District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, September 15, 2005

I. Organizational Matters

I.1 Call to Order/Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 2:08p.m.by Co-Chairs Alex Braun and Angelica Buendia-Bangle. The meeting opened with the introduction of Senators and a welcome to all.

Senators	A	P	Senators	A	P
Beggs (MC) AAS		X	Mingione (WVC) AF/Bus		X
Berlani (WVC) Science	X		Moles (MC) ESL		X
Braun (MC) Pres/Technology		X	Nash (WVC) Student Services		X
Brichko (MC) CATA		X	Ostrander (MC) Student Services		X
Brueckner (WVC) Fine Arts		X	Pape (WVC) English		X
Buendia-Bangle (WVC) StudtServ		X	Perlas (MC) Student Dev.		X
Burzynski (WVC) Math		X	Rascov (WVC) Business		X
Cogswell (MC) AAS			Rounds (MC) Communications		X
Cox (MC) Commercial Serv.		X	Rudy (WVC) PE		X
Hannigan (WVC) Language Arts		X	Shue (WVC) AAS	X
Juncker (MC) Communications		X	Smebye (MC) Comm’l Serv.		X
Kashima (MC) ESL		X	Szabados (MC) CATA		X
Kelly (WVC) Social Science		X	Rudy (WVC) PE		X
Laird (MC) Social Science	X		Ting (MC) Math	X
Lavallo (MC) Math		X	Other: J.Henderson (WVCAS)		X
					X
Guests: S.Arterberry, W.Ellis,		X	Guests: P.Hartley, M.Knowles,		X
P.Mancini, L.Schriebstein,		X	J.Schwartz, P.Stokke		X

I.2 Approval of the Minutes

The minutes for the May 12, 2005, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P – Hannigan/Szabados).

I.3 Order of the Agenda

Angelica clarified that Item II.2 is intended as an information item only for today’s meeting. The Senators agreed to approve the order of the agenda with that clarification (M/S/U – Burzynski/Kashima).

1.4 Announcements & Information

Patricia Stokke introduced herself as the new District Staff Development Coordinator. She stated that she is working on a comprehensive training plan for both colleges and the District and will coordinate with the college Staff Development Coordinators. Pat welcomed any questions, suggestions, or invitations to meet. Pat’s office is located at West Valley College (Ext. 2151) and she intends to visit Mission College periodically.

II. Business

II.1 Update Report on Adopted Full-Time Faculty Hiring Policy and Procedures

Angelica reported that in August the Board of Trustees approved the District Full-Time Faculty Hiring Policy and Procedure as adopted by the District Academic Senate. She advised that the next step is for the Academic Senate Presidents to coordinate with the Director of Human Resources to ensure that the procedure manual is consistent with the procedures as outlined in the adopted document. Angelica thanked the Senate members for their patience and endurance during the development of this policy. Alex expressed his appreciation to Chancellor Arterberry for presenting the adopted document positively to the Board.

Relative to the portions of the document that were deleted and were to be addressed at a future date, it was explained that additional discussion will take place in the future at a District Academic Senate meeting.

II.2 Review, Discuss, and Provide Feedback on District Mission Statement Draft

Angelica acknowledged the Chancellor for his flexibility in permitting the Academic Senate Presidents to revisit the draft document of the District’s Mission statement. The committee will meet after the draft is discussed further at District Council. The deadline for feedback is September 21, 2005, and the draft will then be discussed District-wide in accordance with shared governance procedures.

II.3 Consider Global Education as it relates to:

a. District’s past attempts at global education

b. Current status of global education/other initiatives

c. Kuwait Project

Angelica started the discussion by stating that the intent of today’s presentations is to inform new Senators and refresh the memory of continuing Senators, as well as to gain additional information in response to the concerns expressed in past discussions, particularly as they relate to the Kuwait proposal. It is intended that the goal of today’s discussion will result in the Senate providing clear direction to the District as to whether or not to approve the proposed feasibility study on Kuwait.

Alex presented the following chronological history on the Kuwait proposal in an attempt to capture the highlights of main events relative to the proposal based on Alex’s recollection and documents in his possession.

