A. Curriculum Committee — No report was made at today’s meeting.

B. Staff Recognition - Resolutions will be presented at next week’s meeting.

C. Committee Appointments — No committee appointments were made at today’s meeting.

1. Instructional Technology Committee — Carol reported that the committee received a draft document from Joseph Giroux on the Microcomputer Standards for Administrative Network Deployment. The document details the rationale for minimum standards for PC and Apple computers supported by IS, deployment responsibility, upgrade and repair costs, system configuration standards, as well as other standards and information. Carol noted that "minimum standards" refers to basic e-mail and word-processing capability. The intention is to phase out the old computers and raise the standard for the remaining computers. In addition, she reported that IS does not have funding to purchase additional memory. However, IS will install additional memory that has been purchased through other resources. IS will also support zip drives and floppies. Carol noted that the document was brought to GAP as well. Pat stated that he recommended that both colleges’ Technology Committees review the report each semester, and that it be posted on-line for reference. The minimum standards will probably change once a year. Carol stated her concern regarding support for software. IS is trying to upgrade computers to handle more sophisticated software. Dianne stated that people are concerned that the latest version of software available for computers at the administrative level is not available to the majority, and often documents sent out from that level cannot be opened by the majority. It was stated that a request could be submitted to IS for an upgrade in software. The difficulty is with special software; IS will only load district approved software. Dianne recommended that the committee put out the current version of available software to all faculty and staff. It was stated that this is addressed when requests for upgrades to minimum standards are submitted.

* Carol reported that the committee is still working on the Trade-Up Policy and will be brought to the Academic Senate next year.

* The committee will hold a special meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2001, at 12:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. with the representative from SIG, the consultant for the Technology Plan.

* Joseph also stated that everyone will be off MS Mail before the end of Spring 2001 semester; everyone is expected to be on Eudora by Fall. It is important that Associate Faculty be made aware of the change. Faculty will be able to retrieve their messages. Joseph was asked to advise everyone affected by the change.

* Dianne thanked Carol and Pat for their hard work serving on the committee and keeping the Senate apprised. Pat noted that Carol has been re-elected Chair of the committee for the coming year.

2. Distance Learning Committee - Chris Moyers, Chair of the Distance Learning Committee (DL), reported that the committee continues to address the issues of rigor and evaluation of the DL courses. She urged the Senate to develop guidelines so that the content of DL courses is part of the evaluation process. Chris pointed out that there is no place in the Curriculum Review Committee (CRC)’s course approval process that reviews the content of what is actually being broadcast on TV or what is presented as an on-line course. The DL Committee does not have the authority to fulfill that task, it is not addressed in the CRC’s forms for DL courses, nor is it addressed in the evaluation process of faculty by students and/or colleagues during the regular evaluation process. Her primary concern is that some departments/divisions scrutinize these courses stringently and do an excellent job. Others do not. Dianne stated that the content of a course is laid out in a course outline in terms of goals and objectives and what the course will include. In DL format, all that is changed is the mode of delivery, but the content should be the same. Chris agreed, however, she noted that on a DL form nothing addresses delivery method or standards for courses on-line. The committee strongly recommends that anyone designing a DL course work with Sally Wisner to ensure that courses meet Mission College’s web page design standard and that the course content responds to the course outline. During discussion, it was noted that most "canned" courses come from a consortium and are screened for quality. Chris reported, however, that there are exceptions; courses can be bought outside of the consortium, and they can be aired as long as the department/division agree. The CRC form does not address the issue of evaluation of content, process, or instructor at all. Senator Patton agreed that traditional courses are monitored differently, and it is incumbent upon the Academic Senate to ensure that vigor and all other requirements for MC courses are maintained. This issue will be addressed thoroughly in the fall.

* Chris also stated the CRC’s form for DL course does not address accessibility. Carol reported that the form approved by the Academic Senate in January 2000, is not currently being used by the CRC. The form approved by the Senate requests that the instructors describe how students with disabilities will be accommodated. Dianne will ensure that the Chair of the CRC and the Office of Instruction are advised of the appropriate form to be used. This is a legal issue and must be addressed. Dianne thanked Chris for her work as chair of the DL Committee.

