Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved Minutes

Thursday, May 11, 2006

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by President Alex Braun at 2: 06 p.m.

^Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
^Beggs (Ext. 5188) AAS		X	^Mancini (Ext. 5413) AF/HM		X
^Braun (Ext. 5355) Pres/Tech		X	^Martin (Ext. 5356) Tech		X
^Brichko (Ext. 5222) CATA		X	^Moles (Ext. 5113) ESL		X
^Cogswell (Ext. 5388) AAS		X	^Ostrander (Ext. 5274) Stud Dev.		X
^Cox (Ext.5164) CommSvc		X	Paicius (Ext. 5413) AF/CATA		X
^Holt (ASB Rep)		X	Perlas (Ext. 5041) Stud.Dev.		X
^Juncker (Ext.5229) Comm		X	^Rounds (Ext. 5288) Comm		X
^Kashima (Ext. 5319) ESL		X	Smebye (Ext. 5305) CommServ		X
^Laird (Ext. 5186) SocSci		X	Szabados (Ext.5289) CATA		X
^Lavallo (Ext. 5399) Math		X	Ting (Ext. 5330) Math		X

^Guests	^Guests	^Guests
^C. Morales S.Hirose	^J.Lucas S.Arterberry	Other Faculty and Staff
^E. Dooley A. Malchow	B.Polk J. Schwartz	Members were present as well
^G. Oliver^E. Dooley	C.Qazi L. Lodato
^D. Stewart A. LMartin	E.McAlister R. Lowenberg
^B. Gaitan D. Lamkin	R.Castello B. Hebert
^N. Biltz S .Zeisler	A.Dalton J. DelFrate
^S .Dinger C.Lam	A.Malchow J.Schwartz
^D. McKay M. Myint	R.Dewis D. Stewart
^S. Pancella	A. Buendia-Bangle

II. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes for the meeting of May 4, 2006, were accepted and approved with a correction to the last paragraph on Page 4. Alex explained that he misspoke when he reported that the Mission College Classified Senate is prepared to call for a vote of no confidence in the Board and Chancellor. He should have reported that the vote would be taken on the Board only and would not include the Chancellor (M/S/U – Smebye/Coxi).

III. Order of the Agenda

There were no changes to the Order of the Agenda.

IV. Oral Communication from the Public

Randy Castello, Chief Negotiator for faculty regretfully reported that today’s negotiation session was short-lived and she described the session as regressive bargaining. ACE will file an unfair labor practice and go on to impasse. Another member of the negotiating team, Ellen McAlister expressed appreciation to the Academic Senate for its support. She advised that the ACE team has been working 30-40 hours per week to prepare for negotiations, and the District has come to the table each time without any counter proposals, even when the issues did not involve money. All of ACE’s proposals are intended to keep the District fiscally sound. The District has changed its chief negotiator three times, and the District’s attorney that is now sitting as Chief Negotiator advised that negotiations have been set back to step one. ACE, in essence, has been working all year without progress. Faculty are being treated as if they do not count. In response to a question regarding the impact recent e-mails may have had on current negotiations, it was stated that they have not had a negative impact. Another question of concern dealt with the continued employment of Sandra Dillon. Alex expressed his view that this is extremely unfortunate news and he sincerely hopes that the situation changes.

V. Information & Announcements

1. The 4^th Annual MESA Day Science & Engineering Fair will be held Friday, May 12, 2006, in the Center Space of the main building.

2. ASB representative to the Senate, Robin Holt, reported that she attended the Student Senates for California Community Colleges conference, which was initiated last year. This year, they developed and adopted a constitution. She expressed appreciation for the support given to the organization by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC). Senator Cox advised that she watched a video prepared by the Student Senate of Gavilan at the Spring Plenary of the ASCCC. She remarked that they are doing an excellent job and the organization is becoming more official and more recognized.

VI. Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments

A. President’s Reports

Alex advised that, in light of President Chong’s new position at Laney College, the Chancellor presented a plan at this week’s GAP meeting for the selection of the interim President and the permanent presidential search. Copies of the plan were distributed to the Senators. Alex acknowledged the Chancellor for taking a different approach than his previous approach with the appointment of Dr. Samuels. The Chancellor’s plan makes the maximum use of the shared governance process. It was noted that there are only two faculty members on the search committee. Concern was expressed relative to the composition of the committee, stating that the college is not seeking a CEO, but a president for the college, an academy, and there should be a preponderance of faculty on the committee as has been the case in the past. It was also reported that WVC has an internal policy with regard to hiring managers, with four to six faculty members on management hiring committees. In addition, if this hiring committee is in keeping with the proposed Classified and Management Hiring Policy and Procedure, this matter should be addressed at the District Academic Senate level. This issue could be much more serious than initially perceived. It was noted that neither college senate accepted the proposed Classified and Management Hiring Policy and Procedures for this very reason. Alex suggested that the Senators review the proposed plan and be prepared to discuss it at next week’s MC Academic Senate meeting.

