Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Approved Minutes

Thursday, February 6, 2003

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by President Jane Patton at 2:04 p.m.

Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
Brennan (Ext. 5313) Comm		X	Martin (Ext. 5356) Tech.		X
Charland (Ext. 5046) Stud. Dev.		X	Musat (Ext. 5331) Math		X
Dooley (Ext. 5379) AAS		X	Oliver (Ext. 5427) AAS		X
Estrada (Ext.5164) CommSvc		X	Patton (Ext. 5296) Comm Stud		X
Johnson (Ext.5277) CATA		X	Rivas (Ext. 5282) CATA		X
Lavallo (Ext. 5399) Math		X	Rosner (Ext. 5317) ESL	X
Light (Ext. 5717) AF/CIT		X	Sippel (Ext. 5118) Comm		X
Lynne (Ext. 5248) CommSvc		X	Toppel (Ext. 5089) Stud Dev		X
Mancini (Ext. 5855) AF/HM		X	VanTassel (Ext. 5334) Tech		X
			Xu (Ext. 5273) SocSci		X
Other: A.Braun (CRC),		X	Other: B.Grayson (Staff Dev)	X
Guests: R.Dewis, P.Hudak, D.Sweetapple, S.Wisner,		X X	M.Jahan, J.Smith, C.Pembrook, L. Witschi		X X

II. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes for the January 30, 2003, meeting were accepted and approved as submitted (VanTassel/Charland).

III. Order of the Agenda

The order of the agenda will be changed to meet the posted time schedule (M/S/P).

IV. Oral Communication from the Public

See Page # 6 for Dianne McKay’s report.

V. Information & Announcements - None

VI. Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

A. Curriculum Committee - No report was presented.

B. Staff Recognition - A resolution was presented and unanimously approved (M/S/U – Sippel/Brennan) to be brought back to the Senate for signatures at next week’s meeting.

C. Committee Appointments - No committee appointments were required today. Jane stated it is possible that some administrative openings may be put on hold. However, she noted that the Vice President of Instruction has had an interim in place for one year and must be filled.

D. Other: No other reports were presented.

VII. Old Business

A. Report from Subcommittee & Discuss Possible Freeze of New Positions

The subcommittee will hold its first meeting tomorrow. The four Senators that were appointed are Edith Dooley, Jane Patton, Monica Rivas, and Jim Van Tassel. The four Division Chairs appointed are Rosalyn Chan, Teri Chiang, Steve Dinger, and Peggy Messerschmidt. Jane reported that the Chancellor had called a meeting for today with the Academic Senate Presidents and others to discuss the possibility of requesting a deferral of the faculty obligation number (FON) from the state chancellor. Both Jane and Linda had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chancellor last night and advised him that both senates were already taking steps in that direction. It was emphasized that a waiver of the FON from the state does not preclude the colleges from filling what may be considered to be critical positions. It is the Chancellor’s intent to seek support for the request from ACE and the ASB.

During discussion it was suggested that those unfilled “critical” positions might well be filled with internal people as part of a load. Mission College is obligated to cut $5.8 million from next year’s budget and should not be hiring anyone; there are hidden costs incurred with each new position. Jane advised that the Community College League of California is monitoring the situation closely and there are indications that other solutions are being considered at the state level, such as raising fees per unit. As to whether or not the administration is freezing district positions as well, it was stated that most hiring has been frozen, except for some positions that must be filled. Jane agreed to ask the Chancellor to update the faculty and staff on the status of hiring across the district. In the meantime, the Senate/DC subcommittee will meet and bring its recommendation back to the Academic Senate for consideration next Thursday.

The order of the agenda was suspended and moved to Item VII.C by consensus since it was not yet 2:45 p.m., the time slot set for the Information Competency forum.

