Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 8th, 2012 2:50-4:40
Board Room, Building 200
ITEM
OFFICERS
Senate President
Kathy Kelley
Vice President
Jason Ames
Immediate Past
President
Kathy Kelley
SENATORS
Applied Technology
& Business
Mike Sherbourne
Counseling
Shirley Pejman
Health, Physical
Education & Athletics
Jeff Drouin
Jane Vallely
Language Arts
Stepahnie Zappa
Library
Jim Matthews
School of the Arts
Rachel LaPell
Science &
Mathematics
Ming-Lun Ho
Laurie Dockter
Social Science
Christina Mendoza
Adjunct Faculty
Lisa Ulibarri
EX OFFICIO
Associated Students
of Chabot College
President
Chabot-Las Positas
Faculty Association
Shari Jacobsen
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Call To Order—2:50 PM
Senators: Jason Ames, Stephanie Zappa, Jim Matthews, Jeff Drouin, Mike Sherburne, Jane Vallely,
Rachel LePell, Christina Mendoza, Lisa Ulibarri, Ming-Lun Ho
Secretary: Vanessa Sadsad
Guests: Luis Flores
1.2 Review and Approval of Minutes—M/S: Zappa/Jim
1.3 Public Comments
2.0 REPORT I
2.1 ASCC—Luis Flores
LF: We are currently promoting our existence and informing our student services and flea market. I am
asking the Senate for permission to speak to your classes about the ASCC.
Jason Ames: I suggest that you email campus wide that same question.
Jane & Lisa: Asked that ASCC email info that could be put into Blackboard sites.
Mike: If you have a schedule (for instructor times) yes, blackboard would also be great. As far as Radio
frequency issue goes run an evaluation as far as the campus?
LF: A study was approved but no further updates.
2.2 CLPFA
Jane Valley: We did training on distance Ed where my role is grievance officer. I did my training for
distance education on Tuesday.
Christina, in terms of committees they have been shuffled but will settle soon.
Lisa: I only deal with the distance Ed part but as far as those evaluations go getting the list of courses
still remains an issue. The VP Academic Services is supposed to give the FA the list from the deans.
Jane: I only heard once but maybe once Dale gets into that position it will help.
3.0 ACTION ITEMS
3.1 Education Master Plan
Jim: The next steps is reporting here how many people look at it and see what kinds of things that
came out of the meeting. What would we do; what are the differences between the Strategic Plan and
the Ed. Master Plan? These are the kinds of questions that are being asked and dealt with. This is my
report back to everyone (passes out email sent).
In any case, Kathy and I will be talking the President and also talking to the VP; getting Jan involved in
this as well. Jan spoke relaying that she agrees in the next steps in speaking to PRBC & the District
before we plan anything any further.
I don’t think there is any action needed to be taken here.
Jason: The one thing I felt pretty strongly on is that I don’t think this thing gets done without any
reassigned time. This is why I think it was a great action item. This is why I think if it is Kathy, we need
to ensure reassigned time.
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 26, 2009
Mike: Is there any cost analysis/
Jim: We don’t have a scope of this, I agree with you Mike.
Mike: Before reassigned time comes around we need to look at cost analysis.
Jim: We have a lot to do still if you look at that list there is a lot of ideas. I can call up a consultant now
and get what they ask but I want it to be done how we want it done our way. I want to talk to the
President and Jan more before we do this. I have another project related to this, I am pushing to get
reassigned time for accreditation because we just do it for two years. Jan is pushing the strategic plan.
We are going to basically need a proposal and not just my list.
Mike: Yes definitely a proposal that would lead to this section and a bigger section.
Jason: That is what I meant by the chicken and the egg?
Mike: If we are doing the Ed Master Plan; won’t we have to revise a vision for the college?
Jim: There may be a discussion before the Ed Master Plan that we discuss the mission and values of
the college, the mission of the college is everything for everybody.
Mike: Well can we do everything for everybody?
Jim: Well the mission of California community colleges said we do but they don’t fund everything. And
that is what accreditation asks us, how are we serving our community?
So I will be continuing this and it will be a continuing action item
This is tabled aka to be continued.
3.2 Credit by Exam Policy—discussion review of documents from DCC
(Goes through and looks over sheets)
Jim: My only concern is that we want to say that we give credit to a high school level?
Jason: I agree looking into my department where there are great programs of forensics like at James
Logan and I think if they are pretty good there would they qualify in forensics here?
Jane: Then we discuss fees, why would they charge fees but when someone takes CBE they take up
time and I don’t know why this came up as an issue, is it a title IV policy?
Jason: My guess is that if you look at the CBE (reads paragraph) you noticed the majority is taken out
of the language.