On Thursday, May 18, 2006, a strategic conversation will be held with the Board of Trustees and the District Academic Senate in the Board Room at West Valley College. The discussion is set to start at approximately 7:30 p.m. The purpose of this conversation is pursuant to the District Academic Senate’s resolution, which called for such a meeting with the Board of Trustees. There are three main topics to be discussed: campus climate, respect, and morale. The Senators were provided with a plan for their review and information.

VII. New Business

A. Determine How Faculty will Participate in Commencement Ceremony

In light of the District Academic Senate’s resolution suspending Senate operations and the participation of faculty on all college and district committees, the issue of how faculty can participate in graduation was discussed at last week’s Senate meeting. It was noted that last year the faculty sat with the students to show faculty’s commitment to the students. Alex asked the Senators for direction on how faculty should participate this year.

Discussion ensued, and it was stated that last year was the beginning of the crisis in the District. It was suggested that faculty members follow the precedent set last year, possibly including the ribbon worn last year as a demonstration of support. In this way, faculty can support the students and make a statement. Ms. Holt reported that this matter was raised at the Student Senate, and the students want faculty to be present. The students liked having faculty sit with them as they appreciate all that faculty do for the students. It was suggested that the funds spent for a reception be used for a cookies and punch reception for only the faculty and students. A motion to extend the discussion an additional five minutes passed (M/S/U), and the following motion passed unanimously (M/S/U – Juncker/Laird):

“that rather than having faculty celebrate graduation with the Board after graduation, that faculty celebrate with the students and that faculty sit with the students as suggested by the Student Senate.”

It was noted that in the past, when graduation ceremonies were held on campus, faculty and students would go to Hospitality Management for punch and cookies. It may be possible to return to that practice if we cannot hold a reception at the Convention Center.

VIII. New Business

A. Investigate Funding and Approval Process for Chin Recruitment Initiative Relative to the History of the Land Corporation w Particular Reference to Funding of International Student Program

Alex advised that at last week’s meeting, the Senate empanelled a subcommittee to develop a list of questions dealing with this matter. The questions were entered into the record with notations from the law (See Appendix A) as follows:

QUESTIONS OF THE MISSION COLLEGE ACADEMIC SENATE
REGARDING THE LAND CORPORATION
AND
FUNDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHINA RECRUITMENT INITIATIVE
Preamble:
The concerns of the subcommittee in regard to the Land Corporation and the funding for the China recruitment initiative centered around several major areas:

· Transparency (including, but not limited to, the legal requirements of the Brown Act)

· The process that was followed in allocating and spending money on the initiative

· Whether applicable Board policies were followed (both Land Corporation and WVMCCD Boards), and

· Whether shared governance was carried out.

The following questions were developed.  We realize that there will probably be many follow-up questions that Senators would like to ask to obtain further information.  We ask that these questions be read first, and answered one by one, before any follow-up questions are asked by the Senators.

1.  WVMCCD Board Policy 1.5.2 states:

"Board members have authority only when acting as a Board of Trustees legally in session.  The Board cannot be bound in any way by any statement or action on the part of an individual board member or employee, except when such statements or actions are in pursuance of specific instructions by the Board.  No member of the Board shall speak for, represent, or act for the Board in any way unless specifically authorized to do so by a majority vote of the Board."

· Was Board policy 1.5.2 followed in regard to the China initiative?

· If the answer to the above is "yes", then when did Jeff Schwartz first discuss any aspect of the China initiative with anyone?

· When did the WVMCCD Board of Trustees discuss the China initiative, whether as an information or as an action item?

· The Chancellor indicated that Mr. Kao has discussions with members of the Board of Trustees in Fall 2005.  On what dates did these discussions occur?  Which Trustees did Mr. Kao talk to on each date?  What actions were taken based on those discussions?

2. How was the amount of $180,000, to be appropriated for an International Studies Program, determined?  Minutes of the August 18 meeting of the Land Corporation Board of Directors mention discussion of "how much money would be needed and when it would be needed."

