Approved Minutes
Sacramento City College
Academic Senate
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
President: Connie Zuercher
Vice-President: Greg Rose
Secretary: Troy Myers
Senators: Linda Reynolds, Andrew Jones, Deskaheh Bomberry, John Herlihy, Susan Griffin,
Michelle Smith, Rick Woodmansee, Makeba Rangel, Jon Hanson, Simeon Okoroike, Adrian
Chevraux-Fitzhugh, Sue Hussey, Sue Carriere, Lori Petite, Jared Anderson, Lonnie Larson,
Lynne Giovannetti, Dena Chubbic, Patti Redmond, Dana Armstrong, Norman Lorenz, Shannon
Culmo, Angelia Jovanovic, Debbie Loomis, Barbara Toupadakis, Amy Zannakis, Roxanne
Tambert, Darlene Arnold, Randy Rosenberger, Debbie Gambrell.
Guests: Irma Rodriguez, Coordinator,EOPS; Annette Barfield, LRCFT Representative; Bob
Martinelli, Vice-President of Administrative Services; Mary Turner, Vice-President, Office of
Instruction.
Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Connie at 12:01.
Approval of Minutes: It was noted that any suggested change in our hiring process would not
be a Senate Constitutional change. Meetings approved by consensus.
Announcements: A student informed us there is interest in naming the panther in the SCC logo
to Hughey. A motion was made, 3 opposed, 5 abstentions, remainder in favor; motion passed.
A letter from Chancellor Harris is forthcoming on the State budget situation. The legislature will
meet in December to discuss the budget. Los Rios still has $21 M in reserves. No additional
class cuts are expected this spring, but there will also be no FTE added back into the schedule.
A request was made to change Agenda Order; unanimous approval.
OLD BUSINESS
Q & A on Facilities Master Plan
B. Martinelli
Bob took questions in response to his presentation at our lat meeting. Is the map for
modernization available online? Not yet, but it will be online shortly. The new Student Services
building projected to be done Spring or Fall 14. Where will the new Student Services building
go? In the NW corner. Why the NW corner? RN is too crowded and is qualified for office space;
also, we want a student center which will provide access to all services. Will we keep the red
brick look? Yes. We want to carry the architectural theme through the campus, while also
remaining pedestrian and bike friendly. Will the new Moore Hall have the same square footage
as the current MH? Moore as we know it now will be torn down and replaced by two buildings.
The new building will be slightly larger as Moore Hall 1; there will also be a Moore Hall 2. Bob
reminded us that we continue to rely primarily on local bond money as the state budget is less
stable. In part our construction pace depends on the recovery of the state budget. As we respond
to changing budget realities, the building sequence will not change, but program
changes/locations are still in discussion. Are departmental faculty part of that discussion? Yes,
they are. The Deans should be in discussion with their departments about the master plan.
Finally, Bob said the chart is always available in his office and anyone can stop in to see it.
Travel Request Process Discussion
M. Turner/R. Woodmansee
Rick Woodmansee presented an issue from Math: Math wanted to send 8 faculty members to an
annual conference in Monterey; as funds were tight they were told only four could attend, but
those four would be funded almost fully. Math asked if the funding for four be split among the
eight who wanted to go. They were told no; it would look poor to the community to send so
many. Math’s response was that the conference covers diverse content; also, they feel there is no
local conference that offers the same breadth. They were told they could wait seven years to get
funded for the conference. They were told that others beyond the four could go but Math felt that
only four would be allowed. Apparently, this situation has passed or resolved, but Math would
like Senate input into how faculty should be involved in how travel funds are allocated.
Mary said the message to restrict expenditures has gone out from the Chancellor to the individual
colleges. We were successful in reducing expenditures. One of the question was how do we fund
travel? What about the perception of multiple people traveling during tough times? There were
no precise guidelines given from District, but managers have tried to be careful with spending.