Jane: If you look at the timeline it is different and if you notice LPC is giving a small unit paramedics
course that would allow further courses to CBE.
Christina: Other things like Philosophy that are not taught at high school what would you do?
Jason: I would think for comm. You would give a speech but what kind of speech? It is hard to pin
down form discipline to discipline.
Mike: Do you know why they took out the majority of the faculty of the discipline?
Jason: I wonder if it is a time issue?
Jane: And I am a one person in a program so I just talk to myself.
2
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 26, 2009
Seconded motion to table 3.3 Credit by Exam: Zappa
All agreed to put aside.
This is a note that she (Kathy) will have to convey a senate opinion for the Board of Trustees meeting
th
so it will have to get pulled form the board agenda. Even if we had a meeting on the 26 it will not get
to the board and was not approved by senate.
Rachel: The district has a sub committee for this specific issue and that is the source of this document.
We can speculate that this was created this term from this committee and came up with it pretty
early.
4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Dealing with “Academic Changes” [new regular item for discussion]
Jason: If we want to continue discussion about adjuncts or have an
Jim: I think an agenda item for minimal requirements
Jason: and adjunct seniority list
4.2 Continue reviewing Senate Constitution for Policies/possible changes
Jason: Last meeting Kathy said she would continue working on getting reassigned time for President,
Secretary, & VP and working on the consitution.
Jim: I suggest to put Article 1 on the agenda and that we all read it and go over it
Jason: Can we put Article 1, 2, and yes confirmed Article 1 & 2 for next meeting.
4.3 Institutional Research Board—Human Subjects Committee
Christina: Kathy wanted me talk about it and we talk about whether we can talk about it
So William came in about 4 weeks ago, Carolyn & Will are working together and plan on coming back
to senate. I don’t know if you want me to describe the IRB but ….to get an Idea what the IRB is about
… (hands out papers)
Depending on the direction we plan to take … so apparently there are federal guidelines to follow for
research where there is some kind of procedure involved.
Jason: That is thing about a board and do we have to create on of our own.
Christina: Maybe me could borrow or use someone else’s IRB but we would have to look into that.
Jim: I would like to see what a community college’s IRB is doing and if there is one.
Christina: I can do more research
Jim: Carolyn might know
Jason: Do you know who is on the board at the CSU?
Christina: When I was in grad school it was composed of various faculty. The IRB is specific to
researching human subjects and getting grants.
Rachel: It sounds like it came from some sort of litigation and I think it would be good to have some
sort of official form that Chabot could use formally. I am getting that there is some legal things going
on here.
3
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 26, 2009
Jason: In most of these is a risk evaluation and you’re absolutely right that there is a litigation involved
in here. I mean if Andrew Pierson is doing research on students without consent of the students or an
IRB that wouldn’t be legally ethical.
Rachel: Every student is a subject of course of ours in our teaching …
Christina: It is any kind of project and I like how it describes it in relation to the discipline. It really is
(IRB) there for the protection against lawsuits.
Jason: It seems surprising that we do not already have something like this established but for me it
seems like we need to set up a board and instructions for this.
Jim: No, but we appoint the members to the board.
Jason: Yes of course.
4.4 Purview of Senate as distinct from PRBC and other committees
Jim: That is what we do and Kathy does for us. And I think this comes from having Senate involved and
anything from PRBC that can come up with anything but we have to approve it.
Zappa; What is the difference between those plans?
Jason: Does SP influence with EMP or vice versa?
Jim: Missions & Values is number 1 and EMP is number 2 and the implementation of it is SP. That is
one of the first things I had a question about in the workshop is what it is.
The EMP actually sits above those things.
Rachel: This is a question, my perception over the last 10-12 years is that PRBC has a manic pattern of
being a very powerful committee and ascends again with a powerful chair, which Jan is, but I am
confused as to where Senate stands. I feel that the Senate sits very impotent in comparison to PRBC. I
am just wondering if PRBC can be delineated to the senate and it is not clear.
Jim: That discussion is exactly where we need to go, our purview starts and is clear with 10+1 but
beyond that it is not.
Zappa: I have been on IPBC and on Senate but both of those time I will not mention any names but in
those moments they were both in effective about were about those people running those
committees. (We all want shared governance).
Jason: The B in PRBC is what makes it look powerful, but Jim is right, when looking at the 10+1 that is
very clear and clearly some rubbing as to who has some input.
Mike: Does anyone actually know who and what these committees are and who run them?
Jim: It’s on the website
Skye: On 11/29 there will be forum for shared governance about the relationship with 2 sessions. 12
noon in the small theatre. Featuring DeWitt, Sperling, & Novak.