3. Staff Development — No report was made at today’s meeting.

4. Datatel Implementation Committee — *Amelia reported that the response from the committee to DISC’s concern regarding the protection of personal information for disabled students relative to Datatel. Steve Kinsella responded that two screens are needed for DSPS information; Datatel does not offer any other technology at this time. A group of other colleges that have Datatel is working to develop a specific DSPS screen. It is not expected that the screen will be available until possibly Spring 2002. This is being developed due to a work flow issue, not necessarily a legal issue. It was suggested that our DSPS department contact other colleges utilizing Datatel to determine how it is being handled at other colleges. Steve acknowledged that there is concern regarding this matter, and a confidentiality notice is being developed for employees to sign. The intent is to make people sensitive to the issue. Amelia emphasized to Steve and the committee that the issue is not so much confidentiality as that people do not have the right to know personal information of a disabled student. This must remain a high priority.

* The Academic Senate secretary will maintain the district and college committee lists on Datatel. The secretary will need to receive training on Datatel.

* Amelia reported further that there is a goal to eliminate the financial function of PARIS due to formatting problems with Datatel.

5. Workforce Development Committee — No report was made today.

6. Alternative Calendar Committee — Jane reported that the two groups met together yesterday. The position of the WVC group is to move forward with the implementation of a compressed calendar. The MC group is not opposed to the concept, but would like to ensure that all aspects and implications of such a change are thoroughly considered. For instance, they would like to contact other multi-college districts on Datatel that have changed to an alternate calendar to determine how they function. Different answers have been received from various sources as to whether or not two colleges can go on different calendars. Dianne reported that the District Council (DC) empanelled a task force on alternative calendars, designated Clo Hampton as Chair, and provided clear parameters to carefully investigate and research the subject, ultimately to bring a recommendation regarding this matter to the DC. Dianne fully expected that a written report reflecting research and data would be presented to the DC. Clo made an oral report to the DC yesterday, indicating that two college committees had been formed. The WVC committee wants to implement a compressed calendar in Fall 2002, which includes a six-week intersession, and the MC committee prefers to move slower, does not want a six-week intersession, and prefers a four week intersession. Dianne expressed her frustration, since it was her understanding that the DC’s charge to the task force was to submit a report with recommendations. The DC accepted Clo’s oral report as a preliminary recommendation, with nothing in writing, and passed the following motion:

"Based on the preliminary report from the Calendar Committee on Semester Reconfiguration, respecting each college’s autonomy and recognizing differences in operational needs, the District Council charges the committee to seek the answers to the Datatel questions and to present a final recommendation on semester reconfiguration to the District Council on May 30, 2001."

Dianne voiced her distress at the process and the report. The report did not address collective bargaining issues, scheduling issues, curriculum issues, staffing concerns, costs, and other areas of concern. To the best of her knowledge, the process did not include input from the student body or faculty at large. The intent of the recommendation should have included all data and considered all implications. Chris Vincenz, the ASB representative on the MC Academic Senate, indicated that the ASB has not been contacted on this issue, and he brought the matter to the ASB. He advised that there is a student representative interested in serving on the Calendar Committee. He also reported that he conducted an informal survey of students, and the response indicated a 50-50 opinion on the calendar. Many students feel that instructors often dismiss classes within the last 10-15 minutes of the class, and in his opinion, two weeks of instruction will be lost and instructors and students will necessarily have to cram in the material.

Whether or not Datatel can handle two schedules also remains to be determined. If Datatel is able to handle two different schedules, WVC will move forward with an alternative calendar for Fall 2002. Dianne advised that the tone was that two committees were formed. If that is indeed the case, then she strongly recommends that the Mission College Calendar Committee become a committee of the Academic Senate, elect its own chair, gain representatives through the Academic Senate, and conduct the appropriate and necessary research before any alternative calendar is selected and/or implemented.

Discussion ensued, and it was noted that the original plan was to have recommendations ready to go to the Board by November 2001. Now, the date has been moved up to May 30, 2001, with no additional meetings of the task force scheduled. It was stated that the process appears to be contaminated, and there is concern that Mission College may be forced into accepting an undesirable calendar. The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U — Toppel/Akers-Martin):

"that the Mission College Academic Senate wants to ensure that no decision to change the academic calendar is made until an in-depth study of all calendar issues has been conducted and has involved students, faculty, and staff, as well as prospective students/community. The study should be complete and in writing so that an informed and well-researched decision can be made in the best academic interest of the colleges and their students. If only one calendar can be accommodated by Datatel, it must be agreeable to both institutions before implementation."