· Was the China Initiative mentioned by anyone at this meeting?

· If yes, then was the issue of approval by the WVMCCD Board mentioned?

· Was the $180,000 appropriation for the "International Studies Program" intended for the existing Institute for International Students at Mission College or was it intended for developing a new District-wide program?

· If the program has been funded what entity in the college or District is currently administering the $180,000?

3. If a taxpayer had been interested in "International Student Programs" and their funding, would that person have known that this was to be discussed at the August 18 meeting of the Land Corporation?

· How would they have known this?

· Was the Brown Act followed in regards to this item?

4. Legality aside, is it ethical for a person to make a motion to pass an appropriation which funds a project of their own?

5.  In Spring 2005 the "International Student/Global Task Force" headed by Frank Chong met to develop a district-wide international student program proposal at Stan Arterberry's request and without the involvement of the Academic Senate. Educational program development falls under the purview of the Academic Senate's 10+1 areas of academic and professional matters (Ed Code, Section 53200).

· Were the Ed Code and District Board policy followed in regard to relying primarily on the advice of the Senate in regard to development of educational programs?

· Was the Academic Senate involved in the development of this program proposal?

· If not, why not?

6. Given that the China Initiative was funded by $180,000 for an "International Studies Program" which currently does not exist, and given that the Academic Senate has purview over educational program development, how was the shared governance process followed in all discussions of the "International Student/Studies Program"?

7. There are very specific Title 5 regulations for program development at community colleges (see Appendix A).

· Were these Title 5 regulations followed?

· If so, where are the documents describing the requirement listed?

8. On January 6, 2006, a planning meeting was held for the China trip.

· Was this an extension of the International Student/Global Task Force?

· If so, then why wasn't Frank Chong there?

· Who called this meeting?

9. Given that the tickets for the China trip were purchased in the amount of $17,700 on March 8, 2006 by C. Kao on behalf of District employees and Board members, and given that the WVMCCD Board of Trustees had not yet approved the expenditure, on whose authority was the purchase made?

Discussion was opened to the floor, and Dr. Schwartz offered to respond with the understanding that he could not provide exact dates as he did not have his calendar with him. In summary, Dr. Schwartz acknowledged that the China initiative was first broached informally at a social function between Mr. Kao and himself and discussed further at another social event. Mr. Kao stated that 2/3 of students who apply for university in China do not get seats and might serve as exchange students. Dr. Schwartz emphasized his interest and his motivation to pursue the area of International Student programs. He explained his view that this is a major area of possibility in which the District can generate additional revenue.

Mr. Kao approached Dr. Schwartz on this matter once again, stating that he had a contact in China who could connect with officials in Szechuan to discuss the potential for Chinese high school students to attend West Valley College on a short term basis. Dr. Schwartz then took the idea to the Chancellor, holding several meetings with Stan, Mr. Kao and himself and subsequent meetings with Frank Chong and Carol Qazi, sometime in Fall 2005. After attending a meeting at Mission College with Mr. Kao, the idea was handed over to the administration. To the best of his knowledge, no other Board members were involved.

Dr. Schwartz referred to an entirely separate International Student initiative. Dr. Chong made a presentation to the Board in open meetings in Fall 2004, providing a framework for an International Students Program. The Board had set international students as a priority and the issue was not controversial. The matter was delayed due to the Bond election, and the item appeared on the Land Corporation in 2005 with a request for an allocation of $360,000/ year for two years. There was no comment at that time from the various constituent groups. The Land Corporation’s Board of Directors, however, denied the request due to the lack of a plan, but agreed to fund a Director for International Students to see how the program developed. The position was not filled, however, and the Board agreed to allot $180,000 for one year specifically targeted for the International Students Program (ISP). It was stated that the $180,000 was intended for new efforts in the ISP and is to be administered by the District administration for those purposes, the District administration being the chancellor and the two college presidents. This process is consistent with other initiatives and votes at the Land Corporation, which receives funding requests for specific amounts for specific purposes. The administration was given broad latitude on ISP funds.

In referring to the Land Corporation minutes for August 18, 2005, and assuming that the minutes followed the agenda, it was stated that the way the item was listed in the minutes does not provide the taxpayer with the information that the ISP was involved. Dr. Schwartz replied that the agenda item was to approve the Land Corporation’s budget without specificity. A hand out was distributed at the meeting and the item was postponed because there was some concern that adequate agenda notice had not been provided. The document that specified projects was available to the public, but the Board of Directors had some discomfort because of the inadequate notice. Dr. Schwartz indicated his uncertainty as to whether or not it met the legal requirements sufficiently, but emphasized that it is not the Board’s intent to move forward with items not adequately noticed.

