District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

 

   I.       Organizational Matters

 

   I.1     Call to Order/Roll Call

            The meeting was called to order at 2:37p.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

Holt   (MC)  ASB Rep.

 

   X

Rudy       (WVC) PE

 

   X

Juncker    (MC) Communications

 

   X

Shue       (WVC)  AAS

 

   X

Kashima  (MC)  ESL

 

   X

Smebye   (MC)  Comm’l Serv.

 

   X

Kelly      (WVC) Social Science

   

   X

Szabados  (MC) CATA

 

   X

Laird       (MC)  Social Science

 

   X

Ting        (MC)  Math

     X

 

Lavallo    (MC)  Math

   

   X

Treseder  (WVC) ASB Rep.

 

   X

Mancini   (MC)  AF/HM

 

   X

Other: J.Henderson (WVCAS)

     

   X

 

Guests

Guests

Guests

Pat Andrews

 Michael Herauf

Wendy Bowers-Gachesa

Dulce Gray

Jeff Forehan

Maria Lopez

Daniel Baldwin

Elizabeth Pelayo

Chien Pham

Lucy Trinh

Marta Franklin

Randy Castello

Alicia  Martinez

Theresa Tran

Hoan Pham

Doug Masury

Dianne McKay

Christine Ritz

Ellen McAlister

Susanna Pancella

Jim Peck

Ross Smith

Judy Colson

Cheryl Miller

LeAnn McGinley

Doug Campbell

Ed Mirch

Tu-Lan Trinh

Jane Lautermilch

Diane Brien

Betty Ramirez

Leann Yu

Cynthia Estrada

Sally Aitken

Susan Horton

Jean Finch

Len Schreibstein

Ann Malmuth-Onn

Linda Lawson

Sandy Carter

Bob Miller

Rebeca Sanchez

Phuong Nguyen

Mike Scaletta

Clement Lam

Marge Faulstich

Elizabeth Harris

Lucinda Browning

Kara Dworak

Diane Hurd

Celine Pinet

Sylvia Ortega

Daniel Ryan

Jason Challas

Sandy LaFave

Sherry Montoya

Albert M. Moore

Graciano Mendoza

Katherine Moore Wines

Joe Hasty

Janis Kea

Andy Kindon

Laurel Kinley

Cathy Aimonetti

Paula Homrig

Teri Langworthy

 

Guests

Guests

Guests

Cassandra Owen

Cecelia Zipperer

Ann Castrogiovanni

Donn B. Murphy

Ashley Riley-Sousa

Mel Pritchard

Leslie Saito

Stephen Juarez

Marge Mills

Bianka Doomani

Rebecca Tran

Donnelle C. McGee

Yolanda Coleman

Priscilla Jones-Foster

Rosalie Ledesma

Scott Ludwig

Marta Mora

Aaron Malchow

David Lang

Jack Mahrt

Steve Peltz

Patricia Stokke

Geri Peterson

Carol Rhoads

Barbara Hayslip

Greg Allen

Betsy Sandford

Ken Schock

Jim Henderson

Ruth Carlson

Pat Fenton

Joan Powers

Jean McIntosh

Robert Cornejo

Mike Nguyen

Carol Toppel

Don Cordero

 

 

Others were present.  

Some signatures were illegible.

 

                 

  I.2      Order of the Agenda

            There were no changes to today’s order of the agenda.

 

  I.3      Announcements & Information

             There were no announcements or information items presented.

                                                                                                           

 II.       Oral Communication from the Public

            No one addressed the Senate under Oral Communication.

 

III.       Approval of the Minutes for March 2, 2006

            The minutes for the March 2, 2006, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved (M/S/U – Mancini/Brueckner) with the deletion of the word “style” under Item IV.2 Page 4, first paragraph, first sentence and indication that Senator Morgan was in attendance at the March 2, 2006, meeting.

 

IV.       Business

 

IV.1     Consider Suspension of Academic Senate Operations in Accordance with the Resolution Relative to Working Relations in the District

            Alex and Angelica opened the meeting noting that the District Academic Senate’s resolution referred to specific areas of concern.  Those areas concern labor negotiations, shared governance, organizational climate and faculty morale, and issues of respect for faculty.  Alex invited Pat Andrews, the President of the ACE Council to update the Senate and the audience on the latest proposal received from the District.

 

            Pat Andrews addressed the Senate, and on behalf of the ACE Council, thanked the District Academic Senate for supporting negotiations.  She noted that there is a unity that has developed amongst faculty and between faculty and classified as never before.  She emphasized the importance of maintaining that unity.

 

            Prior to receiving the e-mail from the Chancellor via Ruth Carlson, Pat reported that she planned to present the facts of the District’s latest proposal, as offered last Friday, to the Senate and Faculty at today’s Senate meeting.  The Chancellor’s e-mail resulted in many phone calls from enraged faculty and consequently, she sent out the e-mail with the details of the District’s offer last night.  She urged that the Chancellor’s error not drive how this body proceeds and that faculty and staff continue to stay united and never let the District divide us again.  