1. Spring 2004

Bob Jensen was appointed interim President of West Valley College and he brings with him idea of a Kuwaiti campus of West Valley College based on prior contacts with representatives of Al-Jeel, Al-Jaddad Educational Institute, Inc. in Kuwait.

2. April 2004

Mr. Rashad Salem Ali Al-Salem Al-Rasheed, Chairman and C.E.O. of Al Jeel Al Jaddad Educational Institute makes formal proposal to West Valley College to establish a community college in Kuwait (A.A./A.S. Business Administration). Asks for a memorandum of understanding from West Valley in order to proceed with the project.

3. May 12, 2004

Chancellor Arterberry responds favorably to proposal and welcomes further discussions.

4. July/August 2004

Visitation by representatives of Al Jeel, Al Jaddad to West Valley College to review proposal and discuss objectives.

5. August 17, 2004

Administrative Memorandum of Understanding signed by District Executives to Al Jeel Al Jaddad specifying conditions for feasibility study and formation of partnership to provide transfer and technical education classes for students in Kuwait.

6. September 2004

Kuwait project discussed by Mission College Academic Senate. Many questions were raised regarding why MCAS was not involved at the inception and the general efficacy of the Kuwait project in light of similar Thailand project at Mission College in 1992/4.

7. September 13, 2004

MCAS President issues letter to Chancellor Arterberry asking a number of questions about the Kuwait project in light of questions raised by Mission College faculty. Letter read to Board of Trustees in October/ November 2004.

8. October/ November 2004

Kuwait project discussed by District Academic Senate. Same issues surfaced regarding Kuwait as Mission College Academic Senate.

9. October 2004 to April 2005

Kuwait project lies dormant pending approval by Kuwaiti Ministry of Education for Al Jeel Al Jaddad to proceed with project.

10. April/May 2005

Al Jeel Al Jaddad given green light by Kuwaiti Ministry of Education – sends $209,000.00 to the District to finance feasibility analysis and project start up costs. Funds held in restrictive account. Discussions begin regarding the need to obtain a “Substantive Change” from Accrediting Commission for California Community Colleges necessary to proceed with the project.

11. May 12, 2005

Telephone conference with Dr. William Green, Director of International Education at Broward Community College, Florida. A number of questions were asked and answered with respect to specific, practical issues and concerns about an out-of-country college campus. Broward has a number of campuses around the world.

12. May 23, 2005

EMT meeting to discuss requirements for substantive change. Telecon with Accrediting Commission representative to review specific requirements. Academic Senate approval, among other things, is required.

13. June 2, 2005

Chancellor Arterberry issues an update letter to Mr. Faisal Al-Mudhaf of Al Jeel Al Jaddad regarding the Substantive Change Proposal. A site visit may be necessary as part of the Substantive Change Proposal.

14. July 11, 2005

At an EMT meeting, Chancellor Arterberry indicated his intention to update and inform the Board of Trustees regarding the Kuwait project at their second meeting in Fall 2005 and that the project was pushed back to 2007. He also indicated the need for a site visit to Kuwait. Al Jeel Al Jaddad has also requested that ESL classes be provided. The possibility of providing non-credit ESL classes through the Workplace Resource Learning Center at Mission College was also discussed. The Chancellor agreed to delay his address to the Board on the Kuwait project pending the decision of the District Academic Senate on this project.

Angelica added that it is her understanding that the Academic Senate Presidents were involved in some of the conversations that took place on Kuwait. She took office on June 1, 2005, and she acknowledged that President Hartley and Chancellor Arterberry have treated her with the utmost professional courtesy. Angelica reported that there is concern on both campuses relative to equity in that other global education initiatives that have been proposed, historically, have not received support. Many wonder why Kuwait is an acceptable proposal when other initiatives have been rejected. She noted one major difference with Kuwait is that funding has been made available to conduct a feasibility study. Angelica urged the Senators to seriously consider whether or not to educate and inform the faculty and administration via the feasibility study. It was emphasized that approval of the study does not mean approval of the project. At this time, the floor was turned over to the Chancellor for his comments.

