The meeting was called to order 2:20 p.m.

No announcements were made at today's meeting.

There was no oral communication from the public at today's meeting.

Clo Hampton, President of ACE and Doug Campbell, Chief Negotiator for ACE reported on current academic events relative to ACE, particularly the evaluation process and forms. Clo advised that ACE is endeavoring to reduce the faculty evaluation forms to one form. She reported that ACE has completed the first part of performance evaluation, and currently is working on evaluations for non-tenured faculty. A Forms Committee will be convened to review and complete the forms.

Doug stated that the rewrite for Article 26.a) has been completed. The intent is to make the process simpler and lighten the workload for faculty. One way to accomplish that is to establish an "exemplary" status for faculty. This would involve one class visitation and no student body evaluations in the off years. The idea is to focus evaluation efforts on tenure review and areas of concern. The administration has instituted two "needs to improve" categories: 1) for academic reasons, which means classroom issues, and 2) collegiality, committee work, institutional duties. When one is placed on "needs to improve" status for category 1), the instructor will have one year to resolve the listed concerns in order to attain satisfactory status or they will be given an "unsatisfactory." ACE has taken a strong position that faculty should not be placed in unsatisfactory or dismissal status based on the second category, which refers to faculty members who do absolutely nothing. However, there will be a penalty. Those in the second category will not be able to apply for Sabbatical Leave, PG&D, summer school, and/or overload. Clo explained that both the administration and many faculty members are in favor of some form of penalty for those who do not participate in the colleges’ and/or district’s affairs.

The council is currently rewriting Article 26.b), the Tenure Review portion of the article. Doug suggested that faculty currently or recently involved in the tenure review process e-mail their impressions of the process to an ACE representative. It was suggested that ACE contact new faculty currently going through the process to get their impressions as well. Jim stated that ACE has kept him and Dianne apprised of the rewrites as they progress, and the Senate has strongly emphasized that the contract language should reflect that Tenure Review Teams are to be formed by the faculty. Doug stated that he is well aware of all the complaints relative to the forms and asked that any suggestions or models for forms be forwarded to him.

During discussion, it was stated that only the summary ends up in the faculty member's personnel file. The reason for duplication of the form is to ensure consistency and to provide information for the instructor. It is also important for successive evaluation teams to be able to review past evaluations. Those are maintained in the instruction office. They are not part of the official personnel record. Jim stated that there is language in Title 5 that requires a peer review process as part of the evaluation process.

At this time, Don Cordero, Department Chair of the Counseling Department at Mission College stated that today’s visit from the counselors was prompted by a recent joint meeting of the WVC and MC Counselors. Don acknowledged that this is primarily an ACE issue, because the primary concern revolves around salary. However, there are some academic overtones to this issue. Associate Faculty Counselors within the district receive the lowest faculty pay rate within the valley. Our neighboring districts are paying adjunct faculty between $35-45/hour; the WVMCC District's pay is approximately $22/hour. Don acknowledged that ACE is working on the problem and there has been movement in that area, but WVC particularly is having great difficulty retaining their faculty. One major reason, aside from the pay rate, is that there is a changing landscape of requirements - prerequisites and corequisites have come into play as a result of content review and transfer issues are becoming more complicated. In addition, since articulation has been computerized statewide, it allows students to access databases that were not available to them in the past. This prompts more questions. It is important to have some continuity of knowledgeable adjunct faculty. The quality of advisement is important, and he urged that the hourly rate paid to our Associate Faculty be examined very carefully in the near future. He reiterated and emphasized that this is an issue the counseling departments at both colleges feel strongly about. An ancillary concern is that the hourly rate for full-time counselors, librarians, and non-instructional faculty has remained the same for a number of years. This also effects current full-time faculty; they will not teach an overload because of pay rate and go to another district because of higher pay scale.

