Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved  Minutes

Thursday, April 29, 2004  

 

I.          Call to Order/Roll Call

                  The meeting was called to order by President Alex Braun at 2:10 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, R.Lowenberg, S.Pancella, J.VanTassel

   

    X

    X

Other: D.McKay (CRC Chair), P/Hudak (TechComm Co-Chair)

 

    X

    X

 

II.        Approval of the Minutes

                  The minutes for the meeting of April 22, 2004, were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P – Charland/Perlas).

 

                  Alex advised that he has received an e-mail from Victoria Lewis stating that the correct FON for the district is 358.1.  She apologized for the error.  All references to the FON in the minutes will be changed to reflect the correction.

 

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

                  1.  The next District Academic Senate meeting is scheduled for next Thursday, May 6th, at the Mission College Campus Center, Room 219/220.  The four main items of discussion will be:

                             a)  Discuss President Lucas’  response to the Senate’s request to list the Board’s compelling reasons regarding the curriculum issue;

                             b)  Discuss Trustee Schwartz’s request to rescind the motions passed by both college senates relative to the WVC Wrestling issue;

                             c)  Review the Chancellor’s second response to the Bill of particulars;

                             d)  Consider approval of the Faculty Hiring Policy;

                             4)  A resolution relative to Associate Faculty and the hiring process.

                 

 

 VI.     Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

                  A.  Curriculum Committee  

              B.  Staff Recognition  - No resolutions were presented.   

              C.  Committee Appointments    

              1. Technology Committee –  The following faculty members elected to serve on the Technology Committee were confirmed by the Academic Senate (M/S/U – Charland/Harris):

                    Betti Cogswell                                    -                AAS

                           Cathy Cox                            -                Electronic ResourcesLibrarian

                           Mark Garrett                      -                CATA

                           Roy Goody                          -                Technology

                           Heather Lynne Rothenberg-    Staff Development

                        Pat Hudak                             -                Co-Chair/Instructional Technology & Services

                    Quin Jackins                       -                Math

                           Stephanie Kashima       -                ESL

                           David Lang                         -                Communications

                           Greg Mostyn                      -                Commercial Services

                           Helen Ostrander              -                Student Development

                           Curtis Pembrook             -                Instructional Designer

                           Clint Poe                               -                Natural Science

                           Leigh Anne Sippel        -                Co-Chair/LATC             

                           Sallie Wisner                     -                Webmaster

              D.  Oral Reports

                    1.  Staff Development – No Report was presented today.

                    2.   Other:   a) Technology Committee  - Pat Hudak, Co-Chair of the committee advised that all Technology Committee documents can be obtained at web site http://www.salsa.missioncollege.org/hudak.  Pat reported that Mina Jahan has received $125,000 in instructional equipment money and he distributed a document to the Senators indicating the recommendations for computer purchases.  He urged everyone to complete the technology survey, which is intended as an assessment to determine how individuals are functioning with their current computer equipment.  When Pat was asked why the cost per computer seemed high, Pat explained the cost for the computers include a three year warranty for parts and labor, and in reality is less than it appears.  He expressed appreciation for Ann in the Purchasing Department for negotiating an excellent deal for the college with Dell.  Pat also reported that the Distance Learning Committee is a subcommittee of the Technology Committee and is currently working on a Technology Plan for Distance Learning as well.

 

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 Chancellor’s second response to the Bill of Particulars will be reviewed and discussed at the District Academic Senate, May 6th.

 

   B.     Continue Discussion & Development of District Budget Contingency Plan

                  As directed, Alex reported that he posed the Senators’ questions regarding the CCC’s budget proposal at the joint GAP/CBAC meeting.  The basic assumption is that the development of this year’s operating budget is based on the Governor’s initial budget versus the CCC’s budget.  President Chong responded with the following information:

                          

                  1) The CCC system has not developed its own budget proposal this year as the system concurs with the Governor’s initial budget proposal, which appears to be the best proposal, considering the current status of the state budget. The CCC system has wrapped its budget around the Governor’s budget.

                  2)    The Governor’s budget will probably be approved by the State Legislature and the actual budget will be close to the “best case” scenario, if not better.  The District is looking at the “worst case” scenario as a contingency plan only.  Much depends on the legislature. 

 

                  The other question asked by Alex on behalf of the Senators dealt with the Budget Allocation Model (BAM) and the 18% allotment to the District off the top, leaving 37% for MC and 45% for WVC.  He will continue to investigate this issue at DBAC, GAP, and CBAC.  Steve Dinger provided more detailed information relative to the BAM and the District’s fixed costs, asserting that the District takes approximately 27%-31% of the actual budget received from Sacramento. It was suggested that it would be more effective to take forth proposals to correct the matter rather than to determine if the figures are accurate and fair. There was also some discussion as to the Senate’s role in this matter. It was stated that the issue of academic programs most definitely falls under the purview of the Academic Senate, and as the District’s expenditures continue to grow, academic programs will be impacted significantly.