Chancellor Arterberry acknowledged the presence of Trustee Schwartz and President Hartley and thanked Alex for the historical chronology. He opened his statements acknowledging the primary role of the Academic Senate and faculty in program development. He stated that part of his role as Chancellor is to seek out additional resources for the District to use to conduct business and then step back. Referring to the rejection of other initiatives, he noted that this would have to have been before he became Chancellor. He has not rejected any proposals of this nature.

He affirmed that the Kuwait idea was brought to the District by Interim President Jensen at the end of his stay at West Valley College. Dr. Jensen had visited Kuwait shortly before he left the college, some time in May. The Academic Senate Presidents became involved in the discussions during a visit from the Kuwait group. The Senate Presidents indicated their concern that the Memo of Understanding (MoU) did not include any terms relative to faculty, and specific language was added to the MoU. For example, faculty hired will have to meet the state and/or the District’s minimum requirements and the curriculum will have to meet the colleges’ curriculum standards. He noted that Broward College sends a team of faculty and administrators every year to conduct a site visit to monitor programs, progress, and compliance.

The Senators were provided with a packet of pertinent materials, including a copy of the MoU, the questions posed by the MCAS, copies of letters on the subject, as well as copies of letters to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges pertaining to the “substantive change” proposal.

Chancellor Arterberry continued, acknowledged the questions sent to him by the Mission College Academic Senate (MCAS). He noted that all the questions have an academic focus. He met with both Senate Presidents to discuss the issues, and a conversation was held with Dr. Green of Broward Community College in Florida, a college that has several campuses in other countries. Many of the questions were directed to Dr. Green. The primary response is that faculty have full responsibility in terms of faculty hiring and curriculum development.

The next step was to contact Barbara Beno, Executive Director of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The District was then directed to Lily Owyang, the ACCJC’s consultant on substantive change proposals. A group was composed of each college’s Vice President of Instruction, the two college Presidents, the two Academic Senate Presidents, the two Classified Senate Presidents, and the group met with Lily Owyang. (Chancellor Arterberry noted that, unfortunately, the MC Classified Senate President was not able to attend any of the meetings.) The discussions indicated that the District would have to take the following steps:

1. Review the substantive change proposal in the accreditation standard.

2. Review steps the District has to take in order to submit a substantive change proposal.

3. Review the contract relationship with a non-regional accredited organization.

4. Pay close attention to the principles of good practice in overseas international education programs for non-US nationals.

The Chancellor continued, as one reviews the documents, the significant role of the Academic Senate in the process becomes clear. Hence, the feasibility review discussion will necessarily heavily involve the faculty. The above information was provided to Kuwait and the tasks that needed to be completed by them were identified, as well as those of the District. Upon realization in Kuwait that these tasks would mean greater involvement, the project was scheduled for 2007, in order to provide ample time for a facility to be built. A trip to Kuwait will be necessary at some point in order to ensure that the facility being built will meet the required specifications.

Although there are many such projects throughout the country, there are no community colleges in California that currently have campuses in other countries. This proposal will provide this District with the opportunity to branch out into other parts of the world. The District has been given $209,000 to determine if the project is feasible. The Chancellor also emphasized that the project cannot move forward without the approval of the ACCJC. This is a golden opportunity to work together. The Chancellor thanked the Senators for the opportunity to bring this information to the Senate, and expressed his hope that the Academic Senate will support the proposal for a feasibility study. The discussion was opened to the floor.

During a lengthy discussion, a majority of Senators indicated their support for the feasibility study in order to gain more information. It was stated that this could provide an opportunity to use education as a tool for democracy, as well as provide the opportunity to develop a vehicle for expanding unity in the world. People from other countries would come, exchange and share ideas. It was suggested that an independent consultant be hired to conduct the feasibility study, particularly in light of Mission College’s past experience with the Thailand project. There are many questions that only a feasibility study can answer.

Some of the concerns that were expressed dealt with the unresolved issues within the District relative to negotiations and the lack of trust in the promises made by the administration. An indication of future behavior is past behavior. The District’s problems need to be addressed. An opposing view expressed is that there will always be some sort of problem that needs to be addressed, but this is an opportunity to spend someone else’s money to determine if such a proposal is feasible. Other concerns referred to the fact that faculty are currently working to contract, and many may not have the time needed to devote to the issue. Another concern is that the discussions took place only with the Academic Senate Presidents, not the Academic Senates. It was strongly recommended that in the future such issues must be brought to the District Academic Senate and must require approval of that body before any actions take place.

