Mission College Academic Senate

Ext. 5413

Unapproved  Minutes

Thursday, August 31, 2006

 

 

 

I.          Call to Order/Roll Call

            The meeting was called to order by President Catherine Cox at 2:13 p.m.

 

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Beggs      (Ext. 5188)  AAS

 

X

Martin     (Ext. 5356)  Tech

X

 

Brichko    (Ext. 5222)  CATA

  

X

Moles      (Ext. 5113)  ESL

 

X

Brodie (ASB)

     

X

Ostrander  (Ext. 5274) Stud Dev.

 

X

Cogswell (Ext. 5388)  AAS

    

     X

Paicius    (Ext. 5413)  AF/CATA

X

 

Cox   (Ext.5165)  Pres/Com Svc

 

X

Pembrook (Ext. 5275)  Com Serv.

 

X

Hernas (Ext. 5169)  Com Serv.

    

X

Perlas      (Ext. 5041)  Stud.Dev.

 

X

Juncker    (Ext.5229)  Comm

 

X

Rounds    (Ext. 5288)  Com.

 

X

Kashima  (Ext. 5319)  ESL

 

X

Thickpenny (Ext. 5287 ) CATA

 

X

Laird      (Ext. 5186)  Soc Sci

 

X

Ting       (Ext. 5330)  Math

 

X

Lavallo    (Ext. 5399)  Math

X

 

 

 

 

Guests: Aaron Malchow, Buck Polk, Ellen McAlister

 

X

Guests: Jack Lucas, Frances Lucas, Dona Boatright, Harriett Robles, Jonathan Brennan

 

X

 

II.                Approval of Minutes for August 10, 2006 – Postponed to the next meeting as the minutes are not yet transcribed.

 

III.             Order of the Agenda.- no changes were made to the order of the agenda at this time.

 

  IV.     Oral Communication from the Public  - Jim Brodie brought to the attention of the Senate a situation facing the ASB, in which students wishing to participate in student government are required to take a class, which places a financial burden on some students and discourages participation.  ASB bylaws have been changed by due process to no longer require this class, but the ASB advisor has informed the students that they must take it nonetheless.  The item will be agendized at a future meeting.  Trustee Lucas thanked the Senate for recognizing his wife, and she was welcomed as a member of the public.

 

V.        Information & Announcements (College & District) – The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is having a conference next week (September 6) at Santa Clara University; any faculty wishing to participate should contact the Office of Instruction.  

VI.       Administrative Business/Actions/Appointments  

A.     Curriculum Committee Report (Ensminger) – There was no report at this meeting.

B.   Staff Recognition
C.   Committee Appointments

1.   Hiring Committee for President of Mission College – A call was sent out for this committee, and nine faculty responded.  President Cox indicated that she would also be willing to serve if appointed by the Senate.  Discussion ensued as to the composition of this hiring committee.  Current administrative hiring procedures call for a committee composition of 4 administrators, 2 faculty, 2 classified, 1 student, 1 community member, for a total of ten members.  President Cox, following Senate direction at the end of Spring ’06, expressed to the Chancellor the request that faculty comprise at least 50% of the hiring committee membership.  Without revising the procedures and going through the approval process that is unlikely to happen. 
      However, Albert Moore, special assistant to the Chancellor, consulted with Stan and came up with a suggestion that we either appoint three faculty to the committee, with one of the three being a division chair, or we put four faculty on and one additional administrator would be appointed (for a total of four faculty and five administrators).  Cathy pointed out that it was possible that there would not be five administrators willing to serve on this committee, and furthermore that the employees and students would still outnumber the administrators on the committee.  Her recommendation was that the Senate select four faculty, including at least one division chair, and accept the compromise.  It seems as if Stan wants to work with us on this but wants to maintain the existing procedures.

      Discussion followed on how many faculty should be appointed and whether to accept one of the compromise proposals regarding the composition of the hiring committee. Some Senators felt that we should not compromise since the procedures were not approved by the Senate. The Behavioral Objectives do have an item addressing this issue.  The procedures were approved by District Council, however, in spite of opposition by the Academic Senate, and they are the procedures in use at the present time.  The question is how many faculty to appoint?  Several comments expressed the opinion that shared governance was not followed when the current procedures were adopted against Senate recommendation. The Senators wanted further information about past Presidential hiring committees and procedures. Cathy said she would try to get this information.  It was moved to postpone this issue for one week. (M/S/U Cogswell/Thickpenny).

