Draft Minutes of REGULAR MEETING
February 24, 2011, 2:40 – 4:30 pm
Board Room in Building 200
OFFICERS
Senate President
Kathy Kelley
Vice President
Jim Matthews, Interim
Immediate Past
President
Mike Absher
SENATORS
Applied Technology
& Business
Wanda Wong
Counseling
Jane Church
Health, Physical
Education & Athletics
Begoña Cirera
Jeff Drouin
Language Arts
Caren Parrish
Library
Jim Matthews
School of the Arts
Eric Schultz
Science &
Mathematics
Laurie Dockter
Ming-Lun Ho
Social Science
Andrew Pierson
Adjunct Faculty
Lisa Ulibarri
EX OFFICIO
Associated Students
of Chabot College
Don Bosco Hu
President
Chabot-Las Positas
Faculty Association
Shari Jacobsen
Members Present: Andrew Pierson, Social Sciences; Jim Matthews, Library & VP;
Kathy Kelley, President; Begoña Cirera; Caren Parrish, Language Arts; Lisa Ulibari
Adjunct Faculty Rep; Ming-Hun Lo, Math; Dave Fouquet, FA; Eric Schultz, School of
the Arts, Alyssa Casey, ASCC; Shari Jacobsen, CFLPA
ITEM
1.0 GENERAL FUNCTIONS
1.1 Meeting called to order at 2:49 pm
1.2 Minutes from last several meetings are missing, we are working on
completing and approving them.
1.3 Public Comments
Nkechi Okpara: ASCC and ICC member
March in March coming up. Two buses provided by ASCC. March 29th
there will also be a March to Hayward City Hall to meet the Mayor.
Working to get streets blocked off w/ Hayward. Students need help
from us to discuss these issues in class, providing awareness and
perhaps incentive to participate in the march(es) in March. Seeking
Faculty’s assistance in getting the word out.
Begoña: Confirming dates and times:
March 14th, buses depart: 7:00 am return by about 3:00 pm.
Hayward City Hall protest: March 29th is 10:00 am to 1:00 pm.
A letter to Senator Ellen Corbett, inviting her to speak at Chabot is
being drafted. Original plan was to have march to Hayward City Hall
be right after Sacramento trip, but it was determined that this would
be too long of a day, too tiring, and too dark to do both on both days.
ASCC is asking for faculty assistance for both days.
Sign-up sheets for classes need to be created for March 14th, perhaps
distributed to all faculty in paper form or electronically. Thank you so
very much for your support.
John Johnson: General Public
Founded a non-profit “Empowerment Training & Education” and a
Democratic Club on campus (California young democrats). Trying to
tackle youth problems in community. Educating students at the
Community College is important especially for this population.
Everyone working together can help.
Idea: Race to the Top – all students who get a 2.0 are invited to a big
concert, big name artist.
John used to be a Chabot Student in the Business Dept.
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Minutes of February 24, 2011
2.0 REPORTS I
2.1 ASCC
Benefit for April 16 to help Women in Shelters. Book sale, clothing,
other items.
(Kathy says April 16 is Spring Break)
2.2 CLPFA
Negotiations tomorrow; March in March is important; get on the bus!
Faculty Report – Dave Fouquet
District has shown initial proposal re: benefits. FA prefers to negotiate
benefits after contract approval. District seeks a cap, which equates
to an extra $200 per month per person for individuals on Blue
Cross/Blue Shield. Specifically the cap would be $611 per person per
month. Kaiser premium would be about $550-ish a month, making
Kaiser under the cap. Blue Cross premium will be about $796 per
month per person, but the following year the premium would go up as
well.
This is an initial proposal. FA hasn’t countered. Much discussion is
needed. The district has left open the idea of higher co-pay and other
things, but this is perhaps not as financially viable as we’d like for it to
be.
The district has said that “everything is on the table” (implying layoffs).
Special DEMC yesterday. Going in, the assumption was to cut $400
million, mitigated by fee increase, resulting in $290 million cut.
Effecting the district in the amount of 55 FTEF (for the year). An
approximate 6% cut in overall FTEF. Summer has been cut down to
about 27 FTEF. A big chunk. This impacts continuing students.