The following specific questions and major concerns were raised:

1. What students will be able to attend the school in Kuwait?

2. What will be the financial investment of the District?

3. Consider differences in the work ethic between the U.S.A. and Kuwait.

4. Consider logistics in Kuwait.

5. Consider management concerns.

6. Will the Kuwait campus maintain the “open access” policy of California community colleges?

7. There is an assumption that if the feasibility student indicates that the project should not move forward because of an accreditation and/or legal issue, the District is not obliged to continue. Does that then mean that the District will move forward as a committed project if the feasibility study is positive? This needs to be clarified.

8. Any proposal must be brought to the District Academic Senate for further discussion and approval if the feasibility study is positive.

As discussion continued, the question of expending the $209,000 was raised. The Chancellor indicated that the $209,000 is considered seed money, some of which will be used to hire a consultant to work with the ACCJC and for the feasibility study. If the study results in a negative response, it is expected that the Kuwait faction will understand and recognize why the District was not permitted to move forward. $209,000 is not a great deal of money for the Kuwaitis. The Chancellor’s comments regarding the financial viability was interpreted then that there will never be a negative budget impact for the District. The Chancellor stated that if the District establishes a program, there will be cost sharing and revenue sharing. Evidence has indicated that colleges that participate in such programs have gained significant revenue for the colleges. The project is intended to be self-sufficient and a revenue source for the District.

President Hartley stated that if the District is not able to move forward with the project, Kuwait will go to another college. Many countries are discovering the community college concept, which is an American institution, and they are looking for ways to establish campuses via the existing system. Trustee Schwartz reported a summary of the Board’s discussion on this issue, stating, aside from the global education aspects, the Board sees this opportunity as a chance to substantially increase the amount of revenue the District has to work with.

As discussion continued, it was noted that the Kuwait government has donated $100 million to the U.S. for the victims of Katrina. In line with the subject of Katrina, it was noted that the legislature passed emergency legislation allowing for victims of Katrina to enroll in California’s community college classes. Which colleges will undertake this task is yet to be determined.

Discussion veered to whether or not the campus will be a District campus. The Chancellor explained that a district cannot be accredited, and such a campus would have to fall under the umbrella of one or both colleges. He emphasized that the cost and revenue has to be shared with both colleges. The Chancellor was asked, besides the consultant, who will spear head the feasibility study, who else will serve and how will they be chosen. The Chancellor responded that thus far the two college Presidents, the two Vice Presidents of Instruction, the two Academic Senate Presidents, and the two classified Senate Presidents are the primary people involved. The Vice Chancellor will be included because of finance. There have been some suggestions to add additional people to the body, possibly a Student Services representative.

The following motion was made (M/S – Kashima/Hannigan):

“that the District Academic Senate approve the feasibility study.”

A motion to amend the above motion was made and discussed (M/S – Cox/Szabados). The intent of the motion was to clarify to the college community that the Senate is merely approving the feasibility study in order to ensure that an impartial and even-handed study is conducted, and that the Senate is not approving the project itself. After some discussion, a call for the question passed unanimously (M/S/U – Pape/Hannigan), and the amending motion failed. A second amending motion failed for lack of a second. A call for the question on the original motion passed (M/S/P – Hannigan/Kelly), and the above motion to approve the feasibility study passed.

Discussion continued. Alex summarized the following points that need to be made clear:

1. The objectives of the study.

2. The objectives of the project.

3. The involvement of the Academic Senate in the feasibility study.

4. The standards that are to be met to let us know whether or not to move forward with

the project.

5. Remain mindful of the implications this project will have on the District.

The following motion was presented for the Senate’s consideration and passed unanimously (M/S/U – Cox/Cogswell) :

“that the District Academic Senate revisit this issue to discuss parameters for a successful feasibility study either jointly or in separate meetings.”

The Chancellor closed the discussion stating that this can be an outstanding proposal if everyone works together.

III. Future Agenda Items

No new items were added at today’s meeting.

IV. Adjournment

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