District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

 

 

   I.    Organizational Matters

 

   I.1  Call to Order/Roll Call

         The meeting was called to order 2:15 p.m. by Co-Chairs Linda King and Jane Patton.

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Berlani     (WVC) Science

 

   X

Lock        (WVC) Pres-Elect

   

   X

Brennan  (MC)  Communications

 

   X

Lynne       (MC)  Comm’l Serv

 

   X

Brueckner (WVC)  Fine Arts

   

   X

Mancini    (MC) AssocFac/HM

 

   X

Buendia-Bangle (WVC) StudtServ

   

   X

Martin      (MC)  Technology

 

   X

Carey   (WVC)  At-Large/Bus

   X

 

Mingione (WVC) AssocFac/Bus

    

   X

Charland  (MC) Student Dev.

   

   X

Patton  (MC)CoChair/Commctns

 

   X

Cisneros (WVC) Student Dev.

 

   X

Rivas   (MC)  CATA

 

   X

Dooley   (MC)  AAS

   X

 

Rosner    (MC)  ESL

 

   X

Elllis     (WVC) Math

 

   X

Sarlo    (WVC) PE

   X

 

Estrada   (MC) Comm’l Serv

 

   X

Schock  (WVC)  Business

 

   X

Javan     (WVC) AAS

 

   X

Sippel     (MC)  Communicatns

 

   X

Johnson  (MC)  CATA

   X

   

Smith  (WVC)  Language Arts

 

   X

King      (WVC) CoChair/SS

 

   X

Thelin   (WVC) Social Science

 

   X

Kopernik   (WVC)  Lib/LATC

 

   X

Toppel  (MC) Student Dev.

 

   X

Lavallo   (MC)  Math

 

 

Van Tassel (MC) Technology

   X

 

Light       (MC) AssocFac/CIT

 

   X

Xu       (MC) Social Science

   X

   

Guests:  K.Dundurs, M.Faulstich  

 

   X

Guests:  A.Braun, H.Dennis,

 

   X

J.Schwartz, R. Smebye, I.Walton

  

   X

J.Halasa, S. Panacella,

 

   X

          

           The meeting was called to order by President King. Trustee Schwartz was introduced to the Senators, and for those new to the District Academic Senate, Linda explained the role of the District Senate as designated in AB 1725.  The law states that each college will have an Academic Senate and multi-college districts will have a District Academic Senate to ensure the appropriate voice of the faculty in academic affairs at the District level is heard. The two College Academic Senate Presidents co-chair the District Academic Senate meetings.  According to the constitution of the District Academic Senate, any one action taken by both College Senates is considered as an action of the District Academic Senate

 

  I.2   Order of the Agenda

            Item I.4 (Oral Communication from the Public) was added to today’s agenda by consensus.  The omission was a typo.

 

  I.3   Announcements & Information

         There were no announcements or information items reported.

          

  I.4   Oral Communication from the Public

            Senator Charland read a summary of an open letter from Don Cordero to be presented to the Board of Trustees by Don on Thursday, March 20, 2003.  Don intends to address the Board, request they not hire a new president for Mission College, will volunteer to serve as Interim President, ask several questions of the Board, and make several suggestions as to how to proceed to resolve the current crisis.

 

            Ian Walton stated that he was attending today’s meeting as the ACE representative sitting in for Carolyn Fisher, and also representing Hoke Simpson, President of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. 

 

  II.    Business

             

II.1    Discuss District Budget Issues

            President Patton presented several guidelines and discussed them briefly to ensure that the focus remains on the agenda and that the Senate’s task is completed in the allotted time. 

 

            a) Discuss possible reductions in academic programs and course offerings and the effects on both colleges’ academic integrity and viability - Each college should review its own programs and determine whether reductions are appropriate or not.  This can occur only until the impact of the actions of one college is reflected on the other college.  At that time, it will be critical to ensure that the district works as a team and preserves the academic programs district-wide.

