Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved  Minutes

Thursday, April 22, 2004  

 

I.          Call to Order/Roll Call

                  The meeting was called to order by President Alex Braun at 2:12 p.m. 

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Braun      (Ext. 5355) Pres/Tech

  

    X 

Laird       (Ext. 5186) SocScience

  

    X

Brennan    (Ext. 5313) Comm

     

    X

Lavallo    (Ext. 5399)  Math

 

    X

Brichko    (Ext. 5222)  CATA

 

    X

Martin     (Ext. 5356)  Tech.

   

    X

Charland  (Ext. 5046)  Stud. Dev.

    

    X

Musat      (Ext. 5331) Math

    

    X

Cox        (Ext.5164)  CommSvc

   

    X 

Oliver      (Ext. 5427)  AAS

    

    X  

Dooley    (Ext. 5379)   AAS

    

    X

Perlas      (Ext. 5041)  Stud.Dev.

    

    X   

Harris     (Ext. 5413)  AF/Comm

    

    X  

Rath       (Ext. 5413)  AF/CIT

    X

      

Johnson   (Ext.5277)  CATA

    X

   

Smebye   (Ext. 5305) CommServ

 

    X

Kashima  (Ext. 5319)  ESL

 

    X

Zeisler     (Ext. 5426) Comm

    

    X

Guests:  S.Dinger, E.Estrada,

W.Negash, S.Pancella

   

    X

    X

Other: D.McKay (CRC Chair), H.Robles (VP Instruction)

 

    X

    X

 

II.        Approval of the Minutes

                  The minutes for the meeting of April 15, 2004, were accepted and approved with the following corrections   (M/S/U – Zeisler/Harris):

 

                  Page 2, second paragraph, second sentence:  “He encourages everyone to contact a legislature legislator in support of equalization.”

 

                  A correction to the minutes of the March 11, 2004, meeting were corrected as follows (M/S/U – Cox/Zeisler):  Page 3, Item  VII.C, second paragraph – Correct the FON number to 358.6 from 158.6, per Victoria Lewis.

 

                  Relative to the April 8, 2004, meeting minutes, Page 3, Item D, second paragraph, President Braun made the following report to clarify the record:

 

                  At the April 7, 2004, meeting of the District Council, both Alex and Vivian took issue with an item placed on the pre-Board Agenda, prepared by Leslie Saito and Stephen Juarez, Co-Chairs of the WVC Minority Advocacy Committee. This item related to the District Academic Senate’s resolution passed at the March 25th meeting of the District Academic Senate and contained language that both he and Vivian felt were inconsistent with the intent of the resolution.  At the April 8, 2004, MCAS meeting, Alex reported, “It appears that Mr. Juarez is misrepresenting the intent of the District Academic Senate’s resolution.  Mr. Juarez intends that the current hiring processes be stopped to ensure that applicant pools are diverse.”

 

                  Unbeknownst to Alex, Vivian, Mr. Juarez, and others met with President Jensen following the District Council meeting, and Mr. Juarez agreed to change the language.  Not aware of this fact, Alex reported the above to the MC Academic Senate.  He received a phone call from Mr. Juarez, who advised him that the report to the MCAS was in error and that it is not his intention to misrepresent the DAS’s resolution or to stop the current hiring processes.  Alex then agreed to correct the record.

 

III.       Order of the Agenda

                  No changes were made to today’s order of the agenda.

 

  IV.    Oral Communication from the Public

                  There was no oral communications from the public at today’s meeting.

 

   V.     Information & Announcements

                  No items were reported.

 

 VI.     Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

                  A.  Curriculum Committee Report  - * Dianne McKay reported that the second Super Monday meeting was held and all curriculum on the agenda was approved, including pre-requisites for Math.  The committee will continue to meet and work on courses for next fall.  Faculty should continue to submit their proposals.  All approved curriculum will be presented to the Board of Trustees on May 20, 2004.  *   Dianne was congratulated on her reelection as Chair for next year.

              B.  Staff Recognition  - No resolutions were presented.   

              C.  Committee Appointments    

              1. Information Competency Task Force – Leigh Anne Sipple was added to the member-ship of this committee (M/S/U Brennan/Cox).

