March 1, 2007

Academic Senate meeting: 3/1/07

I’ve got a bad cold, so I’m taking no responsibility whatsoever for any of the following.

Once again, students presented their case for pursuing the addition of a 2^nd student trustee (on the SOCCCD board). They received the senate’s support.

N.b.: Senators approved “posting the rec’s from the Curriculum Committee on the intra-net upon availability in lieu of hard copy documents for review and study two weeks prior to approval.”

Vice Chancellor Serban (pronounced sir-BAHN) requests input from the likes of you ‘n’ me regarding the development of “district-wide goals.” The process will continue for a while, I believe, so we still have time to review the draft and suggest changes/additions. Let me know if you’d like a copy of the DWGs as they relate to IVC. (Among them: “To promote a supportive environment….” Blecchh.) Serban’s committee is doing good work, reports Wendy.

The new “grade grievance policy” was approved by the board.

The senate will pause to see what other trustees (beyond the defiant Mr. Wagner [pronounced VOG-ner]) have to say about the recent Accred letters before advising the board re this matter. If we were to advise them, we’d say: “stop messing up our accreditation, OK?” But, like I said, were pausing.

The “early college” program (starting at Beckman High; Tustin Unified), of which IVC is the partner, moves forward. We were reminded that the pilot program—Fall 07-Spring-08—is small (90 students). So we’ll see how it goes. We’d better monitor the situation closely.

N.b.: Meanwhile, the college is moving forward with the intention or hope of EXPANDING this sort of program. I do believe that IVC officials are meeting with superintendents of other schools/school districts.

Senators acted to pursue modifications to the new faculty fvaluation form to distinguish between part-time and full-time instructors. (Many of the questions refer to responsibilities that fall only to full-timers.)

I do believe that Senators accepted (and praised) Jeff K’s notes/advice regarding the college budget process. We requested that his document be made available electronically. I’ll let you know when I receive it; I will promulgate it. As you know, “development of the budget process” is among the faculty’s ten areas of primary responsibility—not that administration has acknowledged that fact, historically. But, we’re told, these days, administration is more than willing to let faculty define the budget process.

Did you get that? There are vacuums. We can fill them. Like I been saying.

We’re moving forward with yearly senate elections. Wendy was nominated for president and Greg was nominated as Vice President (both accepted). Nominations remain open, I believe. Be aware that other senate offices (secretary, stevedore, etc.) remain open. No one has been nominated for any of these.

We discussed the Faculty Hiring Priority List Procedures. We were disinclined to review them since, in all likelihood, there will be no hiring any time soon.

Did you notice the inclusion of “stevedore”? Of course not. You’re not reading this, are you? In that case there’s no harm in my saying: “no wonder Fuentes thinks you’re lazy.”

--Roy

August 31, 2006

SENATE NOTES

August 31, 2006 “Meeting of the Rep Council”

We started off with a moment of silence for our colleague Alan.

Saddleback College Academic Senate Pres. Bob “Bee man” Cosgrove mentioned that there’s a move afoot to associate with Indiana University. The idea, I believe, is that students would take 90 units with us and then they’d transfer to IU to finish their Bachelors. There was a concern that this program wasn’t going through the appropriate Academic approval processes.

Someone joked that our new motto is: “Indiana wants you.”

As reported previously, the college is moving forward with strategic planning. The Academic Senate needs to “populate” five focus groups with faculty. Jan was approved as one of two faculty members for the Academic Planning focus group.

Obviously, these focus groups are important (at any rate, we’ve been assured that the planning process is “really real”), and so please do give some thought to satisfying your committee obligation by nominating yourself for one of these groups (Academic Planning, Enrollment management, Organizational effectiveness, Resources and budget, and Student success).

As this goes forward, the Strategic Planning Process is undergoing revision. (We’ve reported on this previously.) The 500-lb Chancellor Gorilla imposed a planning process unilaterally, blah blah blah.

Wendy reports that the district (i.e., the 500-pounder) is now backing off and allowing the colleges to do their own planning. For us at IVC, the new planning may yield a “new way of doing business.” I’m not sure I understood the point. Perhaps the point was only that, since these focus groups are working now, they may as well do the relevant work—so, for instance, the “Resources and Budget” focus group may as well be doing the work of the budget committee. The “Academic Planning” focus group may as well do all the academic planning, and so on.

Evidently, Glenn actually works hard on occasion, and he did so this summer with regard to the “model” for our college. I’ll try to get clarification on this. I think the model concerns only the Strategic Planning process. I got the sense that the changes entailed an undoing of changes made by someone referred to as “the old college president.”

I have a copy of the new 5-year SP Process that the senate approved. Let me (or Julie) know if you’d like to read it.

Not long ago, the Chancellor announced (proclaimed?) that the colleges should begin to focus on distance education (DE), a phenomenon (or method) about which he claims expertise. For a time, he seemed to promote the headquartering of DE at ATEP (i.e., somewhere in the dirt we own in Tustin). Evidently, all others said, “you can’t headquarter DE in some place, fool.” Well, he has now backed off of that and it now appears that each college will make its own decisions re DE.