As of yesterday’s meeting, Lorenzo says that the new assumption is
that the tax exemption in the summer will fail, as well as the fee
increase, making the total cut to be $ 400 million. This means we
need another 33 FTEF off of the schedule. Dave says faculty doesn’t
want to make any further concessions when we don’t really know
what the reality will be. Others have said that it would be difficult to
call people 2 weeks before the semester starts and tell them that they
won’t have a class. The FA is insisting that the district must adhere to
the 50% law. The district says that we are at 50.13%. FA insists that
those calculations must be included.
Dave makes a case against including another 33 FTEF cut. FA has
put many alternative scenarios together; as more news and hard fact
develops, some of those ideas will have to be shared. If something
comes out about layoffs in the next few weeks, it is going to be used
as negotiating pressure against benefits. A big unknown is the
SERP deadline, as well as step increases. With the SERP that we
just had, as well as the potential of a future SERP, we have to look at
those as net savings.
Kathy: What can you report that the district is cutting?
Dave: I have nothing to report.
2
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Minutes of February 24, 2011
Alyssa: What happens if fees go up causing students to stop
enrolling?
Dave: That is one of two things we have to be concerned with. The
other being that many of the classes that are being cut are very big,
highly efficient classes. Not even taking to consideration if the ballot
measure fails and the student fees go up to $66. We could easily
come in under cap if these things come into play.
2.3 Academic Policy Council report/Cheating Policy
Cheating policy was emailed, Kathy reports that Howard Irvin says he
will look into it and follow through.
Andrew: Instructors should be able to handle cheating individually
and differently.
Caren: What is the penalty policy?
Andrew: Does the policy state that any cheating event should be
reported to the administration.
Kathy: No, only serious repeat offenders.
Andrew: Then, what is the purpose of the policy?
Eric: Two issues: 1) how does an individual instructor deal with
cheating within the confines of their class; and 2) what mechanism
exists to discover repeat cheaters from multiple classes.
Some other discussion…
Kathy: Wants to know what we have in our syllabi about cheating;
what we’ve done about cheaters in the past; what would faculty like to
do about cheaters?
Caren: some institutions handle cheaters at the administrative level.
This takes the onus off of the faculty.
Jim: I will look into what is the institutional language is on academic
integrity on campus
Kathy: we need guidelines about what is reasonable and what we
can and cannot do.
Eric: I think that all this info should be addressed in the syllabus of
the class, on a class-by-class and assignment by assignment basis. I
would hate to see a universal policy.
Shari: Rick Moniz made a “general” syllabus which might have
language to this effect.
Discussion focused on impact of either assigning a failing grade or
expelling the student from the class. Most agreed that assigning an
“F” would allow the student to continue to attend even if they were
eventually to receive a failing grade.
Nkechi Okpara, ASCC-ICC Chair: There were 10 students in my
class who cheated, the instructor was fired for failing all of them. She
strongly thinks this is not fair.
Kathy: This is the importance of having a policy in place, to protect
student and faculty.… more discussion…
Alyssa: Is going to a regional meeting & will get info on this.
3
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Minutes of February 24, 2011
NO ACTION ON CHEATING UNTIL NEXT MEETING.
3.0 ACTION ITEMS
3.1 ASCC ‘actions’ support - The resolution—attach document
Jim: Moves to accept the resolution;
Andrew: second
Begoña : The word citizen is perhaps misleading?
Jim: How about resident? I accept that friendly amendment.
Andrew: Second
Andrew: Friendly amendment to add “and the second March on the
29th to Hayward” to the date of the March in March.
Eric: Second
Question called. Motion Passed
Lisa: Make a website, we need a central location for the information.
Eric: Make an electronically submittable email address for teachers to
make a list of people who are getting on the bus. Perhaps
marchinmarch@gmail.com
Nkeche: Stickers also; t-shirts and food. Students will be fed.
Talent show: March 30 – faculty & staff – proceeds benefit student
success & tutoring
3.2 Cheating Policy: NO ACTION ON CHEATING UNTIL NEXT
MEETING
4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Program Review: Yvonne Wu Craig/Kathy Kelley
Program Review is due March 11th.
Kathy would like to see a stronger statement to faculty encouraging
Program Review & Budget Requests to consider the state of the
budget.
Jim suggests that Program Reviews should reflect faculty input
regarding where the pedagogically sound cuts are.
Yvonne: Action plans should reflect these suggestions. Celia is
shying away from a stronger statement because perhaps no one will
want to do Program Review if there is no “carrot” (financial reward).