2.      Hiring Committee for Director of Evening, Weekend & Emergency Programs & Services – It was pointed out that the same considerations might apply to this committee as to the Presidential hiring committee.  However, the committee composition specified in the hiring procedures is different for this level of administrator.  There were not sufficient names to appoint at this time, and the Senate requested a second call for volunteers.

 

D.    President’s Report – President Cathy Cox distributed her report to the Senators; a copy is appended to these minutes.  She reviewed the main issues detailed in the report.  The Senate directed her to call for volunteers to sit on the Student Equity Committee so that it can begin work when the current district situation improves.  

E.     State Academic Senate Update – Jane Patton sent a report on activities at the State Academic Senate, which will be forwarded to the Senate electronically.  It will also be appended to these minutes.

At this point, the order of the agenda was changed to cover item VIII. A., “Accreditation Progress Report”

 

VIII.   New Business

A.     Accreditation Progress Report – Interim President Harriett Robles presented a draft of the accreditation progress report developed to respond to recommendation 2 of the accreditation report: the issue of student recruitment, retention and success, and also staff diversity.  A copy of the report was distributed to Senators.  Harriett noted that colleges all over the state have been waiting for the State to develop a model student equity plan, which was only issued in late June. It identifies underrepresented groups and goals for representation. The college needs to relate this information to our students, and develop strategies to address recruitment and retention problems. Daniel Peck is currently analyzing data from the District to develop the statistics needed for our plan, and should be done by November. 

      A decision is needed on whether this issue should be addressed by the College or at the District level. The first draft of the Student Equity Plan should be ready by Spring 2007.  The accreditation progress report needs to go to the Board for their approval prior to being submitted to the State on October 15.  Cathy pointed out to the Senate that she had already informed Harriett that under the terms of the District Academic Senate resolution passed in February, the Senate would not be able to sign off on this report, but that Harriett had still wanted to present it to the Senate so they would be able to discuss the topic.

      Questions were asked concerning the advisability of handling this issue at the District level due to the differences between the student bodies, and Harriett clarified that there are actually two plans.  The student equity plan was being developed separately at each college but that the staff diversity plan might better be handled by the District, since staff and faculty are District employees.

      Cathy also advised the Senate that the Accrediting Commission for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) was contacted over the summer about the District AS resolution and its possible effect on accreditation participation by faculty, and that the ASCCC will not take that into account.  We are responsible for completing our accreditation process.  Jonathan Brennan is the Senate liaison for accreditation, and as he has 50% release time he will continue to work on this.  He presented a timetable for the self-study process.  An archive of committee reports and minutes is being developed with the help of IS to facilitate the self-study.  The final, finished self-study needs to go to the Board next September so that it will reach the State on time for March 2008.  Jonathan requested guidance from the Senate on how to proceed, given the current situation in the District.  Senators were asked to go back to their divisions to discuss accreditation and prepare to give him guidance.  A Senator commented that much depends on the outcomes of the DAS meeting on October 3, and whether there is a perception on the part of faculty that the Board and administration have begun to change their attitudes and behaviors.  Trustee Lucas commented that it takes a tremendous amount of work on the part of both the accreditation committee and the colleges to make the process work.

At this point, the regular order of the agenda was resumed.

             

VII.     Old Business

A.        Update on District Resolution

1.      Progress Report – President Cox reported that she had presented the Behavioral Objectives to the Board at their August 17 meeting, and the Chancellor indicated in District Council yesterday that he would talk with the Board and ask them what action they wished to take.  The technical assistance visit last week was well-attended.  She took care to point out the need for Senators to be clear with their constituents that the outcomes of negotiations are an ACE issue, and that the Senate is only looking at the process used in the negotiations to reach those decisions, which the Senate is using as a measure of the climate in the District and the respect shown to different groups.  A question was asked about whether the Board had responded to the Behavioral Objectives, but there has not been a regular Board meeting since August 17. However, without response from the Board there is no way to assess movement by the Board except by looking at the progress of negotiations.
        The Behavioral Objectives gave very clear expectations to the Board and the Administration, and included several actions that could happen before October 3.  It was stated that the Senate should ask for the planned response to each objective by a particular date.  Trustee Stampolis asked whether the Chancellor had indicated that he would be agendizing this for Board discussion, and Cathy said she was not sure.  Trustee Stampolis pointed out that this item could not be discussed without being agendized, since it did not fall under the limited areas that could legally be discussed in closed session.
        The Senate directed President Cox to discuss with the Chancellor each week the progress made by the Administration and the Board in this matter, and further to place a discussion of this topic on the Board agenda.  It was also suggested that the Senate should be very clear about to what degree objectives need to be met, and what the consequences will be if they are not met. 