The Senators further stated that the Mission College Academic Senate believes that the following items need to be addressed in a position paper to be accepted by the District Council:

A possible direction is to defer this task to the District Academic Senate (a body comprised of the two college senates working in concert), since many of the concerns are of an academic nature, and the advice of the Academic Senate is essential to any decision. Dianne was directed to advise the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, the college Presidents, the Vice Presidents of Instruction, the ACE President, the WVC Academic Senate President, the ASB President, and the Chancellor’s Assistant of the discussion and motion that took place at today’s Senate meeting.

7. Services & Facilities Master Plan — No report was made at today’s meeting.

8. Graduation Committee - * Senator Bell-Cheung reported that marshals and name readers are needed. It was noted that Senators usually serve as marshals at the ceremony and the name readers are needed as well. Graduation is to be held on Friday, May 25, 2001, and the marshals will need to be at the Convention Center at 10:30 a.m. The students will arrive at 11:30 a.m. for practice, and return at 5:30 p.m. for the ceremony. Faculty, staff, and graduates who attend the practice will return to the campus at 12:30 p.m. for a BBQ lunch. Senators Akers-Martin, Bell-Cheung, Johnson, Moore, Myint, Toppel, and Xu volunteered to serve as Marshals. Jane Patton and Pat Hudak volunteered to serve as name readers. It was also stated that Judy Hooper has volunteered to serve as a marshal. Dianne announced that the annual after graduation party will be held at David’s Restaurant adjacent to the Convention Center.

* Another question concerning the acknowledgment of students completing a certificate program. It was noted that the MC Academic Senate passed a motion regarding this issue. The senate secretary will research the matter and advise Karen accordingly.

Jim Van Tassel advised that the report is not yet ready for review by the Academic Senate. He reported that all standard committee drafts have been reviewed by GAP and were returned to the chairs in January. The final drafts for only two standards have been forwarded to the editor, and it is anticipated that the remaining drafts will be forwarded to the editor during the summer.

Dianne emphasized that the Academic Senate must approve the report. The possibility of calling a special meeting of the Senate sometime this summer was discussed, as well as providing the Senators with copies of the final draft for review. It was recommended that the seated Senators, as well as the incoming Senators, review the drafts and forward any comments to Jane. Jim stated that the final draft will be sent to all faculty and staff.

Based on last week’s presentation by the Environmental Awareness Advocates (EAA), the following motion was passed unanimously after a brief discussion. During the discussion the points addressed at last week’s Senate meeting were reiterated, and it was noted that the EAA recommends that the term "perpetuity" be interpreted as 99 years, the length of the land agreement (M/S/U Hudak/Patton):

"that the Mission College Academic Senate recognizes the value of burrowing owls on campus and supports efforts for their long term preservation. The MC Academic Senate recommends that parcels of land on the Mission College campus be set aside in perpetuity for owl and other wildlife habitat and that owls be monitored on an on-going basis. The Senate further recommends that Mission College take responsibility for what is required in the Mitigation Agreement."

Dianne was directed to forward this motion to the Mission College administration and the District Land Corporation, and that she emphasize the Senate’s view that preservation of the owl habitats serves as an example to our students on conservation and environmental awareness. The campus habitats could also serve as a learning center for college, high school, and grade school students.

This item was postponed to the next Senate meeting.

This item was postponed to the next Senate meeting.

The Senators were asked to review and approve Draft #5 of the Program Discontinuance Policy as submitted. Dianne advised that the draft has been reviewed by a number of people, and that their recommendations are reflected in the draft. Dianne noted that this policy is required for accreditation purposes. A motion to approve the policy as submitted was made (M/S —Toppel/Patton).

A motion to postpone (M/S/U — Moore/VanTassel) the motion to approve to the next meeting was passed unanimously, and Dianne was directed to send the proposal via e-mail to all faculty, with a note to relate any concerns or comments to their Senate representative by Wednesday, May 16th. This question will be placed on the agenda for next week’s meeting.

IX. President’s Reports - Dianne indicated that issues of importance were reported during the discussions at today’s meeting.

1. Letter dated May 1, 2001, from the Accrediting Commission re: Preliminary Agenda of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges meeting, to be held June 3-5, 2001, in San Francisco.

1. The 23^rd Annual California Great Teachers Seminar will be held in Santa Barbara, July 29-August 3, 2001. Registration and seminar information is available from the Senate Office and Staff Development.

No future agenda items were added at today’s meeting.

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