District Academic Senate
Unapproved Minutes
I. Organizational Matters
I.1 Call
to Order/Roll Call
The meeting was called to order
at 2:35p.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 |
|
S. Aitken |
S. Dinger |
A.
Malchow |
|
P.Andrews |
L.
Harris |
D.
Masury |
S.Arterberry
|
C.
Lam |
G.
Oliver |
|
N.Biltz |
D.
McKay |
S.
Pancella |
|
H. Dennis |
E.
McAlister |
H.
Pham |
|
|
|
C.
Toppel |
I.3
Announcements & Information
1. Angelica and
Alex reported that they attended the Spring Plenary Session of the Academic
Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) last week and benefited
greatly from the various breakout sessions.
Angelica offered to distribute information regarding legislation
relative to local academic senates to anyone interested. She also reported that
Ian Walton was re-elected as President of the ASCCC and Jane Patton was
re-elected as Treasurer.
Alex
explained that on the third day of the Plenary, the members of the ASCCC debate
and vote on various resolutions. One
issue that was of particular interest and was presented in a number of
resolutions dealt with whether or not the part-time faculty load should be
increased from 60% to 80%. All the
resolutions dealing with this issue failed, the primary reason being that the
impact on the various colleges and/or districts varied significantly. Some reports indicated that such action could
negatively impact some colleges and/or districts. At this time, the ASCCC has taken a negative
position on this proposal. The Executive
Committee will work on the development of a resolution that will take into
account the varying issues and the question will be considered at the Fall Plenary
Session.
II. Oral
Communication from the Public
Chancellor Arterberry reported that he attended a meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) yesterday and the issue of the fines levied against seven districts, for a total of $4.2 million, for failing to meet their Faculty Obligation Number (FON) was discussed. This District’s fine was in the amount of $1.3 million. Chancellor Arterberry stated that the District has been setting aside approximately $400,000 each year for the last two years (2003/04 and 2004/05) to cover the fine if imposed. He advised that the BOG agreed to waive the fines at yesterday’s meeting, with the caveat that the funds be used for academic and academic support only and that a report be made back to the State Chancellor’s Office indicating same. The Chancellor advised that the matter will be brought to DBAC with a recommendation as to how funds should be allocated.
It was stated that these funds would be in addition to an increase in COLA and equalization money. The Chancellor explained that the equalization money is tied into the Scott’s Bill and the COLA is predicted to increase from 5.1 to 5.92. The Chancellor explained that the May revise of the Governor’s budget will provide more information on equalization money and COLA.
III. Approval of the Minutes for
The minutes
for the meeting of
“The
Chancellor also advised that ESL IIS immersion program.”
IV. Business
IV.1 Update
Report & Discussion on District Academic Senate Resolution and Consider
Further Actions
Co-Chair
Bangle announced that a request was made to read the following letter into the
record. This letter was sent to the
Board of Trustees by the Mission College Division Chair Council Angelica read the letter signed by all the
Division Chairs, noting that, to date, there has been no response from the
Board to this letter:
“
To:
Stan Arterberry, Jeffrey
Schwartz, Chris Constantin, Joy Atkins, Jack Lucas,
Bob Owens, Buck Polk,
Chris Stampolis, Kathi Tran, Kellie Raczkowski
From:
RE: Current
Issues in the District
Our District stands at a crossroads
which will have a lasting effect on current and future students. The Board of Trustees, guided by Chancellor
Arterberry, has taken an intractable position on negotiations and shared
governance that has resulted in the District Academic Senate’s resolution to
suspend faculty participation in committee work. This is most regrettable. Even more regrettable, however, is the
apparent lack of concern emanating from the Board and the Chancellor to
sincerely try to rectify the situation.
As a result, we, the Division Chairs
of Mission College, need to express our frustration with this lack of concern
and lack of leadership. The number of
processes that have come to a halt is shocking.
Faculty and staff hiring committees, Curriculum Review Committee,
Accreditation, Educational and Facilities Master Planning, and Governance and
Planning, are just a few of the
committees and processes in which faculty have stopped participating.
We are also concerned about the
apparent direction of the Chancellor to the management team to have these
processes continue without faculty participation. This direction is short sighted and will
ultimately result in bad decision making.