2.      Discuss Technical Assistance Visit – The report from the Technical Assistance Team may be ready as soon as a couple of weeks, which would place it prior to the deadline for the District resolution.  A question was asked by one Senator about the Board’s portion of the technical assistance visit following the presentation on participatory governance, and whether there was “buy-in” on the part of the Board members.  Senators who attended that session commented on “cluster meetings” that were mentioned, where several trustees at a time meet with the Chancellor for education and discussion on issues.  Trustee Stampolis addressed the issue of agendizing issues for the Board, and pointed out that trustees have no special right to agendize items for discussion.  Cathy was again directed to attempt to get an item on the Board agenda for their September 7 meeting.  At this point, a motion to extend discussion by 5 minutes was passed (M/S/U Cogswell/Juncker)  Cathy commented that when the District Academic Senate meets to consider the resolution again, it is unrealistic to expect perfect agreement in every area, but it is not unreasonable to expect progress. A Senator responded that it was also reasonable to expect a response from the Board.  Trustee Lucas asked that the Board be presented with a list of the concerns, and what progress has been made in each area so far, so that they can discuss them.  Senators would like to see the Board take initiative, but if it will make things easier the AS President will take the lead on this.

       

VIII.   New Business

A.     Discuss and Consider Senate Goals for the Current Year and Strategies for Conducting Effective Meetings – President Cox began discussion of this item by noting  that each Senator should have a binder with essential information about the Senate, which normally is updated for new Senators by the Senate Secretary. Some Senators may have received their binders directly from their predecessors, without being updated.  Also, there are documents in the binder that need updating each year.  Cathy distributed a calendar of upcoming Academic Senate events and meetings to the Senators.  She also gave a general overview of expectations of Senators such as reading the Senate Rostrum to keep current on changes at the State level.  Some issues from last year still need to be addressed this year – program review, a reconsideration of the faculty hiring prioritization procedures, raising the graduation requirements in Math, etc.

      Cathy also discussed changes in procedures for conducting meetings to bring them more in line with Robert’s Rules of Order and facilitate timely discussion of items, including not letting people speak a second time until everyone has had a first turn to speak and also using a “Pro/Con” format for speakers when necessary for resolutions or motions.

      A Senator asked about the possibility of amending the MCAS constitution and bylaws to update them, but this is only one possible goal for the year.  This item will be carried over to next week. 

 

IX.      Correspondence, Publications, & Announcements

 

X.        Future Agenda Items

A.       Consider Graduation Requirements w Respect to Mathematics

B.      Discuss Review & Amendment of MCAS Constitution & Bylaws re: Standing Comm.

C.      Develop Process for Granting Priority Registration

D.      Review and Revise Full Time Faculty Hire Ranking Process Policy Endorsed by the MCAS

E.       Consider Proposed Change to District Budget Process

F.       Discuss Possibility of Pursuing Vote of No Confidence in the Chancellor & the Board

 

  XI.     Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 4:06 (M/S/U Cogswell/Beggs). These notes are respectfully submitted by Catherine Cox, Academic Senate President.


Mission College Academic Senate

President’s Report

August 31, 2006

 

 

Welcome back to a new semester!

 

There are a number of major issues that need to be dealt with and/or decided upon by the MC Academic Senate during the coming semester.  Many of them are already floating about in various committees, and I’m summarizing some of them below.

 

Student Equity Plan:  I’ve been contacted by Student Services.  Jim Bracy wishes to convene a committee to revise the Student Equity plan (dated 3/05).  He is requesting two faculty representatives plus the Academic Senate president to sit on this committee, and would like a response by 9/11.  My recommendation is that the Senate advise Student Services that although the President may sit on the committee if there is sufficient release time to cover the meetings, additional faculty representation will have to wait until the District Senate resolution is lifted.  I further recommend that we identify who will be representing the Senate so that if and when the resolution is lifted, the committee can begin work immediately.

 

Budget:  One issue from the past that has resurfaced is the “piloting” of the Activity-Based Costing model (ABC model) for budgeting.  This budget model, which is strongly supported at West Valley College and by the Facilities office here at Mission, would affect the process by which money is allocated for supplies, duplicating and hourly positions in departments.  It does not address the overall budget allocation model.  While there has been strong opposition to the model here at Mission, plans for a pilot run with a few departments are proceeding. 