 

            The floor was turned over to Randy Castello, who provided the details of the District’s offer.  She explained that the 12% increase noted in the Chancellor’s e-mail is to be offered in increments:  4% this year, 5% next year, and 3% the year after.  The third year is contingent upon each college meeting enrollment goals, and the Executive Management Team would set the enrollment goals, not the Performance Goals Committee. Randy explained that although 12% sounds wonderful, the amount adds up no more than a COLA increase.  ACE proposed that a share of other revenues be considered, such as equalization money and growth money, and that proposal was rejected; the District claims that the 12% is a maximum amount.  It was acknowledged that the District’s offer to maintain benefits was welcome.  The proposal, however, is presented as a package that includes other articles in the contract, such as the calendar, changes to the Benefits Committee, and others. Also included in the proposal is a one time payment of $1 million in settlement to cover the violation of the 50% law instead of the $5 million owed by the District.  ACE has also been asking for a bridge program for faculty hired after 1994, parity for associate faculty, and that language be clarified in a number of articles. Randy advised that if the total package is not accepted as presented in its entirety, it may come back in a different form. She stated, however, that Friday’s negotiation session was a good session with good discussion on core issues for the first time in a very long time. 

 

            The floor was opened to questions and discussion.  Regarding the 12% increase, it was clarified that the 12% does not make up for increases due faculty, and actually constitutes a deficit because 12% does not make up for not obtaining increases over the last three years.  Regarding the $1 million one time payment, the $1 million would be a bonus payout to be shared by all full-time faculty and associate faculty, amounting to approximately $2,000/person.  This payout is intended to settle the violation of the 50% law.  There was some discussion on the number of negotiation sessions that have been held, cancelled, and whether or not the District’s negotiators came better prepared than in the past.  It was reported that at least two or three sessions have been cancelled by the District although some sessions were rescheduled. The District’s negotiators, however, were prepared with a proposal for this Friday’s session.  ACE countered and the District indicated they would not be able to counter on Friday. 

 

            When asked if a significant change has been noted in the District’s willingness to negotiate in good faith, several members of the ACE Council spoke to the issue, some indicating uncertainty and others claiming that there has been no change.  Several people questioned the motivation for Friday’s proposal, indicating that it was an 11th hour movement motivated by the deadline in the Academic Senate’s resolution.  A status list of the ACE Contract Articles was provided indicating the number of articles that have reached tentative agreement (3), the number of articles that are waiting for counter proposals from ACE (9), and the number of articles that are waiting for counter proposals from the District (27), many of which were presented in October and November of last year.  Pat advised that she has been assured that there will be ongoing, serious and focused negotiations over the next two weeks.  She noted further that at the beginning of negotiations for this year, the Board was adamant that there would be cost sharing on benefits.  This proposal constitutes a major change in attitude on that issue. 

 

            As discussion continued, Alex advised that the request for a place on the Board of Trustees meeting agenda has been fulfilled.  It was pointed out that the District Academic Senate’s resolution had six Resolve statements, with negotiations encompassing only one issue.  The fourth Resolve statement addresses the climate of shared governance in the District.  Several members of the Senate spoke to the issue, indicating their view that there has been no apparent change on the issue of shared governance coming from the Board or the Chancellor, particularly after the adoption of the resolution and the previous District Academic Senate meeting.  The question of whether or not the Chancellor’s e-mail sent out by Ruth Carlson is a PERB violation was discussed.  It was opined that this demonstrated a lack of respect for ACE and was a ruse to deter the Senate from taking action.  Pat explained that the law states that employers have the right to share the facts of a proposal without coercing, intimidating, or co-opting to buy in to their proposals.  The “fair and equitable proposal” statement is the only possible point of contention, but it is not sufficient to file a complaint with PERB.  She stated further that she fully intended to present the entire proposal to faculty.

 

            Concerns were raised relative to the Whereas statements, and definitions of shared governance, good faith, respect, etc.  One suggestion was to postpone the decision and that a subcommittee of the Senate be formed to develop tangible, measurable terms.  The Senators were advised that, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, today’s order of business is to deal with the resolve statements and whether or not to take action in accordance with the resolve statements.  The time to have expressed concern relative to the Whereas statements was when the resolution was considered for adoption.  (At this time a motion to extend discussion for an additional 15 minutes was passed (M/S/U – Kelly/Hannigan).  It was stated that the China initiative did indeed indicate a failure of shared governance on the part of the Chancellor, particularly since faculty have to come up with curriculum, which falls under the purview of the Academic Senate.  Other concerns related to the question of how the labor issue fits into the situation and how to determine the true financial status of the District.