C. Discuss & Establish Process and Timeline for Implementation of English 1A and Oral Communication as a Graduation Requirement

The Senate has determined that English 1A and Oral Communication will be added as graduation requirements. The question is how to best implement these two requirements. Jane recommended that a subcommittee of the Academic Senate be formed and include key people from Counseling, English, and the Office of Instruction. Jane asked for direction. It was determined, during discussion, that the issue of cultural pluralism be deferred to the Fall, and the information competency aspect be considered conjointly with the English and Oral Communication requirements. It was agreed (M/S/U – Toppel/Oliver) that a single subcommittee be formed with Senators Brennan, Charland, Estrada, and Rosner, and that Dianne McKay, VP of Instruction, and Don Cordero, Articulation Officer, be invited to share their expertise with the committee. It was also suggested that someone with a vocational education perspective be invited to participate as well. Jonathan agreed to act as the initial facilitator.

The Senators agreed, by consensus, to move to Item VIII.A at this time.

VIII. New Business

A. Consider Plagiarism Issues

In the Spring 2002 semester, the Senate formed a subcommittee of Senators Johnson, McGee, Musat, and Sipple. The committee’s charge was to create a list of recommendations for the Academic Senate’s consideration dealing with the issues of plagiarism and academic dishonesty. Senator Sipple reported that research efforts did not provide any new information. The college has a clear policy. What is needed is staff training and a statement for instructors to be able to provide their students that will clearly state the policy and the consequences. She stated that the question of plagiarism stems from the concept of intellectual property. This could be considered an issue of academic rigor or could be based on cultural differences. The issue of academic dishonesty, or cheating, involves one on one confrontation, and many instructors are reluctant to deal one on one because they feel threatened or uncomfortable. It is a question of safety, and training is required and recommended. The committee also recommends that less focus be placed on the creation of a policy and more on staff development, and that a task force of the Academic Senate be formed to consider the issue. Jane asked for direction. The Senators unanimously passed a motion (M/S/U – Charland/VanTassel) to issue a call for faculty interested in serving on an Academic Senate Task Force to deal with Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty. On behalf of the Senate, Jane expressed her appreciation to the committee members for their work .

The agenda was moved to Item VII.B at 2:45 p.m. as agreed.

VII. Old Business (Continued)

B. Forum on Information Competency Requirement

Senator Estrada presented a document on Information Competency (IC) prepared by the Senate’s Task Force comprised of Erlinda, Susanna Pancella, Judie Smith and Senator Mancini. She reviewed the definition and key components of the requirement. These recommendations included the following possible options for students to select from: 1) infusion into existing courses, 2) completion of Library 10, the library’s new IC one (1) unit course, and 3) test out of the requirement by passing an IC exam. Erlinda expressed her gratitude and appreciation to the committee members for their work. At this time, the Senate President opened the floor to discussion, inviting one minute pro and con argument statements.

Pro Arguments

• In 1983 the Department of Labor issued a report citing IC as one of five necessary skills. Although the new generation is growing up with new technology, people will continue to come to America who will not have those skills. We need to provide them.

• With the model presented, the menu approach with options allows students to meet the requirement in a number of ways. Students enter the college with a different capability range of skills. It was suggested that IC could be integrated with English 1A and Oral Communication.

• Relative to concerns regarding cost to implement the requirement, it was explained that the proficiency exam is already developed and available. The Library 10 course is developed and will be offered this Fall.

• Students at all levels need to be able to have IC skills by the time they leave the college and move to the workplace. They need to be able to access information, conduct research, and evaluate and value the information.

• IC could be integrated into a Public Speaking class. Much time is spent on research, bibliographies and outlines are required, and this requirement could enhance the class. In favor of menu approach.

Con Arguments

• There is concern about funding at this time. The IC requirement seems too broad and subjective.

• Counseling and some Business areas are concerned about adding an additional graduation requirement at a time when funding is tight and jobs are hard to find. If infused into English 1A, for example, it does not present an obstacle by requiring additional units.

• The Institutional Research Office has provided statistics stating that MC graduated 387 students out of approximately 9,500. Adding an additional graduation requirement could lower that number.

• How can Library 10 cover all students?

At this time, Jane suggested that the question be reconsidered for discussion purposes. Should there be a separate course requirement or should it be an infusion into other courses? It was explained that that the Library 10 course was never intended to be considered as a graduation requirement; the class replaces Library 51. Pro and con arguments continued from this perspective.