I sense a pattern here.

There was more yammering about SLOs. Wendy and others testify that Jerry Rudmann’s two-hour SLO workshop is excellent. (It’s really simple, says Greg.) Says Wendy, those who need to learn about SLOs (e.g., for the sake of Program Review) will have a problem if they haven’t gone to one of these workshops.

I do believe that the next—and last—workshop will be held on Sept. 15 (12-2). (Frank?)

As you know, IVC has advocated an alternative calendar. SC doesn’t want to change its calendar. Surprisingly, the board doesn’t appear to oppose two different calendars. The 500-pounder was supposed to present a recommendation in May, but that didn’t happen. So this issue has been allowed to fall by the wayside, or, as Wendy put it, it was allowed to “roll under the bed.”

Meanwhile, it now appears that IVC will for the first time have input on planning the calendar (i.e., the status quo calendar), which, in the past, was entirely directed by SC. So we need to decide what that input will be. If you have any ideas, speak with Wendy or Julie. Evidently, Julie’s been on the district calendar committee since Bush I! Garsh.

IVC’s Accreditation Progress Report is now posted online. (It’s a preliminary draft.) Take a look at it. Let Wendy (or us) know if you have any suggestions. (I do believe that the draft was recently approved by the board. That’s interesting, for it is a fairly honest document.)

As you know, our colleges are on the low end of the spectrum, statewide, concerning reassigned time for senate officers. The matter was brought to the attention of the trustees—who seemed to have trouble with such concepts as OSH and LHE—and they have directed the Chancellor to work with the Academic Senate Presidents to arrive at “adequate” reassigned time.

January 19, 2006

January 19, 2006  Meeting of the Academic Senate Representative Council

[Senate Prez] Wendy [Gabriella] informed us that the Accrediting Agency (ACCJC) is looking for faculty to serve on Accreditation visiting teams. Any volunteers?

Wendy reminded us that, if one wants something on the senate agenda (of a Rep Council Senate meeting), one must inform the Senate cabinet before their meeting, which is scheduled on “off weeks,” again at 2:00.

There are open slots for some “Strategic Planning” focus groups.

1 for Organizational Effectiveness

2 for Resources and Budget

1 for Academic Planning

Nominations are open. Any volunteers?

Wendy announced that the hiring policy struggle is now over, now that the board acted (on a 6-1 vote, with Trustee Fuentes unhappy with the new policy’s alleged potential for faculty “cronyism”) to approve the new policy and they have paid our attorneys (Wendy and Carol). The new policy is “pretty close” to the old 1994 policy, though its language is clearer.

For a time it seemed that we would be hiring new full-time faculty, but in part owing to our enrollment problem, there is no chance of that now (we won’t be meeting our growth cap).

The Accreditation “progress report” has been submitted to the ACCJC, which held some sort of key meeting last week. Evidently, the district did not send a contingent up to Sacramento, and thus it was not necessary for us to do so. (We were concerned that Mathur and Co. would attempt to portray our circumstances inaccurately.)  We will likely receive the ACCJC’s decision in early February—perhaps the 1^st. It will come in the form of an “action letter” (this time, we’d better insist on seeing the entire document). We’ll either get new recommendations, or recommendations based on the old ones (from last year’s less-than-glowing ACCJC assessment).

As you know, in part owing to the ACCJC’s recommendations, the district has been pursuing achieving greater clarity concerning the “roles and responsibilities” of the various groups of the district. In particular, Mathur has been pursuing “technical assistance,” a process whereby parties representing (in this case) the faculty and the district come together and attempt to arrive at agreement. Our senate pursued representation from the AAUP (i.e., the American Association of University Professors, an organization that has long vigorously pursued a strong role for faculty), but this seemed to send the State Academic Senate leadership  into a tizzy. Negotiations (or discussions anyway) have been ongoing regarding the form TA will take. It now appears that, on February 13, at the district, there will be some sort of confab (called “level 1”)—from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.—in which the two parties will provide “Powerpoint” presentations for two hours. (The current State Academic Big Cheezes will do the honors on our behalf.) All of the trustees will attend this public meeting.

Wendy explained that it is important that faculty attend the meeting also, for apathy on our part will no doubt be used against us. After a break, there will be yet another meeting—called “level 3 issue resolution”—from 5:30 to 9:00. Lewis and Wendy will be our reps. If all goes well, the parties will make headway with regard to defining “roles and responsibilities.”

Faculty will be able to audit but not participate in the latter session, which will be held in the “student lounge” at Saddleback College.

If the session yield a stalemate, it is possible that the AAUP will finally brought in to represent us—at some subsequent date.

Item 14 concerned the “calendar” issue. You’ll recall that our senate endorsed a compressed calendar, but that the Saddleback College Academic Senate has been less enthusiastic about that innovation. Later, however, some sort of movement emerged from among the SC faculty to get on board our calendar proposal. Their senate is at the stage of reflection that we were at about a year ago.