Doug stated that ACE is very much aware of the situation and is attempting to resolve the problem. He pointed out that last year ACE delayed the contract settlement in order to obtain additional money for Associate Faculty. Eventually, they were able to shift over to a pro-rata basis to get them an extra 2% last year and an extra 2% for this year and next year. In addition, they have asked for an additional 20% on Schedule E for Counselors, Librarians, and non-Instructional Faculty. Doug expressed his appreciation to the visiting group of counselors for bringing the matter to the attention of ACE.

Jim and Dianne explained that the state Academic Senate (ASCCC) has taken a strong position on the allocation of PFE funds, passing a number of resolutions at its Fall Plenary Session in November. Chancellor Nussbaum spoke at the session and expressed his concern, and the concern of the legislature, as to how PFE funds are being used. He made it clear that his office will survey the schools to determine which districts are using a shared governance process to determine the allocation of funds, and the districts will be tracked and monitored to ensure that PFE funds are being used as intended. The Chancellor requested status reports from districts as to the amount of money received, how it was used, and how the measurement of the five indicators of student success is monitored.

Jim emphasized that we need to be aware that there is a question of whether PFE money is new money or a shift of money previously received through other means. For example, the Governor does not want to fund new faculty, indicating that PFE funds can be used for that purpose. The Governor cut special programs, such as EOPS, citing the use of PFE funds for those programs. The ASCCC has taken the position that all community college funding should not be tied to PFE. Jim referred to the FACCC newsletter for additional information. The Senators received copies of the ASCCC’s resolution on PFE and the Chancellor’s statement regarding the use of PFE funds.

Another issue is what is happening to PFE money in the district. The guidelines permit faculty at each college to develop an allocation process. This occurred last year. The district was allocated $1.6 million last year, and will receive $1.6 million for this year. In addition, the district has received approximately $720,000 in new PFE money this year. Each college has received a portion of the new PFE money (MC received $70,000 and WVC received $90,000). The district is holding approximately $560,000 in PFE funds and approximately $600,000 in discretionary funds that remain unallocated. Both Academic Senate Presidents have emphasized that there is an established process for dealing with PFE and those funds need to be distributed via a jointly developed shared governance process. To date, no formal discussions have taken place regarding the distribution and allocation of PFE funds. It is important to reaffirm the purpose of PFE funds and the participatory process by which those funds are to be allocated. It is not their intent to direct an outcome or outline the allocation. Jim and Dianne asked the Senate for direction on how to proceed.

During the discussion that followed, it was stated that last year the district PFE Steering Committee made recommendations to DBAC, a shared governance body, regarding the allocation of PFE funds. It also recommended that the first year’s allocation process be revisited, not only for distribution between the two colleges, but for the amount taken off the top by the district as well. The Senate was reminded that the budget process is one of the Senate’s eleven areas of responsibility, and the district’s Board Policy indicates that the Board will rely primarily on the advice of the Senate in these eleven areas. If a different process is to be used, it must have the Senate’s approval. The Senate may go directly to the Board with a specific recommendation.

The members of the District Academic Senate unanimously approved the following motion (M/S/U — Sarlo/Roizen) :

"that a shared governance process, i.e. DBAC, should be used for the distribution of PFE funds."

There was a brief discussion on the budget situation relative to salary increases. Jim stated that the salary issue is a separate issue from the Senate, falling under the purview of ACE, and is not part of the discussion. Dianne noted that PFE money is being distributed by the Governor as Fund 10 money, yet he is looking for progress in our goals. The district created Fund 12 for PFE money in order to track those funds to comply with the Governor’s objectives.

Dianne and Jim explained that the Board of Governors charged the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) to develop a list of minimum qualifications for disciplines when credentials were eliminated in 1989. In accordance with Title 5, one of the eleven responsibilities of the local academic senates is to develop an equivalency process. This process allows for teaching position applicants, who do not meet the state’s minimum qualifications for a given discipline, to apply for the position citing equivalent course work, experience, expertise, and the like.