Pro Arguments

• A one-unit course is popular with students who need one unit that is transferable.

• The Senate’s subcommittee could begin discussion on the question of IC as well.

• Students cannot tell the difference between good and bad web sites. Many have not used the library before. IC is a proficiency, not a graduation requirement and a menu approach is recommended.

• The idea of IC and research is learning how to formalize a question and find information through research. Learning the process for research could be beneficial.

Con Arguments

• There is concern that these requirements are being considered without a review of all the graduation requirements. Although IC is important, the college needs to look at the whole package.

• Currently, three proficiencies are required for an associate degree: Reading, Writing, and Math. The college could require one more proficiency providing the opportunity to test out, take a class, or some other way. The Academic Senate must be cautious and consider the ramifications and details of what requirements mean in terms of transfer.

• Students might acquire the necessary skills someplace else.

• If infused into English 1A, it would necessarily eliminate other important components of the course. The focus is on critical thinking, not research. One small component is focused on a research paper and students are expected to complete it on their own with little help.

• Just because assignments are offered, it doesn’t mean it’s gone over in depth.

Jane thanked everyone for his or her input. The Academic Senate will continue to discuss the matter. She encouraged the Senators to discuss these issues within their divisions.

VIII. New Business

B. Discussion “Is Mission College the Technology College?”

This discussion was precipitated by a question as to how the college is living up to the idea and commitment to be the Technology College of Silicon Valley. It was agreed that the forum format be used to consider the questions: “Is Mission College the Technology College, and should Mission College commit to being the Technology College?” Carol Toppel, Chair of the Instructional Technology Committee, reported that the committee suggested the following four possible levels of commitment we could consider:

1. Maintain and enhance the technological capabilities of Mission College.

2. Maintain readiness to embrace new technology.

3. Take a progressive stance with regards to new technology.

4. Go boldly where virtually no college has gone before.

Discussion was opened to the floor for pro and con arguments.

Pro Arguments

• It was pointed out that open source software will be prevalent by next year and the college has the competitive advantage because of location. Cisco wants to donate millions of dollars worth of equipment. If we do not commit to becoming the Technology College, we will be swimming upstream.

• The college has already made the commitment. We have received grant money we used to wire the district’s buildings and campuses. MC was once called the most wired campus. Labs are falling apart; students and faculty need computers. It will cost us money – we pay $125,000/year for electricity alone. We will need to consider budget if we want to renew commitment.

• We have to look at technology in two ways: 1) Do we want to use technology as the competitive edge because of location and resources? MC is at the strategic place. 2) Do we want to use technology to keep up? We do not have a choice anymore. Because of location, Mission College can provide the bridge for the digital divide – the place where people can provide training on state of the art for industry.

• Is it a marketing tool? Could it be useful if backed up if one considers location, resources, etc.?

Never thought we were at the level of a Technology College, but would like to consider how to use the term. We need to take a long-term look and consider where the college is headed. What about Silicon Valley and Biological Science? The college should upgrade and take the visionary approach.

• The institutional design integrates technology with pedagogy. We use technology to supplement and enhance curriculum. If we commit, it means we want to be innovative and want the vision of technology in context with where we are going.

• Technology is cheaper than it used to be. Computers that once cost $5,000 now are available for $700. We are not looking at technology as part of the infrastructure; we do not allow for maintaining what we have. We need to allocate enough resources and planning to keep up with what’s out there. We need to keep up technology like everything else.

• The challenge we face is how to maintain and replace what we have now. Instructors teaching courses online cannot get online.

• Need to look at individual departments. There is a great disparity in the distribution of resources. Technology is not available or accessible in the Foreign Language department. Students have to do their work at home.

Con Arguments

• The college has never been a technology college. A technology college is one that offers more than 60%-70% high tech courses. With the balance of curriculum that MC has, it was not intended that the college be a tech college. What was intended in 1995 was to provide faculty and staff with necessary technology. It is not possible under the current budget.

• The word “commitment” seems to be controversial. The plan needs to be changed. Activities should be supportive.