[VPI] Dennis White was in charge of this calendar issue, but he has now been removed from that role, and it has been handed to Dennis McDougal. We have not learned why this has happened. In any case, the deadline for input regarding calendar changes is March 1.

In the meantime, we have a traditional calendar, and, evidently, yearly, a committee decides on the details of that calendar, but, historically, SC has always brought about embrace of a calendar favorable to SC, not to IVC. Much peevishness was expressed about this fact. Julie, however, explained that, in part, the situation that favors SC over IVC has more to do with our inaction than their action.

It occurred to some senators that if we provide “input” regarding this conventional calendar, we are acting in bad faith relative to our proposed reform calendar (I think that was the point). But if we don’t offer suggestions about how best to configure the conventional calendar, we’ll once again end up with a SC-friendly and IVC-unfriendly calendar, should the reform effort go south.

Wendy seemed to hint that the proposed alternative calendar has no future, in part because [SC] President McCollugh is dead set agin it.

Dennis piped up to suggest that the alternative calendar can be adopted as soon as a year from now.

IN the end, we decided to attempt to offer our two cents regarding how to configure the conventional calendar—as a contingency (i.e., if the big reform doesn’t go through). Dennis thought that unwise, for it “undercuts” our work re the reform proposal.

[Biologist] Chris Riegle, it seems, is now a senator for his school. He’s the guy to contact if you wish to provide “input” re how to configure the conventional calendar.

Item 16 concerned the proposed new “Student Conduct/Academic Honesty” policy. Evidently, our school has already provided valuable input, and that will be included in our recommendations. To be ready for the Feb. 2 deadline, we need to vote on this matter at the next senate meeting.

The discussion tended to concern an element of the proposed policy according to which extreme student wrongdoers are given a “Scarlet Letter” that cannot be removed, metaphorically speaking. Lewis seemed to favor that, but some senators pursued a more forgiving policy and seemed to nearly ridicule those who did not understand how, in our youth, we do stupid things, e.g., burning down buildings and the like. The discussion led to a fine “reduction ad absurdum” regarding the notion that we mustn’t do anything to students that “follow them.” Said Lewis, if that is our thinking, we need to eliminate the “F” grade immediately.

It appears that Wendy will arrange for the policy to be sent to all faculty in digital form. Do please read it and tell us (Julie or I) what you think.

Item 17 concerned the “Board Policy review process,” which had been chaired by Tom Anderson, a fellow who is now in charge of gopher holes in Tustin. Mr. Alan McDougal is now in charge, but his committee has grown large and unwieldy. It will be difficult finding times to meet.

Item 18 was a Curriculum Update. We were provided with a sheet that listed all courses “due for Revision Which Have Not Been Received” by the Office of Instuction as of 1/12/06. At first, it seemed to me that none of our courses was involved. But Traci [Fahimi] noted that the course listed as PS (Political Science) 45 is in reality, not a PS course, but a History course (which is cross listed). Hear that Frank and Toshio?

If these courses are not revised, they cannot be offered in the Fall.

Beth Mueller has been given the chief district Bean Counter job (upon hearing this, there was a great communal gasp), and so we’ll need to replace her here at IVC. Nominations are now open for a faculty representative on the search committee. Evidently, we need to offer a nomination within a week (of last Thursday).

Our Research person—Neena V—has moved on to greener pastures, and so we’ll need to hire a replacement. We’ve gotta scrape up two faculty to serve on the committee. As we stared at each other, the situation looked grim, and when someone expressed that someone “might” be willing to serve, that was seized as a full-blown nominations. “”Even a possibility is a nomination,” said one wag.

Item 22 concerned “program discontinuance” for the Electronics program. You’ll recall that, recently, our senate produced a formal program discontinuance policy, and we are now following those procedures re the Electronics program, a program that has everything but students. (Reportedly, Dennis has persisted in viewing that situation as a definite problem.) The senators were charged with finding faculty to serve on the discontinuance “task force” for Electronics. Suddenly, Dennis declared that no members of the School of Math and [......?]

March 24, 2005*

MARCH 24, 2005 SENATE MEETING

     Right off the bat, we discussed the calendar issue—that is, the proposal to compress and shift our calendar in an effort to please the increasingly surly hoi polloi. As explained previously, the college is grappling with low enrollments, and some theorize that our “stretch” calendar is a student-repellent. (I do believe that we’re surveying students in an effort to identify their actual druthers.)

     Judging by conversations I’ve had with colleagues, it appears that we in H&L are divided; some view a “compressed calendar” as paradise; others view it as Hell on Earth.

     Despite his intimate familiarity with Satan, VPI Dennis White clearly agrees with the paradise group. I may be mistaken, but it also seems to me that our Dennis sees his “leadership” in this massive project as his ticket to Mount Rushmore. I can already hear the chisel. Tink, Tink.

