This year, there are 650 applicants! If others seek to join in this effort, they are certainly welcome.

      Our next item was the “district-wide planning council.” We need faculty reps. Anyone interested? It sounds pretty important and likely only meets twice per semester.

      The next item was recent board approval of a five year plan. I believe this concerns construction projects in particular. Apparently, we’ve been having trouble with the “low bid” approach to construction projects, especially given the downturn in the economy (causing subcontractors to fail, thus causing dilemmas for chief contractors).

      Jeff K recommended that we view Brandye D’Lena’s recent presentation of the reasons for switching to the alternative approach, called “design-build.” (That occurred at the last board meeting. The district website has streaming video.)

      Dean Kathleen Werle brought up an issue that somehow failed to make it to the agenda—something about a rep on the search committee for the new Director of Research, Planning, and Accounting. We brainstormed to come up with some Rube Goldbergian way for the senate to approve someone asap.

     That was about it.

Roy Bauer

Senator, H&L

May 5, 2011: respectfully submitted

ACADEMIC SENATE NOTES

May 5^th, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

Melanie Haeri

Senator, Humanities and Languages

Here is a compilation of the notes from the General Assembly Meeting of the Academic Senate meeting for May 5th, 2011.  I have attempted to include all the items which might interest you and be of importance.  The senate minutes are posted online if you wish to read further.

With these notes, Roy and I end our term as Senators for this year.  I know how busy everyone is at this time of year, so I will attempt to be brief. Thank you for trusting me with representation this year.  

1)Public Comments:  Dean Werle announced there will be a non-denominational invocation at Commencement that complies with the recent resolution of the prayer lawsuit.  Per guidelines, the planning committee decided to have an invocation and will provide guidelines to the gentleman giving the invocation. 

2).Executive Reports:     A) President Lisa Allen-Davis –not at the meeting – setting up the Art Sculpture displays.

 B) Vice-President Jeff Kaufmann:  He imbedded his reports within the agenda – more to come in the notes.

B) Academic Affairs Chair Rochford:  i.) Academic Affairs has one more meeting before the end of the semester and may respond to the Early College Report.  ii) IVC2 IVC is finished for the year.  He has 6 verbal commitments from faculty for 2011/12 – part time faculty are encouraged to sign up to speak as well as full time. Email Steve at asenate@ivc.eduor let Roy or me know if you are interested.  

C) Curriculum Committee Chair Jodi Titus:  The Curriculum Institute is in July and Diana Hurlbut from Bio will represent the faculty.  Most importantly – please check the course list for 2011/12 revision and make sure it is accurate with regards to your discipline – some mentioned that there were inaccuracies.  If your courses are up for revision, Jodi will be here most of the summer and offered to help if anyone needs any.

3) IVC Oversight of ATEP: White Paper:   The letter will be forwarded to the president.

4) Strategic Planning and Budget Development  –a) CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence –The Café will be housed in the MRC ( the computer center in the BSTIC building with the metal door and all the windows). This has been agreed to by all parties involved.  It will be a multifunctional space that includes a conference area which can be rented out

5) IVC 2011 Education and Facilities Master Plan: -   The text that goes with the plan is being edited . End of May we will/may see the document.

6) Senate Cabinet Elections:  Elections and cabinet positions are complete for 2011/2012.  Results:  President – Lisa Allen Davis, Vice – President:  Jeff Kauffman, Curriculum Committee: Jodi Titus, Academic Affairs: Steve Rochford, and Recorder: June McLaughlin. The Senate will work over the summer and send an accounting of all activities out in the fall. 

7.)Emeritus Status and Senate Recognition for Retirees: - The language in the contract is very vague as to the retiree benefits  - something to the point of “ what the faculty has”. For those retiring, please let the district know if you would like to retain your email account  - District IT. 

8) Library Subscription  - Chronicle of Higher Education: - The library has done research about the cost of having an online subscription for faculty. For a college-wide subscription the cost is $4450.00, but for site specific computers, it is about $ 100.00 per subscription.  The Senate voted to purchase the subscription for sites as opposed to the college.  We will have one for sure in the Café.

9) SLO Coordinator– Jerry and Kari are taking a break from this role, but will be here to help the new coordinator(s).  The position is now available.  The position has been redesigned and reworked and there is a stipend available.  Anyone who is interested should contact asenate@ivc.edu

10) Men’s Volleyball– And Finally – to end the year’s notes on a good note:  Our Men’s Volleyball team are the National Champions!

April 7, 2011: respectfully submitted

ACADEMIC SENATE NOTES

April 7^th, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

Melanie Haeri

Senator, Humanities and Languages

Here is a compilation of the notes from the General Assembly Meeting of the Academic Senate meeting for April 7th, 2011.  I have attempted to include all the items which might interest you and be of importance.  The senate minutes are posted online if you wish to read further. Please give me any feedback, comments, concerns and ideas concerning the notes or any agenda items.  The agenda is sent digitally the week of the meeting. If you are not receiving the agenda, please let me know.I will have you added to the email.

1).Executive Reports:     A) President Lisa Allen-Davis – Lisa reported that the ATEP Walk About event was held and there not as many faculty in attendance as they had hoped. David B. has invited us to do another one and she has suggested a van or bus to take the faculty there.  