One example is the Educational and Facilities Master Plan. By
Be not mistaken, the Division Chairs
are firmly in support of faculty and staff and the Academic and Classified
Senate Resolutions. We also want to
participate in these important decision making processes for the good of our
college and our students. We are losing the opportunity to make good decisions
about our facility and educational programs, the repercussion of which will
follow us for the next thirty years. We
have also stopped hiring staff and faculty; a decision that will also have long
lasting consequences; but who, in good conscience, can bring new faculty and
staff into this District as it is today?
The deterioration of our district
can be corrected very quickly. You are
the people with the power to do that.
You hold all the cards and you are setting the direction. We implore you to end this stalemate, show
your support for faculty and staff, and provide the kind of leadership for
which you were elected.
Respectfully,
The Mission College Division Chair
Council: Jim Burrell, Alan Chandler, Ann
Cowels, Judie, DelFrate, Jim DeLongchamp, Clement Lam, Rachel Lowenberg, Ellen
McAlister, Dianne McKay, Cliff Monroe.”
Following the letter the chairs
requested that Nan Biltz and Pat Andrews report on the current status of
negotiations. Nan Biltz, President of
the SEIU, stated that after the resolution was passed, communication in
negotiations improved, and things were going so well, it was thought that a
settlement was forthcoming. At this
time, however, it appears that the communication has been deceptive and that
there is a disconnect between the negotiators and the District, making the
prospect of a settlement more dismal.
It is believed that the people sitting at the negotiation table are not
writing the counter proposals. There is
information that Sandi Dillon is still employed by the District and continues
to write the counter proposals.
Pat Andrews, speaking as the ACE
President, agreed with
At this time Pat stepped down from
her role as ACE President and addressed the Senate as a faculty member of more
than 20 years, stating that she no longer has any confidence or faith in the
Board of Trustees. The Board is ignoring
pleas to resolve the current situation.
It is her recommendation that the District Academic Senate call for a
vote of no confidence in the Board of Trustees.
The Board members are elected to serve the community and the District,
and this Board is not serving its constituents or the employees of the
District.
Discussion was opened to the floor,
and it was reported that some Board members appear not be aware of the actual
facts dealing with negotiations. For
example, faculty has received only a 1% increase in salary over the last three
years. A Board member indicated the
belief that the increase was on top of COLA and was not aware that faculty have
not received COLA. In addition, it was
stated that a Board member indicated that he was not aware as to how the Land
Corporation spends its money and whether or not the Board is in violation of
the Brown Act relative to narrative minutes.
Doug Masury, speaking on behalf of
classified staff, indicated that classified staff members are in favor of a
vote of no confidence in the Board and will follow the Academic Senate’s lead
on this matter. Doug also raised concern regarding AB 1366, which enhances
fiscal accountability in higher education by authorizing the Board of Governors
or a community college district to request the Fiscal Crisis and Management
Assistance Team (FCMAT) to assist a community college in need of fiscal
management review. The possibility of
conducting a FCMAT evaluation at our District will be discussed at DBAC. Doug expressed his opinion that the 311
Report from the District to the State is assumed to be accurate and should
serve to establish fiscal accountability.
A motion directing the Academic
Senate Presidents to request the resignation of a Board member failed. Several Senators spoke to the issue, citing
the need for time to prepare a resolution listing the documented reasons to
substantiate the request. In addition,
it was stated that one Board member cannot be held responsible for the actions
of the Board, which operates as a body and actions are taken by a majority
vote. It was stated that a vote of no
confidence in the Board of Trustees is the correct course of action, focusing
on the collective responsibility of the Board members.
In response to
the above, the Chancellor stated that he agreed with Pat’s report on
negotiations, and, relative to SEIU, it is his opinion that the reason there
has been a change in negotiations with SEIU is that the new Chief Negotiator
for SEIU has concerns with the direction being taken by previous
negotiations. As for narrative minutes,
he stated that neither the Brown Act nor Robert’s Rules of Order require
narrative minutes. Angelica advised that
a formal request for more comprehensive minutes has been made to the
Board. She and Alex have been advised
that Jeff Schwartz and Chris Constantin will explore this matter further with
them. The view that transparency is
necessary in order to follow the money was stated, as well as the fact that
faculty want to be involved and participate on the Land Corporation.