 

                  Alex explained that the Board of Trustees has a number of options to consider.  The Board can 1)  Dip into the reserves,  2)  Reallocate money set aside for Retirement Health Benefits, or 3)  Use funds from the Banked Leave Fund.  Alex stated that the Board has not acted on those possibilities to date.  He emphasized that these budget proposals are projections based on expected income and expected expenditures.  Last year, the District spent $3 million less than was anticipated and have carried that amount over for use in this year’s budget.  The following resolution was proposed and placed on the table for discussion (M/S – Brennan/Harris):

 

                  “Whereas, The Mission College academic programs are significantly affected by the District’s practice of allocating the District percentage off the top of the funding stream, and

 

                  Whereas, The growing proportion of our funding stream dedicated to District costs is significantly impacting the college’s academic programs,

 

                  Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Mission College Academic Senate assert that the most appropriate funding system for the vitality of the college’s academic programs is one in which the college is funded first, before the District, and in which the District retains a significantly smaller percentage of the overall funding stream.”

 

                  Discussion revolved around actual versus projected budgets, and it was emphasized that if the budget process has an impact on academic programs, it is the responsibility of the Academic Senate to ensure there is sufficient funding for those programs and the above motion is appropriate.  The above motion was passed unanimously.

 

C.         Report on Student Learning Outcomes

                  Ruth Laird reported that she, Harriett Robles, Jonathan Brennan and Alex Braun have been meeting to address the state’s mandate relative to Student Learning Outcomes.  A workshop will be offered on Flex Day, and it is anticipated that the Division Chairs will begin work on this matter within their divisions following the workshop. 

 

                  During discussion it was explained that instructors will be asked to convert their objectives to student learning outcomes.  Instructors’ objectives propose what students should learn in their objectives, but at the end, feedback from students is not available to determine if indeed the objectives were reached. In the model that the committee is working on, the instructor will consider tangibles that the students are expected to learn, and the learning outcome will be more specific - observable and measurable.

 

                  Alex explained that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) had taken a strong position against this requirement. Since it has become part of the new accreditation standards despite the ASCCC’s opposition, the ASCCC’s position now is that the process be directed, managed, and controlled by faculty, not the administration, and that it not be used for the assessment of faculty.  The intent is for faculty to assess how well their students are doing.  The Senate will be kept apprised of the committee’s progress.

 

                  At this time it was agreed that the order of the agenda be suspended and moved to Item E (M/S/U).

 

E.         Report on Meeting re: Integrated Enrollment Management Task Force

                  As directed, Alex met with President Chong, Harriett Robles and Sam Bersola to address the Senate’s concerns regarding the formation of the subject committee and the appointment of faculty, which falls under the domain of the Academic Senate.  Alex explained that the committee has almost completed its task, and will hold only one more meeting this semester.  College President Chong has taken full responsibility and apologized for the error. He indicated it will not happen again.  The Senate could request that the College President suspend the committee’s operation and reconstitute the committee with faculty selected by the Academic Senate. Since the initial task is almost completed, Alex opined that it seems to make more sense to reconstitute the faculty portion of the committee by calling for interested faculty to serve on the committee now or in the fall.  Alex asked for direction.  The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U – Cox/Charland):

 

                  “that the sense of the Mission College Academic Senate is to disband and reconstitute the Integrated Enrollment Management Task Force when it meets next Fall.”

 

                  Alex was directed to take the Senate’s message to Dr. Chong, Harriett, and Sam.

 

                  The order of the agenda was resumed and moved to Item D.

 

   D.    Discuss Unloaded Hours by Arrangement Policy

                  The Senators received a document on Hours by Arrangement (HBA), explaining the background of HBA, the issues of concerns, and recommendations as to how to alleviate the problems.  The document was prepared by a committee composed of Dianne McKay, Chair of the MC Curriculum Review Committee, Jim Wilczak, Chair of the WVC Curriculum Committee, Joe Samuels, VP of Instruction at WVC and Harriett Robles, VP of Instruction at MC. 

 

                  Dianne explained that the problem lies within unloaded hours by arrangement.  Unloaded HBA classes are viewed as a funding scheme, intended to gather WSCH for the District.  A proliferation of unloaded HBA classes has spread throughout the District.  The concern is that the district is out of compliance with Title 5.  Dianne stated both colleges have based their staffing of HBA on Section 58056 of Title  5, which stipulates that in order to collect apportionment, the immediate supervision and control of an authorized academic employee is required.  Upon further analysis of Title 5, it is clear that an authorized employee must have a credential or meet minimum qualifications related to the assignment. 

