District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, April 18, 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

P.Andrews

D.Gray

 J.Wilczak

S.Arterberry

J. Lucas

 W.Wong

R.Castello

E.McAlister

 

C.Cryer

A. Moore

 

                 

  I.2      Order of the Agenda

            There were no changes to today’s order of the agenda (M/S/U).

 

  I.3      Announcements & Information

             1.  Co-Chair Bangle announced that the West Valley College Academic Senate will be hosting an Open House in collaboration with the WVC Classified Senate and the WVC President on Thursday, April 27, 2006, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.  Lunch will be served and Angelica extended the invitation to all members of the District Academic Senate.

                                                                                                           

 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 23, 2006, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved (M/S/P – Burzynski/Kashima) with the correction to add Will Treseder to the attendance list as present.

 

IV.       Business

 

 

IV.1     Report and Update on China Recruitment Initiative

            Wanda Wong and Chancellor Arterberry reported to the District Academic Senate on their trip to China.  Each Senator was provided with a copy of the Chancellor’s Update on the China visit dated April 4, 2006.  Wanda explained that the group went with very little expectation other than to develop a relationship with the City officials and explore any interest in sending a number of students to the District.  Members on the trip from Saratoga investigated the possibility of establishing a Sister City relationship with the City of Mianyang.  The Chancellor advised that China has great potential.  Their group was the first American college to visit these particular cities, their universities and colleges.  The key was to establish a relationship and he likened this effort to the proposed Brazil initiative discussed at the West Valley College Academic Senate. Angelica advised that the Brazilian project is a faculty driven initiative, presented by faculty and discussed by faculty.  Faculty from WVC will work with Carol Qazi at Mission College to present the proposal to the MC Academic Senate.

 

            The Chancellor referred to the Exploratory Memorandum, included in his report, noting that it has similar elements to the Brazil initiative.  Students would come to the United States and attend Mission College and West Valley College.  There would be a student exchange as well as a faculty exchange.  The Chinese officials expressed great interest in vocational education, particularly the Interior Design program, Park Management, and ESL.  In addition, China would like us to develop a relationship with businesses in Silicon Valley relative to their students.  Discussions are taking place with Applied Materials and Cisco. The Chancellor described this venture as an opportunity to expand our student base and our International Education program.  He acknowledged that further development would necessarily require further discussion with the Academic Senate.  He advised that there will be an International Conference at Ohlone College in the Fall. 

 

            Discussion ensued and Wanda was asked why she believes that this District will be able to obtain a portion of Chinese students when the number of visas issued from China is limited.  Wanda explained that they met with the Consulate and discussed issues regarding visas from China to the United States.  She explained that the issues are centered around the return of these students to China.  Ideas were discussed and a “sandwich program” was considered, where Chinese students come here to take courses in subjects that are not offered in China and then return to China to graduate. When asked if there are any concerns regarding U.S. Policy relative to immigration from China, Wanda explained that there are no assurances on visas from any country.  However, she feels confident that those issues can be resolved with the Cities of Mianyang and Chengdu.  The event of 9/11 has had an impact on all students trying to come to America.

 

            The Chancellor advised that he discussed this initiative with Doug Treadway of Ohlone College, who has an initiative with cities in Northern China.  He has a memorandum that states that students sign upon completion of their studies stating that they will return home.  There is a concern regarding “brain drain” with students exiting the country.  The Chancellor also advised that Ohlone College will discuss sending their Chinese exchange students to Mission College to enroll in the college’s ESL immersion program.  The Chancellor noted that Peralta College has a strong contingent from China as well.

 

            There was a brief discussion regarding distance education classes, and Wanda advised that students who come here on an I20 are limited to one distance education class per semester.  It was suggested that distance education would be a logical stepping stone and something to be considered in the future. 