B) Vice-President Jeff Kaufmann:  Jeff announced the hiring process has gone forward for the Library position and that the position will be a faculty position and also accommodate the need for an informational specialist.  This is the fifth faculty position for hiring this year.

B) Academic Affairs Chair Rochford:  i.) IVC2IVC: Steve Felder was the speaker at the last IVC2IVC Lecture on Monday April 4^th.  His talk was excellent – I enjoyed it and saw many of my colleagues there. (this is my editorial here although Steve Rochford said the same thing!) Monday May 2^ndthere will be a talk about Piracy and Somalia.  Also, look for the email inviting you to participate in next year’s lecture series. 

ii) Distinguished Academic Lecture Series – April 14^thCecile Whiting from UCI will be presenting an art history – Los Angeles through Photography.  This will be at 7pm in the PAC – tickets are free but you must get them in advance.  There will be a reception following the presentation.

iii) Fall Flex Week – April 22^ndis the deadline for applying to present.  

iv) Post your 38 hours in Flex Tracker as soon as you can. 

2) IVC Oversight of ATEP: White Paper:   President Roquemore spoke to the Senate about the idea of an administration/faculty collaboration on a white paper addressing IVC oversight of ATEP.  He spoke first about the history of oversight and boundaries between the two colleges.  He mentioned the El Toro Rd line – the decision line between the two colleges for courses – the college in the area has first right of refusal.  This was never a “written” rule, but more of an agreement and process that has been used. Other colleges have maps with lines and MOU to offer courses.  He also mentioned that the history of ATEP and its inception and design without faculty involvement in the process went against the rules and accreditation standards. Acting Chancellor, Dixie Bullock, sought to resolve some of these issues during her tenure by making ATEP part of IVC.  If you recall, a district cannot own/run a campus . 

 So, now the issue at hand:  IVC was really only given the 1 acre that is developed.  Unfortunately There are 68 or so more acres that will be developed.  It seems that Saddleback, specifically the president and the Senate originally said they didn’t want to be part of ATEP, but that seems to have changed. Glenn is concerned because at the next board meeting the board will vote to decide if ATEP will be a two-college center.  This is problematic:  we spoke of the various problems this creates, let alone the boundary line of deciding which college gets to put which program at ATEP.  If, for some reason, this would happen, the Accred team said that we would need to then do TWO of everything – 2 self studies, 2 sets of student services, etc.   Glenn believes that IVC should be the college that ATEP stays apart of.  He asked the Senate for help so that in May IVC could go to the Board with OUR ideas for ATEP – not the 2-college model. The Senate formed a small committee that will draft a letter including a) the right of refusal be for IVC for courses/programs and 2) leadership of ATEP needs to be with one college and it needs to IVC.   

The urgency is two-fold- 1) the upcoming board meeting/action and 2) a new building has already been approved and we need to get involved in the decisions regarding the design etc.  

*** Would anyone in  the English Department be willing to lend a hand in the editing? 

4) Strategic Planning and Budget Development  –a) CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence – The go-ahead has been given and there is a place holder for a spot during flex week for an open house D) TracDat Installation and Training – installation and training should be underway before the end of the semester.

7) State Budget and CA Community Colleges Update:  As most of us are aware, the State is bracing for a $900 million short fall.  The $36 a unit price has gone through for the fall although that might not be the end of it. 

8) IVC 2011 Education and Facilities Master Plan: -   According to Craig, the college number projections of WSCH and OSCH matched almost exactly to the numbers from GKK –projections are within 200 sq ft.  It looks like there will be the A400 remodel for Humanties/Languages and Social Sciences AND a Humanities building in the plan.  

9) Academic School Name  - The School of Health Science, Physical Education and Athletics now has a new name: The School of Kinesiology, Health, and Athletics. 

10) Senate Cabinet Elections:  Nominations remain open.  June McColough was nominated as recorder.

11) Special Recognition at Graduation Ceremonies for Early College Graduates – This item brought quite a robust and tense discussion.  The first cohort of students from the Early College Program are graduating this year. There was a movement to recognize these students with a low key , privately funded breakfast and to have an asterisk next to each of their names in  the graduation program.  After much debate and discussion about this, it was decided that the privately funded breakfast was fine, but that our program recognizes academic excellence with asterisks and that all students graduating should have the same standing. So, no asterisks in the graduation program for this cohort, like all other cohorts, unless they meet the academic excellence requirements.  This decision came about with the understanding that all cohorts and graduates at IVC are special, and that none of them receive this recognition.  We should keep the standard we have – honor academic excellence for all who have earned it and let cohorts be honored separately with recognition events prior to graduation or after. 

12) Attendance– another robust discussion.  At the request of Arleen Elseroad, we discussed the attendance rules. She is looking to change the wording from “minimum six hours” to “excessive” to give instructors more control and to word it in their syllabi however they want to.  The discussion showed that many instructors felt that the “6 hour minimum “  language gave them support in this area.  Some felt that we should have some standards.  

13) Faculty Representation needed:  Dave Anderson has requested a faculty representative to sit on the Testing Center Specialist hiring committee.