     Dennis has spent time on the phone with administrators of neighboring community colleges that have experienced the awe and majesty of the compressed calendar. He has sought the advice of state officials. He says he dislikes OCC’s “train schedule” approach to compression (i.e., starting and stopping classes at weird times). He says the various versions of compression and non-compression all have “positive and negative implications.”

     The D Man further declares that any input needs to be put in pronto, cuz he hopes to emerge from summer with a definite proposal, with bugs all worked out. Having a proposal by early Fall is necessary, he says, if we’re to meet the various deadlines for adoption of the new calendar in Fall of 2006.

     Dennis showed us three versions of compression, one of which he seemed to favor. Back on the 23^rd, Linda emailed us about the calendar initiative; she described Dennis’s preferred version. She described it, in part, as follows:

The fall semester will begin after Labor Day and end on Dec. 21.

Jan. 2-Jan. 29 will comprise a 4-week intersession.

The spring semester will begin on Jan. 30 and end, as usual, near the end of May.

Though Dennis did not refer directly to summer sessions, the calendar he lays out allows for a 12-week summer period.

There would be one 5-day FLEX period during the last week in August; no FLEX period in spring. [End]

     For details, please consult Linda’s email. (Jan and I also have handouts, including colored charts—in black in white.)

     Dennis explained that, owing to the “unique ways” that the state “counts minutes,” even if there is no increase in the number of students and the number of classes students take, a switch to Dennis’s Favored Proposal would yield a FTES increase of 8%. (I believe that FTES stands for “full time equivalent students.”)

     I noted that our district is on basic aid, a form of funding which disconnects funding from FTES levels. (We get a set proportion of local property taxes, whatever our enrollments. Hell, we could be teaching 15 students—Ray’s 15—and we’d get the same moola.)

     Dennis responded by stating what I already knew: that the board funds the two colleges according to what they would receive if they were funded by the state.

     That reminds me of a joke. A young man nervously prepares for his first date. He asks his dad for advice. Dad says, “Well, things can get uncomfortably quiet, and if that happens, just talk about food, cuz people like to talk about food. If that doesn’t work, talk about family. Yeah. And if that doesn’t work, talk about philosophy. Food, family, and philosophy—you can’t go wrong!”

     So the kid goes on his date and, sure enough, things get uncomfortably quiet. So he asks his date, “Do you like yogurt?” She says no. Silence.

     He tries the topic of “family”:  “Do you have a brother?” he asks.

     “No,” she says.

     At this point, he’s desperate. He resorts to philosophy. He thinks a bit; after a few seconds, he asks:

     “Well, if you had a brother, would he like yogurt?”

     Dennis’ favored proposal includes a winter intersession. Repeating a concern expressed to me by Maddy, I asked Dennis if these intersessions aren’t in fact “money-losers.” Dennis assured me that such is not the case. You’ve just got to offer the right sorts of classes during intersession (viz., only large lecture courses) and you must conscientiously cancel any low-enrolled classes, he said. Dennis exuded confidence. We smiled, stupidly.

     Dennis reminded us that teaching during the summer or during intersession is strictly optional. It’s an “overload” situation, he said.

     What about Saddleback College? Won’t they have to sign off on this darned thing? –Yes, unless the board allows separate calendars (one for IVC, one for SC), which seems unlikely. “All constituent groups have to sign off,” said Dennis. He seemed to say that universal sign-offery was possible and even probable. He seemed to chirp. I think he whistled.

     Senate Prez Wendy asked that people send their “input” about this calendar business to the “asenate” email address. “Don’t write stuff like ‘This is a nightmare’,” said Wendy. “That doesn’t help.”

     Emails to “asenate” should be specific and detailed about nightmares.

     Priscilla suggested that, if we move to a compressed calendar, room use issues would indeed become nightmares, especially at night. Dennis seemed to pooh-pooh her worry, as with all others. On the other hand, he seemed to assume that each school has its own rooms, and Priscilla noted that such is not the case.

     Wendy acknowledged the “gawdawful” amount of work Dennis had done re the calendar issue. “I didn’t need those weekends after all,” whispered Dennis with thudding false humility.

     He added that he will be making the rounds at School meetings, explaining his proposal and, I suppose, soliciting input.

     Tink, Tink.

     Wendy asked Ray for a report on Accreditation. We stared at Ray. Despite the use of words like “hostility,” “cynicism,” “despair,” and “fear” in the Accrediting Report for IVC, Ray was beside himself with joy; he announced that, accreditation-wise, things are grrrrrrrreat! Heck, we got a full-on, whiz-bang, “6-year” rating, chirped the Rayster.

     Suddenly, Ray’s pal, Dale, broke into loud and solitary applause. It seemed as though we were in a large dank cave, and an idiot in the corner had commenced—well, clapping.  We stared at the fellow, but the clapping continued. Then it petered out. Then: nothing. You could hear a pin head.