 

            Several questions were posed to the Chancellor regarding the trip to China and the article on the trip in the San Jose Mercury News.   The Chancellor advised that the money for the trip to China came from the Land Corporation, approved last Fall when a presentation was made to the Land Corporation for an initiative to expand the International Students Program.   The allotted funds will be available to both colleges.  Mr. Kao’s role in the project was to set up contacts with the officials in the two cities visited and Trustee Schwartz was the first to be contacted regarding this initiative.  The Chancellor confirmed that the District paid for its employees and two Board members.   Any others that accompanied the District employees paid their own way.    (Motion to extend discussion an additional five minutes passed M/S/U – Juncker/Morgan).

 

            As discussion continued, it was stated that money was not the main concern of the Senate, but rather they way the initiative and the trip came about.  There should have been a strategic plan in place before any steps were taken.  The Chancellor was asked how the Academic Senate will be involved in the next steps.  Wanda replied that she would like to meet with the departments of interest and the Academic Senate.  Actions at this time are exploratory and it is hoped that the support of the Academic Senate and the entire college will be forthcoming.  

 

            Alex and Angelica thanked Wanda and the Chancellor for their report.

 

IV.2     Update Report & Discussion on District Academic Senate Resolution and How to Proceed

            The Co-Chairs of the District Academic Senate began discussion on this agenda item by reminding the members of the Senate as to why the resolution was needed, the current status, and the next steps.  The resolution addressed the four major issues of concern: shared governance, respect, morale, and negotiations in light of the above.  This is not just an academic senate issue.  Each of the constituent groups have attempted to address these issues, which have been festering for a long time, without effective acknowledgement by the Administration and the Board of Trustees.  In fact, the reason this Senate has taken this action is because there was very little progress relative to each of those issues.

 

The Senate is required to carry out the resolution that was passed unanimously and it is the responsibility of the Senate members to represent, support, and advocate for the resolution.  A unanimous vote indicates commitment to the action taken. The Senators were cautioned to maintain the focus and unity as a body.  The District Academic Senate has committed to stay united behind the resolution and to enforce the actions undertaken by the resolution.  It, therefore, is inappropriate for individual Senators not to be willing to carry out their responsibilities as Senators and as representatives of their constituents relative to the resolution.  The strength of the District Academic Senate is in unity.  As the Senate proceeds with this agenda item, it is imperative that Senators remain committed, focused, unified and strong in their deliberations. 

 

At this time, the Senators were advised that there is a curriculum issue to deal with that requires direction from the District Academic Senate to Jim Wilczak, Chair of the WVC Curriculum Committee.  Jim explained that the WVC Curriculum Committee guidelines give the chair the authority to approve curriculum when the committee is not meeting.   He has been asked to approve a special topics course that would normally go to committee that involves training with the County Sheriff’s Department.  It was stated that even if the course is approved, it would have to come to the Academic Senate for approval before going to the Board.  In light of the resolution, Jim asked the Senators for direction on how to proceed.

 

Discussion ensued, and it was stated that the intent of the resolution was to make the Administration aware of the importance of the Academic Senate and faculty in general.  It would go against the tenor of the resolution to allow for exceptions and violate the spirit of the resolution. The chair of a committee is a member of that committee, and is, therefore, held to the resolution.   It was noted that the Chair of the Curriculum Committee receives .2 assigned time, constituting an obligation.  Jim was asked if he is currently fulfilling that obligation, and Jim stated that he has been working beyond his .2 assigned time on the implementation of the curriculum management system.  The consensus of the Senate was that Jim should not exercise his authority outside of the committee.

 

At this time, Pat Andrews reported that there has been no change since the recent Update sent to faculty by ACE via e-mail.  ACE was advised there would be a counter proposal last week and no proposal has come forward.  A tentative meeting was scheduled for tomorrow, which was to be used to respond to questions based on the counter proposal.  Since that proposal has not been received, it is assumed that the meeting will be cancelled.  The next session is scheduled for Friday, April 21, 2006.  It appears that negotiations are being micromanaged by the Board; the District’s negotiating team does not appear to have sufficiently flexible parameters to negotiate with ACE. There was speculation as to whether or not the Chancellor, the Board, or a subcommittee of the Board is controlling the District’s team.

