District Academic Senate

Unapproved Minutes

Tuesday, November 9, 2004

 

 

   I.    Organizational Matters

 

   I.1  Call to Order/Roll Call

         The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Co-Chairs Alex Braun and Vivian Lock.

 

Senators

   A

   P

Senators

   A

   P

Allen       (WVC)  Math

    X

   

Lock        (WVC) Pres/Bus

 

   X

Berlani     (WVC) Science

 

   X

Martin      (MC)  Technology

    X

 

Braun      (MC) Pres/Technology

 

   X

McKay    (MC) Communications

 

   X

Brichko   (MC)  CATA

   

   X

Musat      (MC)  Math

    X

 

Brueckner  (WVC)  Fine Arts

 

   X

Oda         (WVC) AF/Business

 

   X

Buendia-Bangle (WVC) StudtServ

    X

 

Pape        (WVC)  English

 

   X

Charland  (MC) Student Dev.

    X

   

Perlas       (MC)  Student Dev.

 

   X

Cox       (MC) Comm’l Services

   

   X

Rascov     (WVC) Business

 

   X

Cogswell (MC)  AAS

   

   X

Rath         (MC)  AF/CIT

 

   X

Dooley   (MC)  AAS

 

   X

Reed        (WVC)  Social Science

 

   X

Hannigan  (WVC) Language Arts  

 

   X

Rudy        (WVC)  PE

 

   X

Harris   (MC)  AF/Comm

   X

 

Smebye  (MC)  Comm’l Serv.

 

   X

Hasty    (WVC) Social Science

 

   X

Zeisler  (MC)  Communications

 

   X

Kashima  (MC)  ESL

 

   X

Other: J.Henderson (WVCAS)

 

   X

Kim     (WVC)  Library/LATC

   X

 

 

 

 

Laird    (MC)  Social Science

   X

 

Guests:  P.Andrews, A.DeBarling   

 

   X

Lavallo   (MC)  Math

   X

 

T.Garcia, S.Juarez, J.Patton,

   

   X

 

 

 

L.Saito

 

   X

          

  I.2   Order of the Agenda

            It was agreed (M/S/U – Brueckner/Reed) that Item III.B will be the first item of business.

 

  I.3   Approval of the Minutes

         The minutes for the May 6, 2004, meeting of the District Academic Senate were accepted and approved as submitted (M/S/P – Cox/Rudy).

 

  1.4  Announcements & Information

         No announcements were made.

 

 II.    Oral Communication from the Public

            Ana Maria deBarling referred to a resolution passed at the March 26, 2004, meeting of the District Academic Senate relative to hiring procedures.  She expressed great concern that no action has been taken on the resolution to ensure that the District is in compliance with Title 5.  She asked who is responsible for moving the resolution forward; she expressed concern that the District Academic Senate has not followed through.  Ana Maria stated that many faculty are concerned, as well as a member of the Board of Trustees.  At this time, there is a new wave of faculty hires and the recommended guidelines are not in place.  She is concerned that the District is not in compliance with Title 5. 

 

            Stephen Juarez spoke to the same issue, reiterating Ana Maria’s points.  He stated that the District Academic Senate’s resolution was issued with urgency and nothing has been done.  He referred to activities that took place last spring, stating that he had been misrepresented in a report by the MC Academic Senate President, who agreed to correct the erroneous information.  Stephen stated that he felt the adjustment made in the minutes was inadequate.  He also referred to what he defined as a “personal attack” by Vivian Lock relative to his collegiality, which he brought to ACE.  He stated that ACE reviewed his complaint and his record has been expunged. Mr. Juarez also stated that the research referred to in the DAS resolution has not been done. He asked the Senate to consider what oversight is maintained over the Academic Senate President.  He asked that the Senate review President Lock’s behavior and that ACE be asked for a definition of “collegiality.” 

 

            (Please Note: In response to the above, please be advised that the Chancellor was notified of the District Academic Senate’s resolution on April 5, 2004.  In addition, the Director of Human Resources was advised of the resolution, and on April 19, 2004, an e-mail from the Board secretary to the Senate Presidents was received indicating that a memo was received from Sandi Dillon dated April 6, 2004, regarding “District Compliance with Title 5 Equal Employment Opportunity Programs/Faculty Diversity” to be placed as an agenda item on the April 15, 2004, meeting of the Board of Trustees with attachments. Also included was a spreadsheet from the Human Resources Department, which indicated the ethnic makeup of faculty within the District.  In addition, the Academic Senate Presidents have discussed the matter directly with the Chancellor, who has directed Ms. Dillon to make every effort to comply with Title 5, and the Senate Presidents have been meeting regularly with Ms. Dillon on this matter.  The District Faculty & Staff Diversity Committee has been resurrected and has started to function and has met four times.  A subcommittee of the District Academic Senate has been charged to review and revise the existing District Faculty Hiring Policy.  The draft policy was distributed to all faculty for input, and the committee has incorporated that input where possible.  The resulting draft was presented to the Senate members at today’s meeting for consideration and direction.  See Item III.A for discussion and actions taken at today’s meeting.)