When asked if it is ethical for a person to make a motion to fund a program of interest, Dr. Schwartz explained his view that it is not unethical for someone to move forward with something of interest. People on any legislative body at any level can work toward things they care about. It is his view that it would be unethical to do otherwise. Several Senators spoke to the issue, expressing their concerns with the ethics of Board member Schwartz and Constantin voting to approve funds that would allow them to travel to China.

As discussion continued, Question #5 referred to the International Students District Task force headed by Dr. Chong, that met to develop a district-wide ISP without the involvement of the Academic Senate. It was noted that educational development falls under the purview of the Academic Senate as stated in the Ed Code, Section 53200. Therefore, the question remains, was District Policy and Ed Code followed? Dr. Schwartz responded that he does not know the process or who was involved. Chancellor Arterberry responded that he did not give direction to the Academic Senate. It is his expectation when he gives direction to the administration that the shared governance policy within their institutions will be followed, and it is his expectation that the Academic Senate would be involved in the shared governance processes. Dr. Schwartz stated that the initiative was not a secret. He discussed the initiative with other people, including Angelica Buendia-Bangle. Angelica acknowledged that Jeff did discuss the initiative with her and Dr. Hartley informed her of the initiative as well, stating that he was working with Wanda Wong. It was noted that at a District Academic Senate meeting the Chancellor stated that Angelica had been asked to keep the China initiative confidential. If the initiative was not a secret, why was Angelica asked to keep a confidence and not discuss the initiative? Dr. Schwartz reiterated that he never asked anyone to keep this matter secret or confidential.

Title 5 regulations relative to the development of a new program were noted and the question posed as to whether or not those regulations were followed, and if so, where are the pertinent documents. Dr. Schwartz stated that there was no discussion regarding a new program. The discussion that took place with City officials in China dealt with high school and technical college students, discussing the programs offered at the two colleges. Chancellor Arterberry noted that both colleges have a recognized ISP. Such initiatives do not require the involvement of the State Chancellor’s Office as there is no indication that new programs are being developed. He likened the China initiative to the Brazil program that was presented to the WVC Academic Senate for approval. This is simply a program dealing with the recruitment of students to our colleges. The Academic Senate would necessarily be involved if this initiative involved program development.

Referring to question #8, relates to a planning meeting on January 6^th for the trip to China. Stan advised that he called the meeting and those present included the two Academic Senate Presidents. He noted that Dr. Chong was not available. He called the meeting to discuss the purpose of the initiative and the trip, which was intended simply to develop contacts regarding the possible recruitment of students. At that meeting, the Academic Senate Presidents indicated their willingness to attend.

Question #9 asks on whose authority did Mr. Kao purchase the tickets to China for the Board members although the purchase was not yet approved. The Chancellor acknowledged that the tickets were purchased on his authority.

Discussion was opened to the floor, and it was stated that the recruitment initiative appears to be an initiative for a program. There is reference to a District International Students Program, which this District does not have. Discussions were taking place, tickets purchased, and yet no information was forthcoming. It was stated that if this initiative was strictly for recruitment, the District would have sent recruiters as has been done in the past, not Board members, administrators and their companions. Dr. Schwartz responded that the reason Board members and the Chancellor went on the trip was because the contact person in China advised that a delegation of higher level people would be desirable to the City officials and others. This trip was seen as an initial recruitment effort and at no time was there any discussion about the development of a new program. If the term “program” was used in the August 18^th Land Corporation minutes, it was bad terminology.

Concern was expressed that the faculty was not involved from the very beginning of discussions. The lack of communication has proven to be harmful, creating the current air of mistrust. It has been stated that the money allotted by the Land Corporation was intended for a new District-wide program and that program should have been based on Title 5 regulations. Dr. Schwartz explained that when the Board of Directors approved $180,000, it was to be used to bring more international students in to the District. If the term “program” was used, it was used inaccurately.

There was a brief discussion on the programs at each college. Stan stated that Mission College has a well developed program; West Valley College does not. It was determined that the District cannot continue to fully fund two programs and wanted to merge them into a District program. The assumption was that the two college presidents would work with the appropriate people involved. That requires faculty, administrators and staff participation.