 

Pat advised that she and Randy Castello have concluded that the crux of the problem relates to the Land Corporation funds.  In 1990, the Board solicited two legal opinions to determine the limitations and restrictions of Land Corporation funds.  The opinions received from attorneys Steven Penn and John Francis indicated that monies from the Land Corporation can be channeled for use into District revenue.  It appears that the Board of Trustees has made a conscious philosophical choice not to share that revenue with the District and decisions on the disbursement of those funds are made outside of the District’s shared governance processes. The Land Corporation is an auxiliary extension of the District and is integrally involved with the District.  It was stated that if those funds were channeled into the District’s revenue flow, those funds could resolve the negotiation issues.

 

Pat advised that although a series of meetings have been held over the last few weeks, and ACE has been prepared to negotiate. Disappointment was expressed in that it appears that the status quo is continuing in negotiations.  Pat offered the opinion that the District would argue that there has been a change.  They are offering a salary increase of 12% and protection of benefits for the next three years.     Relative to the 50% law, ACE is proceeding with a lawsuit against the State and the District unless an agreeable settlement can be reached.

 

As discussion continued, it was stated that the Academic Senate has not exercised its authority on the District Budget Advisory Committee (DBAC).  The Senate Presidents must take a strong stand at DBAC.  In addition, the members of the Board should provide an explanation and a rationale as to why Land Corporation money can be set aside for student scholarships when our students cannot get the classes they need. It was recommended that the Academic Senate become very vocal and active relative to the Land Corporation.  The Land Corporation has been established to benefit the District.   These are District funds, inextricably linked to the District to be used to support the District, and there should be shared governance participation in how those funds are spent.  It was noted that this is also an accreditation issue, in that the Land Corporation funds have never been considered as part of the resources to the District for Program Review.  We have an income stream of $3 to $5 million every year that is kept independent of program review and educational  and facilities master planning (E&FMP).  It was noted that the members of the Land Corporation Board include the members of the District’s Board of Trustees and there appears to be a lack of transparency relative to actions taken.  The Land Corporation meetings are open to the public, and it was strongly recommended that faculty be included on the Board and attend those meetings.  It was suggested that a public relations campaign be initiated in addition to the strong voice and presence of faculty via the Academic Senate.  This District needs Board members in place who are concerned about this District and the colleges.  It was reported that a PAC has been formed, has funds, and is currently soliciting candidates for the Board.

 

As discussion continued, the Chancellor, when asked for his philosophy on negotiations, responded that he is not pleased with the progress in negotiations and has made a commitment to ACE to reach resolution quickly.  He feels that there is a difference in philosophy and the definition of “counter proposals” between the negotiating teams. When prodded on the issue of Land Corporation funds, he acknowledged that he agrees with ACE in terms of the endowment, which was established several years ago.  This fund holds approximately $2-$3 million.  He questions why there is an endowment fund for student scholarships when tuition for California community colleges is the lowest in the nation.

 

The Senate Presidents thanked Pat for her report and directed the discussion to the narrative to be sent to the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the Community College League of California requesting advisory assistance and issue resolution. The Senators were provided with a copy.  It was stated that the Chancellor has committed to work with the Academic Senate on the advisory assistance process, along with the Classified Senates.   The rest of the meeting will be devoted to five recommendations made by the District Academic Senate’s (DAS) task force and the initiatives from President Hartley.

 

The task force submitted the five following motions as recommendations to be considered by the Senate on an individual basis:

 

#1.  “that the District Academic Senate reinstate faculty participation in faculty and staff hiring processes as a response to the administration’s agreement to engage in advisory assistance mediation with the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the Community College League of California.”

 

#2.  “that the District Academic Senate communicate regularly with the faculty, division chairs and department chairs on the status of shared governance, respect, morale and negotiations and that it schedule an all District forum (one at each college) to discuss the status of same.”

 

#3.  “that the District Academic Senate stands united with its classified colleagues and will not let any entity divide us.”

 

#4.  “that the District Academic Senate remind the administration and the Board of Trustees that taking action without faculty participation on academic and professional matters (10+1) in which it has agreed to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate is in violation of the District’s shared governance policy.”

