District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, April 3, 2003

 

 

   I.    Organizational Matters

 

   I.1  Call to Order/Roll Call

         The meeting was called to order 2:22 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

Braun      (MC)  Technology

 

   X

Lynne       (MC)  Comm’l Serv

 

   X

Brennan  (MC)  Communications

 

   X

Mancini    (MC) AssocFac/HM

 

   X

Brueckner (WVC)  Fine Arts

   

   X

Martin      (MC)  Technology

 

   X

Buendia-Bangle (WVC) StudtServ

   

   X

Mingione (WVC) AssocFac/Bus

    X

   

Carey   (WVC)  At-Large/Bus

   X

 

Musat      (MC)  Math

 

   X

Charland  (MC) Student Dev.

   

   X

Oliver      (MC)  AAS

 

   X

Cisneros (WVC) Student Dev.

   X

   

Patton  (MC)CoChair/Commctns

 

   X

Dooley   (MC)  AAS

   

   X

Rivas   (MC)  CATA

 

   X

Ellis     (WVC) Math

 

   X

Rosner    (MC)  ESL

 

   X

Estrada   (MC) Comm’l Serv

 

   X

Sarlo    (WVC) PE

   

   X

Hasty    (WVC) Soc Sci Sub

 

   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

 

   X

Xu       (MC) Social Science

   

   X

Light       (MC) AssocFac/CIT

 

   X

Other: S.Hanna, J.Weston (ASB)

 

   X

Guests:J.Adams, A.Akers-Martin

 

   X

Guests: R. Curry, R.Dewis,,

 

   X

J.DeLongchamp, S.Dinger,

 

   X

B.Grayson, M.Grayson,

 

   X

J.Hacker, L.Harris, H.Hayer,

 

   X

R. Ledesma R.Lowenberg,

 

   X

D. McKay, M.Myint,

 

   X

S. Panacella, H.Pham,

 

   X

H. Simpson (Pres.ASCCC),

  

   X

J.Van Tassel,  I.Walton

 

   X

          

I.2     Order of the Agenda

            No changes were made to today’s agenda.

 

I.3     Announcements & Information

a)     The Pre-Session Area B Meeting of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges will be held at Mission College on Friday, April 11, 2003, from Noon until 4:00 p.m.  Proposed resolutions are prepared and/or reviewed in order to provide input at the Plenary Session in May.  Issues of interest to the Senates of the region can be discussed.

b)    The next Board meeting is scheduled for April 17, 2003, at West Valley College.  A large number of faculty, staff, and students are expected to attend.

c)     Mission College will be on spring break next week.  The Senators were asked to check their e-mail in order to keep up with developments that take place over the break.

          

 II.     Oral Communication from the Public

            Harinder S. Hayer, President of the Punjab Student Association announced that an annual Teachers Support Day will be established at Mission College starting April 17, 2003, to be held outside the cafeteria.   The intent of this event is so that students will have an opportunity to express their appreciation and support for faculty.  The Senators expressed their gratitude and applauded this presentation.

 

 III.   Business

             

 

 

 

A.       Input from Hoke Simpson, President of State Academic Senate (ASCCC) on Roles, Responsibilities, and Options for the District Academic Senate during Budget Crisis

President King introduced Hoke Simpson, President of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) and Julie Adams, the Executive Secretary of the ASCCC.  President Simpson has been advised of the concerns and issues pertaining to our district, and he is here today to provide his perspective and his recommendations.

 

President Simpson acknowledged that he has been apprised of the particulars of the District’s crisis.   He is aware that the District Academic Senate is considering a Vote of No Confidence in the Chancellor.  He assured the Senate that a vote of no confidence is taken very seriously statewide. It can be a career-ending move for the administrator in question.  Such action should be considered very carefully and seriously.  He reported that he received calls from the Chancellor of the District and the Executive Director of the Community College League of California (CLC), David Viar, who also received a call from the Chancellor. Hoke noted that he and Chancellor Arterberry have worked together on presentations for the ASCCC and the CCLC dealing with technical assistance, particularly on governance.  The Chancellor knows the law and regulations.

 

Hoke stated that some administrators can wear a vote of no confidence as a badge of honor.  It is not likely that this would be true in this case.  This district has an excellent reputation for its faculty leadership.  The Academic Senate Presidents from this district have been and are widely respected and known for their measured approach to governance.  Ian Walton is enormously respected at the ASCCC and by Mr. Viar, the Executive Director of the CCLC.  This puts an enormous responsibility on the Senate.  If a vote of no confidence is to be taken, it must be done correctly.  Hoke made the following recommendations:

      •     Make sure all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.

                  •     Draft a bill of particulars.  A good start is President Patton’s e-mail to the Trustees. Expand on that list providing specifics.  For example, list the dates of the cancelled DBAC meetings.

                  •     List the faculty notices with names and disciplines.   

                  •     List the specific programs that were slashed.  Be explicit so that the impact on the curriculum and programs is clear.