 

            Discussion ensued, and several concerns were raised regarding the deep cuts taken at West Valley College, particularly the inequities between departments based on a data sheet generated by Ken Colson.  The cuts are uneven and were made outside of the shared governance process and    may result in de facto program discontinuance.  It can be assumed that the 59 faculty positions that were pink-slipped will have an effect on the academic programs and support services. In order to lay off full-time faculty members, the contracts of associate faculty members will not be renewed.  This will leave some academic programs and support services decimated.  Although no one has the complete information on data, it appears that FTE has been reduced by 61 FTE, a 32.4% - 40% reduction in FTE without criteria or input from the Academic Senate.  Some departments are decimated, such as History and Business, each reduced to five classes.  The process and the result are “grotesquely and inherently unfair and uneven.”

 

            It was suggested that the Senate focus on how to best rectify the situation and equalize the results.  Conversely, the Senate was urged to stand firm and request that the Board recognize that the very survival of the programs and the academic integrity and viability of both institutions is at stake. 

 

            b) Establish Policy and Subcommittee on Possible Faculty Reductions - It was suggested that the Senate establish the criteria and characteristics for the consideration of reduction and elimination of programs, as well as consider the impact of same on the curriculum and the institution.  The criteria used by the Board and/or the Chancellor to develop the list of cuts in positions is in question; the end result appears to defy logic.  The Senate needs to address how to deal with faculty that do not have an alternative FSA, and the impact this will have on programs that will be eliminated or reduced. The level of cuts in this district makes us ask: “why is our cut so much larger and deeper than any other college in the state?”   Something is terribly wrong in this district.

 

            The breakdown in the colleges’ historical process is clear - the shared governance process was by-passed entirely.  A motion was presented, discussed and passed unanimously and accepted with several friendly amendments as follows (M/S/U – Brennan/Schock):

 

            “I move that the District Academic Senate asks that the Board set aside and take no further action on faculty termination notices; and

 

Further move, That the District Academic Senate asks that the Board and the Chancellor recognize and reaffirm the right of each college to use the existing and appropriate shared governance process to determine reductions and changes in faculty, programs, services, and FTE allocations, and

 

Further move, That we establish a subcommittee of the District Academic Senate to develop guidelines for joint Division Chair Council/College Academic Senate meetings to consider the district-wide impact of local college decisions, to establish criteria for the reductions and changes, and to address the underlying issues which are responsible for our financial predicament.”

 

It was agreed that the subcommittee will be composed of two Senate members from each college, two Division Chairs from each college, and the two Vice Presidents of Instruction.  A call for interested Senators and DC’s will be issued from the Senate office, with the anticipation that the group will meet within the next week and be prepared to report to the District Academic Senate at its next meeting (scheduled for April 3, 2003).  It was agreed that those selected should be representative of the following areas: Student Services, Academic areas/Transfer. Vocational Education, and Basic Skills.

 

There was a brief discussion on the purpose and intent of the above motion given that the lay off list has been dispersed and cannot be changed.  The purpose will be as stated in the motion: “to develop guidelines for joint Division Chair Council/College Academic Senate meetings to consider the district-wide impact of local college decisions, to establish criteria for the reductions and changes, and to address the underlying issues which are responsible for our financial predicament.”  Although the Chancellor has asked both Senate Presidents to participate in a “restoration” process in the event that there is a change in the projected shortfall, that is not exactly what the motion says.  At West Valley, a preliminary Emergency Restoration Process was presented at the WVC Performance Goals Committee. It is imperative, however, that the Academic Senates participate in all the processes affecting instruction.  The Senators were reminded that the Board of Trustees has agreed to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate on academic and professional matters.

 

A study of district-wide services was reported.  The cost of these services have increased 2.27% since last year. The costs for the Chancellor’s Office have risen disproportionately, with considerable monies spent on IS.  The following motion was discussed at length, friendly amendments were accepted and the motion was unanimously approved (M/S/U – Brennan/Charland):

 

“that the District Academic Senate urgently request that the Board of Trustees establish a subcommittee composed of two Board members and two faculty representatives from each college, selected by the respective Academic Senates. The charge of this committee is to promptly develop a reorganization plan for district-wide services that significantly reduces the size of the district-wide budget, prioritizes shifting funds to the areas that fulfill our district goals and mission statement, and develop controls to ensure that over spending the district-wide budget does not continue.”

