District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, March 2, 2006

I. Organizational Matters

I.1 Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 2:17 p.m. by Co-Chairs Alex Braun and Angelica Buendia-Bangle.

^Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
^Beggs (MC) AAS		X	Martin (MC) Technology		X
^Berlani (WVC) Science		X	Mingione (WVC) AF/Bus		X
^Braun (MC) Pres/Technology		X	Moles (MC) ESL		X
^Brichko (MC) CATA		X	Morgan (WVC) Lib/LATC	X
^Brueckner (WVC) Fine Arts		X	Nash (WVC) Student Services	X
^Bangle (WVC) Stud Services		X	Ostrander (MC) Student Services		X
^Burzynski (WVC) Math		X	Paicius (MC) AF/CATA		X
^Cogswell (MC) AAS		X	Pape (WVC) English		X
Cox (MC) Commercial Serv.		X	Perlas (MC) Student Dev.		X
^Ellis (WVC) At-Large	X		Rascov (WVC) Business		X
Hannigan (WVC) Language Arts		X	Rounds (MC) Communications		X
Juncker (MC) Communications		X	Rudy (WVC) PE		X
Kashima (MC) ESL		X	^Shue (WVC) AAS		X
^Kelly (WVC) Social Science		X	^Smebye (MC) Comm’l Serv.		X
Laird (MC) Social Science	X		Szabados (MC) CATA		X
Lavallo (MC) Math		X	^Ting (MC) Math	X
Mancini (MC) AF/HM		X	Other: J.Henderson (WVCAS)	X
^Guests: S. Arterberry, W.Wong		X	Guests: W.Bowers-Gachesa		X

I.2 Order of the Agenda

It was agreed that Item IV.3 will be addressed immediately following Oral Communication from the public (M/S/U – Kelly/Hannigan).

I.3 Announcements & Information

a) The Academic Senate Presidents reported that 12 faculty members from each college will receive tenure at this evening’s Board meeting. They are as follows:

West Valley College Mission College

Robert Cornejo Cathy Beggs

Tom Deden Carol Brockmeier

Ron Guzman Chia Chen

John Hannigan Robert Dewis

Lenore Harris Cynthia Harrison

Joseph Hasty Margaret Juncker

Stephen Juarez Alicia Martinez

Michael (Gus) Kambeitz Melanie Meyer

Jon “Tim” Kelly Christine Ritz

Margaret “Meg” Farrell Ronald Smebye

Jean McIntosh Lynnette Todaro

Gaspar Silviera Theresa Tran

II. Oral Communication from the Public

Chancellor Arterberry announced that Angelica Buendia-Bangle will be recognized as a recipient of the Hayward Award for Excellence at the Board of Governors’ meeting to be held in Sacramento next Monday. He and the Senate members applauded Angelica on her receiving the award.

The Chancellor also advised that the Chancellor for California Community Colleges, Mark Drummond will recommend that the Board of Governors grant the State Chancellor’s Office the authority to waive the fines assessed to districts that did not meet their Faculty Obligation Number (FON) in 2003. Chancellor Arterberry explained that in 2003, there were approximately seven districts that had to pay a fine for not meeting the FON, amounting to $4.2 million. That was the year that the State did not receive sufficient COLA and growth money to activate the full-time FON. Chancellor Nussbaum was able to get a deferral of the fines before he left the position of State Chancellor and Chancellor Drummond has not yet requested that these fines be paid. This District was fined approximately $1.3 million, and approximately $500,000 has been set aside each year for the last three years to cover the fine. If the authority is granted by the Board of Governors (BOG), this District’s budget will be increased by $1.3 million. At yesterday’s meeting, DBAC members voted to support the State Chancellor’s recommendation. The Chancellor reported that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the State unions are not supportive of this request. Stan advised that there is some contention at the CEO Board on this issue as well. Three districts have not met their FON for this year. The CEO’s recommendation is to grant the State Chancellor the authority to deal with districts individually in order to consider special circumstances. The Board of Governors will take action on this issue in May of this year.