Concerns were expressed relative to the lack of narrative minutes from Board of Trustee meetings and the Land Corporation meetings and the apparent lack of understanding related to District terminology. It was suggested that a legal opinion be sought on the process used to approve funds for the China initiative and possible violations of the Brown Act. Dr. Schwartz suggested that Mark Williams be consulted on the Brown Act issue. He stated further that he has always been a proponent of narrative minutes. The Board changed its policy with regard to narrative minutes due to community involvement regarding the stadium and creek issues. He strongly objected to this action, and noted that not one constituent group made a complaint. In addition, he raised Brown Act issues and had no support from other Board members or constituent groups. He has requested that the issue of narrative minutes be placed on the Board’s agenda.

Questions were raised relative to the merging of the two International Student Programs and the fact that the tickets to China were purchased on March 8th, yet there is a transaction dated February 22, 2006, giving Mr. Kao $7,000 and $350 for American Vacation Travel. The Chancellor advised that the $7,000 was for in-country travel, hotels, meals, etc. He emphasized that Mr. Kao was not compensated for the trip.

As discussion continued, it was also noted that the District continues to employ Sandra Dillon and now has hired an attorney to conduct negotiations. It is the Board’s responsibility to ensure the District’s budget is fiscally sound.

Relative to communication, Dr. Schwartz acknowledged that he tries to stay in touch and attend Senate meetings. He expressed his view that the administration needs to bring things to the Academic Senate. The Chancellor stated that he has established the Senate Roundtable meetings with the Academic Senate Presidents and the Classified Senate Presidents. In addition, he has been attending District Academic Senate meetings when possible. Angelica stated that she has had to learn how to work with the Board and faculty. Since the China Initiative, the faculty at West Valley College has had a reality check. That is why the Brazil initiative was brought to the Academic Senate. She emphasized that the Brazil initiative was faculty driven. It is her expectation there will be open and frank discussions and communication with faculty so that this situation can never happen again.

The Chancellor was asked when the China initiative was discussed at the Senate Roundtable meeting, why the focus was on China, and how the initiative fits under a strategic plan for recruitment. Stan replied that this District does not have an active strategic plan. The initiative was discussed at the Senate Roundtable in December, 2005, and direction was given to the two college presidents with respect to the International Students Program.

Ultimately, deep concerns were expressed relative to the way the trip was handled, where it fits into a strategic plan, and how the agenda was set on the trip, etc. It is clear that there is a communication problem. One way to avoid similar problems in the future is to have an equal number of faculty sitting on the Land Corporation’s Board of Directors to ensure participation and shared governance.

Dr. Schwartz offered to meet and discuss any issues of concern with anyone. He stated that he works very hard on behalf of the District and traveled to China for the District. The notion that he did this for some personal benefit is absurd and offensive. His only ethical issue revolves around the fact that he took the frequent flyer miles. If anyone has any questions, if anyone thinks something unethical or illegal is going on, they should ask him. The undertone of this discussion has a corrosive effect and encouraged everyone to discuss with him directly.

Trustee Polk thanked the Academic Senate for the invitation and echoed Dr. Schwartz’s intentions as stated. Regarding the China trip, he noted that he simply thought the timing was not good, although he thought the trip was important. It would have been a terrible embarrassment to this District and the City of Saratoga if the trip had been called off. It was accurately noted that the tickets were purchased prior to Board approval. Trustee Polk stated that the Chancellor, as an administrator, had to purchase the tickets. He had no other choice. Trustee Polk also stated that he has no problem with the ethics of Trustee Schwartz. He thanked the Senate once again for the opportunity to attend today’s meeting. Because of the timing and the tenor of negotiations, this situation is unfortunate and he looks forward to better times.

Trustee Lucas also thanked the Senate for the invitation and wanted everyone to know that for two years as part of his career at Los Gatos High School, he and his business partner brought in students from Southern China. On Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at Noon, he and his business partner, who currently works at DeAnza, will meet in Dr. Chong’s Office with Carol Qazi, Wanda Wong and the two college presidents. His partner will be going back to China in November with materials that are to be provided at this meeting for students who want to come to America. Trustee Lucas extended an invitation to all and anyone that wished to attend this meeting. He emphasized that this proposal will not involve any cost to the District at all. He urged that any questions be directed to him.

A Senator indicated a desire to make a motion, but due to the late hour, it was suggested that this discussion be continued at the next MC Academic Senate meeting. Alex agreed to place this item on the next agenda.

X. Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

No items were presented at today’s meeting.

XI. Future Agenda Items

No new items were introduced at today's meeting.

XII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:13 p.m. (M/S/U). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.