Program review forms are out, another overview will be done in April.
Program Review is a review of your program, integrating unit
planning. The new process includes a merger of review with goal
setting. This merger is a response to accreditation and faculty
complaint. Purpose is to use success & equity data to review what is
and is not working in your program and see what things will help fix
what isn’t (whether they cost or not).
Due March 11th to the deans. Deans’ summaries due April 11th.
4
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Minutes of February 24, 2011
Kathy: Much discussion has occurred in PRBC regarding how
faculty assesses the dean’s summaries. Yvonne has helped this by
formalizing the format so that PRBC can compare apples to apples.
Yvonne: Deans have to do things much in the same language that
faculty does it to help streamline language. There is also more clarity
with faculty and staffing requests, specifically prioritization under the
new process. The PRBC is recommending prioritization because the
Deans fear backlash from faculty if the prioritization component is left
out. This helps with transparency and clarity, which is necessary to
help not punish people for making difficult decisions.
Kathy: Faculty is typically against prioritization, but in this economic
climate we all know that there isn’t enough money for everybody. The
dean must be the ones to prioritize the requests, and this prioritization
is necessary and helps transparency. This is NOT the dean’s choice;
they are being tasked to do the prioritizing. The deans are doing
their best to advocate for their respective divisions, something
which we should report back to our faculty.
Jim: There is a level of prioritization above the deans; some divisions’
priority 3 may actually trump another’s’ priority 1, depending on
institutional prioritization.
Yvonne: We are asking the deans to prioritize in the same format as
well.
Jim: Do VP’s prioritize?
Yvonne: We haven’t discussed that at PRBC.
Jim: The point is that each VP has to manage his/her own
department. They are managers, and they are also managers of
managers.
Yvonne: As far as classified prioritization, the VP’s prioritize the
dean’s priority submissions based on college-wide considerations.
Kathy: Managers and VPs must be able to see the big picture.
Ming: VP’s and deans could help this by identifying endangered
areas.
Jim: These are hard questions, and the more transparent the process
is, the more difficult it is. The state has said that there are 3 priorities,
but this all needs to be documented.
Kathy: This is where we need to go with our next step.
Yvonne: There are definitely areas in the Program Reviews that are
outdated in this economy. Outreach, recruitment, growth…
Jim: We need to have evidence and documentation of this
transparency.
Kathy: I have a huge problem with the finger constantly pointed at the
children’s center. By LAW, we have to separate out expenses for the
Children’s Center. The CC is a lab, but there is a line item in the
budget for the Children’s Center (CC). For years, the CC stands out
as a whole separate entity, because the budgets for other labs on
campus (science, theater) are not required line items to be published
5
Chabot Academic Faculty/Senate Minutes of February 24, 2011
in the budget. However, the CC IS A LAB. The CC is an easy target
because its budget is right out there.
Dave Fouquet (just arrived): Community Ed could be a place for
some of the imminent cuts (P.E., arts to go). Lab stations are being
consolidated as well, so the cuts to science labs are also occurring.
Jim: So, this year everyone should be writing something: a first year
report, a second year report, or a third year review.
Begoña: Are forms available online?
Yvonne: www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc
Senate goes into closed session.
5.0 GOOD OF THE ORDER
5.1 Future Agenda Items
5.2 Adjournment - Meeting Adjourned at 5:00 pm
.
5.3 Future Meeting – Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 2:40 p.m., Board
Room
 = Agenda Item Handout
6
RESOLUTION
Academic Faculty Senate, February 24, 2011
WHEREAS our State and College are experiencing deep budget cuts and the impact
of those cuts on our ability to teach and fulfill our mission;
WHEREAS our Associated Students of Chabot College are aware, concerned and
working to remedy this situation and in order to make their voices heard, are
organizing a march in March on March 14th to the Capitol in Sacramento;
AND … on March 29th a gathering and march at Hayward City Hall;
WHEREAS we want to support both their intent and their resolve and initiative,
we hereby
RESOLVE that our Faculty Academic Senate fully supports student participation
in protest as a part of being an informed and engaged resident of the United States,
and
RESOLVE that we as a Faculty --who are also concerned with the impact of these
deep budget cuts on our ability to serve our students and their educational needs-will find individual strategies to make it possible for our students to attend this
march and to use this opportunity as teachable moments.