Chancellor Arterberry explained further that the rationale for taking a position against this recommendation is that the CCC system as a whole has not made significant progress to meet the required 75/25 ratio; the state average is 61% and districts are not making a sincere effort to reach 75/25. Some colleges have no desire to fill the 75/25 ratio because they are over their FON and there is no incentive to go to 75/25. This District, however, has made a commitment to meet the ratio and is currently at 78%, the highest in the State. The problem is that FONs were set at a time that has no relationship to where we are today. As an example, he noted that this District and San Jose City-Evergreen District has approximately the same number of FTES, but this District is required to hire approximately 100 more faculty than San Jose City-Evergreen.

At this time, the order of the agenda was suspended as agreed and moved to Item IV.3

IV. Business

IV.2 Report and Update on China Recruitment Initiative

In response to questions regarding the China initiative, the Chancellor advised that tickets have been purchased for five people who are traveling to China. He stated that he, Jeff Schwartz, Chris Constantin, Wanda Wong and Carol Qazi will be going to China from the District. The purpose of the trip is to further develop contacts in China and identify resources and entities that would assist us in bringing Chinese National students to the U.S. and to develop the necessary relationships in keeping with the cultural etiquette of this particular country. The District is also working with the U.S. Embassy.

The Chancellor advised that a businessman from China has been working with representatives from two major cities in China, as well as the U.S. Embassy, to discuss visa concerns and to develop a contract that would require the students to return to China upon completion of their education. In addition, the President of Ohlone College, Doug Treadway, recently returned from China and has developed similar relationships. He has contacted Mission College regarding the possibility of Ohlone students from China entering Mission College’s English Immersion Program. He noted that the community college districts most involved with international education are Santa Monica, Foothill-DeAnza, Peralta, San Diego, and San Francisco. The international programs have provided a tremendous economic boost to those districts. The Chancellor explained that the entire fee paid by the students remains within the institution and can be used at the discretion of the District and the colleges. He stated his expectation that this District could expect to see results within two years.

As discussion continued, it was opined that the money would be better spent if applied to local recruitment. The Chancellor indicated that each college has received 2 FTES to hire staff for recruitment. He noted that Mission College does not have an individual whose primary focus is recruiting; West Valley College does. Over 50% of the District’s students come from outside the District’s service area. The Chancellor also advised that the marketing budgets for both colleges will be increased. He noted that San Jose City-Evergreen District is exploring the possibility of establishing a facility in Milpitas. If that proposal moves forward, this District will object, particularly if State funding is requested. The proposal, however, could move forward if local funds are used.

Concerns were raised relative to taking a strategic approach to recruitment, particularly in light of the fact that China has sent only 8,000 community college students to the U.S. The Chancellor advised that an individual brought this initiative to the District, providing an opportunity for the District to identify individual contacts in China. This is a proposal that has great potential for the District. Relative to strategic planning, he indicated his view that the District Council would be the driving force in strategic planning as it is the group most representative of shared governance groups, with the addition of several key people.

The Chancellor mentioned several Boards that he serves on in order to develop contacts and possible initiatives that might benefit the District. Appreciation and gratitude for this aspect of the Chancellor’s role in public relations was expressed. It was stated, however, that there should be some clear understanding of parameters. The Chancellor stated that he advised the Academic Senate Presidents in the Fall and they were included in a planning discussion. This initiative has not been hidden. Chancellor Arterberry continued that if he has to advise the Academic Senate each time an opportunity arises, nothing will happen. It was noted that the Chancellor implied that there is a communication problem between the Academic Senate (AS) Presidents and the Senators. The Chancellor stated that discussions were held and the AS Presidents were involved. When the decision was made to go to China, the AS Presidents were involved. He acknowledged, however, that they may have been asked not to discuss the initiative. The leaders must have some latitude and judgment when conversing with the Chancellor.

As discussion continued, the issue of how this initiative will benefit local taxpayers was raised. The Chancellor explained that the colleges will reap the benefits if the initiative is successful. He noted that the expected cost will be approximately $18,000, including the fare, meals, and supplies. When asked why the proposal did not go to the Board before tickets were purchased, the Chancellor stated that international travel has traditionally been presented to the Board after travel. A Senator noted, however, that the Board members for the District’s Board of Trustees and the Land Corporation, which is providing the funding, are the same. The Board of Trustees, therefore, was already informed and knew what the money was intended for. The issue could have gone to the Board at an earlier date rather than two days before the departure date.