• Technology is expensive. Approximately 5 years ago, software was being upgraded every two to three years. Now upgrades are coming every nine months. Technology is disruptive and is becoming time consuming.

• Making the commitment to be the Technology College takes the focus away from MC being the comprehensive college it was intended to be. With the current budget situation, we should look to the future to fulfill that commitment and look at what the college needs to do now – see the level of courses not offered and consider where we are going.

• We are not the Technology College; other colleges have much more. It will take millions to catch up. Studies indicate students are not necessarily learning more through technology.

• Naming the college the Technology College limits the college to what it’s doing.

• Technology is an invaluable tool. However, the price tag is high, usually resulting in less faculty/students. We need balance of both. We would be stretching the truth.

• We cannot really call ourselves the Technology College. We need to commit and support the academic setting with technology as best we can. This means infrastructure, hardware, and software, what’s available to students and classroom technology.

Jane closed the discussion and offered the floor to Dianne McKay under Oral Communication.

IV. Oral Communication from the Public

Dianne McKay advised that this has been a difficult week for those sitting on committees. She reported that the projected budget deficit is approximately $15 million for next year. What is important is that the college is working in a shared governance mode. We are working together and we need to support each other. The next few months will be difficult. Regarding FSA’s, she clarified that FSA updates should be completed annually, jointly by Human Resources and ACE. Since an update has not been done for a number of years, HR and ACE are currently working on an update. The administration will continue to work with shared governance groups, as decisions need to be made. It will take the collective wisdom of the best minds to deal with the current situation. The college may look different, but we will survive. These are uncertain times. She offered to answer any questions.

Dianne was asked to discuss some ways that the college will deal with the $5.8 million cut. The following list was offered:

• Not hiring new faculty will save $2.5 million district-wide.

• If we get some relief in salary and benefits, money can be saved.

• The district was getting relief on its share of contributions to PERS and STRS because of the good economy. Now we have to contribute 8%.

• Sections may be cut but the state is still holding us to our growth goal.

• The system is acting as a group to lobby the legislature. It is believed that the community college system is taking a disproportionate hit on cuts. Everyone is encouraged to contact their legislators.

• Approximately $150,000 remains in the college’s budget for this year. All college expenses will be covered from that account.

Dianne was asked if she knew why the governor seems to dislike community colleges. The CCCC system has the largest educational system in the world. Why is our voice in Sacramento so weak? Education is a huge piece of the state’s budget and the UC and CSU systems have not been hit as hard. Community college students are the most disenfranchised students. Community colleges provide the bridge from poverty to the American dream, and that provides us with our mission and our spirit. Dianne had no response to the question. She stated, however, that the compressed calendar will help, providing an automatic bump in WSCH. There are four possible responses to the budget crisis: 1) Fees may go up to $24/unit, 2) MC Summer school will be offered Monday through Thursday, 3) Each day the campuses are shut down saves $6,000/day, and 4) Having both colleges on the same calendar provides economy of scale. None of these options are saviors and all ideas are welcome. She emphasized once again that we all need to work together. She advised that college-wide forums will be held next Thursday. In the meantime, we must all maintain our sense of humor and be kind to each other.

The remaining business items on the agenda were postponed.

IX. Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

Correspondence - None

Publication/Minutes

1. The agenda for the February 6, 2003, meeting of the MC Classified Senate.

2. The agenda for the February 6, 2003, meeting of the Board of Trustees.

3. The agenda for the January 22, 2003, meeting of GAP.

4. The agenda for the February 3, 2003, meeting of the MC Curriculum Review Committee and the summary of the December 9, 2002, meeting.

5. The agenda for the February 12, 2003, meeting of the District council.

6. An announcement of the February 13, 2003, meeting of the Administrative Services to discuss strategies for and issues around the 03/04 budget cuts in administrative services.

7. The minutes for the January 22, 2003, meeting of DBAC.

Announcements/Conferences - None

X. Future Agenda Items

No new items were introduced at today's meeting.

XI. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. (M/S/U – Charland/Toppel). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.