District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

 

 

   I.    Organizational Matters

 

   I.1  Call to Order/Roll Call

         The meeting was called to order at 3:10 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

   

Javan     (WVC) AAS

 

   X

Schock  (WVC)  Business

 

   X

Johnson  (MC)  CATA

   

   X

Sippel     (MC)  Communicatns

 

   X

King      (WVC) CoChair/SS

 

   X

Smith  (WVC)  Language Arts

 

   X

Kopernik   (WVC)  Lib/LATC

 

   X

Thelin   (WVC) Social Science

   

   X

Lavallo   (MC)  Math

 

   X

Toppel  (MC) Student Dev.

 

   X

Light       (MC) AssocFac/CIT

   X

   

Xu       (MC) Social Science

    X

 

Guests: G.Barrett, R. Castello,

 

   X

Other: J.Weston (MC ASB)

 

   X

D.Cordero, A.Cosby Lundin

 

   X

Guests: C.Fisher, C.Hampton,

 

   X

J. Hasty, J. Henderson,

 

   X

S.Horton, I.Walton  

 

   X

          

I.2     Order of the Agenda

            No changes were made to today’s agenda.

 

I.3     Announcements & Information

         No announcements were made.

 

II.     Approval of District Academic Senate Minutes

            The minutes for the April 3, 2003, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/U – Toppel/Braun).

 

III.    Oral Communication from the Public

            There was no oral communication from the public.

           

IV.    Business

 

  A.    Discuss Response to Bill of Particulars

            With regard to the concerns surrounding the Chancellor relative to academic and professional matters, Jane Patton reviewed the recent actions taken by the two college senates and the District Academic Senate (DAS) to date.  The District Academic Senate agreed, as recommended by Hoke Simpson, President of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC), to attempt to resolve the faculty’s concerns relative to the Chancellor and the Board through a series of steps.  Both college senates and the DAS passed resolutions and presented them to the Board. There was no response to the resolutions from either the Board or the Chancellor. The Co-Chairs of the DAS met with the Chancellor to address their concerns.  The Co-Chairs of the DAS met with the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trustees as directed by the DAS to present a Bill of Particulars, listing the Senate's complaints, with a request for a response in a timely manner.  Both Linda and Jane emphasized that the Bill of Particulars was composed with great care to ensure that all points were well supported, and reflected the concerns of the faculty through the voice of the District Academic Senate. The Bill of Particulars requested that the response include: 1) an inventory of the negative effects on each academic program and service areas subject to the March 15 notices; the rationale for each cut and a plan for a remedy for the negative effects for each program and service; 2) a plan for improving each of the areas of complaints; and 3) any other proposed remedies.

 

            The Chancellor’s seven-page response to the Bill of Particulars was received Thursday, April 24th, immediately prior to the MC Academic Senate meeting, along with many documents to support the responses. The two-hour MC Academic Senate meeting was devoted primarily to hearing the response document read aloud, followed by discussion. The many reactions were voiced at that time and recorded in the MCAS minutes.  The Senators of the WVC Academic Senate were e-mailed the response along with the Bill of Particulars for their review. Following the MC Senate meeting, a subgroup of the MCAS reviewed the response and accompanying documents carefully, and developed opinions relative to portions that directly involve Mission College.  Jane opened discussion to the floor in order for all present to state their view and obtain a broader perspective of the Senators’ opinions on the Bill of Particulars and the Chancellor’s response.

 

            A very lengthy discussion ensued and the following opinions were voiced, concerns were raised, pro’s and con’s considered and resolved:

 

                  •     The Chancellor’s response was considered to be incomplete, evasive, and non-responsive. The response did not include an inventory, a rationale for each cut, a plan to remedy the negative effects for programs and services, nor a plan for improving each area of complaint as requested.

                  •     Many stated they were offended by the Chancellor’s response, particularly portions that indicated a lack of understanding and respect for the role of the faculty and the faculty leadership.

                  •     The response does not indicate any regret or responsibility for the state of affairs.

                  •     A positive response was noted to item #3 on the Bill of Particulars relative to DBAC meetings.  However, his acknowledgment that he did not attend DBAC and District Council meetings at a critical time of budget crisis in order to attend to other “district business,” implies that his priorities are misplaced.

                  •     The Chancellor consistently places responsibility and accountability for his actions onto others. 

                  •     ACE issues are separate from those of the Academic Senate.  The Senate is concerned with educational matters and the vote of no confidence is based on academic concerns. 

                  •     The cost of retaining an administrator whose actions are undesirable outweighs the cost of buy-out.

                  •     Several options for resolving the situation were considered, but rejected after discussion.

                  •     The Senate needs to be proactive to prevent further damage to morale and college functions.