It was stated that it would have been wise if the proposal had been brought to the Academic Senate as a body before tickets had been purchased. There are a number of people with expertise that could have been extremely helpful in promoting this endeavor. The Chancellor replied that the people who were selected, were selected based on their expertise. In addition, the contacts in China want the high ranked personnel to make contact. This trip is to perform the ceremonial necessities to meet the cultural requirements. He expressed his hope that the faculty will sanction those selected, based on their expertise, to travel to China. The Chancellor suggested that the Academic Senate invite him periodically to discuss such issues of concern.

Disappointment that the Senate Presidents will not be traveling to China was expressed. The Academic Senate certainly should be involved when considering academic programs. More importantly, the people in the International Students Program should have been involved in the planning process since they understand the culture and the ramifications for those students.

At this point, great displeasure was expressed relative to the nature of the Chancellor’s leadership in the District. The Chancellor was reminded that Academic Senate meetings are open to the public and do not require a specific invitation. There is a lack of trust between faculty and the administration because information is not forthcoming and it appears that, despite promises from the Chancellor to keep the Senate informed, nothing has changed. For example, relative to Kuwait, a number of faculty are working on the criteria for the Feasibility Study and yet an e-mail has been sent to some departments asking for programs for Kuwait before any study has been attempted. This type of action only serves to feed the feeling of distrust and confirms that the message from faculty is not being heard.

The Academic Senate Presidents responded to the statement that there appears to be a misconception of what the role of the Academic Senate President is as it relates to providing information to the Senators. Information is often shared between the Academic Senate President and the Chancellor is designated as “confidential” by the administration. Angelica stated that she has worked hard to establish rapport with the Chancellor, the Board, and the President. She has asserted herself as the WVC Academic Senate President and maintains a continuous dialogue with WVC Senate members. Alex stated that if the information is provided by an individual in confidence, he maintains that confidence. Relative to the China initiative, he was advised through informal channels at the end of the Fall semester. He was called into a meeting in late January, and Trustee Schwartz was present. He asked Trustee Schwartz what the focus and objective of the trip to China was and when the idea was conceived. According to Trustee Schwartz, the initiative was contemplated months before. The question is at what point does an idea become concrete enough to inform constituents, at what point does it become so concrete that it changes the direction of an organization and commits its resources?

There appears to be a dual perspective. The possibility of such an initiative is brought into discussion under the guise of shared governance, when in actuality, the decision has already been made. The Academic Senate is the body that should be making the decision, and the issue of shared governance is not an academic senate problem. It is indeed a problem of the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, and the administration. The China initiative was clearly a reality before the Academic Senate Presidents were involved. It was suggested that a dialogue between all participants in shared governance is necessary in order to determine how the Chancellor and the Board define shared governance.

Several Senators expressed great concern relative to the issue of shared governance and the decision-making process in the District. Who decides when a confidential item is to become public? How can the Academic Senate become more involved in the decisions being made? It was stated that when information is shared in confidence, it is not shared governance. Governance implies deliberation and action of the body relative to the ten plus one. To notify the Academic Senate President is a precursor of shared governance, but that is not sufficient by itself. The Academic Senate is a Brown Act Legislative agency empowered by Title 5 to be responsible for those items listed. (A motion to extend discussion another 15 minutes was passed (M/S/U – Smebye/Cox.)

Wanda Wong explained that she conducted research on Mr. Kao when she learned of the possibility of the trip to China. She advised that Mr. Kao is a multi-millionaire who has nothing to gain personally from this venture. He is well respected in China and he is covering the costs for himself and anyone who accompanies him on this trip. Wanda advised that at this time the number of students that might come to the District from China is questionable and depends on how well a Memo of Understanding that is being developed will be received. She emphasized that the intent is to try to reap financial reward for the District. Wanda was cautioned to ensure that the Memo of Understanding does not impinge on the responsibilities of the Academic Senate.