Mary would like the input of the Senate so that the process is collaborative. She noted that group
travel, if it is three or more people, goes through the Dean to the V.I . and all the way to the
Chancellor. This is true regardless of funding source. How can we set standards for group travel?
Someone noted that Staff Development should be involve; they do not approve travel but they
release funding.
A Senator asked, would the amount for four to travel have been dispersed among the eight? Rick
said yes. Math asked if the same amount of money could be split amongst the people going.
Someone asked, what about guidelines about perception? If the faculty are not paying more
should that not enhance positive perception? Does it matter if the conference is on the weekend?
The Math conference is on a weekend, but they were still told no. A Senator asked if the
Chancellor say no if I travel self supported on the weekend? Does the Chancellor have to know
about this travel? The answer is yes for out of state or group travel. Is there a difference between
presenting or attending? It does not appear there is a difference. Mary says there are also
insurance liability issues. A Senator from PE asked, what about a sports clinic? Mary answered
that if there is an appearance that one is traveling on behalf of the institution, then the travel
forms should be submitted. Annette said that faculty already have a million dollar life insurance
policy. Mary answered that the issue is really work related injury; Los Rios may be responsible
in case of accidents when we travel.
A further concern was raised about “perception” since this was part of the decision with Math.
This concept is very abstract, one Senator noted. Annette related some back story: years ago
some faculty took students on college tours and a “disgruntled faculty member” took this to the
Bee and the story ended up on the front page of Metro. Back to the situation in Math, someone
asked, what happens if four go with funds and four go without funds, what can be done to the
faculty members? Mary responded that there is no reprimand or loss of pay; nobody is going to
check and see who went to the Math conference. At this point in time, Mary wants to move
beyond Math to set some current guidelines or best practices, and she is hoping the Senate assist
her. In the past Staff Development has set some guidelines. Connie noted that things have
changed because of the state of the State; we need to revisit those guidelines because of budget
constraints. Connie noted that it is up to the faculty to set these guidelines.
Motion made to form a committee to work with the staff development guidelines to build clarity
on what perception means. Unanimous. Rick W., Dena C., Jared A., Norman L., and Connie Z.
volunteered for the committee.
Addressing Concerns of Cheating
L. Giovannetti/E. Ader
Our second look at this topic. Nursing would like to put some of the material from the brochure
into their dept. handbook. Someone else suggested a more positive tone, more along the lines of
the faculty handbook. Elaine asked if we would like an insert for the syllabus? Many did say
they would like the information available in an electronic format. Elaine asked, what did we
think of the test? Someone suggested it could be given to an entire class but not to a single
person. Someone else brought up Turnitin. We use that tool but there is no student guide which
explains plagiarism. Elaine suggested the idea of putting this material into D2L so we could all
easily use it. Connie asked if they were asking for support from the Senate? Elaine said do we
want it to be a standard or an option? Should there be a single document of standards? Someone
said the document should focus on cheating and plagiarism. Connie said there is a difference
between requiring it and making it available to faculty. Consensus is we would like it to be an
available, but not required, resource.
Plenary Report
G. May/T. Myers/C. Zuercher
Plenary was held this past Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in Anaheim, Ca. Connie, Ginni, and
Troy attended. SB 1143 was a widely discussed topic. Troy noted that accountability pressure
and funding restrictions are both currently in play. A common theme heard at Plenary was, if
they want to make us accountable for student success they must fund us adequately. Connie
noted that the reality is extra funding is not going to be available, yet pressure continues to have
more students succeed. Connie thinks we should consider something locally like a task force.
How do we define student success? This will surely be a complex discussion. Connie noted that
faculty are involved in the early stages of the 1143 State Task Force discussion. How will we
address these issues at SCC? Connie noted that the SCC or Los Rios task force should be faculty
strong, and we must be in charge. Someone asked if there will there be a call for members?
There will be; Connie is still working out the logistics. Finally, all Senators can go to asccc.org
and see all the Resolutions which passed from Plenary.
NEXT MEETING:
December 7, 2010
To place items on future agendas, please call x2150