              D.  Oral Reports

                    1.  Staff Development – No Report was presented today.

                    2.   Other:

                    a) Commencement Committee  - * Senator Brichko reported that the Marshals will be expected to attend a graduation rehearsal on Friday, May 28th at 11:15 a.m. for approximately two hours.  The graduation ceremony will be held that evening at 6:30 p.m.  Readers are needed, and Senator Cox and Senator Dooley volunteered to serve as readers.  In addition, Senators Brennan, Brichko, Charland, Johnson, Lavallo, Martin, Perlas, Smebye, and Zeisler agreed to serve as Marshals and were approved by the Senate (M/S/U -  Cox/Harris).  *  Senator Brichko also reported that $1,500 is needed for the annual after graduation party.  She advised that the President’s Office will not be able to provide funds for the party.  Alex agreed to look into the matter.   

 

VII.     Old Business

 

   A.    Discuss Status of Resolution of No Confidence in Chancellor

                  Alex stated that he had nothing new to report and noted that the tone of the minutes from last week’s Senate meeting relative to the Chancellor’s discussion indicated the conversation went well.

 

   B.     Joint Meeting of DCC and MVAS to Consider Faculty Hiring Internal Transfer Guidelines/Policy

                  The Division Chair Council considered the issue of how to handle faculty hiring with respect to the ranked faculty hiring list should an internal transfer take place.  They reached consensus on five points, which were brought to the Academic Senate for discussion and consideration.

 

                  Several people spoke to the issue and concerns were presented and discussed at length. Several actions were proposed, and the Senators ultimately passed the following motion (M/S/P – Braun/Charland):

 

                  “to endorse items #2 as amended, #3, #4, and #5 (see below) of the DCC proposal in order to deal with the immediate issue, should it arise, and re-agendize the subject matter to consider item #1.” 

 

                  The points endorsed are as follows:

 

                  #2.  A subcommittee of three division chairs, three senators, and the Vice President of Instruction be formed to make a recommendation;

 

                  #3.  That this subcommittee’s recommendation be given the strongest possible weight in the final decision;

 

                  #4.  That this be considered a pilot process, not precedent-setting; and

 

                  #5.  That the process be evaluated upon completion.

 

                  It was stated that the hiring policy in place needs to be reviewed to determine if we can modify the policy to deal with special circumstances.    Harriett noted that the process may not be completed in time, and Alex stated that the intent is to deal with the issue long term.      

 

   C.     Continue Discussion & Development of District Budget Contingency Plan

                  Vice President Robles explained that President Chong is unable to attend today’s meeting, and he wanted to discuss the proposed “worst case” scenario presented at yesterday’s CBAC meeting with the Academic Senate.  Harriett advised that Dr. Chong reaffirmed his commitment to the college’s shared governance process.  Dr. Robles noted that the District required each college to present a “best case” scenario for the 2004/05 budget by April 15th and a “worst case” scenario by April 30th.  The “best case” scenario would require a budget reduction of $1.3+ million, and the “worst case” scenario budget plan would require a reduction of $2.7+ million.  The intent today is to provide an opportunity to review the information, digest and discuss the proposal for the “worst case” scenario before the plan goes to GAP.  There are some constraints based on the position taken by the Board of Trustees:  1) to avoid the layoff of permanent employees, 2) to meet enrollment goals, which has a higher target because of the growth factor, 3) to protect ability generate WSCH, 4) to meet the District’s FON, and 5) to keep accreditation recommendations in mind.  It was noted that unfilled positions have been deleted permanently.  The District has requested that both the “best case” and “worst case” scenarios include permanent budget reductions. 

 

                  Worku explained that under the “best case” scenario for the 2004/05 budget, the District will have to meet a shortfall of $3.3 million, of which $1.3 million is Mission College’s share.  That plan was submitted last Friday.  Under the “worst case” scenario, the District will have to meet a shortfall of $7 million+, of which $2.7+ million is the share of Mission College.  The Senators were provided with a document indicating reductions under both scenarios.  Worku explained that these numbers do not reflect realistic cuts.  Mission College cannot operate with a budget reduction of $2.7 million.  In actuality, the numbers will not be known until the Governor’s May 15th revise is released and/or when the final budget is published in June.  These figures are in preparation based on a tentative budget and will be refigured when the final budget is available.  Worku noted that DBAC is not yet finished debating what reductions should be targeted. 