           

III.    Business

 

  B.    Consider Removal of Resolution of No Confidence in the Chancellor from the Agenda

For those who are new on the Senate, Alex explained that the District Academic Senate (DAS) passed a resolution of no confidence in Chancellor Arterberry  on April 28, 2003, for failure to follow shared governance in the preparation of the 2003/04 budget.  This failure resulted in layoff notices to a number of faculty.  Jane Patton and Linda King, the co-Chairs of the District Academic Senate at that time, drafted a Bill of Particulars on behalf of the Senate, which listed nine major issues of concern.  It was agreed that this agenda item would remain as a standing item until such time as the DAS was satisfied that the Chancellor had responded to the Bill of Particulars.  At the May 6, 2004, meeting of the DAS, it was agreed that the DAS would consider removal of the agenda item as a standing item at the next DAS meeting, which is today.

 

A brief discussion ensued relative to rescinding the motion.  It was explained that at its last meeting, the DAS had opted not to rescind the motion, but to consider removal of the agenda item as a standing item.

 

Several Senators spoke to the issue, stating their view that some items listed in the Bill of Particulars have been addressed and other issues are no longer pertinent.  Although there was general agreement that the situation is currently at a standstill, others expressed the view that there has not been any evidence or mitigating circumstances that indicate the Chancellor has changed, particularly if one considers recent actions taken by the Chancellor, i.e. Kuwait project.  This project was initiated without consultation. Some expressed the view that the Chancellor needs to demonstrate a better understanding of shared governance.  The best decisions are made with consultation. There was a brief discussion on the definitions of consultation and leadership and how they apply to the District.  One perspective is that it is the Chancellor’s role to investigate other ideas and opportunities.  Signing the Memo of Understanding with the Kuwait firm could be interpreted as an element of leadership, and bringing it back for discussion, an element of consultation.  

 

Senator Rudy stated her view that despite the passing of Bond Measure H, the morale, cohesiveness, and trust at the college is at an all time low. There is a perception that the Chancellor cannot fulfill his responsibilities according to his job description.  She referred to examples such as deleting language in the EFM&P, at the direction of the Board, after the document was adopted by the State.  Diane also referred to the treatment of retirees and their ongoing support for the college as another example; the retirees are currently considering litigation over benefits that were promised.  There appears to remain a lack of leadership, trust, cohesiveness, and respect for shared governance within the District.  Although she offered no solution, Diane asked the Senate to consider what the limitations of the Chancellor are and consider how best to empower him to lead effectively.

 

As discussion continued, it was suggested by several people that the agenda item remain as a standing item on the agenda and that it be updated.  A motion was offered (M/S – McKay/Szabados) to retain the item on the agenda, and the floor was opened for discussion. It was stated that it is important to recognize that although items that created the resolution of no confidence have passed, the spirit and underlying problems remain.   Leadership is collaborative, and that is what motivates people to action.  It was suggested that the problem may lie in the Chancellor’s ability, to communicate.  It might be helpful to ensure that everyone shares the same definitions.  Several friendly amendments were made to the original motion resulting in the following motion, which passed with one abstention (M/S/P – McKay/Szabados).

 

“that the District Academic Senate leave the resolution of no confidence in the Chancellor on the agenda as a standing item and ask the Chancellor to engage in a conversation with the District Academic Senate, or its representatives, on the definition of participatory governance and how we can work together, and consider removing the resolution as an agenda item in the Spring based on the results of the discussion on participatory governance and resulting actions.”

 

The order of the agenda was resumed.

 

   A.   Consider Senate Approval of Draft of District Faculty Hiring Policy & Process

The subcommittee of the District Academic Senate, comprised of Alex Braun, Edith Dooley, Michelle Reed, and Vivian Lock (who replaced Ron Dotson) has been working on the draft policy and process accepted by the District Academic Senate last May.  The version accepted by the DAS was distributed to all faculty at each campus and the input received has been incorporated into the document where possible.  Vivian advised that she has received input from Human Resources as well.  Those recommendations have not yet been incorporated into the document.   If the Senate approves the document today, it will then be submitted to Human Resources and the administration for review and then brought to the Board of Trustees for adoption.  Alex was asked if the faculty will have an opportunity to review the final document, and Alex reiterated that the document has been issued to all faculty and their feedback has been incorporated into the draft.