At this time,
the floor was turned over to Sally Aitken, the WVC Accreditation Liaison, who
addressed the Academic Senate on the effect the District Academic Senate’s
resolution is having on accreditation.
She expressed her belief that the Senate has relinquished its power and
that accreditation is the tool to use to attain positive change. She noted that everything is required to be
based on evidence, and if faculty will embrace the accreditation task and take
an active role in addressing the weaknesses, the end result will be positive.
This requires faculty participation. She
indicated that the report will be written and submitted to WASC without faculty
input and the faculty will have to deal with the consequences. She urged the Senate to take back its power
by providing faculty input. She stated
her commitment to produce a fair and balanced report, which she feels cannot
happen without major, concerted faculty input.
She asked that the District Academic Senate seriously consider lifting
its suspension relative to accreditation.
Several Senate
members and guests spoke to the issue on accreditation. One view stated is that the Senate is not
relinquishing its power but rather implementing its power. If the accreditation report moves forward to
WASC, it will be clear that the report is without faculty input or
agreement. To participate would defeat
the purpose of the resolution and/or weaken the stance the Academic Senate has
taken. This is one way of demonstrating
just how upset the employees of this District are.
It was also
stated that often when an entity takes a position, it means sacrifice and the
entire membership of the Academic Senate voted for this resolution. In addition, it was noted that when the
resolution was first passed, negotiations improved and there seemed to be an
improvement in shared governance. Since
the Senate lifted the suspension on hiring committees, it appears that
negotiations have taken a step backward.
Shared governance and respect do not seem to be an issue for the
District. Faculty members are educators
and givers, and it is difficult to take this stand, but it is obvious that the
District does not respect the core of faculty as educators.
Great respect
was expressed for Sally Aitken, and she was advised that faculty did not want
to take this action; faculty want to participate and work on the accreditation
as well as other faculty issues.
Faculty, however, are not participating in preparing the accreditation
report because it serves as the public face for these institutions, and it is
easy to spin faculty’s action as internal bickering. Faculty is willing to sacrifice accreditation
as an indictment of this District and its leadership for bringing us to this
point and allowing this to happen. It
was opined that the Academic Senate can write a minority accreditation
report. This would allow WASC to
recognize that this is a District in serious crisis. At this time, Sally
advised that she has been advised that WASC will only read one report from each
college and will disregard a minority report
The Chancellor
confirmed that only one accreditation report will be accepted and WASC no
longer steps in to solve problems. He stated that he is trying to create an
environment to resolve the issues. When
it comes to accreditation, however, the District is required to submit a report
by a given date. Since faculty are the key drivers in student learning
outcomes, without faculty participation, the District will probably receive a
warning. He asked that the Senate
consider the seriousness of this action. In response, the Senators were
reminded that there will be an accreditation visit, and if the minority report
is not considered, certainly faculty can have their say during the site
visit. It was noted that this atmosphere
has never existed before. The District,
faculty and staff have always been able to work together and turn things
around. This is a great District, with
good people and good students. Overall,
guests and Senators urged that there be no further exceptions to the
resolution, that the Academic Senate stand firm on its convictions, that the
Senate maintain its position on the resolution as a way to implement change,
and move forward. It was suggested that
the issue of accreditation be deferred to the task force for consideration.
At this time,
the following recommendations developed by the task force for the Senate’s
consideration were presented as follows:
The District Academic Senate
directs Academic Senate presidents to convey to the Board that improvement and quality of
negotiations can be met by fulfilling the following:
1.
The district negotiating team exercises good faith negotiation by
presenting timely counterproposals.
2. The
district negotiating team is given sufficient flexibility and authority to make
proposals and counterproposals without having to go back to the Board of
Trustees for specific authorization in every case.
3. The
entire Board of Trustees is directly and proactively involved in the analysis
of negotiation proposals, rather than relying on summaries prepared by a
subcommittee or individuals.
4. Contract
proposals should allow negotiations to agree and settle on individual items,
rather than presenting an “all or nothing” package.