 

                  Discussion ensued, and it was stated that the District is dictating the college’s share of budget cuts.  Faculty has the right to take the position that the colleges cannot sustain the standard operating procedure under the proposed reductions.  If the district must maintain its FON, the District must take a larger share of the reductions in order to maintain the colleges.  The number of faculty is increasing, the colleges are growing, and approximately 50% of the activity must take place at the District level. 

 

                  Worku explained that the District commits 92% of the budget to Personnel.  That is the structural problem.  Other districts in the state run at approximately 85%.  Worku was asked to provide comparative data and a breakdown of what the 92% represents in each category:  full-time faculty, classified staff, administrators, etc., on a per student basis. This would be a valuable piece of information, as well as what money figures apply to the 50% rule, how this District’s FON compares to others in order to make an informed and rational decision on the budget.  Worku provided a breakdown for the college as follows:

 

                  Mission College operates with a $25.5 million budget:

                 

                    10 Administrative FTE                               $ 1.2 Million                      4.8% of budget

                    66 Classified FTE                                           $ 4.5 Million             17.6% of budget

                  141.5 FTE Faculty                                            $14.0 Million           54.5% of budget

                  Associate Faculty                                              $  4.0 Million           15.8% of budget

                  Classified Hourly                                               $237,000                                 1.0% of budget

                  Operational Budget                                           $   1.5 Million                    6.2% of budget

 

                  As discussion ensued, it was noted that the current Budget Allocation Model (BAM) allots the District 18% of the overall budget off the top.  Mission College then receives 45% of the remaining budget (or 37% of the overall budget), and West Valley receives 55% of the remaining budget (or 45% of the overall budget).  These allotments have been in place for years.  Faculty must take a strong position and ask the obvious questions that indicate the “status quo” is not acceptable, particularly when decisions are being made that affect students so directly.  Worku explained that PFE funds were allocated toward the 18%.  This question has been raised at DBAC and is currently being discussed in a DBAC subcommittee studying the BAM.  Worku requested that the Senators share any recommendations or ideas with their division’s representative to GAP.

 

                  It was emphasized that the Academic Senate needs to be concerned with academic programs and spend its time considering strategic issues rather than tactical issues.  The Senate can express itself in principle with respect to the budget as it stands and a need to review all underlying assumptions relative to the budget and the Budget Allocation Model.  It was suggested that the Senate prepare a resolution to be sent to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees indicating the need to review the way the budget is constructed, particularly in light of the current budget situation.  It was noted that the Senate made such a request last year to no end.  The Academic Senate’s responsibility is to consider how the Budget Allocation Model impacts academic programs. The Senate wants background information as to where money is spent in order to better understand what affect the 18% allotment to the District has on academic programs.

 

                  The Senators directed President Braun to express the Senate’s concerns to the District, obtain the requested information, and report back to the Academic Senate.   Once the information is received, the Academic Senate will consider its follow up direction.

 

                  Alex was asked about his recommendation to DBAC regarding a third case scenario based on the CCC’s budget proposal, which was closest to the final budget last year.  Alex reported that he made the request, and both the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor stated that last year’s budget was an aberration.  Historically, they indicated that the budget that tends to be realistic is the Governor’s initial budget. Others disagreed and stated that the CCC’s budget is often close to the final budget.  Alex advised that he will continue to raise the question, and, based on the direction given by the Academic Senate, he will ask additional questions and monitor the process carefully.

                 

D.        Discuss and Consider Associate Faculty Hiring Process Issues

                  This matter was postponed to the next District Academic Senate meeting, scheduled for May 6th.

 

   E.     Report on Student Learning Outcomes

                  This matter was postponed to the next MC Academic Senate meeting, scheduled for April 29th .     

                                                                                                                                                                                            

VIII.   New Business

 

   A.    Discussion of MC Decision-Making Processes & Shared Governance

                  Alex explained that this item has been placed on the agenda due to his observations, as well as the observations of others, relative to the decision-making process of administration and the college president.  Alex accepted some responsibility, specifically to the formation of an ad hoc committee, the Integrated Enrollment Management Task Force.  President Chong appointed a number of faculty to this task force and Alex did not act on the information and bring the issue to the Academic Senate. 