Several Senators stated that there seems to be a difference in the understanding of the role of the Academic Senate President and the Chancellor. It appears that the administration feels it needs leeway to explore and create opportunities without coming to the Academic Senate, which seems reasonable on the surface. The problem, however, is there are no parameters for how much leeway is acceptable. To faculty, $20,000 is a significant amount of money, particularly when they are personally buying supplies for their classrooms. There is a need to set parameters on how much money can be spent on such initiatives before coming to the Academic Senate. The primary question remains, particularly regarding the Kuwait proposal and the China initiative. Why wasn’t the Academic Senate involved at an earlier stage? It was emphasized that many people support the idea of international students and global education. The most significant objection is the decision-making process by which these initiatives were undertaken. There appears to be a structural problem at the District level. A mechanism is needed to coordinate the International Students Program and Global Education initiatives at the District level. It was recommended that the District Academic Senate establish a subcommittee charged to be involved in all forthcoming initiatives of this sort, advise the administration how to proceed with proposals of this nature, and set the direction of the colleges and do strategic planning. It was agreed that this proposal is to be placed on a future agenda.

The order of the agenda was resumed.

III. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes for the February 7, 2006, meeting were accepted and approved with the following corrections (M/S/U – Rudy/Shue):

Item I.1 - Roll Call should include Senators Ellis, Mancini, Martin, Morgan, and Paicius who were inadvertently left off the roster. Senator Ellis was absent. The other Senators were present.

Item IV.3, Page 7, amend the last paragraph as indicated below and remove the future agenda item listed under Item V:

“A Senator requested It was suggested that several actions be taken to provide evidence and information, one being to conduct a survey by an objective third party as a follow-up. It was agreed that this matter should be brought before the Senate at a future meeting.”

IV.1 Status Report on Result of Resolution Relative to Working Relations in the District

Alex and Angelica advised that a letter has been sent to the State Chancellor, the Accrediting Commission, and the Academic Senate for CCCs advising them of the District Academic Senate’s resolution and the possibility that the District Academic Senate will suspend operations pending its decision on March 14, 2006, in accordance with the resolution.

Alex and Angelica reported that at the last Board meeting, Trustee Schwartz indicated that the Board agenda would be changed to include a standing item for the Academic Senate Presidents. No agenda item has been placed to date. In addition, the Chancellor questioned the portion of the resolution dealing with early resignations and retirements, asking for evidence of same. He provided a report with data from the District that the Chancellor claims does not support the statement. In contradiction, the Senate Presidents noted data within that report that indicates an increase in the decline of employment offers, increasing in increments from zero declines in 2002/03 to 15.38% in declines for 2005/06. Senators asked that a copy of this report be provided to each of them. It was also suggested that copies of the exit interviews be obtained, if possible. It was noted that the report did not include the number of administrative positions that were declined over the last few years.

Several Senators shared stories of faculty who resigned in their first or second year and candidates for teaching positions who declined the District’s offer. It was agreed that these incidents should be collected by the Senate office and provided as documentation at the appropriate time. One Senator indicated he was no longer willing to serve on a faculty hiring committee as the last two candidates for his department rejected the District’s offer. It was also noted that faculty at other districts teaching in the same discipline are earning considerably more money per year.

Relative to the issue of Work-to-contract, it was suggested that the District Academic Senate address the concerns of some faculty about fulfilling their responsibilities relative to their individual tenure review teams. One of the concerns of faculty members is what should be done when they have completed their institutional responsibility and withdrawn from committee activity. One possibility is for the DAS to request that those faculty members advise the Senate of their withdrawal, and the chairs of the affected committees be asked to report to the Academic Senate and advise the body of the committee’s status.

IV.2 Consider Recommendation from Feasibility Study on Kuwait Task Force

The Senators were provided with a draft document listing the criteria developed by the task force and linked to WASC’s principles of good practices for international programs. The Senators were asked to review the document, share it with their constituents and consider for approval at the next District Academic Senate meeting should regular business be conducted.

IV.4 Discuss & Consider Endorsement of Budget Allocation Model

Alex advised that the Mission College Division Chair Council (DCC) had several concerns regarding the proposed Budget Allocation Model (BAM). Angelica reported that the model was presented and received favorably by the WVC Division Chair Council for the most part. The West Valley College Student Services Council also received with the same presentation. Alex agreed to determine the concerns of the MC Division Chair Council and the rationale for rejecting the model and report back to the District Academic Senate. It was agreed that this item will be placed on the next agenda should regular business be conducted.

V. Future Agenda Items

No new items were added at today’s meeting.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. (M/S/U – Hannigan/Lavallo). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.