 

#5.  “that the District Academic Senate charge the task force to develop recommendations for a timeline for further actions.”

 

The Senators agreed to consider each motion individually (M/S/U – Ellis/Cox). As discussion ensued on the first motion, it was clarified that the charge of the task force was to develop the means and ways to implement the March 14, 2006, resolution.  On March 23, 2006, the DAS agreed to modify the resolution to state that if progress was made before May 1, 2006, the Senate, “ will show good faith and lift suspension on a few things…” One Senator suggested that the suspension be lifted on other items as well in order to motivate the District to move further.  In response, it was emphasized that lifting the suspension on hiring committees was not used as a motivator but rather as recognition for the Chancellor’s commitment to participate with the Academic Senate on the request for advisory assistance from the ASCCC and the CCLC.  If the mediation goes well, the Academic Senate can consider lifting other suspended operations.  Lifting the suspension on the hiring committees at this time is commensurate with the progress made.  A call for the question passed  (M/S/P – Smebye/Szabados) and the first motion was passed. 

 

Regarding the second motion, it was stated that these activities should be part of the shared governance process and are necessary in order to bring faculty informed.  Clarification was asked for on the role of the Academic Senate as it relates to ACE and negotiations.  It was explained that the ASCCC states that the responsibilities overlap in a variety of ways.  In addition, negotiations demonstrate how respect is conveyed, which affects the colleges’ ability to hire and retain good faculty, thereby having a direct impact on academic programs.  Consequently, the Academic Senate has taken that position with the respect to negotiations.  We are defining negotiations in terms of respect, shared governance, and morale.   Based on the argument stated, a motion was made and passed (M/S/P – Hannigan/Cox) to delete the word “negotiations” from the second motion.  A call for the question passed (M/S/U – Smebye/Hannigan) and the second motion was passed as amended.

 

Discussion ensued on the third motion, and the rationale for this motion was explained by a member of the task force.  The intent was to make it clear to the Administration and the Board that faculty and classified will stand united.  It was determined, that although the District Academic Senate supports its classified colleagues, the motion needs to be more specific.  The third motion was referred back to the task force for refinement, to be brought back to the Academic Senate for consideration at a future meeting (M/S/U – Smebye/Ellis).

 

It was agreed to extend discussion on this matter an additional ten minutes (M/S/U) and discussion ensued on the fourth motion.  It was pointed out that this motion is an attempt to make the Administration and the Board accountable and to implement their own District policy relative to shared governance.  There was some discussion on the need for narrative minutes from the Board, which stopped several years ago.  This fact makes it very difficult for anyone to hold the Trustees accountable for their decisions.  Board members are responsible to the voters, who know nothing about what they do.  A call for the question passed (M/S/U – Hannigan/Cox) and the fourth motion was approved as written (M/S/P).    A call for the question on the fifth motion passed (M/S/P – Smebye/Hannigan) and the fifth motion was accepted as written.

 

The last item to be considered relates to the initiatives developed by Angelica, Dr. Hartley, his cabinet, and the Classified Senate President in response to the resolution.  These initiatives were presented to the WVC Academic Senate last Tuesday.  The intent was to identify and respond to the issues in the resolution that can be addressed.  Angelica advised Dr. Hartley that since the resolution was a DAS resolution, an endorsement of the DAS on these initiatives was needed.  The Senators were provided with a copy of the following proposed initiatives:

           

1.  A summit retreat will be hosted by the WVC College President with the Academic and Classified Senates, either in tandem or separately, with the President's cabinet in attendance.  A half-day, off-campus format would be useful with the format to be arranged by the Senate Presidents and the college President.  One or two separate retreats could be arranged per the preference of the Senates.

 

2.  To increase the regularity and breadth of communication with the Academic and Classified Senates, the college President should meet weekly with the Senate Presidents, Vice Presidents and one additional senator selected by the Senate Presidents.  The Vice Presidents of Instruction and/or Student Services will attend these meetings as well.  It is hoped that this arrangement will broaden the base of communication and overcome the lapse in communication caused by inevitable absences.