 

                  There are four major areas of concern:  1) curriculum issues relative to the Carnegie Unit, 2) Load issues, 3) the two colleges use different formulas for determining WSCH, and 4) Supervision and Apportionment.  The recommendations are that both colleges convert to a standard multiplier under the compressed calendar of 1.3 hours for each hour by arrangement, and recalculate WSCH for Fall 2003, Spring 2004, and projected WSCH for Fall 2004.  The second recommendation is that a District Task Force be established to develop a review process for the validation of HBA.  The task forces should be composed of the two CIO’s, the two Curriculum Committee Chairs, two Curriculum Committee representatives (one from each college), and two division chairs (one from each college), and two enrollment management specialists (Jim Burrell from MC; Mal Brodrick from WVC).

 

                  Dianne was asked to explain how this review of HBA has come to pass.  This report is based on the assumption that the district is out of compliance, and that may not be the case.  The wrong data can lead to any conclusion, and it was strongly recommended that the numbers be clarified.  Dianne stated that the bulk of HBA will not be of concern. The LATC constitutes a large part of HBA and is in compliance, the Math Lab and Tech Lab can easily be brought into compliance.

 

                  Dianne was asked if the question of non-compliance has been verified by the State or if a legal opinion has been sought.  Dianne responded not as far as she knows, and that the task force members feel it is not necessary.  There is concern in raising the question to the State Chancellor, which could raise a red flag. The responsibility lies with the administration          to ensure compliance with Title 5, and the intent is to fix the problem before it becomes a problem.

 

                  During discussion, Dianne explained that the committee has looked at how other colleges deal with HBA.  She explained that there is a CIO web site and information was gleaned from that site.  She stated her belief that the interpretation of Title 5 is fairly clear and she reiterated that Title 5 is silent on HBA but clear on loaded/unloaded labs.  Labs are like courses and need to be supervised by qualified instructors and an aide supervised by a qualified instructor.    Dianne also advised that the corrections will be staged over a period of time so the workload will not be so different and will alleviate the financial impact. Even if the District comes under the scrutiny of the State Chancellor’s Office, it can be demonstrated that the problem has been recognized and the colleges are addressing it.  Dianne reported that the Academic Senate will be asked to identify faculty members to appoint to the task force. 

VIII.   New Business

 

   A.    Discuss Issue of Overlap between Business 78C and English 75Writing Courses

                  Although Senator Brennan had to leave the meeting early, the Senators asked Dianne to provide the background on this issue.  Dianne reminded the Senators of her lengthy report at last week’s meeting, at which time she alluded to the situation.  She advised that the members of the committee apply critical thinking and their best judgment when making decisions regarding curriculum proposals. 

 

                  With that said, Dianne explained that there was a conflict between two courses:  English 75 (Technical Writing) and Business 78C.  Business 78C is an expansion of Business 78, a business writing course, that predates the English course.  The Business Department decided that Business 78 did not meet all the needs of their students and created Business 78C (Business Report Writing).  English 75 is a Technical Report Writing course and the English Department felt there was an overlap between the two courses.  The committee tried to resolve the problem collegially, offering several solutions, which were rejected.  The English Dept. asked that the item be placed on the agenda, and the Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) had a formal hearing.  Peggy Messerschmidt, representing the English Department, and Melanie Myer, representing the Business Department, were present.  The discussion that followed focused on the courses and the audience, both different.  Yolanda was asked to research other colleges, and 15 schools had both Technical and Business Writing Courses. The CRC passed the first reading based on the information it had received, and at the second reading the CRC voted in favor of passing the course.  The concern of the Academic Senate should be whether or not the process followed to consider the course was legitimate.

 

                  This matter will be placed on the  next MC Academic Senate agenda so that the Senators may hear Senator Brennan’s request.

 

IX.       Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

              Correspondence 

              Publication/Minutes

              1.    Article taken from the San Jose Mercury News  entitled Book rental benefits students, food bank.

                  2.    The April 26, 2004, issue of FA NEWS from the Foothill-DeAnza Faculty Association.

                  3.    The agenda for the April 28, 2004, meeting of the District Council, and the HR items that will be reviewed at the meeting and which will appear on the May 6, 2004, Board agenda.

                  4.    The summary for the April 14, 2004, meeting of GAP.

              Announcements/Conferences 

 

X.        Future Agenda Items

No new items were added at today’s meeting.

 

XI.       Adjournment

                  The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. (M/S/U – Cox/Brichko).  These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.