I believe that it is essential for us to have a couple of departments participate in this pilot.  Not participating means faculty are abrogating the authority we have under AB 1725 to participate in the development of budget processes – a key part of the “Ten Plus One” of shared governance.  If the model is flawed, we must find that out before it is implemented, and we must give our input.  Hospitality Management has already agreed to participate in the pilot.  One more department is needed at this time.  Any interested department should contact the President’s office for more information.        

 

Equivalency:  Sandi Dillon, who has been hired as an HR consultant by the District, has been working on updating the equivalency procedures.  She has added the procedures for the Senate to update the minimum qualifications list, included the procedure for developing the necessary Board agenda item, and clarified that equivalency is granted for an entire discipline and not merely for a single course (in other words, if equivalency is granted to a faculty member we are saying they are qualified to teach any class in that discipline).  She is also developing a new proposed Board policy on the Board’s involvement in equivalency decisions.  Currently, the Equivalency committee is reviewing the proposed policies and procedures.  They will be brought through the participatory governance process and reviewed by the Academic Senates of both colleges before they are adopted. 

 

 

SHARED GOVERNANCE AND OTHER MEETINGS

 

As usual, please remember that these are only my notes and not official minutes of the meetings.

 

MISSION COLLEGE FACILITIES TASK FORCE, 8/17

·         Primarily an organizational meeting to discuss process for dealing with the seismic facilities issues at Mission.

·         The key decision made was that by mid-October, the college and District need to come to some consensus about what we do not want to do – which alternatives are not going to be considered.  That will allow us to narrow our focus and begin the planning process for the future.

 

LAND CORP. BOARD MTNG, 8/17

·         Major item on the agenda was the carryover of funding for items that were approved but not completed last year.  Items approved in March were carried over due to the lack of time they had to complete work.  Items approved earlier in the year were considered separately.

·         The carryover of money for the International Student Program was one of the items that was considered separately.  Director Schwartz spoke out against allowing the carryover, saying “The project has a terrible history” and calling it “a shell game”. Director Stampolis wanted a full proposal to come forward with timelines before allocating money. The initial vote of the Directors was to deny the carryover. However, when I was allowed to speak up I pointed out that the concerns of the MC Academic Senate were not with the actual program but with the processes used to allocate and expend the money.  It was also mentioned that both college presidents and the Chancellor have a written plan to expend the money.  The Directors agreed to carry over the remaining money.

 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 8/17

 

DBAC, 8/23

·         West Valley held a forum last March to brainstorm on the topic of increasing enrollment, and a 15-page handout was distributed listing ideas that were suggested.

·         A suggestion was made that faculty keep a list of where/when other sections of their courses are meeting, so that they can immediately refer students to other sections of the same course if they do not have room in their classes.

·         IS is moving finance budget reports off of PARIS and onto WebAdvisor, using the “My Budget” module, to ensure tighter security of financial data.  Budget data on PARIS will not be updated for the current year (06/07) – you must use WebAdvisor!

·         Users will need to have a General Ledger (GL) security profile to login.  Currently, each user will be restricted to viewing the accounts set up in that profile – their own, and those subordinate to them.  Eventually (in 6 months or so?) this will be expanded.  A training packet is available on PARIS. 

 

SPECIAL BOARD MEETING, 8/24

·         The specific purpose of this meeting was to listen to the presentation by the Technical Assistance Team from the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) and the Community College League of California (CCLC).  The meeting was well-attended, the presentation to the Board on shared governance was informative, and the discussion following was frank and intense.  The team took copious notes about everything that was said by participants, and I believe their report will be very informative when it comes back to us in a few weeks.

 

DC COUNCIL, 8/28

·         Arlene Atondo gave information about using WebAdvisor for online grading – it’s definitely beginning this term, for ALL classes.  Faculty can log into WebAdvisor from any internet computer using their WebID number (initials of first & last name followed by the Datatel ID number).  The password is their six-digit birthdate (mmddyy).  Online grading will be available all semester and will close for the term one week after the end of the semester.

·         There was quite a bit of discussion about the overall need for training of faculty, in particular,  on the many different enterprise-level programs the college uses to support instruction – WebAdvisor, Datatel, Curricunet, Classtracks, and others. 

 

GAP, 8/30

·         Enrollment is looking positive as of yesterday – about 100 FTES higher than this approximate time last year.

·         Regarding the Mission facilities issues, Harriett favors a multi-pronged approach to gathering opinions from faculty and staff.  She wants to visit most of the major constituent group meetings over the next few weeks to discuss the issue.  My recommendation is to agendize this topic as an information only item at the AS meeting for 9/7, ask Senators to take it back to their Divisions for discussion, and then to re-agendize it for further discussion and a possible motion with our recommendation as a body in early October.