 

            As discussion continued, several Senators expressed their views and rationale for supporting the suspension.  It was stated that Friday’s proposal was too little, too late, and did not allow enough time for ACE to evaluate the proposal and present it to faculty.  It was also noted that negotiations have been stalled until last Friday.   The Senators were also reminded that the latest proposal from the District supplants the role of PGC to set enrollment goals, giving the charge to the Executive Management Team (EMT) rather than the faculty.  The Budget Allocation Model is based on the fact that goals are met, and the EMT would define the performance goals.  There appears to be little change, if any, in the authority of the administration, or demonstrating respect for faculty and shared governance.  It was also stated that even though it was not illegal for the Chancellor to advise faculty of the proposal, the Chancellor did not send the e-mail himself.  Many present stated they were insulted by the e-mail and viewed it as a lack of respect.  In addition, neither one of the college Presidents nor the Chancellor chose to attend today’s meeting.  The act to suspend has to do with morale, respect, and shared governance as well as negotiations. It was emphasized that now is the time for the Academic Senate to take a strong position.  

 

            A member of the WVC Curriculum Committee addressed the Senate, advising them that all course proposals were to have a second reading at tomorrow’s Curriculum Committee meeting.  If operations are suspended, then those proposals will be pulled from the schedule.  It was stated that the schedule will be finalized and sent to the printer without the unapproved courses, as those courses cannot be offered without Senate approval.   In response, it was stated that a similar situation occurred at Mission College and the world did not come to an end.  If the Academic Senate resumes operations in time, the classes can still be approved and added to the schedule.

 

            At this point the student representatives spoke to the issue stating their concerns as to how students will be affected.  One student stated that it appears there is no mutual understanding of shared governance and suggested that the Senate exercise prudence.  The other student stated that the same issues have been discussed over the last two to three years and nothing has changed.  Many students cannot get the classes they want now and faculty members are not as available as they are normally.  Students are leaving the District because they are unhappy with the status quo.  Something needs to be done.

 

            The following motion was presented for consideration (M/S – Cox/Cogswell):

 

            “that the District Academic Senate vote to suspend operations and enforce the provisions of the resolution adopted by the District Academic Senate on February 7, 2006.”

 

            Discussion on the above motion was opened to the floor.  (A motion to extend discussion an additional ten minutes was passed (M/S/U – Cogswell/Cox).

 

            Doug Masury, the MC Classified Senate President stated that the Mission College classified staff strongly support faculty in whatever action is taken.  He spoke against postponement of action.  Scott Ludwig, the WVC Classified Senate President also expressed support for the faculty’s decision.  He stated his concerns, however, relative to pulling out from shared governance activities, such as accreditation.

 

            A member of the audience stated that the Academic Senate has never dealt with anything so serious before and expressed pride in the process.  She stated further that the reason behind the Senate’s action is because the faculty do care about students and their environment.  If the District cannot attract good quality instructors and place pedagogy above goals for enrollment, the quality of education will deteriorate along with access.  As for defining shared governance, you know it when you see it.  The reason people cannot define it is because they haven’t seen it.  Faculty are not here to get rich.  They teach because they care about students.   If the Senate does not take action, there is no reason for the District to ever take faculty seriously on any topic in the future.  Another view expressed that all faculty are concerned about how students will be affected.  The Administration has known the Senate would consider such action for the last six weeks.  Faculty members were urged not take the blame for things shutting down. The Administration needs to take responsibility for what they have failed to do. The Administration has known for six weeks the suspension was a possibility.  It was noted that, in accordance with Title 5, this Board has agreed to rely primarily on the advice of the Senate and yet it is clear that the Board is not consulting with the Senate on any level. 

 

            At this time, the Senate President called for the question and the Senators voted unanimously (M/S/U – Cox/Cogswell) to implement the resolution of February 7, 2006, and to suspend Academic Senate operations.  It was announced that the suspension will be effective as of 12:01 a.m. on March 15, 2006, and the Board will be notified at its March 16th meeting. Letters to the State Chancellor’s Office, the Accrediting Commission, and the Academic Senate for CCCs will be sent as soon as possible.  Alex. asked for three Senators from each college senate to serve on a task force to consider details of the suspension and to develop criteria to assist in the determination of progress in the areas of concern in order to reinstate Senate operations.  Senators Cogswell, Kashima, and Perlas from the Mission College Academic Senate and Senators Burzynski, Kelly, and Shue from the West Valley College Academic Senate were appointed to the task force. 

 

            Members of the District Academic Senate expressed their gratitude to the faculty at both colleges and the classified co-workers for all the support demonstrated over the last six weeks dealing with this issue.

           

 

            At this time a motion was passed to postpone the remaining agenda items to a future meeting and to adjourn today’s meeting (M/S/P – Hannigan/Kelly).

 

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/P – Hannigan/Kelly). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.