     Wendy explained that the hearing for our Appeal of the court’s district-friendly decision concerning the new “faculty hiring policy” has been postponed until May.

     The court first judged that the district had failed properly to include the senates in developing the policy. (Faculty hiring policies are supposed to reflect mutual agreement between district and faculty senate.) But after he ordered a new committee and process, and that process yielded a new policy—the current one—that was wholly unacceptable to the senates, the judge opined that, since faculty were on the policy development committee, the policy it produced was ipso facto mutually agreed upon by all participants.

     That’s daft. We’re hoping the trio of Appellate judges will agree.

     The delay means that, for the current round of hires, we really will be operating under the bad new hiring policy. Think of the legal mess that will unfold when the Appellate court nixes the “new” hiring policies!

     Item 10 concerned the Chancellor’s proposed response (“strategies”) for addressing the recent Accrediting recommendations. Ray to the contrary notwithstanding, the latter are decidedly un-chirpy.

     The Chancellor’s proposed strategies are ridiculous. For instance, he suggests that we can overcome “hostility, cynicism,” “despair” and “fear” by “recognize[ing] and celebrat[ing] the accomplishments of individuals in all constituent groups….”

     Uh-oh. More poinsettias.

     The Chancellor’ strategy for eliminating board micromanagement is the following: “The Board of Trustees will address this goal.” Now, that’s a strategy! The bold fellow!

     Jan H advanced the idea that each constituent group should independently produce recommendations for responding to the difficulties identified in the Accrediting reports. All of that stuff should be sent straight to the Accrediting agency. Jan’s idea seemed to be pretty popular.

     Item 13 concerned greater availability of “reassigned time,” an old bone of contention, since Trustee “I love Central California” Fortune instituted extreme restrictions on this sort of compensation. Wendy, as Senate Prez, has been invited to discussions about this matter during an upcoming Administrative Retreat.

     Item 14 concerned the attempt to find a faculty chair for the “Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)” Task Force. Jerry R won’t do it. Many worried that the chair of the task force would likely end up a “puppet” of the Chancellor. The issue of “reassigned time” again arose. In the end, we decided to email the Chancellor in an attempt to get a clearer picture of what role he envisions for the Chair.

     Item 15 concerned the “Articulation Officer.” Nominations have been open. I do believe that Kate C was identified as a candidate and that we voted to approve her. Guess which two senators voted against her?

     Item 16 concerned the district’s new “workplace violence” policy. You’ll recall that, back in ’98, the district ordered me to anger management counseling, based on my having allegedly violated both the district’s “discrimination” and “workplace violence” policies.

     (Do you remember the crashing Nazi jet—piloted by Trustee “No Holocaust” Frogue—that I put on the cover of Dissent during the final days of the Recall? Such graphics, said the Chancellor, revealed my “obsession with weaponry.” My use of the phrase “Mr. Goo” was “racist,” the Chancellor said. Why? Cuz it’s obviously an allusion to the word “gook.”)

     Federal Court ultimately ruled that the district’s “workplace violence” policy was unconstitutional. The new and improved policy evidently passes Constitutional muster, says Wendy.

     A Board Policy, authored by Lewis on behalf of the senate, is being proposed as a way to expedite the faculty’s participation in Board Policy development. (Policies and Regulations adopted by the board in recent years actually preclude faculty participation! Hence the need for new policies.) It appears that, owing to the negative Accrediting reports, the district will cooperate.

     Item 17 concerned Commencement. It has been suggested that graduates of the Honors Program should be allowed to wear special medallions.

     Some senators sported quizzical looks. There was an awkward silence. “Why the hell not,” said someone.

     We bemoaned the moving of IVC’s commencement to early afternoon. Why had that happened? Cuz that’s most convenient for the board.

     Wendy et al. will try to change the time back to 6:00 p.m., but don’t hold your breath.

     We discussed the possibility of an “all college meeting,” including both Wendy and Glenn. In the end, we supported the idea, as long as there’s a clear agenda and the chancellor doesn’t show up.

     Vice Prez Ted W explained that being the senate Prez is a “tough gig.” He said that this is difficult time for faculty; it’s not a good time to change faculty leadership.

     The problem is that, according to the new bylaws, each year, the Vice Prez advances to Prez. We discussed our options. In the end, it was agreed that Ted should resign and then place himself on the ballot for Vice Prez (again). Wendy will run for Prez (again). Etc.

     Lisa has indicated an interest in stepping down from the Recorder job. (She’ll soon by the Chair of English.) During the meeting, Lewis praised Lisa’s many years of service and the quality of her work. He then nominated Traci F for that job. She accepted.

     At some point, Lewis said, “I have no more mental capacity left.” That’s how I feel right now.

     --ROY

    

The fall semester will begin after Labor Day and end on Dec. 21.

Jan. 2-Jan. 29 will comprise a 4-week intersession.

The spring semester will begin on Jan. 30 and end, as usual, near the end of May.