 

The Senators were given the option to either review the document and discuss it at a later date or discuss their concerns at today’s meeting.  Michelle stated that there have been few changes to the document that was accepted at the last DAS meeting.  The Senators opted to discuss it today and proceeded to review the revisions to the document, citing specific sections and language.  A major issue of contention dealt with a clause in the document under Hiring Committee Composition, that states, “In addition, a member of the District’s diversity committee, or its designee, shall/should serve on the committee as a voting member.”  One opinion was that the word “shall” implies “must,” and this could hamper the progress of hiring committees.  Alex explained that he too questions whether or not a member of a District wide diversity committee should be required on all hiring committees.  Faculty hiring falls under the purview of faculty and is one of the 11 responsibilities of the Academic Senate as outlined in Title 5.  Alex expressed his view that we should be careful about including groups outside of faculty in an area so central to the role of the Academic Senate as the faculty hiring process.  Although he understands the opposing argument  - we must rectify the situation of under-represented groups in faculty – he emphasized that the Senate must consider this area carefully.  Historically, the faculty has always been responsible for academic and professional matters.  He noted that one problem in hiring under-represented groups stems from the fact that there are disciplines in which there are very few members of under-represented groups.   It is not clear what members of the Diversity Committee would do in monitoring a faculty hiring committee.  What is the role of that person?  What will occur if there is a disagreement between the representative and other members of the committee? 

 

Senator Reed explained that it is not intended that a member of the Diversity Committee, or its designee, would hamper the hiring process.  A given department would forward a number of names to serve on a faculty hiring committee, and of those members chosen, find someone interested in making sure that the committee is balanced and that person is designated with that perspective and responsibility. The role of the District Diversity Committee would be to ensure that such a person is on the hiring committee.

 

As discussion continued, one problem reported relative to hiring under-represented groups is that the college has a limited budget for advertising, and, therefore, limits advertising to certain sources that do not necessarily reach under-represented groups. If a diverse applicant pool is required, then it is the responsibility of the college to adequately fund advertising in specific locations.  It was suggested that this be specified in the document.  Vivian reported that this matter has been discussed in the first meeting of the District Faculty & Staff Diversity Committee, and Ms. Dillon has indicated that advertisement has been expanded. 

 

Senator McKay from Mission College assured that the faculty at Mission College is always sensitive to the issue and ensures that the committees are inclusive and consider balance and diversity.  Mission College does not have a problem.  She also stated that it does not speak to her of collegiality to impose a member of an external committee as a monitor or as a participant  for any particular perspective on a hiring committee. In reality questions of procedure are the responsibility of Human Resources.  HR is legally bound to deal with the questions on diversity, inclusion, etc., and there are legal issues involved.  If there are laws to be followed, we need to get that information from the people who are obligated to provide that information. 

 

Senator Reed stated that it may not be an issue at Mission College, but she guaranteed that it is a huge problem at West Valley College. She stated further that apparently what happens at MC does not happen at WVC unless someone is monitoring the situation. If the policy does not include a representative as recommended by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, what we have is institutionalized racism happening at the college in many, though not all, of the hiring committees.  Michelle offered to provide examples. She suggested that possibly a statement that refers only to WVC could be included in the document.

 

The Senators continued to review the document and discussed the possibility of training workshops.   The issue of “sufficient diversity” was discussed and how it can be determined.  It was noted that the term is defined in Title 5.  Vivian advised that the Director of HR recommended that diversity be measured against the disciplines list received from the State Chancellor’s Office.  

 

It was clarified that the District Faculty Hiring Policy and Process is owned by the District Academic Senate, and the DAS looks to Human Resources to accomplish the objectives and provide direction relative to compliance with Title 5. Leslie Saito reported on the positive changes that have been made to the hiring process, to date, regarding forms and advertising.  Leslie asked that the DAS consider its next action in light of the future faculty hiring that will take place, particularly if the draft policy is not adopted today.  

 

In response, President Lock advised that she has been meeting regularly with the Director of Human Resources, starting last Spring, twice a month, monthly during the summer, and meeting regularly this fall, precisely to follow up with the resolution to ensure that the District is in compliance with Title 5 and to discuss the procedures that have been implemented.  She is in constant contact with the Director of HR as to what is being done in that department and Alex is apprised as well.  Vivian was asked if the District is now in compliance with Title 5.  Vivian responded that there are many points of compliance in Title 5, and the procedures relative to diversity have been addressed.  Ms. Dillon has designed forms to indicate the various diversity numbers, as well as other tasks required, and Vivian has shared this information with the Senators and Alex.   

 

Senator Hasty stated that based on the time constraints, the District Academic Senate should take some action in order to ensure that the faculty hiring that will take place in the near future is handled appropriately and in accordance with Title 5.   The following motion was made (M/S/P – Hasty/Reed):

 

“that the DAS hold an emergency meeting to ensure that the policy is in place when new faculty are hired.”   