The district administers the equivalency process through a District Equivalency Committee, which meets when there are equivalency issues. The committee is composed of two Academic Senate representatives (one from each college), the two colleges Vice-Presidents of Instruction, a representative from Human Resources, and a faculty member from the area involved. The ASCCC has issued a position paper on minimum qualifications and equivalency, and it appears that some decisions have been made that are at variance with the ASCCC’s position, particularly dealing with single course equivalency. The Senators were provided with copies of the state Senate’s position paper; copies of pertinent sections of Title 5; a copy of a letter from the district’s legal counsel with his interpretation of Title 5 regulations in this matter; and a paper from Ian Walton, citing Ed Code and Title 5 rationales for the ASCCC’s position.

One concern presented to the Senate today deals with granting equivalency for a specific time — a semester, or one year. A second concern is granting equivalency to an applicant to teach a course in a single discipline. The state Senate’s position is clearly against granting equivalency for a single course. The district’s legal counsel interprets the law to say that you can award a course level equivalency as long as the applicant is equivalent to the minimum qualifications listed in Title 5. Ian suggested that the district’s counsel had not researched the issue thoroughly. Ian discussed the question with the ASCCC’s Chair of the Process of Minimum Qualifications Committee and the Vice-Chancellor of Education in the state chancellor’s office. The state’s position is that all language on minimum qualifications in Title 5 refers to discipline level, not course level. A third issue is that the committee views full-time equivalency differently than part-time equivalency. The ASCCC’s position is that the rules must be the same for both full-time faculty and part-time faculty. This matter has been brought to the attention of the District Academic Senate in order to provide direction to the Equivalency Committee on how to proceed.

Ian explained that the legal language starts in the Ed Code, which directs Title 5, which directs the Board of Governor’s regulations. The Ed Code requires minimum qualifications, and the Board of Governors will rely on the state Academic Senate to establish and define disciplines. The language in Title 5, Section 53410 cites three ways to meet minimum qualifications and all of them are related to disciplines, not courses. There is no legal authority to qualify an individual to teach a single course. The law permits additional requirements over and above the state’s minimum qualifications or equivalencies, which are established at the local senate level.

One solution to the problem is for a department to add additional appropriate disciplines (from the approved ASCCC Disciplines Lists) to a course outline. In addition, departments, through the academic senate, can request that additional disciplines be added to the ASCCC Disciplines List, when the ASCCC asks for a review and amendments to the established list. This occurs every three years; last year each department chair was sent a copy and asked to review the disciplines list. During discussion several recommendations were made and Dianne stated that it is important that the process be improved. This is an academic issue and should be resolved before the college’s accreditation study, which will occur in the near future. The Senators passed the following motion (M/S/P — Byers/Toppel):

"that the District Academic Senate recommends that departments revisit their curriculum to review disciplines to which their courses are assigned and add disciplines where appropriate.:

The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U — Boudreaux/Byers):

"that the District Academic Senate directs the Senate Presidents to review the process and recommend an equivalency process by the end of the Spring 2000 semester."

During discussion, Ian had advised that people at the state level had offered to provide another legal opinion, and Senator Sarlo requested a second legal opinion. Ian agreed to follow through and will report back to the Senates.

Dianne and Jim reported that, out of 107 colleges statewide, Marchelle Fox and Christopher O’Hearn were two of fifteen college presidents that contributed to the reception held at the ASCCC’s Fall Plenary Session. The Senate Presidents asked the DAS members to consider some form of recognition. The following motion was passed unanimously (M/S/U — Toppel/McGee):

"that the District Academic Senate recognize the college Presidents, Marchelle Fox and Christopher O’Hearn for their contribution to the reception held at the Fall Plenary Session of the ASCCC."

Dianne and Jim will follow through with a letter of recognition to both presidents.

No new items were added at today’s meeting.

V. The District Academic Senate meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. (M/S/U — Sarlo/Toppel).

VI. President McKay called the Mission College Academic Senate to order at 3:50 p.m.