Though Dennis did not refer directly to summer sessions, the calendar he lays out allows for a 12-week summer period.

There would be one 5-day FLEX period during the last week in August; no FLEX period in spring.

The length of the fall and spring semesters will be 15 weeks plus final exam week.  This compression will be accomplished by instituting what I understand as the 70-min hour.  As Dennis explains this, 61 of those minutes will be devoted to instruction, and 9 minutes will be time for passing between classes.  (After speaking with State officials regarding passing time, Dennis walked across campus; the walk took him 9 min.; hence, he has configured 9 min. into his calculations.)

Dennis reports that other colleges (he noted Miramar, in particular) experienced gains in FTES in the double digit percentages as a result of the compressed calendar, and he predicts a gain of 5% for IVC.  (In subsequent conversations, reps from Admissions & Records commented that this predicted gain may be rosy.)

Dennis said twice that his office will not designate which classes are to be offered during the January intersession.

During subsequent conversations, however, Kathy Schmeidler noted that "experiential" classes seem to work well in this very short period of

instruction:  foreign language immersion, for example, or film studies, or classes designed around field trips.  She also noted that some departments may (she named English) may see an opportunity for new curriculum designed for the abbreviated period of instruction.

It goes without saying, too, that faculty days off campus are increased by this calendar proposal.

And there you go.

LT

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

APRIL 18, 2002

          This one’s gonna have to be brief.

          Item 7 was something about “mini-certificates”: “many students seeking competency in specific areas for employment or job advancement do not wish to complete a whole certificate program. These under-eighteen-unit certificates would allow students to demonstrate competency in a specific area to employers….” (Agenda)

          No one could think of an argument against this proposal, and so it passed.

          Item 8 concerned whether “students earning certificates at IVC [should] be included in Commencement exercises.” I wondered whether the addition of these students in the program might make an already-tedious program more so. The answer: there are few such students, so “no.”

This passed unanimously. In fact, on this day, everything passed, and everything passed unanimously, always a healthy sign in a democracy (not!).

          Item 3 concerned the speaker—Mark M—recommended for commencement by the Commencement Planning Committee. (Passed. I have encouraged Mark to say something nasty, but, thusfar, he seems determined to take the high road.)

          Item 4 was committee appointments. At this point, Joe Ryan (of Chemistry) has been nominated for the Instructional Delivery Task Force—the committee, as you will recall, on which faculty are poorly represented, despite the Faculty’s legal responsibility for “instructional delivery.” No new nominations surfaced.

          Item 5 was “plus or minus grading.” That we will be voting on this is a done deal; the issue was only the adoption of “positions statements” regarding this thorny issue.

          Lewis recommended emailing the positions statements to all faculty—and not including them on the ballot.

          Ray wanted to know just what it was we (as a faculty, in the upcoming election) were voting on. “Adoption of plus or minus grading,” said Lewis.

          Ray wanted to add something like: “at the sole discretion of class instructors.”

          During the subsequent discussion, Lewis maintained that, by state law, instructors issue grades autonomously, and thus faculty cannot be told to use pluses and minuses. Hence, we need not concern ourselves with whether plus and minus grading will be imposed on faculty.

          There was some discussion re the ballot box—evidently, the box normally used is unavailable. Rich noted that the fine Mas H has built something boxlike that could serve as a ballot box. No, said Lewis, he was looking forward to building a new box in his garage or something. He plans to add a “trap door,” he said. We all laughed. Ray snickered.

          Item 6 was the contentious “academic honesty policy” issue. Ray said he “despaired of persuading anyone” that the policy lacks and thus requires a “definition of academic dishonesty.” In the subsequent discussion, Ray was persuaded that, in fact, the policy did offer a sort of definition, given a little restructuring. The draft, thus modified, was approved.

          Item 9 was a faculty “code of ethics.” Evidently, “The Chancellor has recommended that the Senate discuss and adopt a professional code of ethics.” The Academic Affairs Committee has recommended putting this matter on the back burner.

          I moved that we “not take action.” That passed unanimously. I was amazed.

          Item 10 concerned a resolution to encourage faculty to participate in the Commencement. Last year, said Lewis, only 12 faculty members showed up. It looks as though faculty don’t give a damn, said Lewis. Yes, he added, some faculty are registering a protest, but it remains true that an unfortunate impression is left with the students.

          Miriam asserted that she’d show up if she didn’t have to don the “witch costume.” Let’s add “clothing optional” to the resolution, said Rich, that wag. “That might keep me away,” retorted Lewis.

          The issue of food came up, cuz somebody thought we oughta have some kind of reception before the ceremony. Evidently, recently, the board has decided never to allow the expenditure of district funds for food at functions.

Ever alert, I asked about the upcoming “reception” to welcome Raghu Mathur as Chancellor, which will be held at Cannons Restaurant in Dana Point. “Will that function have food?” I asked.

          “I think it will,” said Lewis.

          “Oh, an exception,” said I. Dale-Ray groaned.