Jane: Reads the 10+1
Zappa: They have been doing that too ….
Lisa; For all of the committees they asked us for our input
4
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 26, 2009
5
Jason: Kathy (the president) is a sitting member and a voting member of these committees and the
question then becomes how much control and authority does the senate actually senate want.
Example: Do we create events for flex or leave that up to staff development?
Rachel: I thought our committees are from the divisions
Jim: The way it is supposed to work by law is that the senate appoints people to the committees
Jason: Maybe the senate doesn’t want to do that, committees are so small now a days and
Jim: We can all beat ourselves up but the reality is that we delegate this to people who want to this.
Rachel: Jason you said that you’ve been on senate in the last 5 years , has there been a change in role
of senate to PRBC .
Ming: Before PRBC was IPBC, before it was constituted from divisions trying to get people whereas
with PRBC we get people but position. You already naturally selected by being a committee chair.
Therefore I think they have been doing more just by that fact. The structure, you have to kind of sit
back and ask, how many hours can you put in and what can we do with that, us as a senate? And I
would look at it before as prior senate president as body how could be use the hours?
Rachel: My point is that, I’m just stating what everyone has observed I’m just curious and it seems like
senate has less seriousness and less bite in terms of PRBC.
Jane: I just have to say that I am o a lot of committees is that I like that we have an agenda, review our
agenda, and get our agenda done. I have worked with former College President Raul Cardoza. One of
the reasons people don’t participate is because they don’t see the action, look at PRBC.
Jason: Look it could be 2 things: 1) It could be us panicking Tuesday night contextually
2) The other thing is an underlying combativeness and competition between the two but maybe they
can work together but I also do not know who is ultimately calling the shots. But I am worried about
the combative nature.
Mike: But I guess that goes back to my original question; I looked at the website.
Zappa: With Kathy a member of PRBC, I don’t know I make an assumption that it is representative of
communication. That she can keep us …it seems like there is stuff falling through the cracks.
Ming pulls up organization chart.
5.0 REPORTS II
5.1 No Campus Requests
6.0 GOOD OF THE ORDER
6.1 Future Agenda Items
Jason: We won’t meet until 12/13, we sent out the document late spring and want to invite the
Chancellor again. (Same document with Joel last semester). I will leave that to the senate to decide
and maybe have a planning meeting for the agenda for that meeting. A quick agenda setting meeting
th
on the 29
th
th
I move under the direction of the VP to have a special meeting on either the 29 to 6 to call one a
meeting and look into having this.
th
I think the 29 would be great.
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 26, 2009
Jeff: Maybe revise and cross out line items
Jason: I will resend the document.
Jason: So, the Org. chart.
Jim: It needs to be revised.
Mike: It is the same level as IPBC.
Jeff: The thing is that IPBC doesn’t even exist anymore.
Zappa: Yet they have all the power.
Jeff: We, in all of the committees, we represent the divisions, our power is diluted when we serve on a
committee, and on PRBC there is diluted power in 1 person. SO when you do that there is just one
voice in a number of votes.
Ming: I would say with things like the SP, it needs to come to us for approval. And it come through
Kathy, and we do need to communicate with PRBC what we want. As you create the SP consider these
principles that will be guided by.
Skye: They are looking for new members for PRBC
Jason: I think all members are.
Jeff: I don’t always use coaching analogies but I think we are allowing them to do so and what work
are we giving ourselves. I have made these comments before go to these committees and it is the
same people every time. I have told people in my division to go to these but we need to rejuvenate
our faculty to be part of community.
Vanessa: You guys get the approval at the end of the day for things such as accrediatation.
Jason/Ming: Yes
Skye: Asks about communication regarding accred.
Jeff: There is a lot of things that are done based on obligation but are not always read.
Skye: I hate the work beauracacy?
Jason: How do you feel when teachers assign you busy work?
Lisa: Who do we thank for refreshments. And I would like to find out who to thank for Prop. 30? What
about on our website with the picture saying that Chabot thanks for voting Prop. 30 like I got from
Berkeley Alum.
Rachel: What about a sign?
Lisa: I just was thinking about something cheap and fast
Ming: I suggest you just ask susan directly and ask
Lisa: Yes, but instead one of you.
Jason: Definitely I will ask
6
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Draft Minutes of February 26, 2009
Any new business
Rachel: There is this play …
6.2 Adjournment—4:40
th
6.3 Next meeting is December 13 , 2012 at 2:40 p.m., Board Room—Thanksgiving Holiday
nd
is on November 22 , so no meeting.
6.4 Future Meetings (www.chabotcollege.edu/facultysenate/#meetingdates)
7