 

A duplication of top-level positions at the district level is apparent. The district is top heavy. It was noted that a suggestion to eliminate the Chancellor’s position was posed to the Board during the 1993 budget crisis and was rejected by the Board.  The above motion will be presented to the Board this Thursday.  

         c) Discuss and Clarify the Senate’s Position on FON Waiver – The College Academic Senates each authorized the Chancellor to request a waiver of the Faculty Obligation Number for one year from the Board of Governors.  In light of a report that there may be a misperception of the Senates’ intent, the following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Ellis/Buendia-Bangle):

         “that the District Academic Senate confirms that the request for a waiver of the Faculty Obligation Number was intended for one year only and should revert back next year.”  

d) Consider Program Discontinuance Policy for the District Senate – It was noted that the College Academic Senates have adopted individual Program Discontinuance Policies.  At this time, the WVC Academic Senate is considering some recommendations from the College Council to add to the policy. It is anticipated that the District Academic Senate may want to adopt a joint policy in the future.

 

II.2    Discuss Current Leadership Crisis

            It was noted that the District Board’s policy has an Administrative Evaluation Process that includes input from the Academic Senates, the Classified Senates, and other entities.  The process has not been followed in recent times, and Trustee Schwartz was asked to comment.  He stated that the Board evaluates the top four managers and the process has varied from year to year.  He stated that the Board drives the evaluation of the Chancellor and the Chancellor drives the evaluation of the other managers.  He is not certain as to whether the Senates were involved or not.

 

            A flyer with excerpts from local newspaper reports relative to Chancellor Arterberry’s tenure at Solano College was distributed. The comments speak to the dissension at Solano about the Chancellor. The article communicates a history of behavior and leadership style that created a similar environment to the current situation in our District.  Several Senators felt he has behaved disrespectfully.  Disappointment in his leadership was also expressed. His behavior indicates a lack of knowledge about the employees of this district and was compared to the past behavior of both college and district administrations during similar difficult times in the past.  It was noted that the WVC Academic Senate worked hard to develop a model for the reduction of services with the administration during the last budget crisis. A procedure was established where the work was accomplished at the District Budget Advisory Council (DBAC), which met several times per week and cuts in every area were considered. That is not the case during the current crisis; most DBAC meetings were cancelled and decisions have been made outside the shared governance process.

 

            Discussion ensued on the question of a Vote of No Confidence.  There are many reasons that such a vote from the Academic Senate is appropriate when issues fall under the purview of the Academic Senate.  For example: 1) Educational program planning without Senate consultation, and 2) lapses in shared governance. In addition, concern was expressed that the Chancellor attempted to take several actions possibly in violation of the ACE contract and other principles: 1) a freeze on travel funds (a legal obligation of the district), 2) a freeze on Sabbatical Leaves without consulting ACE, 3) a statement that pink slips would be issued to all employees only to retract the statement.   He named two interim presidents to Mission College without following the input from the college community.  In order to give the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt, it was suggested that perhaps these errors were all a result of actions by support staff.  For example, human resources should have caught these errors.

 

            The meaning of a Vote of No Confidence was discussed.  Such a vote is intended to state that the leadership has failed and that the faculty no longer have confidence in the person’s ability to lead.   Trustee Schwartz expressed concern that a vote of no confidence at this time would shift the focus from the current crisis and the need to save programs and people.  He agreed that the Board needs to be held more accountable.  The new Board is trying to work together, to determine why this district is hurting much more than others, and to resolve the situation.  He recommended that such a vote be deferred to a later date.

 

            It was agreed that the Senate Presidents should present a list of concerns to the Chancellor.  A decision on conducting a Vote of No Confidence was deferred to the next District Academic Senate meeting, to be held on April 3rd.  

 

II.3    Establish Dates for Future District Academic Senate Meetings

            It was agreed that the next District Academic Senate meeting will be held on Thursday, April 3, 2003, at Mission College.  A poll of the Senators indicated that a quorum will be present.  An agenda will be prepared and distributed in the near future.  It was agreed that the District Academic Senate may need to set up additional meetings this semester to ensure that the Senate’s role is maintained.

 

III.    Future Agenda Items

            No items were added.

 

IV.    Adjournment

            The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. (M/S/U – Ellis/Toppel).  These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.