          Item 11 was something about the upcoming election, but, by then, I had fallen into a deep coma.

          “Please vote,” said Lewis, I think.

          Lewis mentioned that, at the last senate meeting of the semester, there would be a joint session. At that time, the two senates would perhaps pass a resolution to urge the State Chancellor and the Board of Governors to enforce AB1725—the legislation that requires delegation of authority (by the board) to the Academic Senates. As you know, the Board Majority has repeatedly violated that law. It turns out that Diablo College is experiencing some of the same “shared governance” problems as our district, and somebody from that college is on the Board of Governors.

          During his President’s Report, Lewis said something about “streamlining” the speaking at Commencement. Something about two minutes.

          Lewis mentioned that, now that Tom Perez has retired, AOJ is “floundering.” He needs to be replaced.

          Also: Mathur is soliciting “fresh ideas” for use of the Tustin facility. Evidently, that property sports crummy buildings that need to be torn down—at great expense.

          After the meeting, I asked how it came about that Mr. Larry Oldewurtel was selected as “Teacher of the Year.” Evidently, Mr. Kuo, the President of ASIVC, assures everyone that a “democratic” process yielded that result. I have been told, however, that, normally, the most recent “Teacher of the Year” is involved in the selection process. In this instance, that person was not invited to participate.

          Gotta jet. Bye.

—ROY

April 4, 2002

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING: “AN OUTRAGEOUS CONVERSATION”

APRIL 4, 2002

          The meeting started at 2:14. Guests included Donna Sneed and Admissions’ bigwig John Edwards (and one other person, whose name I didn’t catch).

          Edwards addressed the group, explaining planned changes in how instructors turn in grades. The familiar practice of submitting two grade sheets—declared “ludicrous” by Edwards—will be abandoned, but not immediately. “I would ask your indulgence in the Spring term,” he said.

(Just then, inexplicably, an odd, ghostly figure—a single letter—started to appear on the whiteboard, though few seemed to notice it.)

          Dan, referring to an Edwards’ factoid according to which a substantial amount of enrollment (30%) occurs during the window of the first two weeks of class plus the preceding week, expressed concerns regarding one dean practice. According to Dan, despite this enrollment “window,” “some deans” sometimes cancel relatively low-enrolled courses early on, even during the week prior to classes. Dan was suggesting that these deans were jumping the gun, canceling courses unwisely.

Edwards seemed surprised to learn of this practice; he shared Dan’s concern. “You’re right, absolutely right,” he said.

          Dan asked Edwards to let deans know that, by engaging in this practice, they may well be canceling courses that, if given a chance, would “make.”

          By then, the whiteboard phantom had become quite legible: it was a lurid and deformed “H.”

          Item #10 concerned revision of the “Tech Prep Pathways Articulation Process.” (Who comes up with this stuff?) Donna S explained. We approved the revision, despite the ugliness of the language.

          Item #11 was a recommendation, from the GE Committee, regarding a list of courses approved for Tech Prep articulation. Donna distributed an enormous packet—maybe 200 pages—which Senators regarded with bewilderment and dread.

          Among the listed courses were the notorious “keyboarding” classes, the revisions of which Senators failed to approve at the last meeting. Accordingly, Miriam, climbing atop one of the packets, asked, “are we jumping the gun by approving these?”

As it turns out, the keyboarding courses can still be offered, but only under the “existing curriculum” (i.e., the old outlines). So, no, we were not jumping any guns. Miriam hopped down from her packet.

          The list was approved. Donna asked if she could get back her packets, cuz she routinely wheels them out to various schools. Most of us were glad for her to take ‘em off o’ our hands, and so Donna got a round of applause. I think she turned red.

          Hey! What about reports from standing committees!

          Miriam, Chair of the Academic Affairs committee, said that there’s still about $1,000 left—chump change—for staff development activities.

          Jan reminded us to keep track of when our courses are up for review by the Courses Committee.

          Item #4 concerned that messy business about AA/AS degree qualifications that we discussed at length last meeting. Our “agenda” described the issue thus (don’t expect to understand it!):

Currently, students seeking an Associate in Arts degree with a major in General Studies can satisfy major and general education requirements by completing a minimum of 60 units of coursework, including the coursework necessary to obtain either CSU certification or IGETC certification. The General Education Committee recommends that the Senate expand this ability to substitute IGETC or CSU certification for the IVC General Education requirements for other majors…Question: Should IVC allow students to obtain an AA degree in a major other than General Studies by satisfying IGETC or CSU certification instead of the IVC General Education requirements?

          Lewis explained that the new Accreditation Standards focus on “success” and “outcomes” and such. But, in truth, year after year, many of our programs/majors have no students. “This is not success,” he said. The proposal might ameliorate the situation.

          On the other hand, the proposal will allow students to “circumvent” courses of study established (for majors) by area experts to certify competence. That don’t seem right nohow, pardner.

          Gary R and Lewis discussed how best to deal with this hot potato. Somehow, the steamin’ spud kinda disappeared, don’t ask me how.