 

            From an academic perspective, the following grievances can be applied toward such action:

                  •     No overall educational planning was considered in making the cuts.  No effort was made to look at the large picture and plan responsibly to serve the students, maintain access, and do the least amount of damage to the programs.    This is a very serious point to make.

                  •     The fact that the proposed layoffs of all Associate Faculty in departments with pink slips and the Full-Time Faculty amounts to a 25% reduction in the faculty force is extremely serious, particularly since it was done without planning and without appropriate input. Point out the consequences of these actions.

                  •     Budget processes have not been adhered to, and it is his understanding that this is not new this year.  A written budget policy exists and it should be adhered to, particularly in times of crisis.  If the process is not a good one, the way to deal with it is to open discussion and fix it so it does work. 

                  •     To the complaint that shared governance does not work quickly enough in this district, Hoke commented that the faculty leadership in this district is such that they are always willing and able to engage in the process in a timely manner. This should never be an excuse, especially in this district.

                  •     When cuts are considered at a time of crisis, it is assumed since faculty helped write policy, if policy is to be changed, the faculty need to be consulted collegially.  This is a serious academic and professional breach of responsibility on the part of the administration.

                  •     Planning on the basis of the worst case budget scenario is reckless at this time. Hoke referred to mid-year cuts as an example, indicating that the legislature has agreed that all cuts should be proportionate and has restored funds to categories.  This same group is working on the 2003/04 budget and has sketched out the worst and best case scenarios.  The best case scenario information has been e-mailed to all from the state Chancellor.  This would give community colleges a 10.4% share of Proposition 98, which would result in a 2.8% cut.  This scenario is substantially less than the Governor’s proposal.  Based on experience, the legislature is saying that cuts should be proportional.  The legislature is inclined to ensure that community colleges do not take a larger cut.  To do so would deny access on a grand scale and disrupt the lives of faculty and students, unnecessarily.  The district has been able to deal with the mid-year cuts and, optimistically, can make the necessary adjustments for next year as well.

                  •     Regarding the assumptions of next year’s budget, the proposed deficit went from $15 million to $11 million.  The WVMCCD Board and the administration need to change direction.  Implicit in next year’s budget is that any package put together should necessarily only include next year.

                  •     Regarding the Full-Time Faculty Obligation Number (relative to the pink slip situation), Hoke reported that last fall the ASCCC participated in crafting a compromise agreement to waive 50% of the requirement and a deferral process. The body, however, disagreed with the proposal and he has been directed to advise the Board of Governors that the ASCCC does not support waivers or deferrals at any time.  The ASCCC has called for a change to Title 5 to move toward a 75/25 ratio in good years and no slip in bad years.  The Board of Governors and the state Chancellor support a position that would change Title 5 and defer a penalty for one year for districts that do not meet their obligation.  This is to be decided by the Board of Governors in May.  Hoke emphasized that the penalty will still apply although payment is deferred for one year. 

 

            Once the bill of particulars is drafted, Hoke recommended that the Academic Senate Presidents meet with the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trustees to present the list of particulars. Indicate that these problems must be addressed and resolved or the vote of no confidence will go forward. Because there is a high level of distrust in the district, this must be addressed immediately.  He urged that a professional demeanor be maintained and noted that the Chancellor’s recent e-mail appears to be conciliatory in tone.   Hoke recommended further that the Chancellor be given the opportunity to get through this crisis.  In the event that he does not respond favorably, it might be best to schedule an emergency meeting of the District Academic Senate in order to take the appropriate action. As Hoke understands it, the current situation is not acceptable.

 

            Discussion was opened to the floor and Hoke answered a number of questions. He emphasized that the rescinding of the March 15th notices is central and there is every reason for the Academic Senate and the union to call for reinstatement based on academic and professional grounds. To do otherwise would be devastating to programs and student access. As to the Senate’s participation into decisions regarding the prioritization of programs, Hoke strongly urged that the task be undertaken only on the premise that there will be no layoffs.  The planning should have come first.  To do otherwise would make faculty their own assassins.

 

B.      Continue Discussion on Leadership Crisis

         1.  Consider Vote of No Confidence  -  Discussion on this matter began at the last District Academic Senate meeting.  The consensus at that time was to develop an incremental process, beginning with the Academic Senate Presidents taking a list of concerns to the Chancellor.  This was done and a range of concerns were presented and discussed at length.  To date, there has been no response from the Chancellor.  The floor was opened to discussion as to how to proceed. 

 

Several Senators reported that their divisions were unanimously in favor of a vote of no confidence at this time.  Others reported that their constituents would prefer that such action be delayed and would rather focus attention on the Board by providing them with a list of particulars to make them aware of specific issues with the leadership.  One suggestion was to prepare and present a “white paper” to the Chancellor and the Board.  The consensus was that the Senate must take a strong stance and must require that the March 15th notices be rescinded.   If indeed a vote of no confidence is to be taken, Hoke suggested that a majority vote of the faculty can weigh the outcome significantly.  The question of the Chancellor’s contract was discussed and the President was directed to determine if there is a probationary period.  As discussion ensued, strategies and actions on how to proceed were considered.  Hoke suggested that the bill of particulars should include what needs to be done to get back on the right track. The Senate should indicate its willingness to work together, and input from faculty has to be sought and taken seriously.  If the meeting with the Chancellor and the President of the Board is not successful, the next step is a Vote of No Confidence. It was also suggested that a recall of the Board be considered as well.  Members of the Board have not been listening to faculty and have made decisions that are not educationally or fiscally sound. 