Schedule a Strategic
Conversation between faculty and the Board on May 18, 2006.
Focus:
To define and clarify issues and concerns and begin to identify possible solutions
in the areas of respect, morale, and campus climate.
Direct District Academic
Senate Presidents and Secretary to schedule at least two District Academic Senate meetings during the
summer of 2006.
The deadline for the
resolution adopted on February 7, 2006, put into effect on March 14, 2006, and modified on April 18, 2006, be
extended until October 3, 2006 to allow further progress in the four areas identified in the
resolution.
The Senators agreed to consider
recommendation #1, #2, and #3 as one and #4 separately (M/S/U – Cox/Cogswell)
and proceeded to review and discuss recommendation #1, #2, and #3. During discussion it was noted that some
administrators make presentations to the Board and paint a rosy picture, as
though nothing was wrong at the colleges.
The Board members are not getting the full story, and there appears to
be deceit, which brings mistrust. The
faculty members are here to educate the students, and the Board and the
Chancellor, who should be supporting the faculty have forced employees into an
untenable position. It has been stated
that the Board and the faculty go through the Chancellor, making the Chancellor
the center point. If that is the case,
then the Chancellor should exercise good leadership and be the one to bring the
District together, and he was challenged to do so. A Chancellor that could
bring everyone together would enhance his career and reputation, as well as the
District.
Relative to the first
recommendation, the Chancellor advised that the Board’s Budget subcommittee is
comprised of Trustee Schwartz, Trustee Constantin, and Trustee Owen, and they
give direction to the Board on budget issues. He expressed his view that this
is not functioning appropriately and he has recommended an expanded closed
session of two hours with the entire Board to consider negotiation proposals
dealing with the four unions. The first
two-hour session will be held this Thursday and will deal with ACE and SEIU
proposals. The Chancellor expressed his
concern that the recommendations extend the resolution through the summer. Relative to Recommendation #2, it is
anticipated that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC)
and the Community College League of California (CCLC) will respond to the
request for advisory assistance sometime this month. It is important that the District and faculty
establish a common ground and theme so that when the team comes, we can
maximize the visit by meeting with the Board prior to the team’s visit.
A call for the question passed
unanimously (M/S/U – Cox/Smebye), and the Senators unanimously agreed to
endorse recommendation #1, #2, and #3.
On recommendation #4, it was stated
that the Academic Senate plans to hold at least two meetings over the
summer. The recommendation to extend the
resolution until October 3rd is
based on the fact that accreditation is due soon after that date, the
Senate and the Board should have benefited from the ASCCC and CCLC assistance,
and, more importantly, elections are to be held in November. If things have not progressed by that date,
the Academic Senate could then take action to censure the Board. Ultimately, the Senators unanimously endorsed
recommendation #4.
Discussion veered to commencement,
and Kellie Raczkowski urged the Senate to encourage faculty to participate in
graduation ceremonies. She emphasized
how important it is for faculty and staff to share that day with their
students. The Senators advised that
faculty will attend graduation without question in order to support the
students. It was suggested that the
Senate Presidents send out a message to all faculty that they are encouraged to
participate in graduation to show their support for students. When asked for specifics on how faculty will
participate, it was determined that each college senate will make that decision
for their college.
Another issue that requires the
attention of the Senators was brought to the table by President Bangle. The issue deals with curriculum that was approved
by the Curriculum Committee last Fall but was never brought to the Academic
Senate for approval. She has been asked
to approve the curriculum so that it can be forwarded to the Board for
approval. Angelica asked for direction
from the Senate. The consensus of the
Senators was that to approve the curriculum at this time would be in violation
of the resolution and would weaken the stance taken by the Academic
Senate. Angelica was directed not to
sign off on the curriculum.
A memo from Lin Marelick relative to
the Title V advisory committee was provided to the Senators prior to today’s
meeting so that they could consider her request to call for faculty to serve on
this committee. After discussion it was
stated that faculty could participate to the extent that participation is part
of their institutional responsibility or part of their assigned time.
The Chancellor was thanked for
attending today’s meeting and disappointment was expressed that no other
administrator or Board member attended.
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 – Cogswell/Kelly). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.