 

It was agreed that Vivian and Alex will try to set up a teleconference and report back to the Senators.  It was also suggested that the DAS meet more often. 

 

(Please Note:  Due to a schedule conflict between the Academic Senates, as well as the schedule of some individuals, a District Academic Senate meeting could not be scheduled in December.)

 

At this point, there was a question as to whether to continue the meeting or not, based on time.  Alex offered several options, one being to continue the meeting for 15 minutes.  The Senators agreed (M/S/U).

 

 C.     Discuss the Academic Senate’s Role and Responsibility in Curriculum, Faculty Hiring, and other Relevant Academic and Professional Matters Relative to Global Education

            Jane Patton voiced her concerns relative to process regarding the Kuwait project.  She stated her view that the process blatantly ignored the letter and the spirit of participatory governance. Unlike a corporation, the faculty are partners in the institution; they are the academic experts.  When expanding programs or considering building a new campus, there cannot be a vision unless the vision includes faculty from day one, which, in the case of Kuwait, was approximately one year ago. At that point, both Senates should have been involved. This is a huge affront to faculty as professionals.  One does not make a decision, sign a memo of understanding, and potentially incur costs to the District on an academic question without consultation.  This action is viewed at the state level as the most blatant act in defiance of shared governance. The Chancellor and the Administrators have demonstrated their disrespect for faculty, and this action reflects back to the resolution of no confidence.

 

            Jane advised that there are many other concerns that she has that involve controlling curriculum, the oversight of faculty, the quality of courses, offering degrees from the colleges when there is no oversight from the colleges.  Mission College had an experience in Thailand, such as the college’s course outlines and people hired to teach classes, without oversight from the department at Mission College.  How do we hire faculty and consider equivalency? How do we evaluate faculty? The Thailand situation threatened Mission College’s accreditation. Jane offered to share any other information with Senators and expressed her appreciation for the Senate’s indulgence.

 

            Senator Hannigan voiced his disagreement with points made above.  It has been specifically stated that the Senate has to decide. He stated his view that the District is not using district funds, but is using funds provided by the Kuwait firm to conduct a feasibility study.  Once the study is complete, the Senate can then make its decision.  All the questions posed by the MC Academic Senate are valid and need to be answered, but the final decision is to be made by the Academic Senate.  Others stated that the District is indeed incurring expenses, using HR personnel to prepare the MOU, making travel plans, not to mention the time spent on this item by the District and College Senates. 

 

            Senator Pape stated his view that the metaphor of public institutions as a business model has not worked for education, and there is some question as to whether it works for business.  His understanding of the role of the Senate is that the Senate serves as an advisor to the Board of Trustees.  It is important to remember that the Chancellor ultimately serves the faculty and the students.

 

            As discussion continued, it was stated that there are two parts to this issue.  The primary issue is the process, or lack thereof, and the lack of consultation.  The DAS has addressed that issue by voting not to remove the resolution of no confidence from the agenda.  The faculty are now in the position to refuse to participate in the project or to be involved in fact-finding and participate in discussions.  In order to fix this dilemma, the answer is to enter into the discussion and participate in the fact-finding.  The Senate may opt to vote the project down, but first we must enter into the discussion and find the answers to the questions posed to the Chancellor by Alex.

 

            It was pointed out that Item C covers a broader question and the Senate discussion is revolving solely around Kuwait.  Alex responded that the agenda item was formed based on the merits of the substance, whether or not to have a third campus in Kuwait, which is part of a larger question.  What is the compelling educational purpose for any venture having to do with international or global education, including Kuwait?  We cannot answer the question relative to Kuwait, but we can probe an answer on the broader question.  

 

            Vivian reported that the Chancellor provided her and Alex with information regarding the faculty’s role and responsibility relative to this project.  The packet included information on two issues she felt were important: 1) a compliance certification from the Accreditation Association, and 2) that Broward Community College in Florida has four other campuses around the world.  The information details the faculty’s role in recruiting, includes a contract for instructional services, which refers to curriculum, oversight, and things of that nature.  These documents might provide some help to the Senate. Vivian also suggested that the Academic Senate form a subcommittee to review the material and provide some guidance to the Senate on this issue.  It was suggested that a proponent and an opponent of the project be sent to Kuwait, and Alex reported that the trip has been postponed.  

 

Due to the late hour, the remaining business items were postponed to a future meeting.

 

 D.     Consider DAS Resolution on Associate Faculty

            This item is postponed to a future meeting.

 

 E.     Consider District Program Discontinuance Policy Statement

            This item is postponed to a future meeting.

 

V.      Future Agenda Items

A.  Update Report on Status of Compliance w Title 5 Relative to Faculty Hiring Process (Reed)

 

VI.    Adjournment

            The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. (M/S/U). These minutes are respectfully submitted by Grace Hazán, Academic Senate Secretary.