 

3.  A regularly scheduled campus-wide dialogue is proposed, perhaps on the first Tuesday of every academic month at a time that maximizes attendance opportunities.  This dialogue would be open to all and the topics for each month's dialogue should be posted in advance.  Topics may be posed by any of the shared governance groups on campus.

 

4.  The college budget/expenses/funding must be viewed through an expanded degree of transparency.  Work is underway by Robert Wickstrom and Rick Lee to develop a clear analysis of the budget including its structure and resource allocation.  They are also developing a model for regular, user friendly budget reports to be provided to all budget managers.

 

5.  Staff development and training for department heads, division chairs and project managers must be an annual program.  If program initiation is not feasible in May, then early September is the target.  Training for supervisors of classified staff in the fair and equitable application of contract and work assignment issues must also be a regular activity.

 

A motion to endorse the initiatives was made (M/S – Kashima/Kelly), and several Senators indicated that they needed more time to review the initiatives.  It was also emphasized that such initiatives should be conducted jointly at both colleges.  Another view stated that it would be consistent with the resolution if WVC , its administration and the Academic Senate want to take steps to help the campus climate.  In addition, it would be good for the MC Academic Senate to take similar action.  A call for the question passed (M/S/P - Kelly/Mingione) and a motion to endorse the proposed initiatives received from Dr. Hartley passed (M/S/P).   

 

At this time, Trustee Lucas addressed the Academic Senate, stating that today’s discussion has been very enlightening.  He indicated his intention to address four questions to the Academic Senate and the Chancellor regarding the issue of micromanagement by the Board, the Land Corporation budget, what portion of that budget falls under the shared governance policy, and the question of counter proposals from the District to ensure that the District is bargaining in good faith.  He also commented on the Board’s subcommittee on budget issues.  It is the responsibility of the three Board members that serve on that committee to come to the Board with recommendations.  He urged faculty to attend meetings of the Land Corporation and address their concerns to the Board of Directors.  Regarding narrative minutes, Trustee Lucas indicated that to provide narrative minutes would be a difficult task for the clerk as some Board members want comments to be reported verbatim as well as other issues.  Relative to respect for faculty, Trustee Lucas stated that he has been in education for 51 years and has a great deal of respect for educators.  He requested that if he, as an individual, has every demonstrated disrespect to someone, that he be contacted so that the matter can be discussed and resolved.  

 

Several Senators responded to the Trustee’s comments, noting that Land Corporation meetings often conflict with the teaching schedules of instructors.  It was stated that the problem requires a systematic change.  Regarding the issue of respect, the wrestling program issue was raised as one   that demonstrated a complete disregard for the faculty’s voice.  The Board violated its own policy to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate in accordance with Title 5.   The major factor is that the item was listed on the Board agenda as an action item before any discussion took place with the Academic Senate. 

 

As for the narrative minutes, the Trustee was advised that the Academic Senates provide extensive minutes, as do many other committees in the District, providing transparency and leaving the Senates at a disadvantage.  There is no window into Board meetings, into discussions, opinions of members, etc. Narrative notes from Board meetings were once available.  It was recommended that the Board consider restoring the practice.   It appears that the Board does not have concern for transparency and does not want to be held accountable.  Another opinion stated was the belief that the Board is in violation of the law for not providing such accounts of Board meetings.  In other Districts, many mediums are used to cover Board meetings, such as videos, summaries, etc.  Trustee Lucas indicated he would support  a video taping of the meetings over narrative notes.

 

Trustee Lucas was asked to comment on his perception as to whether or not the Board understands that the issue is much greater than the contract, that the status quo is not working, that faculty are not happy, and that something has to change.  There are needs at the colleges that have been deferred due to lack of funding such as a door for handicap students at Mission College, yet funds have been made available to travel to China. 

 

Angelica and Alex thanked Trustee Lucas for staying through the entire Senate meeting and for his comments. 

 

V.               Future Agenda Items

           No new items were added at today’s meeting.

 

  VI.     Adjournment

            The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. (M/S/U – Burzynski/Ellis). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.