          Item #6—the faculty referendum regarding adoption of “plus/minus grading”—emerged with a bang, awakening a certain snoozing biologist from his dogmatic slumbers. We all pointed and laughed.

The question was, not whether we should conduct the referendum—that’s already been decided—but how we should revise “the position statements regarding plus/minus grading for the ballot.” That is, we’ve got to square away the statement of pros and cons.

          Ray C, who needed a haircut, asked if, should plus/minus be adopted, instructors would then be obliged to embrace the dastardly innovation. (Most schools, including most transfer institutions, have plus/minus grading.)

          Lewis opined that, no, an instructor would not in any simple sense be obligated to use pluses and minuses, but, in failing to do so, he would, of course, be going against the “institutional standard,” which in itself has drawbacks. He elaborated.

          Dotty S listened in apparent pain and then declared Lewis’ argument to be “nonsensical.” I do not know which argument she was referring to—none of them seemed nonsensical to me. On the contrary.

As I recall, Dottie maintained the position that it will make no difference to anything or anybody whether we adopt plus/minus grading. Harrumph.

Lewis, plunging ahead with his “nonsense,” noted that, in fact, the adoption of plus/minus would have “numerical consequences” for a student’s grade. For instance, a student who now receives 3.0 points (for a class) might receive, instead, 3.3 or 2.7, and that will affect the student’s GPA. Dottee stared.

          Meanwhile, Miriam explained how this matter came up in the Academic Affairs committee; deliberations there reached an “impasse.” Hence, the matter was moved to the Senate so that it might attain a still higher level of impassery.

          In the course of the subsequent discussion, while some seemed unable to see how the proposed change would “make a difference,” others championed the innovation, arguing that plus/minus grading allows for “greater accuracy” and “fairness.”

Some suggested that, if the college adopts plus/minus grading and an instructor fails to go along, he thereby exposes himself to charges of unfairness and lawsuits from disgruntled students: “I woulda got a B+ but got a lousy B instead!”, they will yammer.

          Suddenly, Dotti said: “I think this is an outrageous conversation.” She didn’t want anyone telling her how to grade, she added.

          Dale C opined that, if an instructor specifies in his/her syllabus that he will dispense with pluses and minuses come grade time, he thereby protects himself from litigation. “I bet it would stand up legally,” he said.

          Ray suggested including clarification about an instructor’s options (should the proposal pass) on the ballot. Doddee said a few more things, but I don’t know what.

          Item #7 was the rescheduling of the Senate elections. They’ll take place during the week of April 22.

          Items 8 and 9 were nothin’ special, though Traci managed to vote both for and against one motion, owing, she explained, to raised-arm “lingerage.”

PRESIDENT’S REPORT:

          1. During his report, Lewis explained his objection to the Chancellor’s approach to establishing a “District Instructional Delivery Taskforce” (see Mathur’s memo). He has established the task force evidently owing to “Our [i.e., the colleges’ or the district’s] lack of appropriate action” in regard to the “trend” of distance education (i.e., TV and “online” courses). As you know, our Chancellor is a great advocate of Distance Ed, having received his doctorate from a great distance (or, alternatively, from a nearby box of Cracker Jack).

The problem is that, despite the Ed Code’s specification of “Instructional Delivery” as among the primary responsibilities of the Academic Senates (i.e., the faculty), Mathur has alloted only two slots on the task force to faculty members. As presently configured, the task force will be dominated by the usual assembly of VPs, VCs, and AHs.

Accordingly, Lewis has written Mathur a letter (dated 4/4). In it, he writes: “By formulating a [task force] and announcing it to the whole district community without prior consultation with the Senate, the impression has been created that the District is not willing to comply with BP 2100.1 [i.e., which insures delegation of authority to the Academic Senates], or to recognize the Senates’ primary responsibility for academic or professional matters.”

If the past is any indication, we can be sure that Mathur will simply ignore Lewis’ plea.

Lewis stated that he is “very worried” about these developments.

A secondary issue: in the past, decisions and policies regarding instructional delivery have been made at the college level; they have been one way in which the colleges have defined themselves. Through this action, however, Mathur is ending that practice.

2. Lewis also reported that Interim President Roquemore means to extend to the entire college the process, already planned relative to Academic Senate committees, of committee restructuring.

OPEN FORUM:

During the “open forum” portion of the meeting, I drew Senators’ attention to Senator Chandos’ letter that had appeared in the Times (3/31/02). In that letter, Ray had described “faculty-sponsored” student activities that, he said, were “life threatening.” Further, apparently referring to my newsletters, he implied that they have racist and homophobic (and anti-religious) content.

Reading portions of Ray’s letter aloud, I carefully explained how it “exhibited an appalling disregard for the truth.” In closing, I noted that, if one is going to accuse people of racism, homophobia, and the like, he is obliged at least to cite concrete instances. I sat down. Silence.

Well, that was about it.

--ROY