                  •     The Board of Trustees appears to be responding only to the Chancellor rather than faculty recommendations and does not realize the level of mistrust faculty have in his leadership.  The Chancellor has a top-down leadership style and is resistant to faculty input.

                  •     The Chancellor’s definition of “collegial consultation” is questionable. Collegial consultation meaningful dialogue or consensus prior to making a decision.  He has announced decisions and then seems to expect everyone to be accountable for it and its implementation.  

                  •     He has ignored the stakeholders and not fulfilled his responsibility to nurture and lead them.

                  •     It was reported that a number of students interviewed feel the Chancellor is not doing his job.       

                  •     A written response to the Chancellor’s response should be prepared point by point to demonstrate how he failed to fulfill the request of the District Academic Senate in the Bill of Particulars.

                 

            It was agreed to move to the next item in order to consider a resolution (M/S/U-Ellis/Buendia/Bangle).

             

   B.   Consider Vote of No Confidence

            Discussion ensued on how to proceed.  It was proposed that a subcommittee be formed to prepare a written response to the Chancellor’s response to the Bill of Particulars. Another suggestion emphasized the need to move forward with a resolution immediately to voice the opinion of the faculty. One Senator indicated that although his constituents are in favor of a vote of no confidence, they have concerns regarding the timing. Other Senators reported that their constituents strongly support a vote of no confidence without restriction. Some Senators indicated that the faculty, particularly at West Valley College, are not only alarmed that the Chancellor has made decisions that will have serious long-term effects on the colleges, but also people are questioning why the college Presidents have been so passive.  There is much sentiment that the college Presidents and the Board should bear responsibility as well.  It was suggested that a vote of no confidence in the President may be appropriate. 

 

            After a considerable time of careful and thoughtful deliberation, a motion to end the informal discussion of the resolution was passed (M/S/P –Brennan/Mingione) with one no vote. The following resolution, incorporating various suggestions made during discussion, was presented to the Senate for consideration (M/S – Braun/Mingione):

 

            “Whereas, The Board of Trustees of WVMCCD has agreed to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate in academic and professional matters, and

 

Whereas, The Chancellor, Stan Arterberry, has failed to advise the Board to rely primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate in decisions resulting in program and academic services reductions, and

 

Whereas, Decisions made by the Chancellor have resulted in damage to specific academic programs and academic services as a result of reductions made without the needed Academic Senate participation, and

 

Whereas, The Chancellor has demonstrated a serious lack of skills in the internal leadership of the district, fostering a climate of distrust and suspicion and creating a serious deterioration in the effective, collegial, working environment of the employees, and

 

Whereas, The Chancellor has shown a repeated pattern of behavior in conflict with the best interest of the colleges, and

 

Whereas, The Chancellor has repeatedly failed to demonstrate his stated commitment to the spirit and intent of the law regarding the faculty roles in participatory decision-making, instead announcing decisions made without honoring collegial consultation, and

 

Whereas, The District Academic Senate has acted in good faith and made every reasonable and appropriate effort to raise these serious concerns over a lengthy period of time with no adequate response, and

 

Whereas, The following Bill of Particulars (See Attached) was presented to the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trustees, and

 

Whereas, The Chancellor’s reply to the Bill of Particulars is non-responsive, incomplete, and evasive, demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of his leadership role,

 

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the WVMCC District Academic Senate has no confidence in the leadership of the Chancellor, Stan Arterberry.”

 

            As discussion continued, Linda and Jane reiterated that the Bill of Particulars was accurate and reflected the direction from the District Academic Senate. The focus was on the colleges' ability to deliver educational programs.   When it was suggested that some people may not have had ample time to review all the documentation, it was reported that there has been considerable conversation on both campuses regarding the appropriateness of a vote of no confidence. A call for the question passed (M/S/P-Toppel/Braun) with a 2/3 majority.  Discussion ceased and the above resolution passed with one Senator voting “no,” indicating support for the vote of no confidence and citing the timing issue as the reason for his vote.

 

            It was agreed that the resolution shall be sent out to all users with the Bill of Particulars via e-mail, the resolution shall be read to the Board of Trustees at this Thursday’s Board meeting at Mission College, and the written minutes are to be distributed as soon as possible.  In addition, the District Academic Senate will meet in approximately two weeks to determine its next step.   

 

         It was noted that this action had been undertaken by the Senate in good faith, with deliberate thought and care, and that it demonstrated a sense of responsibility for the educational programs at the colleges, the faculty, the students and all others concerned.

           

C.      Discuss Other Budget Related Items that Fall Under the Senate’s Area of Responsibility

            This item was postponed to a future meeting.

 

  V.    Future Agenda Items

No new items were added.

 

   VI. Adjournment

            The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. (M/S/U–Toppel/Braun). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.