 

As to the relationship with negotiations, Hoke emphasized that the Senate and ACE must confer regarding deliberations. The issues cannot be compartmentalized.  A Senator remarked that the Senate should consider the implications of a vote of no confidence, set aside their anger at being treated unprofessionally by a leader, and convince the Board to rescind the pink slips.  A motion to draft a Bill of Particulars was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Ellis/Charland). A brainstorming session resulted in the following proposed list of particulars:

 

          •     Pink slips list – failure to respond

          •     Chancellor ignored shared governance process and misdirected College Presidents to do the same.

          •     Violation of Board Policy in terms of shared governance (Section 3.17.2).

          •     Proceeded with disregard or lack of knowledge about state budget processes

          •     Threatened to send pink slips to all faculty members.  This statement was inappropriate and such action would have been illegal.

          •     Recommended that Board deny Sabbatical Leaves as contracted.

          •     Freezing of travel conference funds as contracted

          •     Appointed two Mission College Interim Presidents did not follow the advice from shared governance participants.

          •     Met with EMT and made decisions outside shared governance process.

          •     Cancellation of DBAC meetings at critical times

          •     Lack of willingness to look at  appropriately deep cuts in district services budget.

          •     Inadequate response to concerns previously presented.

          •     Continuation of inappropriate behavior could result in vote of no confidence.

 

          The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Buendia-Bangle/Brennan):

 

          “that the Co-chairs of the District Academic Senate, Linda King and Jane Patton, meet with the President of the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor in the next week, present the Senate’s list of particulars and continue to discuss the concerns of the Academic Senate relative to the Chancellor.”

 

          The Presidents were instructed to edit and organize the list.  It was agreed that the Chancellor will be asked to respond in writing and include a commitment as to how he will rectify the problems within 72 hours of receipt. 

 

   C.   Continue Discussion on District Budget Crisis

1)  Discuss Status of DAS Crisis Subcommittee – (Hoke and Julie left the meeting at this point, and the Senate members and guests thanked Hoke for coming and for his wisdom.)

 

At the last DAS meeting, it was agreed that a subcommittee of the Senate would be formed.  The charge of the committee was 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 noted that the MC Academic Senate appointed individuals to the committee.  The WVC Academic Senate, on the other hand, in response to concerns raised by faculty and ACE opted not to appoint to the committee.  The rationale from ACE was that if the Senate participates in a “restoration” process, faculty will be placed in a vulnerable position.  The WVCAS wanted to ensure that the process was legal and honored shared governance.  A motion to rescind the March 18th District Academic Senate’s motion was made and withdrawn.  The following motion was offered in its stead and passed with one abstention (M/S/U – Brennan/Charland):

           

            “Whereas, The Chancellor and the Board of Trustees have moved forward with a reckless disregard for shared governance or a prudent logical and reasonable educational planning process by sending termination notices to nearly 60 faculty members, and

 

Whereas, The Chancellor has now asked that the District Academic Senate establish a faculty restoration committee to give sanction to and that could remediate the breach of process and reckless lack of planning to send the termination notices;

 

Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, That the District Academic Senate sternly admonish the Chancellor for his failure to follow shared governance, his reckless actions in sending termination notices, and his overall failure in district leadership; and

 

Therefore, Let It Be Further Resolved, That the District Academic Senate inform the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees that the District Academic Senate will not participate in the faculty restoration committee, and instead demand that the termination notices be immediately rescinded and that the colleges return to the appropriate shared governance process to determine how best to respond to the current budget crisis."

 

2.  Discuss Status of Request to Board of Trustees on Committee to Reduce District-Wide Services – The District Academic Senate passed two motions on March 18th that were presented to the Board on March 20, 2003.  The District Academic Senate asked the Board to set aside and take no further action on faculty termination notices.  The District Academic Senate also urgently requested 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.  It was noted that there has been no response from the Board to date.  It was acknowledged, however, that the Board has not met since March 21st, and is not expected to meet until April 17th.  It was agreed that a call for interested faculty willing to serve on such a committee be issued. Another suggestion was to appoint the WVCAS Budget Analyst to the committee.   

 

 D.     Discuss Program Discontinuance Policy

An amended version of the policy will be reviewed by the DAS at a future date.

 

 E.     Establish Dates for Future District Academic Senate Meetings

            A District Academic Senate meeting will be held in approximately two weeks at West Valley College.

 

IV.         Future Agenda Items

No new items were added.

 

   V.   Adjournment

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