 

                  During discussion, it was emphasized that only the Academic Senate has the authority to appoint faculty to district and college committees.  Alex held a conference call with President Chong and Jane Patton and discussed the matter and the need to defer to the Academic Senate to make faculty appointments. The discussion included the need to keep the decision-making process moving, while observing the college’s shared governance process and the agreement to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate on key Senate issues.  Alex reported that the President agreed to move in that direction. Alex asked the Senators to consider confirmation of the faculty appointed to the task force.

 

                  As discussion ensued, it was emphasized that the Academic Senate must be vigilant and not give up its responsibilities.  The new administration must understand this District’s process, as well as the college’s process relative to shared governance. The Academic Senate must lead the discussions that relate to academic programs and the direction of the college.  It was noted that these events were not due to ill-will, but occurred by default due to an unusual situation. President Chong, President Braun, and Vice President Robles are all new to the college’s processes.  It was emphasized that the Academic Senate should be more involved in the strategic nature of the college as opposed to tactical conversations.  At this time it was agreed (M/S/U – Oliver/Harris) to suspend the order of the agenda and discuss Item C prior to Item B, since C is related to the topic just discussed.

 

C.         Report on Integrated Enrollment Management Task Force Meeting (Balance of Curriculum)

                  Alex reported that this task force was formed outside of the Academic Senate and asked the Senators to consider endorsing three faculty members assigned to serve on this committee.  The purpose of this task force, chaired by Sam Bersola, is to develop recommendations to the President for implementing the way students are handled from beginning to end.  Alex asked for direction.

 

                  It was stated during discussion that this task force should not exist without input from the Academic Senate. Although it is clear that the intent of forming this committee was well intended, the Senators view this committee as an illegal committee as it was not developed in accordance with the college’s shared governance processes. This committee overlaps on matriculation, performance goals, and student success.  It was suggested that the process for establishing the committee begin anew, that a new proposal be submitted, and that the academic senate take up the issue of Enrollment Management as it pertains to academic programs, balance and direction. It was emphasized that this issue must be tied into the Balance of Curriculum, and the Senators were urged to . The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Cox/Charland):

 

                  “that the Mission College Academic Senate direct its President, Alex Braun, to meet with President Chong, Vice President of Instruction Robles, and Vice President of Student Services Sam Bersola about the Integrated Enrollment Management Task Force, to discuss the charge of the committee as it relates to the responsibility of the Academic Senate and the fact that the committee was not properly constituted with input of the Academic Senate, and call for the possible disbanding of the committee and reforming the committee properly if necessary.”

 

 

   B.    Discuss Unloaded Hours by Arrangement Policy

                  The Senators were provided with a document dated April 19, 2004, on background, issues, and recommendations relative to the current status of Hours by Arrangement (HBA) Policy at both campuses.  The two Vice Presidents of Instruction and the two college Curriculum Committee Chairs began meeting in the Fall of 2003 to identify and examine these issues with the objective of proposing modifications to policies and procedures for HBA to ensure compliance with Title 5.

 

                  The Senators were asked to review the document, share it with their constituents and be prepared to discuss this item at length at the next Senate meeting.                                                                 

 

IX.       Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

              Correspondence 

                  1.    E-mail dated April 21, 2004, from the State Academic Senate listing its website for urgent legislative alerts:  http://www.academicsenate.cc.ca.us/Legislative/alerts/legAlert04 28.htm.

                  2.    E-Mail dated April 14, 2004, offering an alternate reduction plan.

              Publication/Minutes

              1.    A legislative alert dated April 21, 2004, from the State Academic Senate.

                  2.    The approved minutes for the March 17, 2004, meeting of DBAC.

                  3.    The agenda and agenda items for the April 19, 2004, meeting of the Curriculum Review Committee.

              Announcements/Conferences 

 

X.        Future Agenda Items

A.   Discuss Issue of Overlap between Business 78C and English 105 Writing Courses (Brennan)

 

XI.       Adjournment

                  The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. (M/S/U – Oliver/Charland).  These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.